Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-nqrmd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-25T03:13:41.540Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘What’ Clauses can and ‘Which’ Cannot: A Romanian Puzzle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Ivano Caponigro  and
Anamaria Fălăuş
Ivano Caponigro*
Affiliation:
University of California San Diego
Anamaria Fălăuş*
Affiliation:
CNRS, Laboratoire de Linguistique de Nantes
*
Caponigro, Department of Linguistics, University of California San Diego, 2985 Muir Lane, La Jolla, CA 92093, [ivano@ucsd.edu]
Fălăuş, CNRS, Laboratoire de Linguistique de Nantes, Chemin de la Censive du Tertre BP 81227, 44312 Nantes, France, [anamaria.falaus@cnrs.fr]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A previously unnoticed puzzle is presented concerning the distribution of wh-determiners in free relative clauses in Romanian: while care ‘which’ + NP can never introduce free relative clauses, ce ‘what’ + NP does so productively, as do all other wh-words. New evidence is provided showing that care ‘which’ + NP in interrogative clauses in Romanian exhibits strong discourse-anaphoric requirements, unlike ce ‘what’ + NP. This feature of care ‘which’ + NP is suggested to be responsible for the puzzle by triggering a clash with the basic set-denoting function of a free relative clause, along the lines of what is observed in light-headed relative clauses.

Keywords

wh-determinerswh-wordsfree relative clausesdiscourse anaphoricityinterrogative clauseslight-headed relative clauses

