Knowledge base · Part XIII — Nominalization, Relativization, and Complementation · this topic as a network
103. Relative Clauses: The Gap Strategy and the Accessibility Hierarchy
How are relative clauses formed in Hokkaido Ainu, and which noun phrase positions can be relativized?
Both verb modifiers and clause modifiers are analyzed as relative clauses because all verbs are obligatorily indexed for argument person and number and function as clause predicates. (Bugaeva 2012: 478–479) The predicate of a relative clause appears in a finite form, but postverbal sentence-final particles such as na, wa, or so cannot occur in it. (Bugaeva 2012: 478–479) Ainu relativizes arguments using a gap strategy, without relative pronouns or resumptive pronouns. (Bugaeva 2012: 478–479) All positions on Keenan and Comrie's accessibility hierarchy except the object of comparison can be relativized in Ainu. (Bugaeva 2012: 478–479) Relativization of the single argument S of an intransitive verb shows no distinction between agentive and non-agentive subjects. (Bugaeva 2012: 478–479) Relativization of the transitive agent A is rare. (Bugaeva 2012: 478–479) Relativization of true obliques requires special case-retention strategies, such as retaining the instrumental postposition ani or the comitative postposition tura(-no) in the relative clause. (Bugaeva 2012: 478–479) When relativizing an oblique location, most nouns retain the relational noun or(-o) in its possessive form together with the locative postposition inside the relative clause. (Bugaeva 2012: 480–481) Possessor relativization is restricted to inalienable possessors, and the possessed noun is retained in its possessive form within the relative clause. (Bugaeva 2012: 480–481) Bound nouns are the most frequent heads of relative clauses. (Bugaeva 2012: 480–481) Relative clauses, evidential constructions, and pair verb constructions in Ainu were presumably developed under structural influence from Japanese. (proposed in Bugaeva 2012) In inalienable possession, the possessor can be relativized on while retaining the possessive suffix on the possessee. (Bugaeva 2015: 49) An alienable possessor cannot be relativized on because the base construction itself employs a relative clause. (Bugaeva 2015: 49) In the standard of comparison equivalent construction, the standard equivalent is encoded as a degree/allative adjunct marked with the postposition pak-(no) 'till/as', which is stranded in relativization while the relativized NP is gapped. (Bugaeva 2015: 53) Postposition stranding of pak-(no) is possible in Ainu due to its verbal origin meaning 'reach (?)'. (Bugaeva 2015: 53) In the equivalent of the standard of comparison relativization, the relative clause predicate is invariably isam 'not exist' and pak-(no) functions as its adjunct. (Bugaeva 2015: 53) In the equivalent of the standard of comparison relativization, the relative clause subject is most commonly encoded by the same NP as the head noun, though their referents are different. (Bugaeva 2015: 53) The most typical subject NPs of the relative clause in this construction are the bound nouns kur 'man' and pe 'thing/person', or common nouns including qualitative characteristics such as katkemat 'fine woman' and nispa 'rich/wise man'. (Bugaeva 2015: 55) The relative clause subject in this construction may contain a restrictive modifier or an embedded relative clause if its semantics is not sufficiently specified. (Bugaeva 2015: 55) The relative clause subject occasionally may be encoded with a noun different from the head noun. (Bugaeva 2015: 55) In Hokkaido Ainu, predicates in relative clauses, nominal complement clauses, and noun-modifying adverbial clauses retain pronominal and aspectual marking and lack special subordinating morphology. (Bugaeva 2016) Relative clause stacking is readily allowed in Ainu, permitting two possessive kor constructions to modify the same head. (Bugaeva, Nichols & Bickel 2022) A possessive kor construction and another relative clause can co-occur in any order modifying a head noun. (Bugaeva, Nichols & Bickel 2022) Most attributive modifying constructions in Ainu, including locative, propriative, and privative modifications, obligatorily use verb-based relative clauses. (Bugaeva, Nichols & Bickel 2022) In an adnominal modification structure in Karafuto Ainu, -hci is often used, but occasionally omitted. (Tangiku 2022: 9.6)
Overview
What is the basic structure of a relative clause in Hokkaido Ainu?
