relative and possessive features in colloquial spanish (book chapter)

CHAPTER THREE

RELATIVE AND POSSESSIVE FEATURES

IN COLLOQUIAL SPANISH

MANUEL DELICADO-CANTEROAUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY

1. Introduction1

In modern Spanish there are several options for expressing possession

in a relative clause. First, we find the rather literary possessive relative

cuyo (whose), as in cuyo padre (“whose father”). A second construction is

el N del cual (lit. “the N of which/whom”), as in el padre del cual (lit. “the

father of whom”) where the relative el cual is introduced by the genitive

preposition de (of). In spite of this, in current colloquial Spanish speakers

tend to use an alternative construction: que su N (lit. “that his/her/its/their

N”), consisting of the complementizer que (“that”) and the resumptive

possessive determiner su (“his/her/its/their”), as in el chico que su padre

(lit. “the boy that his father”) (Suñer 1998).

In this paper, I study a fourth alternative: el cual su N (lit. “the

which/who his/her/its/their N”). This construction shares some properties

with the more common and widespread que su N and, particularly, with el

N del cual. Like que su N, it includes a resumptive possessive, but, unlike

1 I would like to thank the audiences of the 2007 Mid America Linguistics

Conference (University of Kansas) and the 2010 Societas Linguistica Europaea

annual meeting in Lithuania (Vilnius University) for their comments. A previous

version of this paper appeared in Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics 30, 2008. I

would like to express my gratitude to the two anonymous reviewers for this

publication, whose feedback and comments have improved this paper. I am

responsible for any remaining errors. Finally, I must thank William Steed for his

comments and suggestions.

Relative and Possessive Features in Colloquial Spanish 79

the invariant que, el cual2 must still be analyzed as a relative pronoun

rather than as a complementizer, because it must overtly agree with its

antecedent in gender and number. It differs from the 'el N del cual'

construction in that it lacks the genitive preposition 'de' and has a different

word order. The following examples illustrate the four types of relatives,

both the standard two (1a, b) and the two colloquial ones (1c, d):

(1)

a. El padre cuyo hijo vino.

The.M.SG father.M.SG whose.M.SG son.M.SG come.3.SG.PAST

‘The father whose son came.’

b. El padre, el hijo del cual

The.M.SG father.M.SG the.M.SG son.M.SG of –the.M.SG who.SG

Vino.

come.3.SG.PAST

‘The father, the son of whom came.’

c. El padre que su hijo vino.

The.M.SG father.M.SG that his.SG son.M.SG come.3.SG.PAST

lit.“The father that his son came”

d. El padre el cual su hijo

The.M.SG father.M.SG the.M.SG who.SG his.SG son.M.SG

Vino.

come.3.SG.PAST

lit. ‘The father who his son came.’

On the other hand, it involves the same relative as el N del cual, but the

order is different and the genitive preposition de (of) is absent.

2 For ease of exposition, I will refer to this construction using the masculine

singular form of the relative and the singular form of the possessive: el cual su N.

However, as the examples below will show, this relative agrees in gender and

number with its antecedent: el cual (which/who masculine singular), la cual

(which/who feminine singular), los cuales (which/who masculine plural), and las

cuales (which/who feminine plural). On the other hand, the possessive su is

singular when the owned entity is singular. The plural form, sus, is used when the

owned entity is plural as well.

Chapter Three 80

2. El cual su N

2.1. Description and examples

Traditionally, el cual has been considered a (rather uncommon) relative

that can only appear after a preposition in restrictive and non-restrictive

relative clauses or as the syntactic subject in only non-restrictive relative

clauses (cf. Brucart (1999: 498-501) for a description of the standard uses

and syntax of this relative). However, Spanish speakers seem to have gone

beyond traditional boundaries, as the following data3 demonstrate:

A. Restrictive relative clauses:

(2)

a. Sin embargo aquí he leído chicas las cuales

However here have.1SG read girl.F.PL the.F.PL who.PL

sus bebes miden mucho más.

their.M.PL baby.M.PL measure.3.PL much more

‘However, here I have read young women whose babies are

much longer.’

