Subject preference in Ixcatec relative clauses (Otomanguean, Mexico)
Subject preference in relative clauses (RCs) has been reported in typologically diverse languages, but overall one notes that the number of languages analyzed experimentally remains extremely low. This paper presents experimental and natural evidence from Ixcatec, a critically-endangered Otomanguean language. Ixcatec is relevant to the discussion on universal subject preference for having syntactically and morphologically ambiguous subject and object RCs that can offer an unconfounded result. Study 1, a picture-matching comprehension experiment, shows that 63% of the ambiguous RCs are interpreted as subject RCs. Results from reaction times show that subject RC interpretations are numerically faster than object RC interpretations, but this difference does not reach significance. Analysis of a three-hour, free-speech corpus in Study 2 indicates that transitive subject RCs are only slightly more frequent than object RCs. In conclusion, although the Ixcatec data support universal subject preference, they also show how this preference is weaker than predicted.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Theoretical background
- 2.1Relative clauses
- 2.2Relative subject preference
- 2.3Ambiguous relative clauses
- 3.Background on Ixcatec
- 3.1Sociolinguistic overview
- 3.2Overview of relevant features in Ixcatec
- 4.Relative clauses in Ixcatec
- 4.1The gap strategy and the Accessibility Hierarchy
- 4.2Ambiguous relative clauses in Ixcatec
- 4.2.1Materials
- 4.2.2Participants
- 4.2.3Procedure
- 4.2.4Coding
- 4.2.5Results
- 1.Ambiguous RCs
- 2.Word order change in the ORCs
- 3.Cross-reference morphemes in the ORCs
- 4.Cross-reference morphemes in SRCs as resumptive pronouns
- 4.2.6Discussion
- 5.Study 1: Comprehension experiment on subject and object relative clauses
- 5.1Goals and predictions
- 5.2Materials
- 5.3Participants
- 5.4Procedure
- 5.5Coding and analysis
- 5.6Results
- 5.7Discussion
- 6.Study 2: Ambiguity resolution and relative-subject preference in the free-speech corpus
- 6.1Goals and predictions
- 6.2Corpus
- 6.3Participants
- 6.4Corpus annotation
- 6.5Results
- 6.6Discussion
- 7.General discussion and conclusion
-
Acknowledgements
- Notes
- Abbreviations
-
References
References (71)
References
Adamou, Evangelia. 2014. L’antipassif en ixcatèque. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 109(1). 373–396.
Adamou, Evangelia. 2016. A corpus-driven approach to language contact. Endangered languages in a comparative perspective. Berlin & Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. 

Adamou, Evangelia & Denis Costaouec. 2013. El complementante la en ixcateco: marcador de clausula relativa, completiva y adverbial. Amerindia 37(1). 193–210.
Aissen, Judith. 1996. Pied-piping, abstract agreement, and functional projections in Tzotzil. Natural language and linguistic theory 14(3). 447‒491. 

Alexopoulou, Theodora. 2006. Resumption in relative clauses. Natural language and linguistic theory 24(1). 57‒111. 

Anand, Pranav, Sandra Chung & Matthew Wagers. 2011. Widening the net: Challenges for gathering linguistic data in the digital age. Submitted to the National Science Foundation SBE 2020 planning activity. [URL] (accessed 16 January 2017).
Andrews, Avery D. 2007. Relative clauses. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, 206–236. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

Asudeh, Ash. 2012. The logic of pronominal resumption. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 

Bates, Douglas, Martin Maechler, Ben Bolker & Steve Walker. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67(1). 1–48. 

Borer, Hagit. 1984. Restrictive relatives in modern Hebrew. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 2(2). 219–260. 

Borja, Manuel F., Sandra Chung & Matthew Wagers. 2016. Constituent order and parser control processes in Chamorro. In Amber Camp, Yuko Otsuka, Claire Stabile & Nozomi Tanaka (eds.), Proceedings of the 21st Annual Meeting of the Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association, 15–32. Canberra: Asia-Pacific Linguistics.
Caplan, David, Nathaniel Alpert & Gloria Waters. 1999. PET studies of syntactic processing with auditory sentence presentation. NeuroImage 9(3). 343–351. 

Caplan, David, Nathaniel Alpert, Gloria Waters & Anthony Olivieri. 2000. Activation of Broca’s area by syntactic processing under conditions of concurrent articulation. Human Brain Mapping 9(2). 65–71. 

Caplan, David, Sujith Vijayan, Gina Kuperberg, Caroline West, Gloria Waters, Doug Greve & Anders M. Dale. 2001. Vascular responses to syntactic processing: Event related fMRI study of relative clauses. Human Brain Mapping 15(1). 26–38. 

Carreiras, Manuel, Jon Andoni Duñabeitia, Marta Vergara, Irene de la Cruz-Pavía & Itziar Laka. 2010. Subject relative clauses are not universally easier to process: Evidence from Basque. Cognition 115(1). 79–92. 

Clemens, Lauren Eby, Jessica Coon, Pedro Mateo Pedro, Adam Milton Morgan, Maria Polinsky, Gabrielle Tandet & Matthew Wagers. 2015. Ergativity and the complexity of extraction: A view from Mayan. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 33(2). 417–469. 

Costaouec, Denis & Michael Swanton. 2015. Classification nominale en ixcatèque. La linguistique 51(2). 201–239. 

Desmet, Timothy & Edward Gibson. 2003. Disambiguation preferences and corpus frequencies in noun phrase conjunction. Journal of Memory and Language 49(3). 353–374. 

Dryer, Matthew. 2011. Order of subject and verb. In Matthew Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures online. Munich, Max Planck Digital Library. [URL] (accessed 6 July 2014).
Duffield, Cecily Jill & Laura A. Michaelis. 2011. Why subject relatives prevail: Constraints versus constructional licensing. Language and Cognition 3(2). 171–208. 

Fernández de Miranda, María Teresa. 1951. Reconstrucción del protopopoloca. Revista Mexicana de Estudios Antropológicos 121. 61–93.
Fernández de Miranda, María Teresa. 1953. Las formas posesivas del ixcateco. Memoria del Congreso Científico Mexicano 121. 159–170.
Fernández de Miranda, María Teresa. 1956. Glotocronología de la familia popoloca. México, DF: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia.
Fernández de Miranda, María Teresa. 1959. Fonémica del Ixcateco. México, DF: Instituto nacional de antropología e historia (INAH).
Fernández de Miranda, María Teresa. 1961. Diccionario ixcateco. México, DF: Instituto nacional de antropología e historia (INAH).
Frazier, Lyn. 1987. Syntactic processing: Evidence from Dutch. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5(4). 519–559. 

Friedmann, Naama & Rama Novogrodsky. 2004. The acquisition of relative clause comprehension in Hebrew: A study of SLI and normal development. Journal of Child Language 31(3). 661–681. 

Gibson, Edward. 1998. Linguistic complexity: locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition 68(1). 1–76. 

Gordon, Peter C. & Randall Hendrick. 2005. Relativization, ergativity, and corpus frequency. Linguistic Inquiry 36(3). 456–463. 

Grinevald, Colette. 2000. A morphosyntactic typology of classifiers. In Gunter Senft (ed.), Systems of nominal classification, 50‒92. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.
Gudschinsky, Sarah C. 1959. Proto-Popotecan. A comparative study of Popolocan and Mixtecan. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Publications.
Hamp, Eric P. 1958. Chocho-Popoloca innovations. International Journal of American Linguistics 26(1). 62. 

Hawkins, John A. 1999. Processing complexity and filler-gap dependencies across grammars. Language 75(2). 244‒285. 

Hironymous, Michael. 2007. Santa Maria Ixcatlan, Oaxaca: From colonial Cacicazgo to modern Municipio. Austin, TX: University of Texas PhD dissertation.
Hsiao, Franny & Edward Gibson. 2003. Processing relative clauses in Chinese. Cognition 90(1). 3–27. 

Just, Marcel A., Patricia A. Carpenter, Timothy A. Keller, William F. Eddy & Keith R. Thulborn. 1996. Brain activation modulated by sentence comprehension. Science 274(4). 114–116. 

Keenan, Edward L. & Bernard Comrie. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8(1). 63–99.
King, Jonathan & Marcel A. Just. 1991. Individual differences in syntactic processing: The role of working memory. Journal of Memory and Language 30(5). 580–602. 

King, Jonathan & Marta Kutas. 1995. Who did what and when? Using word- and clause-level ERPs to monitor working memory usage in reading. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 7(3). 376–395. 

Krauss, Michael. 2006. Classification and terminology for degrees of languages endangerment. In Matthias Brenzinger (ed.), Language diversity endangered, 1–8. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Kwon, Nayoung, Yoonhyoung Lee, Peter C. Gordon, Robert Kluender & Maria Polinsky. 2010. Cognitive and linguistic factors affecting subject/object asymmetry: An eye-tracking study of pre-nominal relative clauses in Korean. Language 86(3). 546–582. 

Kwon, Nayoung, Robert Kluender, Marta Kutas & Maria Polinsky. 2013. Subject/object processing asymmetries in Korean relative clauses: Evidence from ERP data. Language 89(3). 537–585. 

Lehmann, Christian. 1984. Der Relativsatz. Typologie seiner Strukturen, Theorie seiner Funktionen, Kompendium seiner Grammatik. Tübingen: G. Narr.
Lehmann, Christian. 1986. On the typology of relative clauses. Linguistics 24(4). 663–680. 

MacDonald, Maryellen C. 2013. How language production shapes language form and comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology 41. 

MacDonald, Maryellen C. & Morten Christiansen. 2002. Reassessing working memory: Comment on Just and Carpenter (1992) and Waters and Caplan (1999). Psychological Review 109(1). 35–54. 

MacWhinney, Brian & Csaba Pleh. 1988. The processing of restrictive relative clauses in Hungarian. Cognition 29(2). 95–141. 

Malchukov, Andrej, Martin Haspelmath & Bernard Comrie (eds). 2010. Ditransitive constructions: a typological overview. In Andrej Malchukov, Martin Haspelmath & Bernard Comrie (eds.), Studies in ditransitive constructions: A comparative handbook, 1–64. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter. 

McCloskey, James. 1990. Resumptive pronouns, Aʹ-binding and levels of representation in Irish. In Randall Hendrick (ed.), The syntax of the modern Celtic languages, 199‒248. New York: Academic Press. 

Mecklinger, Axel, Herbert Schriefers, Karsten Steinhauer & Angela Friederici. 1995. Processing relative clauses varying on syntactic and semantic dimensions: An analysis with event-related potentials. Memory and Cognition 23(4). 477–494. 

Miyamoto, Edson T. & Michiko Nakamura. 2003. Subject/object asymmetries in the processing of relative clauses in Japanese. In Gina Garding & Mimu Tsujimura (eds.), Proceedings of the 22nd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 342–355. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Nichols, Johanna. 1986. Head-marking and dependent-marking grammar. Language 62(1). 56–119. 

Polinsky, Maria. 2008. Relative clauses in heritage Russian: Fossilization or divergent grammar? In Andrei Antonenko, John F. Bailyn & Christina Y. Bethin (eds.), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics (FASL) 16: The Stony Brook Meeting 2007, 333–357. University of Michigan: Michigan Slavic Publications.
Polinsky, Maria, Carlos Gomez-Gallo, Peter Graff & Ekaterina Kravtchenko. 2012. Subject preference and ergativity. Lingua 122(3). 267–277. 

R Core Team. 2013. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. [URL].
Reali, Florencia & Morten H. Christiansen. 2007. Processing of relative clauses is made easier by frequency of occurrence. Journal of Memory and Language 57(1). 1–23. 

Schwartz, Florian. 2007. Processing presupposed content. Journal of Semantics 24(4). 373–416. 

Shlonsky, Ur. 1992. Resumptive pronouns as a last resort. Linguistic Inquiry 23(3). 443‒448.
Skopeteas, Stavros, Ines Fiedler, Samantha Hellmuth, Anne Schwarz, Ruben Stoel & Gisbert Fanselow. 2006. Questionnaire on Information Structure. Potsdam: Audiovisuelles Zentrum der Universität Potsdam und sd:k Satz Druck GmbH Potsdam.
Suñer, Margarita. 1998. Resumptive restrictive relatives: A cross-linguistic perspective. Language 74(2). 335–364. 

Swadesh, Morris. 1960. The Oto-Manguean hypothesis and macro Mixtecan. International Journal of American Linguistics 26(2). 79–111. 

Traxler, Matthew J., Robin K. Morris & Rachel E. Seely. 2002. Processing subject and object relative clauses: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language 47(1). 69–90. 

Ueno, Mieko & Susan M. Garnsey. 2008. An ERP study of the processing of subject and object relative clauses in Japanese. Language and Cognitive Processes 23(5). 646–688. 

Vasishth, Shravan, Zhong Chen, Qiang Li & Gueilan Guo. 2013. Processing Chinese relative clauses: Evidence for the subject-relative advantage. PLoS ONE 8(10). e77006.
.
Veerman-Leichsenring, Annette. 2000. Popolocan independent personal pronouns: Comparison and reconstruction. International Journal of American Linguistics 66(3). 318–359. 

Veerman-Leichsenring, Annette. 2001a. Ixcateco: La frase nominal. Anales de Antropología 351. 323–358.
Veerman-Leichsenring, Annette. 2001c. Coreference in the Popolocan languages. In Laurel J. Brinton (ed.), Historical linguistics 1999: Selected papers from the 14th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Vancouver, 9–13 August 1999, 337–350. 

Warren, Tessa & Edward Gibson. 2002. The influence of referential processing on sentence complexity. Cognition 85(1). 79–112. 

Wells, Justine, Morten Christiansen, David Race, Daniel Acheson & Maryellen C. MacDonald. 2009. Experience and sentence comprehension: Statistical learning and relative clause comprehension. Cognitive Psychology 58(2). 250–271. 

Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
Calderón, Eréndira, Stefano De Pascale & Evangelia Adamou
2019.
How to speak “geocentric” in an “egocentric” language: A multimodal study among Ngigua-Spanish bilinguals and Spanish monolinguals in a rural community of Mexico.
Language Sciences 74
► pp. 24 ff.

Adamou, Evangelia, Matthew Gordon & Stefan Th. Gries
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 december 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.