[Lingtyp] Relativization

Mon Mar 26 18:12:30 UTC 2018

I am in general reluctant to participate in online discussions, where 
the need to be succinct seems too often to lead to a genre where 
rhetoric -- analyses are "obviously" correct -- replaces argumentation. 
But Jeff Siegel's initial post seemed to address me directly, whether or 
not by intention. And Jeff Heath [JH]'s post suggests to me that 
something useful may come out of all this. But I really would advise 
those interested in the issue to read Comrie (2006), where I go into 
more detail.

Regarding Coast Tsimshian: Matthew Dryer [MD] subtly but perhaps 
crucially reformulates the WALS definition of the relative pronoun 
strategy (which is also the one I have used elsewhere). The WALS 
definition requires the elements to be pronouns, while MD simply 
requires them to be words. So two questions arise. The first is whether 
or not the Coast Tsimshian elements in question are pronouns. My 
conclusion was that I could not unequivocally characterize them as such; 
the same would, incidentally, be the case with English "that" 
introducing relative clauses. The second is whether the definition 
restricted to pronouns is better than the one that includes all words. I 
don't have a clear answer to this, and it may depend in part on one's 
purpose. But if one extends the WALS definition to encompass not only 
pronouns but rather all words, then why not extend it to all elements 
that encode the grammatical relation/semantic role of the nucleus within 
the relative clause, including affixes? This would then include verb 
marking, whereby the verb morphology shows the position relativized, but 
crucially not just as part of the language's general voice system; I 
discuss this in Comrie (2006: 145-151). It may be that we are faced with 
a scale of degrees of similarity to the relative pronoun strategy (as 
defined by WALS), and that we may simply have to admit this (while 
taking practical decisions based on the current purpose).

Regarding Koyra Chiini: Perhaps not surprisingly, since my discussion in 
Comrie (2006) is based exclusively on JH's work, my reservations 
concerning identifying the element "kaa" as a pronoun that can be 
governed by a postposition are along the lines set out in JH's post, 
though obviously his firsthand data and analysis are more authoritative. 
I hope, though, that my comment here will help to dispel the myth that 
all typologists rush in where angels fear to tread.

Reference

Comrie, B. 2006. Syntactic typology: just how exotic ARE European-type 
relative clauses? In Ricardo Mairal and Juana Gil (eds.): /Linguistic 
Universals/, 130-154. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

