New strategies for relative clauses in Azeri and Apsheron Tat

LACIM Webinar, 2021

Armenian is generally described as a language having finite RCs introduced by a relative pronoun as its primary strategy. However, it also possesses an invariant clause linker derived from a relative pronoun, and data from a corpus of colloquial spoken language show that this, like its Georgian equivalent rom, is frequently used to introduce RCs, as well as other types of subordinate clauses. The Armenian and Georgian constructions in question share the property, typologically unusual for RCs introduced by an invariant clause-linker, that they allow the relativized element to appear as a full NP in RC case. A common configuration has the relativized NP of a left-adjoined RC preposed (topicalized) ahead of the clause-linker, a position that is paralleled by topical elements in other types of subordinate clauses in these languages. This and other properties of these constructions reveal that they can be straightforwardly interpreted as adjoined RCs with a structure analogous to that of correlatives. Similar constructions found in other languages of the area, including Udi and Northern Talyshi, which have caused problems of interpretation because it has been assumed that they are embedded postnominal RCs, therefore the fronted relativized element must be outside RC and should not have RC case (Gandon 2016, 2018), can also be interpreted in this way. Thus it appears that adjoined RCs introduced by an invariant clause-linker, though typologically rare compared to adjoined RCs with true RP (correlatives) or embedded postnominal RCs with invariant clause-linker, are actually quite widespread in the Southern Caucasus area.

not published yet, 2019

The syntactic patterns utilized by the northern dialects of Tajik [particularly those in Uzbekistan] have evolved to be divergent from those of other Iranian languages and dialects. This paper shows how northern Tajik dialects use morphological tools in situations where other Iranian languages and dialects would employ relative pronouns.

Lingua, 2020

This paper presents a discussion of the syntax and typology of finite relative clauses in Armenian, based on data from a corpus of colloquial spoken language from the Republic of Armenia. In literary Armenian, the preferred strategy involves embedded postnominal relative clauses with relative pronouns. However, the spoken corpus data show a much wider usage of adjoined constructions, including left-adjoined RCs introduced by an indeclinable complementizer, a strategy which is paralleled in several other languages of the Araxes-Iran area. We also find 'inverse attraction' structures, where the relativized element precedes RP in RC case. Previous syntactic analyses of these constructions have concluded that, if the relativized element has a determiner other than RP, it must be outside RC, leaving the case-marking unexplained. However, all the languages in which they occur have undergone a change from RP > indeclinable complementizer, and it is proposed that the uncertain status of this element holds the key to understanding this construction, either in terms of contamination/hypercorrection, or, possibly, an intermediate 'agreeing complementizer' stage in the diachronic development. This interpretation can also be applied to Classical Armenian constructions where RPs can co-occur with resumptive pronouns, violating a proposed universal of relativization.

INALCO PhD thesis, 2019

This thesis presents a study of the syntax and typology of relative clauses in colloquial Armenian. It proposes a syntactic analysis and classification of the relativization strategies available in Armenian within the framework of existing syntactic theoretical and typological proposals concerning relative clauses, and to identify the decisive factors associated with the distribution of these different strategies. As each of the available strategies is paralleled in other languages of the area, it is possible that language contact will have an impact on the choice of strategy. There is also evidence that the role of the relativized element in the relative clause is relevant for the choice of strategy; in particular, evidence presented in previous studies of Armenian suggests that the distribution of participial RCs may violate the Relativization Accessibility Hierarchy if this is envisaged as operating directly in terms of syntactic grammatical relations. The study is mainly based on data from sound recordings of native speaker consultants from various areas of Armenia, both spontaneous speech and responses to stimuli designed to elicit relative clauses with particular properties that have been proposed to affect the choice of relativization strategy. The relative clauses are entered into a database with filters for relevant features, which contains approximately 2000 examples. The results show that accessibility to relativization is determined by semantic (affectedness) and pragmatic (topicality) role prominence, and by frequent role-reference association patterns, rather than directly by syntactic grammatical relations. This provides a coherent explanation of the apparent Accessibility Hierarchy violations found in Armenian, as well as other phenomena that have proved problematic for syntactic structure-based interpretations of accessibility to relativization.

