24.3308, Review: Historical Linguistics; Syntax; Typology: Comrie & Estrada-Fern=?UTF-8?Q?=C3=A1ndez_?=(2012)

[linguist at linguistlist.org]

LINGUIST List: Vol-24-3308. Mon Aug 19 2013. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 24.3308, Review: Historical Linguistics; Syntax; Typology: Comrie & Estrada-Fernández (2012)

Moderator: Damir Cavar, Eastern Michigan U <damir at linguistlist.org>

Reviews: Veronika Drake, U of Wisconsin Madison
Monica Macaulay, U of Wisconsin Madison
Rajiv Rao, U of Wisconsin Madison
Joseph Salmons, U of Wisconsin Madison
Mateja Schuck, U of Wisconsin Madison
Anja Wanner, U of Wisconsin Madison
       <reviews at linguistlist.org>

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

Do you want to donate to LINGUIST without spending an extra penny? Bookmark
the Amazon link for your country below; then use it whenever you buy from
Amazon!

USA: http://www.amazon.com/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlist-20
Britain: http://www.amazon.co.uk/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlist-21
Germany: http://www.amazon.de/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlistd-21
Japan: http://www.amazon.co.jp/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlist-22
Canada: http://www.amazon.ca/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlistc-20
France: http://www.amazon.fr/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlistf-21

For more information on the LINGUIST Amazon store please visit our
FAQ at http://linguistlist.org/amazon-faq.cfm.

Editor for this issue: Rajiv Rao <rajiv at linguistlist.org>
================================================================  

Visit LL's Multitree project for over 1000 trees dynamically generated
from scholarly hypotheses about language relationships:
          http://multitree.linguistlist.org/
					
					

Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 10:54:25
From: Mahamane Abdoulaye [mlabdoulaye at gmail.com]
Subject: Relative Clauses in Languages of the Americas

E-mail this message to a friend:
http://linguistlist.org/issues/emailmessage/verification.cfm?iss=24-3308.html&submissionid=14641577&topicid=9&msgnumber=1
 
Discuss this message: 
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/get-review.cfm?subid=14641577


Book announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/23/23-4242.html

EDITOR: Bernard  Comrie
EDITOR: Zarina  Estrada-Fernández
TITLE: Relative Clauses in Languages of the Americas
SUBTITLE: A typological overview
SERIES TITLE: Typological Studies in Language 102
PUBLISHER: John Benjamins
YEAR: 2012

REVIEWER: Mahamane Laoualy Abdoulaye, Abdou Moumouni University

INTRODUCTION

This edited volume stems from a series of seminars on linguistic complexity at
the Department of Linguistics, University of Sonora (Hermosillo, Mexico), with
a focus on the indigenous languages of the Americas. The volume assembles 13
contributions on the topic of relative clauses (RCs) by linguists associated
with the seminars. Besides the 13 main chapters, the book also has an
introduction by the editors, a map of the languages cited, and language,
author, and subject indices. The main body of the book is organized into three
parts: a historical/typological/theoretical part with 3 papers; a second part
devoted to Uto-Aztecan languages with 4 papers; and a final part on languages
elsewhere in the Americas with six papers.

SUMMARY

In the first contribution, ''Toward a diachronic typology of relative clause”
(pp. 3-25), Talmy Givón proposes that there are two mega-pathways for the
creation of RCs: the clause-chaining pathway and the nominalized “V +
Complement” pathway. The first pathway, in fact, encompasses two sub-paths, of
which only one, I think (see the evaluation section), may be a genuine source
of RCs. In this pathway, at the initial stage, a clause stands in a paratactic
relation with a non-restrictive RC. The latter becomes a typical embedded
restrictive RC once the two clauses merge their intonation contour (plus any
language specific adaptations; cf. Geman: Ich kenne die Frau, DIE hat dem Mann
das Buch gegeben ‘I know the woman, the one gave the book to the man’ > Ich
kenne die Frau die dem Mann das Buch gegeben hat ‘I know the woman who gave
the book to the man’). The author also cites a related example in Hebrew,
where the paratactic structure literally meaning “the man, the one I met
yesterday...” merges its intonation contours to become the equivalent of “the
man I met yesterday...”. The second major pathway to RCs involves a
nominalized clause standing in a paratactic relation with another clause. At
the restrictive RC stage, the two clauses merge their intonational contours
(e.g. paraphrasing Ute, “the woman, [that] putter of rock on the table”... >
“the woman putter of rock on the table”, i.e., ‘the woman that put a rock on
the table’). The author also claims that the same paratactic to syntactic
change explains the emergence of cleft and wh-question constructions in some
languages.

