Cover not available
Article published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 41:4 (2017) ► pp.872–913

Subject preference in Ixcatec relative clauses (Otomanguean, Mexico)

ORCID logo | French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS), Oral Tradition Languages and Civilizations laboratory (LACITO)

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.

Keywords: relative clauses, subject preference, Otomanguean
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
Published online: 30 March 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.16055.ada
References

References

Adamou, Evangelia
2014 L’antipassif en ixcatèque. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 109(1). 373–396.Google Scholar
2016 A corpus-driven approach to language contact. Endangered languages in a comparative perspective. Berlin & Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017 Spatial language and cognition among the Ixcatec-Spanish bilinguals (Mexico). In Kate Bellamy, Mike Child, Antje Muntendam & M. Carmen Parafita Couto (eds.), Multidisciplinary approaches to bilingualism in the Hispanic and Lusophone world, 175–209. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Adamou, Evangelia & Denis Costaouec
2013 El complementante la en ixcateco: marcador de clausula relativa, completiva y adverbial. Amerindia 37(1). 193–210.Google Scholar
Aissen, Judith
1996 Pied-piping, abstract agreement, and functional projections in Tzotzil. Natural language and linguistic theory 14(3). 447‒491. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alexopoulou, Theodora
2006 Resumption in relative clauses. Natural language and linguistic theory 24(1). 57‒111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Asudeh, Ash
2012 The logic of pronominal resumption. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bates, Douglas, Martin Maechler, Ben Bolker & Steve Walker
2015 Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67(1). 1–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borer, Hagit
1984 Restrictive relatives in modern Hebrew. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 2(2). 219–260. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Caplan, David, Nathaniel Alpert & Gloria Waters
1999 PET studies of syntactic processing with auditory sentence presentation. NeuroImage 9(3). 343–351. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Costaouec, Denis & Michael Swanton
2015 Classification nominale en ixcatèque. La linguistique 51(2). 201–239. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Desmet, Timothy & Edward Gibson
2003 Disambiguation preferences and corpus frequencies in noun phrase conjunction. Journal of Memory and Language 49(3). 353–374. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fernández de Miranda, María Teresa
1951 Reconstrucción del protopopoloca. Revista Mexicana de Estudios Antropológicos 121. 61–93.Google Scholar
1953 Las formas posesivas del ixcateco. Memoria del Congreso Científico Mexicano 121. 159–170.Google Scholar
1956 Glotocronología de la familia popoloca. México, DF: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia.Google Scholar
1959 Fonémica del Ixcateco. México, DF: Instituto nacional de antropología e historia (INAH).Google Scholar
1961 Diccionario ixcateco. México, DF: Instituto nacional de antropología e historia (INAH).Google Scholar
Frazier, Lyn
1987 Syntactic processing: Evidence from Dutch. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5(4). 519–559. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibson, Edward
1998 Linguistic complexity: locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition 68(1). 1–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gordon, Peter C. & Randall Hendrick
2005 Relativization, ergativity, and corpus frequency. Linguistic Inquiry 36(3). 456–463. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grinevald, Colette
2000 A morphosyntactic typology of classifiers. In Gunter Senft (ed.), Systems of nominal classification, 50‒92. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gudschinsky, Sarah C.
1959 Proto-Popotecan. A comparative study of Popolocan and Mixtecan. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Publications.Google Scholar
Hamp, Eric P.
1958 Chocho-Popoloca innovations. International Journal of American Linguistics 26(1). 62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, John A.
1999 Processing complexity and filler-gap dependencies across grammars. Language 75(2). 244‒285. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hironymous, Michael
2007 Santa Maria Ixcatlan, Oaxaca: From colonial Cacicazgo to modern Municipio. Austin, TX: University of Texas PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Hsiao, Franny & Edward Gibson
2003 Processing relative clauses in Chinese. Cognition 90(1). 3–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. & Bernard Comrie
1977 Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8(1). 63–99.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krauss, Michael
2006 Classification and terminology for degrees of languages endangerment. In Matthias Brenzinger (ed.), Language diversity endangered, 1–8. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Christian
1984 Der Relativsatz. Typologie seiner Strukturen, Theorie seiner Funktionen, Kompendium seiner Grammatik. Tübingen: G. Narr.Google Scholar
1986 On the typology of relative clauses. Linguistics 24(4). 663–680. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacDonald, Maryellen C.
2013 How language production shapes language form and comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology 41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, Brian & Csaba Pleh
1988 The processing of restrictive relative clauses in Hungarian. Cognition 29(2). 95–141. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna
1986 Head-marking and dependent-marking grammar. Language 62(1). 56–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Polinsky, Maria, Carlos Gomez-Gallo, Peter Graff & Ekaterina Kravtchenko
2012 Subject preference and ergativity. Lingua 122(3). 267–277. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, Florian
2007 Processing presupposed content. Journal of Semantics 24(4). 373–416. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shlonsky, Ur
1992 Resumptive pronouns as a last resort. Linguistic Inquiry 23(3). 443‒448.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Suñer, Margarita
1998 Resumptive restrictive relatives: A cross-linguistic perspective. Language 74(2). 335–364. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swadesh, Morris
1960 The Oto-Manguean hypothesis and macro Mixtecan. International Journal of American Linguistics 26(2). 79–111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vasishth, Shravan, Zhong Chen, Qiang Li & Gueilan Guo
2013 Processing Chinese relative clauses: Evidence for the subject-relative advantage. PLoS ONE 8(10). e77006. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Veerman-Leichsenring, Annette
2000 Popolocan independent personal pronouns: Comparison and reconstruction. International Journal of American Linguistics 66(3). 318–359. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001a Ixcateco: La frase nominal. Anales de Antropología 351. 323–358.Google Scholar
2001b Changes in Popolocan word order and clause structure. In Jan T. Faarlund (ed.), Grammatical relations in change, 303–322. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Warren, Tessa & Edward Gibson
2002 The influence of referential processing on sentence complexity. Cognition 85(1). 79–112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Adamou, Evangelia, Matthew Gordon & Stefan Th. Gries
2018. Chapter 3. Prosodic and morphological focus marking in Ixcatec (Otomanguean). In Information Structure in Lesser-described Languages [Studies in Language Companion Series, 199], ► pp. 51 ff. DOI logo
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. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 14 april 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.