the syntax of prenominal relative clauses: a typological study

The syntax of prenominal relative clauses:A typological study

TONG WU

Linguistic Typology 15 (2011), 569–623 1430–0532/2011/015-0569DOI 10.1515/LITY.2011.036 ©Walter de Gruyter

Abstract

A typological overview is given of the syntax of prenominal relative clauses,based on a large number of languages of different families and areas and pre-sented in a theory-neutral way. On the one hand, previous typological assump-tions are tested against new data. On the other hand, the question is addressedto what extent prenominal relative clauses are ordinary or unusual, comparedto other types of relative clauses, especially to postnominal ones.

Keywords: Accessibility Hierarchy, clause combining, finiteness, relativeclause, subordination, syntax

1. Introduction

Unlike relative clauses as such, prenominal relative clauses have receivedlittle typological attention: they have essentially only been studied in a fewwell-known and often-quoted languages such as Basque, Japanese, Mandarin,and Turkish. I will seek to remedy this gap here. The focus of the presentmore comprehensive study is on the syntax of prenominal relatives, and theirsemantics will only be dealt with tangentially.

The present study is data-oriented: my aims are (i) to verify or questionprevious assumptions with data from more languages and (ii) to show howprenominal relative clauses compare to other types of relative clauses, espe-cially to postnominal ones. No particular theory will be explicitly adopted orintentionally avoided in this survey. I attempt to give useful partial solutions ifcomplete ones are out of reach. The methodology adopted includes: collectingexamples from print sources and native speakers, examining previous general-izations and analyses from the literature on prenominal relatives, constructinggeneralizations and rules, and if possible explaining the generalizations andrules, thus incorporating the findings into a broader linguistic inquiry.

Brought to you by | Columbia University Law Library New York (Columbia University Law Library New York)Authenticated | 172.16.1.226

Download Date | 7/16/12 5:08 PM

570 Tong Wu

This article is organized as follows. In Section 2, after defining relativeclauses, I will limit the scope of my study by picking out what I call pri-mary prenominal relative clauses. In Section 3 the syntax of prenominal rel-atives is discussed in detail, including relativizers, gapping, resumptive pro-nouns, non-finiteness, the Accessibility Hierarchy, and exceptions to the impli-cation prenominal relative clause → verb-final. Particular attention willbe paid to phenomena overlooked in previous work, such as the existence ofvariable relativizers and two kinds of unusual gaps in prenominal relatives. Ialso aim to identify inaccurate claims and improve on superficial generaliza-tions, such as the allegedly rare use of resumptive pronouns and the frequentnon-finiteness of prenominal relatives. I will conclude with a discussion ofprenominal relatives with regard to other types of relative clauses.

2. Relative clauses and prenominal relative clauses

I define relative clauses as subordinate clauses with a semantic pivot whichthey share with the matrix. Similar definitions can be found in de Vries (2002:14) and Grosu (2002: 145).1 By subordinate I mean “being a constituentof”2, and by semantic pivot I refer to what Keenan & Comrie (1977: 63–64) called “domain” or what Creissels (2006: 205–206) called “conjunction ofproperties” or “intersection of two sets”. Prototypically, the formal realizationof the semantic pivot is a noun phrase (or a determiner phrase in some theories),often called head noun. This realization can also be an adjective phrase as in(1a), a verb phrase as in (1b), or even a whole sentence as in (1c) (Fabb 1990:60):

(1) a. Bill is drunk all the time, which is probably what you’d like to be.b. John luckily escaped, which I unluckily didn’t.c. The cheese was bought by John, which was fortunate.

For non-nominal realization of the semantic pivot I will use the looser la-bel of “constituent relativized on” instead of “head noun”. Examples (1a–c)contain non-restrictive relatives, as opposed to restrictive ones. General discus-sions of the semantics of relative clauses can be found in C. Lehmann 1986,2003; Comrie 1989: 138–142; Fabb 1999; Dik 1997: 38–44; Givón 2001:Chapter 14.2.4; Grosu 2002; de Vries 2005: 181–196; and Creissels 2006:Chapter 32.2. More specific discussions of the semantics of prenominal rel-atives are in Nedjalkov 1997: 35 for Evenki, Ishizuka 2006 and Kameshima1989 for Japanese, Lacroix 2009: 758 for Laz, Asher & Kumari 1997: 55

1. See Creissels (2005: 1–3) for a very inspiring discussion on the definition of relative clauses.2. For the general problem of defining subordination, see Cristofaro 2003 and Creissels 2005: 2,

2006: Chapter 32.5.



The syntax of prenominal relative clauses 571

for Malayalam, Aikhenvald 2008: 469 for Manambu, J.-W. Lin 2003 and delGobbo 2005 for Mandarin, Pandharipande 1997: 80–84 for Marathi, Sridhar1990: 51–52 for Kannada, and Kornfilt 1997: Chapter 1.1.2.3.2 and Göksel &Kerslake 2005: Chapter 25.2 for Turkish.

prenominal relative clauses are relative clauses preceding the headnoun or the constituent relativized on. Postnominal relatives follow the con-stituent relativized on. Another possibility is that the constituent relativized onis inside the relative clause, i.e., is head-internal.3 Lhasa Tibetan has all threetypes: internally-headed (2a), prenominal (2b), and postnominal (2c), wherethe semantic pivot is thep (Mazaudon 1978: 402).

(2) a. [peemE

Peema.ergthepbook.abs

khıi-pa]RC

carry-ptcpl.abstheart.abs

neepro.1sg.gen

yinbe

‘The book that Peema carries is mine.’b. [peemE

Peema.ergkhıi-pE]RC

carry-ptcplthepbook.abs

theart.abs

neepro.1sg.gen

yinbe‘The book that Peema carries is mine.’

c. thepbook.abs

[peemE

Peema.ergkhıi-pa]RC

carry-ptcpl.abstheart.abs

neepro.1sg.gen

yinbe

‘The book that Peema carries is mine.’

In the database of Dryer 2005, out of 704 languages 507 have postnominalrelatives and 117 have prenominal relatives. Map 1 plots their geographicaldistribution.

The present study only concerns primary prenominal relative clauses, de-fined in terms of “markedness”: the primary prenominal relative is the un-marked type of relatives in the language in question. As mentioned above,Lhasa Tibetan has internally-headed, prenominal, and postnominal relativeclauses, but only prenominal relatives can relativize on all the positions, areused in all registers, and are more frequent than the other types of relatives

3. Note that there are further types of relative clauses, i.e., correlative relative clauses and ad-joined relative clauses. For the syntactic typology of relative clauses see Downing 1978;Mallinson & Blake 1981: Chapter 5.2; Keenan 1985; C. Lehmann 1986, 2003; Comrie 1989:138–164; Dik 1997: 45–70; Whaley 1997: 261–262; Fabb 1999; Alexiadou et al. 2000: 19–21; Song 2001: Chapter 4; Kroeger 2004: Chapter 7.2, 2005: Chapter 12.5; de Vries 2001,2002, 2005; Creissels 2006: Chapters 32–34; and Andrews 2007.



572 Tong Wu

Map 1. Types of relative clauses and their geographical distribution (generated by thesoftware of Haspelmath et al. (eds.) 2005)

(Mazaudon 1978): thus, Lhasa Tibetan is a primary-prenominal-relative-clauselanguage. Markedness thus corresponds to the “distributional potential” ofCroft (2003: 98):

(3) Distributional potential:If the marked value occurs in a certain number of distinct grammaticalenvironments (construction types), then the unmarked value will alsooccur in at least those environments that the marked value occurs in.

Factors other than distributional potential may also be taken into consider-ation, including acquisition and processing. As a result, a language can havetwo or more types of relative clauses as primary.4 In what follows, “prenom-inal relative clause” and “prenominal-relative-clause language”, unless speci-fied otherwise, are used for “primary prenominal relative clause” and “primary-prenominal-relative-clause language”. Consequently, German and English par-ticipial prenominal relatives such as (4) and (5) are not considered here, be-cause they can only relativize on subjects and direct objects and are not pri-mary prenominal relative clauses (Keenan & Comrie 1977: 64, Krause 2001:27):

(4) derart

inin

seinemhis.dat

Bürostudy

arbeitendework.ptcpl

Mannman

‘the man who is working in his study’

4. Turkish (Kornfilt 1997: Chapter 1.1.2.3, Göksel & Kerslake 2005: Chapter 25), Basque (Oy-harçabal 2003, Rebuschi 2011), and Even (Malchukov 1995: Chapter 8) are such languages.




(5) Mary loves the passionately singing man over there.

The primary type of relative clauses in German and in English is the postnom-inal relative. Similarly, Hungarian (Kenesei et al. 1998: Chapter 1.1.2.3) andFinnish (Sulkala & Karjalainen 1992: 39–48) have prenominal relatives onlyas a non-primary type.

3. Prenominal relative clauses

3.1. Geographical distribution and genetic affiliation

Among the 117 prenominal-relative-clause languages of Dryer 2005, many arein Asia in the Sino-Tibetan and the Altaic families (see Map 2 and Tables 1 and2). The prenominal relative clause is described as existing in at least another58 languages (see Table 3). The present study is based on these 175 languages.Particular attention will be paid to more “exotic” languages if data are accessi-ble.

3.2. Previous typological claims about prenominal relative clauses

To get started, we list claims about the syntax of prenominal relatives that havebeen made in previous work, followed by my own results based on the 175prenominal-relative-clause languages examined:

Map 2. Geographical distribution of the prenominal-relative-clause languages in Dryer2005 (generated by the software of Haspelmath et al. (eds.) 2005)



574 Tong Wu

(6) a. No relative pronoun of the European type: ✓ (Section 3.3)b. No linker: ✗ (Section 3.3)c. In some prenominal relative clauses, complementizer = genitive

marker: ✓, but to a larger extent (Section 3.3)d. Complementizer often between the prenominal relative clause and

the head noun: ✓, but with more exceptions (Section 3.3)e. Never the same clause-final complementizer in prenominal rela-

tives as in the sentential objects of verbs of thinking and saying:✓, in spite of two quasi-exceptions (Section 3.3)

f. Frequent use of gapping: ✓ (Section 3.4)g. Existence of unusual gaps: ✓ (Section 3.4)h. Rare use of resumptive pronouns: ✗ (Section 3.5)i. Often non-finite or nominalized: ✓, though not an intrinsic prop-

erty (Section 3.6)j. Fewer positions accessible than in other types of relatives (in a

single language): ✗ (Section 3.7)k. Prenominal relative clause → OV: ✓, but with more exceptions

(Section 3.8)

Table 1. Geographical distribution of the prenominal-relative-clause languages inDryer 2005

Continents Languages (117)

Asia (84) Abkhaz, Achang, Ainu, Akha, Amis, Apatani, Athpare, Bai,Balti, Bashkir, Burmese, Burushaski, Byansi, Camling, Can-tonese, Chantyal, Chechen, Chepang, Chin (Siyin), Chuvash,Dagur, Dhivehi, Digaro, Dimasa, Evenki, Gallong, Gurung,Hakka, Hani, Hayu, Ho, Hunzib, Ingush, Japanese, Jingpho,Kabardian, Kalmyk, Karachay Balkar, Karakalpak, Khaling,Khalkha, Kham, Khowar, Kolami, Korean, Korku, Koya, Kuvi,Lahu, Lamani, Lezgian, Limbu, Mandarin, Mangghuer, Mansi,Marathi, Maru, Meithei, Mising, Mundari, Naga (Mao), NarPhu, Newar (Dolakha), Newar (Kathmandu), Nocte, Pumi, Purki,Qiang, Rawang, Sikkimese, Tamang, Tamil, Tatar, Telugu, Thu-lung, Tibetan (Modern Literary), Tsova Tush, Turkish, Turkmen,Ubykh, Uyghur, Uzbek, Yakut, Yukaghir (Kolyma)

Europe (1) BasqueAfrica (9) Amharic, Chaha, Gamo, Ijo (Kolokuma), Kemant, Khoekhoe,

Afar, Tigre, ZayseOceania (14) Alamblak, Ambulas, Asmat, Awa, Awtuw, Hanga Hundi, Hua,

Kobon, Kwoma, Rumu, Sare, Una, Yagaria, Yale (Kosarek)North America (3) Cherokee, Maidu (Northeast), TlingitSouth America (6) Huitoto (Murui), Hupda, Quechua (Huallaga), Quechua (Im-

babura), Tsafiki, Tucano




Table 2. Genetic affiliation of the prenominal-relative-clause languages in Dryer 2005

Families (29) Languages (117)

Sino-Tibetan (42) Achang, Akha, Apatani, Athpare, Bai, Balti, Burmese,Byansi, Camling, Cantonese, Chantyal, Chepang, Chin(Siyin), Digaro, Dimasa, Gallong, Gurung, Hakka, Hani,Hayu, Jingpho, Khaling, Kham, Lahu, Limbu, Mandarin,Maru, Meithei, Mising, Naga (Mao), Nar Phu, Newar(Dolakha), Newar (Kathmandu), Nocte, Pumi, Purki,Qiang, Rawang, Sikkimese, Tamang, Thulung, Tibetan(Modern Literary)

Altaic (15) Bashkir, Chuvash, Dagur, Evenki, Kalmyk, KarachayBalkar, Karakalpak, Khalkha, Mangghuer, Tatar, Turkish,Turkmen, Uyghur, Uzbek, Yakut

Afro-Asiatic (7) Amharic, Chaha, Gamo, Kemant, Afar, Tigre, ZayseTrans-New Guinea (7) Asmat, Awa, Hua, Kobon, Una, Yale (Kosarek), YagariaSepik (6) Alamblak, Ambulas, Awtuw, Hanga Hundi, Kwoma, SareDravidian (5) Kolami, Koya, Kuvi, Telugu, TamilNakh-Daghestanian (5) Chechen, Hunzib, Ingush, Lezgian, Tsova TushIndo-European (4) Dhivehi, Khowar, Lamani, MarathiAustro-Asiatic (3) Ho, Korku, MundariNorthwest Caucasian (3) Abkhaz, Kabardian, UbykhQuechuan (2) Quechua (Imbabura), Quechua (Huallaga)Ainu (1) AinuAustronesian (1) AmisBarbacoan (1) TsafikiBasque (1) BasqueBurushaski (1) BurushaskiHuitotoan (1) HuitotoIroquoian (1) CherokeeJapanese (1) JapaneseKhoisan (1) KhoekhoeKorean (1) KoreanNa-Dene (1) TlingitNiger-Congo (1) Ijo (Kolokuma)Penutian (1) Maidu (Northeast)Tucanoan (1) TucanoTurama-Kikorian (1) RumuUralic (1) MansiVaupés-Japurá (1) HupdaYukaghir (1) Yukaghir (Kolyma)



576 Tong Wu

Table 3. Prenominal-relative-clause languages not listed in Dryer 2005


Sino-Tibetan (17) Ao (Mongsen) (Coupe 2007: Chapter 6.6),Bantawa (Doornenbal 2009: 200–203),Belhare (Bickel 2003: Section 5.6.1),Dhimal (King 2008: Chapter 5.4.1),Dulong (LaPolla 2003: 681),Minnan (Chen 2008),Garo (Burling 2003: 395),Lai (Hakha) (Peterson 2003: Section 4.2.6),Lisu (Bradley 2003: 228–229),Lotha (Herring 1991),Manange (Hildebrandt 2004: Section 5.2),Prinmi (Ding 2003: Sections 4.1, 4.6),rGyalrong (Caodeng) (Sun 2003: Section 4.5.2, 2006),Sherpa (Kelly 2004: Section 5.6),Tibetan (Kyirong) (Huber 2003),Tibetan (Lhasa) (Mazaudon 1978),Tshangla (Andvik 2003: Sections 4, 12)

Altaic (8) Azerbaijanian (Schönig 1998: 258),Buryat (Skribnik 2003: 125–126),Even (Malchukov 1995: Chapter 8),Karachay (Seegmiller 1996: 30–31),Kazakh (Kirchner 1998a: 328),Kirghiz (Kirchner 1998b: 353), Aydın (2006),Noghay (Csató & Karakoç 1998: 340),Xakas (Anderson 1998: Chapter 2.2.3.1)

Nakh-Daghestanian (6) Akhvakh (Creissels 2007),Godoberi (Tatevosov 1996),Khwarshi (Khalilova 2009: Section 4.8),Kryz (Authier 2009: Chapter 19),Tsakhur (Schulze 1997: Chapters 5.1, 5.8),Tsez (Comrie & Polinsky 1999)

Afro-Asiatic (8) Argobba (Leslau 1959),Dime (Seyoum 2008: 112–113, 154–157),Kambaata (Treis 2008),Maale (Amha 2001: Chapter 8.1),Sidamo (Kazuhiro 2007),Silt’i (Rawda 2003),Tigrinya (Palmer 1962, Kogan 1997, Overfelt 2009),Wolaytta (Lamberti & Sottile 1997: Chapter 4.13.2,Wakasa 2008: Chapter 4.4.3.3)

Austro-Asiatic (4) Gorum (Anderson & Rau 2008: Section 4.2.1),GtaP (Anderson 2008: Section 4.2.1),




Table 3 (continued).