The second contribution, ''The evolution of language and elaborateness of
grammar: The case of relative clauses in creole languages” (pp. 27-46), by
Tania Kuteva and Bernard Comrie, argues that language structure is simple
before it evolves to become more complex. To ground their claim, the authors
focus on the sharp contrast between non-creole languages and creole languages
in their way of marking RCs. Non-creole languages can simultaneously mark
their RC with zero, one, two, three, or even five markers, as in the Ngemba
language (Bantoid, Cameroon), and can also increase the number of relative
markers following language contact. By contrast, creole languages in the
authors’ sample (from all the over the world) use just one marker on their
relative clause (no more, no less), regardless of the RC properties of the
languages that gave rise to the creole language. The authors propose that
creole languages simply did not have enough time to develop complex grammars
beyond the basic one form/ one meaning correspondence.

In the third contribution, ''Some issues in the linking between syntax and
semantics in relative clauses'' (pp. 47-64), Robert D. Van Valin Jr. proposes
a structural representation of the two main types of RCs (external and
internal-head RCs), as well as the rules for their interpretation. The author
reminds readers that internally-headed RCs (IHRCs) were not paid due service
in the Generativist framework, where they were analyzed as externally-headed
RCs (EHRCs), with covert movement and a null head. Using the Role and
Reference Grammar model of clause structure (the Layered Structure of the
Clause), the author proposes two different representations for the two types
of RCs. The EHRC appears at a Noun Phrase’s (NP’s) periphery, modifying the
noun. By contrast, the IHRC, so to speak, wraps around the head noun and the
whole clause is an argument of the main clause. Nonetheless, the EHRCs and the
IHRCs present a symmetrical challenge to the speaker/hearer: s/he must recover
the function of the external head noun in the EHRC, or recover the function
fulfilled in the main clause by the internal head noun of the IHRC. This
enables the author to posit very similar rules of interpretation linking the
syntax and semantics of the two types of RCs.

The fourth contribution, which is the first dealing with language-specific
issues, is titled ''Relative clauses and nominalizations in Yaqui'' (pp.
67-95), by Albert Álvarez González. The paper describes in detail the five
main relative strategies used in Yaqui (Uto-Aztecan, Mexico, USA), which
depend on the syntactic function of the relativized noun: subject, direct
object, indirect object, oblique, and locative. All five strategies use
nominalization to turn a clause into a NP which, according to the author,
stands in apposition with the head noun (p. 89). The apposition is then
interpreted as a modification in the typical sense of a RC. The three
nominalizing affixes used in the five types of RCs also function as clause
nominalizers elsewhere in the language. Despite their formal complexity, RCs
in Yaqui are shown to respect the NP Accessibility Hierarchy in relativization
(Keenan and Comrie 1977). Nonetheless, the author, in his final discussion,
claims that Yaqui has no true relative clauses, thus reducing relativization
to nominalization.

In contrast to the Álvarez Gonzalez’s contribution, the fifth paper ''On
relative clause and related constructions in Yaqui'' (pp. 97-126), by Lilián
Guerrero, claims that this language truly has RCs that are distinct from
non-relative nominalized subordinate clauses. The author further complements
the data by showing that Yaqui can have internally-headed RCs, although these
are not very frequent. A major contribution of the paper is its study of the
discourse functions of RCs. For example, intransitive subject RCs serve to
introduce new protagonists in a story, which helps explain the high frequency
of this type of RC, its high degree of nominalization, and its high degree of
attachment to head nouns (as compared to RCs relativizing other syntactic
roles, which are less frequent, less nominalized, and more detached from their
heads). The author also meticulously describes the differences between true
RCs and related non-relative subordinate clauses.

