Cover not available
Article published In:
Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area
Vol. 42:2 (2019) ► pp.260–279

Relativization in Guiqiong

| Chongqing Technology and Business University
| Chongqing Technology and Business University
| EHESS | CRLAO
Guiqiong, like most Sino-Tibetan languages, presents a rich array of relativization constructions. Based on both natural oral texts and elicited material, the present paper describes all attested types of relatives in Guiqiong, including prenominal, head-internal, headless, and double-headed relative clauses, as well as nominalized and non-nominalized relative clauses. It provides a case by case account of the possible constructions for all syntactic roles including various types of obliques. This paper will also discuss different relativization strategies used in Guiqiong. To conclude, this paper will discuss the importance and the relevance of this study to Sino-Tibetan linguistics.
Keywords: Guiqiong, relativization, head internal relative, double headed relative, nominalization, strategy of relativization, syntactic pivot
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background information for the Guiqiong language
  • 3.Types of relative clauses in Guiqiong
    • 3.1Prenominal relative clauses
    • 3.2Internally-headed relative clauses
    • 3.3Headless relative clauses
    • 3.4Double headed relative clauses
  • 4.Nominalized relative clauses in Guiqiong
    • 4.1Nominalizers
    • 4.2S and A relativization
    • 4.3Patient relativization
    • 4.4Locative and instrumental relativization
  • 5.Non-nominalized relative clauses in Guiqiong
  • 6.Relativization strategies used in Guiqiong for
  • 7.Relevance for the typology of Sino-Tibetan languages
  • 8.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 8 January 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ltba.18002.min
References (33)
References
Bickel, Balthasar. 1999. Nominalization and focus constructions in some Kiranti languages. In Yogendra P. Yadava & Warren G. Glover (eds.), Topics in Nepalese Linguistics, 271–296. Kathmandu: Royal Nepal Academy.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1981. The formation of relative clauses. In B. Lloyd & J. Gay (eds.), Universals of human thought: some African evidence, 215–233. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. 1989. Language universals and linguistic typology: Syntax and morphology. Chicago: University of Chicago press.Google Scholar
. 2002. Typology and language acquisition: The case of relative clauses. In Anna Ramat (ed.), Typology and second language acquisition, 19–37. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard, & Edward L. Keenan. 1979. Noun phrase accessibility revisited. Language 55(3): 649–664. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Creissels, Denis. 2006. Syntaxe générale, une introduction typologique, tome 2, la phrase. Paris: Hermes Science Publications.Google Scholar
Delancey, Scott. 1999. Relativization in Tibetan. In Yogendra P. Yadava & Warren W. Glover (eds.), Topics in Nepalese linguistics, 231–249. Kathmandu: Royal Nepal Academy.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1979. Ergativity. Language 55(1): 59–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 2005. Order of relative clause and noun. In Martin Haspelmath, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil, & Bernard Comrie (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures, 366–367. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2007. Noun phrase structure. In Timothy Shopen (eds.), Language typology and syntactic description, Second Edition, Volume II1: Complex Constructions, 151–205. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Farrell, Patrick. 2005. Grammatical relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fox, Barbara A. 1987. The noun phrase accessibility hierarchy reinterpreted: Subject primacy or the absolutive hypothesis?. Language 63(4): 856–870. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Genetti, Carol, Ellen Bartee, Alec Coupe, Kristine Hildebrandt, & You jing Lin. 2008. Syntactic aspects of nominalization in five Tibeto-Burman languages of the Himalayan area. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 31(2): 97–144.Google Scholar
Huang, Chenglong. 2008. Relativization in Qiang. Language and Linguistics 9(4): 735–768.Google Scholar
Jiang, Li. 2015. A grammar of Guiqiong: a language of Sichuan. Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jacques, Guillaume. 2016. Subjects, objects and relativization in Japhug. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 44(1): 1–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keenan, Edward L., & Bernard Comrie. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and Universal Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8(1): 63–99.Google Scholar
LaPolla, Randy. 2008a. Relative Clause Structures in the Rawang Language. Language and Linguistics 9(4): 797–812.Google Scholar
. 2008b. Nominalization in Rawang. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 31.2: 45–66.Google Scholar
Maxwell, Daniel N. 1979. Strategies of relativization and NP accessibility. Language 55(2): 352–371. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Noonan, Michael. 1997. Versatile nominalizations. In Joan Bybee, John Haiman, & Sandra Thompson (eds.), Essays on language function and language type. Dedicated to T. Givon, 373–394. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Nominalizations in Bodic languages. Typological Studies in Language 761: 219. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Song, Lingli. 2011. 贵琼语研究 Guiqiongyu yanjiu . 北京：民族出版社 Beijing: Minzu chubanshe.Google Scholar
Sun, Hongkai. 1983. Liujiang liuyu de minzu yuyan ji qi xishu fenlei « 六江流域的民族语言及其系属分类 » [Languages in the six valleys and their language branches]. Yunnan Minzuxuebao, « 民族学报» 31: 99–274.Google Scholar
Sun, Jackson T.-S. 2003. Caodeng rGyalrong. In Graham Thurgood & Randy LaPolla (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan languages, 490–502. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sun, Jackson T.-S. (孫天心). 2006. Caodeng Jiarongyu de Guanxiju 草登嘉戎語的關係句 [Relatives in Caodeng rGyalrong]. Yuyan ji Yuyanxue 語言暨語言學 [Language and Linguistics] 7(4): 905–933.Google Scholar
Sun, Jackson T.-S. & Danluo Shi. 2002. Caodeng Jiarongyu yu rentong dengdi xiangguan de yufa xianxiang [Caodeng Rgyalrong and grammatical phenomena related to the Empathy Hierarchy]. Language and Linguistics 3(1): 79–99.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert & Randy LaPolla. 1997. Syntax: Structure, meaning, and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vries, Mark de. 2001. Patterns of relative clauses. In Ton van der Wouden & Hans Broekhuis (eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 2001, 231–243. Amsterdam & Philadephia: John Benjamin.Google Scholar
. 2002. The Syntax of relativization. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Wu, Tong. 2011. The syntax of prenominal relative clauses: A typological study. Linguistic Typology 15(3): 569–623. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zúñiga, Fernando. 2006. Deixis and alignment. Inverse systems in indigenous languages of the Americas (Typological Studies in Language 70). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar