Differences in Pre- and Post-Head Relative Clauses

which can appear in these two positions—“heavy” relative clauses occur after the head while “light” ones may either precede or follow it—and with the interaction between the possessor NP position of the matrix noun phrase and pre-head relative clauses. The distinc- tion between pre-head and post-head relative clauses, in turn, correlates with the accept- ability of an overt WH-word in the LSAP of the relative clause. An explicit WH-word is never acceptable in a pre-head relative clause but is generally optional in a post-head one. 195 a. Da-malhiti-fa to bahy tho-myn. I-make-FUT the house her-for ‘I will make the house for her.’ b. to bahy [da-malhiti-sia-fa › tho-myn] the house [I-make-WH.OBJ-FUT › her-for] ‘the house I will make for her’ c. to bahy [ama da-malhiti-sia-fa › tho-myn] the house [what I-make-WH.OBJ-FUT › her-for] ‘the house which I will make for her’ d. to [da-malhiti-sia-fa ›] bahy the [I-make-WH.OBJ-FUT ›] house ‘the house I will make’ e. to [ama da-malhiti-sia-fa ›] bahy the [what I-make-WH.OBJ-FUT ›] house ‘the house which I will make’ 196 a. Na ibili-non dalhida bahy-nro. the little-HUMAN.PL run house-toward ‘The children ran home.’ b. na ibili-non [› dalhidi-thi bahy-nro] the little-HUMAN.PL [› run-WH.SUBJ house-toward] ‘the children who ran home’ c. na ibili-non [alikan › dalhidi-thi bahy-nro] the little-HUMAN.PL [who › run-WH.SUBJ house-toward] ‘the children who ran home’ d. na [› dalhidi-thi] ibili-non the [› run-WH.SUBJ] little-HUMAN.PL ‘the children who ran’ e. na [alikan › dalhidi-thi] ibili-non the [who › run-WH.SUBJ] little-HUMAN.PL ‘the children who ran’ Other than modifications made to the above relative clauses to make them heavy or light enough to appear in their respective positions, the clauses are similar in all other respects: 84 Relative Clauses each has a gap, and each has an obligatory relativizer suffix appropriate to the grammati- cal role of the gap attached to its main verb. Note also that neither type of relative clause has the subordinating suffix -n, characteristic of other embedded clauses types, attached to the its verb. 1 197 a. No relativizing suffix: to bahy [ama da-malhiti-fa › tho-myn] the house [what I-make-FUT › her-for] ‘the house which I will make for her’ b. to [da-malhiti-fa ›] bahy the [I-make-WH.OBJ-FUT ›] house ‘the house I will make’ 198 a. With subordinating suffix: to bahy [ama da-malhiti-n-sia-fa › tho-myn] the house [what I-make-SUB-WH.OBJ-FUT › her-for] ‘the house which I will make for her’ b. to [da-malhiti-n-sia-fa ›] bahy the [I-make-SUB-WH.OBJ-FUT ›] house ‘the house I will make’ It therefore seems to be just the linear position of the relative clause with respect to the noun phrase head which determines whether an explicit relative pronoun is acceptable or not in Arawak. A possible explanation for this linear order effect may lie in the fact that conflicting prin- ciples are applying to pre-head relative clauses. That is, it is a general fact of Arawak that relative pronoun movement is to the COMP-like position I have labeled “LSAP” and that this position is to the left of the rest of the clause. Yet there seems to be a preference across languages for nothing to intervene between a relative pronoun and the head of the noun phrase. Assuming that the latter is true of Arawak also, pre-head relative clauses can satisfy both principles only if they do not have an explicit relative pronoun in LSAP, since their LSAP is not adjacent to the head of the noun phrase. On the other hand, Arawak post-head relative clauses allow both principles to be satisfied whether or not they have an explicit relative pronoun. The presence or absence of a relative pronoun in the LSAP position of a post-head relative clause is not without semantic consequences. Relative clauses with relative pronouns tend to be non-restrictive relative clauses, 2 while those without seem to be restrictive ones. For in- stance, the relative clauses in the sentences in the first set of examples below 199 are all 4.1 Differences in Pre- and Post-Head Relative Clauses 85 1 The unacceptability of the subordinating suffix in these clauses is not due to an incompatibility between it and the relativizing suffixes. Both can co-occur in free relative clauses see sections below. 2 Although the majority of post-head relative clauses with explicit relative pronouns seem to receive a non-restrictive interpretation, a few seem to be restrictive. For example: Jan papada to kabajaha [ama › rydy-tho-i]. John squash the tick [what › bite-WH.SUBJ-him ‘John squashed the tick which bit him’ non-restrictive. The relative clauses in them provide additional information about the noun phrases they modify, rather than limiting the range of possible referents of those noun phrases. The relative clauses in the second set of examples 200, on the other hand, are restrictive. They provide information which the speaker assumes will help the hearer identify a particular referent out of a larger group of possible referents. The contrast, which is quite subtle in most cases, becomes clearer when the head being modified is a proper noun e.g. 200c. In this case, the proper name apparently is assumed to be sufficient identification to single out this in- dividual from any others. Adding a restrictive relative clause is unacceptable unless there are several persons named John from which to choose. 3 199 a. Non-restrictive with indefinite NP: Aba wadili alikan siki-thi-fa no da-myn andy-fa jon. one man who give-WH.SUBJ-FUT it me-to arrive-FUT here ‘A man, who will give it to me, will arrive here.’ b. Non-restrictive with definite NP: Li wadili alikan siki-thi-fa no da-myn andy-fa jon. the man who give-WH.SUBJ-FUT it me-to arrive-FUT here ‘The man, who will give it to me, will arrive here.’ c. Non-restrictive with proper name: Li Jan alikan siki-thi-fa no da-myn andy-fa jon. the John who give-WH.SUBJ-FUT it me-to arrive-FUT here ‘John, who will give it to me, will arrive here.’ 200 a. Restrictive with indefinite NP: Aba wadili siki-thi-fa no da-myn andy-fa jon. one man give-WH.SUBJ-FUT it me-to arrive-FUT here ‘A man who will give it to me will arrive here.’ b. Restrictive with definite NP: Li wadili siki-thi-fa no da-myn andy-fa jon. the man give-WH.SUBJ-FUT it me-to arrive-FUT here ‘The man who will give it to me will arrive here.’ c. Restrictive with proper name: ??Li Jan siki-thi-fa no da-myn andy-fa jon. ??the John give-WH.SUBJ-FUT it me-to arrive-FUT here ??‘John who will give it to me will arrive here.’ 86 Relative Clauses 3 As was mentioned in the discussion on noun phrases 3.1, Arawak often uses definite articles with proper names. The presence of the definite article in example 200c has no influence on its unacceptability. If it is left out, the clause is still unacceptable. That the presence of an overt relative pronoun should influence a restrictive or non- restrictive interpretation of a relative clause is not unique to Arawak. An overt relative pronoun in English seems to allow either a restrictive or non-restrictive reading. 201 a. Restrictive: the man whom you met ... b. Non-restrictive: John, whom you met ... However, if a relative clause in English lacks a relative pronoun, or contains the complementizer ‘that’ in its COMP position, only the restrictive reading seems to be possible. 202 a. Restrictive: the man I met yesterday... the man that I met yesterday... b. Non-restrictive: John I met yesterday... John that I met yesterday...

4.2 Free Relative Clauses

In addition to the relative clauses mentioned in the preceding section, Arawak has what appear to be free relative clauses—that is, relative clauses without overt lexical heads. No- tice, for example, the similarity in structure between the free relative clause in the English sentence below, and an equivalent one in an Arawak sentence. 203 a. I sold what he gave me yesterday. b. Da-jokara ama li-siki-n-sia miaka. I-sell what he-give-SUB-WH.OBJ yesterday ‘I sold what he gave me yesterday.’ As in English, free relative clauses in Arawak have a structure almost identical to that of other relative clauses, and they do not seem to be associated with the head of any particu- lar noun phrase. Instead, they seem to function in the place of whole noun phrases. Like other relative clauses, they contain appropriate subject- and object-relativizing suffixes and, optionally, may have an explicit relative pronoun. 4.2 Free Relative Clauses 87 204 a. As subject: [Li moty-n-thi] mithada-bo we. [the win-SUB-WH.SUBJ] laugh.transitive-CONT us ‘The winner laughed at us.’ b. As direct object: N-othi-ka [ama n-ansi-n-sia]. they-receive-INDIC [what they-want-SUB-WH.OBJ] ‘They receivedgot what they wanted.’ c. As direct object: Thy-dykha [aba diadiady-n-tho]. she-see [one chatgossip-SUB-WH.SUBJ] ‘She saw a gossip.’ d. As object of a postposition: N-obada-bo [li jady-n-thi] boran. they-wait-CONT [the travel-SUB-WH.SUBJ] before ‘They are waiting for the traveler.’ Whether these relative clauses are, in fact, free or lexically headed is not certain. Every clause in Arawak which appears to be a free relative clause starts with a word which might, in fact, be interpreted as a pronominal head. That is, as in the above examples, the apparent free relative clauses all start with a relative pronoun, a number, or an article. The latter two might be taken to be the determiners of noun phrases. However, this is not necessarily the case. The Arawak definite articles are all morphologically identical with pronouns of the same number and gender see Sections 2.3.1 and 2.3.2, and numerals can also function as heads of noun phrases. 205a. li wadili aba wadili the man one man ‘the man’ ‘a man’ b. Li osa-bo. Aba osa-bo. he go-CONT one go-CONT ‘He is going.’ ‘One of them is going.’ A further bit of evidence that the determiners of free relative clauses may, in fact, be pro- nominal heads is that the presence of the initial relative pronoun, article, or number is obligatory. This contrasts with the fact that indefinite non-mass noun phrases in Arawak are acceptable without an indefinite article or a number when the exact number of items or referents is not relevant or when a plural suffix is used on the head noun. 88 Relative Clauses