In the sixth contribution, ''From demonstrative to relative marker to clause
linker: Relative clause formation in Pima Bajo'' (pp. 127-146), Zarina
Estrada-Fernández claims that in this language, only the subject and the
object can be relativized in post-nominal clauses whose verb is suffixed with
an element -kig (which also functions as a demonstrative in the language), as
seen on p. 134 in the following examples: hig a’an [gii-kig] vig ‘det. feather
[fall-rel.] red’, i.e., ‘the feather that fell is red’; ig okosi [in-niir-kig]
ig gi’id ‘det. woman [I-see-rel.] det. big’, i.e., ‘the woman I saw is big’.
The author claims that NPs in other syntactic functions cannot be relativized.
They certainly appear next to clauses that also contain the element -kig, but
in these cases, the element is attached to the postposition rather than to the
verb (see the following example containing a relativized oblique nominal: aap
timitim maa ik okosi-vui-ta-kig in-tikpan ‘you tortillas give det.
woman-to-TA-link. I-work’, which the author directly translates as ‘you gave
tortillas to the woman I worked for’, p. 142). In these clauses, the element
-kig is not taken to be a relativizer, but rather a clause
subordinator/linker. The author justifies her straight translation of these
examples with English RCs by saying that the constructions, although not RCs,
are functionally equivalent to RCs. It should be noted, however, that
subjects, too, can appear in non-relative constructions where the element -kig
is attached to a relative pronoun (so labeled by the author) that is based on
an interrogative pronoun, as in the following example on p. 143: ig kil mua
gogos aita-kig in-kiik ‘det. man kill dog rel.pro.-link. I-bite’, translated
as ‘the man killed the dog that bit me’, where -kig is taken to be a
non-relative clause linker. The author fails to give examples concerning
direct objects in the non-relative -but translated as relative- constructions.
The author concludes that Pima Bajo RCs conform to the NP Accessibility
Hierarchy of Keenan and Comrie (1977).

In the seventh contribution, ''Functional underpinnings of diachrony in
relative clause formation: The nominalization-relativization connection in
Northern Paiute'' (pp. 147-170), Tim Thornes shows that relativization and
nominalization are so intimately connected, and due to this, he wonders
whether the former should be reduced to the latter. Nonetheless, despite the
author’s insistence on their similarities, throughout the paper he maintains a
terminological distinction between the two phenomena. Northern Paiute can
relativize subjects (with the nominalizer -dia), objects, and obliques (with
the nominalizer  -na). Besides nominalization, RCs display other nominal
features (such as a possessive subject inside them). These features
distinguish RCs from complement and adverbial clauses, which take the
nominalizer –na, but have no other nominal feature. The author suggests that
this may confirm the claim by some that headless RCs may give rise to other
types of subordinate clauses through “refinitization” (see Epps 2007 and this
volume).

In the eighth contribution, ''Clauses as noun modifiers in Toba (Guaycuruan)''
(pp. 173-190) by María Belén Carpio and Marisa Censabella is the first paper
of Part III of the volume, devoted to languages in areas other than the
Mexico-US border area. Toba (Guaycuruan, Argentina) has three post-nominal
relativization strategies that do not cater to the usual accessibility
hierarchy, but rather code the informational nature of RCs’ contents. One
marker, maʒe (related to a 3rd person pronoun and used only in
relativization), introduces typical restrictive RCs that contain known or
construable information. Maʒe RCs can relativize nominals in all syntactic
functions, down to constituents of possessive constructions. Toba, however,
also has a series of six demonstratives that code direction, position, or the
perceptual or cognitive status of referents. These demonstratives can be used
as such to introduce RCs that code new information that will be relevant down
a storyline (the author used a set of nine narrative texts as a corpus). The
same demonstratives can be combined with a topic marker to introduce RCs
modifying topicalized nominals. Finally, the demonstratives can be used to
build noun complement clauses, which share with RCs the status of being
embedded inside a NP, but have different semantics (no coreference with a head
noun).

In the ninth contribution, ''Between headed and headless relative clauses''
(pp. 191-211), Patience Epps discusses the headed/non-headed continuum in the
RCs of Hup (Madahup, Brazil). Indeed, according to the author, the traditional
two-way or the revised three-way distinction between headed, light-headed, and
headless RCs cannot account for the RCs in Hup, which are nominalized clauses
that are best conceived as being in apposition with a head element. This
element can be: (i) a lexical noun; (ii) a semi-generic bound noun (such as a
noun “-egg” when it refers back to a more specific referent, such as
“chicken-egg”); (iii) a more generic classifier (referring to abstract
properties of objects); and, finally, (iv) a plural marker, which is the
weakest “nominal” to head a RC. Hup also has headless RCs. According to the
author, Hup’s unmarked and non-restrictive headless RCs are the source of
adverbial clauses, which are structurally similar to the RCs. However, the
author adduces no evidence to support this particular claim (which goes
against Givón’s paratax to syntax general pathway for RC formation). The lack
of evidence for this claim contrasts with the meticulous and convincing
argumentation in favor of four distinct points along the continuum between
headed and headless RCs in Hup.

