Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilNuméros70Mano correlatives are non-subordi...

Mano correlatives are non-subordinating

Les corrélatifs mano ne sont pas subordonnées
Мария Леонидовна Хачатурьян. Коррелятивы в мано – не подчинённые клаузы
Maria Khachaturyan
p. 3-38

Résumés

Cet article se concentre sur les clauses corrélatives en mano, une langue mandé-sud. Typologiquement, les clause corrélatives s’adjoignent à un niveau élevé de la proposition et peuvent être considérées comme un exemple d'une construction paratactique acquérant des propriétés subordonnées (Givón 2009). Les données mano basées sur les critères syntaxiques développés par Bhatt (2003) pour l'hindi et les critères sémantiques de Belyaev et Haug (2014) pour l'ossète soutiennent cette hypothèse et illustrent un tel développement à un stade précoce. Ma comparaison étroite de mano avec l'hindi et l'ossète démontre que les corrélatifs en mano sont syntaxiquement et sémantiquement indépendants de la clause matrice. Je soutiens en outre que l’interprétation relative de la séquence « clause corrélative – clause matrice » est le résultat d’une cooptation pragmatique d’une construction paratactique de type topique-commentaire.

Haut de page

Texte intégral

As usual, I am indebted to Pe Mamy for his help in corpus annotation and for checking the grammaticality of modified corpus examples. This manuscript, whose initial version was presented at the SLE-2017 in Zürich, has benefitted from comments from and conversations with Balthasar Bickel, Oleg Belyaev, and Michael Yoshitaka Erlewine (mitcho). I am also thankful to both anonymous reviewers for their excellent comments and suggestions and to Albion M. Butters for proofreading. Finally, I gratefully acknowledge support for the research that this manuscript is based on, both from the Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies and from the Kone Foundation.

1. Introduction

1It has long been argued that subordination and non-subordination (including parataxis and coordination) do not form a dichotomy but rather a scale (see Haiman & Thomason 1984 for a pioneering statement). Indeed, for example, the English “left-subordinating and” construction, such as (1), has a conditional semantic interpretation and mixed syntactic properties that place it “in between” subordination and coordination (Culicover & Jackendoff 1997; Belyaev 2015).

2(1) You drink another can of beer and I’m leaving. (Belyaev 2015: 268)

3The aim of this paper is to show that relativization strategies in Mano, including the most prominent one, a correlative strategy, are similarly located in between subordination and parataxis. This is expected, given that cross-linguistically, correlative clauses are often adjoined high, and diachronically they can be considered a prime example of an erstwhile paratactic construction acquiring subordinating properties (Givón 2009). Yet, the extent of subordinating properties of correlatives seems to vary from language to language and should be subject to empirical scrutiny, which is the main aim of the present paper. I argue that in Mano, while the overall construction functions as a complex clause and may under certain conditions receive a relativization interpretation, it is syntactically non-subordinating under all syntactic criteria applied.

4The correlative strategy is a subtype of non-reduction relativization strategy where “the head noun appears as a full-fledged noun phrase in the relative clause and is taken up again at least by a pronoun or other pronominal element in the main clause” (Comrie 1998: 62). The example (2) from Hindi illustrates the correlative strategy. Here, the relativized NP (which I will subsequently call Rel-NP) is CD introduced by the relativizer jo in the correlative clause (CorC). The referent is taken up again in the matrix clause (MatC) by a correlate NP us CD-ko (which I will subsequently call Mat-NP), where CD is in the accusative case and accompanied by the demonstrative us. The indexes here and in what follows indicate co-reference.

(2)

[CorC

[jo

CD]i

sale-par

hai]

[MatC

Maya

[us

CD-ko]i

 

 

rel

CD

sale-on

be.prs

 

Maya.f

dem

CD-acc

khariid-egii.]

buy-fut.f

  • 1 Here and in what follows, I render long vowels by double vowel characters, while Bhatt renders them (...)

5‘Maya will buy the CD that is on sale. (Lit. ‘[Which CD is on sale], Maya will buy that CD.’) (Bhatt 2003: 486)1

  • 2 Note that many definitions of relativization presuppose that the relative clause must be subordinat (...)

6Parataxis is another subtype of non-reduction relativization strategy where “the ‘relative’ clause contains the full-fledged head and is at the same time an un- marked simple (declarative) clause; the relative and main clauses are only loosely joined together” (Comrie & Kuteva 2006: 212). In the example (3), the Rel-NP in the clause that functions like a relative clause is that man, and the Mat-NP is a pronoun he. In the following discussion, I adopt Comrie and Kuteva’s convention by putting “relative” in inverted commas whenever the discussion concerns a paratactic strategy of relativization.2

7(3) That mani just passed by us, hei introduced me to the Chancellor of the University yesterday. (Comrie & Kuteva 2006: 212)

8Following these definitions, then, the difference between the correlative and the paratactic type is in the degree of syntactic embeddedness: paratactic relative clauses are non-embedded and correlative clauses are embedded at least to some extent.

  • 3 The motivation for the gloss is the following. The same marker lɛ́ (and its variants) are used in f (...)

9Let us now turn to Mano (ex. 4). Similarly to the Hindi example above, the Mano example features a Rel-NP ŋwɔ́ ‘problem’ accompanied by a relativizer lɛ́ (glossed here and below as att).3 The referent is the subject of the matrix clause and is taken up again by a 3sg pronoun . Thus, at least on the surface, the relativization strategy in Mano appears to be more like the correlative strategy in Hindi (2) than the paratactic strategy in English (3).

(4)

[CorC

[Ŋwɔ́i

lɛ́

gèē

wɛ̄]

 

 

problem

att

3sg.pst>3sg

say

dem

[MatC

ŋ́ŋ̀

lō

i

kɛ̄-ɛ̀.]

 

1sg.ipfv

go:ipfv

3sg

do-ger

10The thingi that he said, I will do iti.’ [MOC]

  • 4 The examples straight from the corpus are marked as [MOC]. Some examples have been modified for sim (...)

11Despite the first appearances, using data primarily from an oral corpus of Mano texts,4 I will argue that in Mano, the relation between the matrix clause and the “relative” clause in what appears to be a correlative construction (4) is not of syntactic subordination and, thus, more like the English (3) and (1) than the Hindi (2).

12Cross-linguistically, correlative clauses often—if not always, see Lipták (2009)—behave as syntactic adjuncts either to the argument, in the case of clause-internal correlatives, or to the clause, in the case of utterance-peripheral correlatives. See Nikitina (2012) and Creissels (2009) for Mande, Lipták (2012) for Hungarian, Bhatt (2003), Srivastav (1991) and Dayal (1996) for Hindi, Belyaev and Haug (2014) for Ossetic and Motter (2023) for Hittite. I provide further syntactic and semantic arguments to support that position.

13Moreover, I make a stronger claim that even if one adopts a transformational approach, Mano correlative clauses do not appear in the adjunct-to-matrix-clause position as a result of movement. To prove that, I apply to Mano syntactic arguments developed by Bhatt (2003) for Hindi (Section 3). Unlike Hindi, where these arguments speak in favor of treating (single-headed) correlative clauses as generated clause-internally, in Mano they give an opposite result and speak in favor of considering correlative clauses as generated in the adjunct position to the matrix clause. Essentially, while Bhatt argues that the syntactic representation of (2) is best illustrated as Figure 1a and not as Figure 1b, in Mano the same criteria suggest that the interpretation in Figure 1b is more suitable.

14In Section 4, using arguments by Belyaev and Haug developed for Ossetic (2014), I show that because the Rel-NP and the Mat-NP do not always co-refer, the relationship between the relativized NP and its counterpart in the matrix clause is instead one of pragmatic resolution of anaphora, which further speaks in favor of non-embeddedness. In the discussion in section 5, I further explain that the correlative and matrix clauses are linked through parataxis, rather than adjunction, partly following Motter (2023), who also used Belyaev and Haug’s diagnostics and arrived at a similar conclusion, namely, that Hittite correlatives are paratactic. The paratactic structure of (4) shared with (1) and (3) is illustrated by Figure 2. Whether or not the higher CP node is needed is discussed in Section 5.

15First, however, I introduce some basic facts about Mano grammar, including subordination and relativization strategies.

2. Some basic facts of Mano grammar

2.1 Word order and subject indexation

16Mano is a South Mande language spoken in Guinea and Liberia by about 400,000 speakers. It has a rigid S Aux O V X word order. Aux stands for auxiliary expressing tense, aspect, modality, and polarity (TAMP) categories and X stands for postverbal arguments, typically expressed as postpositional phrases, and adjuncts. The auxiliary also indexes the subject’s person and number and are thus organized into series with the same person and number distinctions as pronouns. Most finite predications are expressed by auxiliary constructions (on constructions with predicators, see Khachaturyan 2023), where the subject NP is optional.

17Ex. (5) provides a single utterance, produced within the same breath group and with a continuation intonation throughout (on continuation intonation, see below), with two coordinated clauses and no explicit coordination marker beyond prosody. The first clause has an overt subject NP, sìī ‘spider,’ which is also indexed on the 3sg past auxiliary, ; in the second, the subject is only expressed through indexation on the negative auxiliary, lɛ̀ɛ́.

(5)

Sìī

ŋwɔ̀

tā̰ā̰,

lɛ̀ɛ́

yī

zɛ̄.

 

spider

3sg.pst>bridg

thing:cstr

exaggerate

3sg.neg

slumber

kill

18‘[As the moment was getting nearer,] the Spider made such a big deal out of it that it did not sleep anymore.’ [MOC]

19Portmanteau auxiliaries also incorporate the 3sg pronoun or the bridging marker (on the latter, see Section 4.4). In (5) above, the past 3sg auxiliary belongs to the portmanteau type. The corresponding non-portmanteau form is ‘3sg.pst.’

20Mano distinguishes between alienable possessor constructions, where the possessor is expressed by a dedicated series of possessive pronouns and, in 3rd person, an optional NP, and an inalienable possessor construction, where the pronominal possessor is expressed by a pronoun from the basic series in complementary distribution with a full-fledged NP. The distinction becomes relevant in the discussion of example (38) below.