Gutob (Griffiths 2008: Section 4.5),Kharia (Peterson 2008: Section 4.4)

Dravidian (2) Kannada (Sridhar 1990: 47–66),Malayalam (Asher & Kumari 1997: 52–75)

Quechua (2) Quechua (Conchucos) (Courtney 2006),Quechua (Cuzco) (T. Wu 2008)

Indo-European (2) Sinhala (Gair & Paolillo 1997: Chapter 3.7.5, Gair 2003:Section 6.7),Tati (Authier 2010: Chapter 15)

Austronesian (1) Tsou (Zeitoun 2005: 273)Kartvelian (1) Laz (Arhavi) (Lacroix 2009: Chapter 12.2)Ouralic (1) Mari (Matsumura 1981, Kangasmaa-Minn 1998)Sepik (1) Manambu (Aikhenvald 2008: Chapter 19.2)Torricelli (1) Bukiyip (Conrad & Wogiga 1991: Chapter 5.2)Trans New Guinea (1) Oksapmin (Loughnane 2009: Chapters 7.5.4, 7.6)Yukaghir (1) Yukaghir (Tundra) (Maslova 2003b: Chapter 4.5)Isolate (2) Nivkh (Gruzdeva 1998: Chapter 4.2.2.2),

Urarina (Olawsky 2006: 320–327)

Even though most previous claims about prenominal relatives are not wrong,they are either too limited or too superficial. On the one hand, the alleged pecu-liarity of prenominal relative clauses is an artefact owing to these claims beingbased on a small number of prenominal-relative-clause languages: once thesample is broadened, it emerges that the properties in question are not so rare,neither in prenominal nor in other types of relatives. On the other hand, thereare claims that I consider “superficial”. Though accurate, they do not representintrinsic properties of prenominal relatives, but are related to other propertiesof the languages in question. More important generalizations are lost if oneinsists on these non-intrinsic properties of prenominal relatives without relat-ing them to other structures. This point will be illustrated in particular withregard to the non-finiteness/nominalization of prenominal relatives. In additionto these, there are further properties of prenominal relatives that appear to havebeen overlooked in previous studies, such as the use of more than one com-plementizer and the scope of accessible positions following the AccessibilityHierarchy.

3.3. Relativizers

Prenominal relative clauses have always been reported as never using relativepronouns of the European type (Schwartz 1971: 144; Downing 1978: 392, 396;



578 Tong Wu

Keenan 1985: 149; Dik 1997: 46; Song 2001: 220, 232; de Vries 2001: 235,240, 2005: 147; Kroeger 2005: 238, Creissels 2006: 239, 242; Andrews 2007:208, 218, 222). Typically, a relative pronoun of the European type marks theposition relativized on (i.e., the case of the head noun in the relative clause)and is found between the relative clause and the head noun, such as who/whomin English (Quirk et al. 1985: 1249):

(7) a. the person whosubject spoke to himb. the person to whomprepositional complement he spoke

No prenominal relative clause with relative pronouns is found in my sample.However, in some prenominal relatives there are relativizers indicating posi-tions relativized on. Abkhaz uses y(@) for the absolutive and z(@) for the otherpositions (Creissels 2006: 243):

(8) a. a-xàc’aart-man

y@-y-ba-(kwa-)zrel-s.3sg-see-(pl-)nfn

à-èwsaart-woman.pl

‘the women that the man saw’b. a-šwqw’@

art-bookz@-y-tà-zrel-s.3sg-give-nfn

a-pèw@sart-woman

‘the woman to whom he gave a book’c. z@-da

rel-withoutw-aa-zs.2sg-come-nfn

a-wayw@

art-man‘the man without whom you came’

d. z@-kw’@t’@rel-chicken

meràbMerab

y@-Zá-zs.3sg-steal-nfn

a-pèw@sart-woman

‘the woman whose chicken Merab stole’

Kabardian is similar to Abkhaz in using y@- optionally for absolutive headnouns and -z- for the other positions (Colarusso 1992: 189, 191–193). Therelativizers of Abkhaz and Kabardian are different from European relative pro-nouns because even if they can indicate positions relativized on, they neverappear between the head noun and the relative clause.

A similar situation obtains in Tibeto-Burman. In these languages, differentrelativizers – often called “nominalizers” in the literature – are used to refer todifferent roles or to encode various semantic values: for example, in Lisu, /su

¯44/

is used for (animate) subject, /sğ21/ for (non-human, usually) object, /gu33/ forlocative, /du33/ for instrument, /thE21/ for temporal, and /mA

¯44/ being the gen-

eral nominalizer (Bradley 2003: 229); and in Lhasa Tibetan, mkhan is used foractor, sa for locative/dative, yag for patient and instrument in non-perfectiverelatives, and pa in the perfective relatives when the head noun is not actor(DeLancey 2003: 276):




(9) a. mogmogmomo

zhimpodelicious

bzo-mkhancook-nomin

bumogirl

dedem

‘the girl who makes good momos’b. mo-s

3sg.f-ergmogmogmomo

bzo-sa(-‘i)cook-nomin(-gen)

zakhangfood.shop

‘the food shop where she makes momos’c. mo-s

3sg.f-ergbzo-yag-gicook-nomin-gen

mogmogmomo

‘the momos which she makes’d. mo-s

3sg.f-ergbzos-pa-‘icook.perf-nomin-gen

mogmogmomo

‘the momos which she made’

There seems no way to classify Tibeto-Burman relativizers as relative pro-nouns, even if to some extent they do indicate the positions relativized on.Just like in Abkhaz and Kabardian, it is difficult to precisely categorize the rel-ativizers of Tibeto-Burman languages, unless one accepts the common label of“nominalizer”.5

Other non-pronominal types of relativizers are used in various prenominal-relative-clause languages.

One type is the linker. Linkers agree with the head noun in gender (or nounclass) and/or in number, but never indicate the position relativized on. Moreimportantly, linkers can co-occur with resumptive pronouns, while there seemsto be no case of real relative pronouns used simultaneously with resumptionin the same relative clause. Here are examples from Tswana (10) and Arabic(11):

(10) monnaman.nc1

yolink.nc1

LeburuAfrikaner.nc5

les3.nc5

moo3.nc1

rekiseditse-ngsell.perf-relv

dikgomocow.nc8/10

‘the man to whom the Afrikaner sold cows’ (Lit. ‘the man that theAfrikaner sold cows to him’) (Creissels 2006: 212)

(11) a. ar-arZuludef-man

llaąi:link.sg.m

qatalu:-hukill.perf.s.3pl.m-o.3sg.m

‘the man they killed’ (Lit. ‘the man that one they killed him’)

5. The status of Tibeto-Burman relativizer/nominalizer would be worth a separate study. Oneanonymous reviewer noted that there was a real difference between a complementizer like thatin English and the Tibeto-Burman relativizers and did not agree on lumping them together.The literature on this question is huge and I can only leave this point aside here.



580 Tong Wu

b. al-bintudef-girl

llati:link.sg.f

ąahabtugo.perf.s1sg

maQa-ha:with-3sg.f

Pila:to

s-su:qidef-market.gen‘the girl with whom I went to the market’ (Lit. ‘the girl that oneI went with her to the market’) (Creissels et al. 2008: 143)

Though this is sometimes denied (e.g., by Creissels 2006: 240), prenominal-relative-clause languages can have linkers. Dime (Seyoum 2008: 154, 155,156) is the only such language in my sample; but other languages in the sameregion – Southern Ethiopia – may have the same type of relativizers.

(12) a. tááynow

Pád-déé-b-is-imcome-impf-link.sg.m-art-acc

gošt-ís-imman-art-acc

nú3sg.m.subj

yéf-déé-nsee-impf-3

‘He sees the man who is coming now.’b. d@r-ím

goat-accwúdúr-ingirl-dat

šin-i-ndbuy-perf-link.sg.f

Pámz-iswoman-art

láXt’-i-ndie-perf-3‘The woman who bought a goat for a girl died.’

c. d@r-is-ímgoat-art-acc

wúdúr-is-ingirl-art-dat

šin-i-dbuy-perf-link.pl

Pámz-af-iswoman-pl-art

láXt’-i-ndie-perf-3

‘The women who bought the goat for the girl died.’

The morphemes in question are -(u)b [+Masculine, +Singular] as in (12a),-(i)nd [+Feminine, +Singular] as in (12b), and -(i)d [+Plural] as in (12c).

Another type of relativizers found in prenominal relatives is the comple-mentizer. Differing from relative pronouns, prototypical complementizers donot indicate the position relativized on6 and cannot pied-pipe adpositions:

(13) a. the person to whom I spokeb. *the person to that I spokec. the person that I spoke to

Prototypical complementizers indicate only the subordination of relatives, asthey are added to a clause which could be independent without them, although

6. Complementizers can vary in categories other than case. See for example Haegeman 1992 forWest Flemish.




sometimes this criterion seems difficult to apply because of other constraintssuch as tense-aspect reduction of the relative verb. The same relative comple-mentizer can also be used in other types of subordinate clauses, like Englishthat, which is also used as a complementizer in complement clauses.

Examples of complementizers used in prenominal relatives are -(e)n inBasque (14) and la in Tigre (15):

(14) pellokPeter.erg

ekarribring

duenaux.comp

diruamoney.art

galdulose.ptcpl

dutaux

‘I lost the money Peter brought.’ (Oyharçabal 2003: 764)

(15) laart

šäfättitshifta

wä[email protected]

lacomp

‘äläwaux.s3pl

ämäs.crime

‘the crimes the shifta were committing’ (Palmer 1961: 25)

Further languages with such complementizers are GtaP (Anderson 2008: 747),Hupda (Epps 2008: 829), Korean (Sohn 1994: 63, 1999: 240, 309), and Tamil(Lakshmanan 2000: 592–593).

In some languages the complementizer in prenominal relatives is also thegenitive marker (Creissels 2006: 243): de in Mandarin (16), yä- in Amharic(17), and -nu in Gorum (18) are examples:

(16) a. lısì/woLisi/pro.1sg

degen

shubook

‘Lisi’s/my book’b. lısì

Lisidahit

letam

decomp

nàdem

gècl

rénperson

‘the person that Lisi hit’

(17) a. yä-tämarigen-student

mäs.hafbook

‘a student’s book’b. yeh/ya

demyä-säbbärä-wcomp-break.perf.s.3sg-o.3sg/art

säwman

‘that man that broke (it)’ (Hayat Omar, personal communication)

(18) a. mam-nu2sg-gen

miamblood

‘your blood’ (Anderson & Rau 2008: 389)b. e-nOPd

obj-3sgtiN-eyshoot-3pl

laP-r-ey-nuaux-pst-3pl-comp

lOkfolk

‘the folks who shot her’ (Anderson & Rau 2008: 416)

Other such languages are Alamblak (Bruce 1984: 106, 110–-111), Bantawa(Doornenbal 2009: 76–81, 200–203), and Manambu (Aikhenvald 2008: 168–175, 468–475).



582 Tong Wu

As to the position of the complementizer, it is often between the prenominalrelative clause and the head noun, similar to the position of the complemen-tizer for postnominal relatives. See above (14) for Basque, (16b) for Mandarin,and (18b) for Gorum. However, Tigre (15) and Amharic (17b) show that thistendency has exceptions. Another exception is Laz: the complementizer na isprocliticized to the verb if it is the only constituent of the prenominal relativeclause (19a), or it is attached to the word before the verb, if there is only one(19b), or to one of or all the preverbal words (19c–e).

(19) a. mo-p-t-i-skulpv-1-come-aor-after

na-p’-or-omcomp-1-love-ts

bozogirl

b-dzi-i1-see-aor

‘When I came, I saw the girl that I love.’b. ma-na

pro.1-compe-p-ç’op-ipv-1-buy-aor

kitabibook

sipro.2

me-k-ç-aepv-2-give-fut.1/2sg‘I will give you the book that I bought.’

c. ordzo-schair-dat

mundi-nabehind-comp

varneg

ets’-u-zd-im-u-t’upv-3.val-raise-aug-ts-impf.3sg

memet’iMehmet

‘Mehmet, who had never raised the behind off his chair’d. ordzo-s-na

chair-dat-compmundibehind

varneg

ets’-u-zd-im-u-t’upv-3.val-raise-aug-ts-impf.3sg

memet’iMehmet

‘Mehmet, who had never raised the behind off his chair’e. si

pro.2sgre-yi-ya,be-q-is

ma-napro.1sg-comp

k’ama-nadagger-comp

go-m-o-xun-ipv-1-val-push-aor

berechild

‘Is it you who are the boy that put his dagger into me?’ (Lacroix2009: 750–753)

According to Keenan (1985: 160), “the use of such clause-final complementiz-ers in prenominal RCS [i.e., relative clauses] is less common than the use ofclause-initial complementizers in postnominal RCS. Moreover we know of nocases where the clause-final complementizer in RCS is identical to the clause-final complementizer used with sentential objects of verbs of thinking and say-ing”. However, na of Laz can also be used in sentential object of verbs ofthinking and saying with the same distribution as in prenominal relatives, thatis, either attached to the verb or to the other constituents that are preverbal:




(20) a. mapro.1sg

mut-nasomething-comp

varneg

b-iv-are1-become-fut.1/2sg

zop’on-t’isay-impf‘You said that I would become nothing.’ (Lacroix 2009: 724)

b. miti-ssomebody-dat

varneg

u-çk-i-n3.val-think/know-ts-3sg

hedem

bere-k-nachild-erg-comp

hamtepedem.pl

v-udo-aor.3sg

‘Nobody knows/thinks that the boy did those things.’ (Lacroix2009: 752)

The identical distribution of na in prenominal relatives and in sentential com-plements is a good argument in favor of analyzing it as a complementizer. Naonly partially undermines Keenan’s generalization, because even if it is used inprenominal relatives and in sentential objects of verbs of thinking and saying,it is nevertheless not clause-final, but clause-internal.

Another language which may be problematic for Keenan’s generalizationis Basque, or rather the Gipuzkoan and the Bizkaian dialects.7 In these twodialects, like in the other Basque dialects, the prenominal relative clause ismarked by the final complementizer -(e)n, like in (14), repeated here:

(21) pellokPeter.erg

ekarribring

duenaux.comp

diruamoney.art

galdulose.ptcpl

dutaux

‘I lost the money Peter brought.’

In the Gipuzkoan and Bizkaian dialects, the (overt or covert) negation of themain verbs of saying and thinking differs from other Basque dialects in that ittriggers the use of the negative complementizer -(e)nik (Artiagoitia 2003: 644):

(22) ezneg

duguaux

horrenbestezthat.much.ins

esansay

nahiwant

berarekinwith.3sg.f

batone

gatoz-enikcome-comp‘We therefore don’t want to say that we agree with her.’

According to Artiagoitia (2003: 645), -(e)nik is probably the combination of-(e)n and the partitive determiner -rik. Data from the Bizkaian dialect strength-ens this analysis: in the Bizkaian dialect, -(e)nik in (22) may be replaced by-(e)na, where -a can be analyzed as the article, like -a in dirua in (21), whereas-ik must be used for the indefinite under the scope of negation. In other words,

7. I thank Georges Rebuschi for having brought this point to my attention.



584 Tong Wu

the complementizer used in sentential objects of verbs of saying and thinkingin negation is always -(e)n. The use of -a and -ik after the complementizer-(e)n is due to the nominal(ized) status of the sentential complements finalizedby -(e)n. Thus, Gipuzkoan Basque and Bizkaian Basque seem to use the sameclause-final complementizer in prenominal relatives and in sentential objectsof verbs of saying and thinking, though only when negated.8

In some languages more than one complementizer is used. In Amharic, thechoice of complementizer depends on the aspect of the relative verb: yä- (23a)is used for perfect and yä-mm-/@-mm- (23b) for imperfect:

(23) a. kä-guragein-Gurage

yä-tä-gännäcomp-pass-find.perf

hawltstatue

‘a statue which was found in Gurage’ (Hudson 1997: 482)b. s@lä-tarik

about-historyyämm-i-näg@rcomp-s3sg-tell

mäs@hafbook

‘a book which tells about history’ (Hudson 1997: 482)

In Tibeto-Burman, the distribution of the relativizers also depends on thetense-aspect of the relative verb (and sometimes on the positions relativizedon). For instance, in Kyirong Tibetan, k˜e: is attached to the imperfective stem ofthe verb (for all the roles except the oblique roles of location, goal, and source),pa is attached to the perfective stem of the verb (for instruments, patients, andagents), sa has no tense or aspect constraint (for locations, sources, goals, andrecipients), and tCE: denotes prospective aspect (for patients) (Huber 2003).Such distributions have also been reported for Burmese (Herring 1991), Bodiclanguages (DeLancey 2002), Dolakha Newar (Genetti 2007: 312–313, 389–390, 403–407), and Gallong (Post 2007: Chapter 15, 2011).

