Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Subject
Methodological Preliminaries
Research Questions, Objectives, and Rationale
Data Collection and Processing
Data Collection Techniques and Instruments
Data Management
Materials
Corpus and Data Presentation
Introduction
Participant Coding
References
All Topics
Languages and Linguistics
Language Documentation

Object complement clauses in Guarijío (Uto-Aztecan)

Profile image of Eder Simeí González NietoEder Simeí González Nieto

2025, Universidad de Sonora

Abstract

The present study provides a description of object complement clauses in Guarijío (Glottocode: huar1255; ISO 639-3: var), a Southern Uto-Aztecan language of the Taracahitic branch (Miller 1983), spoken in the outskirts and mountains of Sonora and Chihuahua in northwestern Mexico. The main objective is to characterize these constructions from a typological and functional perspective, adopting five morphosyntactic variables: (a) complement-taking predicates, (b) predicate marking, (c) participant coding, (d) clausal boundary marking, and (e) clause position. Based on these parameters, I identify five structural types of complements in Guarijío.

Related papers

Object Person Marking in two under-represented Spanish Dialects of Mexico
Renato García-González

Isogloss. Open Journal of Romance Linguistics, 2023

This paper is about a clitic-like form lo that appears in two under-studied dialects of Mexico in the context of transitive clauses. The distribution of this clitic-like form in these dialects is at odds with Standard Mexican Spanish which does not allow it in the same context. This clitic-like form resembles the singular, masculine, accusative object clitic of Standard Spanish, but it differs in that it does not show the agreement pattern expected for object clitics. In this paper we argue that this clitic-like form is better understood as an object marker that is triggered by the lack of a positive [Participant] feature in the direct object as part of the extended projection of the Object-DP. We also propose that this marking strategy is not the result of linguistic transfer or interaction with a different language, but rather a possible development Isogloss 2023, 9(2)/5 Renato García-González & Fernando Chapa-Barrios 2 within the grammar of Spanish. This marking strategy is, in fact, an inherent strategy of Spanish, but it gets blocked by normative pressure. The fact that this strategy flourishes in dialects apart from normative/academic contexts could be an indicator that the explanation we offer is on the right track.

View PDFchevron_right
Relative Clause Structure in Mesoamerican Languages
Roberto Zavala

2021

View PDFchevron_right
Relative Clause Structure in Mesoamerican Languages. Preface
Roberto Zavala

2021

View PDFchevron_right
The Structure of Complementizerless Clauses in Classical Portuguese
André Antonelli

2012

View PDFchevron_right
Cross-linguistic Functions of Complement Clauses in Oral Monologic Texts
Lindsay Morrone

2016

Complement relations are widely identified as a type of subordination, which is traditionally defined as the combination of an independent clause and a dependent clause. A complement clause is traditionally defined as a dependent clause that refers to an event or proposition functioning as an argument of a main clause. This study takes a non-traditional, functional-typological view of subordination and complement relations following the Asymmetry Assumption (Cristofaro 2003, cf. Langacker 1991). From this perspective, subordination is an asymmetrical relation between functionally-linked states of a↵airs (SoAs) such that the profile of one overrides the other. Complement relations are those in which the semantics of an SoA entails that another SoA is referred to. Cross-linguistic studies of complementation (Givn 1980, Noonan 1985/2007, and Cristofaro 2003) describe the semantics of complement-taking predicates (CTPs), the structural characteristics of complements, and correlations be...

View PDFchevron_right
The syntax of non-verbal predication in Yucatec Maya
Grant Armstrong

2017

The objective of this paper is to fill a void in the formal syntactic literature on Mayan languages by proposing a syntactic structure for clauses with non-verbal predicates in Yucatec Maya. The paper attempts to integrate the rich descriptions of non-verbal predicate constructions found in more functionally-oriented accounts (Lehmann 2002 [1998]; Verhoeven 2007; Vapnarsky 2013) with insights from the generative literature on argument licensing and clause structure in Mayan languages (Coon 2016 for an overview) as well as small clauses (Citko 2011 for an overview). I conclude that non-verbal sentences in Yucatec are matrix small clauses embedded under an Infl node, which is the locus for finiteness/ stative aspect rather than tense morphology. This simple structure, coupled with independently motivated operations that have been proposed for small clauses and argument licensing/word order in Mayan languages, is able to account for a range of properties of these sentences that improve...

View PDFchevron_right
Headless relative clauses with a gap: A typological trait of Mesoamerican languages
Claudine Chamoreau, Enrique L Palancar

Linguistic Typology, 2024

This paper has two main goals. One is to introduce a type of "headless" (or "antecedentless") relative clause that presents a gap strategy and that has not been sufficiently discussed in the typological literature. The other is to show that this type of headless relative clause with a gap is a characteristic trait of Mesoamerican languages, since it exists in many languages of the Mesoamerican linguistic area as an important constructional option in their relativization syntax, independently of the genetic relationships of the language in question. Two types of headless relative clauses are well known to date: one involving a relativization strategy with a relative pronoun (e.g., I wore what you asked me to wear) and another with a light head, introduced by Citko (2004), somewhat comparable to I wore the one that you asked me to wear. The third type of headless relative clause discussed here presents a gap (i.e., there is no manifestation of the relativized term in the relative clause). It would be equivalent to saying 'I wore you asked me to wear'. The phenomenon we study here is interesting both from a typological and areal point of view.

