Pseudorelatives (PRs) are single constituents formed by a DP (the head) and an embedded clause
headed by the complementizer que (1). The relation between the head and the embedded clause is a
relation of predication. PRs do not display a restrictive reading but a situational one.
(1) He visto a [PR Juan que corría]
I.have seen a Juan that ran
'I saw Juan running'
Previous literature on pseudorelatives contains different explanations regarding their internal
structure, the way PRs relate to the matrix predicate, the position PRs can occupy within the matrix
clause and the function the head of the PR has within the embedded clause. The goal of this thesis is
to go in depth through these four aspects in the light of the following three new observations:
i) Previous literature only considers the possibility of having subject-gap PRs (1) (the head of the
PR is the subject of the embedded predicate). However, I propose the Object-gap PR
generalization: object-gap PRs (2) (the head of the PR is either the direct or the indirect object of
the emebdded predicate) are available in those languages allowing Object Clitic Doubling (Spanish,
Greek). Those languages lacking Object clitic Doubling do not allow object-gap PRs (Italian,
French or Portuguese).
(2) a. He visto a Maríai que *( lai) traían en coche
I.have seen a María that her-ACC brought.3.PL by car
'I saw María who was being brought by car'
b. He visto a Pacoi que *( lei) pedían la hora unos chavales
I.have seen a Paco that le-DAT asked.3PL the time some guys
'I saw Paco who was being asked the time by some guys'
ii) The head of the PR needs to be animate. Animacy becomes a crucial factor for object-gap PRs
since if the object-head of the PR is not animate, the situational reading is not obtained (3).
(3) He visto el tren que lo ?? reparaban en cocheras/ llegaba a cocheras
I.have seen the train that lo-ACC fixed-3.PL in sheds / arrived to sheds
'I have just seen the train being fixed up in the shed / arriving to the shed '
iii) PRs can only appear in complement position of the matrix predicate.
Considering the consequences of these new observations, the previous control and raising
analyses are discarded. A control analysis cannot account for objet-gap PRs because the controller
can never control the direct object of the embedded predicate. The raising analysis is ruled out
because it cannot explain the mandatory presence of object clitics within the embedded clause, the
double case assignment of the head in subject-gap and indirect object-gap PRs or the motivation for
the movement of the head to its superficial position. Thus, a dislocation analysis for PRs where the
head of the PR is base-generated in the left periphery of the embedded clause is proposed to account
for the availability of subject-gap and object-gap PRs and the presence of the clitics in the case of
object-gap PRs and pro in the case of subject-gap PRs.
Further research includes an explanation for those languages that do not allow for objectgap
PRs (e.g. Italian) but allow clitic left dislocation structures, the concrete properties that allow
perception predicates to select for PRs or the secondary predication character of PRs
