Relativization in Guiqiong

This paper proposes that Late Archaic Chinese object relative clauses were reduced relative clauses consisting of a TP dominated by DP. They contained a functional morpheme suo, which attracted an operator to the edge of the vP before moving to T in order to provide T with an [N] feature that could be selected by D. The embedded subject moved to the specifier of the nominalized T, where it valued genitive case with D under Agree. The reduced nature of SUO relative clauses accounts for the fact that a unique strategy was required for relativization on VP-internal positions, as opposed to subject position, since the lack of a CP layer denied the clause a uniform landing site for operators originating internal and external to vP. This analysis also accounts for the loss of the relativization asymmetry by correlating it with the loss of nominalizing morphology such as genitive case.

Papers from the International Conference on the Ancestry of the Languages and Peoples of China May 30-31, 2017, Jinan University, Guangzhou, 2018

In Sino-Tibetan historical linguistics, much has been done in reconstructing the sound system of Proto-Sino-Tibetan and in reconstructing a large number of cognate lexical items assumed to have been part of Proto-Sino-Tibetan, and there has been considerable work in terms of what morphology can or cannot be reconstructed to Proto-Sino-Tibetan, but it is much harder to say that two syntactic patterns are cognate than to say that two morphological paradigms or particular words are cognate. Within the family we find that modern Sinitic varieties vary from most of the Tibeto-Burman languages in terms of basic clause structure. In this paper we look at information structure in Old Chinese to attempt to find a directionality to the changes found in the long period we think of as Old Chinese, and to look back to the starting point of those changes to see what the clause structure of the precursor of Old Chinese might have been. As it turns out to be more similar to the dominant patterns of Tibeto-Burman languages, it allows us to hypothesize what the patterns were in Proto-Sino-Tibetan.

International Journal of Linguistics

Purpose: This paper investigates the strategies employed in the formation of relative clauses (RCs) in Chindali as spoken in Ileje district of Songwe region in the southern highlands of Tanzania. Methodology: The study employed a qualitative approach with a descriptive research design. Data were gathered through text collection and introspection. To inform the study, 10 informants were sampled using the purposive and snowball sampling techniques. The collection and analysis of the data were guided by Kayne's (1994) Promotion Theory and the Interpretivism Philosophical Paradigm. Findings: The study revealed that Chindali employs relative pronoun, gapping, and pronoun retention strategies to form its RCs. The article concludes that relativization strategies differ depending on the language. The study supplements the little existing literature in Chindali. Unique Contribution to Theory, Practice and Policy: The study has contributed to the development of the theory through empirica...

The goal of this paper is to describe some of the syntactic structures that are created through nominalization processes in Himalayan Tibeto-Burman languages and the relationships between those structures. These include both structures involving the nominalization of clauses (e.g. complement clauses, relative clauses) and structures involving the nominalization of verbs and predicates (e.g. the derivation of nouns and adjectives). We will argue that, synchronically, clausal nominalization, structurally represented as [clause] NP , is the basic structure underlying many of the nominalizing constructions in these languages, even though individual constructions embed and alter this structure in interesting ways. In addition to clausal nominalization, we will illustrate the presence of derivational nominalization, represented as [V-NOM] N and [V-NOM] ADJ , although some nominal derivations target the predicate, not the verb root as their domain. We will also demonstrate that derivational nominalization can be seen as having developed from clausal nominalization, at least for some forms in some languages, and that the opposite direction of development, from derivational to clausal structures, is also attested. We will conclude with some syntactic observations pertinent to recent claims made on the historical relationship between nominalization and relativization, demonstrating that there are various ways that these structures can be related. This study is based on data from five Tibeto-Burman languages of the Himalayan area: Manange, Dolakha Newar, Mongsen Ao, Dongwang Tibetan, and Zhuokeji rGyalrong.

The goal of this paper is to describe some of the syntactic structures that are created through nominalization processes in Himalayan Tibeto-Burman languages and the relationships between those structures. These include both structures involving the nominalization of clauses (e.g. complement clauses, relative clauses) and structures involving the nominalization of verbs and predicates (e.g. the derivation of nouns and adjectives). We will argue that, synchronically, clausal nominalization, structurally represented as [clause] NP , is the basic structure underlying many of the nominalizing constructions in these languages, even though individual constructions embed and alter this structure in interesting ways. In addition to clausal nominalization, we will illustrate the presence of derivational nominalization, represented as [V-NOM] N and [V-NOM] ADJ , although some nominal derivations target the predicate, not the verb root as their domain. We will also demonstrate that derivational nominalization can be seen as having developed from clausal nominalization, at least for some forms in some languages, and that the opposite direction of development, from derivational to clausal structures, is also attested. We will conclude with some syntactic observations pertinent to recent claims made on the historical relationship between nominalization and relativization, demonstrating that there are various ways that these structures can be related. This study is based on data from five Tibeto-Burman languages of the Himalayan area: Manange, Dolakha Newar, Mongsen Ao, Dongwang Tibetan, and Zhuokeji rGyalrong.

Studies in Language, 1992

Late Archaic Chinese employed two morphemes in the formation of subject relative clauses. Zhi 之 acted as the linking element in headed relative clauses, while zhe 者 formed headless relatives. The main claim of this paper is that the two morphemes, ZHI and ZHE, occupy different positions in the noun phrase structure. Primary evidence comes from the fact that the two could co-occur, indicating that are not in complementary distribution and must be located in different structural positions. Supporting evidence is provided by the fact that the two had different functions. For instance, ZHI could select a possessor, while ZHE could not. I further show that ZHI occupied a higher structural position than ZHE. The analysis I propose is that ZHI is the head of the full DP projection, selecting possessors and marking definiteness. ZHE is located in a lower determiner position, n, whose main function is to mark specificity. This paper further suggests that although the morphemes ZHI and ZHE were subsequently lost or replaced through diachronic change, the distinct positions and functions are retained in some modern Sinitic varieties.

Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics Plus, 2019

This paper discusses the morphosyntactic properties of relative clause constructions in the Runyankore-Rukiga language cluster (Bantu, JE13/14, Uganda). Relative clauses in this paper are categorized into nominal and clausal relatives on the basis of their exhibited morphosyntactic properties. The nominal relative clause category comprises elements which have been previously regarded as adjectives (Morris and Kirwan 1972; Taylor 1985) which include some color terms among other lexical items. The second category, namely clausal relatives, is subcategorized into subject and object clausal relatives. The subject clausal relative is realized within the subject nominal prefix by differential tone marking while the object clausal relative is an obligatory agreement-bearing complementizer which stands alone in agreement with the object antecedent. This paper describes the properties and use of the object relative marker as it has previously been regarded as a demonstrative or a pronoun. The paper offers an alternative position to the status of the object relative clause marker, proposing that it is not a pronoun equivalent to the English Wh-relative pronoun, and that it is not a demonstrative per se, but rather an agreement-bearing complementizer that heads a CP. The paper further asserts that the augment is not a relative clause marker as it is stated in Morris and Kirwan (1972) and Taylor (1985) but expresses a restrictive relative clause when present. As part of syntax, the paper discusses agreement properties in relative clause constructions and reports that a clausal relative takes the agreement of the head of the relative clause, but this is not always the case since anti-agreement cases are reported. Data for the analysis comes from authentic written materials and elicited constructions.