<foro.enfemenino.com/forum/Matern1/__f50445_Matern1-

Mamis-de-diciembre-medidas- de-vuestros-bebes.html> (10-

9-05)

b. Para un niño/estudiante el cual su idioma

For a.M.SG boy/student.M.SG the.M.SG who.SG his.S language.M.SG

principal es otro.

main.SG be.3.SG other

‘For a boy/student whose main language is other…’

<www.cde.state.co.us/cdesped/download/pdf/IEP 2001-2002

Forms/8aSpa.pdf> (10-9-05)

c. He oido algo acerca de un delantero de la UD

have.1.SG heard smth. about of a.M.SG striker.M.SG of the UD

el cual conozco a su padre.

the.M.SG who.SG know.1.SG to his.SG father.M.SG

‘I have heard something about a striker of the UD, whose

father I know.’ <www.futbolplus.com/foro/> (7-25-2010)

3 Data collected from Google. The examples come from different Spanish-speaking

countries. Given the length of many of the examples, only the relevant glosses are

provided in detail.


B. Non-restrictive relative clauses:

(3)

a. Finalmente apareció Guillermo, el cual

Finally appear.3.SG.PAST Guillermo.M.SG, the.M.SG who.SG

su nombre artístico es Topillo.

his.M.SG name.M.SG artistic.M.SG be.3.SG Topillo

‘And last appeared Guillermo, whose stage name is Topillo.’

<http://groups.msn.com/chaRLYSoNICAS/nlt.msnw>

(10-12-05)

b. También posee un turicentro llamado Agua Fría,

Also own.3.SG a.M.SG turicenter.M.SG named Water Cold,

el cual su nombre proviene del río

the.M.SG which.SG its.M.SG name.M.SG come.3.SG from-the river

y la poza de su mismo nombre.

and the will of its same name

‘He also owns a tourism center called Cold Water, whose name

comes from the river and the will of the same name.’

<www.iberoelsalvador.org.sv/conozca_es/ruta_artesanal.html>

(7-26-2010)

c. Inclusive la Fragata Libertad, la cual

Inclusive the.F.SG Frigate.F.SG Freedom, the.F.SG which.SG

recuerdo que sus tripulantes me preguntaban

remember.1.SG that its.M.PL crew.M.PL me ask.3.PL.PAST

cuál era el día que nacería mi hijo.

which be.3.SG.PAST the day that be-born.3.SG.COND my son

‘Including the Frigate Liberty, whose crew members I

remember asked me when my son would be born.’

<weblogs.clarin.com/.../la-muerte-de-la-radio-aficion.html>

(8-1-10)

Upon examination of the data presented so far, let us extract the

following general characteristics about the construction el cual su N:

1. In all these cases, el cual su N is equivalent to normative

cuyo/a/os/as (whose) N.

2. The antecedent can be human or non-human.

3. The antecedent can be masculine or feminine, as the agreement of

the relative shows. It can also be singular or plural.

Chapter Three 82

4. As expected, the possessive determiner agrees with the possessum

in number. The possessive determiner also matches with the

relative-antecedent in that it is in the third person.

5. The DP headed by the possessive determiner is usually the

syntactic subject of the clause it introduces (3a, b) but it may also

be its object (2c)4.

6. This construction shows no double possessive marking; del cual su

N (of who/which his/her/its/their N) is not attested5.

7. Different types of relationships may be expressed in these

possessive constructions: animate or inanimate possessor, kinship,

ownership, activity, etc., which indicates that this new construction

is not restricted to specific meanings or relations.

2.2. Preposed possession: cross-linguistic evidence

Spanish is not a rara avis in offering a preposed possessor construction.

