DOCSLIB.ORG

The Relative Clause in Biblical Hebrew

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

THE RELATIVE CLAUSE IN BIBLICAL HEBREW: A LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS by Robert D. Holmstedt A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Hebrew and Semitic Studies) at the UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN – MADISON 2002 © Copyright by Robert D. Holmstedt 2002 All Rights Reserved i This thesis is dedicated to my parents, for years of unwavering support, to my wife, for years of everlasting patience, and to my daughter, for whom I waited so long. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First of all, I thank my advisor, Cynthia L. Miller. She has not only provided invaluable guidance on this work, throughout my graduate career she has modeled the highest level of scholarship. She has been a mentor both in terms of Biblical Hebrew linguistics and in terms of how to communicate ideas to a larger audience with crystal clarity. Certainly, I still have many lessons to learn from her. Secondly, I thank the remaining members of my committee from the Department of Hebrew and Semitic Studies: Michael V. Fox and Jonathan Schofer. Simply put, Michael Fox taught me how to read biblical texts; he also introduced me to the thrill of reading rabbinic material. Jonathan Schofer continued my education in midrash; together we have enjoyed many discussions, both about text and about language. He always reminds me that “degenerate” Hebrew is still worth reading. For six years of studying together, enduring exams together, and enjoying each other’s company, I thank John A. Cook. I often say that I would not have made it through qualifying exams as well if we had not studied together. I have benefitted immensely from his feedback at every stage of this work as well as from the many conversations about our field in general. Never before have I had such a productive, rewarding, and satisfying friendship; may it continue well through our retirements. I owe a great deal of gratitude to the George L. Mosse graduate exchange program, to its director John Tortorice, and to the members of the board. Without the year in Jerusalem my iii research would have suffered considerably. Furthemore, their generosity was overwhelming; I doubt that anyone’s year abroad has ever been easier or more productive on so many fronts. I am also indebted to the conversations, both in person and via email, that I have had with Christo H. J. Van Der Merwe, Jackie A. Naudé, and Michael P. O’Connor. They have all offered invaluable feedback on various sections of this thesis. Furthermore, their work has influenced me only slightly less than that of my advisor. I am indebted in a much different way to Chris Dargis, our department secretary. She has helped with more things than can be remembered. Also in my program, I would like to thank my fellow student Jay Bonnell, who was a Biblical Hebrew linguist long before I was. He has read many pieces of my work and has provided wonderful insights, in terms of both analysis and presentation. Finally, I am immensely thankful for my family. My wife has joyfully endured all my hours of work, my range of emotions, and the uncertain terminus of this project; she is a rare gem. My parents have been unflinching in their support of my education at every level; they never questioned whether I was pursuing the best path. Also, my parents and grandparents on my wife’s side have been an amazing in their unconditional acceptance of an unrepentant student-for-life. iv ABSTRACT This dissertation represents a comprehensive study of the structural (syntactic) and functional (pragmatic) features of the Biblical Hebrew relative clause within the linguistic framework of the Minimalist Program (as articulated in Chomsky 1995b, 1998, 1999). There are two purposes for this work. First, it is an exhaustive analysis of relative clauses in the Hebrew Bible. I examine every type of Biblical Hebrew relative word and every type of Biblical Hebrew relative clause in order to identify the salient structural and pragmatic features concerning this clause type. In particular, I introduce the linguistic issues of overt and covert antecedents/heads, overt and covert relative words, resumption, restrictiveness, and extraposition, and offer an analysis of these phenomena with regard to Biblical Hebrew. The second purpose of this work is to demonstrate the value of a generative linguistic analysis upon the language of the Hebrew Bible by addressing one of the most common Biblical Hebrew clause types, the relative clause. The relative clause is particularly suitable in this regard for two reasons: 1) there has been no comprehensive modern linguistic analysis of the Biblical Hebrew relative clause, and 2) every Biblical Hebrew grammar contains a discussion of the relative clause. The former allows this work to provide