[Lingtyp] QUEST: Lexical meaning of the verb and relativization
Randy J. LaPolla
randy.lapolla at gmail.com
Sun Dec 8 00:29:35 EST 2019
In terms of "cases where one and the same participial form can be used to relativize a wide range of arguments”, you might take a look at the papers in the book edited by Yoshiko Matsumoto, Bernard Comrie, & Peter Sells, Noun-Modifying Clause Constructions in Languages of Eurasia: Reshaping theoretical and geographical boundaries. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Pub. Co., 2017.
Japanese has been talked about by Yoshiko Matsumoto as using the same construction for many sorts of arguments or topics that cannot be relativised in other languages, and this was the motivation for the volume. Chinese is an extreme example of this type. See my paper in the volume (www.randylapolla.info/Papers/LaPolla-Noun-modifying_clause_constructions_in_Sino-Tibetan_languages.pdf <http://www.randylapolla.info/Papers/LaPolla-Noun-modifying_clause_constructions_in_Sino-Tibetan_languages.pdf> ).
All the best,
Randy J. LaPolla, PhD FAHA （羅仁地）
Professor of Linguistics, with courtesy appointment in Chinese, School of Humanities
Nanyang Technological University
HSS-03-45, 48 Nanyang Avenue | Singapore 639818
Most recent books:
The Sino-Tibetan Languages, 2nd Edition (2017)
Sino-Tibetan Linguistics (2018)
> On 4 Dec 2019, at 6:22 PM, Ksenia Shagal <ksenia.shagal at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear colleagues,
> I am looking for cross-linguistic and language-specific studies on relativization that focus on the connection between the lexical meaning of verbs and their arguments that are most frequently relativized.
> In other words, the question is:
> Is there evidence that verbs differ in which of their dependents are most commonly relativized or can be relativized at all? As for the second part of the question, Malchukov (2008: 218), for example, reports for Even (Tungusic) that the participial gap strategy can only be used if the relativized participant belongs to the valency of the verb, and that is why the locative relativization of the type 'the house where I lived' is possible, but ‘the house where I ate’ is not. A similar tendency has been reported for some other languages as well. But what about frequency?
> In particular, I am interested in languages that employ contextually oriented participles for relativization, i.e. in cases where one and the same participial form can be used to relativize a wide range of arguments, as in Mongolic, Tungusic,Turkic, and Dravidian languages. Do such participles have different relativization capacity or different relativization "preferences" depending on the verb?
> I would be grateful for any references or observations on the topic.
> Thank you in advance and best regards,
> Ksenia Shagal
> postdoctoral researcher
> University of Helsinki
> https://researchportal.helsinki.fi/en/persons/ksenia-shagal <https://researchportal.helsinki.fi/en/persons/ksenia-shagal>
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Lingtyp