Nominals

2019 ◽  
pp. 7-54
Author(s):  
Jan Terje Faarlund
Keyword(s):  
Relative Clauses ◽  
The Other ◽  
Definite Article ◽  
Restrictive Relative Clauses ◽  
Universal Quantifiers

This chapter deals with the DP and its various layers. The lowest layer is the lexical domain, the NP. On top of the NP, there is a grammatical domain, calledsee Inflectional Phrase (IP), which contains the nominal inflectional categories of number and definiteness. The highest domain is the referential domain, the DP. The noun may be followed by complements and adjuncts, mainly in the form of PPs, and preceded by adjectives or quantifiers. Definiteness may be expressed as a preposed definite article or as a suffix on the noun. A non-modified noun moves to D, but an adjective blocks this movement and the definite article is spelt out as a separate word in D. There are several ways of expressing possession, especially in Norwegian, where the possessor can be either pre- or postnominal. In the other languages it is prenominal. Restrictive relative clauses are right-adjoined to IP, non-restrictive to DP. Universal quantifiers are generated above DP.

Formal and Functional Types of Indefinite Pronoun

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Haspelmath
Keyword(s):  
Relative Clauses ◽  
Negative Polarity ◽  
Ontological Category ◽  
Functional Types ◽  
Formal Element ◽  
Free Relative ◽  
Existential Sentences ◽  
Universal Quantifiers ◽  
Indefinite Pronoun ◽  
Indefinite Pronouns

This chapter examines formal and functional types of indefinite pronoun. It first presents some examples of different indefinite pronoun series in a variety of languages, focusing on a formal element shared by all members of an indefinite pronoun series, such as some and any in English. This element is called indefiniteness marker, an affix or a particle which stands next to the pronoun stem. The chapter proceeds by discussing two main types of derivational bases from which indefinite pronouns are derived in the world's languages: interrogative pronouns and generic ontological category nouns like person, thing or place. It also looks at the main functional types of indefinite pronoun, namely: negative indefinite pronouns and negative polarity (or scale reversal). Finally, it analyses some alternatives to indefinite pronouns, including generic nouns, existential sentences, non-specific free relative clauses, and universal quantifiers.

Fossilized mistakes in Spanish relative clauses learned by Chinese students

2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
María Guijarro Sanz
Keyword(s):  
Teaching Methods ◽  
Relative Clauses ◽  
Chinese Students ◽  
Construction Grammar ◽  
Cognitive Grammar ◽  
Restrictive Relative Clauses ◽  
The Impact

Abstract This article demonstrates how Cognitive Grammar and Construction Grammar can prevent Chinese students learning Spanish from fossilizing mistakes in restrictive relative clauses at the A2-B1 level of the European Framework of Reference for Languages. To address this issue, first, relative clauses in Spanish and Chinese were contrasted and, second, tailored solutions based on Cognitive Grammar were proposed. Among the cognitive based tailored solutions, certain geometry forms, colours and basic mathematics metaphors were compared with syntactic characteristics such as noun order, subordination hierarchy or resumption. To elucidate the impact of such teaching methods, an experiment with 74 Chinese students was performed. The results indicate that the efficacy of the proposed materials is statistically significant and as such, the Chinese students avoid fossilized mistakes while producing subject, object and locative relative clauses in Spanish.

Relative clauses in Agul from a corpus-based perspective

2020 ◽  
Vol 73 (1) ◽  
pp. 113-158
Author(s):  
Timur Maisak
Keyword(s):  
High Frequency ◽  
Relative Clauses ◽  
High Ratio ◽  
The Other ◽  
The Core ◽  
Text Corpora ◽  
The Asymmetry ◽  
Intransitive Verbs ◽  
Syntactic Restrictions ◽  
Locative Case

AbstractThis paper gives an account of participial clauses in Agul (Lezgic, Nakh-Daghestanian), based on a sample of 858 headed noun-modifying clauses taken from two text corpora, one spoken and one written. Noun-modifying clauses in Agul do not show syntactic restrictions on what can be relativized, and hence they instantiate the type known as GNMCCs, or general noun-modifying clause constructions. As the text counts show, intransitive verbs are more frequent than transitives and experiencer verbs in participial clauses, and among intransitive verbs, locative statives with the roots ‘be’ and ‘stay, remain’ account for half of all the uses. The asymmetry between the different relativization targets is also significant. Among the core arguments, the intransitive subject (S) is the most frequent target, patient (P) occupies second place, and agent (A) is comparatively rare. The preference of S and, in general, of S and P over A also holds true for most other Nakh-Daghestanian languages for which comparable counts are available. At the same time, Agul stands apart from the other languages by its high ratio of non-core relativization which accounts for 42% of all participial clauses. Addressee, arguments and adjuncts encoded with a locative case, as well as more general place and time relativizations show especially high frequency, outnumbering such arguments as experiencers, recipients, and predicative and adnominal possessors. Possible reasons for the high ratio of non-argument relativization are discussed in the paper.

scholarly journals Relativiser Alternation and Relative Clause Complexity: Insights from Nigerian and American Varieties

2020 ◽  
pp. 91-113
Author(s):  
Mayowa Akinlotan
Keyword(s):  
Relative Clause ◽  
Relative Clauses ◽  
The Other ◽  
Construction Site ◽  
Simple Construction ◽  
Syntactic Form ◽  
Complex Versus ◽  
New Varieties ◽  
Syntactic Function ◽  
Independent Effects

Idiosyncrasies and peculiarities distinguishing new Englishes from the established ones are often identified and measured by examining the extent to which structural choices and patterns vary across the board. The competition between relativisers wh- and that in the construction of relative clause, which itself is a structurally complex-versus-simple construction site, allows for showing the extent to which choice of a relativiser relates to the construction of a complex or simple relative clause, given different factors. On the other hand, such investigation can also shed some light on the extent to which structural com- plexity characterises new varieties of English. Relying on 628 relative clauses drawn from written academic corpus, the study shows that WH-relativiser is preferred to THAT-relativiser by the Nigerian speakers, and vice versa by the American speakers. It is also found that WH-relative clause is more likely to be complex-structured while THAT-relative clause is more likely to be simple-structured. Among eight factors tested for independent effects, the factors representing relativiser posterior syntactic form, syntactic function, and syntactic positioning of the relative clause appeared to be strong predictors of where we might (not) find a certain relativiser and whether a complex or simple relative clause will emerge.

scholarly journals Typology and nuance: relativization

2020 ◽  
pp. 104-130
Author(s):  
Marianne Mithun
Keyword(s):  
North American ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Relative Clauses ◽  
Spontaneous Speech ◽  
The Other ◽  
Stages Of Development ◽  
Linguistic Typology ◽  
The North

Much of linguistic typology is inherently categorical. In large-scale typological surveys, grammatical constructions, distinctions, and even variables are typically classified as present, absent, or embodying one of a set of specified options. This work is valuable for a multitude of purposes, and in many cases such categorization is sufficient. In others, we can advance our understanding further if we take a more nuanced approach, considering the extent to which a particular construction, distinction, or variable is installed in the grammar. An important tool for this approach is the examination of unscripted speech in context, complete with prosody. This point is illustrated here with Mohawk, an Iroquoian language indigenous to the North American Northeast. As will be seen, the two types of construction which might be identified as relative clauses are emergent, one less integrated into the grammar than the other. Examination of spontaneous speech indicates that the earliest stages of development are prosodic, as speakers shape their messages according to their communicative purposes at each moment.

Non-restrictive relatives are not orphans

2007 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
pp. 271-309 ◽  
Author(s):  
DOUG ARNOLD
Keyword(s):  
Relative Clauses ◽  
Syntactic Representation ◽  
Restrictive Relative Clauses ◽  
Restrictive Relatives

According to a ‘radical orphanage’ approach, non-restrictive relative clauses are not part of the syntactic representation of the sentence that contains them. It is an appealing view, and seems to capture some important properties of non-restrictive relative clauses. Focusing mainly on empirical shortcomings, this paper aims to show that the appeal of such approaches is illusory. It also outlines an empirically superior ‘syntactically integrated’ account.

Headless Relative Clauses in K'iche'

2021 ◽  
pp. 260-289
Author(s):  
Telma Angelina Can Pixabaj
Keyword(s):  
Relative Clauses ◽  
Free Choice ◽  
The Other ◽  
Free Relative ◽  
Preliminary Description

This chapter offers a preliminary description of headless relative clauses in K’iche’. The language exhibits all three varieties of free relative clauses that are attested crosslinguistically: maximal, existential, and free-choice. It also has two other kinds of headless relative clauses: light-headed relative clauses introduced by determiners (without wh-expressions) and headless relative clauses with no marking of any kind (neither wh-expressions nor determiners). Overall, the picture that emerges is that all three varieties of free relative clauses exhibit clear morpho-syntactic and semantic differences that differentiate them both from each other as well as from headed relative clauses. One characteristic that helps to differentiate between them is the different subsets of wh-expressions they make use of. All of these wh- clausal constructions are related but, crucially, independent. Of the two kinds of headless relative clauses that do not make use of wh-expressions, one kind—light-headed relative clauses—is introduced by a determiner, while the other kind has no special marking. Both exhibit distributional and semantic restrictions that distinguish them from headed relative clauses.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document