Cover not available
Article published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 43:4 (2019) ► pp.997–1014
News from the Field

The relative pronoun strategy

New data from southern New Guinea

ORCID logo | University of New England
The Relative Pronoun strategy is commonly used for relativization in European languages such as English – for example: The woman [ who won the lottery ] is my neighbour. In this strategy the head nominal (here the woman) is indicated inside the relative clause by a clause-initial pronominal element (the relative pronoun, here who). The Relative Pronoun strategy has been characterized as an exclusively European areal feature (e.g. Comrie 1998). This article describes this strategy in more detail, as well as previous accounts of its distribution, and goes on to demonstrate that the same strategy is also found in Nama, a Papuan language of southern New Guinea.
Keywords: relativisation, relative pronoun, European languages, Nama
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • 1.Defining the relative pronoun strategy
  • 2.The relative pronoun strategy outside Europe
  • 3.Relative clauses in Nama
    • 3.1Background: The language, contact and basic structure
    • 3.2The relative pronoun strategy in Nama
    • 3.3The relative pronoun strategy in other southern New Guinea languages
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 23 January 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.18040.sie
References (27)
References
Biagui, Noël B. & Nicolas Quint. 2013. Casamancese Creole structure dataset. In Susanne M. Michaelis, Philippe Maurer, Martin Haspelmath & Magnus Huber (eds.), Atlas of pidgin and creole language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. (Available online at [URL], accessed on 13 June 2018).
Bright, William. 1957. The Karok language. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Cantarino, Vicente. 1975. Syntax of Modern Arabic prose: The compound sentence. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Carroll, Matthew J. 2016. The Ngkolmpu language (with special reference to distributed exponence). Canberra: Australian National University dissertation.Google Scholar
Cohen, Eran. 2016. The modern Hebrew prepositional relative clause strategy. Studies in Language 401. 733–764. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1998. Rethinking the typology of relative clauses. Language Design: Journal of Theoretical and Experimental Linguistics 11. 59–85.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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard & Tania Kuteva. 2013a. Relativization on subjects. In Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. (Available online at [URL], Accessed on 6 April 2018).
. 2013b. Relativization on objects. In Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. (Available online at [URL], accessed on 6 April 2018).Google Scholar
Crowley, Terry, John Lynch, Jeff Siegel & Julie Piau. 1995. The design of language: An introduction to descriptive linguistics. Auckland: Longman Paul.Google Scholar
Döhler, Christian. 2018. A grammar of Komnzo. (Studies in Diversity Linguistics 22). Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas, Wayan Arka, Matthew Carroll, Yun Jung Choi, Christian Döhler, Volker Gast, Eri Kashima, Emil Mittag, Bruno Olsson, Kyla Quinn, Dineke Schokkin, Philip Tama, Charlotte van Tongeren & Jeff Siegel. 2017. The languages of Southern New Guinea. In Bill Palmer (ed.), The Languages and Linguistics of New Guinea: A Comprehensive Guide, 641–774. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fiorentino, Giuliana. 2007. European relative clauses and the uniqueness of the Relative Pronoun Type. Rivista di Linguistica 191. 263–291.Google Scholar
Gutiérrez-Bravo, Rodrigo. 2012. Relative clauses in Yucatec Maya: Light heads vs. Null domain. In Bernard Comrie & Zarina Estrada-Fernández (eds.), Relative clauses in languages of the Americas: A typological overview, 253–268. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gutiérrez-Bravo, Rodrigo & Jorge Monforte. 2009. Focus, agent focus and relative clauses in Yucatec Maya. In Heriberto Avelino, Jessica Coon & Elisabeth Norcliffe (eds.), New perspectives in Mayan linguistics, 83–96. Cambridge MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2001a. The European linguistic area: Standard Average European. In Martin Haspelmath, Wulf Oesterreicher & Wolfgang Raible (eds.), Language Typology and Language Universals, Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft, 1492–1510. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001b. Non-canonical marking of core arguments in European languages. In Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald, R. M. W. Dixon & Masayuki Onishi (eds.), Non-canonical marking of subjects and objects (Typological Studies in Language 46), 53–83. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heath, Jeffrey. 1999. A grammar of Koyra Chiini. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kossmann, Maarten. 1997. Grammaire du parler berbe’re de Figuig (Maroc oriental). Louvain, Paris: Peeters.Google Scholar
Michaelis, Susanne M., Martin Haspelmath & the APiCS Consortium. 2013. Subject relative clauses. In Susanne M. Michaelis, Philippe Maurer, Martin Haspelmath & Magnus Huber (eds.), The atlas of pidgin and creole language structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (Available online at http://apics-online.info/parameters/92#2/13.9/10.2, accessed on 13 June 2018).Google Scholar
Mulder, Jean G. 1994. Ergativity in Coast Tsimshian (Sm’algyax). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Price, Mavis. 2000. Alphabet development workshop for sociolinguistic orthography [Nama]. ms. Ukarumpa: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Roland, Douglas, Frederic Dick & Jeffrey L. Elman. 2007. Frequency of basic English grammatical structures: A corpus analysis. Journal of Memory and Language 571. 347–379. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Siegel, Jeff. 2014. The morphology of tense and aspect in Nama, a Papuan language of southern New Guinea. Open Linguistics 11. 211–231.Google Scholar
. 2017. Transitive and intransitive verbs in Nama, a Papuan language of southern New Guinea. Oceanic Linguistics 561. 123–142. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simons, Gary F. & Charles D. Fennig (eds.). 2018. Ethnologue: Languages of the world (21st edition). Dallas, Texas: SIL International. Online version: [URL]
Williams, F. E. 1936. Papuans of the Trans-Fly. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar