Cover not available
Article published In:
Asia-Pacific Language Variation
Vol. 3:1 (2017) ► pp.95–122

A corpus-based analysis of word order variation in Yami relative clause construction

| National Chung Cheng University
| National Chung Cheng University
Yami relative clauses (RCs) can either precede the head noun, for example, kanakan ‘child,’ as in ko ni-ma-cita o [ji yákneng] a kanakan ‘I saw the child who cannot hold still’, functioning as restrictive RCs ([RC] + a + Head NP), or follow it as in ko ni-ma-cita o kanakan a [ji yákneng] ‘I saw that child, who cannot hold still’, functioning as nonrestrictive RCs for complementation strategy (Head NP + a + [RC]). The VARBRUL results demonstrate that head final RCs are predominant in Yami, and Yami speakers use them to connect the given referent with the previous discourse to convey given information. The study found that Subject head nouns outnumber other grammatical roles of head NPs, and that Subject head noun with Subject RC construction is produced more than any other RC constructions, which indicates that Yami RCs are used to modify the Subject for topic continuity.
Keywords: Yami, relative clause construction, word order, variation, information flow
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Yami speech community and its language
    • 2.1An offshore indigenous tribe of Taiwan and its speech community: Yami
    • 2.2A brief introduction to Yami clause structure
      • 2.2.1Yami: A typical Philippine type structure
      • 2.2.2Yami RC structure
  • 3.Proposed factors determining the variation of Yami RC
    • 3.1Information status, definiteness, humanness
    • 3.2Grammatical roles in Yami RC
  • 4.Methodology
    • 4.1Data coding of relative clauses
    • 4.2Coding reliability
  • 5.Results and discussion
    • 5.1Information flow factors and variation of Yami RCs
      • 5.1.1Occurrence of variation of Yami RC
      • 5.1.2Factors accounting for head initial RCs
    • 5.2Analysis of unmarked Yami RCs: Head-final RC
    • 5.3Grammatical roles of RCs and the variation of Yami RC
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References


This article is currently available as a sample article.

Published online: 28 September 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/aplv.3.1.05cha
References (67)
References
Aldridge, Edith (2002). Nominalization and wh-movement in Seediq and Tagalog. Language and Linguistics, 3(2), 393–426.Google Scholar
(2004). Internally headed relative clauses in Austronesian languages. Language and Linguistics, 5(1), 99–129.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L. (1976). Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and point of view. In Charles N. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 25–55). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
(1987). Cognitive constraints on information flow. In Russell Tomlin (Ed.), Coherence and grounding in discourse (pp. 21–51). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chang, Hui-Huan, & Rau, D. Victoria (2011). Word order variation in Yami. Paper presented at the first NWAV Asia-Pacific, University of Delhi, India.Google Scholar
Chang, Hui-Huan, Rau, D. Victoria, & Dong, Maa-Neu (2015a). Constructing high quality audio learning materials using Lexique Pro. Electronic poster presented at the ICLDC 4, University of Hawaii at Manoa.Google Scholar
(2015b). Constructing a Yami online audiovisual dictionary. Paper presented at 13-ICAL, Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan.Google Scholar
(2015c). Constructing an audiovisual morpheme-by-morpheme database: A case of Yami. Paper presented at The Fifth Conference on Heritage Maintenance for Endangered Languages in Yunnan, China, Yuxi Normal University, Yuxi City, Yunnan, China.Google Scholar
Chen, Hui-Ping (1998). A sociolinguistic study of second language proficiency, language use, and language attitude among the Yami in Lanyu. Master’s thesis, Providence University, Taiwan.Google Scholar
Cohen, Jacob (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 37–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard (2008). Prenominal relative clauses in verb-object languages. Language and Linguistics, 9(4), 723–732.Google Scholar