1997

The main aim of this paper is to describe as well as explain the different participial morphology found on the modifier clauses in Turkish relative clauses. This is a topic which has been widely discussed and debated in the field of studies in Turkish linguistics. However, while the debate has centered around questions of facts and the "correct" generalizalion(s), there has hardly been an attempt to actually explain the generalizations found, i.e. to tie the facts of morphology choice to more general principles of syntax at work in the language elsewhere, outside the realm of relative clauses. It is the latter enterprise which this paper attempts to address. In doing this, I will concentrate on facts of the "standard" dialect and will describe the facts at issue. While an account of the larger varieties of facts would be interesting and challenging, it would be too ambitious to attempt such an account here.

Grković-Major, Jasmina, Björn Hansen, and Barbara Sonnenhauser (eds.), Diachronic Slavonic Syntax, Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, 2018, 361–386, 2018

This paper elaborates on the developmental scenario of relative clauses in East Slavonic. Premised on a system of areal, diachronic, and socio-typological criteria, the author offers a cross-dialectal typology of relative clause types and their overt linkage markers both inflected U jakyj, B jaki, R kakoj; U kotryj, B katory, R kotoryj 'which' and uninflected U ščo, B što, R čto 'what'; U de, B dze, R gde 'where'. I argue that, instead of a unilateral developmental trend from the free juxtaposition of clauses to hypotaxis to subordination, one should distinguish between two developmental clines (micro-pathways), one leading from parataxis to paratactic subordination and the second conducive to hypo-tactic subordination in East Slavonic. In the view of parallel relativization strategies in other Indo-European languages, in particular German dialects, I maintain that the formation of paratactic and hypotactic subordination is dependent on a historically prevalent type of discourse within a language community. Such a type is preconditioned by a particular number of societal factors, including the amount of language contact (based on adult second-language learning). The latter is likely to bring about reduction in syntagmatic redundancy leading to a 'simpler' syntactic organization, in particular the development of paratactic subordination.

2006

Turkic languages like Kirghiz and Turkish share considerable similarities in respect to the structure of relative clauses. However, there are some different properties of the structure of relative clauses in these languages. The aim of this article is to present the similarities and dissimilarities between Kirghiz and Turkish in respect to relative clauses.

Gruzdeva, Ekaterina & Janhunen, Juha (eds.). Linguistic crossings and crosslinguistics in Northeast Asia (Studia Orientalia 117), 2016

This paper is concerned with the structure of relative clauses in the indigenous languages spoken on Sakhalin Island. The Tungusic languages of the region employ relative clauses of the North Asian type, which are prenominal and have nominalized forms as their predicates. In Nivkh, relative clauses are prenominal as well, but their predicates do not demonstrate any signs of nominalization. Other notable distinctions between the languages include the means of expressing connection between the relative clause predicate and the modified noun, and the use of secondary relativization strategies. The study shows, however, that the languages of Sakhalin have also developed some important similarities, which can be explained by the influence of language contact and should be regarded as areal features.

Glossa: a journal of general linguistics, 2017

Chickasaw and Choctaw, the two Western Muskogean languages, have several different relative clause constructions, each of which is internally headed: (1) relative clauses with final demonstratives; (2) relative clauses in which the verb is marked with the suffix -kaash; and (3) relative clauses in which the verb is marked with a form of the complement switch-reference marker ‑ka. Western Muskgean relative clauses sometimes take the marking predicted by the case system, sometimes the marking predicted by the switch-reference system, and sometimes can take either marker, with different conditions for the three different relative clauses types and for extraposed modifying clauses. This complexity, we argue, arose from syntactic change in progress.This article is part of the special collection: Internally-Headed Relative Clauses