25.1436, Review: Historical Linguistics; Syntax; Typology: Hendery (2012)

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-25-1436. Tue Mar 25 2014. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 25.1436, Review: Historical Linguistics; Syntax; Typology: Hendery (2012)

Fund Drive 2014
http://linguistlist.org/fund-drive/2014/

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

Reviews: 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: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 14:17:20
From: Pratik Chikhaliya [prtkc2009 at gmail.com]
Subject: Relative Clauses in Time and Space

E-mail this message to a friend:
http://linguistlist.org/issues/emailmessage/verification.cfm?iss=25-1436.html&submissionid=19938747&topicid=9&msgnumber=1
 
Discuss this message: 
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/get-review.cfm?subid=19938747


Book announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/23/23-3354.html

AUTHOR: Rachel  Hendery
TITLE: Relative Clauses in Time and Space
SUBTITLE: A case study in the methods of diachronic typology
SERIES TITLE: Typological Studies in Language 101
PUBLISHER: John Benjamins
YEAR: 2012

REVIEWER: Pratik H Chikhaliya, University of Hyderabad

SUMMARY

Rachel Hendery’s “Relative Clause in Time and Space”, published in 2012, is a
survey of historically related relative clause constructions based on
diachronic typology. It grew out of many synchronic typological works. Her
work shows what kind of research is possible in the area of diachronic
syntactic typology. It fills a research gap in that it addresses a missing
area in previous work on Generative Linguistics which is providing a
historical perspective. This book is designed to capture the historical
syntactic change of relative clause constructions in natural languages.

In Chapter 1, Hendery answers the following questions: i) What is the
difference between diachronic and synchronic study?; ii) What is the
importance of (syntactic) typology for investigating language change?; and
iii) How can we investigate typology with the help of historical linguistics?
The study passes through three important phases: i) Synchronic typology (i.e.
synchronic information); ii) Applied diachronic typology (i.e. the area of
interaction between diachronic and synchronic); and iii) Diachronic typology
(i.e. diachronic information). These three types are categorized differently
as per their functions which vary individually. She mentions methods of
diachronic typology following the question of “Why use relative clause as a
case study?” Further, she also briefly introduces relative clauses and tries
to establish a common ground for the reader to understand the phenomena of
relative clauses by discussing all terminology used in previous synchronic
studies. At the end, she categorizes types and subtypes of relative clauses,
relative markers, compares relative clause constructions in the world’s
languages and tries to check relative clauses through time.

In Chapter 2, she examines the question of items which can be co-opted for use
as ‘relative clause markers’. She reconsiders the discussion of: (i) Heine and
Kuteva (2002) (‘World Lexicon of Grammaticalisation’, provides sources of
‘relative conjunctions’ as demonstratives, the word ‘here’, and
interrogatives; Heine & Kuteva 2002: 335), where Hendery shows that there are
other sources of relative clause markers besides demonstratives and
interrogatives; and (ii) Lehmann (1984), who gave a more systematic,
three-operation framework (i.e. subordination, attribution, and empty place
formation). Through (ii), Hendery provides the organizational principles for
the discussion of the origin of relative clauses and their markers. Hendery
claims that Lehmann’s four outcomes of relative clause marker change (1984)
are only a subset of the many extensions that can occur and can be explained
by the similarities between the source and outcomes of extensions in terms of
Lehmann’s three-operations. Additionally, Hendery, in this chapter, shows that
there are some linguistic traces (i.e. linguistic elements) that are sources
of relative clause markers, while others can be the outcome of change in
markers. There are certainly other elements that may well be sources in one
language and outcomes in another. She also mentions that change in relative
clause markers generally proceeds either through fossilization of an element
that appears in relative clauses or on the clause boundary, for reasons
unrelated to the relative clause itself. Later in her case study, she
discusses syntactic elements (i.e. pronouns, classifiers, generic nouns, etc.)
by providing language data.

