Universal #1653
Legacy number: 1653
| Number | 1648 |
| Original | The great majority of pronominalization strategies, regardless of language type, favour dependent-marking pattern. |
| Standardized | IF relative clause formation involves pronominalization, THEN it will be of dependent-marking type. |
| Keywords | head-marking, dependent-marking, relative clause, pronoun |
| 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), 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: 533 |
Discussion
Counterexamples
Tanoan family uses head-marked relativization by pronominalization. A number of older Indo-European languages exhibit occasional instances of head-marking pronominalization (Nichols 1984: 533).
Log in to join the discussion.