1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Studies in Language. International Journal sponsored by the Foundation “Foundations of Language”
  4. Volume 46, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 46, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0378-4177
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9978
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The accessibility hierarchy was first proposed by Keenan & Comrie (1977) to describe the cross-linguistic distribution of relative markers in terms of likelihood of relativization of different syntactic roles. The hierarchy is also commonly believed to reflect constraints on possible changes in the domain of relativization. For example, the hierarchy predicts that locative relatives that develop into general relativizers should expand their functional range in a step-by-step fashion from lower to higher roles. In this paper, we revise existing claims about the diachrony of locative relatives. In doing so, we survey known cases of locative relatives that develop into general relativizers and we also discuss data from linguistic variation in non-standard varieties in European languages, with a focus on social variation in Italian. As we argue, data from Italian suggests that another possible cline of development of locative relatives should be acknowledged, that is, .

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/sl.20013.bal
2021-05-21
2024-12-10

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/sl.20013.bal
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Ahland, Coleen Anne
    2012 A grammar of Northern and Southern Gumuz. Eugene: University of Oregon PhD dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Auer, Peter & Pfänder, Stefan
    2007 Multiple retractions in spoken French and spoken German. A contrastive study in oral performance styles. Cahiers de praxématique48. 57–84. 10.4000/praxematique.758
     https://doi.org/10.4000/praxematique.758 [Google Scholar]
  3. Alfonzetti, Giovanna
    2002 La relativa non-standard. Italiano popolare o italiano parlato?Palermo: Centro di Studi Filologici e Linguistici Siciliani.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Andrews, Avery
    2007 Relative clauses. InTimothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description. Vol. 2, Complex constructions, 2nd edn, 206–236. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511619434.004
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511619434.004 [Google Scholar]
  5. Ballarè, Silvia & M. Silvia Micheli
    2018 Usi di dove nell’italiano contemporaneo: costruzioni relative e dinamiche di ristandardizzazione. Linguistica e Filologia38. 29–56.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Ballarè, Silvia, Massimo Cerruti & Eugenio Goria
    2019 Variazione diastratica nel parlato di giovani: il caso delle costruzioni relative. InBruno Moretti, Aline Kunz, Silvia Natale & Etna Krakenberger (eds.), Le tendenze dell’italiano contemporaneo rivisitate. Atti del 52esimo congresso internazionale di studi della Società di Linguistica Italiana (SLI), Bern, 6–8 September 2018, 75–94. Milano: Officinaventuno.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Bernini, Giuliano
    1989 Tipologia delle frasi relative italiane e Romanze. InFabio Foresti, Elena Rizzi & Paola Benedini (eds.), L’italiano tra le lingue romanze. Atti del XX Congresso Internazionale della Società di Linguistica Italiana (Bologna, 25–27 settembre 1986), 85–98. Roma: Bulzoni.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Berruto, Gaetano
    1983 L’italiano popolare e la semplificazione linguistica. Vox Romanica42. 38–79.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Berruto, Gaetano & Massimo Cerruti
    2015 Manuale di sociolinguistica. Torino: UTET.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Brook, Marisa
    2011 One of those situations where a relative pronoun becomes a complementizer: A case of grammaticalization in progress… again. InLisa Armstrong (ed.), Proceedings of the 2011 Annual Meeting of the Canadian Linguistic Association, 1–7.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Cerruti, Massimo
    2017 Changes from below, changes from above. Relative constructions in contemporary Italian. InMassimo Cerruti, Claudia Crocco & Stefania Marzo (eds.), Towards a new standard. Theoretical and empirical studies on the restandardization of Italian, 32–61. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9781614518839‑003
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614518839-003 [Google Scholar]
  12. Cerruti, Massimo & Silvia Ballarè
    2020 Parlato: corpus del parlato di Torino. Bollettino dell’Atlante Linguistico Italiano44. 13–38.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Cinque, Guglielmo
    1988 La frase relativa. InLorenzo Renzi, Giampaolo Salvi & Anna Cardinaletti (eds.), Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione, Vol.1, 443–503. Bologna: Il Mulino.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Comrie, Bernard & Tania Kuteva
    2013 Relativization Strategies. InMatthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, Chapter s8. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Available at Available online atwals.info/chapter/s8 (last access10 April 2021).
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Crahe, Maxime-Morvan
    2013 Le breton de Languidic: étude phonétique, morphologique et syntaxique d’un sous-dialecte du breton vannetais. Rennes: Université Rennes 2 PhD dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Cristofaro, Sonia
    2003 Subordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. 2017 Implicational universals and dependencies. InNick J. Enfield (ed.), Dependencies in language: On the causal ontology of linguistic systems, 9–22. Berlin: Language Science Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Cristofaro, Sonia & Anna Giacalone Ramat
    2007 Relativization strategies in the languages of Europe. InPaolo Ramat & Elisa Roma (eds.), Europe and the Mediterranean as linguistic areas: Convergencies from a historical and typological perspective, 63–93. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.88.06cri
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.88.06cri [Google Scholar]
  19. Cristofaro, Sonia & Fernando Zúñiga
    2018 Synchronic vs. diachronic approaches to typological hierarchies. InSonia Cristofaro & Fernando Zúñiga (eds.), Typological hierarchies in synchrony and diachrony, 4–27. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.121.int
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.121.int [Google Scholar]
  20. D’Achille, Paolo
    1990 Sintassi del parlato e tradizione scritta della lingua italiana. Analisi di testi dalle origini al secolo XVIII. Roma: Bonacci.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. de Vries, Mark
    2002 The syntax of relativization. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam PhD dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. 2005 The fall and rise of universals on relativization. Journal of Universal Language6. 125–157. 10.22425/jul.2005.6.1.125
     https://doi.org/10.22425/jul.2005.6.1.125 [Google Scholar]
  23. DeLancey, Scott
    2002 Relativization and Nominalization in Bodic. InPatrick Chew (ed.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: Special Session on Tibeto-Burman and Southeast Asian Linguistics, 55–72. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society. 10.3765/bls.v28i2.1039
     https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v28i2.1039 [Google Scholar]
  24. De Roberto, Elisa
    2008 Le proposizioni relative con antecedente in italiano antico. Roma / Sorbonne: Università Roma Tre / Université Paris IV, Sorbonne PhD dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Diessel, Holger, & Michael Tomasello
    2005 A new look at the acquisition of relative clauses. Language81(4). 882–906. 10.1353/lan.2005.0169
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2005.0169 [Google Scholar]
  26. Enfield, Nick J.
    2007 A grammar of Lao. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110207538
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110207538 [Google Scholar]
  27. Fleischer, Jürg
    2004 A typology of relative clauses in German dialects. InBernd Kortmann (ed.), Dialectology meets typology: Dialect grammar from a cross-linguistic perspective, 211–244. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter Mouton.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. 2005 Relativsätze in den Dialekten des Deutschen: Vergleich und Typologie. Linguistik online24(3). 171–186.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Fox, Barbara A.
    1987 The Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarchy reinterpreted: Subject primacy or the absolutive hypothesis?Language63(4). 856–870. 10.2307/415720
     https://doi.org/10.2307/415720 [Google Scholar]
  30. Givón, Talmy
    1987 Beyond background and foreground. InRussel S. Tomlin (ed.), Coherence and Grounding in Discourse, 175–188. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.11.10giv
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.11.10giv [Google Scholar]
  31. 2012 Toward a diachronic typology of relative clause. InBernard Comrie & Zarina Estrada-Fernández (eds.), Relative clauses in languages of the Americas: A typological overview, 1–26. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.102.01giv
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.102.01giv [Google Scholar]
  32. Götze, Lutz & Ernest W. B. Hess-Lüttich
    1999 Grammatik der deutschen Sprache. Munich: Bertelsmann.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Haspelmath, Martin
    2019a Differential place marking and differential object marking. Language Typology and Universals (STUF)72(3). 313–334. 10.1515/stuf‑2019‑0013
     https://doi.org/10.1515/stuf-2019-0013 [Google Scholar]
  34. 2019b Can cross-linguistic regularities be explained by change constraints?InKarsten Schmidtke-Bode, Natalia Levshina, Susanne Maria Michaelis & Ilja A. Seržant (eds.), Explanation in typology: Diachronic sources, functional motivations and the nature of the evidence, 1–23. Berlin: Language Science Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Hawkins, John A.
    1999 Processing complexity and filler-gap dependencies across grammars. Language75(2). 244–285. 10.2307/417261
     https://doi.org/10.2307/417261 [Google Scholar]
  36. Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva
    2002 World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511613463
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511613463 [Google Scholar]
  37. Hendery, Rachel
    2012 Relative clauses in time and space: A case study in the methods of diachronic typology. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.101
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.101 [Google Scholar]
  38. Himmelmann, Nikolaus P.
    2004 Lexicalization and grammaticization: opposite or orthogonal?InWalter Bisang, Nikolaus P. Himmelmann & Björn Wiemer (eds.), What makes grammaticalization: A look from its fringes and its components, 21–42. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter Mouton.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Holmstedt, Robert D.