As Alexiadou et al. (2007) show, several languages show a “(prepositionless)

prenominal possessor DP [that] is doubled by a matching and coreferential

prenominal possessive pronoun” (Alexiadou et al. 2007: 594). For

4 An anonymous reviewer wonders whether there are any subject/object

asymmetries in this construction. As (2c) proves, in principle we see that el cual su

N is not restricted to subjects. What all these examples have in common, though, is

the fact that the relative pronoun, against prescriptive descriptions, ends up

competing for a syntactic position/function already occupied/expressed by another

DP (the su N part). In the case of (2a,b), for instance, el cual cannot be the subject

of the clause and must be re-interpreted as a mere linking element between the

main clause and the embedded clause, thus assuming the role of plain

complementizer, which in standard Spanish, is exclusively reserved to que (“that”).

Such “violation” is actually what makes this construction special. 5 As pointed out by one of the anonymous reviewers, certain dialects of Spanish

allow for overt double marking of possession, as in su padre de ella (“her father of

hers”). However, firstly, the evidence examined in this paper comes from a variety

of Spanish-speaking countries, which by necessity covers an area vaster than that

of the restricted number of dialects which might allow for double possessive

marking. Secondly, if attested, such cases would demand their own analysis,

requiring that special attention be paid to any syntactic or semantic restrictions that

might differ from the construction studied here. Thirdly, as is well known, the

double marking of features is not uncommon in (standard) Spanish; for instance, in

negative concord (cf. also English a friend of Mary’s, where possession may be

said to materialize both in the P of and in the genitive ‘s). The syntactic approach

to negative concord, involving Agree and the semantic interpretation of negation

only once, despite overt duplication, could very well serve as the initial basis for a

feasible syntactic analysis. See fn. 7 below.


instance, these include the following Romance languages (Alexiadou et al.

2007: 595):

(4)

a. Li serf sum padre. Old French

the serf his father

b. Peter sua filho. Malayo-Portuguese

Peter his son

Dutch, in particular, proves most informative in understanding the

structure of el cual su N. De Vries (2002) discusses the syntax of Dutch

possessive relatives which can be found in interesting patterns, as shown

below in (5) (de Vries 2002: 314; cf. Hendriks 2010):

(5)

a. De jongen wiens/*diens vader ik ken.

the boy whose father I know

b. De jongen wie zijn/*die zijn vader ik ken.

the boy whom his father I know

Note that example (5b) is similar to our el cual su N, because it also

involves a possessive relative clause with a preposed possessor (expressed

by the relative itself, wie) and a possessive determiner within the

possessum (zjin vader). Note also that the relative in this construction must

change from die to wie, as will be explained in more detail later on in this

paper.

3. Syntactic analysis of el cual su N

3.1. Possessive relatives in Spanish and el cual su N

A first approximation to the syntactic structure of el cual su N reveals

that, when compared to other equivalent possessive relative constructions,

there appears to be a preposition missing.

Consider the examples in (1) above. While (1b) shows el cual with a

preposition -de (of)- to mark possession, in (1c) possession is represented

via the resumptive possessive determiner su, and, as pointed out earlier,

there is no preposition de. Intuitively, those seem to be the only

differences, since both (1b) and (1c) share the same meaning.

Chapter Three 84

3.2. Dutch preposed possessives: de Vries (2002)

As mentioned above, Spanish el cual su N resembles a particular

relative construction in Dutch (recall the examples in (5) above). De Vries

(2002) claims that all possessive structures have the same syntactic

structure: they are all complements. The possessive P may be present or

not, but the underlying structure is always the same, be it possession with

an overt P, prenominal possession, or those cases with no P. In agreement

with Generative Grammar assumptions, de Vries links the relation of

possession to a feature (de Vries 2002: 315):

It seems reasonable to assume that all projections that represent a

generalized possessive relation bear a generalized possessive feature. Thus,

a lexical possessive preposition Pposs (van ‘of’), a genitive Pgen (possibly

Ø), and a genitive DPgen (e.g. ‘s mans [thegen mangen]) contain possessive

features by definition.

In (5b), we find that the relative die has changed to wie, which is the

expected form in Dutch when the relative is introduced by a P. However,

there is no overt P. The grammaticality of wie allows de Vries to maintain

that there is an empty P. The next necessary step is to explain the presence

of the possessive determiner zijn. In this case, de Vries assumes that, in

cases like the man his honor = de man zijn eer, the DP his honor has more

structure than it might seem as “[t]he possessive pronoun zijn is the result

of incorporating a possessive preposition into the determiner of eer” (de

Vries 2002: 318). Its syntactic representation would be the following

(according to de Vries (2002: 318):

(6) the man his honor [DP DP Pposs + Dposs [N [PP tP tDP]]]

The man his honor

Example (6) is the result of two movements: the first one of the DP the

man from its initial position as the complement of the possessive P to the

left edge of the phrase, and the second one the incorporation of the P into

the D, which creates the possessive his. In the next section I will review

de Vries’s extension of this analysis to possessive relatives, which will

serve as the starting point for my syntactic analysis of el cual su N.


3.3. The syntax of el cual su N

De Vries (2002) offers a foundation for the analysis of Spanish el cual

su N. Adopting a Kaynean view of relative clauses6, de Vries considers

relative sentences to be CPs complement of a DP. For instance, an

example like el chico el padre del cual (“the boy whose father…”) would

have the following structure (following de Vries 2002: 323-326):

(7) [DPEl [CP [chico el cual su padre]

The [ boy the who his father]

Since de Vries argues that all possessive relations share the same

analysis as complements, the corresponding underlying structure of el

chico el cual su padre must be el padre del cual chico (“the father of

which boy”)7.

This structure must be modified in order to obtain a preposed relative.

Following de Vries (2002), the NP chico (‘boy’) moves to the Spec of DP

[rel] to check agreement (Spec-head configuration) and DP [rel] moves to

the Spec of the main DP so that the NP chico can connect with the outer

determiner (el = the), outside of the CP (to eventually get [DPEl [CP [chico

= order el + chico). Finally the whole DP moves to the Spec of the CP

because it contains a relative:

6 This is the promotion analysis of relative clauses (cf. Kayne 1994). 7 Notice that de Vries’s account captures the fact that the NP chico and the D el

cual show Spec-head agreement, which explains why we have gender and number

agreement.

Chapter Three 86

(8) Analysis of Spanish possessive relative à la de Vries’s (2002, ch 8)

account of Dutch.

In addition, the appearance of the resumptive possessive su (his) is

explained as the result of the incorporation of the P de into the D el.

Notice that an analysis à la de Vries let us rule out both *del cual su N (lit.

“of who/which his/her/its/their N”) and *su N del cual (lit.

“his/her/its/their of who/which”), given that it blocks the co-presence of a

resumptive possessive and an overt P.

Even though de Vries’s (2002) analysis provides a good starting point

(cf. Delicado-Cantero 2008), there are several problems in trying to apply

his analysis for Dutch to Spanish, including the following:

1. There is no clear explanation for the incorporation of the

preposition in Spanish.

2. There would be a step in the derivation where P-stranding would

necessarily have to occur.


3. There is no morphological evidence of the presence of a P in

Spanish, since the relative in Spanish does not show morphological

case.

4. Moving out of a PP (in Spanish) is disallowed (no P-stranding) (cf.

also Ross 1967: 118), which gives support for the assumption that

there is no P in the numeration to start with.

5. The possessive DP does not need to be adjacent to the possessor

(2c).

6. There is no motivation for the overt presence of the resumptive.

7. Both restrictive and non-restrictive relatives need to be accounted

for.

8. The resumptive possessive pronoun c-commands the DP[rel] trace

in the previous analysis, which causes a Condition C violation.

As mentioned above, one of the main intuitions is that el cual su N and

el N del cual are the same construction with one main difference: in el

cual su N there is a preposition missing. In de Vries’s terms there is no

easy way to capture this idea. To solve this problem and thus reach an

answer to the syntactic nature of this construction, I propose an analysis

for Spanish el cual su N by arguing that, in actuality, there is no

preposition de at all in the Numeration and, therefore, there is no

theoretical need to speak of preposition incorporation.

