(1613415X - Linguistic Typology) The Syntax of Prenominal Relative Clauses - A Typological Study

The syntax of prenominal relative clauses:
A typological study
TONG WU
Abstract
A typological overview is given of the syntax of prenominal relative clauses,

based on a large number of languages of different families and areas and pre-
sented in a theory-neutral way. On the one hand, previous typological assump-
tions are tested against new data. On the other hand, the question is addressed
to what extent prenominal relative clauses are ordinary or unusual, compared
to other types of relative clauses, especially to postnominal ones.
Keywords: Accessibility Hierarchy, clause combining, finiteness, relative
clause, subordination, syntax
1. Introduction
Unlike relative clauses as such, prenominal relative clauses have received
little typological attention: they have essentially only been studied in a few
well-known and often-quoted languages such as Basque, Japanese, Mandarin,
and Turkish. I will seek to remedy this gap here. The focus of the present
more comprehensive study is on the syntax of prenominal relatives, and their
semantics will only be dealt with tangentially.
The present study is data-oriented: my aims are (i) to verify or question
previous assumptions with data from more languages and (ii) to show how
prenominal relative clauses compare to other types of relative clauses, espe-
cially to postnominal ones. No particular theory will be explicitly adopted or
intentionally avoided in this survey. I attempt to give useful partial solutions if
complete ones are out of reach. The methodology adopted includes: collecting
examples from print sources and native speakers, examining previous general-
izations and analyses from the literature on prenominal relatives, constructing
generalizations and rules, and if possible explaining the generalizations and
rules, thus incorporating the findings into a broader linguistic inquiry.
Linguistic Typology 15 (2011), 569–623 1430–0532/2011/015-0569

DOI 10.1515/LITY.2011.036 ©Walter de Gruyter
570 Tong Wu
This article is organized as follows. In Section 2, after defining relative

clauses, I will limit the scope of my study by picking out what I call pri-
mary prenominal relative clauses. In Section 3 the syntax of prenominal rel-
atives is discussed in detail, including relativizers, gapping, resumptive pro-
nouns, non-finiteness, the Accessibility Hierarchy, and exceptions to the impli-
cation prenominal relative clause → verb-final. Particular attention will
be paid to phenomena overlooked in previous work, such as the existence of
variable relativizers and two kinds of unusual gaps in prenominal relatives. I
also aim to identify inaccurate claims and improve on superficial generaliza-
tions, such as the allegedly rare use of resumptive pronouns and the frequent
non-finiteness of prenominal relatives. I will conclude with a discussion of
prenominal relatives with regard to other types of relative clauses.
2. Relative clauses and prenominal relative clauses

I define relative clauses as subordinate clauses with a semantic pivot which
they share with the matrix. Similar definitions can be found in de Vries (2002:
14) and Grosu (2002: 145).1 By subordinate I mean “being a constituent
of”2, and by semantic pivot I refer to what Keenan & Comrie (1977: 63–
64) called “domain” or what Creissels (2006: 205–206) called “conjunction of
properties” or “intersection of two sets”. Prototypically, the formal realization
of the semantic pivot is a noun phrase (or a determiner phrase in some theories),
often called head noun. This realization can also be an adjective phrase as in
(1a), a verb phrase as in (1b), or even a whole sentence as in (1c) (Fabb 1990:
60):
(1) a. Bill is drunk all the time, which is probably what you’d like to be.
b. John luckily escaped, which I unluckily didn’t.
c. The cheese was bought by John, which was fortunate.
For non-nominal realization of the semantic pivot I will use the looser la-
bel of “constituent relativized on” instead of “head noun”. Examples (1a–c)
contain non-restrictive relatives, as opposed to restrictive ones. General discus-
sions of the semantics of relative clauses can be found in C. Lehmann 1986,
2003; Comrie 1989: 138–142; Fabb 1999; Dik 1997: 38–44; Givón 2001:
Chapter 14.2.4; Grosu 2002; de Vries 2005: 181–196; and Creissels 2006:
Chapter 32.2. More specific discussions of the semantics of prenominal rel-
atives are in Nedjalkov 1997: 35 for Evenki, Ishizuka 2006 and Kameshima
1989 for Japanese, Lacroix 2009: 758 for Laz, Asher & Kumari 1997: 55
1. See Creissels (2005: 1–3) for a very inspiring discussion on the definition of relative clauses.
2. For the general problem of defining subordination, see Cristofaro 2003 and Creissels 2005: 2,
2006: Chapter 32.5.
The syntax of prenominal relative clauses 571
for Malayalam, Aikhenvald 2008: 469 for Manambu, J.-W. Lin 2003 and del
Gobbo 2005 for Mandarin, Pandharipande 1997: 80–84 for Marathi, Sridhar
1990: 51–52 for Kannada, and Kornfilt 1997: Chapter 1.1.2.3.2 and Göksel &
Kerslake 2005: Chapter 25.2 for Turkish.
prenominal relative clauses are relative clauses preceding the head
noun or the constituent relativized on. Postnominal relatives follow the con-
stituent relativized on. Another possibility is that the constituent relativized on
is inside the relative clause, i.e., is head-internal.3 Lhasa Tibetan has all three
types: internally-headed (2a), prenominal (2b), and postnominal (2c), where
the semantic pivot is thep (Mazaudon 1978: 402).
(2) a. [pēemÉ thep khı̄i-pa]RC the
Peema.erg book.abs carry-ptcpl.abs art.abs
ṅeē yin
pro.1sg.gen be
‘The book that Peema carries is mine.’
b. [pēemÉ khı̄i-pE]RC thep the ṅeē
Peema.erg carry-ptcpl book.abs art.abs pro.1sg.gen
yin
be
c. thep [pēemÉ khı̄i-pa]RC the
book.abs Peema.erg carry-ptcpl.abs art.abs
ṅeē yin
pro.1sg.gen be
In the database of Dryer 2005, out of 704 languages 507 have postnominal
relatives and 117 have prenominal relatives. Map 1 plots their geographical
distribution.
The present study only concerns primary prenominal relative clauses, de-
fined in terms of “markedness”: the primary prenominal relative is the un-
marked type of relatives in the language in question. As mentioned above,
Lhasa Tibetan has internally-headed, prenominal, and postnominal relative
clauses, but only prenominal relatives can relativize on all the positions, are
used in all registers, and are more frequent than the other types of relatives
3. Note that there are further types of relative clauses, i.e., correlative relative clauses and ad-
joined relative clauses. For the syntactic typology of relative clauses see Downing 1978;
Mallinson & Blake 1981: Chapter 5.2; Keenan 1985; C. Lehmann 1986, 2003; Comrie 1989:
138–164; Dik 1997: 45–70; Whaley 1997: 261–262; Fabb 1999; Alexiadou et al. 2000: 19–
21; Song 2001: Chapter 4; Kroeger 2004: Chapter 7.2, 2005: Chapter 12.5; de Vries 2001,
2002, 2005; Creissels 2006: Chapters 32–34; and Andrews 2007.
572 Tong Wu
Map 1. Types of relative clauses and their geographical distribution (generated by the
software of Haspelmath et al. (eds.) 2005)
(Mazaudon 1978): thus, Lhasa Tibetan is a primary-prenominal-relative-clause

language. Markedness thus corresponds to the “distributional potential” of
Croft (2003: 98):
(3) Distributional potential:
If the marked value occurs in a certain number of distinct grammatical
environments (construction types), then the unmarked value will also
occur in at least those environments that the marked value occurs in.
Factors other than distributional potential may also be taken into consider-
ation, including acquisition and processing. As a result, a language can have
two or more types of relative clauses as primary.4 In what follows, “prenom-
inal relative clause” and “prenominal-relative-clause language”, unless speci-
fied otherwise, are used for “primary prenominal relative clause” and “primary-
prenominal-relative-clause language”. Consequently, German and English par-
ticipial prenominal relatives such as (4) and (5) are not considered here, be-
cause they can only relativize on subjects and direct objects and are not pri-
mary prenominal relative clauses (Keenan & Comrie 1977: 64, Krause 2001:
27):
(4) der in seinem Büro arbeitende Mann
art in his.dat study work.ptcpl man
‘the man who is working in his study’
4. Turkish (Kornfilt 1997: Chapter 1.1.2.3, Göksel & Kerslake 2005: Chapter 25), Basque (Oy-
harçabal 2003, Rebuschi 2011), and Even (Malchukov 1995: Chapter 8) are such languages.
(5) Mary loves the passionately singing man over there.

The primary type of relative clauses in German and in English is the postnom-
inal relative. Similarly, Hungarian (Kenesei et al. 1998: Chapter 1.1.2.3) and
Finnish (Sulkala & Karjalainen 1992: 39–48) have prenominal relatives only
as a non-primary type.
3. Prenominal relative clauses

3.1. Geographical distribution and genetic affiliation
Among the 117 prenominal-relative-clause languages of Dryer 2005, many are
in Asia in the Sino-Tibetan and the Altaic families (see Map 2 and Tables 1 and
2). The prenominal relative clause is described as existing in at least another
58 languages (see Table 3). The present study is based on these 175 languages.
Particular attention will be paid to more “exotic” languages if data are accessi-
ble.
3.2. Previous typological claims about prenominal relative clauses

To get started, we list claims about the syntax of prenominal relatives that have
been made in previous work, followed by my own results based on the 175
prenominal-relative-clause languages examined:
Map 2. Geographical distribution of the prenominal-relative-clause languages in Dryer

2005 (generated by the software of Haspelmath et al. (eds.) 2005)
574 Tong Wu
(6) a. No relative pronoun of the European type: ✓ (Section 3.3)

b. No linker: ✗ (Section 3.3)
c. In some prenominal relative clauses, complementizer = genitive
marker: ✓, but to a larger extent (Section 3.3)
d. Complementizer often between the prenominal relative clause and
the head noun: ✓, but with more exceptions (Section 3.3)
e. Never the same clause-final complementizer in prenominal rela-
tives as in the sentential objects of verbs of thinking and saying:
✓, in spite of two quasi-exceptions (Section 3.3)
f. Frequent use of gapping: ✓ (Section 3.4)
g. Existence of unusual gaps: ✓ (Section 3.4)
h. Rare use of resumptive pronouns: ✗ (Section 3.5)
i. Often non-finite or nominalized: ✓, though not an intrinsic prop-
erty (Section 3.6)
j. Fewer positions accessible than in other types of relatives (in a
single language): ✗ (Section 3.7)
k. Prenominal relative clause → OV: ✓, but with more exceptions
(Section 3.8)
Table 1. Geographical distribution of the prenominal-relative-clause languages in

Dryer 2005
Continents Languages (117)

Asia (84) Abkhaz, Achang, Ainu, Akha, Amis, Apatani, Athpare, Bai,
Balti, Bashkir, Burmese, Burushaski, Byansi, Camling, Can-
tonese, Chantyal, Chechen, Chepang, Chin (Siyin), Chuvash,
Dagur, Dhivehi, Digaro, Dimasa, Evenki, Gallong, Gurung,
Hakka, Hani, Hayu, Ho, Hunzib, Ingush, Japanese, Jingpho,
Kabardian, Kalmyk, Karachay Balkar, Karakalpak, Khaling,
Khalkha, Kham, Khowar, Kolami, Korean, Korku, Koya, Kuvi,
Lahu, Lamani, Lezgian, Limbu, Mandarin, Mangghuer, Mansi,
Marathi, Maru, Meithei, Mising, Mundari, Naga (Mao), Nar
Phu, Newar (Dolakha), Newar (Kathmandu), Nocte, Pumi, Purki,
Qiang, Rawang, Sikkimese, Tamang, Tamil, Tatar, Telugu, Thu-
lung, Tibetan (Modern Literary), Tsova Tush, Turkish, Turkmen,
Ubykh, Uyghur, Uzbek, Yakut, Yukaghir (Kolyma)
Europe (1) Basque
Africa (9) Amharic, Chaha, Gamo, Ijo (Kolokuma), Kemant, Khoekhoe,
Afar, Tigre, Zayse
Oceania (14) Alamblak, Ambulas, Asmat, Awa, Awtuw, Hanga Hundi, Hua,
Kobon, Kwoma, Rumu, Sare, Una, Yagaria, Yale (Kosarek)
North America (3) Cherokee, Maidu (Northeast), Tlingit
South America (6) Huitoto (Murui), Hupda, Quechua (Huallaga), Quechua (Im-
babura), Tsafiki, Tucano
Table 2. Genetic affiliation of the prenominal-relative-clause languages in Dryer 2005
Families (29) Languages (117)

Sino-Tibetan (42) Achang, Akha, Apatani, Athpare, Bai, Balti, Burmese,
Byansi, Camling, Cantonese, Chantyal, Chepang, Chin
(Siyin), Digaro, Dimasa, Gallong, Gurung, Hakka, Hani,
Hayu, Jingpho, Khaling, Kham, Lahu, Limbu, Mandarin,
Maru, Meithei, Mising, Naga (Mao), Nar Phu, Newar
(Dolakha), Newar (Kathmandu), Nocte, Pumi, Purki,
Qiang, Rawang, Sikkimese, Tamang, Thulung, Tibetan
(Modern Literary)
Altaic (15) Bashkir, Chuvash, Dagur, Evenki, Kalmyk, Karachay
Balkar, Karakalpak, Khalkha, Mangghuer, Tatar, Turkish,
Turkmen, Uyghur, Uzbek, Yakut
Afro-Asiatic (7) Amharic, Chaha, Gamo, Kemant, Afar, Tigre, Zayse
Trans-New Guinea (7) Asmat, Awa, Hua, Kobon, Una, Yale (Kosarek), Yagaria
Sepik (6) Alamblak, Ambulas, Awtuw, Hanga Hundi, Kwoma, Sare
Dravidian (5) Kolami, Koya, Kuvi, Telugu, Tamil
Nakh-Daghestanian (5) Chechen, Hunzib, Ingush, Lezgian, Tsova Tush
Indo-European (4) Dhivehi, Khowar, Lamani, Marathi
Austro-Asiatic (3) Ho, Korku, Mundari
Northwest Caucasian (3) Abkhaz, Kabardian, Ubykh
Quechuan (2) Quechua (Imbabura), Quechua (Huallaga)
Ainu (1) Ainu
Austronesian (1) Amis
Barbacoan (1) Tsafiki
Basque (1) Basque
Burushaski (1) Burushaski
Huitotoan (1) Huitoto
Iroquoian (1) Cherokee
Japanese (1) Japanese
Khoisan (1) Khoekhoe
Korean (1) Korean
Na-Dene (1) Tlingit
Niger-Congo (1) Ijo (Kolokuma)
Penutian (1) Maidu (Northeast)
Tucanoan (1) Tucano
Turama-Kikorian (1) Rumu
Uralic (1) Mansi
Vaupés-Japurá (1) Hupda
Yukaghir (1) Yukaghir (Kolyma)
576 Tong Wu
Table 3. Prenominal-relative-clause languages not listed in Dryer 2005

Sino-Tibetan (17) Ao (Mongsen) (Coupe 2007: Chapter 6.6),
Bantawa (Doornenbal 2009: 200–203),
Belhare (Bickel 2003: Section 5.6.1),
Dhimal (King 2008: Chapter 5.4.1),
Dulong (LaPolla 2003: 681),
Minnan (Chen 2008),
Garo (Burling 2003: 395),
Lai (Hakha) (Peterson 2003: Section 4.2.6),
Lisu (Bradley 2003: 228–229),
Lotha (Herring 1991),
Manange (Hildebrandt 2004: Section 5.2),
Prinmi (Ding 2003: Sections 4.1, 4.6),
rGyalrong (Caodeng) (Sun 2003: Section 4.5.2, 2006),
Sherpa (Kelly 2004: Section 5.6),
Tibetan (Kyirong) (Huber 2003),
Tibetan (Lhasa) (Mazaudon 1978),
Tshangla (Andvik 2003: Sections 4, 12)
Altaic (8) Azerbaijanian (Schönig 1998: 258),
Buryat (Skribnik 2003: 125–126),
Even (Malchukov 1995: Chapter 8),
Karachay (Seegmiller 1996: 30–31),
Kazakh (Kirchner 1998a: 328),
Kirghiz (Kirchner 1998b: 353), Aydın (2006),
Noghay (Csató & Karakoç 1998: 340),
Xakas (Anderson 1998: Chapter 2.2.3.1)
Nakh-Daghestanian (6) Akhvakh (Creissels 2007),
Godoberi (Tatevosov 1996),
Khwarshi (Khalilova 2009: Section 4.8),
Kryz (Authier 2009: Chapter 19),
Tsakhur (Schulze 1997: Chapters 5.1, 5.8),
Tsez (Comrie & Polinsky 1999)
Afro-Asiatic (8) Argobba (Leslau 1959),
Dime (Seyoum 2008: 112–113, 154–157),
Kambaata (Treis 2008),
Maale (Amha 2001: Chapter 8.1),
Sidamo (Kazuhiro 2007),
Silt’i (Rawda 2003),
Tigrinya (Palmer 1962, Kogan 1997, Overfelt 2009),
Wolaytta (Lamberti & Sottile 1997: Chapter 4.13.2,
Wakasa 2008: Chapter 4.4.3.3)
Austro-Asiatic (4) Gorum (Anderson & Rau 2008: Section 4.2.1),
GtaP (Anderson 2008: Section 4.2.1),
Table 3 (continued).
Gutob (Griffiths 2008: Section 4.5),
Kharia (Peterson 2008: Section 4.4)
Dravidian (2) Kannada (Sridhar 1990: 47–66),
Malayalam (Asher & Kumari 1997: 52–75)
Quechua (2) Quechua (Conchucos) (Courtney 2006),
Quechua (Cuzco) (T. Wu 2008)
Indo-European (2) Sinhala (Gair & Paolillo 1997: Chapter 3.7.5, Gair 2003:
Section 6.7),
Tati (Authier 2010: Chapter 15)
Austronesian (1) Tsou (Zeitoun 2005: 273)
Kartvelian (1) Laz (Arhavi) (Lacroix 2009: Chapter 12.2)
Ouralic (1) Mari (Matsumura 1981, Kangasmaa-Minn 1998)
Sepik (1) Manambu (Aikhenvald 2008: Chapter 19.2)
Torricelli (1) Bukiyip (Conrad & Wogiga 1991: Chapter 5.2)
Trans New Guinea (1) Oksapmin (Loughnane 2009: Chapters 7.5.4, 7.6)
Yukaghir (1) Yukaghir (Tundra) (Maslova 2003b: Chapter 4.5)
Isolate (2) Nivkh (Gruzdeva 1998: Chapter 4.2.2.2),
Urarina (Olawsky 2006: 320–327)
Even though most previous claims about prenominal relatives are not wrong,
they are either too limited or too superficial. On the one hand, the alleged pecu-
liarity of prenominal relative clauses is an artefact owing to these claims being
based on a small number of prenominal-relative-clause languages: once the
sample is broadened, it emerges that the properties in question are not so rare,
neither in prenominal nor in other types of relatives. On the other hand, there
are claims that I consider “superficial”. Though accurate, they do not represent
intrinsic properties of prenominal relatives, but are related to other properties
of the languages in question. More important generalizations are lost if one
insists on these non-intrinsic properties of prenominal relatives without relat-
ing them to other structures. This point will be illustrated in particular with
regard to the non-finiteness/nominalization of prenominal relatives. In addition
to these, there are further properties of prenominal relatives that appear to have
been overlooked in previous studies, such as the use of more than one com-
plementizer and the scope of accessible positions following the Accessibility
Hierarchy.
3.3. Relativizers
Prenominal relative clauses have always been reported as never using relative
pronouns of the European type (Schwartz 1971: 144; Downing 1978: 392, 396;
578 Tong Wu
Keenan 1985: 149; Dik 1997: 46; Song 2001: 220, 232; de Vries 2001: 235,
240, 2005: 147; Kroeger 2005: 238, Creissels 2006: 239, 242; Andrews 2007:
208, 218, 222). Typically, a relative pronoun of the European type marks the
position relativized on (i.e., the case of the head noun in the relative clause)
and is found between the relative clause and the head noun, such as who/whom
in English (Quirk et al. 1985: 1249):
(7) a. the person whosubject spoke to him

b. the person to whomprepositional complement he spoke
No prenominal relative clause with relative pronouns is found in my sample.

However, in some prenominal relatives there are relativizers indicating posi-
tions relativized on. Abkhaz uses y(@) for the absolutive and z(@) for the other
positions (Creissels 2006: 243):
(8) a. a-xàc’a y´@-y-ba-(kwa-)z à-èw sa

art-man rel-s.3sg-see-(pl-)nfn art-woman.pl
‘the women that the man saw’
b. a-šw qw ’´@ z@-y-tà-z a-pèw@´ s
art-book rel-s.3sg-give-nfn art-woman
‘the woman to whom he gave a book’
c. z´@-da w-aa-z a-wayw @´
rel-without s.2sg-come-nfn art-man
‘the man without whom you came’
d. z@-kw ’@t’´@ meràb y@-Zá-z a-pèw@´ s
rel-chicken Merab s.3sg-steal-nfn art-woman
‘the woman whose chicken Merab stole’
Kabardian is similar to Abkhaz in using y@- optionally for absolutive head

nouns and -z- for the other positions (Colarusso 1992: 189, 191–193). The
relativizers of Abkhaz and Kabardian are different from European relative pro-
nouns because even if they can indicate positions relativized on, they never
appear between the head noun and the relative clause.
A similar situation obtains in Tibeto-Burman. In these languages, different
relativizers – often called “nominalizers” in the literature – are used to refer to
different roles or to encode various semantic values: for example, in Lisu, /su44 /
is used for (animate) subject, /şğ21 / for (non-human, usually) object, /gu33 /¯for
locative, /du33 / for instrument, /th E21 / for temporal, and /mA44 / being the gen-
eral nominalizer (Bradley 2003: 229); and in Lhasa Tibetan,¯ mkhan is used for
actor, sa for locative/dative, yag for patient and instrument in non-perfective
relatives, and pa in the perfective relatives when the head noun is not actor
(DeLancey 2003: 276):
(9) a. mogmog zhimpo bzo-mkhan bumo de

momo delicious cook-nomin girl dem
‘the girl who makes good momos’
b. mo-s mogmog bzo-sa(-‘i) zakhang
3sg.f-erg momo cook-nomin(-gen) food.shop
‘the food shop where she makes momos’
c. mo-s bzo-yag-gi mogmog
3sg.f-erg cook-nomin-gen momo
‘the momos which she makes’
d. mo-s bzos-pa-‘i mogmog
3sg.f-erg cook.perf-nomin-gen momo
‘the momos which she made’
There seems no way to classify Tibeto-Burman relativizers as relative pro-

nouns, even if to some extent they do indicate the positions relativized on.
Just like in Abkhaz and Kabardian, it is difficult to precisely categorize the rel-
ativizers of Tibeto-Burman languages, unless one accepts the common label of
“nominalizer”.5
Other non-pronominal types of relativizers are used in various prenominal-
relative-clause languages.
One type is the linker. Linkers agree with the head noun in gender (or noun
class) and/or in number, but never indicate the position relativized on. More
importantly, linkers can co-occur with resumptive pronouns, while there seems
to be no case of real relative pronouns used simultaneously with resumption
in the same relative clause. Here are examples from Tswana (10) and Arabic
(11):
(10) monna yo Leburu le mo

man.nc1 link.nc1 Afrikaner.nc5 s3.nc5 o3.nc1
rekiseditse-ng dikgomo
sell.perf-relv cow.nc8/10
‘the man to whom the Afrikaner sold cows’ (Lit. ‘the man that the
Afrikaner sold cows to him’) (Creissels 2006: 212)
(11) a. ar-arZulu llaąi: qatalu:-hu

def-man link.sg.m kill.perf.s.3pl.m-o.3sg.m
‘the man they killed’ (Lit. ‘the man that one they killed him’)
5. The status of Tibeto-Burman relativizer/nominalizer would be worth a separate study. One

anonymous reviewer noted that there was a real difference between a complementizer like that
in English and the Tibeto-Burman relativizers and did not agree on lumping them together.
The literature on this question is huge and I can only leave this point aside here.
580 Tong Wu
b. al-bintu llati: ąahabtu maQa-ha: Pila:

def-girl link.sg.f go.perf.s1sg with-3sg.f to
s-su:qi
def-market.gen
‘the girl with whom I went to the market’ (Lit. ‘the girl that one
I went with her to the market’) (Creissels et al. 2008: 143)
Though this is sometimes denied (e.g., by Creissels 2006: 240), prenominal-
relative-clause languages can have linkers. Dime (Seyoum 2008: 154, 155,
156) is the only such language in my sample; but other languages in the same
region – Southern Ethiopia – may have the same type of relativizers.
(12) a. tááy Pád-déé-b-is-im gošt-ís-im
now come-impf-link.sg.m-art-acc man-art-acc
nú yéf-déé-n
3sg.m.subj see-impf-3
‘He sees the man who is coming now.’
b. d@r-ím wúdúr-in šin-i-nd Pámz-is
goat-acc girl-dat buy-perf-link.sg.f woman-art
láXt’-i-n
die-perf-3
‘The woman who bought a goat for a girl died.’
c. d@r-is-ím wúdúr-is-in šin-i-d
goat-art-acc girl-art-dat buy-perf-link.pl
Pámz-af-is láXt’-i-n
woman-pl-art die-perf-3
‘The women who bought the goat for the girl died.’
The morphemes in question are -(u)b [+Masculine, +Singular] as in (12a),
-(i)nd [+Feminine, +Singular] as in (12b), and -(i)d [+Plural] as in (12c).
Another type of relativizers found in prenominal relatives is the comple-
mentizer. Differing from relative pronouns, prototypical complementizers do
not indicate the position relativized on6 and cannot pied-pipe adpositions:
(13) a. the person to whom I spoke
b. *the person to that I spoke
c. the person that I spoke to
Prototypical complementizers indicate only the subordination of relatives, as
they are added to a clause which could be independent without them, although
6. Complementizers can vary in categories other than case. See for example Haegeman 1992 for
West Flemish.
sometimes this criterion seems difficult to apply because of other constraints

such as tense-aspect reduction of the relative verb. The same relative comple-
mentizer can also be used in other types of subordinate clauses, like English
that, which is also used as a complementizer in complement clauses.
Examples of complementizers used in prenominal relatives are -(e)n in
Basque (14) and la in Tigre (15):
(14) pellok ekarri duen dirua galdu dut
Peter.erg bring aux.comp money.art lose.ptcpl aux
‘I lost the money Peter brought.’ (Oyharçabal 2003: 764)
(15) la šäfättit wädd@wo la ‘äläw ämäs.
art shifta do.ptcpl.s.3pl.o.3sg comp aux.s3pl crime
‘the crimes the shifta were committing’ (Palmer 1961: 25)
Further languages with such complementizers are GtaP (Anderson 2008: 747),
Hupda (Epps 2008: 829), Korean (Sohn 1994: 63, 1999: 240, 309), and Tamil
(Lakshmanan 2000: 592–593).
In some languages the complementizer in prenominal relatives is also the
genitive marker (Creissels 2006: 243): de in Mandarin (16), yä- in Amharic
(17), and -nu in Gorum (18) are examples:
(16) a. lı̌sì/wǒ de shū
Lisi/pro.1sg gen book
‘Lisi’s/my book’
b. lı̌sì dǎ le de nà gè rén
Lisi hit tam comp dem cl person
‘the person that Lisi hit’
(17) a. yä-tämari mäs.haf
gen-student book
‘a student’s book’
b. yeh/ya yä-säbbärä-w säw
dem comp-break.perf.s.3sg-o.3sg/art man
‘that man that broke (it)’ (Hayat Omar, personal communication)
(18) a. mam-nu miam
2sg-gen blood
‘your blood’ (Anderson & Rau 2008: 389)
b. e-nOP d tiN-ey laP-r-ey-nu lOk
obj-3sg shoot-3pl aux-pst-3pl-comp folk
‘the folks who shot her’ (Anderson & Rau 2008: 416)
Other such languages are Alamblak (Bruce 1984: 106, 110–-111), Bantawa
(Doornenbal 2009: 76–81, 200–203), and Manambu (Aikhenvald 2008: 168–
175, 468–475).
582 Tong Wu
As to the position of the complementizer, it is often between the prenominal

relative clause and the head noun, similar to the position of the complemen-
tizer for postnominal relatives. See above (14) for Basque, (16b) for Mandarin,
and (18b) for Gorum. However, Tigre (15) and Amharic (17b) show that this
tendency has exceptions. Another exception is Laz: the complementizer na is
procliticized to the verb if it is the only constituent of the prenominal relative
clause (19a), or it is attached to the word before the verb, if there is only one
(19b), or to one of or all the preverbal words (19c–e).
(19) a. mo-p-t-i-şkul na-p’-or-om bozo b-dzi-i

pv-1-come-aor-after comp-1-love-ts girl 1-see-aor
‘When I came, I saw the girl that I love.’
b. ma-na e-p-ç’op-i kitabi si
pro.1-comp pv-1-buy-aor book pro.2
me-k-ç-ae
pv-2-give-fut.1/2sg
‘I will give you the book that I bought.’
c. ordzo-s mundi-na var
chair-dat behind-comp neg
ets’-u-zd-im-u-t’u memet’i
pv-3.val-raise-aug-ts-impf.3sg Mehmet
‘Mehmet, who had never raised the behind off his chair’
d. ordzo-s-na mundi var
chair-dat-comp behind neg
ets’-u-zd-im-u-t’u memet’i
pv-3.val-raise-aug-ts-impf.3sg Mehmet
‘Mehmet, who had never raised the behind off his chair’
e. si re-yi-ya, ma-na k’ama-na
pro.2sg be-q-is pro.1sg-comp dagger-comp
go-m-o-xun-i bere
pv-1-val-push-aor child
‘Is it you who are the boy that put his dagger into me?’ (Lacroix
2009: 750–753)
According to Keenan (1985: 160), “the use of such clause-final complementiz-

ers in prenominal RCS [i.e., relative clauses] is less common than the use of
clause-initial complementizers in postnominal RCS. Moreover we know of no
cases where the clause-final complementizer in RCS is identical to the clause-
final complementizer used with sentential objects of verbs of thinking and say-
ing”. However, na of Laz can also be used in sentential object of verbs of
thinking and saying with the same distribution as in prenominal relatives, that
is, either attached to the verb or to the other constituents that are preverbal:
(20) a. ma mut-na var b-iv-are

pro.1sg something-comp neg 1-become-fut.1/2sg
zop’on-t’i
say-impf
‘You said that I would become nothing.’ (Lacroix 2009: 724)
b. miti-s var u-çk-i-n he
somebody-dat neg 3.val-think/know-ts-3sg dem
bere-k-na hamtepe v-u
child-erg-comp dem.pl do-aor.3sg
‘Nobody knows/thinks that the boy did those things.’ (Lacroix
2009: 752)
The identical distribution of na in prenominal relatives and in sentential com-
plements is a good argument in favor of analyzing it as a complementizer. Na
only partially undermines Keenan’s generalization, because even if it is used in
prenominal relatives and in sentential objects of verbs of thinking and saying,
it is nevertheless not clause-final, but clause-internal.
Another language which may be problematic for Keenan’s generalization
is Basque, or rather the Gipuzkoan and the Bizkaian dialects.7 In these two
dialects, like in the other Basque dialects, the prenominal relative clause is
marked by the final complementizer -(e)n, like in (14), repeated here:
(21) pellok ekarri duen dirua galdu dut
Peter.erg bring aux.comp money.art lose.ptcpl aux
‘I lost the money Peter brought.’
In the Gipuzkoan and Bizkaian dialects, the (overt or covert) negation of the
main verbs of saying and thinking differs from other Basque dialects in that it
triggers the use of the negative complementizer -(e)nik (Artiagoitia 2003: 644):
(22) ez dugu horrenbestez esan nahi berarekin bat
neg aux that.much.ins say want with.3sg.f one
gatoz-enik
come-comp
‘We therefore don’t want to say that we agree with her.’
According to Artiagoitia (2003: 645), -(e)nik is probably the combination of
-(e)n and the partitive determiner -rik. Data from the Bizkaian dialect strength-
ens this analysis: in the Bizkaian dialect, -(e)nik in (22) may be replaced by
-(e)na, where -a can be analyzed as the article, like -a in dirua in (21), whereas
-ik must be used for the indefinite under the scope of negation. In other words,
7. I thank Georges Rebuschi for having brought this point to my attention.

