Please note: There is a common introduction to Chapters 122 and 123 on Relativization Strategies available.

1. Defining the values

 

 

We distinguish five major groups of languages here. First, there are a number of languages that relativize upon obliques by employing the relative pronoun strategy , as exemplified in the Russian sentence in (1).

(1) Russian 

 

Second, a number of languages use a non-reduction strategy for relativizing on obliques, where the head noun appears as a full-fledged noun phrase within the relative clause, with the same three major subtypes, (a) correlative, (b) internally headed relative clause, and (c) paratactic clauses, as with relativization on upon subjects. The sentences in (2), (3) and (4) illustrate these three subtypes, respectively.

(2) Hindi (Comrie 1998: 62) 

 

(3) Maricopa (Gordon 1986: 261) 

 

(4) Gooniyandi (Bunaban; Australia; McGregor 1990: 438) 

 

The third major relativizing strategy with obliques is the pronoun-retention strategy . This strategy is exemplified in the sentence in (5) from Persian.

(5) Persian (Comrie 1998: 63)  

 

The fourth group of languages employ the gap strategy , as exemplified in the Korean sentence in (6).

(6) Korean (Comrie 1989: 151) 

 

The fifth value represented on Map 123 is non-relativizable , and it stands for those languages where obliques cannot be relativized upon directly. In such languages, the translation equivalent of relativizing upon an oblique in other languages is typically expressed by advancing the noun phrase in question to a position that can be relativized upon, e.g. by the use of applicative and/or passive constructions (for details, see Comrie 1989: 156ff.).

Note that the assignment of a particular feature value to a particular language does not mean that this feature value is the only one that has been attested in that particular language. It only means that this particular feature value is considered to be the most frequent, or the canonical one in non-marked contexts. 

2. Geographical distribution

Map 122 shows the following areal-typological configurations with respect to relativizing on subjects. In Europe, the relative pronoun strategy predominates (see also Lehmann 1984: 109; Comrie 1998: 6; Haspelmath 2001: 1496-1497). Note that this strategy stands out as being typically European since it is not found in Indo-European languages spoken outside Europe, and is exceptional more generally outside Europe.

In East Asia and Southeast Asia, the gap strategy is the most frequent one (see also Comrie 1998: 78). The non-reduction relativizing strategy is most frequently employed in the languages of the Americas. 

Map 123 reveals distinct areal-typological patterns, too. The gap strategy is the dominant relativizing strategy for obliques in Southeast Asia, the Pacific area, and Australia. The relative pronoun strategy is characteristic of relativizing on obliques in Europe, whereas pronoun retention is the most frequent relativizing strategy with obliques in the languages of Africa.

3. Theoretical issues

According to the Accessibility Hierarchy of Relativization (subject > direct object > indirect object > possessor) proposed in Keenan and Comrie (1977), it is easier to relativize on subjects than it is to relativize on any of the other positions, easier to relativize on direct objects than indirect objects, etc. One of the generalizations that has been made regarding the accessibility hierarchy is that the pronoun retention strategy is preferred at the lower end of the hierarchy. This finds substantial confirmation in the present study, in that several languages use pronoun retention for relativizing upon obliques but not for relativizing upon subjects. In fact, few languages use pronoun-retention to relativize upon subjects, though Babungo illustrates precisely this possibility, as in (6) of Chapter 122, repeated as (7):

(7) Babungo (Schaub 1985: 34) 

 

Note that to relativize upon direct objects, Babungo uses either a gap or pronoun-retention, with the gap being obligatory with a few verbs in the perfective aspect, as in (8); in this Babungo provides an exception to the accessibility hierarchy generalization on the distribution of pronoun retention. 

(8) Babungo (Schaub 1985: 34)