View PDFchevron_right
Adverbial Clauses in Veracruz Huasteca Nahuatl from a Functional-Typological Approach
Jesús Olguín
View PDFchevron_right
On null complementizers in Spanish
ricardo etxepare

Anuario Del Seminario De Filologia Vasca Julio De Urquijo, 2013

View PDFchevron_right
Which que is which?: A squib on reduplicative que complementizers in Iberian Spanish embedded clauses
Jordan Garrett

Indiana University Linguistics Club Working Papers

This paper aims to analyze optional secondary complementizers in Spanish embedded clauses. These optional complementizers, dubbed recomplementation , are common in informal registers, are restricted to specific types of predicates (Rathmann, 2012) and are not unique to Spanish but also other Iberian languages . Using data from clitic positions and the behavior of topics, foci and other dislocates in Iberian languages, this analysis posits that the left-periphery of embedded clauses in Spanish contain three possible projections (ForceP >TopicP>FinitenessP) each containing a head with their own instantiation of que 'that'. It will be shown that what is most commonly labeled recomplementation only refers to the optional reduplicated complementizer que in the head of TopicP while que a subordinating complementizer appears in the head of ForceP and, finally, que in the head of FinP has an exhortative or polarity function. The points addressed here are new contributions to the study of recomplementation. Finally, this paper discusses the implications for a more economical leftperiphery in both embedded and matrix clauses and calls for more experimental research to be done as such phenomena are below the level of speaker consciousness and prescriptively avoided.

View PDFchevron_right

References (201)