584 Tong Wu
the complementizer used in sentential objects of verbs of saying and thinking

in negation is always -(e)n. The use of -a and -ik after the complementizer
-(e)n is due to the nominal(ized) status of the sentential complements finalized
by -(e)n. Thus, Gipuzkoan Basque and Bizkaian Basque seem to use the same
clause-final complementizer in prenominal relatives and in sentential objects
of verbs of saying and thinking, though only when negated.8
In some languages more than one complementizer is used. In Amharic, the
choice of complementizer depends on the aspect of the relative verb: yä- (23a)
is used for perfect and yä-mm-/@-mm- (23b) for imperfect:
(23) a. kä-gurage yä-tä-gäňňä hawlt
in-Gurage comp-pass-find.perf statue
‘a statue which was found in Gurage’ (Hudson 1997: 482)
b. s@lä-tarik yämm-i-näg@r mäş@haf
about-history comp-s3sg-tell book
‘a book which tells about history’ (Hudson 1997: 482)
In Tibeto-Burman, the distribution of the relativizers also depends on the
tense-aspect of the relative verb (and sometimes on the positions relativized
on). For instance, in Kyirong Tibetan, k˜ē: is attached to the imperfective stem of
the verb (for all the roles except the oblique roles of location, goal, and source),
pa is attached to the perfective stem of the verb (for instruments, patients, and
agents), sā has no tense or aspect constraint (for locations, sources, goals, and
recipients), and tCÈ: denotes prospective aspect (for patients) (Huber 2003).
Such distributions have also been reported for Burmese (Herring 1991), Bodic
languages (DeLancey 2002), Dolakha Newar (Genetti 2007: 312–313, 389–
390, 403–407), and Gallong (Post 2007: Chapter 15, 2011).
Lastly, there is zero marking of relativization, best known from English
relative clauses without complementizers or relative pronouns. Prenominal
relative clauses with no relativizer can be found in Asia, as for example in
Japanese, in Altaic languages, in Dravidian languages, and in Indo-Aryan lan-
guages; in Europe, as for example in Uralic prenominal-relative-clause lan-
guages; and in America, as for example in Quechuan languages.
Some prenominal-relative-clause languages use both complementizers and
zero marking. In Manambu, finite prenominal relatives use a complementizer
(24a), but if the verb is non-finite, no relativizer is used (24b):
8. It remains an open question why -(e)n is possible only in the sentential complements of verbs
of saying and thinking in negation.
(24) a. væra-d-@ du-ad

come.across.towards-s.3sg.m.vers/pst-comp man-3sg.m.nom
‘It is a man who is coming across towards (us).’ (Aikhenvald
2008: 470)
b. apat@p-a:m yi-du wudiya yuanab kwa-na-di
Avatip-loc go-man dem.pl Yuanab stay-actfoc-3pl.vers
‘The men who went to Avatip are here (close to you) (at) Yuanab.’
(Aikhenvald 2008: 477)
It is common for non-finite relative clauses to lack a relativizer. Quite sur-

prisingly, Maale shows just the opposite pattern, that is, if the relative verb is
marked for aspect, there is no relativizer at all:
(25) Pííní ziginó mukk-é Patsi

3sg.m.nom yesterday come-perf person.m.abs
zag-é-ne
see-perf-affirm.decl
‘He saw the man who came yesterday.’ (Amha 2001: 160)
The only difference between the relative clause in (25) and the corresponding
independent clause in (26) is -ne, the affirmative declarative particle:
(26) Patsí ziginó mukk-é-ne

person.m.abs yesterday come-perf-affirm.decl
‘The man came yesterday.’ (Amha 2001: 160)
On the other hand, if the verb has no aspect marker, -ó or -oná finalizes the
relative clause:
(27) a. Pííní waatsi gets-ó Poti táá-m

3sg.m.nom water.abs keep-rel pot.abs 1sg-dat
Ping-é-ne
give-perf-affirm.decl
‘He gave me a pot in which water can be kept.’ (Amha 2001: 167)
b. múP-óna múPP-á k’ára-ke
eat-rel food-nom good-cop.affirm.decl
‘The food which we ate is good.’/‘The food which is eaten (by
us) is good.’ (Amha 2001: 168)
According to Amha (2001: Chapter 8.1.2), in ó/oná-marked relative clauses,

no overt agent (subject) can be used and the relatives often have a passive read-
ing, as in (27b), or an instrumental reading, i.e. ‘(used) for (doing . . . )’, as in
(27a), if one translates it as ‘He gave me a pot for keeping water’. Moreover,
such relative clauses are often used with an indefinite head noun. Interestingly,
586 Tong Wu
in Mandarin the absence of the complementizer de is also related to the defi-

niteness of head nouns: when it is omitted, a demonstrative (most often distal
nà ‘that’) is obligatory:
(28) lı̌sì dǎ nà rén

Lisi hit dem person
‘the person that Lisi hit’
Headedness can be another factor determining the type of relativizers. Hupda

headed prenominal relatives must have the complementizer -Vp, where V
stands for the same vowel as that of the relative verb:
(29) P1n wǽd-æp-teg yúw-úh

1pl eat-comp-tree dem-decl
‘That’s the tree that we eat from!’ (Epps 2008: 838)
Headless prenominal relatives do not have to use the complementizer, which

may be replaced by the number marker and/or the case marker:
(30) a. yũˇ Pãh kéy-ep-Pı̃h-ǎn mæh-y1́P-1́y

João 1sg see-comp-m-obj kill-tel-dynm
‘John killed the one I saw.’ (Epps 2008: 831)
b. hǑ˜p-k@k-cúk d’óP-d’@h, h1d b1́P-1́h
fish-pull-pole take-pl they make-decl
‘Those who take (use) fishing poles, they make (them).’ (Epps
2008: 834)
c. tı̌w b1́P-n’ǎn t1h mæy-nOP-Õ´w-ay
path work-pl.obj 3sg pay-give-flr-inch
‘So he paid those who worked on the road.’ (Epps 2008: 835)
To conclude this typology of relative markers, Kambaata marks prenomi-

nal relative clauses by accent. In relatives such as (31b) the accent is always
on the final position, in other words, on the final syllable of the relative verb
since relative clauses are always verb-final, while for main verbs as in (31a) the
accent is always on a non-final position:
(31) a. adab-óo dagújj-o.

boy-m.nom run-3m.perf
‘The boy ran.’ (Treis 2008: 166)
b. dagujj-ó adab-áa
run-3m.perf boy-m.acc
‘the boy who ran’ (Treis 2008: 166)
3.4. Gapping
By gap(ping) I mean that the constituent relativized on is left empty in relative
clauses. Previous studies (Downing 1978: 392, 396; Keenan 1985: 154; Song
2001: 217; de Vries 2002: 33; Kroeger 2004: 180, 2005: 238; Andrews 2007:
209) and my own findings converge: prenominal relative clauses often use gap-
ping, at least for subject relatives. This reflects the typological tendency that
gapping is the most frequent strategy for subject relativization, and prenominal-
relative-clause languages are not exceptional in this respect. However, there are
two types of unusual gaps in prenominal relatives in some languages.
The first concerns the relativization of obliques. The position left empty in
prenominal relatives corresponds not to the head noun, but to the head noun
and the adposition marking the oblique position in question. Here are exam-
ples from Mandarin, respectively derived from (32c) and (32d):
(32) a. lı̌sì xiězì de bı̌

Lisi write comp pen
‘the pen that Lisi writes with’ (Lit. ‘the pen that Lisi writes’)
b. lı̌sì dúshū de xuéxiào
Lisi study comp school
‘the school where Lisi studies’ (Lit. ‘the school that Lisi studies’)
c. lı̌sì *(yòng) bı̌ xiězì
Lisi use(v)/with pen write
‘Lisi writes with a pen.’ (or ‘Lisi writes using a pen.’)
d. lı̌sì *(zài) xuéxiào dúshū
Lisi at school study
‘Lisi studies at school.’
The gap in (32a) does not correspond to the head noun bı̌ ‘pen’, but to some-
thing larger, insofar as the preposition yòng ‘with’ disappears along with the
head noun. The element being gapped is a prepositional phrase. In (32b), the
gap corresponds to zài xuéxiào ‘at school’, not to xuéxiào ‘school’ alone.
Here are examples from other languages: Akhvakh (33), Evenki (34), Kham
(35), Korean (36), Maale (37), Malayalam (38), Marathi (39), Mari (40),
Conchucos Quechua (41), and Wolaytta (42):
(33) de-de ruša b-uq̄’-ida Qãžite

1sg-erg tree neut-cut-impf.ptcpl axe
‘the axe with which I am cutting the tree’ (Creissels 2007: 22)
588 Tong Wu
(34) asi ulle-ve mine-d’eri-n purta emer

woman meat-acc.def cut-ptcpl-3sg.poss knife sharp
bi-si-n
be-pres-3sg
‘The knife with which the woman is cutting meat is sharp.’ (Nedjalkov
1997: 40)
(35) apa-e zihm o-j@i-wo po:
father-erg house 3sg-make-nomin place
‘the place where father built a house’ (Watters 2002: 207)
(36) celm-e ci-nu-n saymmul
young-inf become-indic-rel well.water
‘the well-water by which one becomes young’ (Sohn 1999: 311)
(37) nééní waas’-ó kis’s’-é Pótt-éll-á
2sg.nom water-abs draw-perf pot-f-nom
háík’k’-é-ne
die-perf-affirm.decl
‘The pot with which you drew the water is broken.’ (Amha 2001: 163)
(38) pooliiskaaran kuúúiye aúicca vaúi
policeman child.acc beat.pst.ptcpl stick
‘the stick with which the policeman beat the child’ (Asher & Kumari
1997: 60)
(39) mı̄ patra lihilelı̄ pensı̄l mād.ı̄wartSyā
pro.1sg letter write.pst.ptcpl.sg.f pencil upstairs.of
kapāt.āt āhe
closet-loc is
‘The pencil with which I wrote the letter is in the closet upstairs.’
(Pandharipande 1997: 90–91)
(40) čavajn-@n 1930 ij-@šte tide pölem-@šte joltaš-@ž-lan
Chavain-gen 1930 year-loc dem room-loc friend-3sg-dat
kužu ser@š-@m voze-n kolt@-mo pera-že
long letter-acc write-ger send-ptcpl pen-3sg
‘the pen with which Chavain wrote a long letter to his friend in this
room in 1930’ (Matsumura 1981: 45)
(41) maqa-nqa-yki qeru-ta rika-rqa
hit-tam-2sg stick-acc see-pst.1sg
‘I saw the stick with which you hit (something).’ (Courtney 2006: 323)
(42) a. táání bairat-íyo 7ish-áa
1sg be.elder-impf.nsubj brother-abs.m.sg
‘a brother than whom I am elder’ (Wakasa 2008: 850)
b. táání 7ash-úwa muT-ído

1sg meat-abs.m.sg cut.into.small.pieces-perf.nsubj
mashsh-áa 7ep-á
knife-abs.m.sg take-opt.2sg
‘Take the knife with which I cut the meat into small pieces.’
(Wakasa 2008: 851)
Three factors may explain augmented gapping in prenominal relatives. First,

there are never relative pronouns in prenominal relatives. Relative pronouns
pied-pipe adpositions, but complementizers do not. A favorable argument is
relatives with similar augmented gaps in substandard French (43a). In (43a)
it is the complementizer que that introduces the postnominal relative clause,
while in the standard counterpart, (43b), it is the relative pronoun dont that is
used.
(43) a. la chose que je vous parlais

art.sg.f thing comp 1sg 2pl.dat talk.impf.1sg
‘the thing that I talked about to you’ (Lit. ‘the thing that I talked
to you’) (Blanche-Benveniste 2000: 104)
b. la chose dont je vous parlais
art.sg.f thing rel 1sg 2pl.dat talk.impf.1sg
‘the thing about which I talked to you’
Secondly, prenominal relatives do not use adposition stranding, contrary

to English the man (that) I will go to France with. Adposition stranding is
quite rare. According to Riemsdijk (1978), it is only found in Germanic lan-
guages. Thus, in prenominal relative clauses the only possibility is to delete the
stranded adposition, whereby augmented gapping comes about.
Third, according to Givón (2001: 185), “it may well be that the gap/zero
relativization strategy is more likely to be used in languages that use zero
anaphoric pronouns, such as Japanese and Chinese. Such languages may sim-
ply extend their discourse anaphora strategy to the more syntactic environment
of REL-clauses [i.e., relative clauses]”. This line of argument seems solid. Most
prenominal-relative-clause languages are pro-drop languages (of Chinese-type
or Italian-type). According to The world atlas of language structures (Haspel-
math et al. (eds.) 2005), only seven prenominal-relative-clause languages pro-
hibit pro-drop: Ambulas, Byansi, Chechen, Evenki, Ingush, Khoekhoe, and
Uyghur. As far as I can tell, Evenki (Nedjakov 1997: 62, 65, 101–102) al-
lows pro-drop, but the case of Ingush is ambiguous and needs further re-
search (Nichols 2011: Chapter 29.7). If pro-drop is a preference in indepen-
dent clauses, it becomes an obligation in prenominal relatives, probably be-
cause relative clauses obey stricter constraints than independent clauses, such
as word order and modality, as well as zero anaphora. Thus the raison d’être
590 Tong Wu
of augmented gapping may reside in the interaction between zero anaphora, no

adposition stranding, and the absence of a relative pronoun.
The second type of unusual gaps is more difficult to analyze, because they
are still larger and vaguer than augmented gaps, as illustrated in the following
examples from Japanese (44a), Korean (44b), and Mandarin (44c):
(44) a. akatyan-ga naku koe
baby-nom cry voice
‘the sound that characterizes a baby’s crying’ (Yoon 1993: 200)
b. ai-ka wun un soli
baby-nom cry rel sound
c. xiǎohái kū de shēngyı̄n
child cry comp sound
In spite of the translations given, these sentences can be translated as ‘the sound
of a baby’s crying’. Pragmatically, it is not difficult to imagine a logical link
between the sound and the fact that the baby cries. If one tries to reconstruct
the head noun into the relative clause, one must “invent” a larger and vaguer
constituent than an adpositional phrase, for example, for (44c):
(45) xiǎohái kū fāchū shēngyı̄n
child cry give.out sound
‘The child cries out and makes noises.’ or ‘The child, crying out,
makes noises.’
According to Matsumoto (1997) and Comrie (1998a, b), this kind of con-
struction, which they call “noun-modifying construction”, is a general prop-
erty of Asian prenominal-relative-clause languages. Actually, it is not limited
to Asian prenominal relative clauses. Here are examples from a few further lan-
guages, viz. Akhvakh9 (46), Huallaga Quechua (47), Hupda (48), Malayalam
(49), and Mari (50):
(46) a. q̄oto b-iq’w -ida-be zw aKe
plate neut-break-ptcpl.inacc-neut sound
‘the sound of the breaking of a plate’
b. bač’aq’ēhe Ï̄’ũk’-ida-be Qama
late go.to.bed-ptcpl.inacc habit
‘the habit of going to bed late’ (Denis Creissels, personal com-
munication)
9. Similar relative clauses are also found in Ingush (Nichols 2011: Chapter 26.7), another Nakh-
Daghestanian language. See also Daniel & Lander 2010 for a discussion of such constructions
in the Nakh-Daghestanian family in general.
(47) kanasta churarayka-q rukay-ta apakun

basket be.put-nomin place-acc take.pres.3sg.m
‘He takes the place/turn of putting the baskets.’ (Weber 1983: 66)
(48) Pǎn h1d yamhidOP-gÓp-Op mǽy
1sg.obj 3pl sing-serve-comp payment
‘(It was) the payment for their singing to and serving me.’ (Lit. ‘their
singing-and-serving-me payment’) (Epps 2008: 829)
(49) bas varunna Sabdam
bus come.pres.ptcpl noise
‘the noise of the bus coming’ (Asher & Kumari 1997: 75)
(50) a. ala-kö-n omsa-m čot peralt@-me
some-who-gen door-acc hard knock-ptcpl
jük-eš-@že pom@žalt@m
sound-into-poss awake.pst.1sg
‘I was waked by the sound of someone knocking hard on the
door.’
b. avam-@n kol žaritl@-me puš-@ž@-m
my.mother-gen fish grill-ptcpl smell-poss-acc
šiž@n
notice.ptcpl
‘having perceived the smell of my mother grilling fish’ (Mat-
sumura 1983: 462)
Different analyses have been proposed. Some focus on how the semantic in-
terpretation is carried out: for example, Kuno’s “aboutness condition” (Kuno
1974) requires that a relative clause be a statement about its head, and Yoon’s
R-relation (Yoon 1993) requires pragmatic or discourse linking. Others pay
more attention to the syntactic mechanism whereby such constructions are ob-
tained. For instance, according to Sohn (1994), they result from ellipsis, like in
Korean:
(51) kicha-ka (soli-lul nay-myense) talli-n-un soli
train-nom sound-acc emit-while run-indic-rel sound
‘the sound that a train is running’ (Sohn 1994: 68)
One argument in favor of the semantic analysis and against the syntactic anal-
ysis is that if such constructions result from ellipsis, it should always be possi-
ble to reconstruct the omitted constituents. However, it is rather difficult to tell
what would be omitted for (47) in Huallaga Quechua, repeated here:
(52) kanasta churarayka-q rukay-ta apakun
basket be.put-nomin place-acc take.pres.3sg.m
‘He takes the place/turn of putting the baskets.’ (Weber 1983: 66)
592 Tong Wu
One of the arguments against the semantic approach is the question what
semantic or pragmatic relations are felicitous. For example, there is a felicitous
pragmatic relation between the fact that someone has not cleaned the trashbin
for a year and the stench the ashbin emits, but the following construction is
hardly acceptable in Mandarin, even if it is not completely incomprehensible:
(53) ?? lı̌sìyı̄nián méi dǎsǎo lājı̄xiāng de qìwèi
Lisi one.year neg clean(v) trashbin comp smell
Intended reading: ‘the smell such that Lisi has not cleaned the trashbin
for a year’
Ultimately, both syntactic factors and semantic-pragmatic considerations may
have a role to play in this construction.
3.5. Resumptive pronouns

A resumptive pronoun is a pronominal element indicating the position rel-
ativized on in the relative clause (as discussed in detail in Comrie 1981). The
point is that if the pronominal element is used in both independent clauses and
relative clauses, it is not a resumptive pronoun. To illustrate from Hausa:
(54) a. dōkìn dà yā mutù
horse rel 3sg died
‘the horse which died’ (Comrie 1981: 220)
b. dōk`ı̄ *(yā) mutù
horse 3sg died
‘The horse died.’ (Lit. ‘Horse it died.’) (Comrie 1981: 220)
Yā in (54a) is not a resumptive pronoun, because it is also obligatory in the
independent clause (54b). Actually, yā could be considered as part of conjuga-
tion.
Note also that resumptive pronominal elements can be cross-referencing af-
fixes attached to the verb (Creissels 2006: 211), as for example in Modern
Standard Arabic, where the cross-referencing suffix -ha: in (55a) is not needed
in the corresponding independent clause in (55b):
(55) a. Pal-qis.s.atu llati: qaraPa-ha:
art-story rel read.pst.s.3sg.m-o.3sg.f
‘the story that he read (it)’ (Holes 2004: 283)
b. qaraPa Pal-qis.s.atu
read.pst.s.3sg.m art-story
‘He read the story.’ (Holes 2004: 283)
It has often been noted that prenominal relative clauses rarely use resumptive
pronouns (Keenan 1985: 148–149; C. Lehmann 1986: 675, 2003: 461; Dik
1997: 46; Song 2001: 218, 232; de Vries 2001: 235, 240, 2002: 50, 2005:
147; Kroeger 2005: 238; Creissels 2006: 239, 242). In actual fact, prenominal
relatives are less averse to resumptive pronouns than has been assumed.
The first group of languages widely using resumptive pronouns is Semitic. In
Amharic, resumptive cross-referencing affixes are used from the direct object
to obliques:
(56) a. yä-mätta-hu-t säw@yye wänd@mme näw

comp-hit.perf-s.1sg-o.3sg.m man my.brother is
‘The man whom I hit is my brother.’ (Leslau 1995: 102)
b. yä-s.af-hu-llä-t säw@yye wänd@mme
comp-write.perf-s.1sg-applic-o.3sg.m man my.brother
näw
is
‘The man to whom I wrote is my brother.’ (Leslau 1995: 105)
c. wänd@mmočču @zzih yä-näbbär-u-t l@ğ tämari
his.brothers here comp-be.perf-s.3pl-art boy student
näw
is
‘The boy whose brothers were here is a student.’ (Leslau 1995:
99)
d. wäräqät yä-s.af-hu-llä-t säw@yye
letter comp-write.perf-s.1sg-applic-o.3sg.m man
wänd@mme näw
my.brother is
‘The man for/to whom I wrote the letter is my brother.’ (Leslau
1995: 104)
e. ya yä-tä-wälläd-ku-bbä-t bet näw
dem comp-mid-bear.perf-s.1sg-loc-art house is
‘That’s the house I was born in.’ (Hudson 1997: 482)
Similar patterns have been reported for Silt’i (Rawda 2003: Chapter 3), Tigre
(Leslau 1945, Palmer 1961, Raz 1997), and Tigrinya (Palmer 1962).
Another group of languages using resumptive pronouns are the Chinese lan-
guages. The tendency here is to use resumptive pronouns only for human head
nouns from indirect objects to obliques, as for example in Cantonese:
(57) a. ngóh sı̄k ge yàhn

pro.1sg know comp people
‘the people that I know’
b. ngóh sung fā béi kéuihdeih ge behngyàhn
pro.1sg send flower dat pro.3pl comp patients
‘the patients I sent flowers to’
594 Tong Wu
c. (kéuihdeih) tìuh kwàhn hóu dyún ge sailouh-léui

pro.3sg.gen cl dress very short comp little.girls
‘the little girls whose dress is very short’
d. ngóh tùhng kéhuihdeih kı̄nggái ge hohksāang
pro.1sg with pro.3pl chat comp students
‘the students that I chat with’
e. ngóh jaahn chin dō gwo kéuihdeih ge
pro.1sg earn money more than pro.3pl comp
yàhn
people
‘the people who I make more money than’ (Matthews & Yip
1994: 110–111)
See further T. Wu 2007 for Mandarin and Chen 2008 for a dialect of Minnan.
Some Caucasian languages use resumptive pronouns for lower positions of
the Accessibility Hierarchy. In Chechen, only the dative necessitates resump-
tion, even if other positions do not disallow this possibility:
(58) a. (shiena) i stag sielxana ginchu muusas

3sg.refl dem man yesterday see.ptcpl Musa.erg
cynga cwa duosh aelliera
3sg.m.all one word speak.pst
‘Musa, who had seen the man yesterday, had told him some-
thing.’ (Komen 2006: 1)
b. shiena kilaaba dika laatta della volu
3sg.refl Caleb.erg good land.abs give.pst aux.ptcpl
stag as dwaatettira
person.abs 1sg.erg push.away.pst
‘I rejected the person to whom Caleb gave good land.’ (Komen
2007: 2)
c. (shiena) majra vella jolu zuda maarie
3sg.refl husband die.pst aux.ptcpl woman marriage
jaxara
go.pst
‘The woman, whose husband had died, remarried.’ (Komen 2006:
2)
d. (shiena) chuohw dika oilanash jolu duog
3sg.refl inside good thoughts aux.ptcpl heart
‘a heart inside which there are good thoughts’ (Komen 2006: 1)
See also Haspelmath (1993: 340–353) for Lezgian.

Besides these three groups of languages, others use resumption in a less
systematic way. In Burushaski, the adposition yar ‘before’ necessitates a re-
sumptive pronoun:
(59) ja t´ēcum yar hurút.um ha šuá duá

1sg 3sg.f.abl before live.nomin house.abs nice be.3sg
‘The house that I live before (it) is nice.’ (Tiffou & Patry 1995: 358)
In Kambaata, the resumptive pronoun is used only for possessors:
(60) chár-it qeg-ú-s10 ag-góo
bird.species-f.nom blood-m.acc-3.m.poss drink-3.f.perf
lál-u
cattle-m.nom
‘the cattle whose blood was drunk by chare-birds’ (Treis 2008: 181)
In Korean, the origin demands a resumptive pronoun:
(61) wuli ka keki eyse chwulpalhay se hak.kyo-lo ka-n
1pl nom there from depart and school-all go-rel
ku pyengwen
dem hospital
‘the hospital from which we departed and went to school’ (Song 2001:
312)
In Qiang, the beneficiary needs a resumptive pronoun:
(62) qa the:tC l@Gz de-le-m le:
1sg 3sg.gen book dir-give-nomin def.cl
‘the person to whom I gave a book’ (LaPolla & Huang 2003: 224)
From such examples it can be seen that resumptive pronouns are not as
rare in prenominal relative clauses as sometimes assumed. Their use is de-
termined by different factors. First, resumption in Chinese as well as Semitic
(for Modern Standard Arabic see Ryding 2005: 322–328 and for Modern He-
brew Borer 1984, Coffin & Bolozky 2005: 345–349) can be considered as a
genetic property. Second, prenominal relatives follow the typological tendency
that resumptive pronouns are more often reserved for less accessible positions.
There is no case of prenominal relatives using resumptive pronouns for sub-
jects/absolutives.
10. In Kambaata, it is not grammatical to use the possessive suffix -s if there is a (pro)nominal
possessor (Treis 2008: 180-181). In other words, this suffix is used in the relative clause
because of the absence of the head noun, i.e. the possessor, in the relative clause.
596 Tong Wu
3.6. Verbal marking: Non-finiteness

Prenominal relative clauses are often described as being non-finite or nominal-
ized (Downing 1978: 392; Mallinson & Blake 1981: 298; Keenan 1985: 160;
C. Lehmann 1986: 672, 2003: 461; Dik 1997: 55–58; Song 2001: 233; de Vries
2001: 235, 2002: 39; Creissels 2006: 239; Andrews 2007: 208).
A note is necessary about “non-finiteness” and “nominalization”. If non-
finiteness is a morphological phenomenon, nominalization11 can be either mor-
phological or syntactic (Haspelmath 1999). For example, according to Givón
(2001: 24), “nominalization is the process via which a finite verbal clause
– either a complete clause or a subject-less verb phrase – is converted into a
noun phrase”, while for Noonan (2007: 70), “the predicate becomes nominal-
ized, assuming the form of a verbal noun, and takes over the role of head noun
of the noun phrase”. Givón defined nominalization as a morphological process,
but Noonan as a syntactic operation. When Li & Thompson (1981: 575–593)
discuss nominalization in Mandarin, the term is certainly not used in reference
to the morphological process, because Mandarin almost completely lacks mor-
phology. Nominalization is syntactic in Mandarin, in case the predicate plays
the role of the head noun of the noun phrase. For example, a nominalized clause
can have the same distribution as a noun phrase:
(63) a. lı̌sì shì zhāngsān de péngyou
Lisi cop Zhangsan gen friend
‘Lisi is Zhangsan’s friend.’
b. lái de shì zhāngsān de péngyou
come comp cop Zhangsan gen friend
‘The one who is coming is Zhangsan’s friend.’
The prenominal relative clause in (63b) lái de ‘the one who is coming’ is indeed
syntactically nominalized, for it has the same distribution as a real noun phrase,
Lisi, a proper noun in (63a).
11. There are different types of nominalization, for example, lexical vs. clausal (Koptjevskaja-
Tamm 1993: 49–52, Comrie & Thompson 2007, Genetti 2011), participant vs. event, embed-
ded vs. non-embedded (Yap et al. 2011), derivational vs. clausal vs. action (Genetti 2011).
My discussion of the non-finiteness/nominalization of prenominal relative clauses does not
intend to confirm or to refute these distinctions. Moreover, I do not commit myself to classi-
fying non-finite/nominalized prenominal relatives into a particular category.
In what follows, I will use “non-finite(ness)” and confine the discussion to

the morphological process whereby a prenominal relative clause is nominal-
ized.12 A non-finite verb form is characterized by the reduction of inflexion,
especially concerning tense-aspect-mood and person. In the Greek-Latin tradi-
tion, non-finite verb forms include infinitive, participle, and gerund. Prototypi-
cally, infinitives play a nominal role, participles an adjectival role, and gerunds
an adverbial role. Languages may have different morphological distinctions
of non-finite forms and classifications may vary from language to language.
For example, in the place of “gerund”, “converb” is often used in the anal-
ysis of Altaic languages among others (Johanson 1998: 47, Janhunen 2003:
21–22, 25–26, Rybatzki 2003: 382–383). However, both gerunds and converbs
are generally used adverbially (Haspelmath 1995: 3, 1999: 110; Koptjevskaja-
Tamm 1999: 148). It therefore seems better to classify non-finite verb forms
according to their functions: nominal non-finite, adjectival non-finite, and ad-
verbial non-finite (Koptjevskaja-Tamm 1993: 23, Feuillet 2006: 493–494). For
instance, in Lezgian, the non-finite forms are masdar, participle, infinitive, and
converb (Haspelmath 1993: 153–158, 340–400), but they share the three func-
tions: nominal possible for all, as shown in (64); adjectival only for participles,
as shown in (65); and adverbial for converbs, as shown in (66).
(64) a. ajal-ar q̃uğwa-z bašlamiš-na
child-pl play-inf begin-aor
‘The children began to play.’ (Haspelmath 1993: 359)
b. ada ğil-e awa-j gazet k’el-un
3sg.m.erg hand-iness be.in-ptcpl paper read-msd
aq̃wazar-na
stop-aor
‘He stopped reading the newspaper that was in his hand.’
(Haspelmath 1993: 361)
c. ada-z zun čpi-z klig-zawa-j-di
3sg.m-dat 1sg.abs selves-dat look-impf-ptcpl-nomin
aku-na
see-aor
‘He saw that I was looking at them.’ (Haspelmath 1993: 365)
d. nabisat.a-z ruša ktab k’el-na k’an-zawa
Nabisat-dat girl.erg book read-conv want-impf
‘Nabisat wants her daughter to read a book.’ (Haspelmath 1993:
369)
12. I leave open the question whether such non-finite prenominal relative clauses are full-fledged
or reduced relative clauses. This question is quite theory-dependent and there seems to be
no consensus. Interested readers may consult Kornfilt 2000, 2007 about Turkish. I thank an
anonymous reviewer for having raised the point and given the references.
598 Tong Wu
(65) a. qh fe-j jac žanawur-ri req’-e kuk’war-na

go.away-ptcpl bull wolf-pl.erg way-iness tear-aor
‘The bull which had gone away was killed by wolves on the way.’
(Haspelmath 1993: 340)
b. pačah.di-n xazina čünüx-aj uğri-jar čun ja
king-gen treasury steal-ptcpl thief-pl 1pl.abs cop
‘We are the thieves who stole the king’s treasury.’ (Haspelmath
1993: 340)
(66) maxsud.a-z q̄arağ-na čül.di-z fi-z k’an-zawa-j
Maxsud-dat get.up-conv field-dat go-inf want-impf-pst
‘Maxsud wanted to get up and go to the field.’ (Haspelmath 1993: 157)
Similar patterns are found in Godoberi (Dobrushina & Tatevosov 1996: 106–
107) and Ingush (Nichols 2011).
Similarly, Dravidian languages are traditionally described as having four
non-finite forms: participle (relative, verbal, conditional, temporal), infinitive,
supine (or gerund), and verbal noun (Andronov 2003: 249–266, Krishnamurti
2003: Chapters 7.7–7.9, 9.3), but functionally these non-finite forms are nom-
inal, adjectival, or adverbial. In Kannada the -al non-finite form is nominal or
adverbial:
(67) a. madhura bomba:yige ho:galu nira:karisidaLu
Madhurai Bombay.dat go.inf refuse.pst.3sg.f
‘Madhura refused to go to Bombay.’ (Sridhar 1990: 43)
b. subbi aNgavikalarige vya:ya:ma kalisalu:/kalisalikke
Subbi handicapped.dat exercise teach.inf/teach.inf.dat
dina: basavanaguDige ho:gutta:Le
daily Basavanagudi.dat go.npst.3sg.f
‘Subbi goes to Basavanagudi every day to teach exercises to the
handicapped.’ (Sridhar 1990: 72)
The -udu form, too, is nominal or adverbial:
(68) a. ra:manige i:juvudakke baruvudilla
Rama.dat swim.npst.ger.dat come.npst.ger.neg
‘Rama doesn’t know swimming.’ (Sridhar 1990: 43)
b. praka:S jarmanige enjiniyaring o:duvudakka:gi
Prakash Germany.dat engineering study.ger.dat
ho:gidda:ne
go.npst.perf.3sg.m
‘Prakash has gone to Germany to study engineering.’ (Sridhar
1990: 73)
The -a form is nominal, adjectival, or adverbial:
(69) a. madhu ca:Di he:Li na:Nige e:Tu

Madhu complain say.pst.ptcpl Nani.dat beating
bi:Luvante ma:dida
fall.npst.ptcpl.comp make.pst.3sg.m
‘Madhu make Nani get a beating by telling on him.’ (Sridhar
1990: 43)
b. maguvannu kaccida na:yi
child.acc bite.pst.ptcpl dog
‘the dog which bit the child’ (Sridhar 1990: 49)
c. mu:rti ba:gilu tegeyuvaSTaralli jana
Murti door open.npst.ptcpl people
nuggiye: biTTaru
rush.pst.ptcpl.emph leave.pst.3pl
‘Just as Murti was about to open the door, the people pushed right
in.’ (Sridhar 1990: 69)
And the -i/-u forms are only adverbial:
(70) a:ka:s’ada kaDe no:Dutta: naDedare guNDiyalli

sky.obl toward see.pres.prog walk.pst.cond ditch.loc
bi:Lutti:ya
fall.npst.2sg
‘If you walk looking at the sky, you will fall in a ditch.’ (Sridhar 1990:
71)
By contrast, Altaic languages in general have fewer than three morpholog-

ical distinctions, but functionally neither more nor fewer than three. For most
Turkic languages, one group of non-finite forms function nominally and ad-
jectivally while the other is adverbial (Johanson 1998: 46–47, 60–64), which
is similar to Mongolic languages in general (Janhunen 2003: 21–22, 25–26;
Rybatzki 2003: 382–383). As for Tungusic languages, in Evenki the participle
has nominal, adjectival, and occasionally adverbial functions:
(71) a. alagumni duku-d’ari-va-n iche-0-m

teacher write-ptcpl-acc.def-3sg.poss see-nfut-1sg
‘I see that the teacher is writing.’ (Nedjalkov 1997: 24)
b. bi duku-na-duk-in dukuvun-duk kete-ve
1sg write-ptcpl-abl-3sg.poss book-abl much-acc.def
sa:-cha-v
know-pst-1sg
‘I learnt much from the book that he wrote.’ (Nedjalkov 1997:
34)
600 Tong Wu
c. so:t deru-che bi-ne-di-vi nungan

very get.tired-ptcpl be-ptcpl-ins-refl.poss 3sg.m
a:sin-mu-d’acha-n
fall.asleep-vol-impf-3sg
‘He wanted to sleep because he was very tired.’ (Nedjalkov 1997:
43)
The converbs form adverbial clauses:
(72) d’u-la-vi eme-mi ulle-ve dev-d’enge-s
house-all-refl.poss come-conv meat-acc.def eat-fut-2sg
‘When/If you come home you will eat meat.’ (Nedjalkov 1997: 43)
See also Malchukov (1995: Chapters 3.7.7–3.7.8, 4.2, 8) for Even.
Tibeto-Burman is another group which widely uses non-finite forms (Her-
ring 1991; DeLancey 2002, 2011; Noonan 2008; Post 2008; Watters 2008;
Genetti 2011). The morphological details vary from language to language,
without going beyond the tripartite functional distinction. For example, in
Newar (Genetti 2007), the -i infinitive has nominal and adverbial functions:
(73) a. d.oli bu nichi d˜ālāN-an cõ-i mal-a
doli carry.nomin all.day fast-ptcpl stay-inf must-3sg.pst
‘The doli carrier must be fasting all day.’ (Genetti 2007: 419)
b. nichi ju-i-ho isi mā sit-a
day be-inf-when 1pl.excl.gen mother die-pst.3sg
‘When it became day, our mother died.’ (Genetti 2007: 472)
The -gu/-ku/-u/-a/-e forms are used as relative clauses and sometimes as com-
plement clauses:
(74) jaba jin u jāNal hal-gu tār-agi
when 1sg.erg dem bird cry.out-nomin hear-1sg.pres
‘when I hear this bird cry out’ (Genetti 2007: 396)
Some isolated languages use non-finite forms, too. In Nivkh (Gruzdeva
1998), participles form relative clauses while converbs are used nominally or
adverbially:
(75) a. n’i zosķ t’aķo tyr t‘xy p‘i-d’
1sg break.ptcpl knife table on be-fin
‘The knife which I have broken is on the table.’ (Gruzdeva 1998:
50)
b. ačim ķo-ř tvi-d
grandmother be.ill-conv stop-fin
‘(My) grandmother stopped to be ill.’ (Gruzdeva 1998: 49)
c. ymk čo haķ-vul p‘-ajmņař-kiř roř k‘erai-d

mother fish cut-conv refl-husband-ins together talk-fin
‘When mother was cutting fish, (she) talked with her husband.’
(Gruzdeva 1998: 50)
Thus, however much non-finite forms vary morphologically, they remain

quite uniform functionally. The languages and language families adduced to
exemplify non-finite forms all have prenominal relative clauses. This is neither
a coincidence nor a bias of the data, and it is possible to establish the following
implication:
(76) Non-finite prenominal relative clause → non-finite subordination:

If a language uses non-finite prenominal relative clauses, it also uses
non-finite complements and/or non-finite adverbial clauses.
This means that prenominal relatives are not non-finite intrinsically, but owing
to the fact that prenominal-relative-clause languages use non-finite subordina-
tion in general. Given that relative clauses are a kind of subordinate clauses, it
is predictable that if subordination is formed with non-finite constructions in
general, relative clauses, whether prenominal or postnominal, should be non-
finite as well. Reformulated in a more radical way, it is meaningful to insist
on prenominal relative clauses being non-finite only if the language in ques-
tion uses non-finite forms merely for prenominal relatives, but not for the other
subordinates. Nonetheless, I have not found such a language.
The reasoning of other authors is similar. Thus, DeLancey (1986: 1) holds
that “the nominalization function is chronologically and systematically prior to
relativization, which is merely one specialized function of nominalization”,13
and Whaley (1997: 265) writes that “in general, if a language tends toward
using nonfinite verbs for other embedded structures (such as adverbials and
complements) then there is sufficient grounds to consider constructions such
as [participle modifying clause] as a relative clause”.
Givón (2001: Chapter 11.7, 2009: Chapter 5) made a more detailed analysis
in favor of the above idea by proposing the dichotomy “extreme nominaliz-
ing (embedding) languages” and “extreme finite (non-embedding) languages”
(Givón 2001: 26):
13. An anonymous reviewer noted that this was about the later stage of the development: the
nominalizers developed out of relative clause structures (general head nouns bleached into
nominalizers), and then the nominalized forms were used to modify nouns. See also LaPolla
1994, Genetti 2011, and Yap et al. 2011 for more diachronic discussion. For the present study,
I make no assumptions about the historical precedence of any particular type of structure or
its function.
602 Tong Wu
The broadest cross-language typological distinction in finiteness is the veritable

chasm between extreme nominalizing and extreme finite languages. In the first
type, all subordinate clauses are (at least historically) nominalized. Only main
clauses display fully finite structure. In the second, no clause-type is nominalized,
and thus all clause-types are fully finite.14
As extreme nominalizing languages he named Tibeto-Burman, Turkic, Carib,

Quechuan, some languages of the Papuan Highlands, and Northern Uto-
Aztecan. In this list, Tibeto-Burman, Turkic, and Quechuan languages in gen-
eral have prenominal relatives. In some Tibeto-Burman languages, even inde-
pendent clauses can be non-finite – variously referred to as “non-embedded
nominalization”, “main-clause nominalization”, or “stand-alone nominaliza-
tion” in the literature (Matisoff 1972, Noonan 1997, Watters 2008, DeLancey
2011, Genetti 2011, Post 2011). Here are a few examples from Kham (77),
Manange (78), and Newar (79):
(77) ahjya uhbyali-k@ ge: nahm-ni
earlier spring-loc pro.1pl low.country-abl
ge-hu-zya-o
1pl-come-contin-nomin
‘Last spring we were coming up from the low-country.’ (Watters 2002:
355)
(78) 1khi 4nu-p2
3.sg sleep-nomin
‘He will sleep.’ (Hildebrandt 2004: 83)
(79) pus-na phoN-a rā?
Pus-abl ask.for-nomin q
‘Was it in (the month of) Pus that he asked?’ (Genetti 2007: 401)
It seems reasonable to assume an implicational universal that if a language
uses non-finite forms in independent clauses, it must use non-finite forms in
subordinate clauses.
Givón’s examples of extreme finite languages were Iroquois, Southern
Arawak, and Athabaskan. Amharic also seems to be such a language (Leslau
1995: 734–819), and perhaps Tigre, too (Leslau 1945, Raz 1997). In these lan-
guages, subordinate clauses are most often finite, even if non-finite forms do
exist. In fact, in Semitic languages in general, subordinate clauses are often
finite (Lipiński 2001: 530–553).
14. This should be qualified by “prototypically”. Languages do not have to belong to one of
the groups: isolating languages are neither extreme nominalizing nor extreme finite. Some
languages like English seem difficult to fit in.
It is claimed that if a language has both prenominal and postnominal rel-

atives, it is often prenominal relatives that are non-finite, if any is non-finite.
Examples are German (80) and Hungarian (81):
(80) der in seinem Büro arbeitende Mann

art in his.dat study work.ptcpl man
‘the man who is working in his study’ (Keenan & Comrie 1977: 64)
(81) a. a könyv-et olvas-ó lány beteg volt

art book-acc read-ptcpl girl sick was
‘The girl reading a/the book was sick.’ (Kenesei et al. 1998: 38)
b. a lány által olvas-ott könyv érdekes volt
art girl by read-ptcpl book interesting was
‘The book read by the girl was interesting.’ (Kenesei et al. 1998:
38)
Prenominal relatives in such languages are not primary prenominal rela-

tives as defined in Section 2. Why non-primary prenominal relatives are of-
ten non-finite would seem an open question. In fact, this generalization needs
confirming, because in some primary-postnominal-relative-clause languages,
non-finite relative clauses must also be postnominal, like in French (82) and
Modern Hebrew (83):
(82) a. l’ homme [qui a volé un

art man rel aux.indic.pres.3sg steal.pst.ptcpl art
vélo]RC
bike
‘the man who has stolen a bike’
b. l’ homme [qui a été
art man rel aux.indic.pres.3sg aux.pst.ptcpl
battu par le policier]RC
beat.pst.ptcpl by art policeman
‘the man who has been beaten by the policeman’
c. l’ homme [ayant volé un vélo]RC
art man aux.pres.ptcpl steal.pst.ptcpl art bike
‘the man having stolen a bike’
d. l’ homme [battu par le policier]RC
art man beat.pst.ptcpl by art policeman
‘the man beaten by the policeman’
(83) a. hine ha-’iš [še-ma’aric ’et sara]RC

here art-man comp-admire.pres.sg.m acc Sara
‘Here is the man that admires Sara.’ (Siloni 1997: 114)
604 Tong Wu
b. hine ha-’iš [še-sara ma’arica]RC

here art-man comp-Sara admire.pres.sg.f
‘Here is the man that Sara admires.’ (Siloni 1997: 114)
c. ’iš [ha-kore ’iton b-a-rexov]RC hu meragel
man art-read.nfn newspaper in-art-street is spy
‘A man reading a newspaper in the street is a spy.’ (Siloni 1997:
115)
d. hu kvar ra’a ’et kol ha-sratim
pro.3sg.m already see.pst.3sg.m acc all art-movie.pl
[ha-mukranim b-a-’ir]RC
art-project.nfn in-art-town
‘He has already seen all the movies shown in town.’ (Siloni 1997:
109)
On the other hand, English can use both non-finite prenominal and non-finite
postnominal relatives (Krause 2001: 24, 27):
(84) a. I saw the [(*which/*that) recently released]RC movie.

b. Mary loves the [(*who) passionately singing]RC man over there.
c. We have long been expecting the book [recently released by Cas-
cadilla Press]RC .
d. A man [(*who/*that) working for John]RC visited us yesterday.
Moreover, there are languages that use finite and non-finite prenominal
relative clauses: for example, Maale (Amha 2001: Chapter 8.1), Manambu
(Aikhenvald 2008: 468–479), and Tati (Authier 2010: Chapter 15).
It is difficult to establish a reliable typology according to the morphology
of relative clauses: prenominal as well as postnominal relatives can be finite
or non-finite; and finite as well as non-finite relatives can be prenominal or
postnominal.
One argument in favor of the above analysis is that non-finite prenominal
relative clauses are morphologically similar to other non-finite constructions.
Two properties, inter alia, can be mentioned. The first one concerns the mark-
ing of the arguments of the non-finite verb form. For example, in non-finite
constructions, arguments can be in the genitive, like my, the subject of forget-
ting, in the English example My forgetting her name is embarrassing (Quirk et
al. 1985: 1064). This marking is found in some non-finite prenominal relative
clauses, for example, in Gallong (85) and in Apatani (85):
(85) h1g1 Nó-k@ dó-há (jaràa) @@

sprx.ind 1sg-gen eat-nomin (goods) cop.impf
‘This is the thing which I’ll eat.’ (externally-headed relative) or ‘This
is what I’ll eat.’ (headless relative) (Post 2011: 269)
(86) a. ṅo s1-mi-ka pan1bo myu mi kapato

I cattle-acc-gen cut.nomin man acc see.pst
‘I saw the man who killed the cattle.’ (Abraham 1985: 131)
b. kago-ka tun1 myu
Kago-gen kick.nomin man
‘the man whom Kago kicked’ (Abraham 1985: 131)
Interestingly, in (86a), it is the object s1-mi ‘cattle-acc’ that has the genitive
marker while in (86b), it is the subject kago.
The second property is about the non-finite verb form itself. The non-finite
form can have noun phrase markers, such as case, number, and gender, as for
example in Newar (87), Tamang (88), and some Indo-Aryan languages, such
as Marathi (89):
(87) kātakāt mārāmār ha-ku-pen

Karakat maramar say-nomin-pl
‘those who say: ‘karakat maramar’ ’ (Genetti 2007: 392)
(88) 1 kh a-pa-ta 1 pin 1 to:-pa 3a 1 kh a-pa-ta 1 pin
come-nomin-dat give must-impf neg come-nomin-dat give

3a 1 to:
neg need
‘We must give [food] to the [people who] come, to [those who] don’t
come, we don’t have to give.’ (Mazaudon 2003: 300)
(89) a. tū pāt.hawlelı̄ sād.ı̄ surekh āhe
pro.2sg send.pst.ptcpl.sg.f saree.sg.f beautiful cop
‘The saree which you sent is beautiful.’ (Pandharipande 2003:
90)
b. mı̄ rāhāt aslela ghar
pro.1sg live.pres be.pst.ptcpl.sg.neut house.sg.neut
khüp dzuna āhe
very old cop
‘The house in which I am living is very old.’ (Pandharipande
2003: 90)
c. tyāne āmāntraṅ patrikā dilelı̄
pro.3sg.ag invitation card give.pst.ptcpl.pl
sagl̇ı̄ māṅsa lagnālā
all.pl.neut people.pl.neut wedding.dem
ālı̄
come.pst.3pl.neut
‘All the people whom he had sent (given) invitation cards had
come to the wedding.’ (Pandharipande 2003: 90)
606 Tong Wu
Turkic languages are interesting in that there are four types of marking for
non-finite relative clauses relativizing on non-subject positions. The first marks
the subject of non-finite prenominal relatives with the genitive case and the
non-finite relative verb with the possessive marker, like in Turkish:
(90) oya-nın kütüphane-den çal-diğ-ı bu eski kitap
Oya-gen library-abl steal-nomin-3sg.poss dem old book
‘this old book that Oya stole from the library’ (Kornfilt 2005: 515)
The second type marks the subject with the nominative or genitive case but the
non-finite verb always with the possessive, as for example in Azerbaijanian:
(91) men yazajaG-ïm mektub
pro.1sg.nom write.ptcpl.-1sg.poss letter
‘the letter I shall write’ (Schönig 1998: 258)
The third type uses neither the genitive case nor the possessive, like in Uzbek:
(92) men qil-gan isloh
pro.1sg do-ptcpl reforms
‘the reforms which I have made’ (Kornfilt 2005: 515)
Uzbek also uses a fourth kind of marking: the subject has the genitive case,
and it is the head noun, not the non-finite relative verb, that is marked with the
possessive:
(93) men-iN gapir-gan gap-im
1sg-gen say-ptcpl word-1sg.poss
‘the word(s) I said’ (Kornfilt 2005: 516)
Kazakh (Kirchner 1998a: 328), Kirghiz (Aydın 2006: 317), and Noghay (Csató
& Karakoç 1998: 340) likewise use the last two kinds of marking.
Other Altaic languages use more or less the same system, with the parameter
[±GEN] for the subject and [±POSS] for the non-finite relative verb or the
head noun. In Khalkha, only the subject has the genitive case:
(94) a. oxin-ï öms-dög gutal
girl-gen wear-ptcpl boot.pl
‘the boots that the girl usually wears’ (Svantesson 2003: 172)
b. oxin-ï nom ögö-x xün
girl-gen book give-ptcpl man
‘the man to whom the girl will give a book’ (Svantesson 2003:
172)
In Even, the subject cannot have the genitive marker while the non-finite
relative verb is still marked with the possessive marker:
(95) etiken maa-ča-n bujun

old.man kill-perf.ptcpl-3sg.poss reindeer
‘the (wild) reindeer, which the old man killed’ (Malchukov 1995: 34)
Dagur is to some extent quite exceptional. Even if in this language the general
pattern is the one found in Uzbek (93), i.e., the subject is marked with the
genitive case and the head noun with the possessive marker (96a), the subject
in relative clauses can have the accusative marker (96b):
(96) a. mini au-sen biteg-miny adig sain

1sg.gen buy-perf book-1sg.poss15 very good
‘The book I bought is very good.’ (Hale 2002: 110)
b. nami al-sen taul-min [sic] adig Sig
1sg.acc kill-perf rabbit-1sg.poss very big
‘The rabbit I killed is very big.’ (Hale 2002: 113)
Markings similar to Altaic languages are found in Quechuan languages. In

Cuzco Quechua, the subject can have the nominative or genitive case, while
the non-finite relative verb is always marked with the corresponding possessive
marker:
(97) a. ruan qulqi(-ta) qu-sqa-n warmi man

man money-acc give-ptcpl-3sg.poss woman to
‘to the woman to whom the man gave the money’ (Lefebvre &
Muysken 1988: 186)
b. runa-q qulqi qu-sqa-n warmi man
man-gen money give-ptcpl-3sg.poss woman to
‘to the woman to whom the man gave the money’ (Lefebvre &
Muysken 1988: 186)
In (97b), the subject has the genitive case -q, but the direct object does not have
the expected accusative, while in (97a), the nominative subject is followed by
the accusative direct object, even if the accusative suffix -ta is only optional.
Differing from Cuzco Quechua, Huallaga Quechua never marks the subject
with the genitive, but still marks prenominal relatives with the possessive:
(98) qam maqa-sha-yki runa sha-yka:-mu-n

pro.2sg hit-ptcpl-2sg.poss man come-impf-afar-3sg
‘The man whom you hit is coming.’ (Weber 1989: 280)
15. Hale glossed miny as ‘1sg.gen’, but actually, this form should belong to the possessive suffix
paradigm. See C. Wu (1996: Chapters 2.1.2–2.1.3).
608 Tong Wu
These examples show how nominalization is morphosyntacticized in pre-

nominal relatives: on the one hand, arguments can be marked with the gen-
itive, and on the other hand, the non-finite relative verb can have nominal
morphology such as case and number. These two characteristics are found
in various non-finite constructions in various language families, with or with-
out prenominal relative clauses. Theoretical analyses are numerous (Grimshaw
1990: Chapter 3, Koptjevskaja-Tamm 1993, Siloni 1997, Malchukov 2004,
Alexiadou et al. 2007: 477–546). It is certainly interesting to study the proper-
ties of non-finite prenominal relatives, but only studying non-finite prenominal
relatives with no consideration to non-finite forms in general may mask more
general conclusions.
3.7. Accessibility Hierarchy

Keenan & Comrie 1977 is the foundational study of the Accessibility Hierarchy
of relative clauses. Their version is the following (Keenan & Comrie 1977:
66):16
(99) Accessibility Hierarchy (AH)
SU > DO > IO > OBL > GEN > OCOMP
According to some typological studies (Downing 1978: 396, C. Lehmann
1986: 672, Dik 1997: 56–57, Song 2001: 213, 232), prenominal relative clauses
often have fewer accessible positions than other types of relative clauses if
there is more than one type of relative clauses in a single language. Actually, in
these studies the prenominal-relative-clause languages quoted are not primary-
prenominal-relative-clause languages. On the contrary, primary prenominal
relatives should be able to relativize on as many positions as other types of
relative clauses. My data proves this: in most prenominal-relative-clause lan-
guages in my sample, the range of accessible positions is wide, often not less
restricted than in English. Here I alphabetically list relevant languages, with
references for relative clause analyses:
(100) Abkhaz (Hewitt 1979)
Alamblak (Bruce 1984: 106)
Amharic (Leslau 1995: 88–93),
Bantawa (Doornenbal 2009: 201),
Basque (Rijk 1972: 118–123, Oyharçabal 2003: 774–781)
16. See also C. Lehmann (1986, 2003) for a different version.

Burushaski (Tiffou & Patry 1995),

Cuzco Quechua (T. Wu 2008: 106–108)
Dhivehi (Cain & Gair 2000: 36)
Dolakha Newar (Genetti 2007: 312–313)
Even (Malchukov 1995: 34)
Evenki (Nedjalkov 1997: 40, 42, 56–57)
Gallong (Post 2007: Chapters 6.1.2.2.5, 14.1.3.3, 15.3.1.3)
Godoberi (Tatevosov 1996: 211–217)
Hakha Lai (Peterson 2003: 421–422)
Huallaga Quechua (Weber 1983: 35–79, 1989: 279–282)
Hupda (Epps 2008: 834–838)
Ingush (Nichols 2011: Chapter 26.2)
Japanese (T. Wu 2008: 103–106)
Kabardian (Colarusso 1992: 189, 191–192)
Kambaata (Treis 2008: Section 3.2)
Kannada (Sridhar 1990: 56–58, 60–62)
Khwarshi (Khalilova 2009: 350–354)
Kolyma Yukaghir (Maslova 2003a: 416–427)
Korean (Tagashira 1972: 216–224, Sohn 1994: 67–68)
Kryz (Authier 2009: Chapter 19.1)
Kyirong Tibetan (Huber 2003)
Laz (Lacroix 2009: 756–758)
Lhasa Tibetan (Mazaudon 1978)
Lezgian (Haspelmath 1993: 340)
Maale (Amha 2001: 163–166)
Malayalam (Asher & Kumari 1997: 58–68, 75)
Manambu (Aikhenvald 2008: 469, 475–477)
Manange (Hildebrandt 2004: Section 5.2)
Mangghuer (Slater 2003: Chapter 6.2.1.1)
Marathi (Pandharipande 1997: 89–98)
Mari (Matsumura 1981)
Mandarin (T. Wu 2007)
Meithei (Bhat & Ningomba 1997: 280–281)
Mongsen Ao (Coupe 2007: 226–227)
Oksapmin (Loughnane 2009: 197–198)
Qiang (LaPolla & Huang 2003: Chapter 5.2)
Rawang (LaPolla 2008: 801–802)
Sherpa (Kelly 2004: Section 5.6)
Sidamo (Kazuhiro 2007: Chapter 5.4)
Silt’i (Rawda 2003: Chapter 3)
Sinhala (Gair 2003: 808–809, Gair & Paolillo 1997: 54)
Takale Kham (Watters 2002: 201–211)
610 Tong Wu
Tamang (Mazaudon 2011: 1061)

Tamil (Lakshmanan 2000: 592)
Tati (Authier 2010: Chapter 15)
Tsez (Comrie & Polinsky 1999)
Turkish (Kornfilt 1997: Chapter 1.1.2.3.7)
Wolaytta (Wakasa 2008: Chapters 4.4.3.3.1–4.4.3.3.2)
I have found only three prenominal-relative-clause languages with limited
accessibility. In Amis (J. Wu 2003) and in Tsou (Zeitoun 2005: 273) only the
subject can be relativized on. This reflects the particularity of Austronesian
languages in general (Keenan & Comrie 1977, 1979; Comrie 2003). The third
language is Urarina. It only relativizes on absolutive and ergative arguments
(i.e., subjects):
(101) a. k0 nii ajrinia la0h0-i ra0si
there dem outside sit-nomin bite.u3sg
‘It bit the one that was sitting outside.’ (Olawsky 2006: 322)
b. kiitCa kwaa0na-0r-i itahe-ri-tCã0-ni
1sg create-pl-nomin destroy-irr-a1sg-ass
‘I will destroy those which I have created.’ (Olawsky 2006: 322)
c. katCa ki-0r-era baka0a-k0r0
man eat-pl-nomin Indio-pl
‘the indios who ate people’ (Olawsky 2006: 326)
Some other languages cannot relativize on certain lower positions, such as
possessors in Evenki (Nedjalkov 1997: 42), postpositional objects in Godoberi
(Tatevosov 1996: 215), and comitative and the object of comparison in Alam-
blak (Bruce 1984: 106).
Apart from the hierarchy, Keenan & Comrie (1977: 67, 68) also proposed
two groups of constraints:
(102) The Hierarchy Constraints (HCs)
1. A language must be able to relativize subjects.
2. Any RC[i.e., relative clause]-forming strategy must apply to a
continuous segment of the AH.
3. Strategies that apply at one point of the AH may in principle
cease to apply at any lower point.
(103) The Primary Relativization Constraint (PRC)
1. A language must have a primary RC[i.e., relative clause]-
forming strategy.
2. If a primary strategy in a given language can apply to a low
position on the AH, then it can apply to all higher positions.
3. A primary strategy may cut off at any point on the AH.
The “primary RC-forming strategy”17 is defined as the strategy that “can be

used to relativize subjects” (Keenan & Comrie 1977: 67).
The first one of the Hierarchy Constraints is confirmed by my data: all
prenominal-relative-clause languages can relativize on subjects. One prenom-
inal-relative-clause language, Chechen, contradicts the second constraint be-
cause resumption is obligatory only for the dative:
(104) shiena kilaaba dika laatta della volu
3sg.refl Caleb.erg good land.abs give.pst aux.ptcpl
stag as dwaatettira
person.abs 1sg.erg push.away.pst
‘I rejected the person to whom Caleb gave good land.’ (Komen 2007:
2)
The third sub-constraint is confirmed by the prenominal-relative-clause lan-
guages consulted as well.
As for the Primary Relativization Constraint, the primary RC-forming strat-
egy in prenominal-relative-clause languages is gapping. If gapping is used even
for the lowest positions, it must apply to higher positions – the second con-
straint is confirmed, too. Gapping can stop anywhere: at direct objects, indirect
objects, possessors, or obliques.
To conclude, prenominal relative clauses in general respect the Accessibility
Hierarchy and the related constraints.
3.8. Prenominal relative clause → OV

The implication prenominal relative clause → OV was not explicitly pro-
posed by Greenberg (1963), but it could be deduced from his Universals Nos.
3, 4, and 24. Early mentions of this implication include Vennemann 1972, W.
P. Lehmann 1973, and Mallinson & Blake 1981; see further Dryer 1991, 2005.
It is known to have exceptions, most famously including Mandarin Chinese
(Downing 1978: 392, Mallinson & Blake 1981: 273, Keenan 1985: 144, de
Vries 2002: 36, Kroeger 2005: 232, Creissels 2006: 239, Andrews 2007: 209,
Dryer 2007: 97).18 But there are more exceptions:
17. Note that their definition of “primary relative clause-forming strategy” is different from my
definition of “primary relative clause” given above in Section 2 in terms of “markedness”.
18. Li & Thompson (1981: 19–27) assume that Mandarin is mixed rather than SOV or SVO;
prenominal relatives would therefore not be wholly out of order.
612 Tong Wu
(105) SVO languages:

Cantonese (Matthews & Yip 1994: Chapters 4.1, 6.4, 2001), Minnan
(Chen 2008), Bai (Dryer 2005, Comrie 2008), Bukiyip (Conrad &
Wogiga 1991: 80–87), Ngiti (Rijkhoff 2002: 195, 241, 300, Kutsch
Lojenga 1994)
Verb-initial languages:
Amis (Dryer 2005, Comrie 2008), Tsou (Zeitoun 2005: 265, 271)
Verb-second language:
Ingush (Nichols 2011: Chapter 30.2)19
There have been several attempts to explain this implication, either diachron-
ically (e.g., the “Relative Time” hypothesis of Hawkins 1983) or in terms of
processing. Thus, Kuno (1974) sees it is an instance of the avoidance of center-
embedding, and Hawkins (1990, 1994) also invokes processing difficulties.
However, arguing against such a processing acount, Comrie (2008) and C.-
J. C. Lin (2008) point to unique properties of prenominal relatives in Chinese
and Formosan languages. More cases with non-harmonic ordering of relative
clauses and objects should be examined – but then, “as one considers more
cases, then one increases the probability of occurrence of even statistically
rare phenomena, such as an unprincipled skewing between logically parallel
phenomena, like postnominal and prenominal relative clauses” (Comrie 2008:
730).
4. Conclusion: What is the prenominal relative clause?

In this article I have surveyed the main syntactic properties of prenominal rela-
tive clauses: relativizer, gapping, resumptive pronoun, non-finiteness, behavior
with respect to accessibility, and the ordering connection prenominal rela-
tive clause → OV. The question I would now like to ask in conclusion is to
what extent these properties are intrinsic to prenominal relatives. It is possible
to proceed by elimination.
Three properties can be eliminated: non-finiteness, accessibility behavior,
and the ordering implication. First, I argued in Section 3.6 that the non-finite
prenominal relative clause is only a particular case of non-finite subordinate
clauses in general. Second, to conform to the Accessibility Hierarchy is not
an intrinsic property of prenominal relatives, not even one of relative clauses:
as Van Valin (2001: 21–80) and Croft (2003: 142–155) convincingly argued,
the Accessibility Hierarchy is only a manifestation of a more general hierarchy,
19. To be more precise, Ingush has verb-final order in non-main and some main clauses, but
verb-second order in most main clauses. See Nichols 2011: Chapter 30.2.
i.e., the grammatical relation hierarchy. The latter also regulates behavioral pat-
terns other than relativization, for example, reflexivization, causative, control
constructions, and cleft formation. Third, the implication prenominal rela-
tive clause → OV may be better analyzed in a broader framework regarding
word order universals in general. Therefore, non-finiteness, the Accessibility
Hierarchy, and the implication only coincidentally concern prenominal rela-
tives.
The other three properties – relativizer, gapping, resumption – seem to be
more intrinsic to prenominal relative clauses. Prenominal relatives are relative
clauses containing a relativizer and using gapping or resumption for the con-
stituent relativized on. This rewording can indeed distinguish prenominal rela-
tives from internally-headed relatives, correlative relatives, and adjoined rela-
tives, because these three types of relative clauses by definition can never use
gapping (or resumption). However, this rewording cannot differentiate prenom-
inal relatives from postnominal relatives: English postnominal relatives use
different relativizers (relative pronouns, the complementizer that, zero mark-
ing) and gapping (Quirk et al. 1985: Chapters 6.32–35, 17.9–27), while Stan-
dard Arabic postnominal relatives use two kinds of relativizers (linker and zero
marker), gapping, and resumption (Ryding 2005: 322–328, Aoun et al. 2010:
Chapter 7).
In order to differentiate prenominal and postnominal relative clauses, one
may mention that prenominal relatives never use relative pronouns, but post-
nominal relatives do. Actually, relative pronouns are found almost exclusively
in Europe (Comrie 1989: 149, Creissels 2006: 228). It seems more plausible to
consider relative pronouns as an areal (or genetic) trait than as an intrinsic prop-
erty of postnominal relatives. Similarly, linkers seem to be confined to Africa
(Creissels et al. 2008: 142). Areal and genetic factors excluded, real typologi-
cally “unbiased” relativizers are complementizers and zero marking. Note that
complementizers seem more frequent than zero marking in postnominal rela-
tives, but less frequent in prenominal relatives. This contrast may be ascribed to
the (non-)finiteness of relative clauses in question. Non-finite relative clauses
almost never use relativizers. This tendency is observed in languages with post-
nominal finite and non-finite relatives, like French or Hebrew (Section 3.6), in
languages with finite postnominal relatives and non-finite prenominal relatives,
like German and English, and in languages with finite and non-finite prenomi-
nal relatives, like Manambu (Section 3.3). Expressed more radically, the above
tendency shows that non-finiteness determines zero marking, because there are
indeed languages which have no relativizer but use finite verb forms in rela-
tive clauses (for example English), while languages which uses non-finite verb
forms and a relativizer are rare. Given that (non-)finiteness is not an intrinsic
property of relative clauses, the distribution of complementizer and zero mark-
ing should not be determined by the positional type of relative clauses.
614 Tong Wu
Prenominal and postnominal relative clauses also seem to differ in gapping

to the extent that prenominal relatives have two kinds of unusual gaps (Section
3.4), as seen for example in Mandarin:
(106) a. lı̌sì dúshū de xuéxiào
Lisi study comp school
‘the school where Lisi studies’ (Lit. ‘the school that Lisi stud-
ies’)
b. lı̌sì kū de shēngyı̄n
Lisi cry comp sound
‘the sound of Lisi’s crying’ (Lit. ‘the sound that Lisi cries’)
Gaps like the one in (106a) (corresponding to an adpositional phrase) ex-
ist in non-standard French (Blanche-Benveniste 2000: Chapter 5.1) and non-
standard Italian (Guglielmo Cinque, personal communication), but such gaps
as in (106b) have not been reported in any postnominal relatives. This may
be because this phenomenon in postnominal relatives has not been paid atten-
tion to. Without clear negative evidence, it is impossible to confirm its non-
existence in postnominal relatives.
Now we seem to have reached the conclusion that prenominal relative
clauses are not so different from postnominal relatives: at any rate, they are
both head-external relative clauses. To put it another way, head-external rela-
tive clauses, whether prenominal or postnominal, are relative clauses contain-
ing a relativizer (often complementizer or zero) and using gapping or resump-
tion for the constituent relativized on. Theoretically, one way to explain the
similarity between prenominal and postnominal relative clauses may be that
they are both derived from one single “deep structure”, or one may be “de-
rived” from the other. These two terms can be understood diachronically, in
that one type of relative clauses may have historically evolved from the other
type. However, most prenominal-relative-clause languages are not documented
well enough for this hypothesis to be evaluated seriously. Chinese is one of the
rare prenominal-relative-clause languages for which such a study is possible,
but it seems that prenominal relatives have existed in this language for quite
a long time (Aldridge 2008). On the other hand, if “deep structure” and “de-
rived from” are understood synchronically, then one may follow the approach
of Kayne 1994, who has both prenominal and postnominal relatives as base-
generated in a postnominal position. The former, after movements, ends up
in prenominal position. Thus, to the question “what is the prenominal rela-
tive clause” one may answer that the prenominal relative clause is a kind of
“prenominalized” postnominal relative clause. Studies along these lines are
not rare (Simpson 1998, 2003a, b; Murasugi 2000; X.-Z. Z. Wu 2000; De-
meke 2001; de Vries 2002: 131–135; Hoshi 2004; Cagri 2005; Kornfilt 2005;
Ishizuka 2006; Cinque 2009; T. Wu 2011), even if there remain many prob-
lems. Only further diachronic and synchronic studies of more prenominal (and
postnominal) relative clauses will tell us whether the idea of separate structures
for prenominal and postnominal relatives is right.
Received: 30 October 2010 Université Sorbonne Nouvelle Paris III

Revised: 7 September 2011 Laboratoire Langues et civilisations
à tradition orale (UMR 7107, CNRS)
Laboratoire Dynamique du langage (UMR 5596, CNRS)
Correspondence address: 134, avenue Berthelot, 69007, Lyon, France; e-mail: tong.wu@etud.
sorbonne-nouvelle.fr, wu.tong.linguistics@gmail.com
Acknowledgements: This study was presented in the Laboratoire Dynamique du Langage on 8
October 2010. I would like to thank the audience for their remarks. I thank the colleagues with
whom I discussed data or analysis: Antoine Guillaume, Françoise Rose, Chloé Darmon, and Hayat
Omar. I am indebted to Natalia Cáceres and the editorial office of LT for proofreading and stylis-
tic improvement. My thanks also go to the editor and four anonymous reviewers of LT for their
comments and suggestions. Last but not least, I would like to express my most sincere thankful-
ness to my three directors, Denis Creissels, Georges Rebuschi, and Guglielmo Cinque for their
encouragement and guidance, both during and after my dissertations under their supervision. I am
also grateful to them for helpful comments on various versions of this paper. If any imperfection
remains, the fault is mine.
Abbreviations: 1/2/3 1st/2nd/3rd person; a subject of transitive clauses; abl ablative; abs ab-
solutive; acc accusative; actfoc action focus; affirm affirmative; ag agent; all allative; aor
aorist; applic applicative; art article; ass assertive; aug augmentative; aux auxiliary; cl clas-
sifier; comp complementizer; cond conditional; contin continuous; conv converb; cop copula;
dat dative; decl declarative; def definite; dem demonstrative; dir directional; dynm dynamic;
emph emphatic; erg ergative; excl exclusive; f feminine; fin finite; flr filler form; fut future;
gen genitive; ger gerund; impf imperfect(ive); inacc inaccusative; inch inchoative; ind indi-
viduator; indic indicative; iness inessive; inf infinitive; ins instrumental; irr irrealis; is indirect
speech; link linker; loc locative; m masculine; mid middle voice; msd masdar; nc noun class; neg
negative; neut neuter; nfn non-finite; nfut non-future tense; nom nominative; nomin nominal-
ization; npst non-past tense; nsubj non-subject; o1(sg)(f) object first person (singular) (feminine);
obj object; obl oblique; opt optative; pass passive; perf perfect(ive); pl plural; poss possessive;
pres present; pro pronoun; prog progressive; pst past tense; ptcpl participle; pv preverb; q ques-
tion marker; rc relative clause; refl reflexive; rel relativizer; relv relative verb form; s subject;
sg singular; sprx speaker-proximate; subj subject; tam tense-aspect-mode; tel telic; ts thematic
suffix; u subject of intransitive clauses; val valency operator; vers versatile tense; vol volitional.
References
Abraham, P. T. 1985. Apatani grammar. Mysore: Central Institute of Indian Languages.
Aikhenvald, Alexandra. Y. 2008. The Manambu language of East Sepik, Papua New Guinea. Ox-
ford: Oxford University Press.
Aldridge, Edith. 2008. ZHI and ZHE: A note on the historical development of Chinese relative
clauses. Unpublished manuscript, University of Washington.
Alexiadou, Artemis, Liliane Haegeman & Melita Stavrou. 2007. Noun phrase in the generative
perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
616 Tong Wu
Alexiadou, Artemis, Paul Law, André Meinunger & Chris Wilder. 2000. Introduction. In Alexiadou
et al. (eds.) 2000, 1–51.
Alexiadou, Artemis, Paul Law, André Meinunger & Chris Wilder (eds.). 2000. The syntax of rela-
tive clauses. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Amha, Azeb. 2001. The Maale language. Leiden: Research School of Asian, African and
Amerindian Studies, Leiden University.
Anderson, Gregory D. S. 1998. Xakas. München: Lincom Europa.
Anderson, Gregory D. S. 2008. GtaP. In Anderson (ed.) 2008, 682–763.
Anderson, Gregory D. S. & Felix Rau. 2008. Gorum. In Anderson (ed.) 2008, 381–433.
Anderson, Gregory D. S. (ed.). 2008. The Munda languages. London: Routledge.
Andrews, Avery D. 2007. Relative clauses. In Shopen (ed.) 2007, Vol. 2, 206–236.
Andronov, Mikhail S. 2003. A comparative grammar of the Dravidian languages. Wiesbaden:
Harrasowitz.
Andvik, Erik. 2003. Tshangla. In Thurgood & LaPolla (eds.) 2003, 439–455.
Aoun, Joseph E., Elabbas Benmamoun & Lina Choueiri. 2010. The syntax of Arabic. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Artiagoitia, Xabier. 2003. Complementation (noun clauses). In Hualde & Ortiz de Urbina (eds.)
2003, 634–710.
Asher, R. E. & T. C. Kumari. 1997. Malayalam. London: Routledge.
Authier, Gilles. 2009. Grammaire kryz. Leuven: Peeters.
Authier, Gilles. 2010. Le Judéo-tat. Paris: Ecole pratique des hautes études habilitation dissertation.
Aydın, Özgür. 2006. Some comparative notes on relative clauses in Kirghiz and Turkish. Žusup
Balasagyn atyndagy kyrgyz uluttuk universitetinin žarčysy vestnik 4(1). 317–322.
Bhat, D. N. S. & M. S. Ningomba. 1997. Manipuri grammar. München: Lincom Europa.
Bickel, Balthasar. 2003. Belhare. In Thurgood & LaPolla (eds.) 2003, 546–570.
Blanche-Benveniste, Claire. 2000. Approches de la langue parlée en français. Paris: Ophrys.
Borer, Hagit. 1984. Restrictive relatives in Modern Hebrew. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory
2. 219–260.
Bradley, David. 2003. Lisu. In Thurgood & LaPolla (eds.) 2003, 222–235.
Brown, Keith & Jim Miller (eds.). 1999. Concise encyclopedia of syntactic categories. Oxford:
Pergamon.
Bruce, Les P. 1984. The Alamblak language of Papua New Guinea (East Sepik) (Pacific Linguistics
C-81). Canberra: Australian National University.
Burling, Robbins. 2003. Garo. In Thurgood & LaPolla (eds.) 2003, 387–400.
Cagri, Ilhan M. 2005. Minimality and Turkish relative clauses. College Park, MD: University of
Maryland doctoral dissertation.
Cain, Bruce D. & James W. Gair. 2000. Dhivehi (Maldivian). München: Lincom Europa.
Cardona, George & Dhanesh Jain (eds.). 2003. The Indo-Aryan languages. London: Routledge.
Chen, Weirong. 2008. Relative clauses in Hui’an dialect. In Marjorie K. M. Chan & Hana Kang
(eds.), Proceedings of the 20th North American conference on Chinese linguistics (NACCL-
20). Vol. 2, 567–582. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University.
Cinque, Guglielmo. 2009. The prenominal origin of relative clauses. Paper read at EALing 2009
(Ecole d’Automne de Linguistique), Paris.
Coffin, Edna A. & Shmuel Bolozky. 2005. A reference grammar of Modern Hebrew. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Colarusso, John. 1992. A grammar of the Kabardian language. Calgary: University of Calgary
Press.
Comrie, Bernard. 1981. The formation of relative clause. In Barbara Lloyd & John Gay (eds.),
Universals of human thought: Some African evidence, 215–233. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Comrie, Bernard. 1989. Language universals and linguistic typology. 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell.
Comrie, Bernard. 1998a. Attributive clauses in Asian languages: Towards an areal typology. In
Winfried Boeder, Christoph Schroeder, Karl Heinz Wagner & Wolfgang Wildgen (eds.),
Sprache in Raum und Zeit: In memoriam Johannes Bechert, Vol. 2, 51–60. Tübingen: Narr.
Comrie, Bernard. 1998b. Rethinking the typology of relative clauses. Language Design 1. 59–86.
Comrie, Bernard. 2003. The verb-marking relative clause strategy. Linguistik Indonesia 21(1). 1–
18.
Comrie, Bernard. 2008. Prenominal relative clauses in verb-object languages. Language and Lin-
guistics 9. 723–733.
Comrie, Bernard & Maria Polinsky. 1999. Form and function in syntax: Relative clauses in Tsez.
In Michael Darnell, Edith Moravcsik, Frederick Newmeyer, Michael Noonan & Kathleen
Wheatley (eds.), Functionalism and formalism in linguistics, Vol. 2, 77–92. Amsterdam: Ben-
jamins.
Comrie, Bernard & Sandra A. Thompson. 2007. Lexical nominalization. In Shopen (ed.) 2007,
Vol. 3, 334–381.
Conrad, Robert J. & Kepas Wogiga. 1991. An outline of Bukiyip grammar (Pacific Linguistics
C-113). Canberra: Australian National University.
Coupe, Alexander R. 2007. A grammar of Mongsen Ao. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Courtney, Ellen H. 2006. Adult and child production of Quechua relative clauses. First Language
26. 317–338.
Creissels, Denis. 2005. Typologie de la relativisation et données de l’aire Caucase-Iran-Anatolie.
Paper read at the Atelier de syntaxe arménienne, Pithiviers, 23–25 May.
Creissels, Denis. 2006. Syntaxe générale, une introduction typologique, Vol. 2: La phrase. Paris:
Lavoisier-Hermès Science.
Creissels, Denis. 2007. Participles and finiteness: The case of Akhvakh. Unpublished manuscript,
Université Lumière Lyon II.
Creissels, Denis, Gerrit J. Dimmendaal, Zygmunt Frajzyngier & Chista König. 2008. Africa as
a morphosyntactic area. In Bernd Heine & Derek Nurse (eds.), A linguistic geography of
Africa, 86–150. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cristofaro, Sonia. 2003. Subordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Croft, William. 2003. Typology and universals. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Csató, Éva Á. & Birsel Karakoç. 1998. Noghay. In Johanson & Csató (eds.) 1998, 333–343.
Daniel, Michael & Yuri Lander. 2010. The girl that is said, the meat that has been slaughtered, and
the life that will be longed: On peculiar cases of relativization in East Caucasian. Paper read
at the Syntax of the World’s Languages IV, Lyon, 23–26 September.
DeLancey, Scott. 1986. Relativization as nominalization in Tibetan and Newari. Paper read at
the 19th International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics, Ohio State
University.
DeLancey, Scott. 2002. Nominalization and relativization in Bodic. Berkeley Linguistics Society
28S. 55–72.
DeLancey, Scott. 2003. Lhasa Tibetan. In Thurgood & LaPolla (eds.) 2003, 270–288.
Delancey, Scott. 2011. Finite structures from clausal nominalization in Tibeto-Burman. In Yap et
al. (eds.) 2011, 343–360.
Demeke, Girma A. 2001. N-final relative clauses: The Amharic case. Studia Linguistica 55. 192–
216.
Dik, Simon C. 1997. The theory of Functional Grammar, Vol. 2: Complex and derived construc-
tions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Ding, Picus S. 2003. Prinmi: A sketch of Niuwozi. In Thurgood & LaPolla (eds.) 2003, 588–601.
Dobrushina, Nina & Sergej G. Tatevosov. 1996. Usage of verbal forms. In Kibrik (ed.) 1996, 91–
107.
Doornenbal, Marius. 2009. A grammar of Bantawa: Grammar, paradigm tables, glossary and texts
of a Rai language of Eastern Nepal. Utrecht: LOT.
618 Tong Wu
Downing, Bruce T. 1978. Some universals of relative clause structure. In Joseph H. Greenberg,
Charles A. Ferguson & Edith A. Moravcsik (eds.), Universals of human language, Vol. 4:
Syntax, 375–418.
Dryer, Matthew S. 1991. SOV language and the OV:VO typology. Journal of Linguistics 27. 443–
482.
Dryer, Matthew S. 2005. Order of relative clause and noun. In Haspelmath et al. (eds.) 2005, 366–
369.
Dryer, Matthew S. 2007. Clause types. In Shopen (ed.) 2007, Vol. 1, 224–275.
Epps, Patience. 2008. A grammar of Hup. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Fabb, Nigel. 1990. The difference between English restrictive and nonrestrictive relative clause.
Journal of Linguistics 26. 57–78.
Fabb, Nigel. 1999. Relative clauses. In Brown & Miller (eds.) 1999, 319–324.
Feuillet, Jacques. 2006. Introduction à la typologie linguistique. Paris: Champion.
Gair, James W. 2003. Sinhala. In Cardona & Jain (eds.) 2003, 766–817.
Gair, James W. & John C. Paolillo. 1997. Sinhala. München: Lincom Europa.
Genetti, Carol. 2007. A grammar of Dolakha Newar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Genetti, Carol. 2011. Nominalization in Tibeto-Burman languages of the Himalayan area: A typo-
logical perspective. In Yap et al. (eds.) 2011, 163–194.
Genetti, Carol (ed.). 2004. Tibeto-Burman languages of Nepal: Manange and Sherpa (Pacific Lin-
guistics 557). Canberra: Australian National University.
Givón, Talmy. 2001. Syntax: An introduction. Vol. 2. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Givón, Talmy. 2009. The genesis of syntactic complexity: Diachrony, ontogeny, neuro-cognition
evolution. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Gobbo, Francesca del. 2005. Chinese relative clauses: Restrictive, descriptive or appositive. In
Laura Brugè, Giuliana Giusti, Nicola Munaro, Walter Schweikert & Giuseppina Turano
(eds.), Contributions to the XXX incontro di grammatica generativa, 287–305. Venezia:
Cafoscarina.
Göksel, Aslı & Celia Kerslake. 2005. Turkish: A comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge.
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1963. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of
meaningful elements. In Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.), Universals of language, 58–90. Cam-
bridge, MA: MIT Press.
Griffiths, Arlo. 2008. Gutob. In Anderson (ed.) 2008, 633–681.
Grimshaw, Jane B. 1990. Argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Grosu, Alexander. 2002. Strange relatives at the interface of two millennia. Glot International 6(6).
145–167.
Gruzdeva, Ekaterina. 1998. Nivkh. München: Lincom Europa.
Haegeman, Liliane. 1992. Theory and description in generative syntax: A case study in West Flem-
ish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hale, Kenneth. 2002. On the Dagur object relative: Some comparative notes. Journal of East Asian
Linguistics 11. 109–122.
Haspelmath, Martin. 1993. A grammar of Lezgian. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Haspelmath, Martin. 1995. The converb as a cross-linguistically valid category. In Martin Haspel-
math & Ekkehard König (eds.), Converbs in cross-linguistic perspective: Structure and mean-
ing of adverbial verb forms, 1–56. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Haspelmath, Martin. 1999. Converb. In Brown & Miller (eds.) 1999, 110–115.
Haspelmath, Martin, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil & Bernard Comrie (eds.). 2005. The world atlas
of language structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hawkins, John A. 1983. Word order universals. New York: Academic Press.
Hawkins, John A. 1990. A parsing theory of word order universals. Linguistic Inquiry 21. 223–261.
Hawkins, John A. 1994. A performance theory of order and constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Herring, Susan C. 1991. Nominalization, relativization and attribution in Lotha, Angami and
Burmese. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 14(1). 55–72.
Hetzron, Robert (ed.). 1997. The Semitic languages. London: Routledge.
Hewitt, George B. 1979. The relative clause in Abkhaz (Abžui dialect). Lingua 47. 151–188.
Hildebrandt, Kristine A. 2004. A grammar and glossary of the Manange language. In Genetti (ed.)
2004, 1–189.
Holes, Clive. 2004. Modern Arabic: Structures, functions and varieties. Rev. edn. Washington,
DC: Georgetown University Press.
Hoshi, Koji. 2004. Remarks on N-final relativization in Japanese. English Studies 44. 113–147.
Hualde, José I. & Jon Ortiz de Urbina (eds.). 2003. A grammar of Basque. Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Huber, Brigitte. 2003. Relative clauses in Kyirong Tibetan. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area
26(1). 1–14.
Hudson, Grover. 1997. Amharic and Argobba. In Hetzron (ed.) 1997, 457–485.
Ishizuka, Tomoko. 2006. Restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses in Japanese: Evidence for
movement. Unpublished manuscript, University of California, Los Angeles.
Janhunen, Juha. 2003. Proto-Mongolic. In Janhunen (ed.) 2003, 1–29.
Janhunen, Juha (ed.). 2003. The Mongolic languages. London: Routledge.
Johanson, Lars. 1998. The structure of Turkic. In Johanson & Csató (eds.) 1998, 30–66.
Johanson, Lars & Éva Á. Csató (eds.). 1998. The Turkic languages. London: Routledge.
Kameshima, Nanako. 1989. The syntax of restrictive and nonrestrictive clauses in Japanese. Madi-
son, WI: University of Wisconsin doctoral dissertation.
Kangasmaa-Minn, Eeva. 1998. Mari. In Daniel Abondolo (ed.), The Uralic languages, 219–248.
London: Routledge.
Kayne, Richard S. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kazuhiro, Kawachi. 2007. A grammar of Sidaama (Sidamo), a Cushitic language of Ethiopia. New
York: State University of New York doctoral dissertation.
Keenan, Edward L. 1985. Relative clauses. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syn-
tactic description, Vol. 2: Complex constructions, 141–170. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press.
Keenan, Edward L. & Bernard Comrie. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar.
Linguistic Inquiry 8. 63–99.
Keenan, Edward L. & Bernard Comrie. 1979. Data on the noun phrase accessibility hierarchy.
Language 55. 333–351.
Kelly, Barbara. 2004. A grammar and glossary of the Sherpa language. In Carol Genetti (ed.) 2004,
193–324.
Kenesei, István, Robert M. Vago & Anna Fenyvesi. 1998. Hungarian. London: Routledge.
Khalilova, Zaira. 2009. A grammar of Khwarshi. Utrecht: LOT.
Kibrik, Alexandr E. (ed.). 1996. Godoberi. München: Lincom Europa.
King, John T. 2008. A grammar of Dhimal. Leiden: Universiteit Leiden doctoral dissertation.
Kirchner, Mark. 1998a. Kazakh and Karakalpak. In Johanson & Csató (eds.) 1998, 318–332.
Kirchner, Mark. 1998b. Kirghiz. In Johanson & Csató (eds.) 1998, 344–356.
Kogan, Leonid E. 1997. Tigrinya. In Hetzron (ed.) 1997, 424–445.
Komen, Erwin R. 2006. The relative clause in Chechen. Unpublished manuscript, Universiteit
Leiden.
Komen, Erwin R. 2007. Relative clauses in Chechen. Paper read at the Conference on the Lan-
guages of the Caucasus, Max-Planck-Institut für evolutionäre Anthropologie, Leipzig, 7–9
December.
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria. 1993. Nominalizations. London: Routledge.
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria. 1999. Finiteness. In Brown & Miller (eds.) 1999, 146–149.
Kornfilt, Jaklin. 1997. Turkish. London: Routledge.
620 Tong Wu
Kornfilt, Jaklin. 2000. Some syntactic and morphological properties of relative clauses in Turkish.
In Alexiadou et al. (eds.) 2000, 121–159.
Kornfilt, Jaklin. 2005. Agreement and its placement in Turkic nonsubject relative clauses. In
Guglielmo Cinque & Richard Kayne (eds.), The Oxford handbook of comparative syntax,
513–541. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kornfilt, Jaklin. 2007. Verbal and nominalized finite clauses in Turkish. In Irina Nikolaeva (ed.),
Finiteness: Theoretical and empirical foundations, 305–332. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Krause, Cornelia. 2001. On reduced relatives with genitive subjects. Cambridge, MA: Mas-
sachusetts Institute of Technology doctoral dissertation.
Krishnamurti, Bhadriraju. 2003. The Dravidian languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Kroeger, Paul R. 2004. Analyzing syntax: A lexical-functional approach. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Kroeger, Paul R. 2005. Analyzing grammar: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Kuno, Susumu. 1974. The position of relative clauses and conjunctions. Linguistic Inquiry 5. 117–
136.
Kutsch Lojenga, Constance. 1994. Ngiti: A Central-Sudanic language of Zaire. Köln: Köppe.
Lacroix, René. 2009. Description du dialecte laze d’Arhavi (caucasique du sud, Turquie). Gram-
maire et texte. Lyon: Université Lumière Lyon II doctoral dissertation.
Lakshmanan, Usha. 2000. The acquisition of relative clauses by Tamil children. Journal of Child
Language 27. 587–617.
Lamberti, Marcello & Roberto Sottile. 1997. The Wolaytta language. Köln: Köppe.
LaPolla, Randy J. 1994. Parallel grammaticalizations in Tibeto-Burman: Evidence of Sapir’s drift.
Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 17(1). 61–80.
LaPolla, Randy J. 2003. Dulong. In Thurgood & LaPolla (eds.) 2003, 674–682.
LaPolla, Randy J. 2008. Relative clause structures in the Rawang language. Language and Lin-
guistics 9. 797–812.
LaPolla, Randy J. & Chenglong Huang. 2003. A grammar of Qiang, with annotated texts and
glossary. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Lefebvre, Claire & Pieter Muysken. 1988. Mixed categories: Nominalizations in Quechua. Dor-
drecht: Kluwer.
Lehmann, Christian. 1986. On the typology of relative clauses. Linguistics 24. 663–680.
Lehmann, Christian. 2003. Relative clauses. In William J. Frawley (ed.), International encyclope-
dia of linguistics, Vol. 3, 460–461. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lehmann, Winfred P. 1973. A structural principle of language and its implications. Language 49.
47–66.
Leslau, Wolf. 1945. Grammatical sketches in Tigré (North Ethiopic): Dialect of Mensa. Journal of
the American Oriental Society 65(3). 164–203.
Leslau, Wolf. 1959. A preliminary description of Argobba. Annales d’Ethiopie 3. 251–273.
Leslau, Wolf. 1995. Reference grammar of Amharic. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Li, Charles N. & Sandra A. Thompson. 1981. Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Lin, Chien-Jer. C. 2008. The processing foundation of head-final relative clauses. Language and
Linguistics 9. 813–838.
Lin, Jo-Wang. 2003. On restrictive and nonrestrictive relative clauses in Mandarin Chinese. Tsing
Hua Journal of Chinese Studies 33(1). 199–240.
Lipiński, Edward. 2001. Semitic languages: Outline of a comparative grammar. Leuven: Peeters.
Loughnane, Robyn. 2009. A grammar of Oksapmin. Melbourne: University of Melbourne doctoral
dissertation.
Malchukov, Andrei L. 1995. Even. München: Lincom Europa.
Malchukov, Andrei L. 2004. Nominalization/verbalization: Constraining a typology of transcate-

