25.3800, Review: Linguistic Theories; Semantics; Syntax: Enrico (2013)

The LINGUIST List linguist at linguistlist.org
Mon Sep 29 16:35:02 UTC 2014


LINGUIST List: Vol-25-3800. Mon Sep 29 2014. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 25.3800, Review: Linguistic Theories; Semantics; Syntax: Enrico (2013)

Moderators: Damir Cavar, Indiana U <damir at linguistlist.org>
            Malgorzata E. Cavar, Indiana U <gosia at linguistlist.org>

Reviews: reviews at linguistlist.org
Anthony Aristar <aristar at linguistlist.org>
Helen Aristar-Dry <hdry at linguistlist.org>
Sara Couture, Indiana U <sara 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: Malgorzata Cavar <gosia at linguistlist.org>
================================================================  


Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 12:34:35
From: A Beshears [abeshears at gmail.com]
Subject: The Internally-headed Relative Clause Construction

E-mail this message to a friend:
http://linguistlist.org/issues/emailmessage/verification.cfm?iss=25-3800.html&submissionid=27119137&topicid=9&msgnumber=1
 
Discuss this message: 
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/get-review.cfm?subid=27119137


Book announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/24/24-668.html

AUTHOR: John  Enrico
TITLE: The Internally-headed Relative Clause Construction
SUBTITLE: A Comparative Semantic Analysis
SERIES TITLE: LINCOM Studies in Language Typology 25
PUBLISHER: Lincom GmbH
YEAR: 2013

REVIEWER: A E Beshears, Jawaharlal Nehru University

Review's editor: Monica Macaulay

SUMMARY

In his book, Enrico explores the Internally Headed Relative Clause (IHRC)
Construction across several American Indian languages. While Enrico's own work
has largely been focussed on Haida, he is obviously familiar with the work of
linguists working in many other American Indian languages, referring to data
from a large number of these languages, particularly (Masset) Haida, Lakhota,
Navaho, and Cuzco Quechua.

Working with Combinatory Categorial Grammar (CCG), the author focuses in on
the semantics of IHRCs and the grammatical relationship between the head and
the two clauses. He concludes that there are two basic syntactic mechanisms
for IHRCs which languages can draw from, 1) the head category (defined as
np/(s\np), and 2) the adjective category (defined as (np\np)). The head
category accounts for the existence of relative pronouns and that, for many
languages, definiteness takes matrix scope over the relative clause. The
adjective category, on the other hand, is manifested where there are a)
restrictions on arguments that can be heads, b) null heads, c) incorporated
heads, and d) where definiteness restrictions apply.

Chapter 1, “The Gradual Discovery of Internally Headed Relative Clauses,” is
an overview of what IHRCs are, why they are significant, and of previous
literature on IHRCs in American Indian languages. IHRCs, where a noun phrase
(np) semantically belongs to the matrix clause but is syntactically within the
modifying clause, are particularly interesting because ''their syntax seems
starkly at odds with their semantics'' (p. 1). While many linguists worked on
IHRCs through the 1970s, Enrico points out several ''mysteries'' related to
IHRCs which still remain, some of which were mentioned by other authors but
not incorporated into the analysis, and others only obliquely mentioned by
previous researchers. These mysteries include the fact that we find long
distance dependency between the head and the matrix clause without apparent
movement, that IHRCs cannot occur with definite heads in some languages but
not others, and that many languages can have null, and/or incorporated heads.

Chapter 2, “Combinatory Categorial Grammar,” is a general overview of CCG and
some of the specific categories that Enrico employs in his analysis. He lays
out the basic assumptions that he works from, important because Enrico's own
assumptions and those underlying CCG differ greatly from other syntactic
theories. He argues that CCG is particularly suited for this kind of analysis
because it focuses entirely on the overt phonological form, and because it
gives greater freedom in the manner of semantic combination. Enrico expands on
automatic type raising (2.3.2), presuppositions and pro­drop (2.3.3), and
lexically prescribed binding (2.3.4), as these will play a significant role in
his later analysis.

