Relative Clauses in Kammu and the Keenan-Comrie Hierarchy
(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:
https://lup.lub.lu.se/record/134681
- author
- Svantesson, Jan-Olof LU
- organization
- publishing date
- 1986
- 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
- additional info
- The information about affiliations in this record was updated in December 2015. The record was previously connected to the following departments: Linguistics and Phonetics (015010003)
- id
- 6cb19f7b-df7b-4102-a82f-1b3453e5485b (old id 134681)
- date added to LUP
- 2016-04-01 17:07:50
- date last changed
- 2023-09-05 07:43:10
@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}},
}