a significantly new contribution to Biblical Hebrew studies. The latter allows this work to illustrate by comparison the contribution of generative linguistics beyond the results of the taxonomic, Latin-based philological approaches of most past and recent Biblical Hebrew grammars. v LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS . (period) Hebrew construct relationship IMV imperative - (hyphen) cliticization (morpheme INF infinitive boundaries for verbal or nominal K (sub) Kontrast person-gender-number affixes are not LF Logical Form indicated) M masculine ___ “gap”(used in chps. one and two for the MOD modal (i.e., jussive, cohortative; also used lack of resumption; see also t(race)) following PERF to tag the modal * ungrammaticality perfect/(we)qatal) ** recursion N neuter Ø phonologically null constituent (e.g., null NEG negative head, null relative word, null NOM nominative resumptive) N/NP noun/noun phrase Xi coindexation (indicated by subscript) O/OBJ object 1 1st person OBL oblique Case 2 2nd person Op O(perator) (used to refer to the null relative 3 3rd person operator in chp. five) a/aP adjective/adjective phrase (functional P plural category) PASS passive A/AP adjective/adjective phrase (lexical category) PAST past (i.e., BH wayyiqtol) ACC accusative PERF perfective (i.e., BH qatal) ADV/AdvP adverb PP prepositional phrase ARG argument PRED predicate AUX auxiliary verb pro phonologically null pronoun (only used BH Biblical Hebrew after chapter three) C common ptcp participle (functional category) -C abstract consonant that assimilates to the PTCP/PtcpP participle (lexical category)/participle adjacent consonant (e.g. haC- + phrase midbaœr Æ hammidbaœr) REFL reflexive CAUS causative REL relative word/complementizer C/COMP complementizer R (sub) Rheme COMPL completive S singular CONJ conjunction SPEC specifier CP complementizer phrase SUB subject D/DP determiner/determiner phrase t ‘trace’ of a moved constituent DEF definite marker (not used with regard to the T Theme BH article) T/TP Tense/Tense phrase (functional category) DEM demonstrative TopP Topic Phrase e empty category (used in chp. 2 to indicate v./vv. verse/verses the lack of resumption) v/vP ‘light’ verb/verb phrase (functional EVID evidential category) EXST existential V/VP verb/verb phrase (lexical category) F feminine WH wh-word (i.e., interrogative or relative F (sub) Focus words such as when, what, which, FocP Focus Phrase who) I/IP inflectional node/inflectional phrase X any head constituent IMPF imperfective (i.e., BH yiqtol) XP any phrasal constituent Abbreviations of English Bible Translations: NRSV New Revised Standard Version of the Bible NJPS Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures, The New JPS Translation according to the Traditional Hebrew Text NIV The Holy Bible: The New International Version Translation NAS95 New American Standard Bible (1995 Update) vi TRANSCRIPTION OF HEBREW CHARACTERS Consonants a } π p≈ ’ o b b≈ x sΩ } a B b ≈ sΩ ‘ e g g≈ q q G g r r d d≈ c sí D d v sû h h t t◊ w w T t z z j hΩ Vowels f t√ ] ´ y y ; aœ k k≈ ' a K k , e J k≈ e eœ l l i i m m u u µ m ; o n n o oœ ˜ n h ; a® s s y e e® [ { y , e® p p≈ y i ˆî P p W u® / o® vii CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ......................................................................................................... ii ABSTRACT ......................................................................................................................... iv LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................... v TRANSCRIPTION OF HEBREW CHARACTERS......................................................................... vi CONTENTS ......................................................................................................................... vii PART I: INTRODUCTORY MATTERS 1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1 1.1. THE RELATIVE CLAUSE IN BIBLICAL HEBREW.............................................................. 1 1.2. PREVIOUS RESEARCH .................................................................................................. 5 1.2.1 The Etymology of }∞sûer....................................................................................... 6 1.2.2 The Syntax of }∞sûer in BH Relative Clauses ........................................................ 17 1.2.3 The Presence or Absence of an Antecedent in BH Relative Clauses.................... 20 1.2.4 Retrospective/Resumptive Pronouns in BH Relative Clauses.............................. 22 1.2. METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS .......................................................................... 38 1.3.1. Corpus .............................................................................................................
Recommended publications
  • “The Relative Pronoun” As Has Been the Case in the Last Several Chapters