In Chapter 3, “The Analysis of IHRCs,” Enrico outlines the possible CCG
Derivations of IHRCs and how those apply specifically to the unaddressed
mysteries of IHRCs. First, he lays out the two possible derivations (3.1).
Enrico argues that these are the only two ways to account for the fact that
the head (which he argues to be a noun phrase (np) and not a noun (n)) is
semantically an argument of each of two verbs in two distinct clauses, the
matrix clause and the relative clause. The first possible derivation is the
''head category,'' in which the head np must take the relative clause residue
as an argument, i.e. np/(s\np) in SOV languages. The second possible
derivation is the ''adjective category,'' in which the relativizer is ''a
deverbal modifier of the head, looking for the latter to satisfy its own
subcategorization inherited from its verb base,'' i.e. (np\np(head)\$ in SOV
languages (Enrico 2013:32).

In Section 3.1, Enrico gives several examples employing both possible
derivations in a variety of constructions including the presence of
postpositions, postpositional case markers, and alienable versus inalienable
possessors. The two derivations seem fairly equivalent, Enrico points out,
with the adjective category being slightly more favorable in handling case
markers and relative clause stacking. There are differences, though, which he
shows in Section 3.2. The adjective category is unable to combine directly
with a definite head as its innermost argument must be indefinite. The head
category derivation, on the other hand, is easily able to handle definite
heads with matrix scope. Enrico shows that it may be possible to avoid the
restrictions on the adjective category, eliminating the need for the head
category, but this leads to other unwanted implications.

The adjective category is the preferable derivation in languages where
definite heads and quantified heads are prohibited (3.2.3) and in accounting
for negative polarity and irrealis heads with negative indefinite relative
pronouns (3.2.4). The adjective category is necessary in null-headed IHRCs
(3.4), IHRCs with incorporated heads (3.5), cases where relative pronouns are
inside the IHRC (3.3.1), non-finite IHRCs with non­tense verb morphology
(3.2.4), and for dealing with the definiteness restriction in Lakhota, Navaho,
and Yuman (3.3.2).

Chapter 4, “Constraints on the IHRC Construction,” attempts to account for
cross-­linguistic variation on the IHRC. Unlike Chapter 3, this chapter is
much more speculative and its analyses are less conclusive, relying on some
potentially controversial assumptions. Previous accounts have been unable to
account for these variations in the structures of IHRCs, Enrico argues,
because of a ''dependence of supposed constraints on movements as syntactic
evidence.'' (Enrico 2013:77). Enrico instead focuses on semantics and parsing,
arguing that together they lead to a gradient of acceptability rather than a
clear judgment of acceptable or unacceptable. (This is, he acknowledges, very
difficult to prove in dying languages.)

Enrico addresses the variation in the definiteness and quantifier restrictions
in Lakhota (4.2), arguing that the requisite indefinite reading of Lakhota
IHRCs is explained by the frequency of the adjective category over the head
category and the impossibility of using it with definite heads (presumably the
hearer will interpret the IHRC as a adjective category derivation without any
counterevidence due to the lack of overt definite determiners).

Section 4.3, “Embedded Heads I: Heads in Complement and Adjunct Clauses,”
looks at the long distance semantic relation between the internal head and the
np comprising the whole IHRC, specifically in Haida. The analysis in Chapter 3
will handle embedded heads, but 'and', ''coordination of unlike categories,''
and reversing the order of composition, must be admitted in order to handle
violations of the Element Constraint (EC) which disallows embedding heads in
conjoined clauses (Enrico 2013:81). This is not totally unprecedented, Enrico
points out, as this type of conjunction is found in other Haida conjunctions.

Section 4.4, “Embedded Heads II: Heads embedded in Relative Clauses,” is
significantly longer than the other sections in Chapter 4, and the purpose of
this section is very unclear. Enrico begins by pointing out that Lakhota and
Mohave freely allow IHRCs embedded in lower relative clauses, while most
languages (such as Quechua, Navaho, Haida, and Mohawk) reject them because of
''crossing coreference'' (p. 82). For instance, in the following example
(Enrico's example (13), Section 4.4.1, p. 82; with simplified transcription),
''the relation between 'man' and 'gun picked up' is interrupted by 'dog bit'
'' (p. 81).

1.
*[[hastiin leechaa'i bishxash] ­e'e be'eldooh neidiita'] ­(n)e'e nahal'in
[[man dog 3.PERF.3.bite] ­REL gun 3.PERF.3.pick.up] ­REL bark
Intended (Enrico's translation): ‘The dog who the man who bitten by picked up
the gun is barking.’

In Section 4.4.2, Enrico shows that the adjective category cannot be used to
derive these examples, which are all ungrammatical. Therefore forward crossed
composition is necessary for deriving such examples, as backward crossed
composition is ruled out because of the need to preserve SOV word order.

These types of sentences, Enrico points out, are very limited in Lakhota and
Mojave, with only two examples (one from each language) in the literature.
These are not even good examples as ''the heads are in the wrong order'' and
they may not actually mean what they are intended to (he gives several
alternative interpretations). Thus, it may very well be the case that these
languages do not actually allow IHRCs to be embedded in lower relative
clauses.

Why are these sentences rejected, then, in most languages (Section 4.4.3)?
Enrico argues that listeners, who parse left to right, hear the sentence and
initially assume that the second verb must be the matrix verb and that the
preceding relative clause is an argument of that second verb. In two-headed
type relative clauses, the listener will hear yet another higher matrix clause
verb and be unable to parse its meaning in relation to what they have already
assumed is a single head rather than two relative clauses. Assuming, though,
that this is simply a limitation in parsing, Enrico points out that ''enough
exposure would [therefore] presumably enable a learner to develop the proper
order-sensitive derivational algorithm'' (p. 86). Thus, we must either
conclude that this type of construction is not actually possible in Mojave or
Lakhota or take the very unsatisfying position, for this reader at least, that
this is simply a case of difficulty in parsing which the hearer would learn to
accommodate eventually.

In Section 4.4.4, Enrico shows that there are some cases in which Haida does
allow embedded heads in infinitival relative clauses. This is why forward
crossed composition must be available,
because this is the only mechanism which explains why Haida allows these
constructions.

In Section 4.5, “Question Words in IHRCs: Presuppositional Islands in Haida,
Lakhota, and Navaho,” Enrico explores why languages differ in whether they
allow question words in relative clauses and, most significantly, why some
languages apparently allow question words in some relatives but not in others.
Again, this is related to the fact that in many American Indian languages,
IHRCs are definite and are, therefore, presuppositional islands.
Presuppositional islands restrict extraction because, by definition, the
presupposition must be a true proposition for the discourse to proceed. Thus,
those IHRCs which can be identified as definite cannot allow extraction of a
question word.

Chapter 5, “Conclusion,” summarizes the two derivational categories briefly
before transitioning to ''[the] reasons for choosing to work on semantics
within a categorial­grammar framework'' (p. 1) as promised in Chapter 1. Only
the first paragraph of the ''Conclusion'' is related to IHRCs or relative
clauses at all, and there are only a few arguments for why a CCG analysis is
preferable to a phrase structure analysis. Enrico argues that ''categorial
grammar gives us freedom in the manner of semantic combination'' (p. 102), but
he does not give any examples of how this freedom is useful or necessary for
his analysis, or how phrase structure fails to yield the right semantic
composition. The rest of this short section is focused on showing why the
phrase structure hypothesis falls short, arguing that phrases do not exist and
are not observable (p. 103).

