Volume 43, Issue 4
  • ISSN 0378-4177
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9978
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



The Relative Pronoun strategy is commonly used for relativization in European languages such as English – for example: [ ] In this strategy the head nominal (here ) is indicated inside the relative clause by a clause-initial pronominal element (the relative pronoun, here ). The Relative Pronoun strategy has been characterized as an exclusively European areal feature (e.g. Comrie 1998). This article describes this strategy in more detail, as well as previous accounts of its distribution, and goes on to demonstrate that the same strategy is also found in Nama, a Papuan language of southern New Guinea.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Biagui, Noël B. & Nicolas Quint
    2013 Casamancese Creole structure dataset. InSusanne M. Michaelis, Philippe Maurer, Martin Haspelmath & Magnus Huber (eds.), Atlas of pidgin and creole language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. (Available online atapics-online.info/contributions/34, accessed on13 June 2018).
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bright, William
    1957The Karok language. Berkeley: University of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Cantarino, Vicente
    1975Syntax of Modern Arabic prose: The compound sentence. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Carroll, Matthew J.
    2016 The Ngkolmpu language (with special reference to distributed exponence). Canberra: Australian National University dissertation.
  5. Cohen, Eran
    2016 The modern Hebrew prepositional relative clause strategy. Studies in Language40. 733–764. 10.1075/sl.40.4.01coh
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.40.4.01coh [Google Scholar]
  6. Comrie, Bernard
    1998 Rethinking the typology of relative clauses. Language Design: Journal of Theoretical and Experimental Linguistics1. 59–85.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 2006 Syntactic typology: Just how exotic ARE European-type relative clauses?InRicardo Mairal & Juana Gil (eds.), Linguistic Universals, 130–154. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511618215.007
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511618215.007 [Google Scholar]
  8. Comrie, Bernard & Tania Kuteva
    2013a Relativization on subjects. InMatthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. (Available online atwals.info/chapter/122, Accessed on6 April 2018).
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 2013b Relativization on objects. InMatthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. (Available online atwals.info/chapter/122, accessed on6 April 2018).
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Crowley, Terry, John Lynch, Jeff Siegel & Julie Piau
    1995The design of language: An introduction to descriptive linguistics. Auckland: Longman Paul.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Döhler, Christian
    2018A grammar of Komnzo. (Studies in Diversity Linguistics 22). Berlin: Language Science Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Evans, Nicholas, Wayan Arka, Matthew Carroll, Yun Jung Choi, Christian Döhler, Volker Gast, Eri Kashima, Emil Mittag, Bruno Olsson, Kyla Quinn, Dineke Schokkin, Philip Tama, Charlotte van Tongeren & Jeff Siegel
    2017 The languages of Southern New Guinea. InBill Palmer (ed.), The Languages and Linguistics of New Guinea: A Comprehensive Guide, 641–774. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110295252‑006
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110295252-006 [Google Scholar]
  13. Fiorentino, Giuliana
    2007 European relative clauses and the uniqueness of the Relative Pronoun Type. Rivista di Linguistica19. 263–291.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Gutiérrez-Bravo, Rodrigo
    2012 Relative clauses in Yucatec Maya: Light heads vs. Null domain. InBernard Comrie & Zarina Estrada-Fernández (eds.), Relative clauses in languages of the Americas: A typological overview, 253–268. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.102.12gut
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.102.12gut [Google Scholar]
  15. Gutiérrez-Bravo, Rodrigo & Jorge Monforte
    2009 Focus, agent focus and relative clauses in Yucatec Maya. InHeriberto Avelino, Jessica Coon & Elisabeth Norcliffe (eds.), New perspectives in Mayan linguistics, 83–96. Cambridge MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Haspelmath, Martin
    2001a The European linguistic area: Standard Average European. InMartin Haspelmath, Wulf Oesterreicher & Wolfgang Raible (eds.), Language Typology and Language Universals, Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft, 1492–1510. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110171549.2.14.1492
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110171549.2.14.1492 [Google Scholar]
  17. 2001b Non-canonical marking of core arguments in European languages. InAlexandra Y. Aikhenvald, R. M. W. Dixon & Masayuki Onishi (eds.), Non-canonical marking of subjects and objects (Typological Studies in Language 46), 53–83. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.46.04has
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.46.04has [Google Scholar]
  18. Heath, Jeffrey
    1999A grammar of Koyra Chiini. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110804850
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110804850 [Google Scholar]
  19. Kossmann, Maarten
    1997Grammaire du parler berbe’re de Figuig (Maroc oriental). Louvain, Paris: Peeters.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Michaelis, Susanne M., Martin Haspelmath & the APiCS Consortium
    2013 Subject relative clauses. InSusanne M. Michaelis, Philippe Maurer, Martin Haspelmath & Magnus Huber (eds.), The atlas of pidgin and creole language structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (Available online athttp://apics-online.info/parameters/92#2/13.9/10.2, accessed on13 June 2018).
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Mulder, Jean G.
    1994Ergativity in Coast Tsimshian (Sm’algyax). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Price, Mavis
    2000Alphabet development workshop for sociolinguistic orthography [Nama]. ms. Ukarumpa: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Roland, Douglas, Frederic Dick & Jeffrey L. Elman
    2007 Frequency of basic English grammatical structures: A corpus analysis. Journal of Memory and Language57. 347–379. 10.1016/j.jml.2007.03.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.03.002 [Google Scholar]
  24. Siegel, Jeff
    2014 The morphology of tense and aspect in Nama, a Papuan language of southern New Guinea. Open Linguistics1. 211–231.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 2017 Transitive and intransitive verbs in Nama, a Papuan language of southern New Guinea. Oceanic Linguistics56. 123–142. 10.1353/ol.2017.0005
    https://doi.org/10.1353/ol.2017.0005 [Google Scholar]
  26. Simons, Gary F. & Charles D. Fennig
    (eds.) 2018Ethnologue: Languages of the world (21st edition). Dallas, Texas: SIL International. Online version: www.ethnologue.com
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Williams, F. E.
    1936Papuans of the Trans-Fly. Oxford: Clarendon.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): European languages; Nama; relative pronoun; relativisation
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error