Nanosyntax (Caha 2009; Starke 2009; Baunaz & Lander 2018b) is a generative approach in which syntactic features correspond to their own terminal nodes and are merged into syntactic trees. Nanosyntax has a postsyntactic lexicon that consists of lexical trees which are linked to phonological and conceptual representations. Spellout in Nanosyntax is phrasal: instead of spelling out individual terminal nodes, lexical entries target phrasal (non-terminal) nodes in the syntactic tree. Spellout is also cyclic, and each successful spellout overrides all previous spellouts that it dominates (Principle of Cyclic Override Starke 2009: 4). After each instance of merge, the syntactic tree is spelled out. No parts of the syntactic structure can remain unlexicalized (known as Cyclic Exhaustive Lexicalization, Fábregas 2007). Spellout only takes place under strict constituenthood, i.e. only constituents can be targeted for spellout. The two principles in (7) govern lexical insertion.

The Superset Principle in (7a) ensures that a lexical tree matches a syntactic tree if the lexical tree is a superset (proper or not) of the syntactic tree. This means that a lexical tree can match a syntactic tree if the former contains features that the latter does not, but not vice versa. The Elsewhere Condition as in (7b) makes sure that, when more than one lexical tree can lexicalize the same syntactic tree (by the Superset Principle), the lexical tree with the least amount of superfluous material is chosen.

I illustrate with abstract examples how these principles together select a single lexical entry. In (9) to (11), the structure [DP[CP[BP]]] is created in three derivational steps with lexicalizations after each step. (8) gives two abstract lexical entries.6 The lexical tree [CP[BP]] corresponds to the phonological structure p, and the lexical tree [DP[CP[BP]]] corresponds to the phonological structure q.

In the first step of the syntactic derivation, A is merged with B, creating BP in (9). Both the lexical trees [CP[BP]] in (8a) and [DP[CP[BP]]] in (8b) are a superset of BP (Superset Princple). [CP[BP]] has less superfluous material than [DP[CP[BP]]] (Elsewhere Condition), and therefore the phonological form p is inserted.

Next, BP merges with c, and [CP[BP]] in (10) is created. Here again, both lexical trees [CP[BP]] in (8a) and [DP[CP[BP]]] in (8b) are a (proper) superset of the syntactic tree (Superset Principle). As [CP[BP]] has no superfluous material but [DP[CP[BP]]] does, the lexical entry (8a) matches with the syntactic structure via the Elsewhere Condition. In this example, [CP[BP]] and BP are syncretic: they correspond to the same lexical entry and have the same phonological form p.

Finally, [CP[BP]] merges with D, as shown in (11). The lexical tree [CP[BP]] in (8a) is no longer a superset of the syntactic tree, as it does not contain D (Superset Principle), so it is not a candidate for a match. [DP[CP[BP]]] in (8b), however, still contains all features. The earlier spellout of (8a) is overridden by (8b) and the phonological structure q is inserted (Principle of Cyclic Override).

The syntactic structures given above could all be spelled out after a new feature has been merged. However, this is not always the case. If there is no lexical tree that matches the syntactic tree after a new feature is merged, spellout driven movement takes place. Spellout-driven movement is governed by the so-called spellout algorithm. There are several steps in the algorithm, of which I only discuss the first two in this paper (see for additional steps not required for this paper Baunaz & Lander 2018b; Starke 2018; Caha et al. 2019; De Clercq 2019).

The first step in this algorithm has already been used to illustrate the principles governing lexical insertion in (7). This step is called Stay: the syntactic structure stays as it is after the merge of a new feature, and the lexicon is checked for a lexical entry. If there is no lexical entry available that matches, the first movement possibility takes place. This is Cyclic: the leftmost daughter of the sister of the last added feature is moved to the left of the last added feature. The lexicon is consulted again after this movement.

I illustrate the spellout algorithm with an abstract example in (12) to (13). I start with the first step: Stay. The structure stays at it is, and the lexicon is consulted for a lexical entry with the syntactic structure, shown in (12).