Development from interrogative pronouns to relative clause markers is
extremely common, especially, in European languages. This development supports
Maxwell’s hypotheses (1982) and Romaine (1984c), who claim that relative
clause markers especially, pronominal markers, begin in a lower position of
the Accessibility Hierarchy and gradually spread up the scale to core
relatives. Hendery concludes that a wider variety of elements (i.e. pronouns,
classifiers, generic nouns, interrogatives, demonstratives, etc.) are involved
in developing into relative clause markers. There is strong evidence for some
of these, such as demonstratives, interrogatives and discourse markers with
multiple attested cases that cannot be explained in any other way. Others,
such as generic nouns and personal pronouns, certainly seem to be sources in
some languages, but the processes by which they develop into relative clause
markers are not as clear. Classifiers, indefinite pronouns, possessive
markers, comparatives and definite articles, on the other hand, have some sort
of diachronic relationship with relative clause markers; there is no evidence
of a direct source-outcome relationship.

In Chapter 3, “Other types of relationship between grammatical markers”, the
author focuses on the extension and narrowing of markers within the set of
relative clauses in a language. This kind of redistribution is found when
there is more than one marker competing in various relative contexts in some
sort of paradigm. She also talks about the environment when relative clause
markers are lost entirely, where loss means when a language goes from having a
relative marker to having none or the obsolescence of a specific marker due to
total replacement by a new one. The author talks about the distribution of
markers in terms of the case role of NPrel (co-referent Noun Phrase in
Relative Clause). This concept is synchronically treated by Keenan and
Comrie’s Accessibility Hierarchy (1977). Maxwell (1982) shows that AH
(Accessibility Hierarchy) also makes predictions about the direction and
progress of change in the distribution of relative clause markers. Maxwell’s
relativisation strategies say that markers that are extended from limited
contexts to less restricted ones will only spread to adjacent positions on the
AH and will not skip any position. Further, Romaine (1984c) examines a simpler
prediction on the basis of a diachronic study of Germanic relative clause
markers. The distribution of some relative clause markers does not have
anything to do with pronominalisation strategies and is determined by some
other features such as animacy, noun class etc. In terms of the loss of
markers and typological change, sometimes there is internal motivation. The
study on Tok Pisin by Aitchison (1992) shows that there are some rules that
may govern the loss of relative clause markers. In some cases, external
motivation also leads to the loss of markers. Aitchison discusses the formal
rather than functional changes that can affect relative clause markers, for
example, she examines cliticisation, affixation, or changes in their
inflection. Language contact may be another reason for the loss of relative
markers. These are the sorts of steps taken to examine diachronic typology at
the micro level.
 
In Chapter 4, “Syntactic change in the development of RC constructions”,
Hendery discusses possible changes in other features of relative clauses, from
most to least attested: i.) Deranking to a balanced verb: at least one
well-attested case of gradual change (Japanese); and multiple cases in which a
balanced construction is thought to have been copied, but the process is not
attested (i.e. a complex sentence in which neither of the verbs is deranked
can be said to be ‘balanced’); ii.) Development of prenom. (prenominal RCs):
at least two unrelated, attested cases (one gradual, one copied), and further
reconstructed cases; iii.) Loss of postnom. (postnominal RCs): a few attested
cases, but all except one related to each other; iv.) Development of correl.
(correlative constructions): one well documented case (Georgian); v.)
Development of postnoms.: multiple semi-attested cases (no strong evidence for
gradual development); vi.) Loss of correl.: a few (related) attested cases
(Indo-European); vii.) Loss of prenom.: a few (related) semi-attested cases
(Turkic) in which the degree to which they have been lost and is further
debatable; viii.) Balanced to deranked verb: no clearly attested cases of
gradual change; multiple cases where it is thought that relative clauses with
deranked verbs were copied or based on non-relative clauses constructions, but
again, none in which the process is attested; ix.) Parataxis to hypotaxis: no
clearly attested cases. Overall, she says that discontinuous change is in fact
quite common.