Lastly, there is zero marking of relativization, best known from Englishrelative clauses without complementizers or relative pronouns. Prenominalrelative clauses with no relativizer can be found in Asia, as for example inJapanese, in Altaic languages, in Dravidian languages, and in Indo-Aryan lan-guages; in Europe, as for example in Uralic prenominal-relative-clause lan-guages; and in America, as for example in Quechuan languages.

Some prenominal-relative-clause languages use both complementizers andzero marking. In Manambu, finite prenominal relatives use a complementizer(24a), but if the verb is non-finite, no relativizer is used (24b):

8. It remains an open question why -(e)n is possible only in the sentential complements of verbsof saying and thinking in negation.




(24) a. væ[email protected]/pst-comp

du-adman-3sg.m.nom

‘It is a man who is coming across towards (us).’ (Aikhenvald2008: 470)

b. apat@p-a:mAvatip-loc

yi-dugo-man

wudiyadem.pl

yuanabYuanab

kwa-na-distay-actfoc-3pl.vers

‘The men who went to Avatip are here (close to you) (at) Yuanab.’(Aikhenvald 2008: 477)

It is common for non-finite relative clauses to lack a relativizer. Quite sur-prisingly, Maale shows just the opposite pattern, that is, if the relative verb ismarked for aspect, there is no relativizer at all:

(25) Pííní3sg.m.nom

ziginóyesterday

mukk-écome-perf

Patsiperson.m.abs

zag-é-nesee-perf-affirm.decl‘He saw the man who came yesterday.’ (Amha 2001: 160)

The only difference between the relative clause in (25) and the correspondingindependent clause in (26) is -ne, the affirmative declarative particle:

(26) Patsíperson.m.abs

ziginóyesterday

mukk-é-necome-perf-affirm.decl

‘The man came yesterday.’ (Amha 2001: 160)

On the other hand, if the verb has no aspect marker, -ó or -oná finalizes therelative clause:

(27) a. Pííní3sg.m.nom

waatsiwater.abs

gets-ókeep-rel

Potipot.abs

táá-m1sg-dat

Ping-é-negive-perf-affirm.decl‘He gave me a pot in which water can be kept.’ (Amha 2001: 167)

b. múP-ónaeat-rel

múPP-áfood-nom

k’ára-kegood-cop.affirm.decl

‘The food which we ate is good.’/‘The food which is eaten (byus) is good.’ (Amha 2001: 168)

According to Amha (2001: Chapter 8.1.2), in ó/oná-marked relative clauses,no overt agent (subject) can be used and the relatives often have a passive read-ing, as in (27b), or an instrumental reading, i.e. ‘(used) for (doing . . . )’, as in(27a), if one translates it as ‘He gave me a pot for keeping water’. Moreover,such relative clauses are often used with an indefinite head noun. Interestingly,



586 Tong Wu

in Mandarin the absence of the complementizer de is also related to the defi-niteness of head nouns: when it is omitted, a demonstrative (most often distalnà ‘that’) is obligatory:

(28) lısìLisi

dahit

nàdem

rénperson

‘the person that Lisi hit’

Headedness can be another factor determining the type of relativizers. Hupdaheaded prenominal relatives must have the complementizer -Vp, where Vstands for the same vowel as that of the relative verb:

(29) P1n1pl

wæd-æp-tegeat-comp-tree

yúw-úhdem-decl

‘That’s the tree that we eat from!’ (Epps 2008: 838)

Headless prenominal relatives do not have to use the complementizer, whichmay be replaced by the number marker and/or the case marker:

(30) a. yˇuJoão

Pãh1sg

kéy-ep-Pıh-ansee-comp-m-obj

mæh-y1P-1ykill-tel-dynm

‘John killed the one I saw.’ (Epps 2008: 831)b. h˜Op-k@k-cúk

fish-pull-poled’óP-d’@h,take-pl

h1dthey

b1P-1hmake-decl

‘Those who take (use) fishing poles, they make (them).’ (Epps2008: 834)

c. tıwpath

b1P-n’anwork-pl.obj

t1h3sg

mæy-nOP-´Ow-aypay-give-flr-inch

‘So he paid those who worked on the road.’ (Epps 2008: 835)

To conclude this typology of relative markers, Kambaata marks prenomi-nal relative clauses by accent. In relatives such as (31b) the accent is alwayson the final position, in other words, on the final syllable of the relative verbsince relative clauses are always verb-final, while for main verbs as in (31a) theaccent is always on a non-final position:

(31) a. adab-óoboy-m.nom

dagújj-o.run-3m.perf

‘The boy ran.’ (Treis 2008: 166)b. dagujj-ó

run-3m.perfadab-áaboy-m.acc

‘the boy who ran’ (Treis 2008: 166)




3.4. Gapping

By gap(ping) I mean that the constituent relativized on is left empty in relativeclauses. Previous studies (Downing 1978: 392, 396; Keenan 1985: 154; Song2001: 217; de Vries 2002: 33; Kroeger 2004: 180, 2005: 238; Andrews 2007:209) and my own findings converge: prenominal relative clauses often use gap-ping, at least for subject relatives. This reflects the typological tendency thatgapping is the most frequent strategy for subject relativization, and prenominal-relative-clause languages are not exceptional in this respect. However, there aretwo types of unusual gaps in prenominal relatives in some languages.

The first concerns the relativization of obliques. The position left empty inprenominal relatives corresponds not to the head noun, but to the head nounand the adposition marking the oblique position in question. Here are exam-ples from Mandarin, respectively derived from (32c) and (32d):

(32) a. lısìLisi

xiezìwrite

decomp

bıpen

‘the pen that Lisi writes with’ (Lit. ‘the pen that Lisi writes’)b. lısì

Lisidúshustudy

decomp

xuéxiàoschool

‘the school where Lisi studies’ (Lit. ‘the school that Lisi studies’)c. lısì

Lisi*(yòng)use(v)/with

bıpen

xiezìwrite

‘Lisi writes with a pen.’ (or ‘Lisi writes using a pen.’)d. lısì

Lisi*(zài)at

xuéxiàoschool

dúshustudy

‘Lisi studies at school.’

The gap in (32a) does not correspond to the head noun bı ‘pen’, but to some-thing larger, insofar as the preposition yòng ‘with’ disappears along with thehead noun. The element being gapped is a prepositional phrase. In (32b), thegap corresponds to zài xuéxiào ‘at school’, not to xuéxiào ‘school’ alone.

Here are examples from other languages: Akhvakh (33), Evenki (34), Kham(35), Korean (36), Maale (37), Malayalam (38), Marathi (39), Mari (40),Conchucos Quechua (41), and Wolaytta (42):

(33) de-de1sg-erg

rušatree

b-uq’-idaneut-cut-impf.ptcpl

Qãžiteaxe

‘the axe with which I am cutting the tree’ (Creissels 2007: 22)



588 Tong Wu

(34) asiwoman

ulle-vemeat-acc.def

mine-d’eri-ncut-ptcpl-3sg.poss

purtaknife

emersharp

bi-si-nbe-pres-3sg‘The knife with which the woman is cutting meat is sharp.’ (Nedjalkov1997: 40)

(35) apa-efather-erg

zihmhouse

o-j@i-wo3sg-make-nomin

po:place

‘the place where father built a house’ (Watters 2002: 207)

(36) celm-eyoung-inf

ci-nu-nbecome-indic-rel

saymmulwell.water

‘the well-water by which one becomes young’ (Sohn 1999: 311)

(37) nééní2sg.nom

waas’-ówater-abs

kis’s’-édraw-perf

Pótt-éll-ápot-f-nom

háík’k’-é-nedie-perf-affirm.decl‘The pot with which you drew the water is broken.’ (Amha 2001: 163)

(38) pooliiskaaranpoliceman

kuúúiyechild.acc

aúiccabeat.pst.ptcpl

vaúistick

‘the stick with which the policeman beat the child’ (Asher & Kumari1997: 60)

(39) mıpro.1sg

patraletter

lihilelıwrite.pst.ptcpl.sg.f

pensılpencil

mad. ıwartSyaupstairs.of

kapat.atcloset-loc

aheis

‘The pencil with which I wrote the letter is in the closet upstairs.’(Pandharipande 1997: 90–91)

(40) cavajn-@nChavain-gen

19301930

ij-@šteyear-loc

tidedem

pölem-@šteroom-loc

joltaš-@ž-lanfriend-3sg-dat

kužulong

ser@š-@mletter-acc

voze-nwrite-ger

kolt@-mosend-ptcpl

pera-žepen-3sg

‘the pen with which Chavain wrote a long letter to his friend in thisroom in 1930’ (Matsumura 1981: 45)

(41) maqa-nqa-ykihit-tam-2sg

qeru-tastick-acc

rika-rqasee-pst.1sg

‘I saw the stick with which you hit (something).’ (Courtney 2006: 323)

(42) a. táání1sg

bairat-íyobe.elder-impf.nsubj

7ish-áabrother-abs.m.sg

‘a brother than whom I am elder’ (Wakasa 2008: 850)




b. táání1sg

7ash-úwameat-abs.m.sg

muT-ídocut.into.small.pieces-perf.nsubj

mashsh-áaknife-abs.m.sg

7ep-átake-opt.2sg

‘Take the knife with which I cut the meat into small pieces.’(Wakasa 2008: 851)

Three factors may explain augmented gapping in prenominal relatives. First,there are never relative pronouns in prenominal relatives. Relative pronounspied-pipe adpositions, but complementizers do not. A favorable argument isrelatives with similar augmented gaps in substandard French (43a). In (43a)it is the complementizer que that introduces the postnominal relative clause,while in the standard counterpart, (43b), it is the relative pronoun dont that isused.

(43) a. laart.sg.f

chosething

quecomp

je1sg

vous2pl.dat

parlaistalk.impf.1sg

‘the thing that I talked about to you’ (Lit. ‘the thing that I talkedto you’) (Blanche-Benveniste 2000: 104)

b. laart.sg.f

chosething

dontrel

je1sg

vous2pl.dat

parlaistalk.impf.1sg

‘the thing about which I talked to you’

Secondly, prenominal relatives do not use adposition stranding, contraryto English the man (that) I will go to France with. Adposition stranding isquite rare. According to Riemsdijk (1978), it is only found in Germanic lan-guages. Thus, in prenominal relative clauses the only possibility is to delete thestranded adposition, whereby augmented gapping comes about.

Third, according to Givón (2001: 185), “it may well be that the gap/zerorelativization strategy is more likely to be used in languages that use zeroanaphoric pronouns, such as Japanese and Chinese. Such languages may sim-ply extend their discourse anaphora strategy to the more syntactic environmentof REL-clauses [i.e., relative clauses]”. This line of argument seems solid. Mostprenominal-relative-clause languages are pro-drop languages (of Chinese-typeor Italian-type). According to The world atlas of language structures (Haspel-math et al. (eds.) 2005), only seven prenominal-relative-clause languages pro-hibit pro-drop: Ambulas, Byansi, Chechen, Evenki, Ingush, Khoekhoe, andUyghur. As far as I can tell, Evenki (Nedjakov 1997: 62, 65, 101–102) al-lows pro-drop, but the case of Ingush is ambiguous and needs further re-search (Nichols 2011: Chapter 29.7). If pro-drop is a preference in indepen-dent clauses, it becomes an obligation in prenominal relatives, probably be-cause relative clauses obey stricter constraints than independent clauses, suchas word order and modality, as well as zero anaphora. Thus the raison d’être



590 Tong Wu

of augmented gapping may reside in the interaction between zero anaphora, noadposition stranding, and the absence of a relative pronoun.

The second type of unusual gaps is more difficult to analyze, because theyare still larger and vaguer than augmented gaps, as illustrated in the followingexamples from Japanese (44a), Korean (44b), and Mandarin (44c):

(44) a. akatyan-gababy-nom

nakucry

koevoice

‘the sound that characterizes a baby’s crying’ (Yoon 1993: 200)b. ai-ka

baby-nomwuncry

unrel

solisound

‘the sound that characterizes a baby’s crying’ (Yoon 1993: 200)c. xiaohái

childkucry

decomp

shengyınsound

‘the sound that characterizes a baby’s crying’ (Yoon 1993: 200)

In spite of the translations given, these sentences can be translated as ‘the soundof a baby’s crying’. Pragmatically, it is not difficult to imagine a logical linkbetween the sound and the fact that the baby cries. If one tries to reconstructthe head noun into the relative clause, one must “invent” a larger and vaguerconstituent than an adpositional phrase, for example, for (44c):

(45) xiaoháichild

kucry

fachugive.out

shengyınsound

‘The child cries out and makes noises.’ or ‘The child, crying out,makes noises.’

According to Matsumoto (1997) and Comrie (1998a, b), this kind of con-struction, which they call “noun-modifying construction”, is a general prop-erty of Asian prenominal-relative-clause languages. Actually, it is not limitedto Asian prenominal relative clauses. Here are examples from a few further lan-guages, viz. Akhvakh9 (46), Huallaga Quechua (47), Hupda (48), Malayalam(49), and Mari (50):

(46) a. qotoplate

b-iq’w-ida-beneut-break-ptcpl.inacc-neut

zwaKesound

‘the sound of the breaking of a plate’b. bac’aq’ehe

lateÏ’uk’-ida-bego.to.bed-ptcpl.inacc

Qamahabit

‘the habit of going to bed late’ (Denis Creissels, personal com-munication)

9. Similar relative clauses are also found in Ingush (Nichols 2011: Chapter 26.7), another Nakh-Daghestanian language. See also Daniel & Lander 2010 for a discussion of such constructionsin the Nakh-Daghestanian family in general.




(47) kanastabasket

churarayka-qbe.put-nomin

rukay-taplace-acc

apakuntake.pres.3sg.m

‘He takes the place/turn of putting the baskets.’ (Weber 1983: 66)

(48) Pan1sg.obj

h1d3pl

yamhidOP-gOp-Opsing-serve-comp

mæypayment

‘(It was) the payment for their singing to and serving me.’ (Lit. ‘theirsinging-and-serving-me payment’) (Epps 2008: 829)

(49) basbus

varunnacome.pres.ptcpl

Sabdamnoise

‘the noise of the bus coming’ (Asher & Kumari 1997: 75)

(50) a. ala-kö-nsome-who-gen

omsa-mdoor-acc

cothard

peralt@-meknock-ptcpl

jük-eš-@žesound-into-poss

pom@ž[email protected]

‘I was waked by the sound of someone knocking hard on thedoor.’

b. [email protected]

kolfish

žaritl@-megrill-ptcpl

puš-@ž@-msmell-poss-acc

šiž@nnotice.ptcpl‘having perceived the smell of my mother grilling fish’ (Mat-sumura 1983: 462)

Different analyses have been proposed. Some focus on how the semantic in-terpretation is carried out: for example, Kuno’s “aboutness condition” (Kuno1974) requires that a relative clause be a statement about its head, and Yoon’sR-relation (Yoon 1993) requires pragmatic or discourse linking. Others paymore attention to the syntactic mechanism whereby such constructions are ob-tained. For instance, according to Sohn (1994), they result from ellipsis, like inKorean:

(51) kicha-katrain-nom

(soli-lulsound-acc

nay-myense)emit-while

talli-n-unrun-indic-rel

solisound

‘the sound that a train is running’ (Sohn 1994: 68)

One argument in favor of the semantic analysis and against the syntactic anal-ysis is that if such constructions result from ellipsis, it should always be possi-ble to reconstruct the omitted constituents. However, it is rather difficult to tellwhat would be omitted for (47) in Huallaga Quechua, repeated here:

(52) kanastabasket

churarayka-qbe.put-nomin

rukay-taplace-acc

apakuntake.pres.3sg.m

‘He takes the place/turn of putting the baskets.’ (Weber 1983: 66)



592 Tong Wu

One of the arguments against the semantic approach is the question whatsemantic or pragmatic relations are felicitous. For example, there is a felicitouspragmatic relation between the fact that someone has not cleaned the trashbinfor a year and the stench the ashbin emits, but the following construction ishardly acceptable in Mandarin, even if it is not completely incomprehensible:

(53) ??lısìLisi

yıniánone.year

méineg

dasaoclean(v)

lajıxiangtrashbin

decomp

qìwèismell

Intended reading: ‘the smell such that Lisi has not cleaned the trashbinfor a year’

Ultimately, both syntactic factors and semantic-pragmatic considerations mayhave a role to play in this construction.

3.5. Resumptive pronouns

A resumptive pronoun is a pronominal element indicating the position rel-ativized on in the relative clause (as discussed in detail in Comrie 1981). Thepoint is that if the pronominal element is used in both independent clauses andrelative clauses, it is not a resumptive pronoun. To illustrate from Hausa:

(54) a. dokìnhorse

dàrel

ya3sg

mutùdied

‘the horse which died’ (Comrie 1981: 220)b. dokı

horse*(ya)3sg

mutùdied

‘The horse died.’ (Lit. ‘Horse it died.’) (Comrie 1981: 220)

Ya in (54a) is not a resumptive pronoun, because it is also obligatory in theindependent clause (54b). Actually, ya could be considered as part of conjuga-tion.

Note also that resumptive pronominal elements can be cross-referencing af-fixes attached to the verb (Creissels 2006: 211), as for example in ModernStandard Arabic, where the cross-referencing suffix -ha: in (55a) is not neededin the corresponding independent clause in (55b):

(55) a. Pal-qis.s. atuart-story

llati:rel

qaraPa-ha:read.pst.s.3sg.m-o.3sg.f

‘the story that he read (it)’ (Holes 2004: 283)b. qaraPa

read.pst.s.3sg.mPal-qis. s. atuart-story

‘He read the story.’ (Holes 2004: 283)

It has often been noted that prenominal relative clauses rarely use resumptivepronouns (Keenan 1985: 148–149; C. Lehmann 1986: 675, 2003: 461; Dik




1997: 46; Song 2001: 218, 232; de Vries 2001: 235, 240, 2002: 50, 2005:147; Kroeger 2005: 238; Creissels 2006: 239, 242). In actual fact, prenominalrelatives are less averse to resumptive pronouns than has been assumed.

The first group of languages widely using resumptive pronouns is Semitic. InAmharic, resumptive cross-referencing affixes are used from the direct objectto obliques:

(56) a. yä-mätta-hu-tcomp-hit.perf-s.1sg-o.3sg.m

säw@yyeman


näwis

‘The man whom I hit is my brother.’ (Leslau 1995: 102)b. yä-s.af-hu-llä-t

comp-write.perf-s.1sg-applic-o.3sg.msäw@yyeman


näwis‘The man to whom I wrote is my brother.’ (Leslau 1995: 105)

c. wä[email protected]

@zzihhere

yä-näbbär-u-tcomp-be.perf-s.3pl-art

l@gboy

tämaristudent

näwis‘The boy whose brothers were here is a student.’ (Leslau 1995:99)

d. wäräqätletter

yä-s.af-hu-llä-tcomp-write.perf-s.1sg-applic-o.3sg.m

säw@yyeman


näwis

‘The man for/to whom I wrote the letter is my brother.’ (Leslau1995: 104)

e. yadem

yä-tä-wälläd-ku-bbä-tcomp-mid-bear.perf-s.1sg-loc-art

bethouse

näwis

‘That’s the house I was born in.’ (Hudson 1997: 482)

Similar patterns have been reported for Silt’i (Rawda 2003: Chapter 3), Tigre(Leslau 1945, Palmer 1961, Raz 1997), and Tigrinya (Palmer 1962).

Another group of languages using resumptive pronouns are the Chinese lan-guages. The tendency here is to use resumptive pronouns only for human headnouns from indirect objects to obliques, as for example in Cantonese:

(57) a. ngóhpro.1sg

sıkknow

gecomp

yàhnpeople

‘the people that I know’b. ngóh

pro.1sgsungsend

faflower

béidat

kéuihdeihpro.3pl

gecomp

behngyàhnpatients

‘the patients I sent flowers to’



594 Tong Wu

c. (kéuihdeih)pro.3sg.gen

tìuhcl

kwàhndress

hóuvery

dyúnshort

gecomp

sailouh-léuilittle.girls

‘the little girls whose dress is very short’d. ngóh

pro.1sgtùhngwith

kéhuihdeihpro.3pl

kınggáichat

gecomp

hohksaangstudents

‘the students that I chat with’e. ngóh

pro.1sgjaahnearn

chinmoney

domore

gwothan

kéuihdeihpro.3pl

gecomp

yàhnpeople‘the people who I make more money than’ (Matthews & Yip1994: 110–111)

See further T. Wu 2007 for Mandarin and Chen 2008 for a dialect of Minnan.Some Caucasian languages use resumptive pronouns for lower positions of

the Accessibility Hierarchy. In Chechen, only the dative necessitates resump-tion, even if other positions do not disallow this possibility:

(58) a. (shiena)3sg.refl

idem

stagman

sielxanayesterday

ginchusee.ptcpl

muusasMusa.erg

cynga3sg.m.all

cwaone

duoshword

aellieraspeak.pst

‘Musa, who had seen the man yesterday, had told him some-thing.’ (Komen 2006: 1)

b. shiena3sg.refl

kilaabaCaleb.erg

dikagood

laattaland.abs

dellagive.pst

voluaux.ptcpl

stagperson.abs

as1sg.erg

dwaatettirapush.away.pst

‘I rejected the person to whom Caleb gave good land.’ (Komen2007: 2)

c. (shiena)3sg.refl

majrahusband

velladie.pst

joluaux.ptcpl

zudawoman

maariemarriage

jaxarago.pst‘The woman, whose husband had died, remarried.’ (Komen 2006:2)

d. (shiena)3sg.refl

chuohwinside

dikagood

oilanashthoughts

joluaux.ptcpl

duogheart

‘a heart inside which there are good thoughts’ (Komen 2006: 1)

See also Haspelmath (1993: 340–353) for Lezgian.Besides these three groups of languages, others use resumption in a less

systematic way. In Burushaski, the adposition yar ‘before’ necessitates a re-sumptive pronoun:




(59) ja1sg

t´ecum3sg.f.abl

yarbefore

hurút.umlive.nomin

hahouse.abs

šuánice

duábe.3sg

‘The house that I live before (it) is nice.’ (Tiffou & Patry 1995: 358)

In Kambaata, the resumptive pronoun is used only for possessors:

(60) chár-itbird.species-f.nom

qeg-ú-s10

blood-m.acc-3.m.possag-góodrink-3.f.perf

lál-ucattle-m.nom‘the cattle whose blood was drunk by chare-birds’ (Treis 2008: 181)

In Korean, the origin demands a resumptive pronoun:

(61) wuli1pl

kanom

kekithere

eysefrom

chwulpalhaydepart

seand

hak.kyo-loschool-all

ka-ngo-rel

kudem

pyengwenhospital

‘the hospital from which we departed and went to school’ (Song 2001:312)

In Qiang, the beneficiary needs a resumptive pronoun:

(62) qa1sg

the:tC3sg.gen

l@Gzbook

de-le-mdir-give-nomin

le:def.cl

‘the person to whom I gave a book’ (LaPolla & Huang 2003: 224)

From such examples it can be seen that resumptive pronouns are not asrare in prenominal relative clauses as sometimes assumed. Their use is de-termined by different factors. First, resumption in Chinese as well as Semitic(for Modern Standard Arabic see Ryding 2005: 322–328 and for Modern He-brew Borer 1984, Coffin & Bolozky 2005: 345–349) can be considered as agenetic property. Second, prenominal relatives follow the typological tendencythat resumptive pronouns are more often reserved for less accessible positions.There is no case of prenominal relatives using resumptive pronouns for sub-jects/absolutives.

10. In Kambaata, it is not grammatical to use the possessive suffix -s if there is a (pro)nominalpossessor (Treis 2008: 180-181). In other words, this suffix is used in the relative clausebecause of the absence of the head noun, i.e. the possessor, in the relative clause.



596 Tong Wu

3.6. Verbal marking: Non-finiteness

Prenominal relative clauses are often described as being non-finite or nominal-ized (Downing 1978: 392; Mallinson & Blake 1981: 298; Keenan 1985: 160;C. Lehmann 1986: 672, 2003: 461; Dik 1997: 55–58; Song 2001: 233; de Vries2001: 235, 2002: 39; Creissels 2006: 239; Andrews 2007: 208).

A note is necessary about “non-finiteness” and “nominalization”. If non-finiteness is a morphological phenomenon, nominalization11 can be either mor-phological or syntactic (Haspelmath 1999). For example, according to Givón(2001: 24), “nominalization is the process via which a finite verbal clause– either a complete clause or a subject-less verb phrase – is converted into anoun phrase”, while for Noonan (2007: 70), “the predicate becomes nominal-ized, assuming the form of a verbal noun, and takes over the role of head nounof the noun phrase”. Givón defined nominalization as a morphological process,but Noonan as a syntactic operation. When Li & Thompson (1981: 575–593)discuss nominalization in Mandarin, the term is certainly not used in referenceto the morphological process, because Mandarin almost completely lacks mor-phology. Nominalization is syntactic in Mandarin, in case the predicate playsthe role of the head noun of the noun phrase. For example, a nominalized clausecan have the same distribution as a noun phrase:

(63) a. lısìLisi

shìcop

zhangsanZhangsan

degen

péngyoufriend

‘Lisi is Zhangsan’s friend.’b. lái

comedecomp

shìcop

zhangsanZhangsan

degen

péngyoufriend

‘The one who is coming is Zhangsan’s friend.’

The prenominal relative clause in (63b) lái de ‘the one who is coming’ is indeedsyntactically nominalized, for it has the same distribution as a real noun phrase,Lisi, a proper noun in (63a).

11. There are different types of nominalization, for example, lexical vs. clausal (Koptjevskaja-Tamm 1993: 49–52, Comrie & Thompson 2007, Genetti 2011), participant vs. event, embed-ded vs. non-embedded (Yap et al. 2011), derivational vs. clausal vs. action (Genetti 2011).My discussion of the non-finiteness/nominalization of prenominal relative clauses does notintend to confirm or to refute these distinctions. Moreover, I do not commit myself to classi-fying non-finite/nominalized prenominal relatives into a particular category.




In what follows, I will use “non-finite(ness)” and confine the discussion tothe morphological process whereby a prenominal relative clause is nominal-ized.12 A non-finite verb form is characterized by the reduction of inflexion,especially concerning tense-aspect-mood and person. In the Greek-Latin tradi-tion, non-finite verb forms include infinitive, participle, and gerund. Prototypi-cally, infinitives play a nominal role, participles an adjectival role, and gerundsan adverbial role. Languages may have different morphological distinctionsof non-finite forms and classifications may vary from language to language.For example, in the place of “gerund”, “converb” is often used in the anal-ysis of Altaic languages among others (Johanson 1998: 47, Janhunen 2003:21–22, 25–26, Rybatzki 2003: 382–383). However, both gerunds and converbsare generally used adverbially (Haspelmath 1995: 3, 1999: 110; Koptjevskaja-Tamm 1999: 148). It therefore seems better to classify non-finite verb formsaccording to their functions: nominal non-finite, adjectival non-finite, and ad-verbial non-finite (Koptjevskaja-Tamm 1993: 23, Feuillet 2006: 493–494). Forinstance, in Lezgian, the non-finite forms are masdar, participle, infinitive, andconverb (Haspelmath 1993: 153–158, 340–400), but they share the three func-tions: nominal possible for all, as shown in (64); adjectival only for participles,as shown in (65); and adverbial for converbs, as shown in (66).

(64) a. ajal-archild-pl

qugwa-zplay-inf

bašlamiš-nabegin-aor

‘The children began to play.’ (Haspelmath 1993: 359)b. ada

3sg.m.erggil-ehand-iness

awa-jbe.in-ptcpl

gazetpaper

k’el-unread-msd

aqwazar-nastop-aor‘He stopped reading the newspaper that was in his hand.’(Haspelmath 1993: 361)

c. ada-z3sg.m-dat

zun1sg.abs

cpi-zselves-dat

klig-zawa-j-dilook-impf-ptcpl-nomin

aku-nasee-aor‘He saw that I was looking at them.’ (Haspelmath 1993: 365)

d. nabisat.a-zNabisat-dat

rušagirl.erg

ktabbook

k’el-naread-conv

k’an-zawawant-impf

‘Nabisat wants her daughter to read a book.’ (Haspelmath 1993:369)

12. I leave open the question whether such non-finite prenominal relative clauses are full-fledgedor reduced relative clauses. This question is quite theory-dependent and there seems to beno consensus. Interested readers may consult Kornfilt 2000, 2007 about Turkish. I thank ananonymous reviewer for having raised the point and given the references.



598 Tong Wu

(65) a. qhfe-jgo.away-ptcpl

jacbull

žanawur-riwolf-pl.erg

req’-eway-iness

kuk’war-natear-aor

‘The bull which had gone away was killed by wolves on the way.’(Haspelmath 1993: 340)

b. pacah.di-nking-gen

xazinatreasury

cünüx-ajsteal-ptcpl

ugri-jarthief-pl

cun1pl.abs

jacop

‘We are the thieves who stole the king’s treasury.’ (Haspelmath1993: 340)

(66) maxsud.a-zMaxsud-dat

qarag-naget.up-conv

cül.di-zfield-dat

fi-zgo-inf

k’an-zawa-jwant-impf-pst

‘Maxsud wanted to get up and go to the field.’ (Haspelmath 1993: 157)

Similar patterns are found in Godoberi (Dobrushina & Tatevosov 1996: 106–107) and Ingush (Nichols 2011).

Similarly, Dravidian languages are traditionally described as having fournon-finite forms: participle (relative, verbal, conditional, temporal), infinitive,supine (or gerund), and verbal noun (Andronov 2003: 249–266, Krishnamurti2003: Chapters 7.7–7.9, 9.3), but functionally these non-finite forms are nom-inal, adjectival, or adverbial. In Kannada the -al non-finite form is nominal oradverbial:

(67) a. madhuraMadhurai

bomba:yigeBombay.dat

ho:galugo.inf

nira:karisidaLurefuse.pst.3sg.f

‘Madhura refused to go to Bombay.’ (Sridhar 1990: 43)b. subbi

SubbiaNgavikalarigehandicapped.dat

vya:ya:maexercise

kalisalu:/kalisalikketeach.inf/teach.inf.dat

dina:daily

basavanaguDigeBasavanagudi.dat

ho:gutta:Lego.npst.3sg.f

‘Subbi goes to Basavanagudi every day to teach exercises to thehandicapped.’ (Sridhar 1990: 72)

The -udu form, too, is nominal or adverbial:

(68) a. ra:manigeRama.dat

i:juvudakkeswim.npst.ger.dat

baruvudillacome.npst.ger.neg

‘Rama doesn’t know swimming.’ (Sridhar 1990: 43)b. praka:S

PrakashjarmanigeGermany.dat

enjiniyaringengineering

o:duvudakka:gistudy.ger.dat

ho:gidda:nego.npst.perf.3sg.m‘Prakash has gone to Germany to study engineering.’ (Sridhar1990: 73)

The -a form is nominal, adjectival, or adverbial:




(69) a. madhuMadhu

ca:Dicomplain

he:Lisay.pst.ptcpl

na:NigeNani.dat

e:Tubeating

bi:Luvantefall.npst.ptcpl.comp

ma:didamake.pst.3sg.m

‘Madhu make Nani get a beating by telling on him.’ (Sridhar1990: 43)

b. maguvannuchild.acc

kaccidabite.pst.ptcpl

na:yidog

‘the dog which bit the child’ (Sridhar 1990: 49)c. mu:rti

Murtiba:giludoor

tegeyuvaSTaralliopen.npst.ptcpl

janapeople

nuggiye:rush.pst.ptcpl.emph

biTTaruleave.pst.3pl

‘Just as Murti was about to open the door, the people pushed rightin.’ (Sridhar 1990: 69)

And the -i/-u forms are only adverbial:

(70) a:ka:s’adasky.obl

kaDetoward

no:Dutta:see.pres.prog

naDedarewalk.pst.cond

guNDiyalliditch.loc

bi:Lutti:yafall.npst.2sg‘If you walk looking at the sky, you will fall in a ditch.’ (Sridhar 1990:71)

By contrast, Altaic languages in general have fewer than three morpholog-ical distinctions, but functionally neither more nor fewer than three. For mostTurkic languages, one group of non-finite forms function nominally and ad-jectivally while the other is adverbial (Johanson 1998: 46–47, 60–64), whichis similar to Mongolic languages in general (Janhunen 2003: 21–22, 25–26;Rybatzki 2003: 382–383). As for Tungusic languages, in Evenki the participlehas nominal, adjectival, and occasionally adverbial functions:

(71) a. alagumniteacher

duku-d’ari-va-nwrite-ptcpl-acc.def-3sg.poss

iche-0-msee-nfut-1sg

‘I see that the teacher is writing.’ (Nedjalkov 1997: 24)b. bi

1sgduku-na-duk-inwrite-ptcpl-abl-3sg.poss

dukuvun-dukbook-abl

kete-vemuch-acc.def

sa:-cha-vknow-pst-1sg‘I learnt much from the book that he wrote.’ (Nedjalkov 1997:34)