EVALUATION

Enrico is obviously well read in both relative clauses and IHRC constructions
as well as the work of other linguists working on similar and related
languages. The bibliography relating to other Native American languages is
extensive and he does refer to a few papers written within other syntactic
frameworks as well. He gives a nice summary of the types of constructions they
show, including constructions or patterns which the authors themselves did not
notice. This is supplemented by his own extensive fieldwork in Haida. He
includes both example sentences and derivations from a wide variety of
languages, which were for the most part very helpful, clear, and numerous.

This book is best intended for an audience already familiar with Combinatory
Categorial Grammar (CCG) as well as a basic understanding of formal semantics
and lambda abstraction. This is unfortunate as it will inevitably limit the
number of people who will read Enrico's work. He does give a short summary of
the basics of CCG in Chapter 2, but it is written less as an introduction to
CCG than as a refresher for readers already familiar with it, and to orient
them to his way of using the terminology. The book is obviously not intended
as a textbook, or as a comprehensive review of CCG, but it is unfortunate that
it is accessible to such a restricted audience. Still, the dedicated reader
who wants to take advantage of Enrico's work may still find it worthwhile to
familiarize themselves with the basic tenets of CCG through other resources as
the research itself is very thorough and unique in the issues that it
addresses.

Many readers will be disappointed to find that the book has neither a Table of
Contents nor an Index. A Table of Contents, in particular, would have made the
book easier to navigate, and would have required little effort on the part of
the publisher to include.

There are other technical details which, while they do not detract from the
significance of Enrico's work, also make it harder for the reader. The book is
fairly short and the addition of a few more pages of exposition, while not
strictly necessary, would have helped in making the book more accessible to
the reader. Most significantly, there are several points where abbreviations
are inconsistent (Principles and Parameters is both PP and P&P) or undefined
(for example, page 31: ''Call this principle 'CR'''.) There are several points
where Enrico uses the term ''ablaut'' and ''ablaut clauses'' with no clear
explanation for what he means, but clearly it is not intended in the typical
phonological sense. While it is very helpful to have such extensive examples,
many did not include the metalanguage (English gloss). Sometimes this was
because it was an alternative derivation of an example already glossed, but in
other cases I was not able to find the meaning of the word anywhere in the
text (for example, (6) on page 36). This did not significantly detract from
Enrico's analysis, but it does distract from it.

Section 4, particularly the discussion in 4.4, is extremely difficult to read,
without any clear goal or purpose, and the reader is left to draw their own
conclusions about what this section is trying to show. The section begins by
pointing out that some languages (Lakhota and Mojave) have no restriction
against IHRC heads embedded in relative clauses, but Enrico then goes on to
attempt to derive such sentences from ungrammatical examples. It is several
pages before he notes that the Lakhota and Mojave examples which he does have
are extremely questionable, yet he still concludes in Section 4.4.3 that with
enough exposure these constructions would eventually be found acceptable even
by speakers who reject them. In Section 4.4.4, he shows that there are cases
where Haida does allow embedded heads in embedded infinitival relative
clauses. This is apparently significant because this requires forward crossed
composition ­ something which he points out on page 84, in another section
entirely.

Enrico, unfortunately, ends his book with an unjustified diatribe against
other frameworks, particularly ''the phrase structure hypothesis.'' His
criticism is particularly harsh and biased, with very few new arguments to
back up his stance. He gives general arguments, but none are particularly new,
and none have to do with IHRCs. This takes away from his careful presentation
of previous research, his own underlying assumptions, and his detail in laying
out conclusions throughout the majority of his text. This overly harsh
critique detracts from the overall tone of the book, and he misses an
opportunity to specifically address other accounts of IHRCs and why they fall
short of his analysis in a more unbiased fashion.


ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Anne Beshears is currently a PhD student at Queen Mary University of London.
She completed her MA in Linguistics from Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) in
New Delhi. Her current research is focused on comparative and
relative/correlatives in Hindi and Marwari, two Indo-Aryan languages spoken in
North India. Her research interests include syntax, semantics, the
syntax-semantics interface, syntactic variation, and semantic fieldwork.








----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-25-3800	
----------------------------------------------------------




    



More information about the LINGUIST mailing list