The relative pronoun strategy

2019 ◽  
Vol 43 (4) ◽  
pp. 997-1014
Author(s):  
Jeff Siegel
Keyword(s):  
Relative Clause ◽  
New Guinea ◽  
Relative Pronoun ◽  
European Languages

Abstract The Relative Pronoun strategy is commonly used for relativization in European languages such as English – for example: The woman [ who won the lottery ] is my neighbour. In this strategy the head nominal (here the woman) is indicated inside the relative clause by a clause-initial pronominal element (the relative pronoun, here who). The Relative Pronoun strategy has been characterized as an exclusively European areal feature (e.g. Comrie 1998). This article describes this strategy in more detail, as well as previous accounts of its distribution, and goes on to demonstrate that the same strategy is also found in Nama, a Papuan language of southern New Guinea.

Effects of Sentence Structure on Sentence Elicited Imitation Responses

1978 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 809-819 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jo Carol Hudgins ◽  
Walter L. Cullinan
Keyword(s):  
College Students ◽  
Sentence Processing ◽  
Relative Clause ◽  
Female College Students ◽  
Sentence Structure ◽  
Response Accuracy ◽  
Relative Pronoun ◽  
Elicited Imitation ◽  
Sentence Repetition ◽  
Repetition Task

This study investigates the effects of sentence structure on the number of error sentences and response latency in a sentence-repetition task. Forty female college students repeated short and long test sentences containing either a single self-embedded or right-branching subject-focus or object-focus relative clause. Sentences were also controlled for deletion of the relative pronoun of the relative clause. Sentence structure was found to affect sentence elicited imitation response accuracy and latency in a manner similar to the effects of structure on ease of comprehension. The findings are consistent with a canonical-sentoid strategy explanation of sentence processing during sentence imitation.

Again on relative clause and subordination in Latin

2014 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gualtiero Calboli
Keyword(s):  
Relative Clause ◽  
Syntactic Structure ◽  
Central Point ◽  
Relative Pronoun ◽  
Case Theory ◽  
Nominative Case ◽  
Subordinate Clauses ◽  
Long Time ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Law

AbstractI started from the relative clause which occurs in Hittite, and in particular with the enclitic position of the relative pronoun. This is connected with the OV position and this position seems to have been prevailing in Hittite and PIE. The syntactic structure usually employed in Hittite between different clauses is the parataxis. Nevertheless, also the hypotaxis begins to be employed and the best occasion to use it was the diptych as suggested by Haudry, though he didn't consider the most natural and usual diptych: the law, where the crime and the sanction build a natural diptych already in old Hittite. Then I used Justus' and Boley's discussion on the structure of Hittite sentence and found a similarity with Latin, namely the use of an animate subject as central point of a sentence. With verbs of action in ancient languages the subject was normally an animate being, whereas also inanimate subject is employed in modern languages. This seems to be the major difference between ancient and modern structure of a sentence, or, better to say, in Hittite and PIE the subject was an animate being and this persisted a long time, and remained as a tendency in Latin, while in following languages and in classical grammar the subject became a simple nominal “entity” to be predicated and precised with verb and other linguistic instruments. A glance has been cast also to pronouns and particles (sometimes linked together) as instruments of linking nominal variants of coordinate or subordinate clauses and to the development of demonstrative/deictic pronouns. Also in ancient case theory a prevailing position was assured to the nominative case, the case of the subject.

Case and preposition stranding in Old English free relatives

2020 ◽  
Vol 73 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Cynthia L. Allen
Keyword(s):  
Old English ◽  
Relative Clause ◽  
Relative Pronoun ◽  
Alternative Analysis ◽  
Free Relatives ◽  
Preposition Stranding ◽  
Made In

Abstract Taylor (2014) observes that some of the factual claims made in Allen (1980), the most thorough examination of free relatives in Old English to date, are not entirely correct. Taylor presents some examples that Allen’s analysis of Old English free relatives does not account for and proposes an alternative analysis in which the relative pronoun can be internal to the relative clause and the case of the pronoun is determined by the case hierarchy proposed by Harbert (2007) for Gothic. This corpus-based study supplies new data showing that while Taylor’s relative-internal analysis is needed for some examples, the evidence does not support the suggested case hierarchy except in regulating optional case attraction. Latin influence may account for examples that do not fit the usual patterns.

Headless Relative Clauses in Yucatec Maya

2021 ◽  
pp. 444-474
Author(s):  
Scott AnderBois ◽  
Miguel Oscar Chan Dzul
Keyword(s):  
Relative Clause ◽  
Relative Clauses ◽  
Head Noun ◽  
Indigenous Language ◽  
Yucatec Maya ◽  
Southern Mexico ◽  
Syntactic Form ◽  
European Languages ◽  
Free Relative ◽  
Syntactic Context

This chapter surveys headless relative clauses (i.e. ones with no overt head noun) in Yucatec Maya, an indigenous language of southern Mexico. For Indo-European languages, discussion of such constructions has focused on “free relative clauses”—those with only a bare wh-word in place of a head—and to a lesser extent, “light-headed” relative clauses⎯those with a dedicated set of pronominal elements in place of a head noun. In contrast, Yucatec Maya is shown to allow for four different kinds of surface headless relative clause forms depending on the presence or absence of a wh-word and the presence or absence of a determiner, quantifier, or other D-element. With respect to free relative clauses, whereas many more well-studied Indo-European languages have morpho-syntactically distinct constructions for definite and indefinite free relative clauses (e.g. with an infinitive or subjunctive form in the latter case), Yucatec Maya is shown to have a single morpho-syntactic form whose (in)definiteness is determined by syntactic context.

The difference between English restrictive and nonrestrictive relative clauses

1990 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 57-77 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nigel Fabb
Keyword(s):  
Relative Clause ◽  
Relative Clauses ◽  
Discourse Structure ◽  
Relative Pronoun ◽  
Syntactic Relation ◽  
The Difference ◽  
The Relationship

A nonrestrictive relative clause (henceforth NRR) is shown in (I) and a restrictive relative clause (henceforth RR) in (2).(1) The swans, which are white, are in that part of the lake.(2) The swans which are white are in that part of the lake.Example (1) implies that all the swans under discussion are white. Example (2) implies that the white swans are being distinguished from some other not white swans which are also under discussion. There are many superficial differences between restrictive and nonrestrictive relative clauses; in this paper I show that there is no need for construction-specific stipulations which distinguish between them. The differences arise from the fact that the RR is a modifier, while the NRR is not, and in fact has no syntactic relation to its host/antecedent. Co-indexing (involving a referential index) between the relative clause and its antecedent is central to this account. I examine the requirement that a relative pronoun must have an antecedent, which in the case of a NRR is the sole manifestation of the relationship between the relative clause and its host), and suggest that this holds at a level of discourse structure.

Recovery of information in Relative Clauses: evidence from Greek and Hebrew

1980 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 237-244 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian Joseph
Keyword(s):  
Formation Process ◽  
Relative Clause ◽  
Relative Clauses ◽  
Relative Pronoun ◽  
Modern Greek ◽  
Movement Strategy

Modern Greek has a Relative Clause Formation process by which the target of Relativization is deleted under identity with the head of the Relative Clause – these Relative Clauses are introduced by the invariant complementizer particle pu, which also introduces factive complements. (Greek also has a movement strategy for Relative Clauses, with an inflected Relative pronoun, but the details of this process are irrelevant here.) Examples of the deletion strategy are given below in (i):

Relative clauses are barriers to wh-movement for young children

1995 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 389-404 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jill De Villiers ◽  
Thomas Roeper
Keyword(s):  
Short Stories ◽  
Longitudinal Study ◽  
Young Children ◽  
Relative Clause ◽  
Relative Clauses ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Relative Pronoun ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
One Year

ABSTRACTTwo studies are described which investigate preschool children's sensitivity to relative clauses as barriers to the movement of wh-questions. The children were presented with short stories followed by questions in which the wh-word had two possible sites of interpretation, the ungrammatical option being inside a relative clause. A cross-sectional study with 23 children aged 3;1 to 6;1, and a longitudinal study over the course of one year with 12 children aged 3;1 to 4;1 at the start, found young children refused to extract wh-questions from the ungrammatical site inside a relative clause. This confirms other findings that children's early grammars are sensitive to universal constraints on movement. In addition, the children differentiated between wh-complements and relative clauses in their tendency to mistakenly answer the medial wh-complementizer but not the wh-relative pronoun. Explanations for the latter are framed in terms of children's initial assumptions about the attachment of complements.

