The development of locative relative markers
From typology to sociolinguistics (and back)
Silvia Ballarè | University of Bologna
Guglielmo Inglese | KU Leuven
The accessibility hierarchy was first proposed by Keenan & Comrie (1977) to describe the cross-linguistic distribution of relative markers in terms of likelihood of relativization of different syntactic roles. The hierarchy is also commonly believed to reflect constraints on possible changes in the domain of relativization. For example, the hierarchy predicts that locative relatives that develop into general relativizers should expand their functional range in a step-by-step fashion from lower to higher roles. In this paper, we revise existing claims about the diachrony of locative relatives. In doing so, we survey known cases of locative relatives that develop into general relativizers and we also discuss data from linguistic variation in non-standard varieties in European languages, with a focus on social variation in Italian. As we argue, data from Italian suggests that another possible cline of development of locative relatives should be acknowledged, that is, locative > concern > subject.
Keywords: diachronic typology, relative clause, locative relative, language variation, sociolinguistic variation, accessibility hierarchy
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.The typology of relative clauses
- 2.1Definition and parameters of variation
- 2.2The accessibility hierarchy
- 3.Locative relatives cross-linguistically
- 3.1The encoding of locative relatives and the AH
- 3.2The origin of locative relatives
- 3.3The functional extension of locative relatives
- 4.From interlinguistic to intralinguistic variation
- 4.1Standard and non-standard uses of locative relatives in the languages of Europe
- 4.2
Dove in social varieties of Italian
- 4.2.1Data and methods
- 4.2.2Results
- 5.From locative to subject (via concern): A possible pathway of change
- 5.1.1Stage I: locative > concern
- 5.1.2Stage II: concern > subject
- 5.1.3Revising the locative > relative development
- 6.Conclusions
- Acknowledgements
- Notes
- Abbreviations
-
References
Published online: 21 May 2021
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.20013.bal
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.20013.bal
References
Ahland, Coleen Anne
Auer, Peter & Pfänder, Stefan
Alfonzetti, Giovanna
Andrews, Avery
Ballarè, Silvia & M. Silvia Micheli
Ballarè, Silvia, Massimo Cerruti & Eugenio Goria
2019 Variazione diastratica nel parlato di giovani: il caso delle costruzioni relative. In Bruno Moretti, Aline Kunz, Silvia Natale & Etna Krakenberger (eds.), Le tendenze dell’italiano contemporaneo rivisitate. Atti del 52esimo congresso internazionale di studi della Società di Linguistica Italiana (SLI), Bern, 6–8 September 2018, 75–94. Milano: Officinaventuno.
Bernini, Giuliano
Berruto, Gaetano
Brook, Marisa
Cerruti, Massimo
Cerruti, Massimo & Silvia Ballarè
Cinque, Guglielmo
Comrie, Bernard & Tania Kuteva
2013 Relativization Strategies. In Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, Chapter s8. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Available at Available online at http://wals.info/chapter/s8 (last access 10 April 2021).
Crahe, Maxime-Morvan
Cristofaro, Sonia & Anna Giacalone Ramat
Cristofaro, Sonia & Fernando Zúñiga
D’Achille, Paolo
de Vries, Mark
DeLancey, Scott
De Roberto, Elisa
Diessel, Holger, & Michael Tomasello
Fleischer, Jürg
Fox, Barbara A.
Givón, Talmy
Haspelmath, Martin
2019b Can cross-linguistic regularities be explained by change constraints? In Karsten Schmidtke-Bode, Natalia Levshina, Susanne Maria Michaelis & Ilja A. Seržant (eds.), Explanation in typology: Diachronic sources, functional motivations and the nature of the evidence, 1–23. Berlin: Language Science Press.
Hawkins, John A.
Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva
Hendery, Rachel
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P.
Holmstedt, Robert D.
Holton, Gary
2006 The relational noun marker in Tobelo (Northeast Halmaheran). In Tenth International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics. https://sil-philippineslanguages.org/ical/papers.html
Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth C. Traugott
Huddleston, Rodney, Geoffrey K. Pullum & Peter Peterson
Joseph, Brian D.
Keenan, Edward
Keenan, Edward & Bernard Comrie
Keenan, Edward & Sarah Hawkins
Kullavanijaya, Pranee
Kuteva, Tania, Bernd Heine, Bo Hong, Haiping Long, Heiko Narrog, Seongha Rhee
Lambrecht, Knud
Larrivée, Pierre & Marie Skrovech
Lidz, Liberty A.
Luraghi, Silvia
Matthiessen, Chrisitan & Sandra A. Thompson
Maxwell, Dan
Michaelis, Suzanne, Martin Haspelmath & the APiCS consortium
2013 Subject relative clauses. In Susanne Michaelis, Philippe Maurer, Martin Haspelmath & Magnus Huber (eds.), The atlas of pidgin and creole language structures, Chapter 92. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Available at https://apics-online.info/parameters/92.chapter.html (last access 10 April 2021).
Mithun, Marianne
Murelli, Adriano
Nicholas, Nick
Poletto, Cecilia & Emanuela Sanfelici
Radford, Andrew
Romaine, Suzanne
Serianni, Luca
Shibatani, Masayoshi
Shirai, Yasuhiro & Hiromi Ozeki
Song, Jae Jung
Stolz, Thomas, Sander Lestrade & Stolz Christel
Wang, Peter, Robert Hunt, Jeff McGriff & Richard E. Elkins
2006 The Grammar of Matigsalug Manobo. The Summer Institute of Linguistics and the University of Texas at Arlington. Available at https://www.sil.org/resources/archives/53940 (last access 10 April 2021).
Watke, Bruce K. & Michael P. O’Connor
Yap, Foong Ha, Karen Grunow-Hårsta & Janick Wrona
Corpora
American National Corpus
Enquêtes Sociolinguistiques à Orléans (ESLO Corpus)
ParlaTO Corpus
Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American Eglish (SBC)