    2002 The relative clause in Biblical Hebrew: A linguistic analysis. Madison: University of Wisconsin PhD dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Holton, Gary
    2006 The relational noun marker in Tobelo (Northeast Halmaheran). InTenth International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics. https://sil-philippineslanguages.org/ical/papers.html
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth C. Traugott
    2003 Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139165525
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165525 [Google Scholar]
  42. Huddleston, Rodney, Geoffrey K. Pullum & Peter Peterson
    2002 Relative constructions and unbounded dependencies. InRodney Huddleston & Geoffrey K. Pullum (eds.), The Cambridge grammar of the English language, 1031–1096. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316423530.013
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530.013 [Google Scholar]
  43. Huehnergard, John
    1997 A grammar of Akkadian. Winona Lake (Indiana): Eisenbrauns.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Joseph, Brian D.
    1983 Relativization in Modern Greek: another look at the accessibility hierarchy constraints. Lingua60(1). 1–24. 10.1016/0024‑3841(83)90044‑X
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(83)90044-X [Google Scholar]
  45. Keenan, Edward
    1985 Relative clauses. InTimothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description. Vol. 2, Complex constructions, 141–170. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Keenan, Edward & Bernard Comrie
    1977 Noun phrase accessibility and Universal Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry8. 63–99.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. 1979 Noun phrase accessibility revisited. Language55(3). 649–664. 10.2307/412588
     https://doi.org/10.2307/412588 [Google Scholar]
  48. Keenan, Edward & Sarah Hawkins
    1987 The psychological validity of the accessibility hierarchy. InEdward Keenan (ed.), Universal grammar: 15 essays, 60–88. London/Sydney: Croom Helm.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Klamer, Marian
    1998 A grammar of Kambera. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110805536
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110805536 [Google Scholar]
  50. Kruspe, Nicole
    2004 A grammar of Semelai. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511550713
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511550713 [Google Scholar]
  51. Kullavanijaya, Pranee
    2008 A Historical Study of /thîi/ in Thai. InAnthony V. N. Diller, Jerold A. Edmonson & Yongxian Luo (eds.), The Tai-Kadai languages, 445–467. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Kuteva, Tania, Bernd Heine, Bo Hong, Haiping Long, Heiko Narrog, Seongha Rhee
    2019 World lexicon of grammaticalization. 2nd, extensively revised & updated edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316479704
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316479704 [Google Scholar]
  53. Labov, William
    1972 Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. 1994 The study of change in progress: observations in real time. InWilliam Labov (ed.), Principles of linguistic change: Internal factors, 73–112. Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Lambrecht, Knud
    1994 Informative structure and sentence form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620607
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620607 [Google Scholar]
  56. Larrivée, Pierre & Marie Skrovech
    2016 Les relatives en français vernaculaire. SHS Web of Conferences, Vol.27 2016, 5e Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française. 10.1051/shsconf/20162714008
     https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20162714008 [Google Scholar]
  57. Lehmann, Christian
    1986 On the typology of relative clauses. Linguistics24. 663–680. 10.1515/ling.1986.24.4.663
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1986.24.4.663 [Google Scholar]
  58. Lidz, Liberty A.
    2010 A descriptive grammar of Yongning Na (Mosuo). Austin: University of Texas at Austin PhD dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Luraghi, Silvia
    2016 The mapping of space onto the domain of benefaction and some unpredicted trends in semantic change. Linguistics54(2). 339–379. 10.1515/ling‑2016‑0006
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2016-0006 [Google Scholar]
  60. Luzi, Eleonora
    2012 Relativization strategies in SLA. Second Language Research24(4). 443–476. 10.1177/0267658312455424
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658312455424 [Google Scholar]
  61. Mackridge, Peter
    1985 The Modern Greek language. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Matthiessen, Chrisitan & Sandra A. Thompson
    1988 The structure of discourse and ‘subordination’. InJohn Haiman & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Clause combining in grammar and discourse, 275–329. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.18.12mat
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.18.12mat [Google Scholar]
  63. Maxwell, Dan
    1982 Implications of NP accessibility for diachronic syntax. Folia Linguistica Historica3. 135–152. 10.1515/flih.1982.3.2.135
     https://doi.org/10.1515/flih.1982.3.2.135 [Google Scholar]
  64. Michaelis, Suzanne, Martin Haspelmath & the APiCS consortium
    2013 Subject relative clauses. InSusanne Michaelis, Philippe Maurer, Martin Haspelmath & Magnus Huber (eds.), The atlas of pidgin and creole language structures, Chapter 92. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Available athttps://apics-online.info/parameters/92.chapter.html (last access10 April 2021).
