Headless Relative Clauses in Tseltalan

2021 ◽  
pp. 403-443
Author(s):  
Gilles Polian ◽  
Judith Aissen
Keyword(s):  
Relative Clause ◽  
Relative Clauses ◽  
Free Choice ◽  
Head Noun ◽  
Free Relatives ◽  
Free Relative

This chapter investigates headless relative clauses in Tseltal and Tsotsil, languages which make up the Tseltalan branch of Western Mayan. Headless relatives introduced by wh- interrogative expressions (free relatives) are associated with two interpretations: maximal and existential. There is no distinct free-choice free relative construction, but free-choice interpretations arise as possible readings of maximal free relatives. There are other headless relative clause constructions in Tseltalan which involve an overt determiner combined with the wh-pronoun or which lack an overt wh-pronoun. The authors argue that some of these are derived from headed relative clauses, with discourse-conditioned elision of the head noun, while others are based on free relatives in which the wh-pronoun is augmented by a determiner.

Headless Relative Clauses in Q'anjob'al

2021 ◽  
pp. 290-326
Author(s):  
Eladio Mateo Toledo (B’alam)
Keyword(s):  
Relative Clause ◽  
Relative Clauses ◽  
Free Choice ◽  
Head Domain ◽  
Free Relative ◽  
Interrogative Clauses

This chapter presents the first ever description and analysis of headless relative constructions in Q’anjob’al, a Mayan language spoken in Guatemala. It focuses on headless relative clauses (which lack a nominal head, regardless of other material in the head domain) and briefly touches on headed relative clauses. Headless relative clauses are productive in Q’anjob’al. The language distinguishes three kinds of free relative clauses (maximal, existential, and free choice) and three other kinds of headless relative clauses: non-free headless relative clauses headed by pronouns, determiners, or nothing at all. All free relative clauses have the same morpho-syntax, but non-free headless relative clauses differ morpho-syntactically from them and from each other. Wh- interrogative clauses are compared to relative constructions due to their similarities. Relative constructions with a pronominal head are argued to be neither light-headed relative clauses nor any other kind of headless relative clause.

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].

Free Choice-Free Relative Clauses of the Type “Indiferent + Wh-” in Romanian

2020 ◽  
Vol 65 (4) ◽  
pp. 209-222
Author(s):  
Mihaela Gheorghe
Keyword(s):  
Relative Clause ◽  
Relative Clauses ◽  
Free Choice ◽  
Complex Structure ◽  
Free Relative ◽  
The Matrix ◽  
Additive Particle

Free Choice-Free Relative Clauses of the Type “Indiferent + Wh-” in Romanian. The hypothesis of this paper is that the inventory of the free choice items in Romanian can be extended by including, along with the indefinites and the wh- compounds with ori-, a complex structure consisting of the adverb indiferent (‘regardless’) plus a wh-item. Based on syntactic tests, the paper suggests a line of interpretation according to which two patterns of relative clauses are possible with indiferent followed by a wh-item: (i) a headed relative clause licenced by a PP (de) which is syntactically required by the adverb indiferent, and (ii) a pattern in which the preposition de is covert, and the adverb functions as a quantifier that takes scope over the relative node; the clause is adjoined to the matrix together with the adverbial. We are dealing, therefore, with a free relative endowed with the free choice semantics of the adverb. In contexts of this type, the adverb indiferent seems to act like an additive particle to the wh-items, in a semantically similar way in which the prefix ori- contributes to the meaning of the complex free choice wh-words in Romanian. This hypothesis is also supported by the fact that the group formed by indiferent + wh-items is also occurrent in constructions with the ellipsis of the VP in the relative clause, a fact that strengthens the parallelism with the free choice items available in Romanian.

