Universal #1651

Legacy number: 1651

 Number  1646
 Original  For dependent-marking patterns, clause marking type implies relativization type; while for the head-marking patterns, relativization type implies clause marking type.
 Standardized  IF there is dependent-marking clause morphology, THEN relativization will be of the same pattern.
IF relativization is of head-marking type, THEN the clause uses the same pattern.
 Formula  dependent-marked clause ⇒ dependent-marked relativization;
head-marked relativization ⇒ head-marked clause
 Keywords  head-marking, dependent-marking, relative clause
 Domain  inflection, syntax
 Type  implication
 Status  achronic
 Quality  statistical
 Basis  Abkhaz, Adyghe (both NW Caucasian), Arabic (Semitic), Bantu family, Basque, Burushaski (both isolate), Chechen (N. Caucasian), Dyirbal (Pama-Nyungan), Hopi (Uto-Aztecan), Hurrian (isolate), Japanese (Japanese-Ryukyuan), Kaititj (Arandic, Australian), Lakhota (Siouan), Mayan family, Navajo (Athabaskan), NE Caucasian, Quechuan family, Tewa (Tanoan), Tonkawa (Coahuiltecan), Tungusic family, Turkic family, Uralic (eastern & western), Uto-Aztecan, Washo (Hokan), Yuman family
 Source  Nichols 1984: 537

← Back to Universals Archive

Discussion
Counterexamples
Hopi (Uto-Aztecan), Kaititj (Arandic, Australian) have dependent-marking clauses but headless relatives, which are head-marking. Hopi is known to be under areal influence, The case of Kaititj is unexplained (Nichols 1984: 530).
Notes
This statement captures the fact that dependent-marking relativization is found in languages of all types, while head-marking relativization is almost never used as a primary strategy in dependent-marking languages (the sole exceptions are Hopi and Kaititj).
Comment
Frans Plank · 3 Aug 2006
This statement captures the fact that dependent-marking relativization is found in languages of all types, while head-marking relativization is almost never used as a primary strategy in dependent-marking languages (the sole exceptions are Hopi and Kaititj).