On 2018/3/26 08:16, Heath Jeffrey wrote:
>
> I'm afraid that the discussion of Koyra Chiini relatives confirms 
> my doubts about the value of crosslinguistic coding into a handful of 
> values for each feature.
>
>
> Yes, Koyra Chiini has a relative-clause initial morpheme (KCh /kaa/) 
> that gaps the coindexed NP ("headNP [Rel…[gap]…") and usually attracts 
> postpositions and if so gaps the PP ("headNP [Rel-Postp…[gap]…"). 
> However, resumptive PPs are also possible ("headN [Rel…[3Sg/3Pl 
> Postp]…]"). Non-3rd person heads (unlike 3rd persons) are optionally 
> resumed even in subject position: ("you(headNP) [Rel you…]" meaning 
> 'you who…'). The only _pre_position, instrumental-comitative /nda/, 
> cannot precede the relative morpheme (# headNP [[/nda/ Rel]…]]), 
> instead it remains in place with a resumptive pronoun, or it 
> encliticizes to the Rel morpheme in the fashion of English 
> /where-to/of/upon/… .
>
>
> The major question is whether the KCh Rel morpheme is a "pronoun" as 
> opposed to an invariant 'that/when…'complementizer or a pluralizable 
> relative noun. In Koyra Chiini, /kaa/can be either a relative morpheme 
> with the limited (pro-)nominal features mentioned above, or a 
> 'that/when…' complementizer, and some textual occurrences can be read 
> (or at least translated) either way. In other Songhay languages, the 
> corresponding morpheme can function as either a 'that/when…' 
> complementizer or a nominal relative morpheme. In the latter function, 
> it optionally takes the nominal plural suffix, e.g. Koyraboro Senni 
> /kaŋ/with optional indefinite plural /kaŋ-yaŋ/. Since a head NP (with 
> obligatory number marking) is normally present, the option to 
> (redundantly) pluralize the relative morpheme is only occasionally 
> implemented, but KS /kaŋ/ is clearly noun-like rather than 
> pronoun-like. As in KCh it can also be an invariant 'that/when' 
> complementizer. Songhay languages  vary as to whether a coindexed 
> clause-internal nonsubject NP is realized as a gap, as a pronoun with 
> full person/number marking, or as an invariant "3Sg" pronominal.
>
>
> As a grammarian I regularly wince at typological codings, even if 
> packaged as humble "comparative concepts," and I question the value of 
> world-wide typological distributions based on them. By the way, the 
> situation is worse with "internally-headed relatives."
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> on behalf 
> of Martin Haspelmath <haspelmath at shh.mpg.de>
> *Sent:* Monday, March 26, 2018 9:56:54 AM
> *To:* lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Lingtyp] Relativization
> I wouldn't say that the Koyra Chiini form is "arguably" a relative 
> pronoun, because it's a question of definition, not of argumentation. 
> (People sometimes say that they "disagree" with terminological 
> choices, but I think the verbs "adopt" or "reject" are better suited 
> when it comes to talking about other people's terminological choices.)
>
> As Matthew noted earlier, in the WALS chapter by Comrie & Kuteva, the 
> "relative pronoun strategy" is clearly defined as one involving an 
> element that can be flagged for its syntactic role (" a clause-initial 
> pronominal element [which] is case-marked (by case or by an 
> adposition) to indicate the role of the head noun within the relative 
> clause", http://wals.info/chapter/122 
> <https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwals.info%2Fchapter%2F122&data=02%7C01%7C%7C40c053f747114afaa68e08d593228d9d%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636576698970504650&sdata=nfxhM5cq6o8PawPAbTUj8vKScG3tVMZtb0P%2FX3Q8XRM%3D&reserved=0>).
>
> Likewise, in the APiCS chapter by Michaelis et al., "a relative-clause 
> marker is regarded as a relative pronoun if it has different subject 
> and object forms ..., or if it can be combined with an adposition" 
> (http://apics-online.info/parameters/92.chapter.html 
> <https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapics-online.info%2Fparameters%2F92.chapter.html&data=02%7C01%7C%7C40c053f747114afaa68e08d593228d9d%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636576698970504650&sdata=dqOqRJlsfFb36jC%2BG%2BhS027m81Ciw1%2FWobvpiLxE0XY%3D&reserved=0>).
>
> Because of these authoritative uses, I would reject (but not argue 
> against) a terminological use (in typology) according to which 
> relative pronouns are said to include relativizers that vary for 
> ("pronominal") features like gender and/or number but do not indicate 
> syntactic role. (And if there were an "IPA of morphosyntax", as 
> suggested here 
> <https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdlc.hypotheses.org%2F1000&data=02%7C01%7C%7C40c053f747114afaa68e08d593228d9d%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636576698970504650&sdata=vwjM8PkJzdNs05Cq7hi3lI5jMEE9UeKxCn8%2FyAv1U0k%3D&reserved=0>, 
> it should have the same meaning as in the WALS and APiCS chapters.)
>
> Thus, from a typological point of view, the relativizers of Koyra 
> Chiini and Coast Tsimshian are clearly relative pronouns.
>
> Martin
>
> On 26.03.18 15:27, Dryer, Matthew wrote:
>>
>> In Koyra Chiini (Heath 1999: 192), the relative word is arguably a 
>> relative pronoun since it can occur with a postposition.
>>
>> Coast Tsimshian has a construction which could be analysed as 
>> involving a relative pronoun in that relative clauses are marked with 
>> a word that varies for the grammatical relation of the head in the 
>> relative clause, /gu/ if it is the A,/in/ if it is the S or P (Mulder 
>> 1994: 142).
>>
>> Heath, Jeffrey. (1999) /A grammar of Koyra Chiini: The Songhay of 
>> Timbuktu/. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
>>
>> Mulder, Jean Gail. (1994) /Ergativity in Coast Tsimshian 
>> (Sm’algyax)/. Berkeley: University of California Press.
>>
>> Matthew
>>
>> From: Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org 
>> <mailto:lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org>> on behalf of 
>> Bernard Comrie <comrie at linguistics.ucsb.edu 
>> <mailto:comrie at linguistics.ucsb.edu>>
>> Date: Monday, March 26, 2018 at 3:40 AM
>> To: "lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org 
>> <mailto:lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>" 
>> <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org 
>> <mailto:lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>>
>> Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] Relativization
