[Lingtyp] Query about constraints on co-referential arguments in matrix clauses

Mon Jul 22 04:24:59 UTC 2019

Dear Matt,

There has been some discussion of related phenomena as part of research on
'switch-reference', where grammatical marking indicates whether the subject
of one clause is the same or different from another. The source that comes
to mind that discusses some cases like this, specifically including
relative clauses, is:
Austin, Peter. 1981. Switch-Reference in Australia. Language 57(2).
309–334. https://doi.org/10.2307/413693

The relativized argument is usually irrelevant to switch-reference, unless
it happens to be the case that there are also restrictions on which matrix
clause arguments can be modified with relative clauses (or with certain
subtypes of relative clauses). Austin seems to discuss some examples of
this sort, although the details are complicated. This point also connects
with what Pilar wrote above.

Daniel Ross
PhD Candidate in Linguistics
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 9:11 PM Valenzuela, Pilar <valenzuela at chapman.edu>
wrote:

> Hola Matt,
>
> Panoan languages have a set of same-subject markers where the matrix
> clause coreferential argument must be S, and another set where it must be
> A. The dependent clause argument can be either S or A. Hope this is useful.
>
> Saludos,
>
> Pilar
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> on behalf of
> Seino van Breugel <seinobreugel at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Sunday, July 21, 2019 9:37:56 PM
> *To:* Matthew Carroll <mattcarrollj at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* <LINGTYP at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG> <
> lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Lingtyp] Query about constraints on co-referential
> arguments in matrix clauses
>
> *External Message*
>
> Dear Matthew,
>
> My 2010 article on attributive clauses, published in Studies in Language,
> may be useful to you. I have attached a copy.
>
> Regards,
>
> Seino
> __________________
> Dr. Seino van Breugel
> https://independent.academia.edu/SeinovanBreugel
> <https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Findependent.academia.edu%2FSeinovanBreugel&data=02%7C01%7Cvalenzuela%40chapman.edu%7C656c8e1dff474e1193c508d70e560f56%7C809929af2d2545bf9837089eb9cfbd01%7C1%7C0%7C636993635578459019&sdata=AIhnXRtab90glVhyw9jQtLrUsUQpSOkJmeZhQcSLsss%3D&reserved=0>
> https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHfiZwqyWC7HfZUAQ1RH1ew
> <https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fchannel%2FUCHfiZwqyWC7HfZUAQ1RH1ew&data=02%7C01%7Cvalenzuela%40chapman.edu%7C656c8e1dff474e1193c508d70e560f56%7C809929af2d2545bf9837089eb9cfbd01%7C1%7C0%7C636993635578469011&sdata=ovuBBQ2XL%2FA46h3hTX4ro75EuWmsvXEPSUy07yKAHgU%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 3:30 AM Matthew Carroll <mattcarrollj at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> I am curious about restrictions on arguments in matrix clauses that are
> co-referential with those in subordinate clauses.
>
> Restrictions on the role that a co-referential argument may play in a
> subordinate clause are well established in the literature (Keenan and
> Comrie 1977, and others). Rather I am interested in restrictions that may
> apply to the role that co-referential argument may play in the *matrix*
> clause.
>
> For example, in Ngkolmpu a Yam language spoken in West Papua that I have
> been working on, there is a relative clause strategy involving a right
> adjoined relative clause. The co-referential argument may serve *any role
> in the subordinate clause* but can only be the *absolutive argument of
> the matrix clause.*
>
> 1.     krar-w               irepe     pi         srampu             [ntop
> mi                     bori      ye]
>       dog-sg.erg      man      dist      he:will:bite:him  big       rel.abs
>          comp    is
>       'The dog will bite that man *who is big*’
>       ***’The dog, *who is big*, will bite that man.’
>
> Example (1) can only be interpreted as 'the man who is big' and never 'the
> dog who is big'. This has been confirmed through careful and systematic
> elicitation on this topic and confirmed by examples in my growing corpus
> (currently at about 1500 naturalistic utterances).
>
> Dixon (1977) notes similar restrictions in Yidiɲ. On page 323 of his
> grammar he posits the coreferentiality constraint: "*There must be an NP
> common to the main clause and subordinate clause, and it must be in surface
> S or O function in each clause." *
>
> Unlike the Ngkolmpu example, this applies to both the matrix NP and the
> subordinate NP which only applies to the matrix NP. Yet, importantly for my
> purpose, does place a restriction on the role of the matrix NP. I am
> curious to see if people know of other examples of these kind of
> constraints in matrix NPs? or perhaps there is a paper that I have missed
> in my (rather brief) survey of the literature on the topic.
>
> Regards,
> Matt
>
> Matthew J. Carroll
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
> <https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flistserv.linguistlist.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Flingtyp&data=02%7C01%7Cvalenzuela%40chapman.edu%7C656c8e1dff474e1193c508d70e560f56%7C809929af2d2545bf9837089eb9cfbd01%7C1%7C0%7C636993635578469011&sdata=A1%2FmrXHC6lbKd95D6bSx%2BZTNQf4YyNab8OB7gVHn0io%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
> *NOTE: This email originated from outside Chapman’s network. Do not click
> links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know content
> is safe.*
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20190721/49f2a225/attachment.htm>