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Mithun, Marianne
    2018 Deconstructing teleology: The place of synchronic usage patterns among processes of diachronic development. InSonia Cristofaro & Fernando Zúñiga (eds.), Typological hierarchies in synchrony and diachrony, 111–128. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.121.03mit
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.121.03mit [Google Scholar]
  66. Murelli, Adriano
    2011 Relative constructions in European non-standard varieties. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110238792
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110238792 [Google Scholar]
  67. Nicholas, Nick
    1998 The story of pu: The grammaticalisation in space and time of a Modern Greek complementiser. Melbourne: University of Melbourne.
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Poletto, Cecilia & Emanuela Sanfelici
    2017 Relative clauses. InAndreas Dufter & Elizabeth Stark (eds.), Manual of Romance morphosyntax and syntax, 804–846. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110377088‑022
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110377088-022 [Google Scholar]
  69. Price, Glanville
    2008 A comprehensive French grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Radford, Andrew
    2019 Relative clauses: Structure and variation in everyday English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108687744
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108687744 [Google Scholar]
  71. Romaine, Suzanne
    1984 Towards a typology of relative-clause formation strategies in Germanic. InJacek Fisiak (ed.), Historical Syntax, 437–470. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110824032.437
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110824032.437 [Google Scholar]
  72. Rubin, Aaron D.
    2005 Studies in Semitic grammaticalization. Winona Lake (Indiana): Eisenbrauns. 10.1163/9789004370029
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004370029 [Google Scholar]
  73. Serianni, Luca
    2006 [1989] Grammatica italiana: italiano comune e lingua letteraria. Suoni, forme, costrutti. Torino: UTET.
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Shagal, Ksenia
    2019 Participles: A typological study. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110633382
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110633382 [Google Scholar]
  75. Shibatani, Masayoshi
    1991 Grammaticization of topic into subject. InElizabeth C. Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, Vol. 2, Types of grammatical markers, 93–134. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.19.2.07shi
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.19.2.07shi [Google Scholar]
  76. Shirai, Yasuhiro & Hiromi Ozeki
    2007 The acquisition of relative clauses and the noun phrase accessibility hierarchy: A universal in SLA? Introduction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition29(2).155–167.
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Smits, Helena J.
    2017 A grammar of Lumun. Leiden: Rijksuniversiteit te Leiden PhD dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Song, Jae Jung
    2002 Linguistic typology and language acquisition: The accessibility hierarchy and relative clauses. Language Research38(2). 729–756.
     [Google Scholar]
  79. Stolz, Thomas, Sander Lestrade & Stolz Christel
    2014 The crosslinguistics of zero-marking of spatial relations. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter Mouton. 10.1524/9783050065304
     https://doi.org/10.1524/9783050065304 [Google Scholar]
  80. Topping, Donald M.
    1973 Chamorro reference grammar. Honolulu: University of Hawaii. 10.1515/9780824841263
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9780824841263 [Google Scholar]
  81. Wang, Peter, Robert Hunt, Jeff McGriff & Richard E. Elkins
    2006 The Grammar of Matigsalug Manobo. The Summer Institute of Linguistics and the University of Texas at Arlington. Available athttps://www.sil.org/resources/archives/53940 (last access10 April 2021).
     [Google Scholar]
  82. Watke, Bruce K. & Michael P. O’Connor
    1990 An introduction to Biblical Hebrew syntax. Winona Lake (Indiana): Eisenbrauns.
     [Google Scholar]
  83. Wheeler, Max, Alan Yates & Nicolau Dols
    1999 Catalan: A comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203300275
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203300275 [Google Scholar]
  84. Yap, Foong Ha, Karen Grunow-Hårsta & Janick Wrona
    2011 Introduction. InFoong Ha Yap, Karen Grunow-Hårsta & Janick Wrona (eds.), Nominalization strategies in Asian languages, 1–60. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.96.01yap
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.96.01yap [Google Scholar]
  85. American National Corpus
    American National Corpus: americannationalcorpus.org
  86. Enquêtes Sociolinguistiques à Orléans (ESLO Corpus)
    Enquêtes Sociolinguistiques à Orléans (ESLO Corpus): eslo.huma-num.fr
  87. ParlaTO Corpus
    ParlaTO Corpus: corpusparlato.com
  88. Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American Eglish (SBC)
    Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American Eglish (SBC): linguistics.ucsb.edu/research/santa-barbara-corpus
/content/journals/10.1075/sl.20013.bal
Loading
The development of locative relative markers
Studies in Language. International Journal sponsored by the Foundation “Foundations of Language” 46, 220 (2022); https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.20013.bal
/content/journals/10.1075/sl.20013.bal
/content/journals/10.1075/sl.20013.bal
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): accessibility hierarchy; diachronic typology; language variation; locative relative; relative clause; sociolinguistic variation

Most Cited

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