>>
>> Dear Jeff:
>>
>> Some thoughts on your post.
>>
>> The chapters in WALS are necessarily very brief, so often it will be 
>> necessary to look at other literature.
>>
>> As many people have noted, including me back in an early publication 
>> on European-type relative clauses (Comrie 1998: 79), the 
>> European-type relative clause has recently (e.g. through colonialism) 
>> spread through contact to languages outside Europe. These are of 
>> course not independent instances of the development of this kind of 
>> relative clause.
>>
>> I went into somewhat more detail on possible independent candidates 
>> for European-type relative clauses in Comrie (2006). If you compare 
>> this article with WALS, please note that the publication details are 
>> misleading; some points discussed in the 2006 article that came up 
>> during preparatory work on WALS did not find their way into the final 
>> version of WALS.
>>
>> Regarding your specific question on Acoma: I'll need to check, as I 
>> don't have the relevant data immediately to hand.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Bernard
>>
>> References
>>
>> Comrie, B. 1998. Rethinking the typology of relative clauses. 
>> /Language Design/ 1: 59-86.
>>
>> Comrie, B. 2006. Syntactic typology: just how exotic ARE 
>> European-type relative clauses? In Ricardo Mairal and Juana Gil 
>> (eds.): /Linguistic Universals/, 130-154. Cambridge: Cambridge 
>> University Press.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2018/3/18 17:26, Jeff Siegel wrote:
>>>
>>> Greetings:
>>>
>>> In the description of relativization in WALS (features 122A and 
>>> 123A), the relative pronoun strategy is shown to stand out “as being 
>>> typically European since it is not found in Indo-European languages 
>>> spoken outside Europe, and is exceptional more generally outside 
>>> Europe” (Comrie & Kuteva 2013). This strategy is defined as follows:
>>>
>>> “[T]he position relativized is indicated inside the relative clause 
>>> by means of a clause-initial pronominal element, and this pronominal 
>>> element is case-marked (by case or by an adposition) to indicate the 
>>> role of the head noun within the relative clause.” (Comrie & Kuteva 
>>> 2013)
>>>
>>> The only language outside the European area shown to use this 
>>> strategy is Acoma, Keresan language of New Mexico.
>>>
>>> Could anyone lead me to examples of the relative pronoun strategy 
>>> used in other languages outside Europe? Also, could anyone provide 
>>> such examples from Acoma or related languages? (I can’t seem to find 
>>> any in the descriptions of Keresan languages that I have examined.)
>>>
>>> Reference:
>>>
>>> Bernard Comrie, Tania Kuteva. 2013. Relativization on Subjects. In: 
>>> Dryer, Matthew S. & Haspelmath, Martin (eds.). /The World Atlas of 
>>> Language Structures Online./ Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for 
>>> Evolutionary Anthropology.
>>> (Available online at http://wals.info/chapter/122 
>>> <https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwals.info%2Fchapter%2F122&data=02%7C01%7C%7C40c053f747114afaa68e08d593228d9d%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636576698970504650&sdata=nfxhM5cq6o8PawPAbTUj8vKScG3tVMZtb0P%2FX3Q8XRM%3D&reserved=0>, 
>>> Accessed on 2018-03-19.)
>>>
>>> Many thanks,
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Jeff
>>>
>>> Emeritus Professor Jeff Siegel
>>>
>>> Linguistics, School of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences
>>>
>>> University of New England
>>>
>>> Armidale, NSW 2351
>>>
>>> Australia
>>>
>>> https://www.une.edu.au/staff-profiles/bcss/jsiegel 
>>> <https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.une.edu.au%2Fstaff-profiles%2Fbcss%2Fjsiegel&data=02%7C01%7C%7C40c053f747114afaa68e08d593228d9d%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636576698970504650&sdata=OEEA1Yuv4vq4QYkJWLKU1RXkccY0L7XZ40dYMV98oiw%3D&reserved=0>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Lingtyp mailing list
>>> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org 
>>> <mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp 
>>> <https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flistserv.linguistlist.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Flingtyp&data=02%7C01%7C%7C40c053f747114afaa68e08d593228d9d%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636576698970660902&sdata=cgkU4IZGQyYlAHqIh3QLSIf%2Fkb68faNKZGfC8KJ5ITg%3D&reserved=0>
>>
>> -- 
>>
>> Bernard Comrie
>> Distinguished Faculty Professor of Linguistics, University of California Santa Barbara
>>
>> E-mail: comrie at linguistics.ucsb.edu
>> Web site:http://www.linguistics.ucsb.edu/people/bernard-comrie 
>> <https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.linguistics.ucsb.edu%2Fpeople%2Fbernard-comrie&data=02%7C01%7C%7C40c053f747114afaa68e08d593228d9d%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636576698970660902&sdata=7jNAFRlryIH3yyCNxixs%2FSmEBGUA1VYq1sCtuzpuA2o%3D&reserved=0>
>>
>> Department of Linguistics
>> University of California, Santa Barbara
>> Santa Barbara, CA 93106-3100
>> USA
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lingtyp mailing list
>> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org 
>> <mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
>> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp 
>> <https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flistserv.linguistlist.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Flingtyp&data=02%7C01%7C%7C40c053f747114afaa68e08d593228d9d%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636576698970660902&sdata=cgkU4IZGQyYlAHqIh3QLSIf%2Fkb68faNKZGfC8KJ5ITg%3D&reserved=0>
>
> -- 
> Martin Haspelmath (haspelmath at shh.mpg.de <mailto:haspelmath at shh.mpg.de>)
> Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History
> Kahlaische Strasse 10	
> D-07745 Jena
> &
> Leipzig University
> IPF 141199
> Nikolaistrasse 6-10
> D-04109 Leipzig
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp

-- 

Bernard Comrie
Distinguished Faculty Professor of Linguistics, University of California Santa Barbara

E-mail: comrie at linguistics.ucsb.edu
Web site: http://www.linguistics.ucsb.edu/people/bernard-comrie

Department of Linguistics
University of California, Santa Barbara
Santa Barbara, CA 93106-3100
USA

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20180326/3dbd9139/attachment.htm>