RESEARCH REVIEW (NS) VOL. 11, Nos 1 & 2 (1995) SYNTACTIC CHARACTERISTICS OF EWE RELATIVE CLAUSE CONSTRUCTIONS Alex K. Dzameshie ABSTRACT In their studies on relative clauses (RCs), Keenan andComrie (1977) and Downing (1977,1978) identify certain syntactic features which they consider to be universal features of relative clause structures. However, Downing (1978:375) cautions that his implicational universal "may be considered hypotheses to be tested against additional data of relative clause structure." This paper primarily examines the syntactic features of RCs in Ewe, but in doing so provides additional data against which some of the universal features claimed for RCs are tested. Overall, the universals tested in this study have been supported by the data from Ewe. Introduction The aim of this paper is to attempt a systematic analysis of relative clauses (RCs) in Ewe.1 In doing so, the key syntactic features of RCs in Ewe are discussed. Furthermore, different types of RCs found in Ewe are examined, highlighting the important features associated with these constructions. In addition, the paper tests some of the claims that have been made about the universal features of RCs. Theoretical Framework In this section, our aim is to consider some theoretical parameters within which relative clause constructions have been discussed. These considerations will pro- vide the necessary framework within which we can meaningfully examine the syntax of RCs in Ewe. For our immediate purposes, we will focus attention on the works of Downing (1977, 1978), Keenan and Comrie (1977) and Comrie (1981); all of these studies examine relativization within the general theory of transformational generative grammar (Baker 1978; Soames and Perlmutter 1979; McCloskey 1979) On Defining the Notion Relative Clause Studies such as Downing (1978) have revealed that the notion relative clause is a universal syntactic phenomenon in natural languages. It would seem reason- able, therefore, to establish a universal syntactic characterization of this notion. But attempts in this direction have not been very successful, principally because of sig- 27 nificant cross-linguistic variations in the relationship between the deep structures and surface structures on relative clauses. Differences occur in areas such as the ordering of elements and the positioning of RCs in more complex syntactic struc- tures. However, attempts in the direction of a universal semantic definition have proved more helpful (Downing 1978). This has been done in terms of universal semantic or functional properties of RCs. The first semantic property is that of coreference (Downing (1978). There is always a semantic connection between an RC and the matrix clause. This is the connection; in the underlying structure of an RC, there is always a nominal that is coreferential with another nominal in the main clause (Downing (1978). The nomi- nal outside the clause is called the antecedent nominal phrase (ANP),if it precedes the RC.The coreferential NP within the RC is referred to as the relativized nominal phrase (RNP). If the coreferential NP within the RC is referred to as the relativized nominal phrase (RNP). If the coreferential NP within the matrix clause occurs after the RNP, it may be called postcedent NP (PNP). In short, the ANP or the PNP may be referred to as the headnoun in RC constructions. In (2), it can be seen that the ANP the man and the RNP (which have been underlined) are coreferential. (Note that (2) is the underlying structure of (1). The underlined clause in (1) is an example of an RC in English. (1) The man Who greeted you is Kofi's uncle (2) [The man [The man greeted you] be Kofi's uncle] Secondly, RCs are characterized by their cognitive function of modifi- cation (Downing 1978). The statement contained in the RC serves to modify or restrict the reference of the ANP.2 For example, in (1) above, the RC who greeted you restricts the reference of the ANP the man. In addition, an is understood as a statement or comment about the RNP as well as its ANP (DOWNING 1978). For example, in (1) The RC who greeted you is a comment about both the ANP and RNP in (2). Types of Relative Clauses Generally, different types of RCs may identified on the basis of two broad criteria: (1) the function of the RC and (2) the position of the RC. Functionally, a distinction is made between restrictive (also called adjectival or defining) and nonrestrictive (or nondefining, parenthetical or appositive) RCs. Basically, a restric- tive RC, as the name suggests, serves to restrict the potential referent(s) of the headnoun to only those referents of which the assertion in the RC may be deemed to be factually or logically true. According to Downing-(1978:3 81), "All languages make use of restrictive relative clauses." The underlined clause in (3) is an example of a restrictive RC in Ewe3". 