Focus on head-final relatives

2013 ◽  
Vol 58 (2) ◽  
pp. 191-215 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karsten A. Koch
Keyword(s):  
Relative Clause ◽  
Information Structure ◽  
Head Noun ◽  
Matrix Clause ◽  
Discourse Context ◽  
Background Matching ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Complex Nominals ◽  
Focus Marking

AbstractHead-final relatives in Nɬe?kepmcxín (Thompson River Salish) have previously been described as rare. This article presents new data illustrating a range of possible head-final relatives and the discourse context in which they occur. The difference between head-initial and head-final relative structures is accounted for by information structure, namely the position of focus. When focus falls on the entire NP containing the relative clause, a head-initial relative is generated. However, when focus falls on the relative clause itself, excluding the head noun, a head-final relative is used. The effect inside complex nominals is to linearize focus before background, matching the FOCUS ≫ BACKGROUND generalization observed in matrix clause focus marking. The study is the first examination of focus marking inside the Salishan nominal domain.

Infinitival relative clauses in spoken discourse

1998 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 23-41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christer Geisler
Keyword(s):  
Quantitative Analysis ◽  
Relative Clause ◽  
Information Structure ◽  
Relative Clauses ◽  
Grammatical Function ◽  
Matrix Clause ◽  
British English ◽  
Spoken Discourse ◽  
Spoken English ◽  
The Matrix

ABSTRACTThis article concerns infinitival relative clauses, such as Mary is the person to ask, and their distribution in spoken English. It analyzes the correlation between the function of the antecedent in the relative clause and the function of the whole postmodified NP (the relative complex) in the matrix clause. On the basis of a quantitative analysis of a corpus of spoken British English, I show that the grammatical function of the antecedent in the infinitival relative clause depends on the function of the antecedent in the matrix clause. I argue that the distribution of antecedent functions in the matrix clause can be explained in terms of thematic properties and information structure of the clauses in which the infinitival relatives occur. A key notion is that speakers center their discourse around information that they assume to be important for the communicative event.

The oblique phrase and the order of the relative construction

2015 ◽  
Vol 68 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lewis C. Lawyer
Keyword(s):  
Relative Clause ◽  
Good Predictor ◽  
Head Position ◽  
Head Noun ◽  
Direct Object ◽  
Relative Order ◽  
The World ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Using Data ◽  
Traditional Indicator

AbstractUsing data from the World Atlas of Language Structures (WALS), the order of the oblique phrase with respect to the verb in a sentence is shown to be a good predictor of the order of the relative clause with respect to its head noun in a relative construction. It is a significantly better predictor of relative construction order than the more traditional indicator, the relative order of the verb and the direct object in a sentence. The difference between these two predictors is demonstrated quantitatively, and then discussed in the context of theories of syntactic head-position harmony.

What factors determine object expression in Kîîtharaka

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick Kanampiu
Keyword(s):  
Field Study ◽  
Mental State ◽  
Relative Clause ◽  
Information Structure ◽  
Direct Speech ◽  
Discourse Context ◽  
Structure Information ◽  
World Languages ◽  
Predicate Type ◽  
Made In

Across world languages, speakers are known to structure information in such a way that they accommodate the discourse context in which the utterances are made. In so doing they put into consideration the mental state of the hearer and also their own communication intentions (see Dooley 2020). This achieves effective communication. Such strategies in information structure are found in object expression. The data for this research was gathered from narratives collected through story telling sessions organized during the field study. Elicitation was also used to complement the data collected this way. The investigation was guided by the hypothesis that the accessibility hierarchy is the main discourse factor that determines the choice of object expression. The results are that the hypothesis holds true for most referring expression such as full lexical NP, demonstratives and their NP combinations (though with exceptions), object markers, NP + relative clause, and zero anaphora. This notwithstanding, there are substantial cases of deviations that lay ground for discovery of complementary factors like predicate type, use of direct speech and pragmatic emphasis. It can therefore be concluded that while accessibility is key, there are other complementary factors that come into play in determining the Kîîtharaka object expression paradigm.

scholarly journals Cyclicity and Connectivity in Nez Perce Relative Clauses

2016 ◽  
Vol 47 (3) ◽  
pp. 427-470 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amy Rose Deal
Keyword(s):  
Word Order ◽  
Relative Clause ◽  
Crucial Role ◽  
Relative Clauses ◽  
Head Noun ◽  
Intermediate Position ◽  
Nez Perce ◽  
The Core ◽  
New Evidence ◽  
Relative Pronouns

This article studies two aspects of movement in relative clauses, focusing on evidence from Nez Perce. First, I argue that relativization involves cyclic Ā-movement, even in monoclausal relatives: the relative operator moves to Spec,CP via an intermediate position in an Ā outer specifier of TP. The core arguments draw on word order, complementizer choice, and a pattern of case attraction for relative pronouns. Ā cyclicity of this type suggests that the TP sister of relative C constitutes a phase—a result whose implications extend to an ill-understood corner of the English that-trace effect. Second, I argue that Nez Perce relativization provides new evidence for an ambiguity thesis for relative clauses, according to which some but not all relatives are derived by head raising. The argument comes from connectivity and anticonnectivity in morphological case. A crucial role is played by a pattern of inverse case attraction, wherein the head noun surfaces in a case determined internal to the relative clause. These new data complement the range of existing arguments concerning head raising, which draw primarily on connectivity effects at the syntax-semantics interface.