3.4. Predicate inversion (den Dikken’s (1998) analysis

of possession)

3.4.1. Step 1

The answer lies in combining de Vries’s account of leftward

movement of the possessor with an analysis inspired by den Dikken’s type

of Predicate Inversion, according to which all possession involves

predicate inversion:

(9) [SC POSSESSUM [PP Pdat POSSESSOR]] (den Dikken 1998: 153)

Den Dikken (1998) and de Vries share the idea of P incorporation into

the D, which results in a possessive element, be it ‘s or the actual

possessive pronoun, su in the case of Spanish. However, notice that in the

case of Spanish we do not need to claim any missing/silent Ps, just a

[poss] feature, as in the case of quesuismo (Suñer 1998). At the same

time, this would help avoid P-stranding in a de Vries-inspired analysis of

Chapter Three 88

Spanish. If there were a silent P, we would need to explain why there is no

pied-piping.

The incorporation of the [poss] feature into D results in the resumptive

pronoun su/s, which “rescues” the possession relation that could not be

syntactically realized via the non-existent P.

(10) [SC POSSESSUM [POSSP [POSS] [POSSESSOR]]]

Example (10) captures the fact that the [poss] feature ends up being

realized to the left of the possessum and not as its complement.

Additionally, there is no weak crossover effect given that the possessive

pronoun is created after/thanks to the fronting of the relative. In any case,

the relative and the possessive must be coreferent.

The resulting syntactic tree is represented in (11), which maintains the

intuition that el cual + su N and el N del cual are similar:

(11) Analysis inspired by den Dikken (1998: 196)

3.4.2. Step 2: Accounting for DP-internal resumptive possessive

pronoun

Note that we now need to modify the structure proposed by den

Dikken because the possessor emerges as incorporated into the D of the

embedded DP, not as a separate linker (cf. Bernstein & Tortora 2005:

1232 and Grohmann & Haegeman 2003).


Assuming FP to be an extension of DP (den Dikken 1998: 191), I

argue that a linker/[poss] feature needs to be materialized and lowers to

add to the available determiner8, thus resulting in the tree in (12):

(12)

What results is a doubling of the DP (possessor doubling). The

resulting D su does not c-command the trace of the possessor, which lies

inside PossP (no Condition C violation; cf. de Vries (2002: 318) for a

similar solution justifying the movement of the relative). This movement

explains why we get the resumptive possessor: it is the last resort to

express possession overtly.

If the possessive resumptive is created after movement (or due to it),

we avoid having a step in the derivation where a full possessive pronoun

such as su c-commands a full DP such as el cual. Finally, the relative will

move to check its [+rel] feature in C, as usually assumed. Observe the tree

in (13) (only pertinent information represented):

8 I assume feature lowering in this case is a last resort to maintain an overtly

marked possessive relationship. Embick & Noyer (2001), for instance, argue for a

post-syntactic, purely morphological process of lowering that could be argued to

apply in this case. An alternative option would imply assuming some type of

sharing of the [poss] feature in both F/D and DP with materialization (valuation)

only in the DP, as attested. In this case, de Vries’s initial idea of incorporation

could account for the presence of the [poss] feature in DP, while

inversion/movement would account for the existence of [poss] as F/D. Note also

that the predication expressed by small clauses does not prevent feature

intervention from outside its projection, as is the case, for instance, with ECM in

English (I want him dead by tomorrow).

Chapter Three 90

(13) Relative possessor extraction (due to [+rel] feature) after predicate

inversion in order to introduce the clause.

However, this cannot be the whole story, there is a remaining problem.

Example (13) contains a violation of the Left Branch Extraction (LBE)

constraint (Ross 1967: 114). Unlike Slavic, Germanic and French, Spanish

does not allow left branch extraction. The final section of the syntactic

analysis unveils a tentative solution to this problem.

3.4.3. Step 3: Avoiding an LBE violation

Haegeman (2000, 2003) indicates that there is no left branch extraction

for West Flemish and that it is restricted cross-linguistically. In the spirit

of Haegeman (2000: 16; 2003: 244), we may postulate internal inversion

of a preposed possessor pro which is coreferent with an in-situ relative

pronoun:


(14) Relative base-generated in Spec,CP.

