Universal 615: Subject > Direct Object> Indirect Object > Oblique Object > Attributive > Object of Comparison
- Original
- Accessibility Hierarchy:
Subj> DO > IO > Obl > Gen > OComp.If a language can form relative clauses on a given position on the hierarchy, then it can also form relative clauses in all positions higher (to the left) on the hierarchy; moreover, for each position on the hierarchy, there is some possible language that can relativize on that position and all positions to the left, but on no position to the right.
- Standardized
- IF an object of comparison can be relativized, THEN an attributive genitive can be as well.
IF an attributive genitive can be relativized, THEN a major oblique case NP can be as well.
IF a major oblique case NP can be relativized, THEN an indirect object can be as well.
IF an indirect object can be relativized, THEN a direct object can be as well.
IF an direct object can be relativized, THEN a subject can be as well. - Keywords
- accessibility hierarchy, relative clause, attributive, indirect object, direct object, subject, object of comparison
- Domain
- syntax
- Type
- implicational hierarchy
- Status
- achronic
- Quality
- statistical
- Basis
- sample of 50 languages in Keenan & Comrie [1972]1977; Keenan & Comrie 1979
- Source
- Keenan & Comrie [1972]1977: 66, also mentioned in Comrie 1981: 149
- Counterexamples
- Some West Indonesian languages, which, typically, allow relativization of subjects, do not allow relativization of direct objects, but then do allow relativization of non-direct objects and/or genitives. In Mayan languages and Dyirbal (Pama-Nyungan), transitive subjects are less accessible to relativization than either intransitive subjects or direct objects (Larsen & Norman 1979: 360).
1. In order to exclude the counterexamples Keenan and Comrie suggest the reformulation of the universal. They argue that, if one distinguishes different strategies of forming relative clauses, in particular if one distinguishes between (a)prenominal, postnominal, and internal-headed relative clauses, and between(b)relative clause where the role of the head noun in the relative clause is encoded ([+case]), versus those where it is not ([-case]), then the more general universal can be replaced by two more specific universals: (i) every language can relativize on subjects; (ii) any relative clause strategy must cover continuous segments of the accessibility hierarchy.Given this reformulation, nearly all of the counterexamples disappear. One counterexample does still remain, namely Tongan. For Tongan the top two positions of the hierarchy are absolutive and ergative, not subject and direct object.2. Cf. Luo’s Cleftability Hierarchy , # 1890.