another Hocank/Helmbrecht article question

Wed Jul 17 16:06:02 UTC 2002

Dear Siouanists,

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.

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 N-Head [Rel=zero
predicate - Det] 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.

What I wanted to stress with the formula is the fact that word order is pretty
fixed in Hocank RCs. The order is always  Noun Head - Predicate - Determiner
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.

(1)a    huNuNc^-zí-   ra       gojá         hac^a-rá       hiN-nuNxé-jiree-naN
           bear-   brown-DEF  over there I.saw.it-DEF    me-chased-started-DECL

           The brown bear I saw over there started to chase me.
(1)b    *gojá hac^a-rá huNuNc^-zí-ra ...
(1)c    *hac^a-rá huNuNc^-zí-ra  gojá
(1)d    hiN-nuNxé-jiree-naN        huNuNc^-zí-   ra    gojá         hac^a-rá
           me-chased-started-DECL bear-brown-DEF   over there I.saw.it-DEF
           He started to chase me, the bear I saw over there.

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.

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)

(2)    huNuNc^- rá       gojá         hac^a-jéga
         bear-      DEF     over there I.seeing.it-DEM('distal'; standing)
        hiN-nuNxé-jiree-naN
        me-chase-  start-DECL
        The bear I am seeing over there (standing) starts to chase me.

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)

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.

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.

Johannes

Catherine Rudin/HU/AC/WSC schrieb:

> Ok, here's another question sparked off by the recent IJAL article.  This
> one is really totally irrelevant to Johannes' point, just something he
> mentioned in passing -- I almost hesitate to bring it up for fear it'll be
> seen as an unfair criticism of the article.   So Johannes, if you're
> reading this, it's really just a question!   I was interested in the brief
> discussion of relative clauses starting on p. 11, and especially the
> structure (22) which shows the Hocank relative clause as having an external
> head:  N-head [null relativizer Predicate-Determiner] with the part in
> [...] being  the relative clause.  This is pretty surprising for a Siouan
> language -- relative clauses in Lakota, Crow, Hidatsa, Omaha are
> internal-headed.  (Though of course it's possible to have both internal and
> external headed relatives in the same family, or even in the same
> language... as far as I know no Siouan language has been shown to have
> clearly external-headed relatives.)   So it would be really interesting if
> Hocank does have this structure.
>
> What I'm wondering is -- did Helmbrecht just assume the external-head
> structure, or is there actually evidence for it in Hocank?  The few
> examples given are inconclusive; none of them have more than one
> constituent besides the predicate, so it's not possible to distinguish N [
> predicate] from [N predicate].    What happens if instead of just "the meat
> I cooked" (23b) we have "the meat my mother cooked" or "the meat I cooked
> yesterday" -- does "meat" necessarily come at the beginning, or can you
> have orders like [my mother meat cooked determiner] or [yesterday meat
> I-cooked determiner] where "meat" is a clearly internal head?   If "meat"
> has to be first, it would argue for the external-head structure.  One
> indication in (23b) that the head is actually external might be the
> definite determiner on "meat", given the apparently universal fact that
> internal heads of RCs must be indefinite (Williamson's indefiniteness
> restriction)....   The indefiniteness restriction is robust enough and has
> enough raison d'etre -- required to allow operator binding to work right,
> etc. -- that I'd take it seriously as an argument.
>
> Any thoughts?
> Catherine
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/siouan/attachments/20020717/de0924a7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Johannes.Helmbrecht.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 369 bytes
Desc: Visitenkarte f?r Johannes Helmbrecht
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/siouan/attachments/20020717/de0924a7/attachment.vcf>