Hendery, in Chapter 5, “Relevant factors in language change”, discusses the
factors responsible for language change with reference to relative clauses.
She claims that the position of relative clauses in a language correlates with
the language’s ‘basic’ constituent order. She discusses this concept of basic
constituent order in a very brief manner. Theoretical syntactic literature
claims that the ‘basic word order’ of a language is present in the DS (Deep
Structure), but in typology, as she discusses, the ‘basic word order’ (e.g.
(S)VO: (Subject - Verb - Object)) can be seen as either a statistical
statement about which order is found in a language, or a statement about
markedness, i.e., which word order has the fewest stylistic or syntactic
restrictions. Hendery examines the cases of attested change among relative
clause positions and types in order to see which of the various factors (i.e.
basic word order, order of other phrases, relative clause marker type and
position, embedding, language family and contact, etc.) seem to be most
relevant. She does not provide enough evidence to determine the relevance of
embedding. Change in the basic word order of a language does not seem to be a
factor responsible for change in the relative clause position. Change in the
order of other phrases in some cases has contributed to change in relative
clause construction, especially when it is transparently analogous to another
modifier construction. While discussing all these factors, we see that the
theme of language contact has repeatedly made an appearance. Hendery’s study
shows that all languages that have undergone attested changes in relative
clause position have been in close contact with a language that has modeled
the construction they adopted. As she mentions, it is not only the typology of
the languages involved that affects the way in which contact affects relative
clauses, but also the type of contact. Hendery reconsiders Alsagoff and Lick’s
hypotheses (1988), Stilo’s (1987, 2004) and Johanson’s (cf. Johanson 2002)
suggestions to examine her generalization. Finally, she supports Lehmann’s
hypothesis about shift between prenominal and postnominal relative clauses,
which suggests that prenominal relative clauses require longer and/or more
intense contact in order to be copied than postnominal relative clauses do.

In Chapter 6, Hendery provides a brief summary of what she has discussed in
preceding chapters, followed by a logical explanation of the changes that
occurred and of how to map the changes with regard to space and time. She
includes a table showing changes, from best attested to least attested (i.e.:
these changes are those that have either been mentioned in the literature, or
that we might logically expect to find, but which turned out to not to be
attested at all.). She argues that if discontinuous change is more common than
gradual change, it would explain why so many languages have multiple ways of
expressing the function of a relative clause. Further, she mentions that it is
a norm rather than an exception for communities to be in contact with each
other and for speakers to be multilingual. The mechanisms involved in
contact-induced change are reminiscent of those involved in language internal
change: analogy; extension; reanalysis, etc. Diachronic evidence provides some
support for an analysis of deranked relative clauses as DPs (Determiner
Phrases (Other Phrases)). A diachronic typology can bring a whole new level of
information to the construction of taxonomies. So, diachronic interactions
between constructions are one of the few windows we have into what speakers
consider ‘similar’ and ‘different’. Analogical change and extension will only
take place between constructions that speakers see as similar. She suggests
that a taxonomy that aims to provide the most information possible would need
to account for both formal and functional relationships between constructions,
which is why some sort of network diagram may work better than a tree in some
circumstances. However, for some purposes, a tree-based taxonomy representing
common descent is necessary. She mentions that from a theoretical syntactic
view, her findings in this study have implications for the structure of the
NP/DP and for the analysis of various types of relative clauses. The findings
of this study have applications beyond the area of diachronic typology, with
implications for other areas of synchronic and historical investigation.

EVALUATION

The book is written very well and its literature review is thorough and
proceeds in a step by step fashion. The main points are explained by
presenting appropriate data alongside the analysis. The book mainly discusses
diachronic typology based on a collection of synchronic typological works,
which allows the author to check the historical change and development in
relative clause constructions. The scope of the book covers many language
families worldwide. It examines relative markers, types of relatives and the
similarities and differences between different relative markers in the same
language based on the available synchronic work on that language. It unfolds
the complex process of change and development in complex sentence
constructions in a language. The author deserves much credit for her vast,
thorough literature review, which considers linguists’ claims, and for
formulating generalizations based on data available from previous literature
that is extrapolated to the present diachronic work.

This book accounts for data on relative clauses from many language families:
Semitic, Celtic, Chadic, Dravidian, Australian, Ethiopic, Germanic,
Finno-Ugric, Indo-European, Indo-Aryan, Kartvelian, Proto-Indo-European,
Ngumpin-Yapa, Nguni, Sayhadic, Sinitic, Slavic, Turkic, etc. Such research on
diachronic typology, based on synchronic typological works, is one of the very
few such research projects on historical change. Hendery has covered all
topics related to relative clause constructions, which is substantial. In sum,
the present work is a new direction for research in diachronic typology.

Finally, I would like to shed light upon a relevant aspect of Indo-Aryan
Languages. For example, the relative marker and complementizer ‘ki’ in Hindi
and ‘ke’ in Gujarati are the same for both constructions (i.e. relative clause
construction and complement clause construction) in both languages. I think
this issue has not been addressed in the present study. However, this is a
minor point and does not detract from Hendery’s highly successful diachronic
typological study.