600 Tong Wu

c. so:tvery

deru-cheget.tired-ptcpl

bi-ne-di-vibe-ptcpl-ins-refl.poss

nungan3sg.m

a:sin-mu-d’acha-nfall.asleep-vol-impf-3sg‘He wanted to sleep because he was very tired.’ (Nedjalkov 1997:43)

The converbs form adverbial clauses:

(72) d’u-la-vihouse-all-refl.poss

eme-micome-conv

ulle-vemeat-acc.def

dev-d’enge-seat-fut-2sg

‘When/If you come home you will eat meat.’ (Nedjalkov 1997: 43)

See also Malchukov (1995: Chapters 3.7.7–3.7.8, 4.2, 8) for Even.Tibeto-Burman is another group which widely uses non-finite forms (Her-

ring 1991; DeLancey 2002, 2011; Noonan 2008; Post 2008; Watters 2008;Genetti 2011). The morphological details vary from language to language,without going beyond the tripartite functional distinction. For example, inNewar (Genetti 2007), the -i infinitive has nominal and adverbial functions:

(73) a. d. olidoli

bucarry.nomin

nichiall.day

d˜alaN-anfast-ptcpl

cõ-istay-inf

mal-amust-3sg.pst

‘The doli carrier must be fasting all day.’ (Genetti 2007: 419)b. nichi

dayju-i-hobe-inf-when

isi1pl.excl.gen

mamother

sit-adie-pst.3sg

‘When it became day, our mother died.’ (Genetti 2007: 472)

The -gu/-ku/-u/-a/-e forms are used as relative clauses and sometimes as com-plement clauses:

(74) jabawhen

jin1sg.erg

udem

jaNalbird

hal-gucry.out-nomin

tar-agihear-1sg.pres

‘when I hear this bird cry out’ (Genetti 2007: 396)

Some isolated languages use non-finite forms, too. In Nivkh (Gruzdeva1998), participles form relative clauses while converbs are used nominally oradverbially:

(75) a. n’i1sg

zoskbreak.ptcpl

t’akoknife

tyrtable

t‘xyon

p‘i-d’be-fin

‘The knife which I have broken is on the table.’ (Gruzdeva 1998:50)

b. acimgrandmother

ko-rbe.ill-conv

tvi-dstop-fin

‘(My) grandmother stopped to be ill.’ (Gruzdeva 1998: 49)




c. ymkmother

cofish

hak-vulcut-conv

p‘-ajmnar-kirrefl-husband-ins

rortogether

k‘erai-dtalk-fin

‘When mother was cutting fish, (she) talked with her husband.’(Gruzdeva 1998: 50)

Thus, however much non-finite forms vary morphologically, they remainquite uniform functionally. The languages and language families adduced toexemplify non-finite forms all have prenominal relative clauses. This is neithera coincidence nor a bias of the data, and it is possible to establish the followingimplication:

(76) Non-finite prenominal relative clause → non-finite subordination:If a language uses non-finite prenominal relative clauses, it also usesnon-finite complements and/or non-finite adverbial clauses.

This means that prenominal relatives are not non-finite intrinsically, but owingto the fact that prenominal-relative-clause languages use non-finite subordina-tion in general. Given that relative clauses are a kind of subordinate clauses, itis predictable that if subordination is formed with non-finite constructions ingeneral, relative clauses, whether prenominal or postnominal, should be non-finite as well. Reformulated in a more radical way, it is meaningful to insiston prenominal relative clauses being non-finite only if the language in ques-tion uses non-finite forms merely for prenominal relatives, but not for the othersubordinates. Nonetheless, I have not found such a language.

The reasoning of other authors is similar. Thus, DeLancey (1986: 1) holdsthat “the nominalization function is chronologically and systematically prior torelativization, which is merely one specialized function of nominalization”,13

and Whaley (1997: 265) writes that “in general, if a language tends towardusing nonfinite verbs for other embedded structures (such as adverbials andcomplements) then there is sufficient grounds to consider constructions suchas [participle modifying clause] as a relative clause”.

Givón (2001: Chapter 11.7, 2009: Chapter 5) made a more detailed analysisin favor of the above idea by proposing the dichotomy “extreme nominaliz-ing (embedding) languages” and “extreme finite (non-embedding) languages”(Givón 2001: 26):

13. An anonymous reviewer noted that this was about the later stage of the development: thenominalizers developed out of relative clause structures (general head nouns bleached intonominalizers), and then the nominalized forms were used to modify nouns. See also LaPolla1994, Genetti 2011, and Yap et al. 2011 for more diachronic discussion. For the present study,I make no assumptions about the historical precedence of any particular type of structure orits function.



602 Tong Wu

The broadest cross-language typological distinction in finiteness is the veritablechasm between extreme nominalizing and extreme finite languages. In the firsttype, all subordinate clauses are (at least historically) nominalized. Only mainclauses display fully finite structure. In the second, no clause-type is nominalized,and thus all clause-types are fully finite.14

As extreme nominalizing languages he named Tibeto-Burman, Turkic, Carib,Quechuan, some languages of the Papuan Highlands, and Northern Uto-Aztecan. In this list, Tibeto-Burman, Turkic, and Quechuan languages in gen-eral have prenominal relatives. In some Tibeto-Burman languages, even inde-pendent clauses can be non-finite – variously referred to as “non-embeddednominalization”, “main-clause nominalization”, or “stand-alone nominaliza-tion” in the literature (Matisoff 1972, Noonan 1997, Watters 2008, DeLancey2011, Genetti 2011, Post 2011). Here are a few examples from Kham (77),Manange (78), and Newar (79):

(77) ahjyaearlier

uhbyali-k@

spring-locge:pro.1pl

nahm-nilow.country-abl

ge-hu-zya-o1pl-come-contin-nomin‘Last spring we were coming up from the low-country.’ (Watters 2002:355)

(78) 1khi3.sg

4nu-p2

sleep-nomin‘He will sleep.’ (Hildebrandt 2004: 83)

(79) pus-naPus-abl

phoN-aask.for-nomin

ra?q

‘Was it in (the month of) Pus that he asked?’ (Genetti 2007: 401)

It seems reasonable to assume an implicational universal that if a languageuses non-finite forms in independent clauses, it must use non-finite forms insubordinate clauses.

Givón’s examples of extreme finite languages were Iroquois, SouthernArawak, and Athabaskan. Amharic also seems to be such a language (Leslau1995: 734–819), and perhaps Tigre, too (Leslau 1945, Raz 1997). In these lan-guages, subordinate clauses are most often finite, even if non-finite forms doexist. In fact, in Semitic languages in general, subordinate clauses are oftenfinite (Lipinski 2001: 530–553).

14. This should be qualified by “prototypically”. Languages do not have to belong to one ofthe groups: isolating languages are neither extreme nominalizing nor extreme finite. Somelanguages like English seem difficult to fit in.




It is claimed that if a language has both prenominal and postnominal rel-atives, it is often prenominal relatives that are non-finite, if any is non-finite.Examples are German (80) and Hungarian (81):

(80) derart

inin

seinemhis.dat

Bürostudy

arbeitendework.ptcpl

Mannman

‘the man who is working in his study’ (Keenan & Comrie 1977: 64)

(81) a. aart

könyv-etbook-acc

olvas-óread-ptcpl

lánygirl

betegsick

voltwas

‘The girl reading a/the book was sick.’ (Kenesei et al. 1998: 38)b. a

artlánygirl

általby

olvas-ottread-ptcpl

könyvbook

érdekesinteresting

voltwas

‘The book read by the girl was interesting.’ (Kenesei et al. 1998:38)

Prenominal relatives in such languages are not primary prenominal rela-tives as defined in Section 2. Why non-primary prenominal relatives are of-ten non-finite would seem an open question. In fact, this generalization needsconfirming, because in some primary-postnominal-relative-clause languages,non-finite relative clauses must also be postnominal, like in French (82) andModern Hebrew (83):

(82) a. l’art

hommeman

[quirel

aaux.indic.pres.3sg

volésteal.pst.ptcpl

unart

vélo]RC

bike‘the man who has stolen a bike’

b. l’art

hommeman

[quirel

aaux.indic.pres.3sg

étéaux.pst.ptcpl

battubeat.pst.ptcpl

parby

leart

policier]RC

policeman‘the man who has been beaten by the policeman’

c. l’art

hommeman

[ayantaux.pres.ptcpl

volésteal.pst.ptcpl

unart

vélo]RC

bike‘the man having stolen a bike’

d. l’art

hommeman

[battubeat.pst.ptcpl

parby

leart

policier]RC

policeman‘the man beaten by the policeman’

(83) a. hinehere

ha-’išart-man

[še-ma’ariccomp-admire.pres.sg.m

’etacc

sara]RC

Sara‘Here is the man that admires Sara.’ (Siloni 1997: 114)



604 Tong Wu

b. hinehere

ha-’išart-man

[še-saracomp-Sara

ma’arica]RC

admire.pres.sg.f‘Here is the man that Sara admires.’ (Siloni 1997: 114)

c. ’išman

[ha-koreart-read.nfn

’itonnewspaper

b-a-rexov]RC

in-art-streethuis

meragelspy

‘A man reading a newspaper in the street is a spy.’ (Siloni 1997:115)

d. hupro.3sg.m

kvaralready

ra’asee.pst.3sg.m

’etacc

kolall

ha-sratimart-movie.pl

[ha-mukranimart-project.nfn

b-a-’ir]RC

in-art-town‘He has already seen all the movies shown in town.’ (Siloni 1997:109)

On the other hand, English can use both non-finite prenominal and non-finitepostnominal relatives (Krause 2001: 24, 27):

(84) a. I saw the [(*which/*that) recently released]RC movie.b. Mary loves the [(*who) passionately singing]RC man over there.c. We have long been expecting the book [recently released by Cas-

cadilla Press]RC.d. A man [(*who/*that) working for John]RC visited us yesterday.

Moreover, there are languages that use finite and non-finite prenominalrelative clauses: for example, Maale (Amha 2001: Chapter 8.1), Manambu(Aikhenvald 2008: 468–479), and Tati (Authier 2010: Chapter 15).

It is difficult to establish a reliable typology according to the morphologyof relative clauses: prenominal as well as postnominal relatives can be finiteor non-finite; and finite as well as non-finite relatives can be prenominal orpostnominal.

One argument in favor of the above analysis is that non-finite prenominalrelative clauses are morphologically similar to other non-finite constructions.Two properties, inter alia, can be mentioned. The first one concerns the mark-ing of the arguments of the non-finite verb form. For example, in non-finiteconstructions, arguments can be in the genitive, like my, the subject of forget-ting, in the English example My forgetting her name is embarrassing (Quirk etal. 1985: 1064). This marking is found in some non-finite prenominal relativeclauses, for example, in Gallong (85) and in Apatani (85):

(85) h1g1

sprx.indNó-k@

1sg-gendó-háeat-nomin

(jaràa)(goods)

@@

cop.impf‘This is the thing which I’ll eat.’ (externally-headed relative) or ‘Thisis what I’ll eat.’ (headless relative) (Post 2011: 269)




(86) a. noI

s1-mi-kacattle-acc-gen

pan1bocut.nomin

myuman

miacc

kapatosee.pst

‘I saw the man who killed the cattle.’ (Abraham 1985: 131)b. kago-ka

Kago-gentun1

kick.nominmyuman

‘the man whom Kago kicked’ (Abraham 1985: 131)

Interestingly, in (86a), it is the object s1-mi ‘cattle-acc’ that has the genitivemarker while in (86b), it is the subject kago.

The second property is about the non-finite verb form itself. The non-finiteform can have noun phrase markers, such as case, number, and gender, as forexample in Newar (87), Tamang (88), and some Indo-Aryan languages, suchas Marathi (89):

(87) katakatKarakat

maramarmaramar

ha-ku-pensay-nomin-pl

‘those who say: ‘karakat maramar’ ’ (Genetti 2007: 392)

(88) 1kha-pa-tacome-nomin-dat

1pingive

1to:-pamust-impf

3aneg

1kha-pa-tacome-nomin-dat

1pingive

3aneg

1to:need

‘We must give [food] to the [people who] come, to [those who] don’tcome, we don’t have to give.’ (Mazaudon 2003: 300)

(89) a. tupro.2sg

pat.hawlelısend.pst.ptcpl.sg.f

sad. ısaree.sg.f

surekhbeautiful

ahecop

‘The saree which you sent is beautiful.’ (Pandharipande 2003:90)

b. mıpro.1sg

rahatlive.pres

aslelabe.pst.ptcpl.sg.neut

gharhouse.sg.neut

khüpvery

dzunaold

ahecop

‘The house in which I am living is very old.’ (Pandharipande2003: 90)

c. tyanepro.3sg.ag

amantraninvitation

patrikacard

dilelıgive.pst.ptcpl.pl

saglıall.pl.neut

mansapeople.pl.neut

lagnalawedding.dem

alıcome.pst.3pl.neut‘All the people whom he had sent (given) invitation cards hadcome to the wedding.’ (Pandharipande 2003: 90)



606 Tong Wu

Turkic languages are interesting in that there are four types of marking fornon-finite relative clauses relativizing on non-subject positions. The first marksthe subject of non-finite prenominal relatives with the genitive case and thenon-finite relative verb with the possessive marker, like in Turkish:

(90) oya-nınOya-gen

kütüphane-denlibrary-abl

çal-dig-ısteal-nomin-3sg.poss

budem

eskiold

kitapbook

‘this old book that Oya stole from the library’ (Kornfilt 2005: 515)

The second type marks the subject with the nominative or genitive case but thenon-finite verb always with the possessive, as for example in Azerbaijanian:

(91) menpro.1sg.nom

yazajaG-ïmwrite.ptcpl.-1sg.poss

mektubletter

‘the letter I shall write’ (Schönig 1998: 258)

The third type uses neither the genitive case nor the possessive, like in Uzbek:

(92) menpro.1sg

qil-gando-ptcpl

islohreforms

‘the reforms which I have made’ (Kornfilt 2005: 515)

Uzbek also uses a fourth kind of marking: the subject has the genitive case,and it is the head noun, not the non-finite relative verb, that is marked with thepossessive:

(93) men-iN1sg-gen

gapir-gansay-ptcpl

gap-imword-1sg.poss

‘the word(s) I said’ (Kornfilt 2005: 516)

Kazakh (Kirchner 1998a: 328), Kirghiz (Aydın 2006: 317), and Noghay (Csató& Karakoç 1998: 340) likewise use the last two kinds of marking.

Other Altaic languages use more or less the same system, with the parameter[±GEN] for the subject and [±POSS] for the non-finite relative verb or thehead noun. In Khalkha, only the subject has the genitive case:

(94) a. oxin-ïgirl-gen

öms-dögwear-ptcpl

gutalboot.pl

‘the boots that the girl usually wears’ (Svantesson 2003: 172)b. oxin-ï

girl-gennombook

ögö-xgive-ptcpl

xünman

‘the man to whom the girl will give a book’ (Svantesson 2003:172)

In Even, the subject cannot have the genitive marker while the non-finiterelative verb is still marked with the possessive marker:




(95) etikenold.man

maa-ca-nkill-perf.ptcpl-3sg.poss

bujunreindeer

‘the (wild) reindeer, which the old man killed’ (Malchukov 1995: 34)

Dagur is to some extent quite exceptional. Even if in this language the generalpattern is the one found in Uzbek (93), i.e., the subject is marked with thegenitive case and the head noun with the possessive marker (96a), the subjectin relative clauses can have the accusative marker (96b):

(96) a. mini1sg.gen

au-senbuy-perf

biteg-miny

book-1sg.poss15adigvery

saingood

‘The book I bought is very good.’ (Hale 2002: 110)b. nami

1sg.accal-senkill-perf

taul-min [sic]rabbit-1sg.poss

adigvery

Sigbig

‘The rabbit I killed is very big.’ (Hale 2002: 113)

Markings similar to Altaic languages are found in Quechuan languages. InCuzco Quechua, the subject can have the nominative or genitive case, whilethe non-finite relative verb is always marked with the corresponding possessivemarker:

(97) a. ruanman

qulqi(-ta)money-acc

qu-sqa-ngive-ptcpl-3sg.poss

warmiwoman

manto

‘to the woman to whom the man gave the money’ (Lefebvre &Muysken 1988: 186)

b. runa-qman-gen

qulqimoney

qu-sqa-ngive-ptcpl-3sg.poss

warmiwoman

manto

‘to the woman to whom the man gave the money’ (Lefebvre &Muysken 1988: 186)

In (97b), the subject has the genitive case -q, but the direct object does not havethe expected accusative, while in (97a), the nominative subject is followed bythe accusative direct object, even if the accusative suffix -ta is only optional.Differing from Cuzco Quechua, Huallaga Quechua never marks the subjectwith the genitive, but still marks prenominal relatives with the possessive:

(98) qampro.2sg

maqa-sha-ykihit-ptcpl-2sg.poss

runaman

sha-yka:-mu-ncome-impf-afar-3sg

‘The man whom you hit is coming.’ (Weber 1989: 280)

15. Hale glossed miny as ‘1sg.gen’, but actually, this form should belong to the possessive suffixparadigm. See C. Wu (1996: Chapters 2.1.2–2.1.3).



608 Tong Wu

These examples show how nominalization is morphosyntacticized in pre-nominal relatives: on the one hand, arguments can be marked with the gen-itive, and on the other hand, the non-finite relative verb can have nominalmorphology such as case and number. These two characteristics are foundin various non-finite constructions in various language families, with or with-out prenominal relative clauses. Theoretical analyses are numerous (Grimshaw1990: Chapter 3, Koptjevskaja-Tamm 1993, Siloni 1997, Malchukov 2004,Alexiadou et al. 2007: 477–546). It is certainly interesting to study the proper-ties of non-finite prenominal relatives, but only studying non-finite prenominalrelatives with no consideration to non-finite forms in general may mask moregeneral conclusions.

3.7. Accessibility Hierarchy

Keenan & Comrie 1977 is the foundational study of the Accessibility Hierarchyof relative clauses. Their version is the following (Keenan & Comrie 1977:66):16

(99) Accessibility Hierarchy (AH)SU > DO > IO > OBL > GEN > OCOMP

According to some typological studies (Downing 1978: 396, C. Lehmann1986: 672, Dik 1997: 56–57, Song 2001: 213, 232), prenominal relative clausesoften have fewer accessible positions than other types of relative clauses ifthere is more than one type of relative clauses in a single language. Actually, inthese studies the prenominal-relative-clause languages quoted are not primary-prenominal-relative-clause languages. On the contrary, primary prenominalrelatives should be able to relativize on as many positions as other types ofrelative clauses. My data proves this: in most prenominal-relative-clause lan-guages in my sample, the range of accessible positions is wide, often not lessrestricted than in English. Here I alphabetically list relevant languages, withreferences for relative clause analyses:

(100) Abkhaz (Hewitt 1979)Alamblak (Bruce 1984: 106)Amharic (Leslau 1995: 88–93),Bantawa (Doornenbal 2009: 201),Basque (Rijk 1972: 118–123, Oyharçabal 2003: 774–781)

16. See also C. Lehmann (1986, 2003) for a different version.




Burushaski (Tiffou & Patry 1995),Cuzco Quechua (T. Wu 2008: 106–108)Dhivehi (Cain & Gair 2000: 36)Dolakha Newar (Genetti 2007: 312–313)Even (Malchukov 1995: 34)Evenki (Nedjalkov 1997: 40, 42, 56–57)Gallong (Post 2007: Chapters 6.1.2.2.5, 14.1.3.3, 15.3.1.3)Godoberi (Tatevosov 1996: 211–217)Hakha Lai (Peterson 2003: 421–422)Huallaga Quechua (Weber 1983: 35–79, 1989: 279–282)Hupda (Epps 2008: 834–838)Ingush (Nichols 2011: Chapter 26.2)Japanese (T. Wu 2008: 103–106)Kabardian (Colarusso 1992: 189, 191–192)Kambaata (Treis 2008: Section 3.2)Kannada (Sridhar 1990: 56–58, 60–62)Khwarshi (Khalilova 2009: 350–354)Kolyma Yukaghir (Maslova 2003a: 416–427)Korean (Tagashira 1972: 216–224, Sohn 1994: 67–68)Kryz (Authier 2009: Chapter 19.1)Kyirong Tibetan (Huber 2003)Laz (Lacroix 2009: 756–758)Lhasa Tibetan (Mazaudon 1978)Lezgian (Haspelmath 1993: 340)Maale (Amha 2001: 163–166)Malayalam (Asher & Kumari 1997: 58–68, 75)Manambu (Aikhenvald 2008: 469, 475–477)Manange (Hildebrandt 2004: Section 5.2)Mangghuer (Slater 2003: Chapter 6.2.1.1)Marathi (Pandharipande 1997: 89–98)Mari (Matsumura 1981)Mandarin (T. Wu 2007)Meithei (Bhat & Ningomba 1997: 280–281)Mongsen Ao (Coupe 2007: 226–227)Oksapmin (Loughnane 2009: 197–198)Qiang (LaPolla & Huang 2003: Chapter 5.2)Rawang (LaPolla 2008: 801–802)Sherpa (Kelly 2004: Section 5.6)Sidamo (Kazuhiro 2007: Chapter 5.4)Silt’i (Rawda 2003: Chapter 3)Sinhala (Gair 2003: 808–809, Gair & Paolillo 1997: 54)Takale Kham (Watters 2002: 201–211)



610 Tong Wu

Tamang (Mazaudon 2011: 1061)Tamil (Lakshmanan 2000: 592)Tati (Authier 2010: Chapter 15)Tsez (Comrie & Polinsky 1999)Turkish (Kornfilt 1997: Chapter 1.1.2.3.7)Wolaytta (Wakasa 2008: Chapters 4.4.3.3.1–4.4.3.3.2)

I have found only three prenominal-relative-clause languages with limitedaccessibility. In Amis (J. Wu 2003) and in Tsou (Zeitoun 2005: 273) only thesubject can be relativized on. This reflects the particularity of Austronesianlanguages in general (Keenan & Comrie 1977, 1979; Comrie 2003). The thirdlanguage is Urarina. It only relativizes on absolutive and ergative arguments(i.e., subjects):

(101) a. k0

thereniidem

ajriniaoutside

la0h0-isit-nomin

ra0sibite.u3sg

‘It bit the one that was sitting outside.’ (Olawsky 2006: 322)b. kiitCa

1sgkwaa0na-0r-icreate-pl-nomin

itahe-ri-tCã0-nidestroy-irr-a1sg-ass

‘I will destroy those which I have created.’ (Olawsky 2006: 322)c. katCa

manki-0r-eraeat-pl-nomin

baka0a-k0r0Indio-pl

‘the indios who ate people’ (Olawsky 2006: 326)

Some other languages cannot relativize on certain lower positions, such aspossessors in Evenki (Nedjalkov 1997: 42), postpositional objects in Godoberi(Tatevosov 1996: 215), and comitative and the object of comparison in Alam-blak (Bruce 1984: 106).

Apart from the hierarchy, Keenan & Comrie (1977: 67, 68) also proposedtwo groups of constraints:

(102) The Hierarchy Constraints (HCs)

1. A language must be able to relativize subjects.2. Any RC[i.e., relative clause]-forming strategy must apply to a

continuous segment of the AH.3. Strategies that apply at one point of the AH may in principle

cease to apply at any lower point.

(103) The Primary Relativization Constraint (PRC)

1. A language must have a primary RC[i.e., relative clause]-forming strategy.

2. If a primary strategy in a given language can apply to a lowposition on the AH, then it can apply to all higher positions.

3. A primary strategy may cut off at any point on the AH.




The “primary RC-forming strategy”17 is defined as the strategy that “can beused to relativize subjects” (Keenan & Comrie 1977: 67).

The first one of the Hierarchy Constraints is confirmed by my data: allprenominal-relative-clause languages can relativize on subjects. One prenom-inal-relative-clause language, Chechen, contradicts the second constraint be-cause resumption is obligatory only for the dative:

(104) shiena3sg.refl

kilaabaCaleb.erg

dikagood

laattaland.abs

dellagive.pst

voluaux.ptcpl

stagperson.abs

as1sg.erg

dwaatettirapush.away.pst

‘I rejected the person to whom Caleb gave good land.’ (Komen 2007:2)

The third sub-constraint is confirmed by the prenominal-relative-clause lan-guages consulted as well.

As for the Primary Relativization Constraint, the primary RC-forming strat-egy in prenominal-relative-clause languages is gapping. If gapping is used evenfor the lowest positions, it must apply to higher positions – the second con-straint is confirmed, too. Gapping can stop anywhere: at direct objects, indirectobjects, possessors, or obliques.

To conclude, prenominal relative clauses in general respect the AccessibilityHierarchy and the related constraints.

3.8. Prenominal relative clause → OV

The implication prenominal relative clause → OV was not explicitly pro-posed by Greenberg (1963), but it could be deduced from his Universals Nos.3, 4, and 24. Early mentions of this implication include Vennemann 1972, W.P. Lehmann 1973, and Mallinson & Blake 1981; see further Dryer 1991, 2005.It is known to have exceptions, most famously including Mandarin Chinese(Downing 1978: 392, Mallinson & Blake 1981: 273, Keenan 1985: 144, deVries 2002: 36, Kroeger 2005: 232, Creissels 2006: 239, Andrews 2007: 209,Dryer 2007: 97).18 But there are more exceptions:

17. Note that their definition of “primary relative clause-forming strategy” is different from mydefinition of “primary relative clause” given above in Section 2 in terms of “markedness”.

18. Li & Thompson (1981: 19–27) assume that Mandarin is mixed rather than SOV or SVO;prenominal relatives would therefore not be wholly out of order.



612 Tong Wu

(105) SVO languages:Cantonese (Matthews & Yip 1994: Chapters 4.1, 6.4, 2001), Minnan(Chen 2008), Bai (Dryer 2005, Comrie 2008), Bukiyip (Conrad &Wogiga 1991: 80–87), Ngiti (Rijkhoff 2002: 195, 241, 300, KutschLojenga 1994)

Verb-initial languages:Amis (Dryer 2005, Comrie 2008), Tsou (Zeitoun 2005: 265, 271)

Verb-second language:Ingush (Nichols 2011: Chapter 30.2)19

There have been several attempts to explain this implication, either diachron-ically (e.g., the “Relative Time” hypothesis of Hawkins 1983) or in terms ofprocessing. Thus, Kuno (1974) sees it is an instance of the avoidance of center-embedding, and Hawkins (1990, 1994) also invokes processing difficulties.However, arguing against such a processing acount, Comrie (2008) and C.-J. C. Lin (2008) point to unique properties of prenominal relatives in Chineseand Formosan languages. More cases with non-harmonic ordering of relativeclauses and objects should be examined – but then, “as one considers morecases, then one increases the probability of occurrence of even statisticallyrare phenomena, such as an unprincipled skewing between logically parallelphenomena, like postnominal and prenominal relative clauses” (Comrie 2008:730).

4. Conclusion: What is the prenominal relative clause?

In this article I have surveyed the main syntactic properties of prenominal rela-tive clauses: relativizer, gapping, resumptive pronoun, non-finiteness, behaviorwith respect to accessibility, and the ordering connection prenominal rela-tive clause → OV. The question I would now like to ask in conclusion is towhat extent these properties are intrinsic to prenominal relatives. It is possibleto proceed by elimination.

Three properties can be eliminated: non-finiteness, accessibility behavior,and the ordering implication. First, I argued in Section 3.6 that the non-finiteprenominal relative clause is only a particular case of non-finite subordinateclauses in general. Second, to conform to the Accessibility Hierarchy is notan intrinsic property of prenominal relatives, not even one of relative clauses:as Van Valin (2001: 21–80) and Croft (2003: 142–155) convincingly argued,the Accessibility Hierarchy is only a manifestation of a more general hierarchy,

19. To be more precise, Ingush has verb-final order in non-main and some main clauses, butverb-second order in most main clauses. See Nichols 2011: Chapter 30.2.




i.e., the grammatical relation hierarchy. The latter also regulates behavioral pat-terns other than relativization, for example, reflexivization, causative, controlconstructions, and cleft formation. Third, the implication prenominal rela-tive clause → OV may be better analyzed in a broader framework regardingword order universals in general. Therefore, non-finiteness, the AccessibilityHierarchy, and the implication only coincidentally concern prenominal rela-tives.

The other three properties – relativizer, gapping, resumption – seem to bemore intrinsic to prenominal relative clauses. Prenominal relatives are relativeclauses containing a relativizer and using gapping or resumption for the con-stituent relativized on. This rewording can indeed distinguish prenominal rela-tives from internally-headed relatives, correlative relatives, and adjoined rela-tives, because these three types of relative clauses by definition can never usegapping (or resumption). However, this rewording cannot differentiate prenom-inal relatives from postnominal relatives: English postnominal relatives usedifferent relativizers (relative pronouns, the complementizer that, zero mark-ing) and gapping (Quirk et al. 1985: Chapters 6.32–35, 17.9–27), while Stan-dard Arabic postnominal relatives use two kinds of relativizers (linker and zeromarker), gapping, and resumption (Ryding 2005: 322–328, Aoun et al. 2010:Chapter 7).

In order to differentiate prenominal and postnominal relative clauses, onemay mention that prenominal relatives never use relative pronouns, but post-nominal relatives do. Actually, relative pronouns are found almost exclusivelyin Europe (Comrie 1989: 149, Creissels 2006: 228). It seems more plausible toconsider relative pronouns as an areal (or genetic) trait than as an intrinsic prop-erty of postnominal relatives. Similarly, linkers seem to be confined to Africa(Creissels et al. 2008: 142). Areal and genetic factors excluded, real typologi-cally “unbiased” relativizers are complementizers and zero marking. Note thatcomplementizers seem more frequent than zero marking in postnominal rela-tives, but less frequent in prenominal relatives. This contrast may be ascribed tothe (non-)finiteness of relative clauses in question. Non-finite relative clausesalmost never use relativizers. This tendency is observed in languages with post-nominal finite and non-finite relatives, like French or Hebrew (Section 3.6), inlanguages with finite postnominal relatives and non-finite prenominal relatives,like German and English, and in languages with finite and non-finite prenomi-nal relatives, like Manambu (Section 3.3). Expressed more radically, the abovetendency shows that non-finiteness determines zero marking, because there areindeed languages which have no relativizer but use finite verb forms in rela-tive clauses (for example English), while languages which uses non-finite verbforms and a relativizer are rare. Given that (non-)finiteness is not an intrinsicproperty of relative clauses, the distribution of complementizer and zero mark-ing should not be determined by the positional type of relative clauses.



614 Tong Wu

Prenominal and postnominal relative clauses also seem to differ in gappingto the extent that prenominal relatives have two kinds of unusual gaps (Section3.4), as seen for example in Mandarin:

(106) a. lısìLisi

dúshustudy

decomp

xuéxiàoschool

‘the school where Lisi studies’ (Lit. ‘the school that Lisi stud-ies’)

b. lısìLisi

kucry

decomp

shengyınsound

‘the sound of Lisi’s crying’ (Lit. ‘the sound that Lisi cries’)

Gaps like the one in (106a) (corresponding to an adpositional phrase) ex-ist in non-standard French (Blanche-Benveniste 2000: Chapter 5.1) and non-standard Italian (Guglielmo Cinque, personal communication), but such gapsas in (106b) have not been reported in any postnominal relatives. This maybe because this phenomenon in postnominal relatives has not been paid atten-tion to. Without clear negative evidence, it is impossible to confirm its non-existence in postnominal relatives.

Now we seem to have reached the conclusion that prenominal relativeclauses are not so different from postnominal relatives: at any rate, they areboth head-external relative clauses. To put it another way, head-external rela-tive clauses, whether prenominal or postnominal, are relative clauses contain-ing a relativizer (often complementizer or zero) and using gapping or resump-tion for the constituent relativized on. Theoretically, one way to explain thesimilarity between prenominal and postnominal relative clauses may be thatthey are both derived from one single “deep structure”, or one may be “de-rived” from the other. These two terms can be understood diachronically, inthat one type of relative clauses may have historically evolved from the othertype. However, most prenominal-relative-clause languages are not documentedwell enough for this hypothesis to be evaluated seriously. Chinese is one of therare prenominal-relative-clause languages for which such a study is possible,but it seems that prenominal relatives have existed in this language for quitea long time (Aldridge 2008). On the other hand, if “deep structure” and “de-rived from” are understood synchronically, then one may follow the approachof Kayne 1994, who has both prenominal and postnominal relatives as base-generated in a postnominal position. The former, after movements, ends upin prenominal position. Thus, to the question “what is the prenominal rela-tive clause” one may answer that the prenominal relative clause is a kind of“prenominalized” postnominal relative clause. Studies along these lines arenot rare (Simpson 1998, 2003a, b; Murasugi 2000; X.-Z. Z. Wu 2000; De-meke 2001; de Vries 2002: 131–135; Hoshi 2004; Cagri 2005; Kornfilt 2005;Ishizuka 2006; Cinque 2009; T. Wu 2011), even if there remain many prob-




lems. Only further diachronic and synchronic studies of more prenominal (andpostnominal) relative clauses will tell us whether the idea of separate structuresfor prenominal and postnominal relatives is right.

