<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
Dear Siouanists,
<p>I would like to respond to the questions Catherine brought up with regard
to my remarks on relative clauses in Hocank in my recent IJAL paper. The
questions are important because they touch on the constituent structure
(and syntactic categories) in Hocank - and the answers may be of relevance
for linguists working on other Siouan languages too.
<p>First of all, I did not intend to presuppose a definite answer to the
question whether the nominal head is internal or external in Hocank relative
clauses with the formula I used in the paper. The brackets in <u>N-Head
[Rel=zero predicate - Det]</u> were not intended to suppose that N heads
are external in Hocank. The question whether the head noun is internal
or external was not important for the argumentation in my paper in that
paragraph. In addition, I rather tend to assume that the nominal head belongs
to the relative clause having constituet status as a whole. But since I
did not investigate this question systematically, I am left with assumptions.
Instead of talking about my feelings on this question I would like to present
some facts about Hocank relative clauses which might lead to a definitive
answer, or to further questions (both results are fine). At least, it should
come out why it is difficult to answer this question.
<p>What I wanted to stress with the formula is the fact that word order
is pretty fixed in Hocank RCs. The order is always <u>Noun Head -
Predicate - Determiner</u> and this order exactly replicates the order
in the ordinary noun phrase in Hocank except that the determiner is not
obligatory. Permutations in this order are not accepted by Hocank consultants.
In (1)a there is an example of a transitive clause including a RC modifying
the subject noun huNuNc^ 'bear'. In (1)b-c, it is shown that the predicate
of the RC cannot be moved before the head noun, and it seems to be the
case that the adverbial particle gojá 'over there' needs to appear
betwen head noun and predicate. What is possible is the permutation of
the whole RC behind the predicate of the main clause, cf. (1)d.
<p>(1)a huNuNc^-zí- ra
gojá hac^a-rá
hiN-nuNxé-jiree-naN
<br> bear-
brown-DEF over there I.saw.it-DEF me-chased-started-DECL
<br> The brown
bear I saw over there started to chase me.
<br>(1)b *gojá hac^a-rá huNuNc^-zí-ra
...
<br>(1)c *hac^a-rá huNuNc^-zí-ra
gojá
<br>(1)d hiN-nuNxé-jiree-naN
huNuNc^-zí- ra gojá
hac^a-rá
<br> me-chased-started-DECL
bear-brown-DEF over there I.saw.it-DEF
<br> He started
to chase me, the bear I saw over there.
<p>The examples demonstrate that the RC in Hocank has to be considered
as a constituent, there is no possibility to separate the head noun from
the predicate nor to change the order between them. These results parallel
exactly the situation in NPs in Hocank. The head noun is followed by the
modifier(s) and the article marks the end of the noun phrase (an exception
are numerals which may follow the article). This structure is also reminiscent
to the normal word order in independent clauses in Hocank with the clausal
predicate strictly following the NPs in subject and object function (however,
we find alternative marked constructions here). Hence, the RC resembles
a nominalized clause, and the fact that the definite article -ra and the
subordinating element -ra are homonym supports the idea that there is a
historical connection.
<p>However, it might be interesting to note that -ra is not the only subordinating
element. There is a set of three (attributive) demonstrative pronouns which
may appear in the same structural position. These demonstratives are combinations
of the so-called positional auxiliaries -naNk (be.sitting), -jee (be.standing),
and -aNK (be.lying) plus an element -re (this 'proximate') or -ga (that
'distal'). The interesting thing about these forms is that they create
a kind of positional classification of the referent of the noun they are
attached to. Now, if they are used as subordinating forms as suffixes to
the embedded verb, they always classify the head noun, no matter which
semantic/ syntactic role this constituent may have in the RC, cf. the example
in (2)
<p>(2) huNuNc^- rá
gojá hac^a-jéga
<br> bear-
DEF over there I.seeing.it-DEM('distal'; standing)
<br> hiN-nuNxé-jiree-naN
<br> me-chase- start-DECL
<br> The bear I am seeing over
there (standing) starts to chase me.
