Relativization in Dàgáárè and its typological implications: Left-headed but internally-headed

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

Akanlig-Pare

Atintono

et al. 2017

Self Cite

Gur (or Mabia) languages which are spoken in West Africa have so-called internally-headed relative clauses (IHRCs), but they have not received serious attention in syntactic and typological research on IHRCs. In this article, building on detailed first-hand data, we describe the syntax and semantics of IHRCs in five Gur languages: Buli, Dagaare, Dagbani, Gurene, and Kabiyé. It is demonstrated that their IHRCs refute the syntactic and semantic generalizations proposed in the literature (Gorbet 1976;Cole 1987;Grosu 2002;Watanabe 1991;. We also compare IHRCs in Gur and Japanese and argue that the existing semantic typology of IHRCs must be reconsidered, showing that properties of two types of IHRCs-restrictive and maximalizing IHRCS-do not necessarily show predicated correlations.

Section: (4)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Left-headed Ihrcsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Left-headed Ihrcsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A comparative syntax of internally-headed relative clauses in Gur

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

Akanlig-Pare

Atintono

et al. 2017

Self Cite

“…In addition to prenominal HERCs, Japanese allows Head-Internal Relative Clauses (HIRCs; see Kuroda 1974Kuroda , 1992Kuroda , 1999Kuroda , 2008Hiraiwa 2009 ;Bodomo & Hiraiwa 2010, among many others). An HIRC is a relative clause in which the relativized head noun remains in-situ with its original case marking retained.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The mechanism of inverted relativization in Japanese: A silent linker and inversion

2012

J. Ling.

Self Cite

Japanese has two peculiar types of relative clause (RC), No-RCs and De-RCs. In these types of relative clause, what looks like a (pivot) head noun appears at the left edge of the clause and is accompanied by no and de, respectively. This sharply contrasts with regular prenominal relative clauses in Japanese, which conform to the head-final word order pattern. The aim of this article is to investigate the syntax and semantics of these two types of relative clause in detail and reveal differences between them. Specifically, I will propose that (i) no in No-RCs is an appositive genitive particle licensed by a silent linker head, and (ii) de in De-RCs is a continuative/participial form of the copula da. Drawing a parallel with NP-no NP constructions and building on an idea from S.-Y. Kuroda's dissertation, it will be argued that No-RCs are derived by DP-internal inversion mediated by the linker. On the other hand, De-RCs will be shown to be relatives conjoined with the copula de. It will be further suggested that the fact that Korean and Mandarin Chinese lack equivalents of De-RCs is due to the absence of the appositive genitive particle and hence of DP-internal inversion.

Internally Headed Relative Clauses

The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Second Edition

2017

Languages show a restricted number of relativization strategies. Depending on the linear position in which a relativized head noun appears, relative clauses ( RC s) are classified into prenominal/right‐headed , postnominal/left‐headed , and in‐situ RCs. This classification is further refined depending on the structural position of a relativized head noun: whether it is syntactically external to the relative clause CP or internal to it. The latter type are called internally headed RCs (IHRCs). Thus, there can be logically three types of IHRCs: in‐situ IHRCs, left‐headed IHRCs, and right‐headed IHRCs. IHRCs are observed in a relatively small number of languages of the world, but are by no means typologically rare. They are indeed found in geographically diverse areas, across genetically unrelated languages. An important goal from the perspective of generative grammar is to investigate the structures of IHRCs and to reveal universals and parameters that make IHRCs available in some languages but not in others. In search of them, various linguists have proposed typological generalizations that are claimed to hold of IHRCs universally, such as a word‐order generalization and a wh‐in‐situ generalization. However, each generalization faces limits and exceptions. This chapter examines what the studies on IHRCs have discovered so far over the years and carefully considers what universals should be extracted from them and what should be taken as parameterized. It will focus on two sides of syntax of IHRCs: the internal syntax and the external syntax. A language with an IHRC must have a syntactic mechanism available that allows a relativized head to remain internal to a relative clause but to be linked as an argument of an element external to the relative clause. The chapter will also discuss syntactic subtypes of IHRCs from a cross‐linguistic perspective.