    “The Relative Pronoun” As Has Been the Case in the Last Several Chapters

    CHAPTER 17 “Te Relatve Pronoun” As has been te case in te last several chaptrs, tis chaptr realy doesn’t confont te neophyt wit a lot of new grammatcal concepts; it builds on knowledge already mastred. Stl it’s going t take a litle patence, but we’l go slowly. Before we get t te relatve pronoun per se, we’re going t clean up a syntactcal point you’ve already been working wit, but may not have yet a firm conceptual understanding of. Let’s look at what we mean by a “clause”. THE CLAUSE You al remember te junior high school definiton of a sentnce: it’s a complet tought. And by tat we mean a tought which includes a noun, eiter expressed or implied, and a verb, eiter expressed or implied. Tat is, a complet tought must involve someting which is doing someting or which is being held up for descripton: “Te road is blocked”; “Te tee fel down”; and so on. Now, te human mind is a wonderfl ting. It reasons and perceives dozens of different kinds relatonships between events, tings, and ideas. It arranges events and facts logicaly and tmporaly, and in levels of priorit. Tat is t say, it takes two or more tings, tings which are separat ideas, separat visions, and weaves tem tgeter conceptualy and linguistcaly int what we “reasoning”. Te way tis reasoning is expressed in language is caled “syntax”, which litraly means “arranging tgeter”; puting tgeter events and tings and facts. For example, te two separat ideas or visions -- “te road is blocked” and “te tee fel down” -- might have a causal relatonship, which te mind instantly recognizes and expresses linguistcaly wit an appropriat conjuncton: “Te road is blocked because te tee fel down”.
  • Structural Expectations in Chinese Relative Clause Comprehension

    Structural Expectations in Chinese Relative Clause Comprehension

    StructuralExpectationsinChineseRelativeClause Comprehension ZhongChen,KyleGrove,andJohnHale CornellUniversity 1. Introduction Relative clauses (RC) are among the most well-studied constructions in the field of psycholinguis- tics. A wide variety of work explores a robust processing asymmetry such that subject relatives (SRs) are easier to process than object relatives (ORs). For example, English shows a subject advantage, as demonstrated by a number of studies involving different measures including: self-paced reading (King & Just, 1991), eye-tracking (Traxler, Morris & Seely, 2002), ERP (King & Kutas, 1995), fMRI (Just, Carpenter, Keller, Eddy & Thulborn, 1996); and PET (Stromswold, Caplan, Alpert & Rauch, 1996). A robust finding in the literature suggests that subject preference seems to be a universal processing phenomenon in RCs. Some pieces of evidence come from Dutch (Frazier, 1987), French (Frauenfelder, Segui & Mehler, 1980), German (Schriefers, Friederici & Kuhn,¨ 1995), Japanese (Miyamoto & Naka- mura, 2003) and Korean (Kwon, Polinsky & Kluender, 2006). In order to account for the universal processing pattern of RCs, several theories are proposed, such as: WORD ORDER (Bever, 1970; MacDonald & Christiansen, 2002), the ACCESSIBILITY HIER- ARCHY (Keenan & Comrie, 1977), EXPERIENCE/FREQUENCY-BASED ACCOUNTS (Mitchell, Cuetos, Corley & Brysbaert, 1995; Hale, 2001), STRUCTURE-BASED APPROACHES (O’Grady, 1997; Hawkins, 2004) and WORKING MEMORY (Gibson, 2000; Lewis & Vasishth, 2005). Chinese RCs are valuable in testing those theories and
  • Polancec, the Invariant Relativizer in Contemporary Non-Standard Croatian

