Advanced

Relative Clauses in Kammu and the Keenan-Comrie Hierarchy

Svantesson, Jan-Olof LU (1986) In Studia Linguistica 40(1). p.48-66
Abstract
There are three relativization strategies in the Austroasiatic lang Kammu: (1) deletion of the relativized NP, (2) deletion & change of word order, & (3) pronominalization of the relativized NP. The use of these strategies for the six positions (subject, direct O, indirect O, oblique NP, genitive, & O of comparison) on the relativization hierarchy proposed by E. Keenan & B. Comrie (see LLBA 12/1, 7800627) was investigated, showing that strategy 1 is used for positions 1, 2, & 4, strategy 2 for positions 2 & 4, & strategy 3 for positions 3-6, against Keenan's & Comrie's claim that any relativization strategy should apply to a continuous segment of the hierarchy. One possible reason for this may be that the... (More)
There are three relativization strategies in the Austroasiatic lang Kammu: (1) deletion of the relativized NP, (2) deletion & change of word order, & (3) pronominalization of the relativized NP. The use of these strategies for the six positions (subject, direct O, indirect O, oblique NP, genitive, & O of comparison) on the relativization hierarchy proposed by E. Keenan & B. Comrie (see LLBA 12/1, 7800627) was investigated, showing that strategy 1 is used for positions 1, 2, & 4, strategy 2 for positions 2 & 4, & strategy 3 for positions 3-6, against Keenan's & Comrie's claim that any relativization strategy should apply to a continuous segment of the hierarchy. One possible reason for this may be that the indirect O is marked by a postposition, an unusual construction in Kammu. There is an optional relative clause marker, whose function is to form restrictive relative clauses; relative clauses without this marker may be nonrestrictive or restrictive. Relativization of subjects by strategy 1 & of direct Os or oblique NPs by strategy 2 lead to the same surface structure of the relative clause. Despite this, the function of the relativized NP can normally be determined unambiguously by using both syntactic & pragmatic considerations. Another hierarchy (subject, direct O, oblique NP) is involved here, so that if a relative clause is syntactically ambiguous, the pragmatically possible NP which is highest on this hierarchy is chosen as the relativized NP. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
in
Studia Linguistica
volume
40
issue
1
pages
48 - 66
publisher
Wiley-Blackwell
external identifiers
  • scopus:84981584171
ISSN
1467-9582
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
6cb19f7b-df7b-4102-a82f-1b3453e5485b (old id 134681)
date added to LUP
2007-07-27 16:24:44
date last changed
2017-09-24 04:34:15
@article{6cb19f7b-df7b-4102-a82f-1b3453e5485b,
  abstract     = {There are three relativization strategies in the Austroasiatic lang Kammu: (1) deletion of the relativized NP, (2) deletion & change of word order, & (3) pronominalization of the relativized NP. The use of these strategies for the six positions (subject, direct O, indirect O, oblique NP, genitive, & O of comparison) on the relativization hierarchy proposed by E. Keenan & B. Comrie (see LLBA 12/1, 7800627) was investigated, showing that strategy 1 is used for positions 1, 2, & 4, strategy 2 for positions 2 & 4, & strategy 3 for positions 3-6, against Keenan's & Comrie's claim that any relativization strategy should apply to a continuous segment of the hierarchy. One possible reason for this may be that the indirect O is marked by a postposition, an unusual construction in Kammu. There is an optional relative clause marker, whose function is to form restrictive relative clauses; relative clauses without this marker may be nonrestrictive or restrictive. Relativization of subjects by strategy 1 & of direct Os or oblique NPs by strategy 2 lead to the same surface structure of the relative clause. Despite this, the function of the relativized NP can normally be determined unambiguously by using both syntactic & pragmatic considerations. Another hierarchy (subject, direct O, oblique NP) is involved here, so that if a relative clause is syntactically ambiguous, the pragmatically possible NP which is highest on this hierarchy is chosen as the relativized NP.},
  author       = {Svantesson, Jan-Olof},
  issn         = {1467-9582},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {1},
  pages        = {48--66},
  publisher    = {Wiley-Blackwell},
  series       = {Studia Linguistica},
  title        = {Relative Clauses in Kammu and the Keenan-Comrie Hierarchy},
  volume       = {40},
  year         = {1986},
}