scholarly journals Headless Relative Clauses in Pesh

2021 ◽  
pp. 509-546
Author(s):  
Claudine Chamoreau
Keyword(s):  
Relative Clause ◽  
Relative Clauses ◽  
Noun Phrases ◽  
Relative Pronoun ◽  
Left Edge ◽  
Free Relatives ◽  
Case Marker ◽  
Free Relative ◽  
The Right ◽  
Almost All

The aim of this study is to describe the two main kinds of headless relative clauses that are attested in Pesh, a Chibchan language spoken in Honduras: free relative clauses, which use a wh-word that functions as a relative pronoun at their left edge and a subordinator at their right edge, and headless relative clauses, which lack a wh- word but show a case marker or the topic marker at the right edge of the clause. The first type is less frequently attested in the natural corpus this study relies on, although the corpus does contain various instances of maximal, existential, and free-choice free relative clauses. Each of the constructions is distinguished by features of the wh-word and/or by certain restrictions regarding the tense of the verb in headless relative clauses or the type of verb in matrix clauses. The second type of headless relative clause, the ones that do not use a wh-expression, are much more frequent in the corpus and behave like headed relative clauses that lack a wh-expression. They are like noun phrases marked by a phrase-final case marker or the topic maker. The case or topic markers are used for light-headed relative clauses and for almost all types of maximal headless relative clause that have neither a light head nor a wh-expression, in contrast to maximal free relatives, in which only locative wh-words occur.

On amharic Relative Clauses

1972 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 497-513 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hailu Fulass
Keyword(s):  
Surface Structure ◽  
Noun Phrase ◽  
Relative Clause ◽  
Relative Clauses ◽  
Subject Position ◽  
Underlying Structure ◽  
Relative Pronoun ◽  
Main Verb ◽  
The Right

In what follows I would like to discuss the structure of Amharic relative clauses. In the course of the discussion, I would like to make the following three claims which I will attempt to substantiate in turn. First, I believe that relativization is a kind of pronominalization and, consequently, the particle yä- that is attached to the main verb (or its auxiliary) of the relative clause is not a relative pronoun. Second, I maintain that the ‘yä- clause’ in subject position in Amharic cleft sentences is also a relative clause with an unspecified element as its head. My third claim is that Amharic genitive phrases originate from relative clauses and that the noun (phrase) in the genitive phrase to which the particle yä- is attached in surface structure is governed by a preposition in underlying structure, and the head of a genitive phrase is the head of the under-lying relative clause. In this connexion, I also argue that there is a rule in Amharic which moves the particle yä- (to the right) over, at least, one constituent.

scholarly journals relative clause and its tones in Tswana

2010 ◽  
Vol 53 ◽  
pp. 227-242
Author(s):  
Sabine Zerbian
Keyword(s):  
Relative Clause ◽  
Relative Clauses ◽  
Head Noun ◽  
Current Paper ◽  
Semantic Features ◽  
Relative Pronoun ◽  
Prosodic Phrasing ◽  
Demonstrative Pronoun ◽  
Current Article

The morpho-syntax of relative clauses in Sotho-Tswana is relatively well-described in the literature. Prosodic characteristics, such as tone, have received far less attention in the existing descriptions. After reviewing the basic morpho-syntactic and semantic features of relative clauses in Tswana, the current paper sets out to present and discuss prosodic aspects. These comprise tone specifications of relative clause markers such as the demonstrative pronoun that acts as the relative pronoun, relative agreement concords and the relative suffix. Further prosodic aspects dealt with in the current article are tone alternations at the juncture of relative pronoun and head noun, and finally the tone patterns of the finite verbs in the relative clause. The article aims at providing the descriptive basis from which to arrive at generalizations concerning the prosodic phrasing of relative clauses in Tswana.  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document