    Polancec, the Invariant Relativizer in Contemporary Non-Standard Croatian

    Jurica Polančec (University of Zagreb) The invariant relativizer in contemporary non-standard Croatian In this talk, we will present the invariant relativizer in contemporary Croatian with an empha- sis on non-standard language. We will briefly introduce the Croatian invariant relativizer and its four forms (što, šta, kaj, ča). These four relativizers originate in separate Croatian dialects (što and šta in Štokavian, kaj in Kajkavian, and ča in Čakavian). Regardless of the dialect, the forms are functionally equivalent and have the same source in their respective dialects (the nom/acc case of the what pronoun). In contemporary language, they differ in their sociolinguistic status: only što is standard; što, šta and kaj are used in everyday informal Croatian, which is close to the standard, but fea- tures some non-codified elements and is often influenced by dialects (Langston & Peti-Stantić 2014: 30, cf. van Marle 1997: 13–17). The form kaj is geographically confined to Northern Croatia including the capital Zagreb. We will discuss in some detail the rise of the form kaj from the dialectal status. We will also show that the form što, when used in the standard, is typical of more formal and elaborate registers, in particular the language of literature. As for the other registers of standard Croatian, such as journalistic or scientific, the invariant relativizer often figures as a mere substitute for the relative pronoun (Kordić 1995: 164). Cases in which the invariant rela- tivizer is at the same time a feature of everyday informal language as well as of the rather for- mal written registers of standard language are quite unusual.
  • BORE ASPECTS OP MODERN GREEK SYLTAX by Athanaaios Kakouriotis a Thesis Submitted Fox 1 the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Of

    BORE ASPECTS OP MODERN GREEK SYLTAX by Athanaaios Kakouriotis a Thesis Submitted Fox 1 the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Of

    BORE ASPECTS OP MODERN GREEK SYLTAX by Athanaaios Kakouriotis A thesis submitted fox1 the degree of Doctor of Philosophy of the University of London School of Oriental and African Studies University of London 1979 ProQuest Number: 10731354 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a com plete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. uest ProQuest 10731354 Published by ProQuest LLC(2017). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States C ode Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346 II Abstract The present thesis aims to describe some aspects of Mod Greek syntax.It contains an introduction and five chapters. The introduction states the purpose for writing this thesis and points out the fact that it is a data-oriented rather, chan a theory-^oriented work. Chapter one deals with the word order in Mod Greek. The main conclusion drawn from this chapter is that, given the re­ latively rich system of inflexions of Mod Greek,there is a freedom of word order in this language;an attempt is made to account for this phenomenon in terms of the thematic structure. of the sentence and PSP theory. The second chapter examines the clitics;special attention is paid to clitic objects and some problems concerning their syntactic relations .to the rest of the sentence are pointed out;the chapter ends with the tentative suggestion that cli­ tics might be taken care of by the morphologichi component of the grammar• Chapter three deals with complementation;this a vast area of study and-for this reason the analysis is confined to 'oti1, 'na* and'pu' complement clauses; Object Raising, Verb Raising and Extraposition are also discussed in this chapter.
  • On Restrictions on the Use of Non-Restrictive Infinitival Relative Clauses in English

    On Restrictions on the Use of Non-Restrictive Infinitival Relative Clauses in English

    On restrictions on the use of non-restrictive infinitival relative clauses in English Takanobu%Akiyama% Nihon%University% [email protected]% This paper deals with non-restrictive infinitival relative clauses (NIRCs) in English (e.g. An independent review, to be funded by the health authority, has been commissioned). The purpose of this paper is twofold: (i) to give an accurate description of the semantic properties of the NIRC on the basis of the British National Corpus, and (ii) to elucidate restrictions on the use of this construction. My corpus-based approach will clarify four types of shades of meaning expressed by this construction are equal to those expressed by IS TO construction (i.e. plan, necessity or appropriateness, future in the past, and possibility). I will stress that NIRCs are used only when they have one notional category (i.e. notional subject/object), which is highly likely to be a notional subject of the infinitive, and denote one of the shades of meaning rather than causality. Keywords: non-restrictive clauses, infinitival relative clauses, meaning of to-infinitives, the British National Corpus 1. Introduction This paper deals with the non-restrictive infinitival relative clause (henceforth, NIRC) in English (e.g. An independent review, to be funded by Ealing council and Selected Papers from the 44th Conference of the Australian Linguistic Society, 2013 edited by Lauren Gawne and Jill Vaughan! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Selected papers from the 44th ALS conference – 2013 AKIYAMA Ealing health authority, has been commissioned. (BNC: A96 443))1. The discussion of NIRCs has been neglected by linguists, although there have been many publications on restrictive infinitival relative clauses (e.g.
  • Relativization in Qiang∗

    Relativization in Qiang∗

    LANGUAGE AND LINGUISTICS 9.4:735-768, 2008 2008-0-009-004-000247-1 Relativization in Qiang∗ Chenglong Huang Chinese Academy of Social Sciences In this paper, we review the strategies of relativization and discuss the different types of relative clauses and morpho-syntactic properties of relative clauses in eight varieties of Qiang. The Qiang language shows six types of relativization in terms of whether there is a head noun or not, and the relative positions of the head noun and relative clause. Double-headed relative clauses are unusual cross-linguistically. Head-internal relative clauses are modified by a demonstrative-(numeral)-classifier/ (in)definite-classifier, which helps readers to identify head-internal relative clause structures as NPs. In Qiang, different nominalizers, the genitive marker, and the definite marking or indefinite marking are used as clues in identifying the clause as relative; the choice of nominalizers or the genitive marker depends on the semantic role of the head in the relative clause. In some varieties of Qiang there are also some relative clauses that are not marked by nominalizers but are marked by person with aspect marking. Similar to English and Mandarin Chinese, almost all NPs, like actor, undergoer, experiencer, destination, instrument, source, location, time, etc., may be relativized on, therefore, there is no restricted neutralization (S/A pivot or S/P pivot) in nominalized relative clauses, while there is restricted neutralization in non- nominalized relative clauses (finite relative clauses), i.e. S/A is the same marking. Key words: Sino-Tibetan, relative clauses, typology 1. Introduction There are 306,072 Qiang people in the Aba Tibetan and Qiang Autonomous Prefecture of Sichuan (四川阿壩藏族羌族自治州), China (2000 census).
  • 'Undergoer Voice in Borneo: Penan, Punan, Kenyah and Kayan

    'Undergoer Voice in Borneo: Penan, Punan, Kenyah and Kayan

    Undergoer Voice in Borneo Penan, Punan, Kenyah and Kayan languages Antonia SORIENTE University of Naples “L’Orientale” Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology-Jakarta This paper describes the morphosyntactic characteristics of a few languages in Borneo, which belong to the North Borneo phylum. It is a typological sketch of how these languages express undergoer voice. It is based on data from Penan Benalui, Punan Tubu’, Punan Malinau in East Kalimantan Province, and from two Kenyah languages as well as secondary source data from Kayanic languages in East Kalimantan and in Sawarak (Malaysia). Another aim of this paper is to explore how the morphosyntactic features of North Borneo languages might shed light on the linguistic subgrouping of Borneo’s heterogeneous hunter-gatherer groups, broadly referred to as ‘Penan’ in Sarawak and ‘Punan’ in Kalimantan. 1. The North Borneo languages The island of Borneo is home to a great variety of languages and language groups. One of the main groups is the North Borneo phylum that is part of a still larger Greater North Borneo (GNB) subgroup (Blust 2010) that includes all languages of Borneo except the Barito languages of southeast Kalimantan (and Malagasy) (see Table 1). According to Blust (2010), this subgroup includes, in addition to Bornean languages, various languages outside Borneo, namely, Malayo-Chamic, Moken, Rejang, and Sundanese. The languages of this study belong to different subgroups within the North Borneo phylum. They include the North Sarawakan subgroup with (1) languages that are spoken by hunter-gatherers (Penan Benalui (a Western Penan dialect), Punan Tubu’, and Punan Malinau), and (2) languages that are spoken by agriculturalists, that is Òma Lóngh and Lebu’ Kulit Kenyah (belonging respectively to the Upper Pujungan and Wahau Kenyah subgroups in Ethnologue 2009) as well as the Kayan languages Uma’ Pu (Baram Kayan), Busang, Hwang Tring and Long Gleaat (Kayan Bahau).
  • The Case of English Relative Clause

