Correlative clauses and anaphora
Posted: Tue Aug 10, 2010 5:41 am
Let me see if I understand this right.
If you have a sentence with English-like word order and a standard relative clause that looks like this in gloss/diagram:
[[noun [that vbs obj]] vb2s obj2]
or
[sbj vb2s [noun [that vbs obj]]]
then the correlative sentence can look like any of these:
[which noun vbs obj] [that vb2s obj2]
[which vbs obj] [that noun vb2s obj2]
[which noun vbs obj] [that noun vb2s objs]
or
[which noun vbs obj] [subj vb2s that]
[which vbs obj] [subj vb2s that noun]
[which noun vbs obj] [subj vb2s that noun]
where "which" is a relative pronoun and "that" is some kind of (possibly correlative-specific) anaphor.
1. Does this kind of thing ever happen:
[which vbs obj] [that vb2s obj2]
[which vbs obj] [sbj vb2s that]
in particular, would this mean "anything that X also Y" or "there exists something that X which also Y"? Would it need some kind of dummy pronoun at least?
2. If multiple things in the sentence are modified by relative clauses, I guess the various pronouns would need to agree with each other in some way - or is there another way to mark it?
E.g. in "English"
[[noun [that vbs obj]] vb2s [noun [that vb3s obj2]]]
would be something like
[which-MKR noun vbs obj] [which-MKR2 noun vb3s obj2] [that-MKR vb2s that-MKR2]
Marking for case would seem like the obvious way to go (or classifiers/gender, or number maybe), but if the lang marks case only by word order would it also work to require a specific ordering for the relative clauses (like subject relative clause always comes first, or something) or does that not happen?
3. How would you do this:
"English"
[noun [that vbs [noun [that vb2s obj]]] vb3s obj2]
Something like:
[which noun vb2s obj] [which noun vbs that] [that vb3s obj2]
where you just assume that the "that" anaphor always refers to the "which" in the previous clause? I imagine this starts to get hairy for sentences like the ones in #2, though, if you have word-order-based "marking".
If you have a sentence with English-like word order and a standard relative clause that looks like this in gloss/diagram:
[[noun [that vbs obj]] vb2s obj2]
or
[sbj vb2s [noun [that vbs obj]]]
then the correlative sentence can look like any of these:
[which noun vbs obj] [that vb2s obj2]
[which vbs obj] [that noun vb2s obj2]
[which noun vbs obj] [that noun vb2s objs]
or
[which noun vbs obj] [subj vb2s that]
[which vbs obj] [subj vb2s that noun]
[which noun vbs obj] [subj vb2s that noun]
where "which" is a relative pronoun and "that" is some kind of (possibly correlative-specific) anaphor.
1. Does this kind of thing ever happen:
[which vbs obj] [that vb2s obj2]
[which vbs obj] [sbj vb2s that]
in particular, would this mean "anything that X also Y" or "there exists something that X which also Y"? Would it need some kind of dummy pronoun at least?
2. If multiple things in the sentence are modified by relative clauses, I guess the various pronouns would need to agree with each other in some way - or is there another way to mark it?
E.g. in "English"
[[noun [that vbs obj]] vb2s [noun [that vb3s obj2]]]
would be something like
[which-MKR noun vbs obj] [which-MKR2 noun vb3s obj2] [that-MKR vb2s that-MKR2]
Marking for case would seem like the obvious way to go (or classifiers/gender, or number maybe), but if the lang marks case only by word order would it also work to require a specific ordering for the relative clauses (like subject relative clause always comes first, or something) or does that not happen?
3. How would you do this:
"English"
[noun [that vbs [noun [that vb2s obj]]] vb3s obj2]
Something like:
[which noun vb2s obj] [which noun vbs that] [that vb3s obj2]
where you just assume that the "that" anaphor always refers to the "which" in the previous clause? I imagine this starts to get hairy for sentences like the ones in #2, though, if you have word-order-based "marking".