Semantic Constraints Ⅱ : Relativization

Abstract

The above-proposed approach to relativization has the following theoretical implications. First, contextual rules like definitization come to motivate intermediate constituent structures since constituent structures, deep or derived, are best motivated by well-motivated transformational rules and we consider the contextual definitization rule is semantically motivated to some extent. Second, our earlier-mentioned semantic constraint is naturally explained in our approach to relativization to the extent that the constraint is one of the consequences of the way the definitization rule operates. Third, deeper investigations of contextual rules like definitization will shed more lights on semantic constraints like the above-mentioned one on definiteness since in the above case the accomodation of the semantic constraint crucially depends on our present understanding of the contextual definitization rule. Fourth, in the case of relativization we have to posit the constituent-order-free underlying structure for the maximum syntactic and semantic generalizations to be explicitly captured by transformational rules and semantic constraints; thus our semantic constraints are different from the interpretive semanticists' semantic interpretive rules. Fifth, semantic constraints are not always irregular fragmentary residues of grammatical analyses but will ultimately prove to be quite regular and general, positively contributing to capture deeper significant lingusitic generalizations.