    The Case of English Relative Clause

    Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics 17(1), 79-93. The Application of Corpora in Teaching Grammar: The Case of English Relative Clause Rahman Sahragard, Ali Kushki and Ehsan Ansaripour* Shiraz University Sahragard, R., Kushki, A. & Ansaripour, E. (2013). The Application of Corpora in Teaching Grammar: The Case of English Relative Clause. Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 79-93. The study was conducted to see if the provision of implementing corpora on English relative clauses would prove useful for Iranian EFL learners or not. Two writing classes were held for the participants of intermediate level. A record of 15 writing samples produced by each participant was kept in the form of a portfolio. Participants’ portfolios in both the experimental and the control groups were analyzed to spot patterned errors. Having diagnosed the errors, both groups were instructed on the use of English relative clauses. The participants in the experimental group were instructed using the corpora as printed materials. The control group, however, were instructed using explicit definition, discussion and exemplification. Then, both group participants’ portfolios were returned and they were asked to self correct their misapplied relative clauses. Interestingly, both groups had improved significantly. Two Chi-square tests on the use of that and which were run before and after classroom procedures on both groups. The first one suggested similar performance for the two groups but the second one favored the experimental group. The study suggests that applying corpora is an effective way to make students aware of their errors which ultimately leads them to self correction.
  • BCGL13, 16-18.12.2020 1 the Syntax of Complementizers

    BCGL13, 16-18.12.2020 1 the Syntax of Complementizers

    BCGL13, 16-18.12.2020 The syntax of complementizers: a revised version Anna Roussou University of Patras ([email protected]) BCGL 13, The syntax and semantics of clausal complementation 16-18.12.2020 [joint work with Rita Manzini] 1. Setting the scene A clarification: why ‘a revised version’ Roussou (1994), The syntax of complementisers – the investigation of three basic constructions: (a) factive complements and extraction, Greek oti vs factive pu – a definite C (b) that-complements and subject extraction, an agreeing null C (c) na-complements in Greek and the subject dependency (control vs obviation) • Assumptions back then: -- that is an expletive element (Lasnik & Saito 1984, Law 1991) – complementizers in general are expletives -- But in some cases, as in factives, they may bear features for familiarity (Hegarty 1992) or definiteness, or license a definite operator (Melvold 1991) [that-factives are weak islands, pu- factives are strong islands] Some questions a) What is a complement clause? b) What is a complementizer? c) What is the role of the complementizer? d) How is complementation achieved if there is no complementizer? Some potential answers to the questions above a) complement clauses are nominal (the traditional grammarian view): mainly objects, but also subjects; it is a complement or a relative (?) b) not so clear: the lexical item that introduces a clause or the syntactic head C (Bresnan 1972) – in the latter reading, C can be realized by a variety of elements including conjunctions (that, oti, pu, che, etc.), prepositions
  • Licensing Animacy in Relative Clause Comprehension

    Licensing Animacy in Relative Clause Comprehension

    Structuring Expectation: Licensing Animacy in Relative Clause Comprehension Matthew W. Wagers and Emily Pendleton 1. Introduction* 1.1. Animacy and the predictive encoding of relative clauses Broadly speaking, subject relative clauses are easier to understand than object relative clauses (Wanner & Maratsos, 1978, Ford, 1983, Holmes & O'Regan, 1981, among many others). This can be demonstrated by a variety of methods that measure the speed and accuracy with which sentences containing relative clauses are processed. As an example, compare (1a), which contains a subject relative clause (SRC), to (1b), which contains an object relative clause (ORC). (1) a. Subject relative clause, The lobbyist [ that ___ quoted the journalist on the radio ] lost her job. b. Object relative clause The lobbyist [ that the journalist quoted ___ on the radio ] lost her job. The SRC advantage is very robust cross-linguistically. Even in cases where non-subject relatives may ultimately be easier to process, the 'fingerprints' of a subject advantage can be detected (Clemens et al., 2015, Borja, Chung & Wagers, 2015). However, the SRC advantage can be neutralized under a variety of conditions. For example, if the subject of an ORC is a quantified expression or a pronoun, then the asymmetry is substantially reduced (Gordon, Hendrick & Johnson, 2001, 2004). Another way to neutralize the SRC advantage is to change the animacy of the relativized argument (Mak, Vonk & Schriefers, 2002, Traxler, Morris & Seely, 2005, Gennari & MacDonald, 2008, among others). (2) illustrates a contrast that should be less severe than (1), because the relativized argument in (2), 'report', is inanimate. (2) a. Subject relative clause, inanimate filler The report [ that ___ quoted the journalist in the introduction ] was not well-known.
  • Preposition Stranding Vs. Pied-Piping—The Role of Cognitive Complexity in Grammatical Variation