Class I (transitive) verbs are used as adjectives by prefixing a- or chi-. (Kindaichi & Chiri 1936) Class II (intransitive) verbs can be used directly as adjectives (participles). (Kindaichi & Chiri 1936) A verb phrase can modify a noun phrase, and the resulting structure constitutes a noun phrase. (Nakagawa 2024: 385) A pseudo-relative clause lacking an argument relation between the head noun and the clause (such as Japanese sakana o yaita kemuri 'smoke from grilling fish') cannot be formed in Ainu. (Nakagawa 2024: 505) Adnominalization occurs when a sentence modifies a noun. (Refsing 1986: 34) Any complete sentence in Ainu can be placed before a noun to become an adnominalized clause. (Refsing 1986: 81) If a predicate is followed by a general noun, the adnominalized predicate becomes secondary to the main predicate of the utterance. (Refsing 1986: 271) A relative clause precedes the noun it modifies in Ainu. (Shibatani 1990: 22)
The arity ≥ +1 diagnostic
What formal test distinguishes relative clauses from complement clauses in Hokkaido Ainu?
In Ainu relative clauses, examining the verbal head allows one to determine what grammatical relation the relativized noun bears, supported by the language's head-marking and polysynthetic nature. (Bugaeva 2015) Strictly speaking, the clause modifying a general noun phrase is an incomplete clause whose arity does not sum to 0. (Nakagawa 2024: 385) Complete clauses with an arity of 0 cannot modify general noun phrases. (Nakagawa 2024: 385) A clause can modify a noun phrase as a relative clause when the clause's total arity is +1 or higher. (Nakagawa 2024: 504) When the sum of the arity of the clause content is 0, the clause is a complement clause, whereas when it is +1 or higher, it is a relative clause. (Nakagawa 2024: 508) Transitive verbs in relative clauses either take personal affixes or occur without voice prefixes a-/ci-, distinguishing relative clauses from simple prenominal modification. (Shibatani 1990: 40)
The gap strategy and postposition retention
When a noun phrase is relativized in Hokkaido Ainu, how is its role indicated, and are postpositions retained?
All relative clause formation in Ainu employs the noun phrase gap strategy, realized as zero anaphora. (Bugaeva 2015: 46, 51) Ainu allows postposition stranding, which is particularly conspicuous in relativization on adjuncts. (Bugaeva 2015: 43) In Ainu relative clauses, only the relativized noun phrase is gapped while all its accompanying material from the main clause is left intact. (Bugaeva 2015: 46) Relativization of non-arguments (adjuncts and possessors) employs the gap strategy, requiring specific retention strategies to make the grammatical relation traceable. (Bugaeva 2015: 48) Only postpositions that can occur independently without a preceding noun in main clauses under zero anaphora can be stranded in relativization. (Bugaeva 2015: 48) Relativization of non-arguments in Ainu involves the retention of gapped NP-tracking material, correlating with the lack of cross-referencing for non-arguments on the verb in the main clause. (Bugaeva 2015: 52) In an Ainu relative clause where the head noun corresponds to an instrumental or oblique argument, the case postposition such as ani is retained in the relative clause rather than deleted. (Nakagawa 2024: 504) When a clause containing a conjunction chains multiple verbs before a head noun, the condition for being a relative clause only needs to be satisfied by the immediately preceding clause. (Nakagawa 2024: 505) In the basic relative clause construction, a head noun corresponds to a gap in the modifying clause and is positioned directly after the verb phrase. (Satō 2008: 169) Relative clause modification involves no relative pronouns and places the relative clause before the head noun. (Shibatani 1990: 40) When demonstrative forms like ari and patek are retained in relative clauses, they appear as stranded particles indicating the semantic role of the head noun. (Shibatani 1990: 40)
The Keenan–Comrie accessibility hierarchy
Which noun phrase positions can be relativized in Hokkaido Ainu, and which cannot?
With the exception of alienable possessors and the standard of comparison proper, all positions on the Keenan–Comrie accessibility hierarchy can be relativized in Ainu. (Bugaeva 2015: 43, 46)
Core argument positions
How are subject and object relativized in Hokkaido Ainu?
In Ainu, relativization on intransitive subject (S) and transitive object (O) is much more frequent than relativization on transitive subject (A). (Bugaeva 2015: 47) Relativization of arguments in Ainu involves no retention of gapped NP-tracking material, correlating with the lack of case marking for A/S/O and zero cross-referencing on the verb for third person in the main clause. (Bugaeva 2015: 52) The head noun of an adnominal modifying clause may correspond to the subject of the clause. (Satō 2008: 169) The head noun of an adnominal modifying clause may correspond to the object of the clause. (Satō 2008: 169) Because there is no third-person verbal marking, relative clauses involving transitive verbs can be ambiguous between agent and patient head readings, disambiguated only by context. (Shibatani 1990: 40)
Three-place verbs
Which argument of a three-place verb can be relativized in Hokkaido Ainu, and how is it determined?
