Relativization in Tadaksahak

1. Introduction

Three distinct relativization strategies are used in Tadaksahak: a relative pronoun strategy, a gap strategy, and one that uses the morpheme sa (hereafter, the sa- strategy). One parameter that distinguishes these strategies is whether the relative clause is restrictive (relative pronoun and gap strategies) or nonrestrictive (sa- strategy); this difference is reviewed in section 1. The parameter that usually distinguishes the two restrictive strategies is whether the referent of the head noun is definite (relative pronoun—sec. 3.1) or indefinite (gap strategy—sec. 3.2). Section 4 is devoted to the sa- strategy. The paper also discusses which grammatical relations can be relativized by each strategy (sec. 2), and some motivations for left- dislocating nominal constituents that contain referents (sec. 5).

Tadaksahak is an SVO language and, consistent with this, the relative clause follows the head, whatever relativization strategy is used. Because the relative clause nearly always appears in the head, it is often found in the middle of the main clause.

Three relativization strategies are employed in Tadakashak: (1) the relative pronoun strategy, (2) the gap strategy (i.e., no marking), and (3) with the sa- strategy. The morpheme sa only introduces nonrestrictive relative clauses (provided a specific condition is met); this strategy is treated in section 4. The two other strategies, relative pronoun and gap, encode restrictive relative clauses; they are discussed in section 3.

2. Relativization strategies

The relative pronoun strategy: The pronoun agrees in number with the noun it modifies. The singular form of the pronoun is ayo. Example: 'The blacksmith rubbed the bracelet that is made of silver.' The plural form of the pronoun is ayondo (or endayo). Example: 'Who are the camel riders who dismounted at Rhali's (place)?'

The gap strategy (no marking): Example: '...she (the lioness) found meat that was lying next to the cubs.'

The sa- strategy: Example: 'He greets his mother, whose name is Aminata.'

3. Grammatical relations that can be relativized

This section considers the grammatical relations that can be relativized by each of the strategies presented. Keenan and Comrie (1977) observe that any given relative-clause strategy will allow relativization in a continuous segment of the following 'Accessibility Hierarchy': subject → direct object → indirect object → oblique → possessor.

Subject: When a subject is relativized in the relative pronoun strategy, the pronoun takes the place of the subject clitic in the relative clause. Example: 'Get me the person who arrived here!'

Direct object: When the direct object is relativized in other Songhay languages, a resumptive pronoun occupies the place of the relativized constituent in the relative clause. No such pronoun is used in Tadaksahak. Example: 'The work I have for you is finished.'

Oblique objects (including indirect objects): Oblique objects are characterized by the presence of a postposition that indicates the relation of the constituent to the verb. When such constituents are relativized, the postposition is fronted. In the relative pronoun strategy, it occurs immediately after the relative pronoun. In the gap strategy, it occurs immediately after the head noun that is modified by the relative clause. Example: 'He returned to the place where they live.'

Possessor: The only strategy attested in our texts to relativize possessors uses the morpheme sa. Example: 'I saw a phantom, in whose eyes fire was burning.'

4. Restrictive relative clauses

Tadaksahak contrasts both with related Songhay languages and with Berber languages in employing two restrictive strategies. Other Songhay languages have a single restrictive strategy, using the relativizer ka(q), while Berber languages use the gap strategy. The existence of two strategies in Tadaksahak reflects the fact that the language does not mark definiteness on nominals like other Songhay languages, yet sometimes needs to convey this attribute.

According to Givón (1984:399), definite nominals 'have unique referential identity,' whereas speakers code a referential nominal as indefinite 'if they think that they are not entitled to assume that the hearer can...assign it unique referential identity.'

The relative pronoun strategy and definite entities: Typically, when an entity has been previously introduced to a story and so can be assigned unique referential identity, any subsequent reference to it that involves a relative clause involves the relative pronoun strategy. Example: 'The person who sat on the camel dismounted.'

The gap strategy and indefinite entities: Typically, when an entity is indefinite, any reference to it that involves a relative clause uses the gap strategy. Example: '...until he arrived at an old woman's who was (lived) in wildcats' burrows.'

Headless relative clauses: Headless relative clauses use the relative pronoun strategy, and their referent is usually definite. Example: 'He reached their cows, took the one that was pregnant...'

5. Nonrestrictive relative clauses

The morpheme sa is typically used to mark nonrestrictive relative clauses; i.e., clauses that add new information about an already identified entity. Such clauses could stand by themselves as independent clauses, were they not attached to the previous clause by sa.

Nonrestrictive relative clauses often occur at the beginning of Tadaksahak stories to give additional information about a major participant. The grammatical relation that is most frequently relativized is the direct object, though the subject of both intransitive and transitive verbs may also be relativized, as may the possessor.

Example: 'He married a certain woman, who (once they were married) used to eat seven camels a day.'

Example: 'I saw a phantom that causes fear, in whose eyes fire was burning.'

6. Left-dislocation of nominal constituents containing relative clauses

This section illustrates occasions when Tadaksahak left- dislocates nominal constituents that contain relative clauses. This happens for a number of reasons: because the constituent is complex, because relativization of the possessor is apparently not an option in restrictive relative clauses, and because the speaker wishes to give extra prominence to a focal constituent.

Left- dislocated nominal constituents in Tadaksahak have two characteristics: 1. They are placed at the beginning of a clause or sentence. 2. A correlative pronominal trace occupies the place where the constituent would normally occur.

Example: 'This man whom he accompanied, whose name is Niels, I said to him: ...'

Example: 'Somebody who works a lot, his hands are rough.'

Example: 'A horse that has endurance, it's THIS ONE that is noble.'

Summary

Tadaksahak has distinct markers for nonrestrictive and restrictive relative clauses. Nonrestrictive relative clauses are characterized by the presence of the morpheme sa, introducing a clause which would otherwise be independent. Two strategies are available for restrictive relative clauses. The relative pronoun strategy is used if the head noun is definite. The gap strategy is mostly used when the head noun is indefinite. However, ho 'this thing' and ne 'place' do not follow this rule; the relative pronoun strategy is never used with them. Motivations for left- dislocating relative clauses include the complexity of the constituent concerned, the desire to relativize the possessor of a restrictive relative clause, and the desire to give extra prominence to a focal constituent.

Bibliographie

• Comrie, Bernard. 1989. Language universals and linguistic typology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Fox, Barbara A. 1987. The noun phrase accessibility hierarchy revisited. Language 63:856-870.
• Gensler, Orin. forthcoming. Adpositional relative clauses and Focus fronting in Songhay and Berber. Eighth Nilo-Saharan Linguistics Colloquium 2001, Hamburg.
• Givón, Talmy. 1984. Syntax: A functional-typological introduction (volume 1). Philadelphia: Benjamins.
• Heath, Jeffrey. 1999. A grammar of Koyraboro (Koroboro) Senni, the Songhay of Gao, Mali. Köln: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag.
• Keenan, Edward, and Bernard Comrie. 1977. NP accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8:63-100.
• Payne, Thomas E. 1997. Describing morphosyntax: A guide for field linguists. Cambridge: University Press.