If there is no lexical entry available for this configuration, then GP, the leftmost daughter of the sister of F, moves to the left of F (Cyclic). The lexicon is checked for an entry that contains the syntactic structure FP. This FP contains HP, but it does not have a GP in it, shown in (13).

This kind of movement does not leave any traces (Baunaz & Lander 2018b; Starke 2018). In the next section, I discuss the internal feature make-up of the free relative pronouns. In Section 2.3, I apply the tools introduced in this section to show how the free relative pronouns are built.

In this section I make my assumptions for the internal structure of German free relative pronouns explicit. An overview of the pronouns is given in Table 2.7

I follow a large body of literature that argues that pronouns have complex internal structure and that they correspond to phrases (cf. Cardinaletti 1994; Weerman & Evers-Vermeul 2002; Boef 2013; Hachem 2015). Like Hachem (2015) and Baunaz & Lander (2018a), I decompose relative pronouns into smaller units. Looking at the paradigm, there is reason to assume that pronouns consist of a form w- and a form that expresses gender and case. Moreover, the latter form also appears on other elements that show gender and case distinctions, such as definite determiners and demonstratives (compare d-er ‘the-M’ and w-er ‘what-M’, d-as ‘the-N’ and w-as ‘what-N’). Taking this formal identity seriously (like cf. Leu 2008; Hachem 2015), I assume that they are the same morphosyntactic object.

In my analysis, the internal structure of the free relative pronoun looks as in (14). Following Hachem (2015), I assume that the WP corresponds to the w-element. The case phrase (KP) contains the case features and will be split up further following Caha (2009). The mass phrase (MP) contains different types of mass (that correspond to the distinctions better known as different grammatical genders) (Hachem 2015). The MP and KP together correspond to a single phonological element. In the structure in (14), the KP and the MP do not form a constituent that can match a lexical tree. Spellout-driven movement (of the WP into the specifier of the KP) will ensure that KP and MP form a constituent, such that they can be spelled out together.

In the next sections, I discuss each of the projections in (14) in turn.

In the previous two sections, I presented Nanosyntactic lexical insertion and spellout-driven movements. I also discussed the fseqs of the KP and the MP, and I introduced the WP. In this section, I give the lexical entries that I use in this paper, and I illustrate the construction of a free relative pronoun in the course of a derivation.

I start with the WP. As already pointed out in the previous section, I follow Hachem (2015) in that the WP corresponds to w-. The lexical entry is given in (21).

Throughout this paper I illustrate my proposal using examples with the relative pronouns wen ‘who.ACC’, wem ‘who.DAT’ and was ‘what.NOM/ACC’. Therefore, I only give the lexical entries for -en, -em and -as. First, -en and -em express individuative mass, as they refer to individuals. Therefore their lexical entries contain mass type features up to the IndP. The relevant case features are built on top of the mass features. For -en this is the fseq up to the AccP. The lexical entry for -em also contains genitive and dative. The lexical entries for -en and -em are given in (22).

The marker -as expresses unbounded mass (i.e. basically anything) in nominative and accusative case. Specifying the lexical entry for accusative (which contains nominative) makes it possible to insert it in both contexts by means of the Superset Principle. The lexicon does not contain a lexical entry specifically for unbounded mass in nominative, so the lexical entry for unbounded mass in accusative in inserted.12 I give the lexical entry in (23).

In (24) to (28) I give a step by step derivation of the creation of was ‘what.NOM’. In the first step, the root is merged with Mass, creating MassP, shown in (24). The lexical entry that can be inserted is (23), since the lexical tree in (23) is a superset of the structure in (24), and it has less superfluous material than the entries for -en and -em (Stay).

In a separate workspace, the WP is built, and spelled out as w-.

In the next step, the WP merges with the MassP, both having their own spellout.13

WP merges with Nom, resulting in the structure in (27).

No lexical entry exists for the structure as it is (Stay). There is no lexical entry for NomP that contains MassP with WP in its specifier. Following the spellout algorithm, the WP cyclically moves to the left of Nom (Cyclic), as shown in (28).