In (14), su remains the resumptive pronoun for possession (linker-poss

+ D) and we obtain double resumption: one for the possessive feature (in

the form of D su) and the other as a silent pro for the relative base-

generated in Spec,CP, thus without wh-movement9.

There is some evidence that this analysis could be going in the right

direction, as the following example with an overt pronoun (in the place of

the silent pro in (14)) indicates:

(15) Fue con una amiga de siempre de hace

go.3.SG.PAST with a.F.SG friend.F.SG of always of ago

muchísimos años la cual ella su amiga le

many years the.F.SG who.SG she her.SG friend.F.SG her

propuso el irse las dos juntas.

propose.3.SG.PAST the go.INF-refl the two together

‘She left with an all time friend, an old friend from way back,

who suggested her leaving together.’

<www.mafius.com/foro/ftopic1380.html> (8-4-2010)

9 Continuing with the discussion in fn. 5, this syntactic structure could in principle

offer a clearer path to account for double possessive marking, as it would allow for

two independent (but necessarily related for interpretation purposes, i.e., concord)

instances of possessive feature, one with the relative, and the other one

materialized as the resumptive possessive determiner. Nevertheless, as already

indicated, further analysis would be necessary to account for the syntax of such

constructions. This lies outside the scope of this paper.

Chapter Three 92

El cual is base-generated in CP and is not selected by a P. Su is an

intrusive resumptive pronoun, since there is an island (Alexopoulou

2010), and is not illicitly bound by pro (pro is not an argument of su; cf.

de Vries (2002: 318, fn. 29); but cf. Villalba’s (2007) revision of Predicate

inversion in Spanish in terms of A’-movement).

This analysis resolves certain issues and allows for a last equivalence

between el cual su N and quesuismo:

It accounts for the bound reading of the resumptive possessive

pronoun, as no disjoint reference is allowed in this construction (cf.

McCloskey 2006: 1, 12).

There is no weak crossover effect regardless of the resulting binding

situation. Since el cual does not move, it simply cannot create weak

crossover effects.

Following Suñer’s (1998) analysis, in quesuismo the covert relative

operator would enter this chain since que is always in situ and is not a

relative pronoun, unlike el cual. Despite this categorical difference and the

necessary difference in their places in the tree (C vs Spec,CP), the analysis

presented here allows nevertheless for a semi-unification of el cual su N

and quesuismo, in that both are strategies to express possessive relations

with resumption and both can be argued to involve no movement of the

introductory category but rather base-generation (Suñer 1998)10.

4. Conclusion

In this paper I have provided a syntactic account for the innovative

Spanish possessive relative el cual su N. This colloquial alternate to

formal cuyo is special in that, as opposed to the other colloquial alternate

que su N, el cual su N, includes a relative, not a complementizer.

Building on the de Vries’ work on Dutch preposed possessive relatives

and den Dikken’s predicate inversion account of possession, I have

provided a syntactic account of the colloquial Spanish construction that

10 However, the nature of the introducing element remains different. El cual, while

being “forcefully” reduced to a “mere” complementizer syntactically, must still be

categorially analyzed as a relative pronoun (in Spec,CP), as agreement still holds,

unlike with que in quesuismo. It is this forced dual nature which makes this

construction innovative in Spanish and theoretically interesting. Compare Spanish

to other languages with similar relativization strategies. Consider, for instance,

Merchant (2004), who discusses Greek. Greek also allows for a kind of quesuismo

construction with resumption, but, unlike Spanish, the direct equivalent to el cual

(o opios) cannot appear in a syntactic construction such as el cual su N; only the

complementizer pou (“that”) can.


involves predicate inversion, materialization of a [poss] feature in D, and

double resumption. Contrary to de Vries’s preposition incorporation

analysis, I have argued that there is no need to postulate a silent

preposition de in the Numeration. The analysis allows us to account for

the fact that el cual su N and el N del cual share a similar basic analysis, a

positive consequence given that both constructions convey the exact same

meaning.