  1. Acosta, Roberto. 1983 [1949]. Apuntes históricos sonorenses. La conquista temporal y espiritual del yaqui y del mayo. Hermosillo: Gobierno del Estado de Sonora.
  2. Ahland, Michael. 2012. A grammar of Northern Mao (Màwés Aas'è). Oregon: University of Oregon. (Doctoral dissertation)
  3. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2006. Complement clause types and complementation strategies in Tariana. In R. M. W. Dixon and Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (eds.).
  4. Complementation. A cross-linguistic typology. New York: Oxford University Press. 179-203.
  5. Almada, Francisco. 1937. Apuntes históricos de la región de Chínipas. Chihuahua: Talleres del Estado.
  6. Álvarez González, Albert. 2010. Predicación secundaria en yaqui: resultativa y depictiva. In Zarina Estrada Fernández and Ramón Arzápalo Marín (eds.). Estudios de lenguas amerindias 2: contribuciones al studio de las lenguas originarias de América. Hermosillo: Universidad de Sonora. 17-39.
  7. __________ 2012. Relative clauses and nominalizations in Yaqui. In Bernard Comrie and Zarina Estrada-Fernández (eds.). Relative clauses in languages of the Americas: a typological overview. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 67-95.
  8. __________ 2017. Valency-changing operations in Yaqui resultatives. In Albert Álvarez González and Ía Navarro (eds.). Verb valency changes. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 133-164.
  9. Andrews, Avery D. 2007. Relative clauses. in Timothy Shopen (ed.). Language typology and syntactic description. Vol. II. Complex constructions. New York: Cambridge University Press. 206-236.
  10. Anduaga, Abigail. 2018. Cláusulas adverbiales en pima bajo. Hermosillo: Universidad de Sonora. (Mater's thesis)
  11. __________ 2023. Funciones discursivas de las relaciones adverbiales y de complemento en el pima bajo. Hermosillo: Universidad de Sonora. (Doctoral dissertation)
  12. Anónimo. 1737. Arte de la lengua Cahita conforme a las Reglas de muchos Peritos de ella.
  13. Ávila, Diana. 2012. Las construcciones aplicativas en guarijío de Sonora. Hermosillo: Universidad de Sonora. (Master's thesis)
  14. Bancroft, Hubert Howe. 1874. The native races of the Pacific states of North America. Vol. I. Wild tribes. New York: D. Appleton and Company. Retrieved on March 28th, 2023, from https://open.library.ubc.ca/collections/bcbooks/items/1.0222509
  15. Bannon, John. 1939. The conquest of the Chínipas. Mid-America 21. 3-31. Retrieved on March 15, 2023, from https://archive.org/details/midamericahistor21unse/page/n5/mode/2up
  16. Barbour, Julie. 2012. A grammar of Neverver. Berlin & Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.
  17. Barreras Aguilar, Isabel. 2000. Orden de palabras en el guarijío de Sonora. In Eugene H. Casad and Thomas L. Willet (eds.). Uto-Aztecan: structural, temporal, and geographic perspectives. Papers in memory of Wick R. Miller by the friends of Uto- Aztecan. Hermosillo: Universidad de Sonora. 125-138.
  18. __________ 2014. Makuráwe Nawésari. Textos de guarijío de Sonora. Hermosillo: Universidad de Sonora.
  19. Beals, Ralph L. 1932. Aboriginal survivals in Mayo culture. American Anthropologist 34. 28-39.
  20. Beals, Ralph L., Robert Redfield and Sol Tax. 1943. Anthropological research problems with reference to the contemporary peoples of Mexico and Guatemala. American Anthropologist 45. 1-21.
  21. Bickel, Balthasar. 2007. Typology in the 21st century: major current developments. Linguistic Typology 11. 239-251.
  22. Bisang, Walter. 2001. Finite vs. non finite languages. In Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher and Wolfgang Raible (eds.). Language typology and language universals. An international handbook. Vol. II. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter. 1400-1413.
  23. Borgman, Donald M. 1990. Sanuma. In Desmond C. Derbyshire and Geoffrey K. Pullum (Eds.). Handbook of Amazonian Languages. Vol II. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 15-248.
  24. Boudreault, Lynda. 2018. A grammar of Sierra Popoluca. Berlin & Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.
  25. Bowern, Claire. 2008. Linguistic fieldwork. A practical guide. Hampshire & New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
  26. Boye, Kasper and Petar Kehayov (eds.). 2016. Complementizer semantics in European languages. Belin & Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.
  27. Boye, Kasper, Eva van Lier, and Eva Theilgaard Brink. 2015. Epistemic complementizers: a cross-linguistic survey. Language Sciences 51. 1-17.
  28. Brinton, Daniel G. 1891. The American race: A linguistic classification and ethnographic description of the native tribes of North and South America. Philadelphia: David McKay Publisher.
  29. Broadwell, George A. 2005. A Choctaw reference grammar. Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press.
  30. Buelna, Eustaquio. 1989 [1890].
  31. Arte de la lengua cahita por un padre de la Compañía de Jesús. Mexico: Editorial Siglo XXI.
  32. Buitimea Romero, Cipriano and M. Teresa Valdivia Dounce. 1994. Como una huella pintada (testimonio). Hermosillo: El Colegio de Sonora.
  33. Burgess, Don. 1984. Western Tarahumara. In Ronald W. Langacker (ed.). Studies in Uto- Aztecan grammar IV: Southern Uto-Aztecan grammatical sketches. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics & University of Texas at Arlington. 1-149.
  34. Burnham, Jeff. 1984. Una gramática de la lengua mayo. Hermosillo: Universidad de Sonora. (Manuscript)
  35. Buschmann, Johann. 1859. Die Spuren der aztekischen Sprache im nördlichen Mexico un höheren amerikanischen Norden. Abhandlungen aus dem Jahre 1854 der Königlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, supplemental vol. 2.
  36. Caballero, Gabriela. 2011. Behind the Mexican Mountains: recent developments and new directions in research on Uto-Aztecan languages. Language and Linguistics Compass 5. 485-504.
  37. __________ 2022. A grammar of Choguita Rarámuri: in collaboration with Luz Elena León Ramírez, Sebastián Fuentes Holguín, Bertha Fuentes Loya and other Choguita Rarámuri experts. Berlin: Language Science Press.
  38. Campbell, Lyle. 1997. American Indian languages: the historical linguistics of Native America. New York: Oxford University Press.
  39. Campbell, Lyle and Ronald W. Langacker. 1978. Proto-Aztecan vowels. Parts 1, 2, and 3. International Journal of American Linguistics 44. 85-102, 197-210, 262-279.
  40. Cano Ávila, Gastón. 1978. . Hermosillo: Instituto de Investigaciones Históricas. 229-252.
  41. Carochi, Horacio S. I. 1645. Arte de la lengva Mexicana con la declaracion de los adverbios della. Al illustrissimo y Reverendissimo Señor Don Juan Muñozca, Arcobispo de Mexico, de Consejo de su Magestad. México: Iuan Ruyz.
  42. Chelliah, Shobhana L. 2001. The role of text collection and elicitation in linguistic fieldwork. In Paul Newman and Martha Ratliff (eds.). Linguistic Fieldwork. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 152-165.
  43. __________ 2013. Fieldwork for language description. In Robert J. Podesva and Devyani Sharma (eds.). Research methods in linguistics. New York: Cambridge University Press. 51-73.
  44. Chelliah, Shobhana L. and Willem J. De Reuse. 2011. Handbook of descriptive linguistic fieldwork. New York: Springer.