Noun modifiers and the n preposition in Siwi Berber (Egypt)

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 239-263
Author(s):  
Valentina Schiattarella
Keyword(s):  
Relative Clause ◽  
Head Noun ◽  
Supplementary Data ◽  
Global Function ◽  
Possessive Constructions ◽  
And Function

Abstract The three most common strategies used to modify a head noun, namely through a possessive, an adjective and a relative clause construction feature in Siwi the use of the preposition n. Its presence is obligatory in the possessive constructions, but only present before an adjective or a relative clause in some contexts, depending on the level of restriction that the speaker wants to place on the head noun. The aim of the article is to describe the use and function of n in all three contexts of noun modification in Siwi and present supplementary data that helps the understanding of the global function of this preposition.

How ‘person’ got into focus: Grammaticalization of clefts in Lingala and Kikongo areas

Linguistics ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 53 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-52 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jenneke van der Wal ◽  
Jacky Maniacky
Keyword(s):  
Relative Clause ◽  
Head Noun ◽  
Bantu Languages ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Subject

AbstractIn several Bantu languages in the regions where Kikongo and Lingala are spoken, we encounter sentences where the word ‘person’ can appear after the subject of a canonical SVO sentence, resulting in a focused interpretation of the subject. Synchronically, we analyze this as a monoclausal focus construction with moto ‘person’ as a focus marker. Diachronically, we argue, the construction derives from a biclausal cleft, where moto functioned as the head noun of the relative clause. This is a crosslinguistically rare but plausible development. The different languages studied in this paper show variation in the properties indicative of the status of the ‘moto construction’, which reflects the different stages of grammaticalization. Finally, we show how contact-induced grammaticalization is a likely factor in the development of moto as a focus marker.

Clause structure, case and agreement in Polish existential, possessive and locative sentences: A phase-based account

2018 ◽  
Vol 54 (4) ◽  
pp. 637-696
Author(s):  
Joanna Błaszczak
Keyword(s):  
Information Structure ◽  
Clause Structure ◽  
External Argument ◽  
Case Alternation ◽  
Crucial Question ◽  
Existential Sentences ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Event Variable

Abstract In this paper it will be argued that the difference between existential and locative sentences is primarily structurally encoded at the vP/VP level (at the first phase of a derivation). The crucial question is which argument of the verb BE (the Location or the nominal argument (“Theme”)) is projected as the “external argument”, i.e., which argument is the subject of inner predication. In the case of existential sentences it is the Location argument which is the subject of inner predication, and in the case of locative sentences it is the nominal argument. The subject of inner predication becomes by default also the subject of outer predication, i.e., the topic of the sentence. Hence, in the case of locative sentences the nominal argument is the subject of outer predication, i.e., the topic of the sentence, and in the case of existential sentences it is the Location which becomes the topic. (Or, alternatively, the actual topic (the subject of outer predication) might be the situational/ event variable, and the Location functions as a restriction on it.) However, the actual arrangement of constituents in the sentences under discussion, as in any other Polish sentence, is determined by the pragmatic/communicative principles. Given this, it is reasonable to think that the NOM/GEN case alternation in negated existential/locative sentences is primarily a matter of syntax, and not one of information structure or scope of negation. The analysis will be modeled in accordance with the phasal model of Chomsky (2000 et seq.).

Headless Relative Clauses in Chuj

2021 ◽  
pp. 327-361
Author(s):  
Justin Royer
Keyword(s):  
Relative Clause ◽  
Relative Clauses ◽  
Free Choice ◽  
Free Relative ◽  
The Difference

This chapter explores various types of headless relative clause constructions in Chuj, a Mayan language spoken in Huehuetenango, Guatemala, and Chiapas, Mexico by 45,000 to 70,000 speakers. The main focus is free relative clauses, of which Chuj features three kinds: maximal free relative clauses, existential free relative clauses, and free-choice free relative clauses. Following earlier work on other languages, maximal free relative clauses and existential free relative clauses are argued to be structurally identical at their core; the difference in their interpretations is a consequence of a difference in the elements that each kind combines with. Chuj is also shown to feature a rich inventory of other types of headless relative clauses. These include headless relative clauses introduced by both a wh-word and a determiner [+WH, +DET], those introduced only by a determiner [−WH, +DET], and those that are formed with neither a wh-word nor a determiner [−WH, −DET].

Sophocles' Trachiniae: Discussions of some Textual Problems

1958 ◽  
Vol 8 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 18-24
Author(s):  
A. Y. Campbell
Keyword(s):  
Relative Clause ◽  
The Difference

That after that is just too ghastly. Jebb's citations are no parallels; the difference is that (‘as to which things’—J.) and (‘that prospect’—J.) have both precisely the same reference. Read ‘which reflections … time-honoured as they are’. In this well-known construction a term (often substantive, sometimes adjective) which logically belongs to the antecedent is deferred and inserted in the relative clause—‘for emphasis’ (M. Tierney, rightly, on E. Hec. 771).

Ergativity in Tibeto-Burman

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shobhana Chelliah
Keyword(s):  
Information Structure ◽  
Contrastive Focus ◽  
Contrastive Topic ◽  
Alignment Analysis ◽  
Focus Marking

A number of Tibeto-Burman languages exhibit morphological ergative alignment, while others clearly do not. In these languages, matters of information structure determine core argument marking. Specifically, both A and S marking may be used to indicate topic, contrastive topic, broad focus, and/or contrastive focus. It is most often A or S, not P, that is assigned such status and between A and S, it is most often A that takes marking. Preference for topic or focus marking on A creates the impression of ergative alignment, but an ergative alignment analysis is untenable as S may be marked under the same conditions and with the same morpheme as A. Considerations of discourse-level clause interpretation in Tibetan, Meitei, and Burmese show that information structure not transitivity determines A and S marking. The presence or absence of marking based on information structure is characterized as “unique differential marking”, distinguishing it from the differential marking observed in ergative and accusative alignment systems.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document