<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">A wonderful article that addresses the issues raised by Jeffrey is Marianne Mithun's 2002 paper 'Understanding and explaining applicatives.' <div><br></div><div><a href="http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.691.3166&rep=rep1&type=pdf">http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.691.3166&rep=rep1&type=pdf</a></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 5:58 PM Heath Jeffrey <<a href="mailto:schweinehaxen@hotmail.com">schweinehaxen@hotmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:16pt;font-size:medium;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">
This is a venerable discussion, and many contributions old and new mix two issues: a) which underlying categories (e<span lang="X-NONE">.g. subject, object) in matrix and subordinate clause can<span> </span></span>be coindexed in<span lang="X-NONE">a<span> </span></span>matrix-<span lang="X-NONE">subordinate</span>construction<span lang="X-NONE">(such
as relative clause </span>and switch-reference<span lang="X-NONE">, and b) wh</span>ich <span><span lang="X-NONE">surface categories can function in this way. Many languages have valency-changing processes (passive, antipassive, applicative,<span> </span></span></span>…)
that have one or more discourse functions in simple main clauses, but are deployed opportunistically in subordinated clauses solely to mark a specific underlying NP as the coindexed one. This is the functionalist way of describing the phenomena. It differs
from the idea favored by typologists that surface constraints are what drive the phenomena, since such constraints by themselves have no functional basis and are far from being universal. What would be the point (i.e., the evolutionary motivation) for a language
to require absolutive status for coindexation in switch-reference or relativization, unless this is accompanied by a seamless mechanism to allow underlying transitive subjects (which are of greater referential value than objects) to be marked?</p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:16pt;font-size:medium;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">
<br>
</p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:16pt;font-size:medium;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">
</p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:16pt;font-size:medium;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">
Therefore the question for Matthew is how the starred translation *“The dog, who is big, will bite that man” is expressed in Ngkolmpu. It might be better to use a nonadjectival relative clause since presumably “The dog, who is big” can simply be rephased as
“The big dog”. It might also be better to use a restrictive rather than parenthetical relative. Something like “The dog that bit he child ran away”.<span></span></p>
<br>
</div>
<div id="gmail-m_-6340469556007360391appendonsend"></div>
<hr style="display:inline-block;width:98%">
<div id="gmail-m_-6340469556007360391divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size:11pt" color="#000000"><b>From:</b> Lingtyp <<a href="mailto:lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org</a>> on behalf of Valenzuela, Pilar <<a href="mailto:valenzuela@chapman.edu" target="_blank">valenzuela@chapman.edu</a>><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, July 22, 2019 12:11 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Seino van Breugel <<a href="mailto:seinobreugel@gmail.com" target="_blank">seinobreugel@gmail.com</a>>; Matthew Carroll <<a href="mailto:mattcarrollj@gmail.com" target="_blank">mattcarrollj@gmail.com</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <<a href="mailto:LINGTYP@LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG" target="_blank">LINGTYP@LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG</a>> <<a href="mailto:lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Lingtyp] Query about constraints on co-referential arguments in matrix clauses</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div id="gmail-m_-6340469556007360391x_divtagdefaultwrapper" dir="ltr" style="font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif">
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:0px">Hola Matt,</p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:0px">Panoan languages have a set of same-subject markers where the matrix clause coreferential argument must be S, and another set where it must be A. The dependent clause argument can be either S or A. Hope this is useful.</p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:0px">Saludos,</p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:0px">Pilar</p>
</div>
<hr style="display:inline-block;width:98%">
<div id="gmail-m_-6340469556007360391x_divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif" color="#000000" style="font-size:11pt"><b>From:</b> Lingtyp <<a href="mailto:lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org</a>> on behalf of Seino van Breugel <<a href="mailto:seinobreugel@gmail.com" target="_blank">seinobreugel@gmail.com</a>><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, July 21, 2019 9:37:56 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Matthew Carroll <<a href="mailto:mattcarrollj@gmail.com" target="_blank">mattcarrollj@gmail.com</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <<a href="mailto:LINGTYP@LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG" target="_blank">LINGTYP@LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG</a>> <<a href="mailto:lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Lingtyp] Query about constraints on co-referential arguments in matrix clauses</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="border:1pt solid rgb(156,101,0);padding:0pt;line-height:12pt;background-color:rgb(255,235,156);text-align:center;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial">
<span style="font-size:10pt;color:black"><b>External Message</b></span> </div>
<br>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">Dear Matthew,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>My 2010 article on attributive clauses, published in Studies in Language, may be useful to you. I have attached a copy.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Regards,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Seino<br clear="all">
<div>
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail-m_-6340469556007360391x_x_gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">__________________</div>
<div dir="ltr">Dr. Seino van Breugel<br>