Now (23) matches the structure again, and MassP is spelled out as -as.

This concludes the section on the internal structure of free relative pronouns. In the next section, I discuss the external syntactic structure of the free relative construction.

In this section I discuss the syntactic position of the relative pronoun in the main and embedded clause. I provide evidence that indicates that the relative pronoun is part of the embedded clause and also of the main clause. I conclude, following Van Riemsdijk (2006a), that relative pronouns are simultaneously part of both clauses, and that they should be analyzed with Grafting, i.e. embedded features from one structure are remerged into a different structure.

Two positions are often considered for the relative pronoun in a free relative construction: the DP in the main clause and the SpecCP in the embedded clause (Bresnan & Grimshaw 1978; Groos & van Riemsdijk 1981). These options originate from the comparison between headed relative constructions and free relative constructions, as these are the positions of the antecedent and the relative pronoun in a headed relative clause. A syntactic structure of a headed relative clause is shown in (29).

Consider the headed relative clause in (30a) and its free relative counterpart in (30b).

If one assumes that headed and free relative constructions have the same underlying syntax, the question that follows is whether what corresponds to the antecedent the book (the DP in the main clause) or to the relative pronoun that (in the SpecCP) in (29). The evidence that I discuss below suggests it should be in both.

Bresnan & Grimshaw (1978) argue that the relative pronoun is part of the main clause. One of the arguments she provides is that the relative pronoun triggers number agreement in the main clause, so it should be part of that clause. Himmelreich (2017) shows that this argument Bresnan & Grimshaw use for English also holds in German. In what follows I illustrate their argumentation, and compare a regular main clause, an indirect interrogative clause and a free relative construction.

In a regular main clause as in (31), a plural wh-subject requires plural number agreement.

The construction is only grammatical if the plural subject welche Bücher ‘which books’ is able to agree with the plural form of the predicate (haben ‘have.PL’), and it is ungrammatical when the predicate has the singular form hat ‘have.SG’.

In contrast to that, wh-phrases that occur in embedded clauses (e.g. indirect interrogative clauses) do not affect the number agreement in the main clause, which is illustrated in (32).

Welche Bücher ‘which books’ does not agree in number with the main clause predicate: the construction that contains the agreeing plural form sind ‘be.PL’ is ungrammatical, and the sentence becomes grammatical if the singular form of the predicate ist ‘be.SG’ is used. Thus, forms that are part of the embedded clause do not affect verbal agreement in the main clause.

If the relative pronoun patterns with the wh-element in a regular main clause as in (31) and shows agreement with the main clause verb, this is an indication that it is part of the main clause. If the relative pronoun does not show agreement with the verb in the main clause, and it patterns with the wh-element in indirect interrogative clauses as in (32), this indicates that it is part of the embedded clause. The data show that the relative pronoun patterns with the wh-element in a regular main clause: in free relative constructions with a plural (complex) wh-phrase, plural agreement is required.14 Welche Bücher ‘which books’ in (33) has to agree in number with haben ‘have.PL’, and the use of the singular form (habe ‘have.SG’) renders an ungrammatical result.

This suggests that the relative pronoun is part of the main clause.

Note here though that this is positive evidence for the relative pronoun being part of the main clause, and not negative evidence indicating that the relative pronoun is not part of the embedded clause. In other words, (33) excludes the possibility that the relative pronoun is only part of the embedded clause and not of the main clause. This argument is compatible with the relative pronoun being simultaneously part of both the main and embedded clause, which is what I argue for, following Van Riemsdijk (2006a).

Groos & van Riemsdijk (1981) argue that the relative pronoun should be in the embedded clause. One of the arguments they use comes from relative clause extraposition. They examine the positional behavior of the DP in the main clause and the relative clause in headed relative clauses, and compare this to the position of the relative pronoun in free relative constructions. The headed relative clauses that Groos & van Riemsdijk discuss are given in (34).