28 (3) Ati si le aba me la yra Tree The tree in the garden has withered' which is garden inside CFM4 wither On the other hand, appositive RCs do not function as restricting modifiers of the headnoun. They are mere additional or parenthetical comments about a previously identified class or part of a class (Downing 1978). Unlike the case of restrictive RCs, not all languages make use of nonrestrictive RCs.4 This type of RC occurs in English and is illustrated by the underlined RC in (4). (4) Kofi Ata, who scored the first goal, is the captain of his team. A second criteiion for classifying RCs is the position of the RC relative to the headnoun. If the RC precedes the headnoun, it is referred to as a prenominal RC. Japanese, for example, has prenominal RCs. Conversely, if the RC comes after the headnoun then it is a postnominal RC (Downing 1977). If the head NP occurs within the RC, then it is an internal RC construction (Keenan and Comrie 1977). The distinct ways in which these various types of RCs are formed are termed RC-strategies. The RC-strategies responsible for producing prenominal, postnominal and internal RCs are referred to as prenominal, postnominal and internal RC-strategies respectively (Keenan and Comrie 1977). RC-strategies may be classified in terms of how the position of the relativized NP is indicated. One type of RC-strategy produces RCs in which the relative pronoun (in the restricting clause) takes a form that clearly indicates the role (e.g., subject, direct object) of the relativized NP. This RC-strategy is case-coding; Russian, for example, has this strategy. The following are examples cited by Keenan and Comrie (1977:65). In these examples, the forms of the Russian relative pronouns unambiguously indicate the role of the relativized NPs. (5) devuska kotoruju girl who (ACCUSATIVE) The girl who John likes' (6) devuska kotoraja girl who (NOMINATIVE) The Girl who likes John' Dzon John ljubit likes ljubit Dzon John likes On the other hand, there are languages in which the role of the relativized NPs cannot be retrieved from the form of the relative pronouns since they are not coded for case.6 These languages are said to have [-case] RC-strategies. Ewe is an example of languages with this type of RC-strategy because the relative pronoun si takes the same form no matter what the role of the RNP is. Accessibility of NP Constituents to Relativization An important theoretical consideration in studies on RCs is the concept of accessibility of NP constituents to relativization. NP constituents performing 29 various functions (e.g., subject, direct object, etc.) may be relativized in a given language. When a given NP position can be relativized by a particular RC-strategy, that NP position is described as relativizable. Based on data from fifty languages, Keenan and Comrie (1977) claim that there is a universal hierarchy of accessibility of NP positions. That is, in all languages, the accessibility of certain NP positions to relativization depends on whether certain other positions are accessible. Keenan and Comrie (1977:66) have formalized this relative accessibility of NP positions into what they call the Accessibility Hierarchy (AH). The AH is stated as follows: Accessibility Hierarchy SU > DO > 10 > OBL > GEN > OCOMP where: ">" means "is more accessible than* SU stands for Subject NP DO stands for Direct Object NP 10 stands for Indirect Object NP OBL stands for Major Oblique case NP (i.e. (NPs that express arguments of the main predicate, e.g. the shelf in "Tom left the magazine on the shelf"). GEN stands for Genetive (i.e., the possessor in a possessive construction. For example, the girl in "Adzo saw the girl's mother yesterday). OCOMP stands for Object of Comparison (e.g., his brother "Kwesi is taller than his brother). Keenan and Comrie (1977:67) claim that the AH "determines, universally, the degree of accessibility to RC formation". It must be noted that not all languages distinguish all the NP positions on the AH; they form a set of possibilities for any language. The highest point on the AH is SU, while the lowest is OCOMP. The Syntax of Ewe Relative Clauses We may now turn our attention to specific syntactic features of Ewe RCs. One aspect of the syntax of RCs in Ewe concerns the relationship between word order and RC-strategy. As mentioned earlier, Ewe has postnominal RCs. Downing (1978:383) claims that there is a "strong correlation between verb-object word order and the use of postnominal RCs [i.e., restrictive relative clauses]." Downing (1978:383) formulates this con-elation in the form of an implicational tendency concerning the formation of RCs as follows: With few exceptions, a language has postnominal restrictive clauses if and only if in the basic word order of the language verbs precede their objects. Ewe has postnominal RCs and a subject-verb-object word order. Thus, verbs precede their objects as can be seen in example (7). (7) Ama xle agbale -a. Ama read book the 'Ama read the book' 30 Another salient feature of RCs in Ewe is the manifestation of a relative particle. This particle, which follows the antecedent NP (head NP), is a special pronominal form of the relativized NP. In full RCs, this relative pronoun si marks the beginning of the restricting clause (see the underlined RCs in (8) and (9)). This form of the relative pronoun is used for all singular relativized NPs7 (8) Awu si Ama Shirt which Ama "The shirt which Ama washed" nya wash CFM la (9) Nyonu si fo Woman who prepare The woman who