21Finally, Mano has rich nominal and verbal tonal morphology. In particular, it has a grammatical high tone optionally used with nouns that are followed by a demonstrative and/or the attention marker lɛ́ (6). The high-tone form is also used in correlative clauses, as I show below.

(6)

(a)

mī

wɛ̄

 

 

person

dem

 

(b)

mí

wɛ̄

 

 

person:h

dem

 

(c)

mī

lɛ́

wɛ̄

 

 

person

att

dem

 

(d)

mí

lɛ́

wɛ̄

 

 

person:h

att

dem

22‘this person’

2.2 Clause-combining and subordination

23Mano makes use of various morphosyntactic and prosodic means for clause-combining and subordination, including conjunctions, such as yé ‘when’ in (7) or ɓīī ‘because’.

(7)

Yé

ɲɛ́nɛ́

kɛ̄

gá̰á̰-pɛ̀lɛ̀

ā…

 

when

bridg

sun

3sg.pst

do

drag-inf

dem

24‘As the moment was getting nearer [the Spider made such a big deal out of it that it did not sleep anymore.]’ [MOC]

25To mark some dependent clauses, dedicated auxiliary series and verbal forms are used. For example, for forms used in conditional clauses, see Khachaturyan (2020b). The joint auxiliary series is also widely used to express sequences of events or, as in (8), events occurring simultaneously (typically concerning coreferential subjects, but not necessarily). Conjoined clauses are dependent on the preceding context for their temporal interpretation and therefore cannot be considered independent clauses.

(8)

tó

yī

áà

gèè

kélɛ̀…

 

3sg.pst

stay

there

3sg.jnt>3sg

say:jnt

that

26‘He remained there saying…’ [MOC]

  • 5 A reviewer has pointed out that in the function of marking fronted dependent clauses, the demonstra (...)

27The most common means employed in clause-combining are the clause-final demonstratives (a variant of yā, which can also assimilate to the preceding vowel resulting in further variants) and ɓɛ̄~wɛ̄~wāā. They are quasi-obligatory in all dependent clauses preceding their main clause. That is, speakers always prefer to have them in elicited utterances, but in natural speech they are not always present and the rules determining the likelihood of omission are not very clear yet. Crucially, in some cases these demonstratives become the only morphosyntactic clause-linking markers. Unlike (7), where the temporal clause includes a conjunction yé ‘when,’ in (9) the clause ‘(when) I drank wine’ does not have any clause-linking marker, only the demonstrative .5

(9)

[Ŋ̄

yɔ̄

mī

],

kō

gèlè

gɔ̰̄.

 

1sg.pst

wine

drink

dem

1pl.pst

war

fight

28‘(When) I drank wine, we fought.’ [MOC, modified]

29Finally, Mano distinguishes between prosodic contours marking the end of the utterance vs. those projecting the continuation. In the utterance-final position, the high tone is systematically realized as mid, the low as falling and the mid as mid or mid-falling. Thus, continuation is marked by the absence of final lowering, but also, in the case of some speakers, by a high-rising tone. Since not all instances of clause-combining are marked by dedicated means, prosody allows for distinguishing between several clauses linked to a single utterance (with a paratactic relation, as in 11, or a subordinating one) and clauses produced as separate utterances. See, for example, the contrast between the realization of the final tone of zèí: high in (11), illustrated in Fig. 4 (a sharp rise), and mid in (10), illustrated in Fig. 3 (only a slight rise).

(10)

nɛ́

yà-pɛ̀lɛ̀

léé

wɛ̄

zèí.

 

3pl.exi

child

sit-inf

woman:h

dem

middle

30‘They are putting a child on the woman’s back.’ [MOC]

(11)

[Léé

wɛ̄

āà

nɛ́

yà

zèí]

 

woman:h

dem

3sg.prf

child

sit

3sg.refl

middle

[āà

sɔ̄

yèlè

mɔ̀.]

3sg.prf

cloth

attach

3sg

on

31‘This woman has put a child on her back, she is attaching a cloth to it.’ [MOC]

2.3 Relativization strategies

32Mano has three types of relativization strategies: 1) correlative clauses with lɛ́ when the Rel-NP is 1a) utterance-peripheral and 1b) in-situ, 2) detached “relative” clauses with lɛ́ and 3) paratactic clauses. The main focus of this paper is on utterance-peripheral correlative clauses.

331) Correlative clauses are formed with the postnominal relativizer lɛ́, which also has a variant nɛ́ (in nasal contexts) and tɛ́ and can also take the form of the floating high tone. Following the definition provided by Comrie and Kuteva (2006), in correlative relativization the in-situ position of the correlate in the matrix clause (Mat-NP) is filled by a resumptive element. In Mano correlative clauses, Mat-NP is typically expressed by a pronoun (12) or, in the case of relativization of subjects, as agreement on the auxiliary (13). A distinct feature of the correlative clauses is left-dislocation of the Rel-NP and the filling of its in-situ position by a resumptive element. Indeed, in (12) the in-situ position of the Rel-NP is the subject and the resumptive element is indicated by the 3sg.sbjv auxiliary . In (13), the in-situ position is the argument of a gerund and the resumptive element is the 3sg pronoun .

(12)

[CorC

Míi

nū

zèē

bḭ́míà

]

 

 

person>att

3sg.sbjv

come:ipfv

here

night

dem

[MatC

ŋ́ŋ̀

i

zɛ̄.]

 

1sg.ipfv

3sg

kill:ipfv

34‘Whoever comes here at night, I will kill him/her / I will kill the person who will come here at night.’ [el.]

(13)

[CorC

Míi

lɛ́

i

gā-à

lɛ̄

ɛ̄]

 

 

person:h

att

3sg

die-ger

ident

dem

[MatC

káà

gèē

āài

wɛ̀lɛ̀

gā

kɛ̀lɛ̀.]

 

2pl.ipfv>3sg

say:ipfv

3sg.prf

get.up

death

hand

35‘The person whom you say has died has risen from the dead.’ [MOC, modified]

  • 6 Most nouns have the exact same high-tone form that is used with demonstratives and that results fro (...)

36If the head noun is final in the Rel-NP, the head noun can optionally appear as a high-tone form when accompanied by the relativizer (13; see also 6); the high-tone form is obligatory when the relativizer is expressed by a floating high tone (12).6 Crucially, a high-tone form can cooccur with a full-fledged relativizer (as in ex. 13), which means that a high-tone nominal form is not always just a result of association of the floating high tone of the relativizer. Note also that in (12), the Rel-NP can have an indefinite (generic) reading without any special marking. Here, the high tone form of the noun clearly results from the association with the relativizer and is irreducible to other functions, such as definiteness marking.

37The final formal property of correlative clauses is the use of clause-final demonstratives. Note, however, that, as in other dependent clauses, the demonstrative is not obligatory.

38In the examples above, the CorC(s) were all situated to the left of the matrix clause. This is the most frequent relativization strategy in my corpus. An alternative position is clause-internal, to the left of the in-situ relativized constituent—as in (14), the argument of a postposition, or in (15), the direct object.

(14)

[MatC

yí-gīnī

[CorC

gwɛ́ɛ́kòlò

vɔ̀i

tɛ́

 

 

3sg.pst>3sg

interior-share

old.man

pl

att

ō

gbēŋ́

ā]

i

mɔ̀.]

3pl.exi

block

in

dem

3pl

on

39‘He shared it [the animal] among all the elders of his neighborhood.’ (Lit.: ‘He shared it, elders who are in the block, among them.’) [MOC]

(15)

[MatC

Zɛ́ɛ́zú

lɛ̀ɛ́

[CorC

kpàléŋwɔ̀i

tɛ́

kɛ̄

 

 

P.N.

3sg.neg

 

miracle

att

3sg.pst

do

kɛ̄-pɛ̀lɛ̀

Cafarnom

ɓɛ̄]

i

kɛ̄

dìè

pàà]

3sg

do-inf

P.N.

dem

3sg

do

3sg.refl

int

at

40‘Jesus did not perform in his own country the miracles that he was performing in Capharnaum.’ [MOC, modified]

41Except for the syntactic position, clause-internal correlatives share all other properties with the utterance-peripheral correlatives: left-dislocation of the Rel-NP, the preferential use of the clause-final demonstrative and no restrictions on the syntactic position of the Mat-NP.

  • 7 Some Mande languages, like Wan, have a restriction on the syntactic position of the Mat-NP for clau (...)

42Utterance-peripheral CorCs in Mano, like in other Mande languages, should be considered clause-level adjuncts while clause-internal CorCs should be considered adjuncts at the level of the Mat-NP (for arguments, see Nikitina 2012).7

432) Another type of relativization strategy is detached “relative” clauses with a conjunction lɛ́. In contrast to the correlatives, they represent regular finite clauses: there is no left-dislocation of the Rel-NP, and there is no clause-final demonstrative. All syntactic positions are assessable to this type of relativization; see the relativization of the direct object in (16) and of the subject in (17) and (18).

(16)

[MatC

Ŋ̄

Gèwúlú

gɛ̰̀]

[RelC

lɛ́

i

lèē

wà

 

 

1sg.pst

P.N.

see

 

and.so

3sg

mother

3pl.ip

i

dàā

gā

gèlè

yí.]

3sg

father

3pl.pst

die

war

in

44‘I saw Gewulu, whose mother and father died in war.’ [el.]

45Detached “relative” clauses can be situated to the right of the matrix clause, as in (16). They can also appear in a sequence of relative clauses when there are several relative clauses for one and the same Rel-NP (17).

(17)

[CorC1

mīāi

lɛ́

wāà

[RelC2

lɛ́

ō

mīā

 

 

person:pl

att

3pl.prf

die

 

and.so

3pl.exi

person:pl

fḭ́

dɔ̄

pɛ̀lɛ̀]

ɛ̄]

[MatC

i

mɔ́ɔ̀wèè

tó.]

rest

install

place:cstr

dem

 

2sg.conj

3pl

pardon

leave

46‘People who have died and who are in the place of rest, forgive them.’) [MOC, modified]

47If the relativizer is expressed by a floating high tone, a sequence of relative clauses can be formed without the second relativizer at the beginning of the subsequent “relative” clause. Thus, in (18) the marker lɛ́ is optional in the beginning of the second relative clause. More specifically, the actual example from the corpus did not have lɛ́, but the consultant confirmed that it was possible to use it.

(18)

[CorC1

Mí

lɛ̀ɛ́

nɛ́

yē]

 

 

person>att

3sg.neg

child

give.birth

[RelC2

(lɛ́)

lɛ̀ɛ́

lēē

sí

āā]

 

so.that

3sg.neg

woman

take

dem

[MatC

mīī

kpànāzɛ̀

wáá

ká.]

 

person

important

cop.neg>3sg

with

48‘A person who does not give birth to children, who does not take a wife, he is not important.’ [MOC, modified]

  • 8 Another difference between detached “relatives” and correlatives is that the Rel-NP does not appear (...)

49Detached “relative” clauses never appear in the utterance-peripheral position; in that position, only a clause with a left-dislocated Rel-NP is possible.8

  • 9 Because in the clause-linking function lɛ́ does not accompany a NP, unlike lɛ́ in the relativizer f (...)

50In detached “relative” clauses, lɛ́ is not used as a relativizer but as a clause-linker with a broad function. Indeed, lɛ́ is amply attested at the beginning of utterances in a narrative and can be roughly translated as a discourse linker ‘and then, and so’ (19). In this function, lɛ́ does not have a nasalized variant and floating high-tone variant, but it has an additional variant yēlɛ́ (which results from adjunction of yē 3sg.emph).9

(19)

Lɛ́

gɔ́

gèē

nā

lɛ̀ɛ̄…

 

and.so

leopard

3sg.sbjv>3sg

say:ipfv

3sg.refl

wife

to

51‘[One day, the leopard’s wife told the leopard: “I want to eat meat, some raw meat.”] And so the leopard says to his wife: …’ [MOC, modified]

52The difference between the utterance-initial lɛ́ and lɛ́ in what appears as a relative clause is subtle: in (18), the clause beginning with lɛ́ is integrated into a single utterance with the preceding clause; the integration is indicated solely by prosody (no pause after or utterance-final intonation on the preceding clause) and the coreference relation between one of the arguments of the first clause and the 3sg pronoun in the second clause. In other words, detached “relatives” with lɛ́ can be considered a paratactic strategy.

533) The final type of relativization strategy comprises paratactic clauses with no additional marking of relativization, not even discourse linkers. Example (20) illustrates this type. It consists of two clauses linked by continuation intonation and by referential contiguity between them: the direct object of the first clause, mí wɛ̄ ‘this person,’ co-refers to the subject of the second clause. Furthermore, the second clause has a construction with an auxiliary from the conjoint series, which, as example (8) above illustrated, is used for clause-combining and, in particular, expressions of event simultaneity. Such clause sequences can in some cases also be interpreted as a relativization strategy, as in (20), which was translated by a native speaker as a relative clause (‘Vous voyez celui qui marche à pieds?’; ‘Do you[pl] see the person who is walking?’).

(20)

[Káà

mí

wɛ̄i

gɛ̰̀

nɔ́]

 

2pl.ipfv

person:h

dem

see.ipfv

just

[áài

tàà

gà̰

làà?]

3sg.jnt

walk:jnt

3sg.refl

leg

on>q

54‘Do you[pl] see the person who is walking?’ (Lit.: ‘Do you[pl] see this guy, he is walking?’) [MOC]

3. Syntactic arguments for non-embeddedness

3.1 Introductory remarks

55Indo-Aryan languages are a language group with widespread correlatives, including clause-internal, NP-adjoined and utterance-peripheral IP-adjoined correlative clauses (in other words, adjoined to the entire clause). Example (21) illustrates the phenomenon in Hindi. Unlike Mano, where Mat-NP is usually expressed by a pronoun, in Indo-Aryan languages the Mat-NP is expressed by a demonstrative (woo, according to Davison 2009; ex. 21; vo, according to Bhatt 2003; ex. 23), which can be used pronominally and adnominally (for example, accompanying the noun kitaab in (21)). The relativizer (joo, according to Davison 2009; jo, according to Bhatt 2003) can, in and of itself, fill an argument position within the CorC (22) but usually needs an accompanying element, such as a noun (21).

56(21) Hindi (from Davison 2009: 246–247)

57a) Utterance-peripheral correlatives: [CorC] [MatC]

[CorC

Joo

kitaabi

shiilaa-nee

likh-ii]

 

rel

book

Shila-erg

write-prf.f

[MatC

wooi

(kitaabi)

rahul

paṛh

rahaa

hai.]

 

that

book

Rahul

read

prog

is

58‘Rahul is reading the book which Shila wrote.’ (Lit.: ‘Which book Shila wrote, that book Rahul is reading.’)

59b) Clause-internal correlatives: [MatC [CorC]]

[MatC

Rahul

[RelC

joo

kitaabi

shiilaa-nee

likh-ii]

wooi

(kitaabi)

 

Rahul

 

rel

book

Shila-erg

write-prf.f

that

book

paṛh

rahaa

hai.]

read

prog

is

60‘Rahul is reading the book which Shila wrote.’ (Lit.: ‘Rahul, which book Shila wrote, that book is reading.’)

  • 10 By contrast, multiple-headed correlatives are generated in the adjunct position, but I will not go (...)

61These two types of correlative clauses display a surface similarity to Mano correlatives. Yet, I will show that a crucial difference between Hindi and Mano may be discerned. Indeed, Bhatt (2003) entertains two further hypotheses in the transformational approach to syntax: either 1) the (single-headed) correlative clauses are base-generated clause-internally and are optionally fronted to the position of adjunct of the matrix clause, which is the hypothesis he ends up arguing for,10 or 2) all correlative clauses are generated in surface adjunct position, which is the analysis advocated by Srivastav (1991). These possibilities are illustrated with example (2), repeated below as (22a). The movement analysis is illustrated by Figure 1a, repeated below as (22b), and the base-generation analysis is illustrated by Figure 1b, repeated below as (22c).

(22a)

[CorC

[jo

CD]i

sale-par

hai]

[MatC

Maya

 

 

rel

CD

sale-on

be.prs

 

Maya.f

[us

CD-ko]i

khariid-egii.]

dem

CD-acc

buy-fut.f

62‘Maya will buy the CD that is on sale.’ (Lit. ‘[Which CD is on sale], Maya will buy that CD.’) (Bhatt 2003: 486)

63Bhatt’s consideration of these two options reflects the idea that a surface syntactic construction can be a result of an underlying transformation in which some constituents are generated in a particular syntactic position but “moved” from there to a different syntactic position. When they move, they leave a trace behind, which is represented as t.

64Whether movement has or has not taken place can be discerned, for example, by observing whether all the syntactic slots in a particular predication have been filled. Thus, transitive verbs require direct objects, so the utterance-initial position of what in What do you think John bought? is described as a result of a specific kind of movement, called wh-movement, and there is a trace t in the direct object position of bought: What do you think John bought t?. Another diagnostic is the interpretation of particular elements. For example, where in Where do you think you are going? is interpreted as an argument of the second predication (you are going where) and therefore must have moved from there: Where do you think you are going t? In more complicated cases, where the syntactic and semantic properties of verbs and clauses themselves do not provide any evidence for the syntactic structure, movement is discerned by observing ungrammatical structures whose ungrammaticality is best explained by the observation that the trace appears in a universally precluded syntactic and semantic configuration (an example is the Condition-C effect), either by cross-linguistic tendencies on movement restrictions (such as the Island effects) or by language-internal movement affordances (such as capacity of stacking of moved constituents).

  • 11 Note that the logic behind each of these three diagnostics differs in fundamental ways. It is not c (...)

65These are the diagnostics that Bhatt applied to Hindi correlatives and concluded from them that Hindi correlatives are generated clause-internally.11 I review these diagnostics and apply them to Mano in the following order:

66Island effects;

67Possibility to stack two utterance-peripheral correlative clauses; and

68Condition-C effects.

3.2 Island effects

69The CorC and the MatC are not necessarily adjacent: in (13) above, they are separated by a predication introducing reported speech (‘The person who you say has died has risen from the dead.’). This applies to Hindi as well, but with a restriction: in Hindi, the Mat-NP cannot be found within another relative clause (23).

70(23) Island effects in Hindi (Bhatt 2003: 500)

71*[CorC Rel-NPi] [MatC … [RelC … Mat-NPi] …]

[CorC

Joi

vahã:

rah-ta

hai]

[MatC

mujh-ko

[vo

kahaanii]j

 

rel

there

stay-hab

be.prs

 

I-DAT

that

story.f

[RelC

joj

Arundhati-ne

usi-ke-baare-mẽ

likh-ii]

pasand

hai.]

 

rel

P.N.-erg

dem-about

write-pfv.f

like

be.prs

72*Intended meaning: ‘I like the story that Arundhati wrote about the person who lives here.’ (Lit.: ‘Who lives there, I like the story that Arundhati wrote about that (person).’).

  • 12 Some solutions that come to mind include moving the second Mat-NP expressed by the demonstrative ph (...)
  • 13 It is problematic to claim pre-empirically that all relative clauses, including those in Hindi, are (...)

73It is not entirely clear whether the ungrammaticality of the Hindi example could be rectified by modifying it.12 But let us follow Bhatt in assuming that the utterance’s ungrammaticality results from the fact that the Mat-NP, expressed by a demonstrative us-, is found within another, clause-internal relative clause. In languages like English, relative clauses are recognized to be “syntactic islands” (Ross 1967) precisely because moving a constituent out of a relative clause is prohibited, which then serves as an explanation for why forming an utterance-peripheral correlative with its Mat-NP within another relative clause results in ungrammaticality.13

74In Mano, the Island effect—or, more specifically, the restriction of coreference between the Rel-NP and a NP within a subsequent (cor)relative clause—does not apply. In (24), there are two utterance-peripheral correlative clauses. The referent of the Rel-NP within the first correlative clause is the (zero) subject in the second corelative clause and is indexed on its auxiliary. The first Rel-NP is not taken up again in the matrix clause. The Rel-NP of the second correlative clause is taken up again as an argument of a postposition in the matrix clause.

75(24) Lack of Island constraint on relativization in Mano

  • 14 A reviewer suggests that another possible interpretation could be that one correlative is located i (...)

76[CorC1 Rel-NPi…] [CorC2 = MatC1 Rel-NPj …Mat-NPi…] [MatC2 Mat-NPj…]14

[CorC

Míái

lɛ́

ō

wálàléwèkpɔ́mìà

ā]

 

person.pl:h

att

3pl.exi

prophet

with

dem

[CorC

zīlèēj

lɛ́

i

zɔ̰̀ɔ̰̀-pɛ̀lɛ̀

ɛ̄]

 

road

att

3pl.exi

3sg

show-inf

dem

[MatC

íìbɛ̀īàmɔ̀

tòò

ā

í

lāɓō

sɔ̀lɔ̄-ɓō

àj

kōlà.]

 

can.be

tomorrow

dem

2sg.conj

salvation

obtain

3sg

behind

77‘The people who are prophets, the road that they are showing, it is possible that if you stay on that road, you will obtain salvation.’ [MOC, modified]

3.3 (Im)possibility of stacking of two utterance-peripheral correlative clauses

78A further argument provided by Bhatt concerns the possibility to stack two (or more) utterance-peripheral correlatives.

79It is perfectly possible to have two clause-internal correlatives in Hindi describing two separate Mat-NPs (25).

80(25) Two clause-internal correlatives in Hindi (Bhatt 2003: 507)

81[MatC [CorCi …] Mat-NPi [CorCj …] Mat-NPj …]

[MatC

Ram-ne

[CorCi

jo

laṛkaai

tumhaare

piichhe

hai]

 

Ram-erg

rel

boy

your

behind

be.prs

[us

laṛke-ko]i

[CorCi

jo

kitaabj

Shantiniketan-ne

chhaapii

thii]

dem

boy-DAT

 

Rel

book

Shantiniketan-erg

print.pfv.f

be.pst.f

[vo

kitaab]j

dii.]

dem

book

give-pfv.f

82‘Ram gave the book that Shantiniketan had published to the boy who is standing behind you.’ (Lit. ‘Ram gave [[which book Shantiniketan had published] that book] to [[which boy is behind you] that boy].’)

83Similarly, in Mano such structures are also perfectly possible (26).

84(26) Two clause-internal correlatives in Mano

85[MatC [CorCi …] Mat-NPi [CorCj …] Mat-NPj …]

[MatC

[CorCi

wììi

lɛ́

zɛ̄

ɛ̄]

i

yí-gīnī

 

2sg.pst

 

meat

att

3sg.pst

3sg

kill

dem

3sg

interior-lose

[CorCj

gwɛ́ɛ́kòlò

vɔ̀

lɛ́

ō

gbēŋ́

ā]

j

mɔ̀.]

 

old.man

pl

att

3pl.exi

block

in

dem

3pl

on

86‘He shared the animal that he killed among the elders that are in his neighborhood.’ (Lit.: ‘He, the animali that he killed, shared iti, the eldersj that are in his neighborhood, among themj.’) [el, based on MOC]

87However, it is impossible in Hindi to have two utterance-peripheral correlative clauses (27).

88(27) Ungrammaticality of two utterance-peripheral correlative clauses in Hindi (Bhatt 2003: 508)

89*[CorCi] [CorCj] [MatC Mat-NPi Mat-NPj …]

[CorCi

Jo

laṛkaai

tumhaare

piichhe

hai]

[CorCj

jo

kitaabj

 

rel

boy

your

behind

be.prs

 

rel

book

Shantiniketan-ne

chhaapii

thii]

[MatC

Ram-ne

Shantiniketan-erg

print-pfv.f

be.pst.f

 

Ram-erg

[us

laṛke-ko]i

[vo

kitaab]j

dii.]

dem

boy-DAT

dem

book

give-pfv.f

90‘Ram gave the book that Shantiniketan had published to the boy who is behind you.’ (Lit. ‘[Which book Shantiniketan had published] [which boy is behind you] Ram gave [that book] to [that boy].’)

91If utterance-peripheral correlative clauses were generated in the adjunct-to-matrix-clause position, it would be difficult to explain such a restriction, while it follows from the movement hypothesis. Bhatt explains the restriction by observing that while it is possible to front one, it is impossible to front two adjuncts via wh-movement (28). If clause-internal correlatives are base-generated as adjuncts to the Mat-NPs, it should be impossible to front more than one of them, and this prediction is borne out.

92(28) Impossibility of two utterance-peripheral adjuncts in Hindi (Bhatt 2003: 510)

93wherei whenj [CP… [CP ti tj …]]

*kahããi

kabj

[CP

Radha

soch-ti

hai,

where

when

Radha

thing-hab.f

be.prs

[CP

ki

Ram-ne

Sita-ko

tohfe

ti tj

di-ye

the?]]

 

that

Ram-erg

Sita-DAT

presents

 

give-pfv.pl

be.pst.M.pl

94Intended reading: *‘Where and when Radha thinks [that Ram gave presents to Sita]?’

95In Mano, by contrast, it is possible to have two utterance-peripheral correlative clauses (29).

96(29) Two utterance-peripheral correlative clauses in Mano

97[CorCi] [CorCj] [MatC Mat-NPi Mat-NPj …]

[CorCi

Wììi

lɛ́

zɛ̄

ɛ̄]

 

meat

att

3sg.pst

3sg

kill

dem

[CorCj

gwɛ́ɛ́kòlò

vɔ̀j

lɛ́

ō

gbēŋ́

ā]

 

old.man

pl

att

3pl.exi

block

in

dem

[MatC

i

yí-gīnī

j

mɔ̀.]

 

2sg.pst

3sg

interior-lose

3pl

on

98‘He shared the animal that he killed among the elders that are in his neighborhood.’ (Lit.: ‘He, the animal that he killed, shared it, the elders that are in his neighborhood, among them.’) [el, based on MOC]

99The restriction of having two utterance-peripheral adjuncts also does not apply (whether or not it is related to the possibility of having two utterance-peripheral correlatives). In (30), the two adjuncts kálémɔ̀ ‘at home’ and lúó nɔ́fé ‘every day’ are situated in the utterance-initial position and are accompanied by the demonstrative wɛ̄. They can modify the main clause (‘we struggle at home every day’, 30a) as well as the dependent purpose clause (‘so that our kids have food at home every day’, 30b) and any possible combination of these (‘we struggle at home so that our kids have food every day’, 30c, and ‘we struggle at home so that our kids have food every day’, 30d).

100(30) Two utterance-initial adjuncts in Mano

101(a) at homei every dayj [CPti tj [CP…]]

102‘We struggle at home every day so that our kids have food.’ [el]

103(b) at homei every dayj [CP… [CP ti tj ]]

104‘We struggle so that our kids have food at home every day.’ [el]

105(c) at homei every dayj [CPti [CP tj]]

106‘We struggle at home so that our kids have food every day.’ [el]

107(d) at homei every dayj [CPtj [CP ti]]

108‘We struggle every day so that our kids have food at home.’ [el]

[Kálémɔ̀

wɛ̄]

[lúó

nɔ́fɛ́

wɛ̄]

[CP

kóò

gèlè

gɔ̰̄

home

dem

day

every

dem

 

1sg.ipfv

war

fight

[CP

kɛ̄

kɔ́nɔ́

kɛ̄

kò

nɔ́ɔ̀

nì

kɛ̀lɛ̀.]

 

so.that

food

3sg.conj

be

1pl.poss

child.pl

pl

hand

109The rationale behind comparing the movement of adjuncts to IPs (the temporal and place adjuncts in (28)) and adjuncts to NPs in (27) (which are correlative clauses under the movement account) is not sufficiently explained by Bhatt (2003). In other words, it is not clear why the two are expected to be synchronized (i.e., if movement of multiple adjuncts to CPs is impossible, why it should predict the impossibility of movement of multiple adjuncts to NPs). Crucially, assuming that there is a correlation, the fact that movements of multiple adjuncts to CPs is admissible in Mano (30) makes possible the analysis of fronting of multiple correlatives in terms of movement (29). So, this criterion does not provide conclusive evidence about the movement vs. base-generation accounts. The next criterion—Condition-C effects—does.

3.4. Condition-C effects

110In Hindi, if a pronoun c-commands the Mat-NP (the demonstrative phrase associated with a correlative clause), then the pronoun cannot (or at least the speakers prefer that it does not) co-refer to a proper name contained inside that correlative clause. By contrast, if the Mat-NP itself c-commands a pronoun, the pronoun can co-refer to a proper name contained inside the correlative clause. For example, the correlative clause ‘The girl who loves Sita’ in (31) (Lit.: ‘Which girl loves Sita’) has two NPs: ‘the girl’ and ‘Sita.’ The matrix clause ‘she rejected her’ has two pronominal elements with demonstratives, one marked with the ergative (the c-commanding one) and another with the accusative. Now, only the configuration where Sita co-refers with the non-c-commanding NP (‘The girli who loves Sitaj, shei rejected herj’) or with none of the NPs (‘The girli who loves Sitaj, shei rejected herk,’ ‘The girli who loves Sitaj, shek rejected heri’) is permissible, but not the configuration where Sita co-refers to the c-commanding NP (*‘The girli who loves Sitaj, shej rejected heri). The observed restriction on the interpretation of this correlative follows naturally from the more general Condition-C restriction (a referential expression, such as a name, cannot have an antecedent that c-commands it). Indeed, provided that the correlative clause is base-generated in a clause-internal position near the Mat-NP, the proper name within the correlative clause cannot be c-commanded by its antecedent in the matrix clause (*‘The girlj who loves Sitai, shej rejected heri). In example (31) below, one and the same formal structure can have several readings (including an ungrammatical reading in (31d), which is a violation of Condition C).

111(31) Condition C in Hindi (modification of Bhatt 2003: 513)

112(a) [CorCP Rel-NPi… Namej …] […Mat-NPi … Pronj …]

113The girl who loves Sitaj rejected herj

114(b) [CorCP Rel-NPi… Namej …] [ …Mat-NPi … Pronk …]

115The girl who loves Sitaj rejected herk

116(c) [CorCP Rel-NPi… Namej …] [ …Pronk… Mat-NPi]

117Shek rejected the girli who loves Sita

118(d) *[CorCP Rel-NPi… Namej …] [… Mat-NPj … Proni …]

119Shej rejected the girl who loves Sitaj

[CorC

Jo

laṛkii

Sita-ko

pyaar

kar-tii

hai]

 

rel

girl

Sita-acc

love

do-hab.f

is

[MatC

us-ne

us-ko

ṭhukraa

di-yaa.]

 

dem-erg

dem-acc

reject

give-pfv

120In Mano, however, this restriction does not apply and a proper name within a correlative clause can refer to any NP within the matrix clause. In (32), the proper name within the first correlative clause—Zɛ́ɛ́zú ‘Jesus’—co-refers to the subject of the matrix clause and is therefore indexed on the auxiliary áà. The auxiliary c-commands the Mat-NP, a 3sg pronoun à situated within the PP.

121(32) Violation of Condition-C constraint in Mano

122[CorCP Rel-NPi … Namej …]i [MatC Auxj . . . Mat-NPi . . . ] ~ (31d)

[CorC

[Ŋwɔ́

yīè

gbɔ́kò]i

 lɛ́ 

 Zɛ́ɛ́zúj

ā 

kɛ̄

lɛ̀ɛ̄

ɛ̄]

 

problem

good

big

att

P.N.

3sg.pst>3sg

do

1pl

to

dem

[MatC

áàj

ē

dìè 

dɔ̀kɛ̀ 

ài

ká 

kɛ̀lɛ̀.]

 

3sg.jnt

3sg.refl

int

give:jnt

3sg

with

1pl

hand

123‘Jesus gave himself to us with the good big thing that he did to us.’ (Lit.: ‘The good big thingi that Jesusj did to us, hej gave himself with iti to us.’) [MOC, modified]

124If the correlative clause is assumed to be generated directly as an adjunct to the matrix clause, there is no violation of the c-commanding restriction between any pronoun in the matrix clause and a proper name in the correlative clause.

125In Hindi, all the three diagnostics listed above—the Island effects, stacking and Condition-C effects—suggest that utterance-peripheral correlatives move from a clause-internal position. Without going into detail about the controversy between surface-based and transformational approaches to syntax, it suffices to observe that all three criteria applied to Mano yielded the opposite results (although the data on stacking is consistent with both movement and base-generation interpretations). This implies that utterance-peripheral correlatives in Mano are generated at least in the adjunct position to the matrix clause, or, as I show in further sections, even higher.

4. Semantic arguments for non-embeddedness

4.1 Introductory remarks

126In all the Mano and Hindi examples reported above, Rel-NP and Mat-NP are coreferential. This also seems to be a requirement of correlative and any other kinds of relative clauses, if we follow the definition of Andrews (2007: 206):

127A relative clause is a subordinate clause which delimits the reference of an NP by specifying the role of the referent of that NP in the situation described by the relative clause.

128This does not hold for all relative clauses across languages, however. In their analysis of Ossetic (Indo-Aryan) correlatives, which can also be clause-internal or utterance-peripheral, Belyaev and Haug (2014) remain agnostic regarding the two hypotheses entertained by Bhatt (whether the utterance-peripheral correlatives are a result of movement or not), pointing out that a choice between transformational and non-transformational approach to syntax is ultimately theory-dependent (the syntactic theory they adopt, LFG, is more surface-oriented). Crucially, they advance additional semantic arguments about a lack of strict coreference between the Rel-NP and Mat-NP, which serve as an additional reason to treat Ossetic correlatives as non-embedded. These arguments are:

129Possibility of a part-whole semantic relationship between Rel-NP and Mat-NP and split antecedence; and

130Possibility of bridging relationship.

131Both these possibilities also hold for Mano. Moreover, as I will show in Section 5, there may not be any Mat-NP strictly or loosely related to the Rel-NP, which points to further semantic independence of the two clauses.

4.2 Person mismatch

  • 15 West African languages, including Mande, are known to have flexible personal indexicality in report (...)

132To begin with, there are cases where the Mat-NP is coreferential to Rel-NP but does not have the same grammatical person. Example (33) begins with a correlative clause in a narrative frame of reference where all the referents are not current speech act participants and therefore are framed in 3rd person, and the past tense is used. The matrix clause is framed as reported speech of one of the participants. The addressee of the reported discourse, which co-refers to the Rel-NP míá ‘the people,’ is encoded with 2pl pronominal markers. This does not reflect the expected indirect strategy of the narrative frame of reference but rather a direct strategy. Because of this break in deictic anchoring15 and despite the coreference, the correlative clause and its Rel-NP (míá ‘people’), on the one hand, and the matrix clause with its Mat-NP (indexed on the 2pl auxiliaries; for another token of Mat-NP expressed by an auxiliary, see example (13)), on the other, are deictically disintegrated.

133(33) Coreference between Rel-NP and Mat-NP in Mano with mismatch in person specification

[CorC 

Míá 

lɛ́

ō

kɛ̄

wɛ̄]

 

person.pl:h

att

3pl.pst

be

there

dem

[MatC 

yíí

ká 

nɔ̄

yèlèmì

lɛ̀ɛ̄.]

 

2pl.sbjv

water

indef

take

2pl.conj>3sg

give

master

to

134‘The people who were there, you [pl] take some water and give it to the master of the ceremony.’ [MOC, modified]

4.3 Split antecedence

135Furthermore, in Mano, a pronominal Mat-NP can correspond to a conjunction of several Rel-NPs, a phenomenon called split antecedence. In the example (34), which is about Jesus’ forgiving of the living and the dead, there are two groups of referents: we who follow you1 (the living) and people who died2 (the dead). This example also illustrates a person mismatch, since a 3pl Mat-NP refers to the conjunction of a 1pl referent and a 3pl referent.

136(34) Split antecedence in Mano

137[MatC[CorCi] [CorCj] Mat-NPi+j …]

[CorCj

mīāi

lɛ́

wāà

ā]

ɛ̰́ɛ̰́

[CorCi

 

person:pl

att

3pl.prf

die

dem

and

 

[

dìètíní]j

lɛ́

dɔ̄

ī

1pl

int

att

1pl.sbjv

install:ipfv

1sg

heart

kōlà

]

[MatC

i+j

mɔ́ɔ̀wèè

tó.]

behind

dem

2sg.conj

3pl

pardon

leave

138‘(We are crying unto you) so that you forgive the people who died and us, who follow you.’ (Lit.: ‘So that, we ourselves who stay behind your hearti and people who have diedj, you forgive themi+j.’) [MOC, modified]

139Note that in Hindi, at least according to Bhatt (2003), each relativized Rel-NP must have its own corresponding Mat-NP. Mat-NPs, in turn, are coordinated to express similar constructions (35).

140(35) Conjunction of Mat-NP instead of split antecedence in Hindi (Bhatt 2003: 504)

141[MatC … [CorCPi] Mat-NPi and [CorCPj] Mat-NPj …]

[MatC

Rahul

aajkal

[CorCi

jo

kitaabi

Saira-ne

likh-ii]

voi

aur

 

P.N.

nowadays

 

rel

book.f

Saira-erg

write-pfv.f

dem

and

[CorCj

jo

cartoonj

Shyam-ne

banaa-yaa]

voj

paṛh

rahaa

hai.]

 

rel

cartoon

Shyam-erg

make-pfv

dem

read

prog

be.prs

142‘Nowadays, Rahul is reading the book that Saira wrote and the cartoon that Shyam made.’ (Lit. ‘Nowadays, Rahul is reading [[which book that Saira wrote] that (book)]i and [[which cartoon that Shyam made] that (cartoon)]j.’)

143In Ossetic, however, split antecedence is possible (36).

144(36) Split antecedence in Ossetic (Belyaev & Haug 2014: 11)

145[CorCPi] [CorCPj] [MatC … Mat-NPi+j …]

[CorCi

Sard-ɜj

konflikt-tɜi

išt-a]

[CorCj

χarakter-tɜj

 

life-abl

what

conflict-pl

take-pst.3sg

 

what

character-pl

ɜvdəšt-a]

[MatC

wədoni+j

wəd-əštə

kadɜǯ-ə

ɜrmɜg.]

demonstrate-pst.3sg

 

those

be-pst.3pl

legend-gen

material

146‘The characters that he took from life and the characters that he demonstrated were legendary material.’ (Lit.: ‘What conflictsi he took from life, what charactersj he demonstrated, theyi+j were legendary material.’)

4.4 Referential mismatch

147Bridging is a relationship between noun phrases that are not coreferential but tightly connected contextually. In example (37), there is no coreference between NPs in the two utterances. However, the windows are understood to be contextually related to the room as the windows of the room.

148(37) Bridging in English (Clark 1975: 171)

149I walked into the room. The windows looked out to the bay.

150In Mano correlative clauses, the referents of the Rel-NP and an NP in the matrix clause which is understood to be its correlate can similarly be in a bridging relationship (38). The marker à in Mano is dedicated to marking that a referent of a given NP is in a bridging relationship to the referents introduced earlier (Khachaturyan 2020c). It is homonymous with the 3sg pronoun, which can be used to express an inalienable possessor. In this context, however, the only interpretation is that of bridging, because ‘stage’ is a relational noun, which, in the function of the possessee, combines with the possessive pronoun: e.g., là stage 3sg.poss internship, *à stage 3sg internship ‘her internship.’

151(38) Bridging in Mano correlatives

[CorC

Làkólè

lɛ́

ɓà

ɲɛ̄

ɛ̄]

 

school

att

2sg.sbjv>3sg

finish:ipfv

dem

[MatC

íì

stage

mɛ́

dā̰.]

 

2sg.ipfv

bridg

[fr]internship

prev

learn:ipfv

152‘The school that you finish, (afterwards) you learn at an internship (related to the school).’ [MOC, modified]

153The school and the internship are understood to be contextually related: similarly as in the French system of higher education, it is typical of Guinean students to undergo some kind of professional training as part of their studies.

154The next example (39) is similar to the previous one. Here, the marker of bridging is part of the portmanteau auxiliary wāà but it is unambiguously present because it triggers a low tone on the head noun (on low-tone head marking in Mano bridging constructions, see Khachaturyan 2020c).

155(39) Bridging in Mano correlatives

[CorC

Nú

kɔ̄āà

ɓō

ɓɛ̄]

 

come>att

1pl.prf>3sg

implement

dem

[MatC

míá

yā

wāà

ŋwɔ̀

yí

dɔ̄.]