The example in (34a) shows a headed relative clause with the DP das Geld ‘the money’ in the main clause and the relative clause das er gestohlen hat ‘which he has stolen’ in base position. In (34b), the relative clause is extraposed to the right edge of the sentence, and the DP in the main clause remains behind. This is possible in German and the sentence is grammatical. In (34c), both the relative clause and the DP in the main clause are extraposed, and the sentence is ungrammatical. The conclusion is that only the relative clause can be extraposed, but the DP from the main clause cannot.

The question is what happens to the relative pronoun if a relative clause in a free relative construction is extraposed. If the relative pronoun were part of the main clause, the relative pronoun would be expected to take the position of the DP in the main clause: it should be possible to be stranded on its own in the main clause (as in (34b)), and it should be impossible to extrapose to the right edge of the clause (as in (35a)). (35b), on the other hand, shows that a sentence is ungrammatical if the relative pronoun is stranded, and (35a), in which was ‘what’ is extraposed to the right edge of the clause, together with the rest of the relative clause, is grammatical.

This suggests that the relative pronoun is part of the embedded clause. To summarize, there is evidence that the relative pronoun is part of the main clause, and there is evidence that it is part of the embedded clause. Given these observations (and because relative pronouns seem to take case requirements from the main and embedded clause into account, see Section 1), different proposals have been made to let the relative pronoun simultaneously be the DP in the main clause and in the SpecCP of the embedded clause. These proposals can be grouped into two categories: (1) having a single element in each syntactic position, and realizing only one of them phonologically, or (2) having a single syntactic element that is part of both clauses because of a sharing relation (cf. multidominance or Grafting).

An example of the first type of proposal is the one by Himmelreich (2017). She argues that there are two elements (one in the main clause and one in the embedded clause) that bear the same syntactic feature values. The sharing of features comes about by several non-standard Agree relations. The two elements are always present, and one of the elements is always phonologically empty. In order to avoid having non-standard Agree relations and having to stipulate the presence of a phonologically empty element, I do not adopt Himmelreich (2017)’s approach. A proposal that fits into the second category is Asarina (2011)’s account for right node raising in Russian. She proposes that a case conflict can be resolved if conflicting case features on a single node can be realized by the same lexical entry. Her proposal does not extend to free relatives that are sensitive to more or less complex case. For these cases, there is not a single underspecified lexical entry available that corresponds to two cases. In the system of Asarina (2011) these sentences are predicted to crash, which is not what happens in German. However, Asarina (2011)’s and my analysis share the idea of having a single syntactic element that is simultaneously part of both the main and embedded clause via a sharing configuration. In my proposal, I adopt Van Riemsdijk (2006a)’s proposal of Grafting, on which I elaborate in the next section.15

Van Riemsdijk (2006a) has argued for a Grafting analysis, in which the relative pronoun is simultaneously the DP in the main clause and in the SpecCP of the embedded clause. In his proposal embedded features in one structure are remerged into a different structure. He argues that this special type of merge must exist, when all logical combinations of internal and external merge are taken into account. Grafting essentially combines properties of internal and external merge. The reasoning in Van Riemsdijk (2006a) goes as follows.

In (36a), A and B are combined with external merge. The two distinct structures are taken and combined to form the structure in (36b).

Internal merge takes a subpart of an existing structure as one of the two objects. In (37a), a subpart of a structure called C is combined with B via internal merge. The result is its movement, as shown in (37b).

In Grafting, the properties of internal and external merge are combined. Just like in external merge, two distinct structures are combined, and, like in internal merge, a subpart of an existing structure is one of the merging objects. In (38a), merge applies to B and D. D is a subpart of an existing structure and it remerges with the distinct structure B (i.e. it is Grafted). In (38b), D is the element that is shared between the two structures. It is a sister of B but still preserves the structural relations within its own structure (Van Riemsdijk 2006a: 22).

In this section, I show the analysis of free relative constructions with matching case requirements. The derivation presented is identical (apart from some simplifications) to what is proposed by Van Riemsdijk (2006b), except that in this proposal the relative pronoun consists of a complex syntactic structure rather than a single syntactic node. Just like in Van Riemsdijk (2006b), the derivation proceeds in three steps.16

The sentence under examination is given in (40), repeated from the introduction. Both lade ein ‘invite’ and mag ‘likes’ require their objects to be in accusative case.