gorial operations. München: Lincom Europa.
Mallinson, Graham & Barry J. Blake. 1981. Language typology: Cross-linguistic studies in syntax.
Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Maslova, Elena. 2003a. A grammar of Kolyma Yukaghir. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Maslova, Elena. 2003b. Tundra Yukaghir. München: Lincom Europa.
Matisoff, James A.1972. Lahu nominalization, relativization, and genetivization. In John P. Kim-
ball (ed.), Syntax and semantics, Vol. 1, 237–257. New York: Academic Press.
Matsumoto, Yoshiko. 1997. Noun-modifying constructions in Japanese: A frame semantic ap-
proach. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Matsumura, Kazuto. 1981. Mari (Cheremis) relative clauses. University of Tokyo Working Papers
in Linguistics 2. 45–55.
Matsumura, Kazuto. 1983. Mari (Cheremis) pseudo-relatives. In Shirô Hattori & Kazuko Inoue
(eds.), Proceedings of the XIIIth International Congress of Linguists, 461–464. Tokyo: Pro-
ceedings Publishing Committee.
Matthews, Stephen & Virginia Yip. 1994. Cantonese: A comprehensive grammar. London: Rout-
ledge.
Matthews, Stephen & Virginia Yip. 2001. Aspects of contemporary Cantonese grammar: The struc-
ture and stratification of relative clauses. In Hilary Chappell (ed.), Sinitic grammar: Syn-
chronic and diachronic perspectives, 266–281. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mazaudon, Martine. 1978. La formation des propositions relatives en tibétain. Bulletin de la So-
ciété Linguistique de Paris 73(1). 401–414.
Mazaudon, Martine. 2003. Tamang. In Thurgood & LaPolla (eds.) 2003, 291–314.
Mazaudon, Martine. 2011. Le tamang. In Emilio Bonvini, Joëlle Busuttil & Alain Peyraube (eds.),
Dictionnaire des langues, 1056–1064. Paris: PUF.
Murasugi, Kumiko G. 2000. On antisymmetry analysis of Japanese relative clauses. In Alexiadou
et al. (eds.) 2000, 231–265.
Nedjalkov, Igor. 1997. Evenki. London: Routledge.
Nichols, Johanna. 2011. Ingush grammar. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Noonan, Michael. 1997. Versatile nominalizations. In Joan Bybee, John Haiman & Sandra A.
Thompson (eds.), Essays on language function and language type: Dedicated to T. Givón,
373–394. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Noonan, Michael. 2007. Complementation. In Shopen (ed.) 2007, Vol. 2, 52–150.
Noonan, Michael. 2008. Nominalization in Bodic languages. In Maria J. López-Couso & Elena
Seoane (eds.), Rethinking grammaticalization: New perspectives for the twenty-first century,
219–238. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Olawsky, Knut J. 2006. A grammar of Urarina. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Overfelt, Jason D. 2009. The syntax of relative clause constructions in Tigrinya. West Lafayette,
IN: Purdue University master thesis.
Oyharçabal, Bernard. 2003. Relatives. In Hualde & Ortiz de Urbina (eds.) 2003, 762–822.
Palmer, Frank R. 1961. Relative clauses in Tigre. Word 17. 23–33.
Palmer, Frank R. 1962. Relative clauses in Tigrinya. Journal of Semitic Studies 7. 36–43.
Pandharipande, Rajeshwari. 1997. Marathi. London: Routledge.
Pandharipande, Rajeshwari. 2003. Marathi. In Cardona & Jain (eds.) 2003, 698–728.
Peterson, David A. 2003. Hakha Lai. In Thurgood & LaPolla (eds.) 2003, 409–426.
Peterson, John. 2008. Kharia. In Anderson (ed.) 2008, 434–507.
Post, Mark W. 2007. A grammar of Galo. Bundoora: LaTrobe University doctoral dissertation.
Post, Mark W. 2008. Nominalization-based constructions in Tibeto-Burman: Synchronic and di-
achronic perspectives. Paper read at the TB Nominalization, Nijmegen, 16 May.
Post, Mark W. 2011. Nominalization and nominalization-based constructions in Galo. In Yap et al.
(eds.) 2011, 255–288.
622 Tong Wu
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik. 1985. A comprehensive
grammar of the English language. Harlow: Longman.
Rawda, Siraj. 2003. Relativization in Silt’i. Addis Ababa: Addis Ababa University master thesis.
Raz, Shlomo. 1997. Tigré. In Hetzron (ed.) 1997, 446–456.
Rebuschi, Georges. 2011. Parallel translations of relative clauses in Basque (diachronically
and trans-dialectally): Basic data. Unpublished manuscript, Université Sorbonne Nouvelle
Paris III.
Riemsdijk, Henk C. van 1978. A case study in syntactic markedness: The binding nature of prepo-
sitional phrases. Lisse: de Ridder.
Rijk, Rudolph de. 1972. Relative clauses in Basque: A guided tour. Chicago Linguistic Society
8(2). 115–135.
Rijkhoff, Jan. 2002. The noun phrase. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rybatzki, Volker. 2003. Intra-Mongolic taxonomy. In Janhunen (ed.) 2003, 364–390.
Ryding, Karin C. 2005. A reference grammar of Modern Standard Arabic. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Schönig, Claus. 1998. Azerbaijanian. In Johanson & Csató (eds.) 1998, 248–260.
Schulze, Wolfgang. 1997. Tsakhur. München: Lincom Europa.
Schwartz, Arthur. 1971. General aspects of relative clause formation. Working Papers in Language
Universals 6. 139–171.
Seegmiller, Steve. 1996. Karachay. München: Lincom Europa.
Seyoum, Mulugeta. 2008. A grammar of Dime. Utrecht: LOT.
Shopen, Timothy (ed.). 2007. Language typology and syntactic description. 2nd edn. 3 vols. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Siloni, Tal. 1997. Noun phrases and nominalizations: The syntax of DPs. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Simpson, Andrew. 1998. Empty determiners and nominalisation in Chinese, Korean and Japanese.
Papre read at the USC symposium on East Asian languages, University of Southern Califor-
nia, Los Angeles.
Simpson, Andrew. 2003a. On the status of modifying DE and the structure of the Chinese DP. In
Sze-Wing Tang & Chen-Sheng Luther Liu (eds.), On the formal way to Chinese languages,
74–101. Stanford, CA: CSLI.
Simpson, Andrew. 2003b. On the re-analysis of nominalizers in Chinese, Japanese and Korean. In
Yen-Hui Audrey Li & Andrew Simpson (eds.), Functional structures, form and interpreta-
tion: perspectives from East Asian languages, 131–160. London: Routledge.
Skribnik, Elena. 2003. Buryat. In Juha Janhunen (ed.) 2003, 102–128.
Slater, Keith W. 2003. A grammar of Mangghuer: A Mongolic language of China’s Qinghai-Gansu
Sprachbund. London: Routledge Curzon.
Sohn, Ho-Min. 1994. Korean: A descriptive grammar. London: Routledge.
Sohn, Ho-Min. 1999. The Korean language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Song, Jae J. 2001. Linguistic typology: Morphology and syntax. Harlow: Pearson Education.
Sridhar, Shikaripur N. 1990. Kannada. London: Routledge.
Sulkala, Helena & Marja Karjalainen. 1992. Finnish. London: Routledge.
Sun, Jackson T.-S. 2003. Caodeng rGyalrong. In Thurgood & LaPolla (eds.) 2003, 490–502.
Sun, Jackson T.-S. 2006. Relative clauses in Caodeng rGyalrong. Language and Linguistics 7.
905–933.
Svantesson, Jan-Olof. 2003. Khalkha. In Janhunen (ed.) 2003, 154–176.
Tagashira, Yoshiko. 1972. Relative clauses in Korean. Chicago Linguistic Society 8(2). 215–229.
Tatevosov, Sergej G. 1996. Relative clauses. In Kibrik (ed.) 1996, 210–217.
Thurgood, Graham & Randy J. LaPolla (eds.). 2003. The Sino-Tibetan languages. London: Rout-
ledge.
Tiffou, Etienne & Richard Patry. 1995. La relative en bourouchaski du Yasin. Bulletin de la Société
Linguistique de Paris 90(1). 335–390.
Treis, Yvonne. 2008. Relativization in Kambaata (Cushitic). In Zygmunt Frajzyngier & Erin Shay
(eds.), Interaction of morphology and syntax: Case studies in Afroasiatic, 161–206. Amster-
dam: Benjamins.
Van Valin, Robert D., Jr. 2001. An introduction to syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Vennemann, Theo. 1972. Analogy in generative grammar: The origin of word order. In Luigi
Heilmann (ed.), Proceedings of the 11th International Congress of Linguists, Vol. 2, 79–83.
Bologne: Il Mulino.
Vries, Mark de. 2001. Patterns of relative clauses. Linguistics in the Netherlands 18. 231–243.
Vries, Mark de. 2002. The syntax of relativization. Utrecht: LOT.
Vries, Mark de. 2005. The fall and rise of universals on relativization. Journal of Universal Lan-
guage 6. 125–157.
Wakasa, Motomichi. 2008. A descriptive study of the Modern Wolaytta language. Tokyo: Univer-
sity of Tokyo doctoral dissertation.
Watters, David E. 2002. A grammar of Kham. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Watters, David E. 2008. Nominalization in the Kiranti and Central Himalayish languages of Nepal.
Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 31(1). 1–43.
Weber, David J. 1983. Relativization and nominalized clauses in Huallaga (Huanuco) Quechua.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Weber, David J. 1989. A grammar of Huallaga (Huánuco) Quechua. Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press.
Whaley, Lindsay J. 1997. Introduction to typology: The unity and diversity of language. London:
Sage.
Wu, Chaolu. 1996. Daur. München: Lincom Europa.
Wu, Joy. 2003. Clausal modifiers in Amis. Concentric: Studies in English Literature and Linguis-
tics 29(2). 59–81.
Wu, Tong. 2007. Accessibilité à la relativisation dans les phrases simples en mandarin. Lyon:
Université Lumière Lyon II master thesis.
Wu, Tong. 2008. La relativisation prénominale: Etude comparative sur l’amharique, le basque, le
chinois mandarin, le japonais, le quechua et le turc. Lyon: Université Lumière Lyon II master
thesis.
Wu, Tong. 2011. La relativisation prénominale. Paris: Université Sorbonne Nouvelle Paris 3 doc-
toral dissertation.
Wu, Xiu-Zhi Z. 2000. Grammaticalization and the development of functional categories in Chi-
nese. Los Angeles: University of Southern California doctoral dissertation.
Yap, Foong H., Karen Grunow-Hårsta & Janick Wrona. 2011. Introduction: Nominalization strate-
gies in Asian languages. In Yap et al. (eds.) 2011, 1–58.
Yap, Foong H., Karen Grunow-Hårsta & Janick Wrona (eds.). 2011. Nominalization in Asian lan-
guages: Diachronic and typological perspectives. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Yoon, Jae-Hak. 1993. Different semantics for different syntax: Relative clauses in Korean. Ohio
State University Working Papers in Linguistics 42. 199–226.
Zeitoun, Elizabeth. 2005. Tsou. In Alexander Adelaar & Nikolaus P. Himmelmann (eds.), The
Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar, 259–290. London: Routledge.

(1613415X - Linguistic Typology) The Syntax of Prenominal Relative Clauses - A Typological Study

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

(1613415X - Linguistic Typology) The Syntax of Prenominal Relative Clauses - A Typological Study

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The syntax of prenominal relative clauses:

A typological overview is given of the syntax of prenominal relative clauses,

Linguistic Typology 15 (2011), 569–623 1430–0532/2011/015-0569

This article is organized as follows. In Section 2, after defining relative

2. Relative clauses and prenominal relative clauses

(Mazaudon 1978): thus, Lhasa Tibetan is a primary-prenominal-relative-clause

(5) Mary loves the passionately singing man over there.

3. Prenominal relative clauses

3.2. Previous typological claims about prenominal relative clauses

Map 2. Geographical distribution of the prenominal-relative-clause languages in Dryer

(6) a. No relative pronoun of the European type: ✓ (Section 3.3)

Table 1. Geographical distribution of the prenominal-relative-clause languages in

Continents Languages (117)

Table 2. Genetic affiliation of the prenominal-relative-clause languages in Dryer 2005

Families (29) Languages (117)

Table 3. Prenominal-relative-clause languages not listed in Dryer 2005

Families (15) Languages (58)

(7) a. the person whosubject spoke to him

No prenominal relative clause with relative pronouns is found in my sample.

(8) a. a-xàc’a y´@-y-ba-(kwa-)z à-èw sa

Kabardian is similar to Abkhaz in using y@- optionally for absolutive head

(9) a. mogmog zhimpo bzo-mkhan bumo de

There seems no way to classify Tibeto-Burman relativizers as relative pro-

(10) monna yo Leburu le mo

(11) a. ar-arZulu llaąi: qatalu:-hu

5. The status of Tibeto-Burman relativizer/nominalizer would be worth a separate study. One

b. al-bintu llati: ąahabtu maQa-ha: Pila:

sometimes this criterion seems difficult to apply because of other constraints

As to the position of the complementizer, it is often between the prenominal

(19) a. mo-p-t-i-şkul na-p’-or-om bozo b-dzi-i

According to Keenan (1985: 160), “the use of such clause-final complementiz-

(20) a. ma mut-na var b-iv-are

7. I thank Georges Rebuschi for having brought this point to my attention.

the complementizer used in sentential objects of verbs of saying and thinking

(24) a. væra-d-@ du-ad

It is common for non-finite relative clauses to lack a relativizer. Quite sur-

(25) Pííní ziginó mukk-é Patsi

(26) Patsí ziginó mukk-é-ne

(27) a. Pííní waatsi gets-ó Poti táá-m

According to Amha (2001: Chapter 8.1.2), in ó/oná-marked relative clauses,

in Mandarin the absence of the complementizer de is also related to the defi-

(28) lı̌sì dǎ nà rén

Headedness can be another factor determining the type of relativizers. Hupda

(29) P1n wǽd-æp-teg yúw-úh

Headless prenominal relatives do not have to use the complementizer, which

(30) a. yũˇ Pãh kéy-ep-Pı̃h-ǎn mæh-y1́P-1́y

To conclude this typology of relative markers, Kambaata marks prenomi-

(31) a. adab-óo dagújj-o.

(32) a. lı̌sì xiězì de bı̌

(33) de-de ruša b-uq̄’-ida Qãžite

(34) asi ulle-ve mine-d’eri-n purta emer

b. táání 7ash-úwa muT-ído

Three factors may explain augmented gapping in prenominal relatives. First,

(43) a. la chose que je vous parlais

Secondly, prenominal relatives do not use adposition stranding, contrary

of augmented gapping may reside in the interaction between zero anaphora, no

(47) kanasta churarayka-q rukay-ta apakun

3.5. Resumptive pronouns

(56) a. yä-mätta-hu-t säw@yye wänd@mme näw

(57) a. ngóh sı̄k ge yàhn

c. (kéuihdeih) tìuh kwàhn hóu dyún ge sailouh-léui

(58) a. (shiena) i stag sielxana ginchu muusas

See also Haspelmath (1993: 340–353) for Lezgian.

(84) a. I saw the [(which/that) recently released]RC movie.