 

person.pl:h

dem

3pl.prf>bridg

problem:cstr

interior

know

156‘That we have come, they had understood it.’ (Lit.: ‘Coming that we have implemented, they have understood the problem.’) [MOC]

157The Rel-NP and a correlate NP in the matrix clause can also belong to the same set (40). Here, there are two possible interpretations of the marker : either as a 3sg pronoun or as a bridging marker.

(40)

[CorC

Kpàléŋwɔ̀

tɛ́

kɛ̄

kɛ̄-pɛ̀lɛ̀

cafarnom

ɓɛ̄]

 

 

miracle

att

2sg.pst

do

3sg

do-inf

N.P.

dem

[MatC

dò

kɛ̄

dìè

pàà!]

 

3sg/ bridg

indef

do

3sg.refl

int

at

158‘The miracles that you were performing in Capharnaum, perform some of them in your own country!’ [MOC]

159I am not aware of the availability of bridging in Hindi, but Ossetic does allow bridging (41).

160(41) Bridging in Ossetic correlatives (Belyaev & Haug 2014: 12)

[MatC

ɜž

χorž

žət:-on

[CorC

de=

št’ol-əl

k’am

],

 

I

well

know-pst.1sg

 

your

table-super

what

photo

is

wə-sə

lɜpːu-jə.]

that-attr

boy-gen

161‘I knew well the boy whose photo is on your table.’ (Lit.: ‘I knew well, what photo is on your table, that boy.’)

162Given that the relationship between Rel-NP and its correlate in the matrix clause in Ossetic is not restricted to coreference and it allows for split antecedence and bridging, Belyaev and Haug (2014) suggest analyzing it as one of pragmatic anaphora resolution. Since these arguments yield the same results in Mano, it should be concluded that Rel-NP and Mat-NP have an anaphoric link in Mano as well. In addition, as Motter (2023) demonstrates, the semantic mismatches serve as an additional argument against the movement account.

5. Discussion

163Section 3 has demonstrated that in Hindi there are strong syntactic arguments in favor of the hypothesis that clause-peripheral correlatives are generated clause-internally and then moved to the position adjoined to the matrix clause. In Mano, by contrast, these arguments do not replicate (except for the stacking argument, which gives inconclusive results). Therefore, correlative clauses should be interpreted as adjoined to the matrix clause and base-generated in that position.

164Section 4 applied the arguments suggested by Belyaev and Haug (2014) concerning semantic mismatches between the Rel-NP and its correlate in the matrix clause. This time, they gave the same result as the Ossetic analyzed by these two authors. In Mano, similar examples can also be found, but in addition, I have demonstrated a case of different person specifications because of a shift of deictic frame of reference within the same utterance with reported speech. These examples further demonstrate that the relative(-like) construction and the matrix clause are loosely connected not only syntactically but also semantically.

165Three more arguments for full syntactic and semantic independence of Mano correlatives should be mentioned.

166First, the relativization marker lɛ́ is not restricted to that function and can be used in independent clauses as a predicative center of identifying constructions (42), a focus marker (48; Khachaturyan 2023) and a marker accompanying adnominal demonstratives (6; Khachaturyan 2020a). Surely, it is still left to be demonstrated how these functions are connected, which is beyond the scope of the present paper. But assuming that they are — and the underlying invariant function seems to be attention-drawing, whence the gloss — it should be clear for our current purposes at least that lɛ́ does not function as a marker of syntactic subordination.

167(42) identifying construction with lɛ́ in Mano

Gààzù

dōó

wɛ̄

lɛ́

nɔ́

wɛ̄.

mirror

one

dem

att

just

dem

168‘It is just the same mirror.’ (Lit.: ‘It is just one mirror.’) [MOC]

169Second, the demonstrative occurring at the end of the correlative clause is otherwise used in subordinate clauses situated to the left of the matrix clause (7, 9). More broadly still, the demonstratives are also used to accompany left-dislocated constituents. The combination of left-dislocation with demonstratives, in turn, is a common means of introducing topics (43; see also Khachaturyan under review). Therefore, correlatives are best described as minimally integrated topic-like constituents (see Motter 2023 for a similar analysis).

(43)

Léé

wɛ̄

là

nɛ́

yà-pìà

dīà̰.

 

woman:h

dem

3pl.exi

3sg.poss

child

sit-inf>3sg

back

170‘That woman, they are putting a child on her back.’ [MOC]

171Finally, the same structure that is used for utterance-peripheral correlatives (a left-dislocated NP, followed by lɛ́, followed by a clause where the NP’s referent is taken up by a resumptive element and followed by a demonstrative) can be used in cases where there is no pair of NPs in the correlative and the matrix clause, that are coreferential or connected via bridging and split antecedence.

172(44) Relative-like construction in Mano without pragmatic relationship between the Rel-NP and any of the NPs in the matrix clause.

[Ŋwɔ́

wā

gèē

yālá

]

[

lìà

gā

nɔ́!]

problem

3pl.pst>3sg

say

yesterday

dem

2sg.conj

2sg

silence

die

just

173‘The thing that they said yesterday, just shut up!’ [MOC]

174Note that (44) is similar in many ways to example (4) introduced above and repeated below as (45).

(45)

[CorC

[Ŋwɔ́i

lɛ́

gèē

wɛ̄]

 

problem

att

3sg.pst>3sg

say

dem

[MatC

ŋ́ŋ̀

lō

i

kɛ̄-ɛ̀.]

 

1sg.ipfv

go:ipfv

3sg

do-ger

175The thingi that he said, I will do iti.’ [MOC]

176The only difference is that in (45), there is a Mat-NP coreferential to the Rel-NP. Therefore, (45) can be interpreted as a relativization strategy, while (44) does not have a corresponding Mat-NP and does not function as a relative clause. Instead, the correlative-like part in (45) functions as a hanging topic.

177Thus, even though correlative clauses are associated with a number of morphosyntactic properties, including the marker lɛ́, the final demonstrative and the left-dislocation of the Rel-NP, none of these are specifically tied to correlative constructions, or to subordination. Instead, Mano correlative constructions can be considered a special case of a paratactic topic-comment construction. Furthermore, this construction receives a relativization-like reading under several conditions, including (partial) coreference.

  • 16 Moreover, the cooptation framework allows for a fully synchronic reading of a given construction an (...)

178The existence of a relatively conventionalized (but at the same time optional) pragmatic interpretation of a paratactic construction can be considered a case of cooptation (Mauri & Sansò 2011). The term “cooptation” was suggested by Mauri and Sansò to cover cases where the source construction developing new pragmatic and grammatical functions is compatible with its source function and where there is no structural change involved, which is precisely the case of Mano correlatives. Not surprisingly, by the same logic, the two other types of “relative” clauses—detached with lɛ́ and paratactic—can also be considered a result of cooptation of paratactic clause-combining, although perhaps with a much lesser degree of conventionalization.16

179An analysis in terms of parataxis has been recently suggested for Hittite correlatives (Motter 2023). Motter observed the same semantic flexibility in the relationship between the Mat-NP and the Rel-NP—up to the lack of any candidate Mat-NP in the subsequent clause. To the extent that the available Hittite corpus allows, he also observed a lack of movement effects (specifically, a violation of Condition C). He concluded that Hittite correlative clauses are best understood as hanging topics and that the overall correlative structure (correlative clause and the subsequent clause) is a paratactic structure involving syntactically independent clauses conjoined together.

180There are two possible analyses of the conjunction: either the two clauses are conjoined in syntax, which is also put forward by Davison (2009) for Sanskrit, or more loosely in discourse, as Motter (2023) proposes. I illustrate the two analyses for the Mano examples (45) and (44) by (46a) and (46b), respectively; the syntactic representation in (46a) is essentially a modification of the one in Figure 2 above. The difference between the two analyses boils down to whether there is a higher CP projection uniting the two clauses.

181As Motter suggests, the distinction between the two analyses basically revolves around the metatheoretical question of where one wishes to put boundaries on syntactic phenomena. If we admit that clause-combining in Mano is outside the domain of syntax, or at least at the interface with discourse, the usage-based approach to syntactic phenomena offers avenues for further exploration. Such an approach treats an utterance not as an isolated artifact, which can be analyzed post hoc, but as a product of emergent elaboration that, crucially, is embedded in a larger discourse context (Fox & Thompson 2007). Under such an account, correlative constructions become a member of a family of constructions (Hopper 2001) and their relativization-like interpretation can be viewed as epiphenomenal to their more general interactional functions. Although this topic is beyond the scope of the present paper, I would like to illustrate the idea by one last group of examples. As example (39) already showed, the Rel-NP can be expressed by a nominalized verb. Such relativizations of verbal nominalizations appear to be especially common in narrative discourse—in particular, as part of the head-tail linking strategy, as in (47), but also without repeating any previous verbal content—and can be interpreted as a temporal dependent clause.

(47)

[Ló

wā

ɓō

]

 

go>att

3pl.pst>3sg

implement

dem

áà

gèè

dàā

lɛ̀ɛ̄…

3sg.jnt

say:jnt

3sg.refl

father

to

182‘[They acknowledged their guilt, they got up, he and his father, and went to the bush.] While they were going (lit.: going that they did) he said to his father…’

183Crucially, such relativized nominalizations may also receive a causal interpretation, as in (48):

(48)

[Nū

lɛ́

Sɔ̄gīpāà

ɓō

]

kō

pɛ̄

sɔ̀lɔ̄=ɓō.

 

come

att

P.N.

3sg.pst>3sg

implement

dem

2pl.pst

thing

obtain

184‘Because Soguipa came we obtained many things.’ (Lit.: ‘Coming that Soquipa did, we obtained thing.’)

185Thus, the interpretation of the correlative clause-like constituent, especially in the absence of an anaphoric relationship with the matrix clause, is essentially open-ended. But the presence of anaphoric relationship does not automatically yield a relative interpretation either. In the next example (49), there is a perfectly coreferential Mat-NP, and thus the construction is indistinguishable from a correlative relativization, and still the primary interpretation is causal. Indeed, the male speaker is asking his wife for some salt, which is unusual given that men are only occasionally involved in cooking and women are responsible both for cooking and seasoning and also for regulating meal hours. Asking for salt outside a regular meal is very unexpected. To explain why he needs it, the man says that he has roasted some cassava on the fire, presumably as a snack, which is an understandable thing to do.

(49)

[Béì

pɛ̰́ɛ̰́

mā

yà

tí

dḭ̀ḭ̄

ā̰,]

 

cassava

slice>att

1sg.pst>3sg

sit

on.fire

there

dem

ŋ́ŋ̀

lō

dà-à

mɔ̀.

1sg.ipfv

go:ipfv

3sg

fall-ger

3sg

on

186‘[Give me some salt,] because I put cassava slices on the fire, I will put it (salt) on them (the slices).’ (Lit.: ‘The cassava slices that I put on the fire OR It is cassava slices that I put on the fire, I will put it on them.’)

187The reason for a causal interpretation is because the correlative-like constituent is essentially a thetic clause: all its content (except the subject that is topical) is new to the hearer. Indeed, the marker lɛ́ and its variants can also be used in cleft-like (including thetic) constructions (Khachaturyan 2023), which is illustrated by the second variant of the literal translation. Thetic clauses, in turn, are often used in explanations (Vydrina 2020).

188Examples (47–49) suggest that the correlative-like clause should be viewed as an independent discourse contribution—a (re)introduction of a discourse referent and some (old or new) information about it—which is then elaborated upon in the subsequent clause. The resulting interpretation (relative or causal or head-tail linkage or others, not mentioned in this paper) is essentially epiphenomenal to a more general process of emergent syntactic elaboration. A further grounding of this idea should be done in future research.

Conclusion

189Given that, cross-linguistically, correlative clauses are often adjoined highly, they can be considered a prime example of an erstwhile paratactic construction acquiring subordinating properties (Givón 2009). Evidence from Mano based on criteria developed by Bhatt (2003) and Belyaev and Haug (2014) supports this hypothesis and illustrates such development at an early stage. However, the extent of these subordinating properties should be scrutinized, and simply postulating that a correlative clause is a clause-level adjunct misses many important details in which correlative clauses in different languages are similar and different. My close comparison of Mano with Hindi and Ossetic has demonstrated that Mano correlatives are fully syntactically and semantically independent from the matrix clause and the relative interpretation of the sequence “correlative clause–matrix clause” is a result of a pragmatic cooptation of a paratactic topic-comment-like construction.

190Finally, I have paved the way for further usage-based explorations of the discourse functions of correlative-like clause-combining. This has been made possible not by an a priori choice of framework (usage-based vs. generative syntax), but it emerged from rigorous syntactic testing that showed that Mano correlatives are essentially a discourse phenomenon or, at minimum, at the interface between syntax and discourse. Although such explorations are beyond the scope of the present paper, I hope to have laid a foundation for a productive combination of usage-based and generative accounts of the same phenomenon, contributing to establishing a dialogue between these theoretical frameworks.

Abbreviations

1911 first person

1922 second person

1933 third person

194abl – ablative

195acc – accusative

196att attention drawing marker

197attr – attributive

198bridg bridging

199C – clause

200conj – conjunctive

201Cor – correlative

202CP – complementizer phrase

203cstr construct form

204dem demonstrative

205el. – elicited

206emph emphatic

207erg – ergative

208exi existential

209f – feminine

210fr French

211fut – future

212gen – genitive

213ger gerund

214h high tone

215hab – habitual

216ident identifier

217indef indefinite

218inf infinitive

219int intensifier

220ip inclusory pronoun

221inflection phrase (corresponding to a finite clause)

222ipfv imperfective

223jnt conjoint

224Mat – matrix

225MOC Mano Oral Corpus

226neg negation

227NP noun phrase

228P.N. proper noun

229pfv – perfective

230pl plural

231poss possessive

232prev – preverb

233prf perfect

234prog – progressive

235prs – present

236pst past tense

237q question

238refl reflexive

239rel – relativizer

240sbjv subjunctive

241sg singular

242super – superlative

Haut de page

Bibliographie

References

Andrews, Avery D. 2007. Relative clauses. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description. Vol. 2, Complex constructions, 206–236. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Belyaev, Oleg. 2015. Systematic mismatches: Coordination and subordination at three levels of grammar. Journal of Linguistics 51(2). 267–326.

Belyaev, Oleg & Dag Haug. 2014. Pronominal coreference in Ossetic correlatives and the syntax-semantic interface. In Miriam Butt & Tracey Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG14 Conference. https://web.stanford.edu/group/cslipublications/cslipublications/LFG/19/papers/lfg14belyaevhaug.pdf.

Bhatt, Rajesh. 2003. Locality in correlatives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 210. 485–541.

Clark, Herbert H. 1975. Bridging. In R.C. Schank & B.L. Nash-Webber (eds.), Theoretical issues in natural language processing. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.

Comrie, Bernard. 1998. Rethinking the typology of relative clauses. Language Design 1. 59–86.

Comrie, Bernard & Tania Kuteva. 2006. The typology of relative clause formation in African languages. In F. K. Erhard Voeltz (ed.), Studies in African Linguistic Typology (Typological Studies in Language 64), 209–228. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Creissels, Denis. 2009. Les relatives corrélatives: le cas du malinké de Kita. Langages 174(2). 39–52. https://doi.org/10.3917/lang.174.0039.

Culicover, Peter W. & Ray Jackendoff. 1997. Semantic Subordination despite Syntactic Coordination. Linguistic Inquiry 28(2). 195–217.

Davison, Alice. 2009. Adjunction, features and locality in Sanskrit and Hindi/Urdu correlatives. In Anikó Klára Lipták (ed.), Correlatives cross-linguistically, 223–262. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Dayal, Veneeta. 1996. Locality in WH quantification. Berlin: Springer.

Fox, Barbara A. & Sandra A. Thompson. 2007. Relative Clauses in English conversation: Relativizers, frequency, and the notion of construction. Studies in Language 31(2). 293–326. https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.31.2.03fox.

Givón, Talmy. 2009. The Genesis of Syntactic Complexity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Haiman, John & Sarah G. Thomason. 1984. “Subordination” in universal grammar. In Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 510–523. Berkeley.

Hopper, Paul J. 2001. Grammatical constructions and their discourse origins: prototype or family resemblance? In Martin Pütz & Susanne Niemeier (eds.), Applied Cognitive Linguistics. Volume I, Theory and Language Acquisition, 109–130. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110866247.109.

Khachaturyan, Maria. 2020a. Common ground in demonstrative reference: The case of Mano (Mande). Frontiers in Psychology 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.543549.

Khachaturyan, Maria. 2020b. A typological portrait of Mano, Southern Mande. Linguistic Typology 25(1). 123–167. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2020-2050.

Khachaturyan, Maria. 2020c. Bridging caught in a crossfire: the marker of situated definiteness in Mano and language contact. Language in Africa 1(4). 158–182.

Khachaturyan, Maria. 2023. From copula to focus, vice versa, or neither? Mandenkan (69). 87–120. https://doi.org/10.4000/mandenkan.3070.

Khachaturyan, Maria. under review. Topicality effects in Mano interaction.

Lipták, Anikó. 2012. Correlative topicalization. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 59(3). 245–302.

Lipták, Anikó Klára (ed.). 2009. Correlatives cross-linguistically (Language Faculty and beyond, v. 1). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Makeeva, Nadezhda. 2013. Коммуникативные стратегии и коррелятивная конструкция в языке кла-дан и других южных манде [Information structure and correlative construction in Kla-Dan and other Southern Mande]. Voprosy Jazykoznanija 1. 77–94.

Mauri, Caterina & Andrea Sansò. 2011. How directive constructions emerge: Grammaticalization, constructionalization, cooptation. Journal of Pragmatics 43. 3489–3521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.08.001.

Motter, Thomas Clarence. 2023. Hittite correlatives are paratactic. Glossa 8(1). https://doi.org/10.16995/glossa.8900.

Nikitina, Tatiana. 2012. Clause-internal correlatives in Southeastern Mande: A case for the propagation of typological rara. Lingua 122. 319–334.

Nikitina, Tatiana & Alexandra Vydrina. 2020. Reported speech in Kakabe: Loose syntax with flexible indexicality. Folia Linguistica 54(1). 133–166. https://doi.org/10.1515/flin-2020-2029.

Ozerov, Pavel. under review. Left Dislocation in Spoken Hebrew, it is neither topicalizing nor a construction.

Partee, Barbara. 1975. Montague Grammar and Transformational Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry. The MIT Press 6(2). 203–300.

Pesetsky, David. 2013. Phrasal movement and its discontents. In Lisa Lai-Shen Cheng, Norbert Corver, Lisa Lai-Shen Cheng & Norbert Corver (eds.), Diagnosing Syntax (Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics). Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.

Richards, Norvin. 2017. A-bar movement. In Andrew Carnie, Dan Siddiqi & Yosuke Sato (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Syntax. 1st edition. London New York: Routledge.

Ross, John Robert. 1967. Constraints of variables in syntax. Cambridge: MIT.

Srivastav, Veneeta. 1991. The syntax and semantics of correlatives. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 9(4). 637–686. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00134752.

Vydrina, Alexandra. 2020. Topicality in sentence focus utterances. Studies in Language

Haut de page

Notes

1 Here and in what follows, I render long vowels by double vowel characters, while Bhatt renders them with a colon (i.e., i: in Bhatt ii in my notation). I have not been able to access Hindi speakers to verify Bhatt’s examples, but given that his examples were reproduced with modification by Davison (2009) and that I have myself spotted some typos, I suggest that the reader exercise caution with the Hindi examples that I cite.

2 Note that many definitions of relativization presuppose that the relative clause must be subordinated (see the definition by Andrews 2007 in Section 4 below). Therefore, paratactic relativization is not a prototypical relativization strategy and would require a definition of relativization that would accommodate the lack of subordination. Such a definition must be primarily semantics-based (i.e., set intersection semantics of relativization; Partee 1975), leaving the question of syntax open. Intriguingly, the authors who discuss non-reduction strategies, including parataxis (Comrie & Kuteva 2006; Motter 2023, inter alia), often do not give any definition of relative clauses. A working definition that I use, which is a modified version of Andrews (2007), is the following:

Relativization is a type of clause-combining (subordinating or non-subordinating) within a single utterance involving a relative clause which delimits the reference of an NP within the matrix clause by specifying the role of the referent of that NP in the situation described by the relative clause.