  45. Collard, Howard and Elisabeth Scott Collard. 1984. Vocabulario mayo. México: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.
  46. Comrie, Bernard and Sandra A. Thompson. 2007. Lexical nominalization. In Timothy Shopen (ed.). Language typology and syntactic description. Vol. III. Grammatical categories and the lexicon. New York: Cambridge University Press. 334-410.
  47. Comrie, Bernard, Martin Haspelmath, and Balthasar Bickel. 2015. The Leipzig Glossing Rules. Conventions for interlinear morpheme-by-morpheme glosses. Leipzig: Max Planck. Retrieved on April 4th, 2023, from https://www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/pdf/Glossing-Rules.pdf
  48. Cortina-Borja, Mario and Leopoldo Valiñas. 1989. Some remarks on Uto-Aztecan classification. International Journal of American Linguistics 55. 214-239.
  49. Cortina-Borja, Mario, Jane Stuart-Smith and Leopoldo Valiñas-Coalla. 2002. Multivariate classification methods for lexical and phonological dissimilarities and their application to the Uto-Aztecan family. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics 9(2). 97- 124.
  50. Cristofaro, Sonia. 2003. Subordination. New York: Oxford University Press. __________ 2013. Utterance complement clauses. In Matthew Dryer and Martin Haspelmath (eds.). WALS Online. Retrieved on November 03rd, 2023, from http://wals.info/chapter/128
  51. __________ 2014. Is there really a syntactic category of subordination? In Laura Visapää, Jyrki Kalliokoski and Helena Sorva (eds). Contexts of subordination: cognitive, typological and discourse perspectives. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 77-91.
  52. Crowell, Harris T. 1979. A grammar of Bororo. Ithaca: Cornell University. (Doctoral dissertation)
  53. Cruz Fimbres, Juan Pablo and Manuel Peregrina Llanes. 2022. . 1-43. https://doi.org/10.24201/clecm.v9i0.236
  54. da Silva, Petronila. 2005. A grammar of Wayana. Houston: Rice University. (Doctoral dissertation)
  55. Dakin, Karen. 1991. Nahuatl direct and mediated possession: a historical explanation for irregularities. International Journal of American Linguistics 53. 298-329.
  56. Dayley, Jon P. 1989. Tümpisa (Panamint) Shoshone grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  57. Decorme, Gerardo. 1941. La obra de los Jesuitas Mexicanas durante la Epoca Colonia 1562- 1767. Tomo II. Las Misiones. México: Antigua Librería Robredo de José Porrúa e Hijos. Retrieved on March 15th, 2023, from https://archive.org/details/laobradelosjesui02deco/mode/2up
  58. Dedrick John M. and Eugene H. Casad. 1999. Sonora Yaqui language structures. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
  59. Deutscher, Guy. 2000. Syntactic change in Akkadian: The evolution of sentential complementation. New York: Oxford University Press.
  60. Dienst, Stefan. 2014. A grammar of Kulina. Berlin & Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.
  61. Diessel, Holger. 2001. The ordering distribution of main and adverbial clauses: a typological study. Language 77(2). 433-455.
  62. Dixon, R. M. W. 1995. Complement clauses and complementation strategies. In Frank R. Palmer (ed.). Grammar and meaning: essays in honour of Sir John Lyons. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 175-220.
  63. __________ 2004. The Jarawara language of Southern Amazonia. New York: Oxford University Press.
  64. __________ 2006. Complement clauses and complementation strategies in typological perspective. In R. M. W. Dixon and Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (eds.). Complementation. New York: Oxford University Press. 1-48.
  65. __________ 2010. Basic linguistic theory. Vol. II: Grammatical topics. New York: Oxford University Press.
  66. Dryer, Matthew S. 1980. The positional tendencies of sentential noun phrases in universal grammar. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 25(2). 123-195.
  67. __________ 2011. Order of relative clause and noun. In Matthew S. Dryer and Martin Haspelmath (eds). WALS Online. Retrieved on January 04th, 2023, at http://wals.info/chapter/90
  68. ELAN (Version 6.7 Mac M2) [Computer software]. 2023. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics & The Language Archive. Retrieved on November 06th, 2023, from http://archive.mpi.nl/tla/elan
  69. Elliot, Eric and David Leedom Shaul. 2024. Uto-Aztecan. In Carmen Dagostino, Marianne Mithun and Keren Rice (eds.). The languages and linguistics of indigenous North America. A comprehensive guide. Vol II. Berlin & Boston: Walter de Gruyter. 1333- 1360. doi.org/10.1515/9783110712742-053
  70. Escalante, Roberto. 1962. Fonémica del guarijío. Anales del Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia. XVIII, México.
  71. Estrada-Fernández, Zarina. 1996. Pima Bajo. München, Newcastle: Lincom Europa. __________ 2010. Combinación de cláusulas en pima bajo. In Zarina Estrada Fernández and Ramón Arzápalo Marín (eds.). Estudios de lenguas amerindias 2: contribuciones al studio de las lenguas originarias de América. Hermosillo: Universidad de Sonora. 133-160.
  72. __________ 2019. Syntactic nominalizations in Pima Bajo. In Albert Álvarez González, Zarina Estrada-Fernández and Claudine Chamoreau (eds.). Diverse scenarios of syntactic complexity. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 167-189.
  73. Estrada-Fernández, Zarina and Lilián Guerrero. 2005. Estrategias de union de cláusulas completivas en pima bajo y yaqui. Anclajes IX(9). 213-231.
  74. Faubert, Edmundo. 1975. Algunas observaciones hechas en el area indigena guarijío del municipio de Álamos, Sonora, efectuado durante el mes de enero de 1975, con motivo de formular una colección de artículos etnográficos del mismo grupo. Available at Biblioteca Ernesto López Yescas, Centro INAH Sonora. (Manuscript)
  75. __________ 1976. Informe sobre la situación de los guarijío. Available at Biblioteca Ernesto López Yescas, Centro INAH Sonora. (Manuscript)
  76. Félix, Rolando. 2005. A grammar of River Warihío. Houston: Rice University. (Doctoral dissertation)
  77. __________ 2006. Las relaciones complementarias en warihío. In Zarina Estrada Fernández, Rosa María Ortíz Ciscomani and María del Carmen Morúa Leyva (eds.). VIII Encuentro Internacional de Lingüística en el Noroeste, Tomo I, Memorias. Hermosillo: Universidad de Sonora. 139-160.
  78. __________ 2007. A grammar of River Warihío. Munich: Lincom.
  79. Fleck, David W. 2003. A grammar of Matses. Houston: Rice University. (Doctoral dissertation)
  80. Fleck, David W. 2006. Complement clause type and complementation strategies in Matses. In R. M. W. Dixon and Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (eds.). Complementation. A cross- linguistic typology. New York: Oxford University Press. 224-244.
  81. Foley, William A. and Robert D. Van Valin Jr. 1984. Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  82. Fowler, Catherine S. 1983. Some lexical clues to Uto-Aztekan prehistory. International Journey of American Linguistics 49(3). 224-257.
  83. Frajzyngier, Zygmunt. 1996. Grammaticalization of the complex sentence. A case study in Chadic. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  84. __________ 2012. A grammar of Wandala. Berlin & Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. __________ 2021. Typology of functional domains. In Luca Alfieri, Giorgio Francesco Arcodia and Paolo Ramat (eds.). Linguistic Categories, Language Description and Linguistic Typology. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 101-135.
  85. Frajzyngier, Zygmunt with Erin Shay. 2016. The Role of Functions in syntax. A unified approach to language theory, description, and typology. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  86. Friesen, Diane with Mana Djeme Isaac, Ali Gaston and Mana Samuel. 2017. A grammar of Moloko. Berlin: Language Science Press.
  87. García Salido, Gabriela. 2014. Clause linkage in Southeastern Tepehuan, a Uto-Aztecan language of Northern Mexico. Austin: University of Texas at Austin. (Doctoral dissertation)
  88. Gast, Volker and Holger Diessel. 2012. The typology of clause linkage: status quo, challenges, prospects. In Volker Gast and Holger Diessel (eds.). Clause linkage in cross-linguistic perspective: data driven approaches to cross-clausal syntax. Berlin & Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. 1-36.
  89. Gatschet, Albert S. 1877. Indian languages of the Pacific states and territories. Magazine of American History 1. 145-171.
  90. __________ 1879. Classification into seven linguistic stocks of western Indian dialects contained in forty vocabularies. In M. Wheeler (ed.). Report upon United States Geographical Surveys west of the one hundredth meridian. Vol. II. Washington: Government Printing Office. 403-485.
  91. Genetti, Carol, A. R. Coupe, Ellen Bartee, Kristine Hildebrandt and You-Jing Lin. 2008. Syntactic aspects of nominalization in five Tibeto-Burman languages of the Himalayan area. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Are 31(2). 97-143.
  92. Gentry, Howard S. 1942. Rio Mayo plants. A study of the flora and vegetation of the Valley of the Rio Mayo, Sonora. Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Institution of Washington. __________ 1963. The Warihío Indians of Sonora-Chihuahua: an ethnographic survey. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 186 65. 61-144.
  93. Givón, T. 1980. The binding hierarchy and the typology of complements. Studies in Languages 4(3). 333-377.
  94. Givón, T. 2001. Syntax: an introduction. Vol II. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. __________ 2009. The genesis of syntactic complexity: diachrony, ontogeny, neuro- cognition, evolution. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  95. __________ 2011. Ute reference grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. __________ 2018. On Understanding Grammar. Revised edition. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  96. __________ 2020. Coherence. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  97. Göksel, Asli and Celia Kerslake. 2006. Turkish: A comprehensive grammar. London & New York: Routledge.
  98. González Nieto, Eder Simeí. 2025. Audio files accompanying the linguistic examples in "Object complement clauses in Guarijío (Uto-Aztecan)". DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15579202
  99. Goss, James A. 1968. Culture-historical inference from Utaztekan linguistic evidence. In Earl H. Swanson Jr. (ed.). Utaztekan Prehistory. Pocatello: Occasional Papers of the Idaho State University Museum. 1-42.
  100. Goudswaard, Nelleke E. 2005. The Begak (Ida'an) language of Sabah. Utrecht: LOT.
  101. Greenberg, Joseph H. 1966. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.). Universals of Language. Cambridge: MIT Press. 73-113.
  102. Greenhill, Simon J., Hannah J. Hayne, Robert M. Ross, Angela M. Chira, Johann-Mattis List, Lyle Campbell, Carlos A. Botero and Russell D. Gray. 2023. A recent northern origin for the Uto-Aztecan Family. Language 99(1). 81-107.
  103. Grimm, Nadine. 2021. A grammar of Gyeli. Berlin: Language Science Press.
  104. Grosu, Alexander and Sandra A. Thompson. 1977. Constraints on the distribution of NP clauses. Language 53. 104-151.
  105. Guadalaxara, Thomas de S. J. 1683. Compendio del Arte de la lengva de los Tarahvmares, y Gvazápares. Puebla de los Ángeles: Diego Fernández de León.
  106. Guerrero, Lilián. 2006. The structure and function of Yaqui complementation. Munich: Lincom-Europa.
  107. Guirardello, Raquel. 1999. A grammar of Trumai. Houston: Rice University. (Doctoral dissertation)
  108. Hagemeijer, Tjerk, Philippe Maurer-Cecchini and Armando Zamora Segorbe. 2020. A grammar of Fa d'Ambô. Berlin & Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.
  109. Hammarström, Harald, Robert Forkel, Martin Haspelmath and Sebastian Bank. 2022. Glottolog 4.7. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Accessed on March 31st, 2023, from https://glottolog.org/resource/languoid/id/utoa1244
  110. Haro Encinas, Jesús Armando and Ramón Martínez Coria. 2019.
  111. Haro, Jesús Armando and Teresa Valdivia Dounce. 1996. Notas para la reconstrucción histórica de la región guarijía en Sonora. Estudios sociales VII 12. 12-37.
  112. Haspelmath, Martin. 1993. A grammar of Lezgian. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. __________ 1995. The converb as a cross-linguistically valid category. In Martin Haspelmath and Ekkehard König (eds.). Converbs in cross-linguistic perspective: structure and meaning of adverbial verb forms -adverbial participles, gerunds. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 1-55.
  113. __________ 2020. The structural uniqueness of languages and the value of comparison for language description. Asian Languages and Linguistics 1(2). 346-366.
  114. Haugen, Jason D. 2008. Morphology at the interfaces. Reduplication and noun incorporation in Uto-Aztecan. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  115. Hayes, Bruce. 2009. Introductory phonology. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.
  116. Heath, Jeffrey. 1977. Uto-Aztecan morphophonemics. International Journal of American Linguistics 43. 27-36.
  117. __________ 2010. Typology of clausal boundary marking devices. Linguistic Typology 14. 127-151.
  118. Hellwig, Birgit. 2011. A grammar of Goemai. Berlin & Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.
  119. Helmbrecht, Johannes. 2001. Head-marking vs. dependent-marking languages. In Martin Haspelmath, Ekkhard Köning, Wulf Oesterreicher and Wolfgang Raible (eds.). Language typology and language universals. An international handbook. Vol. II. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter. 1424-1432.
  120. Hetterle, Katja. 2015. Adverbial clauses in cross-linguistic perspective. Berlin & Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.
  121. Hill, Jane H. 2011. Subgrouping in Uto-Aztecan. Language Dynamics and Change 1. 241- 278.
  122. Hopkins, Nicholas A. 1965. Great Basin Prehistory and Uto-Azteca. American Antiquity 31(1). 48-60.
  123. Horie, Kaoru. 2001. Complement clauses. In Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher and Wolfgang Raible (eds.). Language typology and language universals. An international handbook. Vol. II. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter. 979-993.
  124. Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía [INEGI]. 2020. Censo de población vivienda. Retrieved on July 1st, 2021, from http://cuentame.inegi.org.mx/hipertexto/todas_lenguas.htm Instituto Nacional de los Pueblos Indígenas [INPI]. 2015. Atlas de los Pueblos Indígenas de México -Guarijíos -Estadísticas. Retrieved on April 11th, 2024, from http://atlas.inpi.gob.mx/guarijios-estadisticas/
  125. __________ 2022. Atlas de los pueblos indígenas de México. Retrieved on July 1st, 2021, from http://atlas.inpi.gob.mx/guarijios-ubicacion/
  126. Jarkey, Nerida. 2006. Complement clause types and complementation strategy in White Hmong. In R. M. W. Dixon and Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (eds.). Complementation. A cross-linguistic typology. New York: Oxford University Press. 115-136.
  127. Kehayov, Petar. 2016. Complementation marker semantics in Finnic (Estonia, Finnish, Karelian). In Kasper Boye and Kehayov Petar (eds.). Complementizer semantics in European languages. Belin & Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. 449-497.
  128. Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria. 1993. Nominalizations. London: Routledge. __________ 2006. Nominalization. In Keith Brown (ed.). Encyclopedia of language and linguistics. Vol. VIII. Oxford: Elsevier. 642-659.
  129. Kroeber, Alfred L. 1907. Shoshonean dialects of California. American Archaeology and Ethnology 4. 65-165.
  130. __________ 1934. Uto-Aztecan languages of Mexico. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  131. Kung, Susan S. 2007. A descriptive grammar of Tepehua. Austin: University of Texas at Austin. (Doctoral dissertation)
  132. Lamb, Sydney. 1964. The classification of Uto-Aztecan languages: a historical survey. In William Bright (ed.). Studies in Californian linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press. 106-125.
  133. Langacker, Ronald W. 1977. Studies in Uto-Aztecan grammar I: an overview of Uto-Aztecan grammar. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics & University of Texas at Arlington.
  134. Lehmann, Christian. 1988. Towards a typology of clause linkage. In John Haiman and Sandra A. Thompson (eds.). Clause combining in grammar and discourse. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 181-225.
  135. __________ 2015. Interlinear morphemic glossing. In Geert Booji, Christian Lehmann, Joachim Mugdan and Stavros Skopeteas (eds.). Morphology. An international handbook on inflection and word-formation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 1834-1857. Retrieved on April 4th, 2023, from https://www.christianlehmann.eu/publ/lehmann_img.pdf
  136. Lichtenberk, Frantisek. 2008. A grammar of Toqabaqita. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
  137. Lionnet, Andrés. 1978. El idioma tubar y los tubares según documentos inéditos de C. S. Lumholtz y C. V. Hartman. México: Universidad Iberoamericana.
  138. Lohninger, Magdalena and Susanne Wurmbrand. To appear. Typology of complement clauses. In Anton Benz, Werner Frey. Manfred Krifka, Thomas McFadden and Marzena Zygis (eds.). Handbook of clausal embedding. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Retrieved on July 29th, 2021, from https://lenalohninger.wordpress.com/about/
  139. Malchukov, Andrej L. 2006. Constraining nominalization: function/form competition. Linguistics 44(5). 973-1009.
  140. Matthiesen, Christian and Sandra A. Thompson. 1988. The structure of discourse and 'subordination'. In John Haiman and Sandra A. Thompson (eds.). Clause combining in grammar and discourse. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 275-329.
  141. McPherson, Laura. 2013. A grammar of Tommo So. Berlin & Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. __________ 2020. A grammar of Seenku. Berlin & Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.
  142. Medina Murillo, Ana A. 2011. Diccionario léxico-morfológico del guarijío. Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México and Universidad de Sonora.
  143. Méndez Encinas, María Fernanda. 2020. Cláusulas de complemento verbal en tarahumara de Norogachi. Hermosillo: Universidad de Sonora. (Master's thesis)
  144. __________ 2025. El peso funcional de las cláusulas completivas en géneros discursivos de Tarahumara. Hermosillo: Universidad de Sonora. (Doctoral dissertation)
  145. Merrill, William L. 2013. The genetic unity of Southern Uto-Aztecan. Language Dynamics and Change 3. 68-104.
  146. __________ 2020. El diccionario tarahumara-alemán de Matthäus Steffel. Lengua y cultura rarámuri en el siglo XVIII. Hermosillo: Universidad de Sonora. https://doi.org/10.47807/UNISON.8
  147. Merrill, William L. and Don Burgess. 2014. Ralámuli kinship terminology: a diachronic perspective on diversity in the Sierra Tarahumara of Northwestern Mexico. Anthropological Linguistics 56. 229-293.
  148. Mihas, Elena. 2015. A grammar of Alto Perené (Arawak). Boston & Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  149. Miller, Amy. 2001. A grammar of Jamul Tiipay. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
  150. Miller, Wick R. 1983. Uto-Aztecan Languages. In Alfonso Ortiz (ed.). Handbook of North American Indians. Vol. X. Southwest. Washington: Smithsonian Institution. 113-124.
  151. __________ 1984. The classification of the Uto-Aztecan languages based on lexical evidence. International Journal of American Linguistics 50. 1-24.
  152. __________ 1993. Guarijío de Arechuyvo, Chihuahua. Mexico: El Colegio de México. __________ 1996. Guarijío: gramática, textos y vocabulario. México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
  153. Mithun, Marianne. 1999. The languages of native North America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  154. Montané Martí, Julio C. 1985. Desde los origenes hasta 3000 años antes del presente. In Ana María Álavrez Pakma, Julio César Montané Martí, Ariel Echávarri Pérez, RaúlGerardo Pérez Bedolla, Jesús Armando Escárcega Escárcega, María Elisa Villalpando Canchola and Gerardo Vivas. Historia general de Sonora. I periodo prehistórico y prehispánico. Hermosillo: Gobierno del Estado de Sonora. 175-221.
  155. Nedjalkov, Igor. 1997. Evenki. London: Routledge.
  156. Nichols, Johanna. 1986. Head-marking and dependent-marking grammar. Language 6(1). 56-119.
  157. Nikolaeva, Irina. 2007. Introduction. In Irina Nikolaeva (ed.). Finiteness: theoretical and empirical foundations. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. 1-19.
  158. Noonan, Michael. 1992. A grammar of Lango. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. __________ 2007. Complementation. In Timothy Shopen (ed.). Language typology and syntactic description. Vol. II. Complex constructions. New York: Cambridge University Press. 52-150.
  159. Nordström, Jackie. 2010. Modality and subordinators. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  160. Ocaranza, Fernando. 1942. Parva crónica de la Sierra Madre y las pimerías. Mexico: Editorial Stylo.
  161. Onishi, Masayuki. 1994. A grammar of Motuna (Bougainville, Papua New Guinea). Australia: Australian National University. (Doctoral dissertation)
  162. Orozco y Berra, Manuel. 2003 [1864]. tribus. Alicante: Biblioteca Virtual Miguel de Cervantes. Retrieved on March 10th, 2023, from https://www.cervantesvirtual.com/obra/geografia-de-las-lenguas-y-carta- etnografica-de-mexico-precedidas-de-un-ensayo-de-clasificacion-de-las-mismas- lenguas-y-de-apuntes-para-las-inmigraciones-de-las-tribus--0/
  163. Overall, Simon E. 2007. A grammar of Aguaruna. Victoria: La Trobe University. (Doctoral dissertation)
  164. Payne, Thomas E. 2006. Exploring language structure. A student's guide. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  165. Pennington, Campbell W. (ed). 1981. Arte y vocabulario de la lengua dohema, heve o eudeva. Anónimo (Siglo XVII). México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
  166. Peregrina Lanes, Manuel, Corina Angélica De Santiago and Eder Simeí González Nieto. 2025. Trabajo de campo, una experiencia en el Noroeste de México: tres comunidades taracahitas en Sonora. LIAMES 25. 1-20. https://doi.org/10.20396/liames.v25i00.8678810
  167. Peregrina Llanes, Manuel. 2023. La negación estándar en guarijío: examen semántico y morfosintáctico. Cuadernos de Lingüística de El Colegio de México 10. 1-78. https://doi.org/10.24201/clecm.v10i00.253
  168. Pérez de Rivas, Andrés. 1985a [1645]. Páginas para la historia de Sonora. Triunfos de Nuestra Santa Fe. Tomo I. Hermosillo: Gobierno del Estado de Sonora. __________ 1985b [1645]. Páginas para la historia de Sonora. Triunfos de Nuestra Santa Fe. Tomo II. Hermosillo: Gobierno del Estado de Sonora.
  169. Pimentel, Francisco. 2005 [1874]. Cuadro descriptivo y comparativo de las lenguas indígenas de México, o tratado de filología mexicana. Vol. II. Alicante: Biblioteca Virtual Miguel de Cervantes. Retrieved on April 6th, 2023, from https://www.cervantesvirtual.com/obra/cuadro-descriptivo-y-comparativo-de-las- lenguas-indigenas-de-mexico-o-tratado-de-filologia-mexicana-vol-i--0/
  170. Powell, John Wesley. 1891. Indian linguistic families of America north of Mexico. In John Wesley Powell (ed.). Seventh Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology. Washington: Government Printing Office. 1-142. Retrieved on April 6th, 2023, from https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17286/pg17286-images.html
  171. Ramos, Stefanie. 2010. Tipos de cláusulas completivas en tepehuano del norte: un continuo de complejidad. Hermosillo: Universidad de Sonora. (Master's thesis)
  172. Ransom, Evelyn N. 1986. Complementation: its meanings and forms. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  173. Rinaldini, Benito. 1743. Arte de la lengua tepeguana, con vocabulario, confessionario, y catechismo, en que se explican los Mysterios de Nuestra Santa Fe Catholica, Mandamientos de la Ley de Dios, y de Nuestra Santa Madre Iglesia. Printed in Mexico by the widow of D. Joseph Bernardo de Hogal: Calle de las Capuchinas.
  174. Sapir, Edward. 1913. Southern Paiute and Nahuatl, a study in Uto-Aztekan. Journal de la Société des Américanistes 10. 379-425.
  175. __________ 1915. Southern Paiute and Nahuatl, a study in Uto-Aztekan part II. American Anthropologist 17. 306-328.
  176. Sauer, Carl. 1934. The distribution of aboriginal tribes and languages in Northwestern Mexico. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  177. Schapper, Antoinette. 2022. A grammar of Bunaq. Berlin & Boston. Mouton de Gruyter.
  178. Schmidtke-Bode, Karsten and Holger Diessel. 2017. Cross-linguistic patterns in the structure, function, and position of (object) complement clauses. Linguistics 55(1). 1- 38.
  179. Schmidtke-Bode, Karsten. 2014. Complement clauses and complementation systems: a cross-linguistic study of grammatical organization. Jena: Friedrich Schiller University Jena. (Doctoral dissertation)
  180. Shagal, Ksenia. 2019. Participles. A typological study. Berlin & Boston: Walter de Gruyter.
  181. Shaul, David Leedom. 1986. Topics in Nevome syntax. Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press.
  182. Silver, Shirley and Wick R. Miller. 1997. American Indian languages. Cultural and social contexts. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
  183. Smith, Buckingham (ed.). 1862. Grammar of the Pima or Névome, a language from Sonora, from a manuscript of the XVIII century. New York: Craimosy Press.
  184. Steffel, Matthäus. 1799. Grammatica Linguae Tarahumaricae Americanae nationis in regno Novae Viscayae, concinnata a P. Thoma de Guadalaxara e Societate Jesu olim ibidem Missionario, Superiorum permissu literis Didaci Fernandez Angelopoli A. 1683. excusa, nunc vero a quodam ejusdem Societatis apud eamdem gentem olim exposito Missionario, precibus cujusdam bonarum artium et linguarum Philologi inducto ex hispanico idiomate in latinum translata, notis pluribus et additionibus aucta, atque in meliorem formam redacta. Brunae Moravorum 1799. Archiv města Brna, fondo Mitrovští.
  185. __________ 1809. Tarahumarisches Wörterbuch, nebst einigen Nachrichten von den Sitten und Gebräuchen der Tarahumaren, in Neu-Biscaya, in der Audiencia Guadalaxara im Vice-Königreiche Alt-Mexico, oder Neu-Spanien von P. Matthäus Steffel. In Christoph Gottlieb von Murr (ed.). Nachrichten von verschiedenen Ländern des Spanischen Amerika, aus eigenhändigen Aufsätzen einiger Missionare der Gesellschaft Jesu. Vol. I. Halle: Johann Christian Hendel. 293-374
  186. Suttles, Wayne. 2004. Musqueam reference grammar. Vancouver: University of British Columbia.
  187. Thieberger, Nicholas and Andrea L. Berez. 2012. Linguistic data management. In Nicholas Thieberger (ed.). The Oxford handbook of linguistic fieldwork. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 90-118.
  188. Thomas, Cyrus, and John R. Swanton. 1911. Indian languages of Mexico and Central America. Bureau of American Ethnology 44. 1-108.
  189. Thompson, Sandra A., Joseph S. Park, and Charles N. Li. 2006. A reference grammar of Wappo. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  190. Valdivia Dounce, María T. 1990. Caso guarijío sobre la dotación de tierras en dos ejidos. In Magdalena Gómez and Claudia Olvera (coords). Donde no hay abogado. Mexico: Instituto Nacional indigenista. 283-294.
  191. __________ 2007. Entre yoris y guarijíos. Crónicas sobre el quehacer antropológico. México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
  192. __________ 2014. Between Yoris and Guarijíos: chronicles of anthropology. Journal of the Southwest 56(3).
  193. Valiñas, Leopoldo. 2000. Lo que la lingüística yutoazteca podría aportar en la reconstrucción histórica del norte de México. In Marie-Areti Hers, José Luis Mirafuentes, María de los Dolores Soto and Miguel Vallebueno (eds.). Nómadas y sedentarios en el norte de México. Homenaje a Beatriz Braniff. México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. 175-205.
  194. Van Valin, Robert D. 2005. Exploring the syntax-semantics interface. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  195. Vélez, Jaime and Claudia Harriss. 2004. Guarijíos. México: CDI.
  196. Villalpando-Quiñonez, Jesús. 2010. Hacia una caracterización del tarahumara de Turuachi: de lo básico a lo complejo. Hermosillo: Universidad de Sonora. (Master's thesis) __________ 2019. Grammatical aspect in Norogachi Rarámuri (Tarahumara; Uto- Aztecan). Boulder: University of Colorado Boulder. (Doctoral dissertation)
  197. Whorf, Benjamin L. 1935. The comparative linguistics of Uto-Aztecan. American Anthropologist 37. 600-608.
  198. Widmer, Manuel. 2017. A grammar of Bunan. Berlin & Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.
  199. Yetman, David. 2002. The Guarijíos of the Sierra Madre. Hidden people of Northwestern Mexico. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
  200. __________ 2012. Conflict in Colonial Sonora. Indians, priests, and settlers. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
  201. Zingg, Robert M. 1939. A reconstruction of Uto-Aztecan history. New York: G. E. Stechert and Company.

Related papers

The Semantics of Complement Clause Types in Xɨmt’aŋa
Andualem Adal

Ethiopian Journal of Languages and Literature, 2018

ː This paper examines the semantic features of complement clause types in Xɨmt'aŋa. Specifically, it describes, (1) the semantic relationship between the complement types and their complementizers, (2) the semantics of complement clause types based on their degree of reduction of information, (3) the manner of syntactic relation of complements to the matrix clauses in complement relation, and (4) the grammatical status of the complement predicates, in the language. The necessary data were collected from the native speakers using the elicitation technique. Then, the data have been analyzed qualitatively following the functional-typological approach. In this paper, based on mood distinctions, the indicative and subjunctive complement clause types are identified. The meaning of the complement clause type in Xɨmt'aŋa is characterized by the choice of complementizer. The complement clause types of Xɨmt'aŋa also differ in their degree of reduction of information. The manner of syntactic relation of the notional complements to the matrix clause in complement relation of the language is hypotaxis in which both the main and the complement clause involve a single assertion, but not paratactic construction in which two separate assertions are involved with main and complement clauses. Depending on the function of the complement type, the grammatical status of the indicative and subjunctive complement predicates are coded as verbs; whereas, the participle complement predicates are coded as adjectives, and the nominalized complement predicates as nouns. 1 This manuscript is part of the author's MA thesis (Andualem 2010) which is entitled as, "The Description of Complement Relations in Xɨmt'aŋa: Based on Functional-Typological Approach". It is taken with modification with respect to the journal format, language editing and assessing some works on the language which have been done after the completion of the MA thesis.

View PDFchevron_right
Clause Linkage in Southeastern Tepehuan, a Uto-Aztecan Language of Northern Mexico, 2014
Gabriela Garcia Salido

2014

View PDFchevron_right
Variation of Relative Complementizers in Yucatecan Spanish: A Comparison of Monolingual and Bilingual Speakers
Patrick Auhagen

Languages

The starting point of this article is the occurrence of determiner-less and bare que relative complementizers like (en) que, ‘(in) that’, instead of (en) el que, ‘(in) which’, in Yucatecan Spanish (southeast Mexico). While reference grammars treat complementizers with a determiner as the standard option, previous diachronic research has shown that determiner-less complementizers actually predate relative complementizers with a determiner. Additionally, Yucatecan Spanish has been in long-standing contact with Yucatec Maya. Relative complementation in Yucatec Maya differs from that in Spanish (at least) in that the non-complex complementizer tu’ux (‘where’) is generally the only option for locative complementation. The paper explores monolingual and bilingual data from Yucatecan Spanish to discuss the question whether the determiner-less and bare que relative complementizers in our data constitute a historic remnant or a dialectal recast, possibly (but not necessarily) due to language...

View PDFchevron_right
Typological Overview of Relative Clause Structure in Mesoamerica Languages, eds. Enrique Palancar, Roberto Zavala Maldonado, and Claudine Chamoreau
Claudine Chamoreau

Relative Clause Structure in Mesoamerica Languages, eds. Enrique Palancar, Roberto Zavala Maldonado, and Claudine Chamoreau. Amsterdam: Brill. , 2021

In this chapter, we identify what constitutes the canonical profile of relative constructions in the Mesoamerican languages. We propose that the typical Mesoamerican relative clause is a morphosyntactic finite relative clause with a gap, but when the relativized position is that of locative, a relative pronoun is typically used (with this pattern reaching out beyond Mesoamerica). In our proposal, we have identified three structural traits that we take to be Mesoamerican: (i) relative clauses introduced by determiners which agree in deixis with the determiner of the DP in which the domain nominal of the relative clause is embedded; (ii) the so-called ʻpied-piping with inversionʼ introduced by Smith-Stark (1988) for interrogatives that has percolated into relative clause structure; and (iii) headless relative clauses with a gap, that is, headless relative clauses where there is little indication as to the role of the relativized element. 2 CHAPTER 1

View PDFchevron_right
CLAUSE LINKAGE AND PURPOSE CLAUSES IN SOUTHERN UTO-AZTECAN LANGUAGES
Lilian Guerrero

This paper explores the syntactic and semantic properties of purpose clauses following the Interclausal Relation Hierarchy as proposed by Role and Reference Grammar. Based on data from Southern Uto-Aztecan languages, I show that the way purpose relations are expressed make use of different syntactic linkage types even within the same language. The analysis shows that these linkage types entail different degrees of syntactic tightness, i.e., from nuclear cosubordination and core coordination, to ad-core subordination. A first attempt to establish the logical structure for these purposive linkage types is also proposed.

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Language Documentation
  • Uto-Aztecan Linguistics
  • Language Description
  • Language Documentation and Descr...
  • Uto-Aztecan Languages
    • 580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved