Headless Relative Clauses in Quechua

Cole, Peter; Harbert, Wayne; Hermon, Gabriella

doi:10.1086/465723

Cited by 20 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This is discussed further in footnote 8.For additional examples of languages with IHRCs and related constructions, seeBird (1966),Cole et al (1977),Cole, Harbert and Hermon (1982),Gorbet (1976Gorbet ( , 1977,Keenan (1978),Kuroda (1976),Li and Thompson (1978), andPlatero (1974). This is discussed further in footnote 8.For additional examples of languages with IHRCs and related constructions, seeBird (1966),Cole et al (1977),Cole, Harbert and Hermon (1982),Gorbet (1976Gorbet ( , 1977,Keenan (1978),Kuroda (1976),Li and Thompson (1978), andPlatero (1974).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The structure of internally headed relative clauses

Cole

1987

Nat Lang Linguist Theory

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The structure of internally headed relative clauses

Cole

1987

Nat Lang Linguist Theory

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Various authors claim that in IHRCs the referential status of the head nominal is indefinite (Cole et al 1982, Williamson 1987, Culy 1990, Basilico 1996: 507-510, Boyle 2016. For example, Boyle (2016: 255) shows that Hidatsa, like other languages with IHRCs, obeys the indefiniteness restriction first proposed by Williamson (1987) for Lakota.…”

Section: Referential Status Of the Head Nominalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Restrictive Relative Constructions in Pesh: A Predominantly Internally-Headed Relative Clause Language

Chamoreau

2021

Relative Clause Structure in Mesoamerican Languages

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this chapter, I offer the first description of restrictive headed relative constructions in Pesh, a Chibchan language spoken in Honduras. This language follows three relativization strategies: 1) internally-headed relative clauses in which the head nominal of the relative clause, which is a core argument or a genitive, occurs inside the relative clause. This is the most frequent and primary strategy in Pesh, as it is used to relativize subjects; 2) externally-headed relative clauses in which the head nominal, which has a peripheral role in the relative clause, occurs outside the relative clause, being represented in the relative clause by a gap; and 3) relative clauses introduced by a WH-word that functions as a relative; only locative WH-words piah 'where' and pikan 'where, in which direction' occur. The distribution of the three relative clauses in Pesh clearly responds to accessibility restrictions on specific functions. Further, this chapter explores the relation between relative strategies and degree of finiteness. Internally-headed relative clauses and externally-headed relative clauses are less finite and show some nominalized features in the scalar phenomenon of nominalization, since the marker that obligatorily occurs at the end of the relative construction in internally-headed relative clauses and at the end of the relative clause in externally-headed relative clauses is a case or the topic enclitic marker prototypically used at the end of noun and postpositional phrases. In contrast, relative clauses bearing a WHword are most finite, and their subordinate feature is marked by a subordinator at the end of the verb.

show abstract

“…In some of the subsequent literature, there has been confusion about the notion of head. Cole, Herbert & Hermon (1982) and Weber (1983) (among others) have referred to IHRCs as headless relative clauses'. This was based on the notion that the head noun that was being modified by the relative clause was not external to the RC as in languages like English.…”

Section: The Notion Of Head and Internal Headsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Advances in the study of Siouan languages and linguistics

Rudin¹,

Gordon²

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Beyond honoring a beloved colleague, our aim in this volume is to bring a variety of issues in Siouan linguistics to the attention of the linguistic community. The Siouan language family is a large and important one, with branches geographically distributed over a broad swath of the North American plains and parts of the southeastern United States. This puts it in contact historically with several other families of languages: Algonquian, Iroquoian, Caddoan, UtoAztecan, and Muskogean. Siouan languages are, or were historically, spoken by the members of at least 25 ethnic/political groups. One Siouan language, Lakota, is among the handful of indigenous North American languages with younger speakers today. Siouan languages have occasionally risen to prominence in general linguistics, for instance in the study of reduplication (Shaw 1980); and Omaha and Crow (Apsaalooke) have lent their names to two of the basic categories of kinship systems in anthropology. Nonetheless, the Siouan family has been underrepresented in the descriptive and typological literature, and most of the languages in the family are severely understudied. The majority of work on Siouan languages is unpublished, existing only in the form of conference papers or manuscripts. 2 This volume is a step toward making information on Siouan languages more broadly available and encouraging deeper investigation of the myriad issues they raise.From the perspective of linguistic typology, Siouan languages have many notable features. Many of these features stand to challenge typological generalizations. Here we briefly sketch a few of the most characteristic features of the Siouan family.1 "Siouan" is not to be confused with "Sioux", a controversial term referring to Lakota and Dakota people, rarely to Nakota/Nakoda people too, but never correctly to people of other traditionally Siouan-language-speaking communities. 2 Many of these unpublished works are collected in the electronic Siouan Archive, maintained by John Boyle at the University of California at Riverside. PrefaceAll Siouan languages possess a rich variety of applicative affixes, confirming Polinsky's (2013) observation that applicatives are common in North America and adding another language family to her list of applicative-rich families in the area. Helmbrecht (2006) divides the applicatives into three templatic slots: locative applicatives, benefactive applicatives, and applicative markers; all of the Siouan languages sampled by Helmbrecht possess at least two applicative morphemes.All Siouan languages are strongly head-final, and the consensus among syntacticians working with Siouan languages is that all but the supraclausal projections (and even some of these) are underlyingly head-final in Siouan languages, contra Kayne's (1994) Antisymmetry theory.All Siouan languages have head-internal relative clauses. A series of strong claims regarding the typological implications of head-internal relative clauses (cf. Cole 1987; Murasugi 2000), including purported distinctions between "Japanesetype" a...

show abstract

Headless Relative Clauses in Quechua

Cited by 20 publications

References 2 publications

The structure of internally headed relative clauses

The structure of internally headed relative clauses

Restrictive Relative Constructions in Pesh: A Predominantly Internally-Headed Relative Clause Language

Advances in the study of Siouan languages and linguistics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About