Abstract

This paper discusses the morphosyntactic properties of relative clause constructions in the Runyankore-Rukiga language cluster (Bantu, JE13/14, Uganda). Relative clauses in this paper are categorized into nominal and clausal relatives on the basis of their exhibited morphosyntactic properties. The nominal relative clause category comprises elements which have been previously regarded as adjectives (Morris and Kirwan 1972; Taylor 1985) which include some color terms among other lexical items. The second category, namely clausal relatives, is subcategorized into subject and object clausal relatives. The subject clausal relative is realized within the subject nominal prefix by differential tone marking while the object clausal relative is an obligatory agreement-bearing complementizer which stands alone in agreement with the object antecedent. This paper describes the properties and use of the object relative marker as it has previously been regarded as a demonstrative or a pronoun. The paper offers an alternative position to the status of the object relative clause marker, proposing that it is not a pronoun equivalent to the English Wh-relative pronoun, and that it is not a demonstrative per se, but rather an agreement-bearing complementizer that heads a CP. The paper further asserts that the augment is not a relative clause marker as it is stated in Morris and Kirwan (1972) and Taylor (1985) but expresses a restrictive relative clause when present. As part of syntax, the paper discusses agreement properties in relative clause constructions and reports that a clausal relative takes the agreement of the head of the relative clause, but this is not always the case since anti-agreement cases are reported. Data for the analysis comes from authentic written materials and elicited constructions.

Highlights

  • Runyankore-Rukiga is generally understudied compared to other Bantu languages such as Shona (S10)1, Kiswahili (G40), Zulu (S42) and Luganda (JE15)

  • My argument follows that of Demuth and Harford (1999) who state that an object clausal relative marker in Runyankore-Rukiga is not a relative pronoun

  • The second category comprises the clausal relatives which are further subcategorized into subject and object clausal relatives

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Runyankore-Rukiga is generally understudied compared to other Bantu languages such as Shona (S10), Kiswahili (G40), Zulu (S42) and Luganda (JE15). I generally offer a descriptive morphosyntactic analysis of relative clause constructions in Runyankore-Rukiga This is in line with language typologists (e.g, Shopen 1985) who posit that language descriptions for (cross-)linguistic variations should precede any attempts to offer formal theoretical analysis. For example, the object relative clause marker switches agreement between the internal locative noun and the locative element that heads the locative phrase which has been inverted. This will later be analyzed in relation to Demuth and Harford’s (1999) assertion drawing from Sesotho (S32) data that, agreement occurs when an element has been raised to Spec-IP. Omw’ ihang’ ómw’ áríkutúura o-mu i-hanga o-mu a-ri-ku-tuur-a AUG-18 5-country AUG-18 SBJ.1SG-be-INF-stay-FV “In the country where she/he stays.” omw’ ihang’ ery’ áríkutúúrámu o-mu i-hanga e-ri a-ri-ku-tuur-a=mu AUG-18 5-country AUG-5 SBJ.1SG-be-INF-stay-FV=18.ENC “The country in which she/he stays.”

Abbreviations used in the glosses are as follows
Nominal relatives
Clausal relatives
Subject clausal relatives
Object clausal relatives
The augment in clausal relative formation
Agreement and word order in clausal relative constructions
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.