Received: 30 October 2010 Université Sorbonne Nouvelle Paris IIILaboratoire Langues et civilisations

à tradition orale (UMR 7107, CNRS)Laboratoire Dynamique du langage (UMR 5596, CNRS)

Revised: 7 September 2011

Correspondence address: 134, avenue Berthelot, 69007, Lyon, France; e-mail: [email protected], [email protected]

Acknowledgements: This study was presented in the Laboratoire Dynamique du Langage on 8October 2010. I would like to thank the audience for their remarks. I thank the colleagues withwhom I discussed data or analysis: Antoine Guillaume, Françoise Rose, Chloé Darmon, and HayatOmar. I am indebted to Natalia Cáceres and the editorial office of LT for proofreading and stylis-tic improvement. My thanks also go to the editor and four anonymous reviewers of LT for theircomments and suggestions. Last but not least, I would like to express my most sincere thankful-ness to my three directors, Denis Creissels, Georges Rebuschi, and Guglielmo Cinque for theirencouragement and guidance, both during and after my dissertations under their supervision. I amalso grateful to them for helpful comments on various versions of this paper. If any imperfectionremains, the fault is mine.

Abbreviations: 1/2/3 1st/2nd/3rd person; a subject of transitive clauses; abl ablative; abs ab-solutive; acc accusative; actfoc action focus; affirm affirmative; ag agent; all allative; aoraorist; applic applicative; art article; ass assertive; aug augmentative; aux auxiliary; cl clas-sifier; comp complementizer; cond conditional; contin continuous; conv converb; cop copula;dat dative; decl declarative; def definite; dem demonstrative; dir directional; dynm dynamic;emph emphatic; erg ergative; excl exclusive; f feminine; fin finite; flr filler form; fut future;gen genitive; ger gerund; impf imperfect(ive); inacc inaccusative; inch inchoative; ind indi-viduator; indic indicative; iness inessive; inf infinitive; ins instrumental; irr irrealis; is indirectspeech; link linker; loc locative; m masculine; mid middle voice; msd masdar; nc noun class; negnegative; neut neuter; nfn non-finite; nfut non-future tense; nom nominative; nomin nominal-ization; npst non-past tense; nsubj non-subject; o1(sg)(f) object first person (singular) (feminine);obj object; obl oblique; opt optative; pass passive; perf perfect(ive); pl plural; poss possessive;pres present; pro pronoun; prog progressive; pst past tense; ptcpl participle; pv preverb; q ques-tion marker; rc relative clause; refl reflexive; rel relativizer; relv relative verb form; s subject;sg singular; sprx speaker-proximate; subj subject; tam tense-aspect-mode; tel telic; ts thematicsuffix; u subject of intransitive clauses; val valency operator; vers versatile tense; vol volitional.

References

Abraham, P. T. 1985. Apatani grammar. Mysore: Central Institute of Indian Languages.Aikhenvald, Alexandra. Y. 2008. The Manambu language of East Sepik, Papua New Guinea. Ox-

ford: Oxford University Press.Aldridge, Edith. 2008. ZHI and ZHE: A note on the historical development of Chinese relative

clauses. Unpublished manuscript, University of Washington.Alexiadou, Artemis, Liliane Haegeman & Melita Stavrou. 2007. Noun phrase in the generative

perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.



[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

616 Tong Wu

Alexiadou, Artemis, Paul Law, André Meinunger & Chris Wilder. 2000. Introduction. In Alexiadouet al. (eds.) 2000, 1–51.

Alexiadou, Artemis, Paul Law, André Meinunger & Chris Wilder (eds.). 2000. The syntax of rela-tive clauses. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Amha, Azeb. 2001. The Maale language. Leiden: Research School of Asian, African andAmerindian Studies, Leiden University.

Anderson, Gregory D. S. 1998. Xakas. München: Lincom Europa.Anderson, Gregory D. S. 2008. GtaP. In Anderson (ed.) 2008, 682–763.Anderson, Gregory D. S. & Felix Rau. 2008. Gorum. In Anderson (ed.) 2008, 381–433.Anderson, Gregory D. S. (ed.). 2008. The Munda languages. London: Routledge.Andrews, Avery D. 2007. Relative clauses. In Shopen (ed.) 2007, Vol. 2, 206–236.Andronov, Mikhail S. 2003. A comparative grammar of the Dravidian languages. Wiesbaden:

Harrasowitz.Andvik, Erik. 2003. Tshangla. In Thurgood & LaPolla (eds.) 2003, 439–455.Aoun, Joseph E., Elabbas Benmamoun & Lina Choueiri. 2010. The syntax of Arabic. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.Artiagoitia, Xabier. 2003. Complementation (noun clauses). In Hualde & Ortiz de Urbina (eds.)

2003, 634–710.Asher, R. E. & T. C. Kumari. 1997. Malayalam. London: Routledge.Authier, Gilles. 2009. Grammaire kryz. Leuven: Peeters.Authier, Gilles. 2010. Le Judéo-tat. Paris: Ecole pratique des hautes études habilitation dissertation.Aydın, Özgür. 2006. Some comparative notes on relative clauses in Kirghiz and Turkish. Žusup

Balasagyn atyndagy kyrgyz uluttuk universitetinin žarcysy vestnik 4(1). 317–322.Bhat, D. N. S. & M. S. Ningomba. 1997. Manipuri grammar. München: Lincom Europa.Bickel, Balthasar. 2003. Belhare. In Thurgood & LaPolla (eds.) 2003, 546–570.Blanche-Benveniste, Claire. 2000. Approches de la langue parlée en français. Paris: Ophrys.Borer, Hagit. 1984. Restrictive relatives in Modern Hebrew. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory

2. 219–260.Bradley, David. 2003. Lisu. In Thurgood & LaPolla (eds.) 2003, 222–235.Brown, Keith & Jim Miller (eds.). 1999. Concise encyclopedia of syntactic categories. Oxford:

Pergamon.Bruce, Les P. 1984. The Alamblak language of Papua New Guinea (East Sepik) (Pacific Linguistics

C-81). Canberra: Australian National University.Burling, Robbins. 2003. Garo. In Thurgood & LaPolla (eds.) 2003, 387–400.Cagri, Ilhan M. 2005. Minimality and Turkish relative clauses. College Park, MD: University of

Maryland doctoral dissertation.Cain, Bruce D. & James W. Gair. 2000. Dhivehi (Maldivian). München: Lincom Europa.Cardona, George & Dhanesh Jain (eds.). 2003. The Indo-Aryan languages. London: Routledge.Chen, Weirong. 2008. Relative clauses in Hui’an dialect. In Marjorie K. M. Chan & Hana Kang

(eds.), Proceedings of the 20th North American conference on Chinese linguistics (NACCL-20). Vol. 2, 567–582. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University.

Cinque, Guglielmo. 2009. The prenominal origin of relative clauses. Paper read at EALing 2009(Ecole d’Automne de Linguistique), Paris.

Coffin, Edna A. & Shmuel Bolozky. 2005. A reference grammar of Modern Hebrew. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Colarusso, John. 1992. A grammar of the Kabardian language. Calgary: University of CalgaryPress.

Comrie, Bernard. 1981. The formation of relative clause. In Barbara Lloyd & John Gay (eds.),Universals of human thought: Some African evidence, 215–233. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-versity Press.

Comrie, Bernard. 1989. Language universals and linguistic typology. 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell.




Comrie, Bernard. 1998a. Attributive clauses in Asian languages: Towards an areal typology. InWinfried Boeder, Christoph Schroeder, Karl Heinz Wagner & Wolfgang Wildgen (eds.),Sprache in Raum und Zeit: In memoriam Johannes Bechert, Vol. 2, 51–60. Tübingen: Narr.

Comrie, Bernard. 1998b. Rethinking the typology of relative clauses. Language Design 1. 59–86.Comrie, Bernard. 2003. The verb-marking relative clause strategy. Linguistik Indonesia 21(1). 1–

18.Comrie, Bernard. 2008. Prenominal relative clauses in verb-object languages. Language and Lin-

guistics 9. 723–733.Comrie, Bernard & Maria Polinsky. 1999. Form and function in syntax: Relative clauses in Tsez.

In Michael Darnell, Edith Moravcsik, Frederick Newmeyer, Michael Noonan & KathleenWheatley (eds.), Functionalism and formalism in linguistics, Vol. 2, 77–92. Amsterdam: Ben-jamins.

Comrie, Bernard & Sandra A. Thompson. 2007. Lexical nominalization. In Shopen (ed.) 2007,Vol. 3, 334–381.

Conrad, Robert J. & Kepas Wogiga. 1991. An outline of Bukiyip grammar (Pacific LinguisticsC-113). Canberra: Australian National University.

Coupe, Alexander R. 2007. A grammar of Mongsen Ao. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Courtney, Ellen H. 2006. Adult and child production of Quechua relative clauses. First Language

26. 317–338.Creissels, Denis. 2005. Typologie de la relativisation et données de l’aire Caucase-Iran-Anatolie.

Paper read at the Atelier de syntaxe arménienne, Pithiviers, 23–25 May.Creissels, Denis. 2006. Syntaxe générale, une introduction typologique, Vol. 2: La phrase. Paris:

Lavoisier-Hermès Science.Creissels, Denis. 2007. Participles and finiteness: The case of Akhvakh. Unpublished manuscript,

Université Lumière Lyon II.Creissels, Denis, Gerrit J. Dimmendaal, Zygmunt Frajzyngier & Chista König. 2008. Africa as

a morphosyntactic area. In Bernd Heine & Derek Nurse (eds.), A linguistic geography ofAfrica, 86–150. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cristofaro, Sonia. 2003. Subordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Croft, William. 2003. Typology and universals. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Csató, Éva Á. & Birsel Karakoç. 1998. Noghay. In Johanson & Csató (eds.) 1998, 333–343.Daniel, Michael & Yuri Lander. 2010. The girl that is said, the meat that has been slaughtered, and

the life that will be longed: On peculiar cases of relativization in East Caucasian. Paper readat the Syntax of the World’s Languages IV, Lyon, 23–26 September.

DeLancey, Scott. 1986. Relativization as nominalization in Tibetan and Newari. Paper read atthe 19th International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics, Ohio StateUniversity.

DeLancey, Scott. 2002. Nominalization and relativization in Bodic. Berkeley Linguistics Society28S. 55–72.

DeLancey, Scott. 2003. Lhasa Tibetan. In Thurgood & LaPolla (eds.) 2003, 270–288.Delancey, Scott. 2011. Finite structures from clausal nominalization in Tibeto-Burman. In Yap et

al. (eds.) 2011, 343–360.Demeke, Girma A. 2001. N-final relative clauses: The Amharic case. Studia Linguistica 55. 192–

216.Dik, Simon C. 1997. The theory of Functional Grammar, Vol. 2: Complex and derived construc-

tions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Ding, Picus S. 2003. Prinmi: A sketch of Niuwozi. In Thurgood & LaPolla (eds.) 2003, 588–601.Dobrushina, Nina & Sergej G. Tatevosov. 1996. Usage of verbal forms. In Kibrik (ed.) 1996, 91–

107.Doornenbal, Marius. 2009. A grammar of Bantawa: Grammar, paradigm tables, glossary and texts

of a Rai language of Eastern Nepal. Utrecht: LOT.



618 Tong Wu

Downing, Bruce T. 1978. Some universals of relative clause structure. In Joseph H. Greenberg,Charles A. Ferguson & Edith A. Moravcsik (eds.), Universals of human language, Vol. 4:Syntax, 375–418.

Dryer, Matthew S. 1991. SOV language and the OV:VO typology. Journal of Linguistics 27. 443–482.

Dryer, Matthew S. 2005. Order of relative clause and noun. In Haspelmath et al. (eds.) 2005, 366–369.

Dryer, Matthew S. 2007. Clause types. In Shopen (ed.) 2007, Vol. 1, 224–275.Epps, Patience. 2008. A grammar of Hup. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Fabb, Nigel. 1990. The difference between English restrictive and nonrestrictive relative clause.

Journal of Linguistics 26. 57–78.Fabb, Nigel. 1999. Relative clauses. In Brown & Miller (eds.) 1999, 319–324.Feuillet, Jacques. 2006. Introduction à la typologie linguistique. Paris: Champion.Gair, James W. 2003. Sinhala. In Cardona & Jain (eds.) 2003, 766–817.Gair, James W. & John C. Paolillo. 1997. Sinhala. München: Lincom Europa.Genetti, Carol. 2007. A grammar of Dolakha Newar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Genetti, Carol. 2011. Nominalization in Tibeto-Burman languages of the Himalayan area: A typo-

logical perspective. In Yap et al. (eds.) 2011, 163–194.Genetti, Carol (ed.). 2004. Tibeto-Burman languages of Nepal: Manange and Sherpa (Pacific Lin-

guistics 557). Canberra: Australian National University.Givón, Talmy. 2001. Syntax: An introduction. Vol. 2. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Givón, Talmy. 2009. The genesis of syntactic complexity: Diachrony, ontogeny, neuro-cognition

evolution. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Gobbo, Francesca del. 2005. Chinese relative clauses: Restrictive, descriptive or appositive. In

Laura Brugè, Giuliana Giusti, Nicola Munaro, Walter Schweikert & Giuseppina Turano(eds.), Contributions to the XXX incontro di grammatica generativa, 287–305. Venezia:Cafoscarina.

Göksel, Aslı & Celia Kerslake. 2005. Turkish: A comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge.Greenberg, Joseph H. 1963. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of

meaningful elements. In Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.), Universals of language, 58–90. Cam-bridge, MA: MIT Press.

Griffiths, Arlo. 2008. Gutob. In Anderson (ed.) 2008, 633–681.Grimshaw, Jane B. 1990. Argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Grosu, Alexander. 2002. Strange relatives at the interface of two millennia. Glot International 6(6).

145–167.Gruzdeva, Ekaterina. 1998. Nivkh. München: Lincom Europa.Haegeman, Liliane. 1992. Theory and description in generative syntax: A case study in West Flem-

ish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Hale, Kenneth. 2002. On the Dagur object relative: Some comparative notes. Journal of East Asian

Linguistics 11. 109–122.Haspelmath, Martin. 1993. A grammar of Lezgian. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Haspelmath, Martin. 1995. The converb as a cross-linguistically valid category. In Martin Haspel-

math & Ekkehard König (eds.), Converbs in cross-linguistic perspective: Structure and mean-ing of adverbial verb forms, 1–56. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Haspelmath, Martin. 1999. Converb. In Brown & Miller (eds.) 1999, 110–115.Haspelmath, Martin, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil & Bernard Comrie (eds.). 2005. The world atlas

of language structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Hawkins, John A. 1983. Word order universals. New York: Academic Press.Hawkins, John A. 1990. A parsing theory of word order universals. Linguistic Inquiry 21. 223–261.Hawkins, John A. 1994. A performance theory of order and constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.




Herring, Susan C. 1991. Nominalization, relativization and attribution in Lotha, Angami andBurmese. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 14(1). 55–72.

Hetzron, Robert (ed.). 1997. The Semitic languages. London: Routledge.Hewitt, George B. 1979. The relative clause in Abkhaz (Abžui dialect). Lingua 47. 151–188.Hildebrandt, Kristine A. 2004. A grammar and glossary of the Manange language. In Genetti (ed.)

2004, 1–189.Holes, Clive. 2004. Modern Arabic: Structures, functions and varieties. Rev. edn. Washington,

DC: Georgetown University Press.Hoshi, Koji. 2004. Remarks on N-final relativization in Japanese. English Studies 44. 113–147.Hualde, José I. & Jon Ortiz de Urbina (eds.). 2003. A grammar of Basque. Berlin: Mouton de

Gruyter.Huber, Brigitte. 2003. Relative clauses in Kyirong Tibetan. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area

26(1). 1–14.Hudson, Grover. 1997. Amharic and Argobba. In Hetzron (ed.) 1997, 457–485.Ishizuka, Tomoko. 2006. Restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses in Japanese: Evidence for

movement. Unpublished manuscript, University of California, Los Angeles.Janhunen, Juha. 2003. Proto-Mongolic. In Janhunen (ed.) 2003, 1–29.Janhunen, Juha (ed.). 2003. The Mongolic languages. London: Routledge.Johanson, Lars. 1998. The structure of Turkic. In Johanson & Csató (eds.) 1998, 30–66.Johanson, Lars & Éva Á. Csató (eds.). 1998. The Turkic languages. London: Routledge.Kameshima, Nanako. 1989. The syntax of restrictive and nonrestrictive clauses in Japanese. Madi-

son, WI: University of Wisconsin doctoral dissertation.Kangasmaa-Minn, Eeva. 1998. Mari. In Daniel Abondolo (ed.), The Uralic languages, 219–248.

London: Routledge.Kayne, Richard S. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Kazuhiro, Kawachi. 2007. A grammar of Sidaama (Sidamo), a Cushitic language of Ethiopia. New

York: State University of New York doctoral dissertation.Keenan, Edward L. 1985. Relative clauses. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syn-

tactic description, Vol. 2: Complex constructions, 141–170. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-sity Press.

Keenan, Edward L. & Bernard Comrie. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar.Linguistic Inquiry 8. 63–99.

Keenan, Edward L. & Bernard Comrie. 1979. Data on the noun phrase accessibility hierarchy.Language 55. 333–351.

Kelly, Barbara. 2004. A grammar and glossary of the Sherpa language. In Carol Genetti (ed.) 2004,193–324.

Kenesei, István, Robert M. Vago & Anna Fenyvesi. 1998. Hungarian. London: Routledge.Khalilova, Zaira. 2009. A grammar of Khwarshi. Utrecht: LOT.Kibrik, Alexandr E. (ed.). 1996. Godoberi. München: Lincom Europa.King, John T. 2008. A grammar of Dhimal. Leiden: Universiteit Leiden doctoral dissertation.Kirchner, Mark. 1998a. Kazakh and Karakalpak. In Johanson & Csató (eds.) 1998, 318–332.Kirchner, Mark. 1998b. Kirghiz. In Johanson & Csató (eds.) 1998, 344–356.Kogan, Leonid E. 1997. Tigrinya. In Hetzron (ed.) 1997, 424–445.Komen, Erwin R. 2006. The relative clause in Chechen. Unpublished manuscript, Universiteit

Leiden.Komen, Erwin R. 2007. Relative clauses in Chechen. Paper read at the Conference on the Lan-

guages of the Caucasus, Max-Planck-Institut für evolutionäre Anthropologie, Leipzig, 7–9December.

Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria. 1993. Nominalizations. London: Routledge.Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria. 1999. Finiteness. In Brown & Miller (eds.) 1999, 146–149.Kornfilt, Jaklin. 1997. Turkish. London: Routledge.



620 Tong Wu

Kornfilt, Jaklin. 2000. Some syntactic and morphological properties of relative clauses in Turkish.In Alexiadou et al. (eds.) 2000, 121–159.

Kornfilt, Jaklin. 2005. Agreement and its placement in Turkic nonsubject relative clauses. InGuglielmo Cinque & Richard Kayne (eds.), The Oxford handbook of comparative syntax,513–541. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kornfilt, Jaklin. 2007. Verbal and nominalized finite clauses in Turkish. In Irina Nikolaeva (ed.),Finiteness: Theoretical and empirical foundations, 305–332. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.

Krause, Cornelia. 2001. On reduced relatives with genitive subjects. Cambridge, MA: Mas-sachusetts Institute of Technology doctoral dissertation.

Krishnamurti, Bhadriraju. 2003. The Dravidian languages. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Kroeger, Paul R. 2004. Analyzing syntax: A lexical-functional approach. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Kroeger, Paul R. 2005. Analyzing grammar: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Kuno, Susumu. 1974. The position of relative clauses and conjunctions. Linguistic Inquiry 5. 117–136.

Kutsch Lojenga, Constance. 1994. Ngiti: A Central-Sudanic language of Zaire. Köln: Köppe.Lacroix, René. 2009. Description du dialecte laze d’Arhavi (caucasique du sud, Turquie). Gram-

maire et texte. Lyon: Université Lumière Lyon II doctoral dissertation.Lakshmanan, Usha. 2000. The acquisition of relative clauses by Tamil children. Journal of Child

Language 27. 587–617.Lamberti, Marcello & Roberto Sottile. 1997. The Wolaytta language. Köln: Köppe.LaPolla, Randy J. 1994. Parallel grammaticalizations in Tibeto-Burman: Evidence of Sapir’s drift.

Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 17(1). 61–80.LaPolla, Randy J. 2003. Dulong. In Thurgood & LaPolla (eds.) 2003, 674–682.LaPolla, Randy J. 2008. Relative clause structures in the Rawang language. Language and Lin-

guistics 9. 797–812.LaPolla, Randy J. & Chenglong Huang. 2003. A grammar of Qiang, with annotated texts and

glossary. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Lefebvre, Claire & Pieter Muysken. 1988. Mixed categories: Nominalizations in Quechua. Dor-

drecht: Kluwer.Lehmann, Christian. 1986. On the typology of relative clauses. Linguistics 24. 663–680.Lehmann, Christian. 2003. Relative clauses. In William J. Frawley (ed.), International encyclope-

dia of linguistics, Vol. 3, 460–461. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Lehmann, Winfred P. 1973. A structural principle of language and its implications. Language 49.

47–66.Leslau, Wolf. 1945. Grammatical sketches in Tigré (North Ethiopic): Dialect of Mensa. Journal of

the American Oriental Society 65(3). 164–203.Leslau, Wolf. 1959. A preliminary description of Argobba. Annales d’Ethiopie 3. 251–273.Leslau, Wolf. 1995. Reference grammar of Amharic. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Li, Charles N. & Sandra A. Thompson. 1981. Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar.

Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Lin, Chien-Jer. C. 2008. The processing foundation of head-final relative clauses. Language and

Linguistics 9. 813–838.Lin, Jo-Wang. 2003. On restrictive and nonrestrictive relative clauses in Mandarin Chinese. Tsing

Hua Journal of Chinese Studies 33(1). 199–240.Lipinski, Edward. 2001. Semitic languages: Outline of a comparative grammar. Leuven: Peeters.Loughnane, Robyn. 2009. A grammar of Oksapmin. Melbourne: University of Melbourne doctoral

dissertation.Malchukov, Andrei L. 1995. Even. München: Lincom Europa.




Malchukov, Andrei L. 2004. Nominalization/verbalization: Constraining a typology of transcate-gorial operations. München: Lincom Europa.

Mallinson, Graham & Barry J. Blake. 1981. Language typology: Cross-linguistic studies in syntax.Amsterdam: North-Holland.

Maslova, Elena. 2003a. A grammar of Kolyma Yukaghir. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Maslova, Elena. 2003b. Tundra Yukaghir. München: Lincom Europa.Matisoff, James A.1972. Lahu nominalization, relativization, and genetivization. In John P. Kim-

ball (ed.), Syntax and semantics, Vol. 1, 237–257. New York: Academic Press.Matsumoto, Yoshiko. 1997. Noun-modifying constructions in Japanese: A frame semantic ap-

proach. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Matsumura, Kazuto. 1981. Mari (Cheremis) relative clauses. University of Tokyo Working Papers

in Linguistics 2. 45–55.Matsumura, Kazuto. 1983. Mari (Cheremis) pseudo-relatives. In Shirô Hattori & Kazuko Inoue

(eds.), Proceedings of the XIIIth International Congress of Linguists, 461–464. Tokyo: Pro-ceedings Publishing Committee.

Matthews, Stephen & Virginia Yip. 1994. Cantonese: A comprehensive grammar. London: Rout-ledge.

Matthews, Stephen & Virginia Yip. 2001. Aspects of contemporary Cantonese grammar: The struc-ture and stratification of relative clauses. In Hilary Chappell (ed.), Sinitic grammar: Syn-chronic and diachronic perspectives, 266–281. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Mazaudon, Martine. 1978. La formation des propositions relatives en tibétain. Bulletin de la So-ciété Linguistique de Paris 73(1). 401–414.

Mazaudon, Martine. 2003. Tamang. In Thurgood & LaPolla (eds.) 2003, 291–314.Mazaudon, Martine. 2011. Le tamang. In Emilio Bonvini, Joëlle Busuttil & Alain Peyraube (eds.),

Dictionnaire des langues, 1056–1064. Paris: PUF.Murasugi, Kumiko G. 2000. On antisymmetry analysis of Japanese relative clauses. In Alexiadou

et al. (eds.) 2000, 231–265.Nedjalkov, Igor. 1997. Evenki. London: Routledge.Nichols, Johanna. 2011. Ingush grammar. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Noonan, Michael. 1997. Versatile nominalizations. In Joan Bybee, John Haiman & Sandra A.

Thompson (eds.), Essays on language function and language type: Dedicated to T. Givón,373–394. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Noonan, Michael. 2007. Complementation. In Shopen (ed.) 2007, Vol. 2, 52–150.Noonan, Michael. 2008. Nominalization in Bodic languages. In Maria J. López-Couso & Elena

Seoane (eds.), Rethinking grammaticalization: New perspectives for the twenty-first century,219–238. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Olawsky, Knut J. 2006. A grammar of Urarina. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Overfelt, Jason D. 2009. The syntax of relative clause constructions in Tigrinya. West Lafayette,

IN: Purdue University master thesis.Oyharçabal, Bernard. 2003. Relatives. In Hualde & Ortiz de Urbina (eds.) 2003, 762–822.Palmer, Frank R. 1961. Relative clauses in Tigre. Word 17. 23–33.Palmer, Frank R. 1962. Relative clauses in Tigrinya. Journal of Semitic Studies 7. 36–43.Pandharipande, Rajeshwari. 1997. Marathi. London: Routledge.Pandharipande, Rajeshwari. 2003. Marathi. In Cardona & Jain (eds.) 2003, 698–728.Peterson, David A. 2003. Hakha Lai. In Thurgood & LaPolla (eds.) 2003, 409–426.Peterson, John. 2008. Kharia. In Anderson (ed.) 2008, 434–507.Post, Mark W. 2007. A grammar of Galo. Bundoora: LaTrobe University doctoral dissertation.Post, Mark W. 2008. Nominalization-based constructions in Tibeto-Burman: Synchronic and di-

achronic perspectives. Paper read at the TB Nominalization, Nijmegen, 16 May.Post, Mark W. 2011. Nominalization and nominalization-based constructions in Galo. In Yap et al.

(eds.) 2011, 255–288.



622 Tong Wu

Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik. 1985. A comprehensivegrammar of the English language. Harlow: Longman.

Rawda, Siraj. 2003. Relativization in Silt’i. Addis Ababa: Addis Ababa University master thesis.Raz, Shlomo. 1997. Tigré. In Hetzron (ed.) 1997, 446–456.Rebuschi, Georges. 2011. Parallel translations of relative clauses in Basque (diachronically

and trans-dialectally): Basic data. Unpublished manuscript, Université Sorbonne NouvelleParis III.

Riemsdijk, Henk C. van 1978. A case study in syntactic markedness: The binding nature of prepo-sitional phrases. Lisse: de Ridder.

Rijk, Rudolph de. 1972. Relative clauses in Basque: A guided tour. Chicago Linguistic Society8(2). 115–135.

Rijkhoff, Jan. 2002. The noun phrase. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Rybatzki, Volker. 2003. Intra-Mongolic taxonomy. In Janhunen (ed.) 2003, 364–390.Ryding, Karin C. 2005. A reference grammar of Modern Standard Arabic. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.Schönig, Claus. 1998. Azerbaijanian. In Johanson & Csató (eds.) 1998, 248–260.Schulze, Wolfgang. 1997. Tsakhur. München: Lincom Europa.Schwartz, Arthur. 1971. General aspects of relative clause formation. Working Papers in Language

Universals 6. 139–171.Seegmiller, Steve. 1996. Karachay. München: Lincom Europa.Seyoum, Mulugeta. 2008. A grammar of Dime. Utrecht: LOT.Shopen, Timothy (ed.). 2007. Language typology and syntactic description. 2nd edn. 3 vols. Cam-

bridge: Cambridge University Press.Siloni, Tal. 1997. Noun phrases and nominalizations: The syntax of DPs. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Simpson, Andrew. 1998. Empty determiners and nominalisation in Chinese, Korean and Japanese.

Papre read at the USC symposium on East Asian languages, University of Southern Califor-nia, Los Angeles.

Simpson, Andrew. 2003a. On the status of modifying DE and the structure of the Chinese DP. InSze-Wing Tang & Chen-Sheng Luther Liu (eds.), On the formal way to Chinese languages,74–101. Stanford, CA: CSLI.

Simpson, Andrew. 2003b. On the re-analysis of nominalizers in Chinese, Japanese and Korean. InYen-Hui Audrey Li & Andrew Simpson (eds.), Functional structures, form and interpreta-tion: perspectives from East Asian languages, 131–160. London: Routledge.

Skribnik, Elena. 2003. Buryat. In Juha Janhunen (ed.) 2003, 102–128.Slater, Keith W. 2003. A grammar of Mangghuer: A Mongolic language of China’s Qinghai-Gansu

Sprachbund. London: Routledge Curzon.Sohn, Ho-Min. 1994. Korean: A descriptive grammar. London: Routledge.Sohn, Ho-Min. 1999. The Korean language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Song, Jae J. 2001. Linguistic typology: Morphology and syntax. Harlow: Pearson Education.Sridhar, Shikaripur N. 1990. Kannada. London: Routledge.Sulkala, Helena & Marja Karjalainen. 1992. Finnish. London: Routledge.Sun, Jackson T.-S. 2003. Caodeng rGyalrong. In Thurgood & LaPolla (eds.) 2003, 490–502.Sun, Jackson T.-S. 2006. Relative clauses in Caodeng rGyalrong. Language and Linguistics 7.

905–933.Svantesson, Jan-Olof. 2003. Khalkha. In Janhunen (ed.) 2003, 154–176.Tagashira, Yoshiko. 1972. Relative clauses in Korean. Chicago Linguistic Society 8(2). 215–229.Tatevosov, Sergej G. 1996. Relative clauses. In Kibrik (ed.) 1996, 210–217.Thurgood, Graham & Randy J. LaPolla (eds.). 2003. The Sino-Tibetan languages. London: Rout-

ledge.Tiffou, Etienne & Richard Patry. 1995. La relative en bourouchaski du Yasin. Bulletin de la Société

Linguistique de Paris 90(1). 335–390.




Treis, Yvonne. 2008. Relativization in Kambaata (Cushitic). In Zygmunt Frajzyngier & Erin Shay(eds.), Interaction of morphology and syntax: Case studies in Afroasiatic, 161–206. Amster-dam: Benjamins.

Van Valin, Robert D., Jr. 2001. An introduction to syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Vennemann, Theo. 1972. Analogy in generative grammar: The origin of word order. In Luigi

Heilmann (ed.), Proceedings of the 11th International Congress of Linguists, Vol. 2, 79–83.Bologne: Il Mulino.

Vries, Mark de. 2001. Patterns of relative clauses. Linguistics in the Netherlands 18. 231–243.Vries, Mark de. 2002. The syntax of relativization. Utrecht: LOT.Vries, Mark de. 2005. The fall and rise of universals on relativization. Journal of Universal Lan-

guage 6. 125–157.Wakasa, Motomichi. 2008. A descriptive study of the Modern Wolaytta language. Tokyo: Univer-

sity of Tokyo doctoral dissertation.Watters, David E. 2002. A grammar of Kham. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Watters, David E. 2008. Nominalization in the Kiranti and Central Himalayish languages of Nepal.

Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 31(1). 1–43.Weber, David J. 1983. Relativization and nominalized clauses in Huallaga (Huanuco) Quechua.

Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Weber, David J. 1989. A grammar of Huallaga (Huánuco) Quechua. Berkeley, CA: University of

California Press.Whaley, Lindsay J. 1997. Introduction to typology: The unity and diversity of language. London:

Sage.Wu, Chaolu. 1996. Daur. München: Lincom Europa.Wu, Joy. 2003. Clausal modifiers in Amis. Concentric: Studies in English Literature and Linguis-

tics 29(2). 59–81.Wu, Tong. 2007. Accessibilité à la relativisation dans les phrases simples en mandarin. Lyon:

Université Lumière Lyon II master thesis.Wu, Tong. 2008. La relativisation prénominale: Etude comparative sur l’amharique, le basque, le

chinois mandarin, le japonais, le quechua et le turc. Lyon: Université Lumière Lyon II masterthesis.

Wu, Tong. 2011. La relativisation prénominale. Paris: Université Sorbonne Nouvelle Paris 3 doc-toral dissertation.

Wu, Xiu-Zhi Z. 2000. Grammaticalization and the development of functional categories in Chi-nese. Los Angeles: University of Southern California doctoral dissertation.

Yap, Foong H., Karen Grunow-Hårsta & Janick Wrona. 2011. Introduction: Nominalization strate-gies in Asian languages. In Yap et al. (eds.) 2011, 1–58.

Yap, Foong H., Karen Grunow-Hårsta & Janick Wrona (eds.). 2011. Nominalization in Asian lan-guages: Diachronic and typological perspectives. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Yoon, Jae-Hak. 1993. Different semantics for different syntax: Relative clauses in Korean. OhioState University Working Papers in Linguistics 42. 199–226.

Zeitoun, Elizabeth. 2005. Tsou. In Alexander Adelaar & Nikolaus P. Himmelmann (eds.), TheAustronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar, 259–290. London: Routledge.



the syntax of prenominal relative clauses: a typological study

Documents