    Preposition Stranding Vs. Pied-Piping—The Role of Cognitive Complexity in Grammatical Variation

    languages Article Preposition Stranding vs. Pied-Piping—The Role of Cognitive Complexity in Grammatical Variation Christine Günther Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Universität Siegen, 57076 Siegen, Germany; [email protected] Abstract: Grammatical variation has often been said to be determined by cognitive complexity. Whenever they have the choice between two variants, speakers will use that form that is associated with less processing effort on the hearer’s side. The majority of studies putting forth this or similar analyses of grammatical variation are based on corpus data. Analyzing preposition stranding vs. pied-piping in English, this paper sets out to put the processing-based hypotheses to the test. It focuses on discontinuous prepositional phrases as opposed to their continuous counterparts in an online and an offline experiment. While pied-piping, the variant with a continuous PP, facilitates reading at the wh-element in restrictive relative clauses, a stranded preposition facilitates reading at the right boundary of the relative clause. Stranding is the preferred option in the same contexts. The heterogenous results underline the need for research on grammatical variation from various perspectives. Keywords: grammatical variation; complexity; preposition stranding; discontinuous constituents Citation: Günther, Christine. 2021. Preposition Stranding vs. Pied- 1. Introduction Piping—The Role of Cognitive Grammatical variation refers to phenomena where speakers have the choice between Complexity in Grammatical Variation. two (or more) semantically equivalent structural options. Even in English, a language with Languages 6: 89. https://doi.org/ rather rigid word order, some constructions allow for variation, such as the position of a 10.3390/languages6020089 particle, the ordering of post-verbal constituents or the position of a preposition.
  • Instruct Practice Prepare

    Instruct Practice Prepare

    Grammar ® Lexia Lessons PARTS OF SPEECH Pronouns 2 PREPARE CONCEPT Words are categorized as pronouns pronoun can act as the subject of a sentence. The if they take the place of a noun (a person, place, ability to think and talk about pronouns helps thing, or idea) in a sentence. Possessive pronouns students understand and explain texts accurately show ownership. Relative pronouns that, which, and write effectively. who, whom, and whose begin a relative clause. VOCABULARY absolute possessive pronoun, Relative clauses act as adjectival clauses and indefinite pronoun, possessive pronoun, relative answer the question which one. Indefinite clause, relative pronoun pronouns include all, anything, anyone, someone, everyone, many, several, and some. An indefinite MATERIALS Lesson reproducibles, index cards INSTRUCT Tell students they will be learning about other pronouns that replace nouns in a sentence. Provide an overview of the types of pronouns listed on the Anchor Chart, clarifying and discussing previously learned concepts as needed. Instruct students that pronouns can act as the subject or as adjectives in a sentence and answer the question which one. Display the sentence Somebody can drive my car that I just repaired. Underline the pronoun somebody and state that somebody is an indefinite pronoun because it does not refer to a specific person or thing. It acts as the subject of the sentence. Underline my and state that it shows ownership of the car. Finally, underline that and state that it begins a new clause. State the information: All pronouns, including indefinite, possessive, and relative pronouns, replace a noun. A possessive pronoun acts as an adjective and answers which one or whose.