The derivation starts with the embedded clause. Mag ‘likes’ combines with an accusative, as shown in (41).17

The accusative relative pronoun in (40) has an individuative mass type interpretation, so this structure needs to be built. This happens in a similar way to how was ‘what’ was built in Section 2.3. I leave out the derivation of the pronoun wen ‘who.ACC’, and I give the result in (42).

The embedded clause predicate mag ‘likes’ merges with the accusative relative pronoun (the AccP), as shown in (43).

I ignore the construction of the rest of the structure, and continue with the second derivational step: the AccP is internally remerged to the left edge of the clause. The dots in (44) refer to the material between the leftmost position in the clause and the predicate. The position where the relative pronoun is moved from is AccP.

Lade ein ‘invite’ requires its object to be in accusative, so it has to combine with the AccP. Grafting occurs: the AccP externally remerges with the main clause predicate, as shown in (45). As a result, wen ‘who.ACC’ is part of both the main and embedded clause.18

To summarize, Section 3 discussed the external syntax of free relative constructions. I argued for a Grafting approach (Van Riemsdijk 2006a), and I showed how Nanosyntactic structures can be Grafted to account for a matching free relative. With the background from the last two sections in mind, I derive the mismatching free relatives in the next section.

I start by discussing free relative constructions in which the case required in the embedded clause is more complex than the case required in the main clause. These constructions are grammatical, independent of whether the forms corresponding to the cases are syncretic or not. I first discuss the examples with non-syncretic forms. Then, I show how the same analysis derives the syncretic variant. In the case of non-syncretic forms, the relative pronoun needs to appear in the form that corresponds to the more complex case, as shown again in (46). The use of wem ‘who.DAT’ grammatical, the use of wen ‘who.ACC’ is not.

The derivation starts with the embedded clause. Vertraut ‘trusts’ in (46a) combines with a relative pronoun with an individuative mass type interpretation in dative case. This relative pronoun is built as shown in (47).

It becomes clear why the accusative relative pronoun wen ‘who.ACC’ cannot be used in this configuration, and why (46b) is ungrammatical: wen ‘who.ACC’ has been overwritten by wem ‘who.DAT’ during the creation of the dative relative pronoun. First, the predicate vertraut ‘trusts’ externally merges with the DatP, as shown in (48).

In the next step, the DatP is internally remerged to the left edge of the clause, as shown in (49).

Finally, the relative pronoun is externally remerged with the main clause predicate. The main clause predicate is lade ein ‘invite’, which requires its object to be in accusative. Therefore, it is not the highest node, the DatP, that is externally remerged, but it is the AccP, an embedded case node. What is crucial here is that the DatP always contains the AccP in the fseq (Caha 2009). This is the reason why the DatP can also satisfy an accusative case requirement. In Section 5.2 I show that it is language-specific whether only the highest case node or also with an embedded case node can be Grafted. German groups with languages that allow for Grafting embedded case nodes.

The last step of the derivation is illustrated in (50): AccP is Grafted into the main clause.

Grafting targets embedded features; DatP and AccP are both embedded in the structure (i.e. none of them is the root), so the Grafting operation is the same. In (51), I give a revised version of the derivational steps, in which case nodes on the relative pronoun are included.

For completeness, I also include the analysis for the syncretic variant in the left column of Table 5. Again, the more complex case is required in the embedded clause, but now a syncretic form corresponds to the different cases, as in (52).

The analysis is identical to the one described in this section, illustrated in (53). First, weiß ‘know’ combines with the AccP. In the next step, the AccP is moved to the left edge of the clause. Last, macht ‘makes’ externally remerges with the NomP (which is contained in the AccP).

In this section, I discussed configurations in which the embedded clause predicate requires a more complex case than the main clause predicate.

In this section, I discuss configurations in which the embedded clause predicate requires a less complex case than the main clause predicate. The first two steps in (51) can proceed as in the previous section, but the external remerge of the relative pronoun with the main clause predicate is not possible. I illustrate this with the example in (54). The embedded clause predicate gefällt ‘pleases’ combines with a nominative subject, and the main clause predicate erzähle ‘tell’ combines with an accusative object.

The derivation starts in the embedded clause, where gefällt ‘pleases’ merges with the NomP, and the NomP moves to the left edge of the clause. (55) shows the structure after this step.

At this point, erzähle ‘tell’ is supposed to externally remerge with an AccP. However, as can be seen in (55), there is no AccP available in the structure (NomP does not contain AccP). Fortunately, there is another way for the derivation to proceed. Not only the main clause predicate can externally remerge case nodes, but other elements, such as other case features, can do this as well. Whichever two elements are externally remerged, the Grafting operation remains the same. I suggest that case features are merged, until the case node required by the main clause is available, and the main clause predicate can be merged.

I show that German is subject to a certain restriction with respect to merging additional case features. The added features are not permitted to cause an overriding of the spellout. I call this restriction Keep spellout. This restriction is going the make the crucial distinction between syncretic and non-syncretic forms: in the syncretic case, the same lexical entry, (the same spellout) is used, but in the non-syncretic case, a different lexical entry (a different spellout) is used. Normally, the Principle of Cyclic Override applies if newly added features are spelled out and the previous spellout is overridden. However, in this case, a single element is part of two syntactic structures. It seems that in a Grafting situation, Cyclic Override needs to be restricted. In Section 5.2 I show that it is language-specific whether Keep spellout holds. German groups with languages that does not allow overriding. (56) describes the derivational steps for German non-matching free relatives, taking this restriction into account.

In the remainder of this section I show how the revised derivational steps derive the syncretic and non-syncretic configurations.

In Section 4.2.1, I showed how the German was ‘what.NOM/ACC’ can satisfy nominative case requirement from the embedded clause and an accusative case requirement from the main clause. I argued that this is possible because the next case feature (accusative) can be externally remerged with the highest case node available in the structure (NomP). This is permitted as long as the phonological form of the relative pronoun does not change, i.e. as long as the same lexical entry is used. This possibility to freely insert features within the boundaries of a lexical entry is not specific to German. The examples from (6), repeated here in (64), show that syncretism is able to resolve feature conflicts in free relatives cross-linguistically.

The analysis laid out in this paper holds for syncretic non-matching free relatives cross-linguistically.

So far, the proposal holds cross-linguistically for the syncretic cases, but it does not for the non-syncretic cases. This section extends the proposal such that it also accounts for these patterns. I have shown that German non-matching non-syncretic free relative constructions are only grammatical when the more complex case is required in the embedded clause. This section shown that Gothic permits the constructions independent of which clause requires the more complex case, Polish does not allow any non-matching non-syncretic free relatives, and in Greek non-matching non-syncretic free relatives are only grammatical if the more complex case is required in the main clause. An overview is given in Table 6.

The variation between the languages can be reduced to the presence or absence of two restrictions. The first restriction (Keep spellout), which has been shown to hold for German, is that the spellout of the relative pronoun needs to remain the same, and it cannot be overridden.20 The second restriction, which has not been discussed yet because it does not apply to German, is that external remerge can only take place with the highest case node (and not with an embedded one). I call this restriction Only Graft highest node. I propose that languages differ in whether or not the restrictions hold. The presence or absence of two restrictions generates four possible patterns that arise in four different languages: German, Gothic, Polish and Greek. (65) shows a updated version of the derivational steps, in which the restrictions per language are incorporated.

Table 7 shows which restriction holds for which language. First, Polish has both restrictions: it is not allowed to override the spellout of the relative pronoun, and only the highest case node can be Grafted. German only has one restriction: it is required to keep its spellout, but Grafting of the highest and embedded nodes is permitted. Greek is the opposite of German in that it allows for overriding of the spellout, but it does not permit Grafting an embedded case node. Gothic is the most free of the four languages: none of the restrictions hold.

In the remainder of this section I show the relevant data and I derive the patterns with the derivational steps in (65).