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 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].

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.

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.

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.’

Headless Relative Clauses in Sierra Popoluca

2021 ◽  
pp. 475-508
Author(s):  
Wendy López Márquez
Keyword(s):  
Relative Clause ◽  
Relative Clauses ◽  
The State ◽  
Productive System ◽  
Free Relative ◽  
Demonstrative Pronouns ◽  
Interrogative Clauses ◽  
Almost All ◽  
Sierra Popoluca

This chapter presents the first investigation of headless relative clauses in Sierra Popoluca, a Mixe-Zoquean language spoken in the southern part of the state of Veracruz, Mexico. It shows that Sierra Popoluca exhibits a very productive system of headless relative clauses. The language has free relative clauses of all three major types attested crosslinguistically and, remarkably, all three types can be introduced by almost all the wh-words that can occur in wh- interrogative clauses. It also has two types of light-headed relative clauses, both with demonstrative pronouns as their “light heads”: those which are introduced by a relative subordinator and those that are introduced by wh-words—the same two strategies attested in headed relative clauses in Sierra Popoluca. Finally, the language has one more variety of headless relative clause that lacks both a light head and a wh-word.

Headless Relative Clauses in Southeastern Tepehuan (O'dam)

2021 ◽  
pp. 58-78
Author(s):  
Gabriela García Salido
Keyword(s):  
Relative Clauses ◽  
Free Choice ◽  
Innovative Strategy ◽  
Free Relative ◽  
Embedded Clauses ◽  
Interrogative Clauses ◽  
Finite Clause ◽  
Ritual Speech

Varieties of headless relative clauses in the Uto-Aztecan language Southeastern Tepehuan (O’dam) are discussed, together with two related constructions: wh- interrogative clauses and headed relative clauses. O’dam encodes relative clauses using two strategies: nominalization and finite clause formation. Unlike most of the Uto-Aztecan family, O’dam uses the nominalization strategy only in ritual speech. Elsewhere, the language uses the general subordinator particle na to introduce all types of embedded clauses: adverbial, completive, and relative. This mode of subordination is typologically interesting for the Uto-Aztecan family because it results in an innovative strategy: finite clauses instead of nominalization. O’dam distinguishes between headed and headless relative clauses. Unlike headed relative clauses, headless relative clauses in O’dam lack a nominal head and require a wh-word. Two main varieties are attested: free relative clauses (maximal and existential, but not free choice) and light-headed relative clauses.

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.

English Speakers’ Comprehension of Embedded Relative Clauses in L2 Japanese

2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (10) ◽  
pp. 841
Author(s):  
Shinichi Shoji
Keyword(s):  
Relative Clause ◽  
Relative Clauses ◽  
Sentence Type ◽  
Type A ◽  
Native English Speakers ◽  
English Speakers ◽  
Type B ◽  
The Matrix ◽  
Embedded Clauses ◽  
Accuracy Rates

This study investigated native English speakers’ comprehension of Japanese sentences in which relative clauses are embedded. Specifically, this study contrasted between (a) short-before-long sentences with center-embedded relative clauses and (b) long-before-short sentences with non-center-embedded relative clauses. Sentence-type (a) indicates a sentence that includes a short phrase before a long phrase and includes a relative clause that is embedded in the middle of the sentence, e.g., Onna-ga Ken-ga kiratteiru giin-o hometa ‘The woman praised the senator who Ken hated’. Sentence-type (b) indicates a sentence with a long phrase before a short phrase and includes a relative clause that is embedded peripherally, e.g., Ken-ga kiratteiru onna-ga giin-o hometa ‘The woman who Ken hated praised the senator’. Experiment 1 revealed that native English speakers, who are learners of Japanese, comprehended the type (b) sentences with long-before-short phrases and with non-center-embedded relative clauses more accurately than the type (a) sentences with short-before-long phrases with center-embedded relative clauses. The results indicate that the preference for the non-center-embedded clauses to center-embedded clauses is universal across languages, while the preference for short-before-long phrases is language-specific. However, Experiment 2 indicated that the different accuracy rates in comprehensions of (a) and (b) disappeared when the matrix subjects are marked by the topic-morpheme wa. The outcome indicated that the topic phrases are immediately interpreted as a part of main clauses.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document