Universal 1647:

Original: Clause-affecting relativization inherently favours dependent-marking and disfavours head-marking.
Standardized: IF clause-affecting relativization occurs, THEN it will be of dependent-marking type.
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), 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: 534

Counterexamples: 1. Arabic (Semitic) exemplifies head-marked clause-affecting strategy (Nichols 1984: 534). 2. Possessive relative constructions (Ackerman & Nikolaeva in preparation) pose a problem for this universal, e.g. Ostyak (Ugric, Uralic): ma yans-Em ne:p<

Search Universals Archive

One Comment

FP

A common CLAUSE-AFFECTING strategy is the marking of the relative verb as relative, nonfinite, nominalized, or the like. This is a dependent-marking pattern, since it affects the verb of the relative clause. Another clause-affecting strategy is the introduction or closure of a relative clause with a complementizer or article. This strategy is also dependent-marking (Nichols 1984).

1. May 2020

Comments are closed.