By using this construction, Spanish speakers perform beyond the limits

set by prescriptive grammar for the relative pronoun el cual, which,

among other restrictions, is not to be used in restrictive clauses, except

when introduced by a preposition (cf. Brucart 1999, as indicated at the

beginning of the paper). In the end, el cual su N evidences, once again, the

fact that language is creative.

References

Alexiadou, Artemis, Liliane M. V. Haegeman & Melita Stavrou. 2007.

Noun Phrase in the Generative Perspective. Berlin: Mouton de

Gruyter.

Alexopoulou, Theodora. 2010. Truly intrusive: resumptive pronominals in

questions and relative clauses, Lingua 120 (3), 485-505

Bernstein, Judy & Christina Tortora. 2005. Two types of possessive forms

in English, Lingua 115 (9), 1221-1242.

Brucart, José María. 1999. La estructura del sintagma nominal: las

oraciones de relativo. In Bosque Ignacio & Violeta Demonte (eds.).

Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, 395-522. Madrid: Real

Academia Española/Espasa-Calpe.

Delicado-Cantero, Manuel. 2008. Innovation in relativization: the new

Spanish possessive relative el cual su N, Kansas Working Papers in

Linguistics 30, 51-65. Available at http://hdl.handle.net/1808/3903

de Vries, Mark. 2002. The Syntax of relativization. PhD dissertation, LOT,

The Netherlands. http://odur.let.rug.nl/~dvries/publications.htm

den Dikken, Marcel. 1998. Predicate Inversion in DP. In Alexiadou,

Artemis & Chris Wilder (eds.), Possessors, predicates and movement

in the Determiner Phrase, 177-214. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John

Benjamins.

Embick, Davis & Rolf Noyer. 2001. Movement operations after syntax,

Linguistic Inquiry 32, 555–595.

Grohmann, Kleanthes K. & Liliane Haegeman. 2003. Resuming

reflexives, Proceedings of the 19th Scandinavian Conference of

Linguistics. Nordlyd 31 (1), 46-62

Chapter Three 94

Haegeman, Liliane. 2000. The external possessor construction in West

Flemish, GG@G Generative Grammar in Geneva 1, 1-19

—. 2003. The external possessor construction in West Flemish. In Coene,

Martine & Yves D'Hulst, (eds.). From NP to DP. Volume 2: The

expression of possession in noun phrases, 221-256. Amsterdam/

Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Hendriks, Jennifer. 2010. Prenominal possessor doubling constructions in

(West) Germanic: reassessing the evidence for grammaticalization. In

Hendery, Rachel & Jennifer Hendriks (eds.), Grammatical change:

theory and description, 27-48. Canberra: Australian National

University.

Kayne, Richard. S. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge/

London: MIT Press

McCloskey, James. 2006. Resumption. In Everaert Martin & Henk van

Riemsdijk (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, 94–117.

Malden: Blackwell. Available at

ohlone.ucsc.edu/~jim/PDF/syncom.pdf

Merchant, Jason. 2004. Resumptivity and non-movement, Studies in Greek

Linguistics 24, 471-481

Ross, John R. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax, PhD dissertation,

Cambridge, MA: MIT.

Suñer, Margarita. 1998. Resumptive Restrictive Clauses. A Crosslinguistic

Perspective, Language 74, 335-364

Villalba, Xavier. 2007. True and spurious articles in Germanic and

Romance, Cuadernos de Lingüística del I.U. Ortega y Gassset 14, 121-

134.

Current Formal Aspects

of Spanish Syntax and Semantics

Current Formal Aspects

of Spanish Syntax and Semantics

Edited by

Melvin González-Rivera and Sandro Sessarego

Current Formal Aspects of Spanish Syntax and Semantics,

Edited by Melvin González-Rivera and Sandro Sessarego

This book first published 2012

Cambridge Scholars Publishing

12 Back Chapman Street, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2XX, UK

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Copyright © 2012 by Melvin González-Rivera and Sandro Sessarego and contributors

All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,

or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or

otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner.

ISBN (10): 1-4438-3898-5, ISBN (13): 978-1-4438-3898-6

relative and possessive features in colloquial spanish (book chapter)

Documents