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

Tue Jul 23 03:23:44 UTC 2019

A wonderful article that addresses the issues raised by Jeffrey is Marianne
Mithun's 2002 paper 'Understanding and explaining applicatives.'

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.691.3166&rep=rep1&type=pdf

On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 5:58 PM Heath Jeffrey <schweinehaxen at hotmail.com>
wrote:

> 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>
> 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://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.*
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190723/e33643d9/attachment.htm>