<p>In exampl (2) the bear is the direct object of the verb 'to see' in
the RC and the attr. demonstrative classifies the bear as a standing one.
If the bear were head noun and subject of the RC this demonstrative had
the same effect. This demonstrates the close syntactic bond of the elements
within the RC and the head noun, and it is a further similiarity to the
ordinary NP where these attributive demonstratives have the same function
(to classify the referent of the NP with regard to position and to mark
the NP as definite)
<p>Now, I would like to apply the criteria, Catherine mentioned in her
contribution to the observations in Hocank. Catherine said that if the
head noun were always the first constituent in the RC the head noun would
be external. I do not understand why this is a criteria for external headedness,
but if this is so, well, as I showed above, then this is the case in Hocank.
The second criteria, Catherine mentioned is the status of the head noun
with respect to definiteness. As can be seen from the examples, the head
noun almost always carries a definite article. I browsed through my notes
to find examples with no definite article on the head noun and I could
find examples for this only if the embedded predicate has a attributive
demonstartive of the type shown in (2). In this case, the def article on
the head noun seems to be optional. But I have the impression, that the
head noun is still definite, even if the -ra is missing. So, if it is correct
that internal heads of RC are indefinite, than the Hocank head noun of
RC are clearly external. But I have to admit, that this criteria is not
clear to me either.
<p>Well, as usual, I leave all people alone with my observations still
not being able to draw clear conclusions. I would like to encourage everybody
to enter this discussion. Unfortunately, I am out of town for a few weeks
which means that I won't be able to respond or to provide further data.
Anyway, I am curious to see how you Catherine and perhaps others would
comment the Hocank facts.
<p>Johannes
<br>
<br>
<p>Catherine Rudin/HU/AC/WSC schrieb:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>Ok, here's another question sparked off by the recent
IJAL article. This
<br>one is really totally irrelevant to Johannes' point, just something
he
<br>mentioned in passing -- I almost hesitate to bring it up for fear it'll
be
<br>seen as an unfair criticism of the article. So Johannes,
if you're
<br>reading this, it's really just a question! I was interested
in the brief
<br>discussion of relative clauses starting on p. 11, and especially the
<br>structure (22) which shows the Hocank relative clause as having an
external
<br>head: N-head [null relativizer Predicate-Determiner] with the
part in
<br>[...] being the relative clause. This is pretty surprising
for a Siouan
<br>language -- relative clauses in Lakota, Crow, Hidatsa, Omaha are
<br>internal-headed. (Though of course it's possible to have both
internal and
<br>external headed relatives in the same family, or even in the same
<br>language... as far as I know no Siouan language has been shown to have
<br>clearly external-headed relatives.) So it would be really
interesting if
<br>Hocank does have this structure.
<p>What I'm wondering is -- did Helmbrecht just assume the external-head
<br>structure, or is there actually evidence for it in Hocank? The
few
<br>examples given are inconclusive; none of them have more than one
<br>constituent besides the predicate, so it's not possible to distinguish
N [
<br>predicate] from [N predicate]. What happens if instead
of just "the meat
<br>I cooked" (23b) we have "the meat my mother cooked" or "the meat I
cooked
<br>yesterday" -- does "meat" necessarily come at the beginning, or can
you
<br>have orders like [my mother meat cooked determiner] or [yesterday meat
<br>I-cooked determiner] where "meat" is a clearly internal head?
If "meat"
<br>has to be first, it would argue for the external-head structure.
One
<br>indication in (23b) that the head is actually external might be the
<br>definite determiner on "meat", given the apparently universal fact
that
<br>internal heads of RCs must be indefinite (Williamson's indefiniteness
<br>restriction).... The indefiniteness restriction is robust
enough and has
<br>enough raison d'etre -- required to allow operator binding to work
right,
<br>etc. -- that I'd take it seriously as an argument.
<p>Any thoughts?
<br>Catherine</blockquote>
</html>