Information

Type
Research Report
Information
Language , Volume 99 , Issue 3 , September 2023 , pp. e176 - e190
Copyright
Copyright © 2023 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Andrews, Avery D. 1975. Studies in the syntax of relative and comparative clauses. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/27379.Google Scholar
Braşoveanu, Adrian. 2008. Uniqueness effects in correlatives. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 12. 47–65. DOI: 10.18148/sub/2008.v12i0.575.Google Scholar
Caponigro, Ivano. 2003. Free not to ask: On the semantics of free relatives and wh-words cross-linguistically. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles dissertation.Google Scholar
Caponigro, Ivano. 2004. The semantic contribution of wh-words and type shifts: Evidence from free relatives cross-linguistically. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 14. 38–55. DOI: 10.3765/salt.v14i0.2906.10.3765/salt.v14i0.2906CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caponigro, Ivano. 2021. Introducing headless relative clauses and the findings from Mesoamerican languages. In Caponigro et al., 1–57. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780197518373.003.0001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caponigro, Ivano. 2022. Headless relative clauses and the syntax-semantics mapping: Evidence from Mesoamerica. Proceedings of Semantics of Under-represented Languages in the Americas (SULA) 11. 27–42.Google Scholar
Caponigro, Ivano, and Fălăuş, Anamaria, 2018. Free choice free relatives in Italian and Romanian. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 36(2). 323–63. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-017-9375-y.10.1007/s11049-017-9375-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caponigro, Ivano, and Fălăuş, Anamaria, 2020. Unveiling multiple wh- free relative clauses and their functional wh-words. Semantics and Pragmatics 13:2. DOI: 10.3765/sp.13.2.10.3765/sp.13.2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caponigro, Ivano, and Fălăuş, Anamaria, 2022. The semantics of Rudin constructions in Romanian. Proceedings of the 23rd Amsterdam Colloquium, 55–61. Online: https://www.dropbox.com/s/xx6zqz1f1idfinw/Proceedings2022-pages-62-68.pdf?dl=0.Google Scholar
Caponigro, Ivano, Torrence, Harold; and Maldonado, Roberto Zavala (eds.) 2021. Headless relative clauses in Mesoamerican languages. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro. 1998. Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics 6. 339–405. DOI: 10.1023/A:1008324218506.10.1023/A:1008324218506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Citko, Barbara. 2004. On headed, headless, and light-headed relatives. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 22(1). 95–126. DOI: 10.1023/B:NALA.0000005564.33961.e0.10.1023/B:NALA.0000005564.33961.e0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comorovski, Ileana. 1996. Interrogative phrases and the syntax–semantics interface. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-015-8688-7.10.1007/978-94-015-8688-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dayal, Veneeta. 1996. Locality in WH quantification: Questions and relative clauses in Hindi. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-011-4808-5.10.1007/978-94-011-4808-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dayal, Veneeta. 2017. Deconstructing the D in D-linking. Paper presented at ‘David Pesetsky@60‘, Panel on questions, MIT, February 11.Google Scholar
Dayal, Veneeta. 2020. WH-scope taking in questions. New Haven, CT: Yale University, ms.Google Scholar
de Vries, Mark. 2002. The syntax of relativization. Utrecht: LOT. Online: https://www.lotpublications.nl/the-syntax-of-relativization-the-syntax-of-relativization.Google Scholar
den Dikken, Marcel, and Giannakidou, Anastasia. 2002. From hell to polarity: ‘Aggressively non-D-linked’ wh-phrases as polarity items. Linguistic Inquiry 33(1). 31–61. DOI: 10.1162/002438902317382170.10.1162/002438902317382170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen, and Giurgea, Ion (eds.) 2013. A reference grammar of Romanian. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Embick, David, and Marantz, Alec. 2008. Architecture and blocking. Linguistic Inquiry 39(1). 1–53. DOI: 10.1162/ling.2008.39.1.1.10.1162/ling.2008.39.1.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farkas, Donka. 2013. The semantics of determiners. In Dobrovie-Sorin & Giurgea, 175–230.Google Scholar
Giurgea, Ion. 2013. The syntax of determiners and other functional categories. In Dobrovie-Sorin & Giurgea, 97–174.Google Scholar
Giurgea, Ion, and Grosu, Alexander. 2019. Interrogatives and wh-movement. Bucharest: University of Bucharest, and Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, ms.Google Scholar
Groenendijk, Jeroen, and Stokhof, Martin. 1982. Semantic analysis of wh-complements. Linguistics and Philosophy 5(2). 175–233. DOI: 10.1007/BF00351052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groenendijk, Jeroen, and Stokhof, Martin. 1984. Studies on the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam dissertation.Google Scholar
Grosu, Alexander. 2004. The syntax-semantics of modal existential wh-constructions. Balkan syntax and semantics, ed. by Tomić, Olga Mišeska, 405–38. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Grosu, Alexander. 2013. Relative clause constructions and unbounded dependencies. In Dobrovie-Sorin & Giurgea, 597–662.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene. 1987. Where does the definiteness restriction apply? Evidence from the definiteness of variables. The representation of (in)definiteness, ed. by Reuland, Eric and Meulen, Alice ter, 21–42. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Izvorski, Roumyana. 1998. Non-indicative wh-complements of possessive and existential predicates. North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 28. 159–73. Online: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/nels/vol28/iss1/13.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Pauline. 1995. On the quantificational force of English free relatives. Quantification in natural languages, ed. by Bach, Emmon, Jelinek, Eloise, Kratzer, Angelika, and Partee, Barbara, 451–86. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-017-2817-1_15.Google Scholar
Karttunen, Lauri. 1977. Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 1(1). 3–44. DOI: 10.1007/BF00351935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroch, Anthony. 1998. Amount quantification, referentiality, and long wh-movement. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 5(2). 21–36. Online: https://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol5/iss2/3.Google Scholar
Link, Godehard. 1983. The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: A lattice-theoretical approach. Meaning, use and the interpretation of language, ed. by Bauerle, Rainer, Schwarze, Christoph, and Stechow, Arnim von, 303–23. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9783110852820.302.Google Scholar
Nouwen, Rick. 2003. Plural pronominal anaphora in context: Dynamic aspects of quantification. Utrecht: LOT. Online: https://www.lotpublications.nl/Documents/084_fulltext.pdf.Google Scholar
PanăDindelegan, Gabriela (ed.) 2013. The grammar of Romanian. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
PanăDindelegan, Gabriela (ed.) 2016. The syntax of Old Romanian. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198712350.001.0001.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198712350.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1987. Wh-in-situ: Movement and unselective binding. The representation of (in)definiteness, ed. by Reuland, Eric and Meulen, Alice ter, 98–129. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
RaŢiu, Dafina. 2011. De la syntaxe à la sémantique des propositions interrogatives: Étude comparative des questions multiples en roumain. Nantes: University of Nantes dissertation.Google Scholar
Royer, Justin. 2021. Headless relative clauses in Chuj. In Caponigro et al., 327–61. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780197518373.003.0010.10.1093/oso/9780197518373.003.0010.10.1093/oso/9780197518373.003.0010.10.1093/oso/9780197518373.003.0010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudin, Catherine. 1986. Aspects of Bulgarian syntax: Complementizers and WH constructions. Bloomington, IN: Slavica.Google Scholar
Rullmann, Hotze, and Beck, Sigrid. 1998. Presupposition projection and the interpretation of which-questions. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 8. 215–32. DOI: 10.3765/salt.v8i0.2811.Google Scholar
Sharvy, Richard. 1980. A more general theory of definite descriptions. The Philosophical Review 89(4). 607–24. DOI: 10.2307/2184738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Šimík, Radek. 2011. Modal existential wh-constructions. Groningen: University of Groningen dissertation. Online: https://www.lotpublications.nl/modal-existential-wh-constructions-modal-existential-wh-constructions.Google Scholar
Simík, Radek. 2013. Modal existential wh-constructions as affordance descriptions. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 17. 563–80. Online: https://ojs.ub.uni-konstanz.de/sub/ index.php/sub/article/view/361.Google Scholar
Šimík, Radek. 2017. Existential wh-constructions. Oxford bibliographies in linguistics, ed. by Aronoff, Mark. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/OBO/9780199772810-0162.Google Scholar
Šimík, Radek. 2020. Free relatives. The Wiley Blackwell companion to semantics, ed. by Gutzmann, Daniel, Matthewson, Lisa, Meier, Cécile, Rullmann, Hotze, and Zimmermann, Thomas Ede. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI: 10.1002/9781118788516.sem093.Google Scholar
Stanley, Jason, and Szabó, Zoltán Gendler, 2000. On quantifier domain restriction. Mind & Language 15(2–3). 219–61. DOI: 10.1111/1468-0017.00130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar