Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T01:33:53.508Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Focus on head-final relatives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Karsten A. Koch
Karsten A. Koch*
Affiliation:
University of Calgary
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Head-final relatives in Nɬe?kepmcxín (Thompson River Salish) have previously been described as rare. This article presents new data illustrating a range of possible head-final relatives and the discourse context in which they occur. The difference between head-initial and head-final relative structures is accounted for by information structure, namely the position of focus. When focus falls on the entire NP containing the relative clause, a head-initial relative is generated. However, when focus falls on the relative clause itself, excluding the head noun, a head-final relative is used. The effect inside complex nominals is to linearize focus before background, matching the FOCUS ≫ BACKGROUND generalization observed in matrix clause focus marking. The study is the first examination of focus marking inside the Salishan nominal domain.

Résumé

Résumé

Auparavant, on soulignait la rareté des relatives à tête finale en Nłe?kepmcxín (salish de la rivière Thompson). Cet article présente de nouvelles données qui illustrent une variété de relatives à tête finale et le contexte discursif dans lequel elles surviennent. L’analyse rend compte de la différence entre les structures relatives à tête initiale et à tête finale en termes de structure de l’information, à savoir la position de focus. Quand le focus tombe sur tout le SN qui contient la proposition relative, une relative à tête initiale est générée. Cependant, quand le focus tombe sur la proposition relative elle-même, à l’exclusion du nom déterminé, une relative à tête finale est employée. L’effet à l’intérieur des constituants nominaux est de linéariser le focus devant l’arrière-plan, reproduisant la généralisation FOCUS ≫ ARRIÈRE-PLAN observée dans le marquage de focus des propositions matrices. L’étude est donc la première à examiner le marquage de focus au sein du domaine nominal du salish.

Keywords

restrictive relative clausesfocusbackgroundSalishanhead-final relative clausespropositions relatives restrictivesfocusarrière-plansalishpropositions relatives à tête finale
Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 58 , Issue 2: The syntax of relative clauses La syntaxe des propositions relatives , July 2013 , pp. 191 - 215
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abney, Paul S. 1987. The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Aboh, Enoch O. 2004. Topic and focus within D. Linguistics in The Netherlands 21:1–12.Google Scholar
Aldridge, Edith. 2003. Remnant movement in Tagalog relative clause formation. Linguistic Inquiry 34:631–640.Google Scholar
Aloni, Maria and Rooy, Robertvan. 2002. The dynamics of questions and focus. In Proceedings of SALT 12, ed. Jackson, Brendan, 20–39. Cornell University: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
Ariel, Mira. 2010. Defining pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Beck, David. 1997. Rheme, theme, and communicative structure in Lushootseed and Bella Coola. In Recent trends in Meaning-Text Theory, ed. Wanner, Leo, 93–135. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Benner, Allison. 2006. The prosody of SENCOTEN. Paper read at The 41st International Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages, Victoria.Google Scholar
Bennis, Hans, Norbert Corver, and Marcel den Dikken. 1998. Predication in nominal phrases. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 1:85–117.Google Scholar
Bernstein, Judy. 1997. Demonstratives and reinforcers in Romance and Germanic languages. Lingua 102:87–113.Google Scholar
Bernstein, Judy. 2001. Focusing the ‘right’ way in Romance Determiner Phrases. Probus 13:1–29.Google Scholar
Bianchi, Valentina. 2000. The raising analysis of relative clauses: A reply to Borsley. Linguistic Inquiry 31:123–140.10.1162/002438900554316Google Scholar
Büring, Daniel. 1997. The meaning of topic and focus: The 59th Street bridge accent. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Büring, Daniel. 2006. Focus projection and default prominence. In The architecture of focus, ed. Molnár, Valéria and Winkler, Susanne, 321–346. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Büring, Daniel and Hartmann, Katharina. 1997. Doing the right thing. Linguistic Review 14:1–42.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. Kenstowicz, Michael, 1–52. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Collins, Chris. 2005. A smuggling approach to raising in English. Linguistic Inquiry 36:289–298.Google Scholar
Czaykowska-Higgins, Ewa and Kinkade, M. Dale, eds. 1998. Salish languages and linguistics: Theoretical and descriptive perspectives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Davis, Henry. 2004. Locative relative clauses in St’át’imcets (Liilooet Salish). In Papers for the 39th International Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages, ed. Brown, J.C. and Peterson, Tyler, 83–116. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Working Papers in Linguistics 14.Google Scholar
Davis, Henry. 2005. On the syntax and semantics of negation in Salish. International Journal of American Linguistics 71:1–55.Google Scholar
Davis, Henry. 2007. Prosody-focus dissociation and its consequences. Colloquium presentation, Nagoya, Japan.Google Scholar
Davis, Henry. 2010. A unified analysis of relative clauses in St’át’imcets. Northwest Journal of Linguistics 4:1–43.Google Scholar
Davis, Henry. 2012. Two types of discourse configurationality in languages of the Pacific Northwest. Paper presented at the Workshop on the Structure and Constituency of the Languages of the Americas (WSCLA) 17, Chicago.Google Scholar
Davis, Henry and Matthewson, Lisa. 1999. On the functional determination of lexical categories. Revue québécoise de linguistique 27:27–69.Google Scholar
Davis, Henry and Matthewson, Lisa. 2009. Issues in Salish syntax and semantics. Language and Linguistics Compass 3/4:1097–1166.Google Scholar
Davis, Philip and Saunders, Ross. 1978. Bella Coola syntax. In Linguistic studies of native Canada, ed. Cook, Eung-Do and Kaye, Jonathan, 37–66. Vancouver: University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Demirdache, Hamida and Matthewson, Lisa. 1995. On the universality of syntactic categories. In Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the North-Eastern Linguistic Society (NELS 25), ed. Beckman, Jill, 79–94. Amherst, MA: Graduate Linguistic Student Association (GLSA).Google Scholar
Downing, Laura J. and Mtenje, Al. 2011. Un-WRAP-ing prosodic phrasing in Chichewa. Lingua 121:1965–1986.Google Scholar
van Eijk, Jan and Hess, Thorn. 1986. Noun and verb in Salish. Lingua 69:319–331.10.1016/0024-3841(86)90061-6Google Scholar
Féry, Caroline and Samek-Lodovici, Vieri. 2006. Focus projection and prosodic prominence in nested foci. Language 82:131–150.Google Scholar
Göbbel, Edward. 2007. Extraposition as PF Movement. In Proceedings of the Western Conference on Linguistics (WECOL) 2006, ed. Bainbridge, Erin and Agbayani, Brian, 132–145. Fresno, CA: Department of Linguistics, California State University.Google Scholar
Göbbel, Edward. 2009. Rightward movement and the syntax-phonology interface. Paper presented at Generative Linguistics in the Old World (GLOW) 32, Nantes.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 2000. Extended projection and locality. In Lexical specification and insertion, ed. Coopmans, Peter, Everaert, Martin, and Grimshaw, Jane, 115–133. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 2004. DP-periphery and clausal periphery: Possessor doubling in West Flemish. In Peripheries, ed. Adger, David, Cat, Cécile De, and Tsoulas, George, 211–240. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A.K. 1967. Notes on transitivity and theme in English (part 2). Journal of Linguistics 3:199–244.Google Scholar
Hulsey, Sarah and Sauerland, Uli. 2006. Sorting out relative clauses. Natural Language Semantics 14:111–137.Google Scholar
Inaba, Jiro. 2005. Extraposition and the directionality of movement. In Proceedings of Con-SOLEXIII, ed. Blaho, Sylvia, Vicente, Luis, and Schoorlemmer, Erik, 157–169. Leiden: University of Leiden.Google Scholar
Ishikawa, Masataka. 1997. Feature checking, chain linking, and the distribution of noun phrases in Spanish. Hispania 80:556–568.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jelinek, Eloise. 1995. Quantification in Straits Salish. In Quantification in natural languages, ed. Bach, Emmon, Jelinek, Eloise, Krazter, Angelika, and Partee, Barbara, 487–540. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Jelinek, Eloise and Demers, Richard. 1994. Predicates and pronominal arguments in Straits Salish. Language 70:697–736.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 2000. Prepositional complementizers as attractors. In Parameters and universals, 282–313. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kinkade, M. Dale. 1983. Salish evidence against the universality of ‘Noun’ and ‘Verb.’ Lingua 60:25–39.10.1016/0024-3841(83)90045-1Google Scholar
Kinkade, M. Dale. 1992. Salishan languages. In International encyclopedia of linguistics, ed. Bright, William, 359–362. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kiss, Tibor. 2005. Semantic constraints on relative clause extraposition. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23:281–334.Google Scholar
Koch, Karsten A. 2006. Transitive word order in Nłe?kepmxcín (Thompson River Salish). In Papers for the 41st International Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages, ed. Kiyota, Masaru, Thompson, James, and Yamane-Tanaka, Noriko, 192–220. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Koch, Karsten A. 2008a. Intonation and focus in Nłe?kepmxcín (Thompson River Salish). Doctoral Dissertation, University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Koch, Karsten A. 2008b. Some issues in the structure and interpretation of clefts in Nłe?kepmxcín (Thompson River Salish). In Papers for the 43rd International Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages, ed. Christodolou, Christiana and Lyon, John M., 97–120. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Koch, Karsten A. 2011a. A phonetic study of intonation and focus in Nłe?kepmxcín. In Prosodic categories: Production, perception and comprehension, ed. Frota, Sonia, Prieto, Pilar, and Elordieta, Gorka, 111–144. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Koch, Karsten A. 2011b. Revisiting translation effects in an oral language. In Multilingual discourse production: Synchronic and diachronic perspectives, ed. Kranich, Svenja, Becher, Viktor, Höder, Steffen, and House, Juliane, 282–310. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Koch, Karsten A. and Zimmermann, Malte. 2010. Focus sensitive operators in Nłe?kepmxcín (Thompson River Salish). In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 14, ed. Prinzhorn, Martin, Schmitt, Viola and Zobel, Sarah, 237–255. Vienna: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar
Koopman, Hilda. 2006. Agreement configurations: In defense of “Spec head.” In Agreement systems, ed. Boeckx, Cedric, 159–99. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 1992. A compositional semantics for mutiple focus constructions. In In-formationsstruktur und Grammatik, ed. Jacobs, Joachim, 17–53. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 2006. Association with focus phrases. In The architecture of focus, ed. Moénár, Valéria and Winkler, Susanne, 105–136. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kroeber, Paul. 1997. Relativization in Thompson Salish. Anthropological Linguistics 39:376–422.Google Scholar
Kroeber, Paul. 1999. The Salish language family: Reconstructing syntax. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Kuipers, Aert. 1968. The categories verb-noun and transitive-intransitive in English and Squamish. Lingua 21:610–626.10.1016/0024-3841(68)90080-6Google Scholar
Liversedge, Simon, Paterson, Kevin, and Clayes, Emma. 2002. The influence of ‘only’ on syntactic processing of ‘long’ reduced relative clause sentences. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 55:225–240.Google Scholar
Longobardi, Giuseppe. 1994. Reference and proper names: A theory of N-movement in syntax and logical form. Linguistic Inquiry 25:609–665.Google Scholar
López, Luis. 2009. A derivational syntax for information structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Theodoras, Marinis. 2003. The acquisition of the DP in modern Greek. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 1987. Is basic word order universal? In Coherence and grounding in discourse, ed. Tomlin, Russel, 281–328. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Montler, Timothy. 2003. Auxiliaries and other categories in Straits Salishan. International Journal of American Linguistics 69:103–134.Google Scholar
Müller, Gereon. 1995. On extraposition and successive cyclicity. In On extraction and extraposition in German, ed. Lutz, Uli and Pafel, Jürgen, 213–243. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ni, Weijia, Crain, Stephen, and Shankweiler, Donald. 1996. Sidestepping garden paths: The contribution of syntax, semantics and plausibility in resolving ambiguities. Language and Cognitive Processes 11:283–334.Google Scholar
Poletto, Cecilia. 2006. Parallel phases: A study on the high and low left periphery of Old Italian. In Phases of interpretation, ed. Frascarelli, Mara, 261–294. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of grammar, ed. Haegeman, Liliane, 289–330. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Rochemont, Michael. 1986. Focus in Generative Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Rochemont, Michael and Culicover, Peter. 1990. English focus constructions and the theory of grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rohde, Hannah, Levy, Roger, and Kehler, Andrew. 2011. Anticipating explanations in relative clause processing. Cognition 118:339–358.Google Scholar
Rooth, Mats. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1:75–116.Google Scholar
Rooth, Mats. 1996. Focus. In The handbook of contemporary semantic theory, ed. Lappin, Shalom, 271–297. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ross, John R. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Ross, John R. 1973. The same side filter. In Papers from the 9th Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, ed. Corum, Claudia, Smith-Stark, T. Cedric, and Weiser, Ann, 549–559. Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Sauerland, Uli. 2004. The interpretation of traces. Natural Language Semantics 12:63–127.Google Scholar
Sedivy, Julie, Tanenhaus, Michael, Chambers, Craig, and Carlson, Greg. 1999. Achieving incremental semantic interpretation through contextual representation. Cognition 71:109–147.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elizabeth. 1995. Sentence prosody: Intonation, stress and phrasing. In The handbook of phonological theory, ed. Goldsmith, John, 550–569. Cambridge: Blackwell.Google Scholar
von Stechow, Arnim. 1990. Focusing and background operators. In Discourse particles, ed. Abraham, Werner, 37–84. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna. 1987. Functional categories in the Noun Phrase. In Approaches to Hungarian, vol. 2, ed. Kenesei, István, 167–190. Szeged: JATE.Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna. 1994. The Noun Phrase. In The syntactic structure of Hungarian, ed. Kiefer, Ferenc and Kiss, Katalin E., 197–274. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, Laurence C. and Thompson, M. Terry. 1992. The Thompson language. Missoula: University of Montana Occasional Papers in Linguistics 8.Google Scholar
Thompson, Laurence C. and Thompson, M. Terry. 1996. Thompson River Salish dictionary. Missoula: University of Montana Occasional Papers in Linguistics 12.Google Scholar
Vergnaud, Jean-Roger. 1974. French relative clauses. Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Weinert, Regina. 2004. Relative clauses in spoken English and German: Their structure and function. Linguistische Berichte 197:3–51.Google Scholar
Willett, Marie Louise. 2003. A grammatical sketch of Nxa’amxcin (Moses-Columbia Salish). Doctoral Dissertation, University of Victoria.Google Scholar