3 The motivation for the gloss is the following. The same marker lɛ́ (and its variants) are used in four different types of contexts: 1) as demonstrative predicators (43), 2) in cleft-like focus constructions (50), 3) with adnominal demonstratives (6), and 4) as this paper amply demonstrates, in correlative clauses. Khachaturyan (2023) discusses the relationship between the first two uses and hints at the idea that attention-drawing is the invariant function uniting these two uses. Attention-drawing is clearly the function of lɛ́ when it is used with adnominal demonstratives (Khachaturyan 2020a). Hanging topic structures like those discussed in Section 5 are also clearly related, on the one hand, to attention management, and on the other hand, to relativization. The exact link between attention management and the four functions listed above, including relativization, should be further articulated in future research.

4 The examples straight from the corpus are marked as [MOC]. Some examples have been modified for simplicity, and I mark them as [MOC modified]. Some represent a substantial modification of an original construction, in which case I mark them as [el, based on MOC]. Fully elicited examples are marked as [el]. The difference between [MOC modified] and [el, based on MOC] is obviously not straightforward.

5 A reviewer has pointed out that in the function of marking fronted dependent clauses, the demonstratives could be better described as clause-linking markers historically derived from demonstratives. The problem is that it is notoriously difficult to tell the two functions (demonstrative and clause-linking marker) apart. Indeed, constructions with adnominal demonstratives and correlative clauses are related through family resemblance (Hopper 2001): compare (6d) mí lɛ́ wɛ̄ ‘this person’ (adnominal occurrence) and (24) míá lɛ́ ō wálàléwèkpɔ́mìà ká ā ‘people who are prophets’ (clause-final occurrence). Moreover, both constructions with clause-final demonstratives (not only correlative clauses) and adnominal demonstratives can be fronted. Fronting, in turn, can be associated with the topicalization function. Indeed, in Section 5 I end up analyzing correlative clauses as topics, and it is possible that such an analysis can be extended to other constructions with clause-final demonstratives as well. The exact characterization of these fronted constituents—possibly in interactional rather than information structural terms —requires further study (Ozerov under review). In a nutshell, there is too much functional and syntactic overlap between the adnominal and the clause-final positions to make a principled distinction between the demonstrative and the clause-linking functions, at least for now.

6 Most nouns have the exact same high-tone form that is used with demonstratives and that results from association with the floating high tone of the relativizer (see, for example, mí ‘person:h’ (ex. 5) and ‘person>att’ (ex. 12). It is quite likely that the former form historically derives from, or even synchronically coincides with, the latter form. The extent of homophony and the co-distribution of a high tone and a relativizer have to be addressed in future research.

7 Some Mande languages, like Wan, have a restriction on the syntactic position of the Mat-NP for clause-internal correlatives: only arguments of postposition are allowed, but not direct objects. The restriction has been explained by the high adjunction of PPs, which then allows for correlative clauses as adjuncts to the arguments of PPs (Nikitina 2012), and has interesting parallels in other domains of grammar, such as restrictions on clause-internal NP topics. Mano and some closely related languages such as Kla-Dan (Makeeva 2013) can have clause-internal correlative clauses attached to any syntactic position, including the direct object. In addition, in Mano there is evidence complicating the view of PPs as adjoined high and base-generated in that position, such as the possibility of having a reflexive marker in the PP with the antecedent in the DO (in utterances like ‘The doctor showed a womani to herselfi in the mirror’).

8 Another difference between detached “relatives” and correlatives is that the Rel-NP does not appear to have a generic reading (i) unless it is accompanied by a quantifier (ii). The interpretation of this fact is still unclear to me.

(i)

[MatC

Ŋ́ŋ̀

mīī

zɛ̄]

[RelC

lɛ́

nū

zèē

bḭ́míà.]

 

 

1sg.IPFV

person

kill

 

so.that

3sg.sbjv

come:IPFV

here

night

‘I will kill the person who will come here at night./*Whoever comes here at night, I will kill him /’ [el.]

(ii)

[MatC

Ŋ́ŋ̀

mīī

nɔ́fé

zɛ̄]

[RelC

lɛ́

nū

zèē

bḭ́míà.]

 

 

1sg.IPFV

person

every

kill

 

so.that

3sg.sbjv

come:IPFV

here

night

‘Whoever comes here at night, I will kill him.’ (Lit.: ‘I will kill every person who will come here at night.’) [el.]

9 Because in the clause-linking function lɛ́ does not accompany a NP, unlike lɛ́ in the relativizer function, I consider them to be two different (although etymologically related) markers. Detached “relative” clauses are exactly the kind of context that provide a functional link between the two markers.

10 By contrast, multiple-headed correlatives are generated in the adjunct position, but I will not go into detail about that distinction here; see Bhatt 2003 and Motter 2023.

11 Note that the logic behind each of these three diagnostics differs in fundamental ways. It is not conceptually unproblematic that they are brought together without a discussion of the differences, but a lack of space prohibits delving into this here. For overviews of claimed movement diagnostics, see Pesetsky (2013) and Richards (2017).

12 Some solutions that come to mind include moving the second Mat-NP expressed by the demonstrative phrase vo kahaanii ‘that story’ after the second relative clause (and after the verb likhii):

[CorC

Joi

vahã:

rah-ta

hai]

[MatC

mujh-ko

[RelC

joj

Arundhati-ne

 

rel

there

stay-hab

be.prs

 

I-DAT

 

rel

P.N.-erg

usi-ke-baare-mẽ

likh-ii]

[vo

kahaanii]j

pasand

hai.]

dem-about

write-pfv.f

that

story.f

like

be.prs

Unclear grammaticality Intended meaning: ‘I like the story that Arundhati wrote about the person who lives here.’ (Lit.: ‘Who lives there, I like the story that Arundhati wrote about that (person).’).

13 It is problematic to claim pre-empirically that all relative clauses, including those in Hindi, are islands. In fact, clauses that function as a relativization strategy in Mano seem not to be islands. For this reason, it is problematic to conclude that the structure in (18) is ungrammatical simply because it is an attempt to move a constituent out of an island, which is prohibited. Therefore, further articulation of the argument and further diagnostics are needed. Moreover, if other diagnostics show that Mano correlatives are not islands for movement in Mano, then it is possible that a peripheral CorC does move away from its corresponding Mat-NP, and therefore, the island constraint diagnostic which I run in (24) just is not informative, similarly to the stacking diagnostic I review in the next section. I thank Michael Yoshitaka Erlewine for this observation.

14 A reviewer suggests that another possible interpretation could be that one correlative is located inside the other: [CorC [CorC]] [MatC]. This structure with embedding would correspond to a situation where the second correlative clause is a clause-internal correlative or a detached “relative” clause and its matrix clause is the first correlative: [CorCi = MatCj [RelCj]] [MatCi]. Such an interpretation is impossible, however, since for such an interpretation the Mat-NP of the second correlative must be found within the first correlative, which is not the case. The only referent that the two correlative clauses share is the Rel-NP of the first correlative, which is taken up again as its Mat-NP in the second correlative. Because the first correlative clause and the corresponding Mat-NP are not adjacent, it should be considered that the first correlative clause is fronted, or, in other words, situated in the adjunct position to the second correlative clause. This is precisely my interpretation. Note also that Mat-NPi is expressed by an auxiliary ().

15 West African languages, including Mande, are known to have flexible personal indexicality in reported speech (Nikitina & Vydrina 2020), so a person mismatch alone does not constitute evidence for a break in deictic anchoring. The past tense marker, however, is a stronger indication of this. At least since temporal deixis has not been discussed by Nikitina and Vydrina, we cannot simply assume that temporal deixis is as flexible as personal deixis. Crucially, Nikitina and Vydrina observe that in West African languages, flexible deixis accompanies loose syntax, which is precisely the case I want to make about correlatives.

16 Moreover, the cooptation framework allows for a fully synchronic reading of a given construction and dispenses with the necessity to assume any kind of diachronic development—an assumption which, in absence of diachronic and/or fully compatible comparative evidence, is, in my view at least, to be avoided. A construction with a broad function can have multiple readings and can be coopted to express a meaning that, in Eurocentric categories, is expected to have its own construction (such as directives, in Mauri and Sansò’s case, or relative clauses, as in the Mano case). See Khachaturyan (2023) for a similar analysis of focus constructions as a cooptation of nonverbal predications.

Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence papier

Maria Khachaturyan, « Mano correlatives are non-subordinating »Mandenkan, 70 | 2023, 3-38.

Référence électronique

Maria Khachaturyan, « Mano correlatives are non-subordinating »Mandenkan [En ligne], 70 | 2023, mis en ligne le 22 décembre 2023, consulté le 16 décembre 2025. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/mandenkan/3136 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/mandenkan.3136

Haut de page

Auteur

Maria Khachaturyan

Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies

Articles du même auteur

  • Information structure and non-verbal predication in Mano
    De la copule vers le focus, ou le vice-versa, ou ni l’un ni l’autre ? La structure informationnelle et la prédication non-verbale en mano
    Мария Леонидовна Хачатурьян. Показатель фокуса из копулы? Наоборт? Ни то, ни другое? Информационная структура и неглагольная предикация в мано
    Paru dans Mandenkan, 69 | 2023
  • Dictionnaire mano-français [Texte intégral]
    suivi d’un index français-mano
    Mano-French dictionnary
    Мария Хачатурьян, Матильда Карбо, Пе Мами. Мано-французский словарь
    Paru dans Mandenkan, 67 | 2022
  • Esquisse de la variation dialectale en mano
    Диалектное варьирование в языке мано
    Paru dans Mandenkan, 59 | 2018
  • Combinaisons liées verbo-nominales en mano
    Связанные сочетания имен и глаголов в мано
    Paru dans Mandenkan, 57 | 2017
  • Liste des gloses [Texte intégral]
    Paru dans Mandenkan, 54 | 2015
  • Introduction [Texte intégral]
    Section 0
    Paru dans Mandenkan, 54 | 2015
  • Tous les textes...
Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY-NC-SA 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont susceptibles d’être soumis à des autorisations d’usage spécifiques.

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search