Selected aspects of amount relatives: The Romanian-English connection
Alexander Grosu
Tel Aviv University , Israelhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-2052-603X
Ion Giurgea
The “Iorgu Iordan – Alexandru Rosetti” Institute of Linguistics of the Romanian Academy, Bucharest , RomaniaAbstract
The inter-related goals of this paper are: (i) To contribute to a better understanding of the semantic and morphological properties of amount relatives in Romanian, (ii) to compare and contrast these constructions with their English counterparts, and (iii) to bring into bolder relief than has so far been done in the literature the fact that amount relatives in general are compatible not only with an amount denotation of the complex DPs that contain them, but with an entity denotation as well.
Keywords:
amount relative, maximalization, degree relative pronouns, entity vs. amount denotational ambiguityReferences
Carlson, G. 1977. Amount relatives. Language 53: 520-542.
Cheng, L. L.-S. 1991. On the typology of wh-questions, Ph.D. diss., Cambridge, MA, MIT.
Grosu, A. 2000a. An unusual Romanian construction and its theoretical implications. In M. Coene, P. Dendale, and Y. D’Hulst (eds.), Studia linguistica in honorem Lilianne Tasmowski, 97-108. Padova: Unipress.
Grosu, A. 2000b. Type resolution in relative constructions. Competing restrictive and maximalizing constructions. In H. Bennis, M. Everaert, and E. J. Reuland (eds.), Interface Strategies, 127-152. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.
Grosu, A. 2009. Two kinds of degree-denoting relatives: Hebrew versus Romanian. Brill’s Annual of Afroasiatic Languages and Linguistics 1: 176-203.
Grosu, A. 2013. Relative clause constructions and unbounded dependencies. In C. Dobrovie-Sorin, and I. Giurgea (eds.), A reference grammar of Romanian.I: The noun phrase, 597-662. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Grosu, A., and H. Kotek. 2009. An ‘unexpected’ relative construction in Romanian. Talk given at the 40th North East Linguistic Society (NELS), MIT.
Grosu, A., and F. Landman. 1998. Strange relatives of the third kind. Natural Language Semantics 6: 125-170.
Grosu, A. 2012. Towards a more articulated typology of internally-headed relative constructions: The semantic connection. Language and Linguistics Compass 6/7: 1-30.
Grosu, A., and F. Landman. to appear. Amount relatives. The Blackwell companion to syntax II, Chapter 7. Downloadable from Alexander Grosu’s website.
Heim, I. 1987. Where does the definiteness restriction apply. Evidence from the definiteness of variables. In E. Reuland, and A. ter Meulen (eds.), The representation of (in)definiteness, 21-42. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Heim, I. 1991. Artikel und Definitheit. In A. von Stechow, and D. Wunderlich (eds.), Semantik: Ein internationales Handbuch des zeitgenossischen Forschung, 487-535, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Kotek, H. 2013. Degree relatives, definiteness and shifted reference. In K. Seda, C. Moore-Cantwell, and R. Staubs (eds.), Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS), 29-43. Amherst, MA: GLSA.
McNally, L. 2008. DP-internally only, amount relatives, and relatives out of existentials. Linguistic Inquiry 39: 161-169.
Rullmann, H. 1995. Maximality in the semantics of wh-constructions. Ph. D. diss., Amherst, University of Massachusetts, Distributed by GLSA.
The “Iorgu Iordan – Alexandru Rosetti” Institute of Linguistics of the Romanian Academy, Bucharest