D’Arcy, Alexandra, & Tagliamonte, Sali (2008). Who knew? New insights into the social life of relatives. Paper presented at New Ways of Analyzing Variation (NWAV) 37, Houston, Texas.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. W. (1979). Ergativity. Language, 55(1), 59–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1988). A grammar of Boumaa Fijian. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(1994). Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006). Complement clauses and complementation strategies in typological perspective. In Robert M. W. Dixon & Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (Eds.), Complementation: A cross-linguistic typology (pp. 1–48). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2010). Basic linguistic theory: Grammatical topics: volume 2. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. W. , & Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (Eds.). (2000). Changing valency: Case studies in transitivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. (2005). Order of relative clause and noun. In Martin Haspelmath, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gi, & Bernard Comrie (Eds.), The world atlas of language structures (pp. 366–367). Oxford University Press. Available from [URL]Google Scholar
Du Bois, John W. (1980). Beyond definiteness: The trace of identity in discourse. In Wallace L. Chafe (Ed.), The pear stories: Cognitive, cultural, and linguistics aspects of narrative production (Advances in discourse processes, volume 3) (pp. 203–274). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
(1987). The discourse basis of ergativity. Language, 63(4), 805–855. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fox, Barbara A., & Thompson, Sandra A. (1990). A discourse explanation of the grammar of relative clauses in English conversation. Language, 66(2), 297–316. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibson, Edward (1998). Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68(1), 1–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy (1983). Topic continuity in discourse: An introduction. In Talmy Givón (Ed.), Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-language study (Typological studies in language 3) (pp. 1–41). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1993). English grammar: A function-based introduction, volume 1 & 21. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
(2011). Ute reference grammar. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gordon, Raymond G. Jr. (2005). Ethnologue: Languages of the world (15th edition). SIL International. Available from [URL]Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. (1963). Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Joseph H. Greenberg (Ed.), Universals of language (pp. 73–113). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Guy, Gregory R., & Bayley, Robert (1995). On the choice of relative pronouns in English. American Speech, 70(2), 148–162. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haviland, Susan, & Clark, Herbert (1974). What’s new? Acquiring new information as a process in comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13(5), 512–521. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. (2005). The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar: Typological characteristics. In Alexander Adelaar & Nikolaus P. Himmelmann (Eds.), The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar (Routledge family language series, volume 7) (pp. 110–181). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward (1985). Relative clauses. In Timothy Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description: Complex constructions (pp. 141–170). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward, & Comrie, Bernard (1977). Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 8(1), 63–99.Google Scholar
King, Jonathan, & Just, Marcel Adam (1991). Individual differences in syntactic processing: The role of working memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 30(5), 580–602. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud (1994). Information structure and sentence form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002). Topic, focus, and secondary predication. The French Presentational Relative Construction. In Claire Beyssade, Reineke Bok-Bennema, Frank Drijkoningen, and Paola Monachesi (Eds.), Proceedings of Going Romance 2000 (pp. 171–212). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Landis, J. Richard, & Koch, Gary G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levey, Stephen (2006). Visiting London relatives. English World-Wide, 27(1), 45–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, Paul Jen-kuei, & Tsuchida, Shigeru (2002). Pazih dictionary (Language and Linguistics Monograph Series A2–1). Taipei: Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica.Google Scholar
Liao, Hsiu-chuan (2002). The interpretation of tu and Kavalan ergativity. Oceanic Linguistics, 41(1), 140–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lin, Yi-hui (2007). A sociolinguistic study on Yami language vitality and maintenance. Master’s thesis, Providence University, Taiwan.Google Scholar