No examples of relativization on the subject of a three-place transitive verb (A) have been attested so far. (Bugaeva 2015: 47) Both base objects and derived objects of three-place verbs can be relativized without restrictions on their semantic role. (Bugaeva 2015: 48)
Oblique positions
How are oblique noun phrases such as instrument, comitative, and locative relativized in Hokkaido Ainu?
For relativization of instrumental, comitative, and dative adjuncts, as well as degree adjuncts, a case postposition-retention strategy must be used. (Bugaeva 2015: 48) For relativization of locative and allative adjuncts, the relational noun or-o and a case postposition-retention strategy must be used. (Bugaeva 2015: 48) The possessee in a relative clause can be encoded with a relational noun as well as a common noun, functioning as an adjunct marked with a locative or allative case postposition. (Bugaeva 2015: 50) Relativization of locative and allative adjuncts involves retaining the relational noun or(-o) followed by the locative postposition ta or allative un, which cannot occur independently or be stranded on their own. (Bugaeva 2015: 50) In the relativization of locative or allative adjuncts, or-o remains in the relative clause and obligatorily bears the possessive suffix, even when the suffix is absent in the underlying clause. (reported in Bugaeva 2015: 50) The resumptive relational noun or-o within the relative clause is occasionally used even with the few head nouns that do not normally require it in the base construction. (Bugaeva 2015: 50) Relativization of instrument, comitative, dative, and degree adjuncts employs a postposition retention (stranding) strategy, correlating with the ability of those postpositions to occur independently in the main clause. (Bugaeva 2015: 52) There is some variation regarding the constraint on locative hi, such that examples like seta utar osoma hi 'the dogs' toilet' occur without oro ta. (Nakagawa 2024: 512) The head noun of an adnominal modifying clause can correspond to the complement of a postpositional adverb like ani 'with (it)'. (Satō 2008: 170) When a clause containing a locational noun like or 'place' is relativized on the noun governed by it, the locational noun takes its affiliative form (such as or-o) inside the relative clause. (Satō 2008: 171) Applicative prefixes and possessed-form nominal suffixes serve as devices indicating the semantic role of the head noun in relative clauses. (Shibatani 1990: 40)
Inalienable possessor
How is an inalienable possessor relativized in Hokkaido Ainu?
For relativization of a possessor, a possessive suffix-retention strategy on the possessee must be used. (Bugaeva 2015: 48) In relative clauses modifying an indefinite noun, the possessed noun must take the affiliative form (e.g. saraha tanne seta 'dog with a long tail', not *sar tanne seta). (Nakagawa 2024: 231) The head noun of an adnominal modifying clause may correspond to a possessor in the clause. (Satō 2008: 170) When a noun inside a relative clause occurs in the possessed form without an overt possessor noun, the head noun is likely to be interpreted as its possessor. (reported in Shibatani 1990: 40)
Unattested and blocked positions
Which relativization positions are unattested or blocked in Hokkaido Ainu?
A clause containing ruwe ne cannot directly modify a noun such as kur. (Nakagawa 2024: 378)
Standard of comparison
How is the standard of comparison relativized, if at all, in Hokkaido Ainu?
Ainu possesses a relative clause construction equivalent to the standard of comparison, formed with a gapped noun phrase and the stranded degree/allative postposition pak(-no). (Bugaeva 2015: 58) The standard-of-comparison equivalent construction with stranded pak(-no) functions idiomatically as a conventionalized superlative expression. (Bugaeva 2015; proposed in Bugaeva 2015: 43) Relativization on the standard of comparison in the comparative construction has not been attested in Ainu. (Bugaeva 2015: 52) In equative-like constructions in Ainu, relativization on the standard of comparison is very common in conventionalized expressions pragmatically regarded as superlatives. (Bugaeva 2015: 52) In the relativization of the standard-of-comparison degree adjunct in Ainu, the omission of the noun phrase leads to competing interpretations due to the adjacency of the matrix clause subject and the stranded postposition pak(-no). (Bugaeva 2015)
RC heads: common nouns and bound nouns
What kinds of nouns can serve as the head of a relative clause in Hokkaido Ainu?
Common nouns and formal nouns can be adnominally modified by a verb phrase or clause. (Nakagawa 2024: 215) In lexicalized nouns consisting of a relative clause headed by p ~ pe such as amip 'clothes', when a possessor is specified, the fourth-person prefix a= drops or is replaced by another person prefix, maintaining the properties of a personal affix in a relative clause. (Nakagawa 2024: 507)
Ijäs Lesson 11 — graded claims
Are relative clause constructions in Hokkaido Ainu attested in natural speech or only in constructed examples?
kamuy utar nuwap hawe exemplifies a special relative-clause construction. (Satō 2008: 302)