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

Mon Jul 22 14:58:10 UTC 2019

This is a venerable discussion, and many contributions old and new mix two issues: a) which underlying categories (e.g. subject, object) in matrix and subordinate clause can be coindexed ina matrix-subordinateconstruction(such as relative clause and switch-reference, and b) which surface categories can function in this way. Many languages have valency-changing processes (passive, antipassive, applicative, …) that have one or more discourse functions in simple main clauses, but are deployed opportunistically in subordinated clauses solely to mark a specific underlying NP as the coindexed one. This is the functionalist way of describing the phenomena. It differs from the idea favored by typologists that surface constraints are what drive the phenomena, since such constraints by themselves have no functional basis and are far from being universal. What would be the point (i.e., the evolutionary motivation) for a language to require absolutive status for coindexation in switch-reference or relativization, unless this is accompanied by a seamless mechanism to allow underlying transitive subjects (which are of greater referential value than objects) to be marked?

Therefore the question for Matthew is how the starred translation *“The dog, who is big, will bite that man” is expressed in Ngkolmpu. It might be better to use a nonadjectival relative clause since presumably “The dog, who is big” can simply be rephased as “The big dog”. It might also be better to use a restrictive rather than parenthetical relative. Something like “The dog that bit he child ran away”.

________________________________
From: Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> on behalf of Valenzuela, Pilar <valenzuela at chapman.edu>
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2019 12:11 AM
To: Seino van Breugel <seinobreugel at gmail.com>; 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

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://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Findependent.academia.edu%2FSeinovanBreugel&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cc8fd8c4dcfaa49e9c22a08d70e5aa84d%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636993654878994873&sdata=UbzB2XoawzM3AcWhxbaixHybN0jO%2FXmrkHjzuj%2BwbOo%3D&reserved=0>
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHfiZwqyWC7HfZUAQ1RH1ew<https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fchannel%2FUCHfiZwqyWC7HfZUAQ1RH1ew&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cc8fd8c4dcfaa49e9c22a08d70e5aa84d%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636993654879014864&sdata=7K0kpGepxvUaNoxWI7R3rkT%2F2i77CZvSRBkilE5nsQ4%3D&reserved=0>

On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 3:30 AM Matthew Carroll <mattcarrollj at gmail.com<mailto: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<mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp<https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flistserv.linguistlist.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Flingtyp&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cc8fd8c4dcfaa49e9c22a08d70e5aa84d%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636993654879024821&sdata=MWwIUyJmOkngPlZMfRy7EqCtEEq8%2FHlEeC%2BfsR5T5AQ%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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20190722/3f400d34/attachment.htm>