The book would be useful for the linguists and (young) research scholars who
are interested in diachronic typology and historical change. There is a wider
possibility for similar kinds of empirical research in different types of
constructions, meaning the present study may attract the interest of other
linguists and research scholars as well. Even though her present work is quite
lengthy but it is user friendly and easily readable.

REFERENCES

Aitchison, Jean. 1992. Relative clauses in Tok Pisin: Is there a natural
pathway? In Internal and External Factors in Syntactic Change, Marinel
Gerritsen & Dieter Stein (eds.), 295-316. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Alsagoff, Lubna & Lick, Ho Chee. 1988. The relative clause in colloquial
Singapore English. World Englishes 17(2): 127-138.

Heine, Bernd & Kuteva, Tania. 2002. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization.
Cambridge: CUP.

Johanson, Lars. 2002. Structural Factors in Turkic Language Contacts.
Richmond: Curzon Press.

Keenan, Edward L. & Comrie, Bernard. 1977. Noun Phrase accessibility and
universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8(1): 63-99.

Lehmann, Christian. 1984. Der Relativsatz: Typologie seiner Strukturen,
Theorie seiner Funktionen, Kompendium seiner Grammatik. Tubingen: Gunter Narr.

Lehmann, Christian. 1986. On the typology of relative clauses. Linguistics
(Vol. 24 663-381).

Maxwell, Daniel N. 1982. Implications of NP accessibility for diachronic
syntax. Folia Linguistica Historica 3(2): 135-152.

Romaine, Suzanne. 1984c. Towards a typology of relative clause formation
strategies in Germanic. In Historical Syntax, Jacek Fisiak (ed.), 437-470.
Berlin: Mouton.

Stilo, Donald. 1987. Ambiposition as an areal response: The case study of the
Iranian zone. In Selected papers from SALA7, Elena Bashir, Madhav Deshpande &
Peter Edwin Hook (eds.), 308-335. Bloomington IN: Indiana University
Linguistics Club.

Stilo, Donald. 2004. Iranian as a buffer zone between the universal typologies
of Turkic and Semitic. In Linguistic Convergence and Areal Diffusion: Case
Studies from Iranian, Semitic and Turkic, Eva Agnes Csato, Bo Isaksson &
Carina Jahani (eds.), 35-63. London: Routledge Curzon.


ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Pratik Chikhaliya is an M.Phil Research Scholar at Center for Applied
Linguistics and Translation Studies in University of Hyderabad located in
Hyderabad in an Indian state, Andhra Pradesh. His present research area is
Complementation in Gujarati. His research interests are: Complex sentence
structures in Indo-Aryan Languages, Syntax and Semantic interface, Complex
Predicate, and Focus Particles.








------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This Year the LINGUIST List hopes to raise $75,000. This money will go to help keep the List running by supporting all of our Student Editors for the coming year.

See below for donation instructions, and don't forget to check out Fund Drive 2014 site!

http://linguistlist.org/fund-drive/2014/

There are many ways to donate to LINGUIST!

You can donate right now using our secure credit card form at https://linguistlist.org/donation/donate/donate1.cfm

Alternatively you can also pledge right now and pay later. To do so, go to: https://linguistlist.org/donation/pledge/pledge1.cfm

For all information on donating and pledging, including information on how to donate by check, money order, PayPal or wire transfer, please visit: http://linguistlist.org/donation/

The LINGUIST List is under the umbrella of Eastern Michigan University and as such can receive donations through the EMU Foundation, which is a registered 501(c) Non Profit organization. Our Federal Tax number is 38-6005986. These donations can be offset against your federal and sometimes your state tax return (U.S. tax payers only). For more information visit the IRS Web-Site, or contact your financial advisor.

Many companies also offer a gift matching program, such that they will match any gift you make to a non-profit organization. Normally this entails your contacting your human resources department and sending us a form that the EMU Foundation fills in and returns to your employer. This is generally a simple administrative procedure that doubles the value of your gift to LINGUIST, without costing you an extra penny. Please take a moment to check if your company operates such a program.

Thank you very much for your support of LINGUIST!
 


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-25-1436	
----------------------------------------------------------
Visit LL's Multitree project for over 1000 trees dynamically generated
from scholarly hypotheses about language relationships:
          http://multitree.linguistlist.org/