Article in:
Diachronica: Online-First Articles

Interrogatives as relativization markers in Indo-European

| University of California, Santa Barbara | MPI for the Science of Human History
The use of interrogative pronouns as relative clause markers is often mentioned as a typical feature of European languages. This study presents an empirical approach to the distribution of interrogative pronouns as relative clause markers in time and space in the Indo-European language family. Based on a comprehensive sample of ancient and modern Indo-European languages, it is shown that interrogative-marked relative clauses are present in all stages of Indo-European within and outside of Europe. An analysis by branch suggests that this constitutes a case of parallel innovations subsequently spreading via language contact. The study also shows that interrogatives are used as relative clause markers independently of whether they are inflected pronouns or invariable markers.
Keywords: diachronic typology, interrogatives, relative clauses, Indo-European languages, areal features, morphosyntactic change
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.

Published online: 27 October 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.19030.aud

Full-text

Interrogatives as relativization markers in Indo-European
References

References

Alster, Bendt
2002 Relative clauses and case relations in Sumerian. Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 92: 7–31.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard
1989 Relative clauses. In Language universals and linguistic typology 138–164. 2nd edn. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
2006 Syntactic typology: Just how exotic ARE European-type relative clauses. In Ricardo Mairal & Juana Gil (eds.), Linguistic universals, 130–154. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Deutscher, Guy
2002 The Akkadian relative clauses in cross-linguistic perspective. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und vorderasiatische Archäologie 92(1): 86–105. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, Holger
2003 The relationship between demonstratives and interrogatives. Studies in Language 27(3): 635–655. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eska, Joseph F.
2009 The emergence of the Celtic languages. In The Celtic languages, 36–41. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fiorentino, Giuliana
2007 European relative clauses and the uniqueness of the relative pronoun type. Italian Journal of Linguistics 19(2): 263–291.Google Scholar
Fortson IV, Benjamin W.
2010 Indo-European language and culture: An introduction. 2nd edn. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Gamkrelidze, Thomas V. & Vyacheslav V. Ivanov
1990 The early history of Indo-European languages. Scientific American 262(3): 110–117. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010 Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans: A reconstruction and historical analysis of a proto-language and proto-culture part i: The text. part ii: Bibliography, indexes. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hackstein, Olav
2012 The evolution of finite complementation in Tocharian. In Georges-Jean Pinault, Michael Peyrot, Jens Elmegård Rasmussen & Thomas Olander (eds.), Tocharian and Indo-European studies, vol. 13, 117–148. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press.Google Scholar
Hammarström, Harald, Robert Forkel & Martin Haspelmath
2019 Glottolog 4.1. Available online at http://​glottolog​.org
Haspelmath, Martin
2001a The European linguistic area: Standard Average European. In Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher & Wolfgang Raible (eds.), Language typology and language universals: An international handbook, 1492–1510. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2001b Indefinite pronouns. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva
2006 From question to subordination. In The changing languages of Europe, 204–243. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hendery, Rachel
2012 Relative clauses in time and space: A case study in the methods of diachronic typology. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hoffner, Harold & H. Craig Melchert
2008 A grammar of the Hittite language. Winona Lake, ID: Eisenbrauns.Google Scholar
Igla, Birgit
1996 Das Romani von Ajia Varvara: Deskriptive und historisch-vergleichende Darstellung eines Zigeunerdialekts. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, Jay H.
1999 Some relative forms of the verb in Old Irish. In Compositiones Indogermanicae in memoriam Jochem Schindler, 205–222. Prague: Enigma.Google Scholar
Kahle, David & Hadley Wickham
2013 ggmap: Spatial visualization with ggplot2. The R Journal 5(1): 144–161. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Ronald
1999 Observations on the absolute and relative chronology of Tocharian loanwords and sound changes. Tocharian and Indo-European Studies 8: 111–138.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian
1984 Der Relativsatz. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Leiwo, Martti
2002 From contact to mixture: Bilingual inscriptions from Italy. In J. N. Adams, Mark Janse & Swain Simon (eds.), Bilingualism in ancient society, 168–194. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Luján, Eugenio R.
2009 Relative clauses in Proto-Indo-European. In Vit Bubenik, John Hewson & Sarah Rose (eds.), Grammatical change in Indo-European languages, 221–234. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Manzini, M. Rita & Leonardo M. Savoia
2014 From Latin to Romance: Case loss and preservation in pronominal systems. Probus 26(2): 217–248. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Matras, Yaron
2004 Romani – a linguistic introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Melchert, H. Craig
2012 Genitive case and possessive adjective in Anatolian. In Vincenzo Orioles (ed.), Per Roberto Gusmani. Studi in ricordo. Linguistica storica e teoretica, vol. 2, 273–286. Udine: Forum.Google Scholar
Meyer, Robin
2017 Iranian-Armenian language contact in and before the 5th century CE. Oxford Wolfson College, University of Oxford dissertation.Google Scholar
Morgenstierne, Georg, Josef Elfenbein, D. N. MacKenzie & Nicholas Sims-Williams
2003 A new etymological vocabulary of Pashto. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar
Nadkarni, Mangesh V.
1975 Bilingualism and syntactic change in Konkani. Language 51(3): 672–683. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Neukom, Lukas & Manideepa Patnaik
2003 A grammar of Oriya (ASAS 17). Universität Zürich.Google Scholar
Orel, Vladimir Ė.
2000 A concise historical grammar of the Albanian language: Reconstruction of Proto-Albanian. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Paudyal, Netra
2009 The syntax of three-argument verbs in Nepali. Qualifying paper.Google Scholar
Penney, John
2011 Archaic and old Latin. In James Clackson (ed.), A companion to the Latin language, 220–235. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Perder, Emil
2013 A grammatical description of Dameli. Stockholm University dissertation.Google Scholar
Ringe, Don
2017 Indo-European dialectology. In Jared Klein, Brian D. Joseph & Matthias Fritz (eds.), Handbook of comparative and historical Indo-European linguistics, vol. 1, 62–75. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Widmer, Manuel, Sandra Auderset, Johanna Nichols, Paul Widmer & Balthasar Bickel
2017 NP recursion over time: Evidence from Indo-European. Language 93(4): 799–826. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yakubovich, Ilya
2008 The origin of Luwian possessive adjectives. In Karlene Jones-Bley, Martin E. Huld, Angela Della Volpe & Miriam Robbins (eds.), Proceedings of the 19th Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference, November 3–4, 2007, vol. 54 JIES Monograph, 193–217.Google Scholar