<a href="https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Findependent.academia.edu%2FSeinovanBreugel&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cc8fd8c4dcfaa49e9c22a08d70e5aa84d%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636993654878994873&sdata=UbzB2XoawzM3AcWhxbaixHybN0jO%2FXmrkHjzuj%2BwbOo%3D&reserved=0" target="_blank">https://independent.academia.edu/SeinovanBreugel</a><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr"><a href="https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fchannel%2FUCHfiZwqyWC7HfZUAQ1RH1ew&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cc8fd8c4dcfaa49e9c22a08d70e5aa84d%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636993654879014864&sdata=7K0kpGepxvUaNoxWI7R3rkT%2F2i77CZvSRBkilE5nsQ4%3D&reserved=0" target="_blank">https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHfiZwqyWC7HfZUAQ1RH1ew</a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail-m_-6340469556007360391x_x_gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail-m_-6340469556007360391x_x_gmail_attr">On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 3:30 AM Matthew Carroll <<a href="mailto:mattcarrollj@gmail.com" target="_blank">mattcarrollj@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail-m_-6340469556007360391x_x_gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">Dear all,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I am curious about restrictions on arguments in matrix clauses that are co-referential with those in subordinate clauses.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Restrictions on the role that a co-referential argument may play in a subordinate clause are well established in the literature (Keenan and Comrie 1977, and others). Rather I am interested in restrictions that may apply to the role that co-referential
argument may play in the <i>matrix</i> clause.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>For example, in Ngkolmpu a Yam language spoken in West Papua that I have been working on, there is a relative clause strategy involving a right adjoined relative clause. The co-referential argument may serve
<i>any role in the subordinate clause</i> but can only be the <i>absolutive argument of the matrix clause.</i> </div>
<div> </div>
<div><span lang="EN-GB" style="text-align:justify;font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">1.<span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"Times New Roman"">
</span></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="text-align:justify;font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">krar-w irepe pi srampu [<sup>n</sup>top mi bori ye]</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:10pt;text-align:justify"> dog</span><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:10pt;text-align:justify;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-variant-caps:small-caps">-sg.erg</span><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:10pt;text-align:justify">
</span><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:10pt;text-align:justify">man</span><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:10pt;text-align:justify">
</span><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:10pt;text-align:justify;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-variant-caps:small-caps">dist</span><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:10pt;text-align:justify">
</span><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:10pt;text-align:justify">he:will:bite:him</span><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:10pt;text-align:justify">
</span><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:10pt;text-align:justify">big</span><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:10pt;text-align:justify">
</span><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:10pt;text-align:justify;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-variant-caps:small-caps">rel.abs comp</span><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:10pt;text-align:justify">
</span><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:10pt;text-align:justify">is</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:10pt;text-align:justify"> 'The dog will bite that man
</span><i style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:10pt;text-align:justify">who is big</i><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:10pt;text-align:justify">’</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">
<b>*</b></span></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="text-align:justify;font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">’The dog,
<i>who is big</i>, will bite that man.’</span></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Example (1) can only be interpreted as 'the man who is big' and never 'the dog who is big'. This has been confirmed through careful and systematic elicitation on this topic and confirmed by examples in my growing corpus (currently at about 1500 naturalistic
utterances). </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Dixon (1977) notes similar restrictions in Yidiɲ. On page 323 of his grammar he posits the <span style="font-size:11pt;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-variant-caps:small-caps;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial">coreferentiality
constraint</span>: "<i>There must be an NP common to the main clause and subordinate clause, and it must be in surface S or O function in each clause." </i></div>
<div><i><br>
</i></div>
<div>Unlike the Ngkolmpu example, this applies to both the matrix NP and the subordinate NP which only applies to the matrix NP. Yet, importantly for my purpose, does place a restriction on the role of the matrix NP. I am curious to see if people know of other
examples of these kind of constraints in matrix NPs? or perhaps there is a paper that I have missed in my (rather brief) survey of the literature on the topic. <br>
<br>
Regards,</div>
<div>Matt</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Matthew J. Carroll</div>
<div><i><br>
</i></div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Lingtyp mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a><br>
<a href="https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flistserv.linguistlist.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Flingtyp&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cc8fd8c4dcfaa49e9c22a08d70e5aa84d%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636993654879024821&sdata=MWwIUyJmOkngPlZMfRy7EqCtEEq8%2FHlEeC%2BfsR5T5AQ%3D&reserved=0" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div style="border:1pt solid rgb(156,101,0);padding:0pt;line-height:12pt;background-color:rgb(255,235,156);text-align:center;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial">
<span style="font-size:10pt;color:black"><b>NOTE: This email originated from outside Chapman’s network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know content is safe.</b></span>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Lingtyp mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a><br>
<a href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a><br>
</blockquote></div>