Headless Relative Clauses in Ch'ol

2021 ◽  
pp. 362-402
Author(s):  
Juan Jesús Vázquez Álvarez ◽  
Jessica Coon
Keyword(s):  
Relative Clause ◽  
Relative Clauses ◽  
The State ◽  
The Other ◽  
Southern Mexico ◽  
Free Relatives ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Free Relative ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Relative Structure

This chapter surveys headless relative clauses in Ch’ol, a Mayan language spoken in the state of Chiapas in southern Mexico. Ch’ol is rare among Mayan languages in possessing a special morpheme found with relativized nouns, the second position clitic = bä. While this morpheme is required for relativized argument nouns, it is not present in free relatives, which suggests a different derivation for this class of construction. Maximal (definite) and existential (indefinite) free relatives are described. They both make use of a fronted wh-expression and lack the morpheme = bä. Maximal and existential free relatives in Ch’ol appear identical to one another in structure. Following existing studies on other languages, it is argued that the different interpretations of these clauses are a result of the environments in which they appear. Finally, Ch’ol has two different types of constructions in which a determiner element is followed by a headless relative: one corresponding to the = bä structure and one corresponding to the free relative structure. The former is proposed to be a regular headed relative clause with an unpronounced head, as has elsewhere been argued for Yucatec. The latter, on the other hand, corresponds to a free relative structure with an added determiner element.

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.

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.

Headless Relative Clauses in Iliatenco Me'phaa

2021 ◽  
pp. 177-220
Author(s):  
Philip T. Duncan ◽  
Harold Torrence
Keyword(s):  
Relative Clause ◽  
Relative Clauses ◽  
Free Choice ◽  
Free Relative ◽  
Semantic Properties

This chapter documents the morpho-syntactic and semantic properties of headless relative clauses in a variety of Meꞌphaa spoken in Iliatenco, Guerrero, Mexico. Meꞌphaa possesses four types of headless relative clauses, which can be divided into two groups: those introduced by wh-expressions (free relative clauses), and those not introduced by wh-expressions. The former type is composed of three varieties: maximal free relative clauses, which are largely productive; existential free relative clauses, which are limited to a few wh-expressions; and free-choice free relative clauses, which are introduced by ájndo ‘until.’ The second type of headless relative clause is simply introduced by a relativizer/subordinator. Nearly all Meꞌphaa wh-expressions participate in some or all kinds of free relative clauses. However, the inanimate argument wh-expression dí(ne) ‘what’ seems to be robustly impermissible in such constructions.

scholarly journals Free relatives in Maltese

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 115-159
Author(s):  
Louisa Sadler ◽  
Maris Camilleri
Keyword(s):  
Relative Clause ◽  
Relative Clauses ◽  
Previous Literature ◽  
Free Relatives ◽  
Free Relative ◽  
Identical Type ◽  
Existential Construction

Abstract This paper makes a contribution to our understanding of free relative clauses (frcs) in Maltese, in particular so-called plain, standard or non -ever free relative clauses. We demonstrate that such frcs are interpreted as definites, consistent with the findings in much previous literature on other languages. However, we also show that Maltese has not one but two strategies for plain (realis or definite) frcs: alongside frcs formed using a wh-word we also find frcs introduced by the complementising element li, inconsistent with the seemingly widespread assumption that frcs necessarily involve a wh-word. Both strategies give rise to definite interpretations. Additionally, we argue that definite or realis wh-frcs are to be distinguished from a different (but apparently structurally identical) type, the so-called irrealis free relative clause or modal existential construction, which has not been previously identified for Maltese. We show that this subset of free relatives exhibit the properties associated with the modal existential construction crosslinguistically. We then demonstrate the existence of a subtype of headed relative clauses in Maltese which also share a number of the properties which we identify in the Maltese modal existential construction.

scholarly journals Headless Relative Clauses in Matlatzinca

2021 ◽  
pp. 145-176
Author(s):  
Enrique L. Palancar ◽  
Leonardo Carranza Martínez
Keyword(s):  
Relative Clause ◽  
Relative Clauses ◽  
Free Choice ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
Common Type ◽  
Relative Pronoun ◽  
Free Relative ◽  
Natural Data

In this chapter, a rich array of headless relative clauses in Matlatzinca (Atzincan, Oto-Pamean, Oto-Manguean; Mexico) is presented, mainly based on the patterns found in a corpus of natural data from spontaneous narratives and conversations by fluent native speakers. While free relative clauses are attested in the language, by far the most common type of headless relative clause is an asyndetic clause, i.e., a clause with no complementizer or relative pronoun. Maximal and existential free relative clauses are only found with the wh- words for ‘who,’ ‘what,’ and ‘where,’ but free-choice free relative clauses apparently also allow for the wh-word for ‘how much.’

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document