Liu, Adlay Kun-long (2005). The structure of relative clauses in Jianshi Squliq Atayal. Concentric: Studies in Linguistics, 31(2), 89–110.Google Scholar
(2015). Outside-in or inside-out functional uncertainty? An LFG analysis on relativisation in Jianshi Squliq Atayal. In Elizabeth Zeitoun, Stacy Teng, & Joy Wu (Eds.), New advances in Formosan languages (pp. 533–554). Canberra, Australia: Asia-Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, Brian, & Pléh, Csaba (1988). The processing of restrictive relative clauses in Hungarian. Cognition, 29(2), 95–141. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meyerhoff, Miriam, & Evans, Nicholas (2016). All the way up, and the way down: Bridging micro-variation and macro-variation. Plenary workshop presented at NWAV AP 4, Chiayi, Taiwan: National Chung Cheng University.Google Scholar
Milroy, Lesley (1987). Observing and analyzing natural language. Malden, MA; Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen (1981). Towards a taxonomy of given-new information. In Peter Cole (Ed.), Radical pragmatics (pp. 223–255). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph (1957). Relative clauses in educated spoken English. English Studies, 38(1), 97–109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rau, D. Victoria (1995). Yami language vitality. Paper presented at the Conference on Language Use and Ethnic Identity, Institute of Ethnology, Academia Sinica, Taipei.Google Scholar
(2000). Word order variation and topic continuity in Atayal. In Marian Klamer (Ed.), Proceedings of AFLA 7 (pp. 211–230). Department of Linguistics, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.Google Scholar
(2002). Nominalization in Yami. Language and Linguistics, 3(2), 164–195.Google Scholar
(2005). Iconicity, tense, aspect, and mood morphology in Yami. Concentric: Studies in Linguistics, 31(1), 65–94.Google Scholar
Rau, D. Victoria, & Dong, Maa-Neu (2006). Yami texts with reference grammar and dictionary (Language and Linguistics, Institute of Linguistics, Special Monograph Series Number A-10). Taipei: Academia Sinica.Google Scholar
. (2016). Dawu yufa gailun [An introduction to Yami grammar]. Taipei: Council of Indigenous Peoples.Google Scholar
Rau, D. Victoria, & Yang, Meng-Chien (2009). Digital transmission of language and culture. In Margaret Florey (Ed.), Language endangerment and maintenance in the Austronesian region (pp. 207–224). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rau, D. Victoria, Yang, Meng-Chien, Chang, Hui-Huan Ann, & Dong, Maa-Neu (2009). Online dictionary and ontology building for Austronesian languages in Taiwan. Language Documentation and Conservation, 3(2), 192–212.Google Scholar
Ravin, Yael, & Leacock, Claudia (2000). Polysemy: Theoretical and computational approaches. New York: Oxford University Press Inc.Google Scholar
Reid, Lawrence A., & Liao, Hsiu-chuan (2004). A brief syntactic typology of Philippine languages. Language and Linguistics, 5(2), 433–490.Google Scholar
Sankoff, David, Tagliamonte, Sali, & Smith, Eric (2005). Goldvarb X: A variable rule application for Macintosh and Windows [Computer program]. Department of Linguistics, University of Toronto. Available from [URL]Google Scholar
Schachter, Paul, & Otanes, Fe T. (1972). Tagalog reference grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali (2002). Variation and change in the British relative marker system. In Patricia Poussa (Ed.), Relativisation on the north sea littoral (pp. 147–165). Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A., Smith, Jennifer, & Lawrence, Helen (2005). No taming the vernacular! Insights from the relatives in northern Britain. Language Variation and Change, 17(1), 75–112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tang, Chih-Chen Jane (2002). On nominalization in Paiwan. Language and Linguistics 3(2), 283–333.Google Scholar
Tottie, Gunnel, & Rey, Michel (1997). Relativization strategies in earlier African American Vernacular English. Language Variation and Change, 9(2), 219–247 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traxler, Matthew J., Morris, Robin K., & Seely, Rachel E. (2002). Processing subject and object relative clauses: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 47(1), 69–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Warren, Tessa, & Gibson, Edward (2002). The influence of referential processing on sentence complexity. Cognition, 85(1), 79–112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zeitoun, Elizabeth (2007). A grammar of Mantauran Rukai. Language and Linguistics Monograph Series A4-2. Taipei: Academia Sinica.Google Scholar