In the tenth contribution, ''Relative clauses in Seri'' (pp. 213-241), Stephen
A. Marlett claims that Seri (isolate, Mexico) has nominalized, yet
internally-headed RCs that have no relative pronoun and no special
subordination marker. RCs in Seri occur less frequently than one would expect.
For example, three folktales that contain 24, 60, and 132 clauses have,
respectively, only 3, 8, and 29 RCs. In Seri, subjects, objects, and obliques
can be relativized using different nominalization strategies: subject-oriented
strategies (with 4 nominalizers); object-oriented strategies (with 5
nominalizers); and oblique-oriented strategies (with 4 nominalizers). If an
object or oblique is relativized, the RC subject appears as a possessor of the
nominalized verb. Possible (internal) heads are: nouns, pronouns, proper
names, and null elements. If two NPs are in the RC, the head is easily
identified, since it cannot be modified by a determiner.

In the eleventh contribution, ''Relative clauses in Gavião of Rondônia'' (pp.
243-252), Denny Moore shows that Gavião (Tupi, Brazil) only has nominalized
clauses that can receive RC interpretation in appropriate referential
contexts. Terminologically, the author essentially describes “nominalized”
clauses throughout the paper and only in a final discussion section does he
look back to see which of these clauses can fit the definition of a RC. Gavião
has two discourse pronouns, mát and mére, that appear at the beginning of
sentences and refer back to elements in previous sentences. The two pronouns
can also be used as Verb Phrase (VP) or clause nominalizers. The pronoun mát
is used for concrete nominalizations (substantives, places, actions), while
mére is used for abstract nominalization (facts, reasons, manners; see p.
245). Contrary to discourse pronouns, nominalizers appear at the end of their
clause. The development from pronouns to nominalizers is given as follows
(slightly adapted by this reviewer): “Previous discourse + [mát/mére + S]” =>
“[VP/clause + mát/mére] + S”. The nominalized clause can have its subject,
object, or possessor as an internal head, or it may contain a null head. It
can also have an internal and an external head in the main clause in a
correlative-like construction.  Sometimes, the nominalized clause may be
placed in apposition with a noun. According to the author, when these
apposition clauses have an internal head, they can then be interpreted as RCs.

In the twelfth contribution, ''Relative clauses in Yucatec Maya: Light heads
vs. Null domain'' (pp.255-268), Rodrigo Gutiérrez-Bravo discusses the question
of headed versus headless RCs. Yucatec (Mayan, Mexico) has finite post-nominal
RCs that are very similar to regular clauses (they have no subordinator). The
language uses two RC strategies. Some RCs use a relative pronoun (identical
with the interrogative form) that is shifted to the RC’s left boundary. These
RCs can relativize nouns in nearly all syntactic functions (with corresponding
gaps in the RC – except for the head-marking of core arguments on the verb).
RCs with relative pronouns, however, cannot modify lexical heads unless they
are obliques. In the second strategy, called the “gap” strategy by the author,
the RCs have no relative pronoun and are comparable to English’s “the book I
read...”. This strategy can also relativize most syntactic functions: subject,
object, indirect object, temporal expressions, possessors, and prepositional
objects (with preposition stranding). RCs of both strategies can be headless
(in fact, this is almost the rule for the relative pronoun strategy). The
author claims that when a RC appears seemingly without a head, one is, in
reality, dealing with a null head RC, not a light-headed RC, nor a headless
RC, nor a free RC. That is, Yucatec only has headed RCs, whether the head is
overt or null. One argument in support of this claim is the fact that the null
head can be modified by determiners, quantifiers, etc., that is, the same
elements that can modify an overt noun. The author also shows that the null
head notion is, in any case, independently needed elsewhere in the grammar of
Yucatec.

In the thirteenth and last contribution, ''Questionable relatives'' (pp.
269-300), Marianne Mithun charts the development of the use of interrogative
pronoun-based relative pronouns in the recent history of Tuscarora (Iroquoian,
USA). The author finds that over a period of about a century, Tuscarora
interrogative pronouns have expended their contexts and occurrence in RCs.
This development, although very likely spurred by contact with English,
follows the sequence of steps as defined by Heine and Kuteva (2006). The
scheme, as adapted slightly by the author (cf. p. 284), has five stages: 1)
simple questions (as in: Who came?); 2) indefinite complement clauses (e.g. I
don’t know who came); 3) definite complement clauses (e.g. I know who came);
4) structures interpretable as headless RCs (e.g. I know the one who came);
and 5) headed RCs (e.g. I know the student who came). In any language,
interrogative pronouns can stand at various stages, although the overwhelming
majority of languages at stages 4 or 5 are concentrated in Europe. In
Tuscarora, the pronouns for ‘what, who, where’, and ‘when’ have today reached
stage 4 (headless RC), although none of them had such a use in the 19th
century. Also, no pronoun has reached the final stage. According to the
author, one factor that may influence the pace of expansion of individual
pronouns is the availability (or lack thereof) of constructions competing for
the same function.

EVALUATION

This is an interesting and informative book, with contributions from
well-known linguists, all of whom show a deep level of knowledge of the
languages on which they report, even beyond RCs. This allows for a comparison
between RCs and related constructions. The papers deal with a number of
typologically relevant aspects of RCs: headed versus headless RCs;
externally-headed versus internally-headed RCs; nominalized versus finite RCs;
the use of (interrogative-based) relative pronouns; restrictive versus
non-restrictive RCs; the accessibility hierarchy; embedded versus extraposed
RCs; the function of RCs in discourse; and the diachronic development and
avatars of RCs. The findings and analyses in the papers are innovative and
will be of interest to anyone dealing with RCs and the development of language
structure.

However, one issue that most papers evoke, about which there seems to be no
agreement, is the question of what is the relevant constituent for the
embedding of RCs; in particular, externally-headed non-nominalized RCs. Some
papers assume that RCs are embedded foremost in the main clause (Givón,
Guerrero (pp. 97f), Estrada-Fernández (p. 127)), while others say that the
relevant embedding is inside the NP (Van Valin (p. 56), Thornes (p. 155),
Carpio and Censabella (p. 178), Gutiérrez-Bravo (p. 256) and, maybe, Moore (p.
244)). Álvarez González explicitly discusses both options (p. 69). Givón
(2001: 175), as cited by Álvarez González (p. 69), does claim that the RC is
embedded within the NP, but in his contribution to this volume, he focuses on
the main clause as the relevant embedding constituent. Maybe for this reason,
Givón considers that constructions containing a head noun and a RC would still
be at the pre-RC stage if they are not embedded in the main clause (for
example, if they are separated from the main clause by a pause; cf. the
Bambara examples (3a-e), pp. 5f). If one considers the NP as the relevant
embedding constituent, then these constructions would not contain a “would be”
RC, but rather a typical noun-modifying RC.

There are also specific issues with some of the papers. In Lilián Guerrero’s
contribution, on p. 100, there are two comments on inadequate (non-matching)
data and a comment on a non-existing example (3c). The discussion section is
sometimes difficult to follow, such as when the author claims - in an attempt
to explain why non-relative subordinate clauses have no gap - that direct
perception always involves a state of affairs and its participants, which then
must all be always expressed. However, on p. 120, example (32b) shows that one
can perceive a state of affairs long after main participants are gone (also,
on p. 136, Estrada-Fernández shows that Equi clauses have gaps without being
RCs). The contribution by Marlett is sometimes difficult to read, maybe due to
the complexity of the language discussed. Also, some RCs he labels “stacked”
are in fact simple coordinated RCs (see data (22, 23, 30, 40-42)) and some
others he labels “center-embedding” are probably right-embedding (see data
(50)). Some minor issues are also found in Estrada-Fernández’s contribution,
such as the claim that a RC provides an assertion about the relativized noun
(cf. p. 127). Some typos can be found on p. 129, 135n5, 137, and 142, where a
verb meaning ‘cut’ is glossed as ‘lend’.

REFERENCES

Givón, T. (2001). Syntax: A introduction. Vol. II. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Heine, Berndt and Tania Kuteva (2006). The changing languages of Europe.
Oxford: OUP.

Epps, Patience (2007). Escape from the noun phrase: The adventures of a
relative clause. Paper presented at the Seminario de Complejidad Sintáctica,
Hermosillo, Sonora.

Keenan, Edward L. and Bernard B. Comrie (1977). Noun phrase accessibility and
universal grammar. Linguistics Inquiry 8(1):63-69.


ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Mahamane L. Abdoulaye teaches linguistics at the Abdou Moumouni University,
Niamey. His main research focuses on Hausa and Zarma Chiine morphology,
syntax, and semantics.








----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-24-3308	
----------------------------------------------------------
Visit LL's Multitree project for over 1000 trees dynamically generated
from scholarly hypotheses about language relationships:
          http://multitree.linguistlist.org/