prepared the soup' detsia soup But when the relativized NP is plural, the plural marker wo is added to the to si as can be seen in (10b). It can be observed that in the underlying structure, the relativizable NP is plural: amewo 'persons'8 (10)a. [Amewo [Amewo wo do] xo fetu] [Persons The people who worked received rewards" [Persons work do receive reward] b. Ame siwo Persons who (PL) The people who worked received rewards" wo do do work CFM la xo received fetu rewards One other feature of RC constructions in Ewe is that they may be marked in an additional way (besides the initial relative particle). When a relative clause is embedded into a matrix clause in Ewe, the end of this RC is marked with la^ Consider the occurrence of this la in (10b) above. Note that in the underlying structure in (10a), la is not present. But once the restricting clause becomes a relative clause in (10b), this clause is marked with la^ The use of la this way supports Downing's (1978:385) claim that "postnominal RRCs [in some SVO languages] are also marked in some additional way... these markers are in most cases applicable to their subordinate clauses as well." Time to this observation, this same la is used in marking other non-final subordinate clauses in Ewe. For instance, in (11), la marks the end of the subordinate conditional clause.9 (11) Ne e- wo do -a la^ Kofi a- xe fe na wo you If 'If you do the work, Kofi will pay you a fee" do work the CFM Kofi FUTURE pay fee to you Another important aspect of RCs in Ewe is the transformational process. In order to see clearly what process is involved in relativization in Ewe, it will be helpful to compare the constituent structure of the pre-ralativized forms of the restrictive clauses with their relativized counterparts. In (12) and (13), the pre- 31 relativized restrictive clauses are underlined. (12) [Nuflela ma [Ama ba nuflela ma] kpo dziku] Buyer The customer who was cheated by Ama got annoyed' buyer [Ama cheat that] see anger that (13) [Ati la [Ati la le abo me] mu [Tree the [Tree the be garden inside] fall] The tree in the garden has fallen' These clauses are the underlying forms of the relativized counterparts underlined in (14) and (15) respectively. (14) Nuflela Buyer The buyer who was cheated by Ama got annoyed" ba cheat CFM] si Ama that Ama kpo dziku see anger la (15) Ati si le Tree that be abo la mu garden inside CPM fall me It can be seen that each RC (underlined in (14) and (15) starts with the relative pronoun si If the RCs are isolated from si^ the following ungrammatical structures will be produced: (14a) *Ama Ama ba cheat la CFM (15a) * ab o me le be garden inside CFM la The ungrammaticality of these structures is explained by a common defect: each sequence lacks a crucial NP. What is missing in (14a) is the direct object of the verb ba 'to cheat'. In (15a) it is the subject NP that is missing. Within the framework of transformational generative grammar, we can describe this feature of missing NPs by making the following assumption: each of these structures has a full NP in the position marked by gaps. We can set up an underlying structure (US) for each RC that will contain the appropriate NP representing the missing NP. The USs ax*e underlined in (12) and (13), repeated here for convenience as follows: (12) [Nujlela ma [Ama ba nuflela] kpa dziku] [Buyer that [Ama cheat buyer that] see anger] The customer who was cheated by Ama got annoyed' (13) [Ati la [Ati la le aba me] mu [Tree the [Tree the be garden inside] fall] The tree in the garden has fallen' 32 These NPs posited in the USs are in consonance with an Ewe native speaker's intuition about the missing NPs in (14a) and (15a). Native speakers of the language understand Ihe relative pronoun si in (14) as representing the object of the verb; the understood role of the NP represented by si in (15) is subject. In the preceding paragraphs, we have sought to establish that the relative pronoun si is produced through the transformation process of relativization. This process may be called the Relative Clause Formation Rule. It substitutes the relative pronoun si for the underlying full NP and inserts this relative particle in clause-initial position. Relativizable NP Constitution in Ewe As mentioned earlier, there is a hierarchy of relativizable NP positions which is captured by Keenan and Comrie's Accessibility Hierarchy (repeated here for convenience). Accessibility Hierarchy (AH) SU > DO > 10 > OBL > GEN OCOMP All the NP positions on the Accessibility Hierarchy are accessible to relativization in Ewe. For example, SUs (subject NPs) and DOs (direct objects) may be relativized. In (16a), dufula la the runner' is the subject NP. This NP is relatived in (16b). (16) a. Dujula Runner The runner fell down' la dze the hit anyi ground si b. Dufula dze Runner who hit The runner who fell down got injured" anyi ground CFM get wound x» abi la In (17a), agbale yeye 'new book' is the DO of the verb jle 'to buy'. This direct object is relativized and represented by the relative pronoun si in (17b). (17) a. Yao Yao *Yao bought a new book" agbale book jle buy yeye new b. Agbale yeye new Yao si which Yao buy CFM lost jle bu la Book The new book Yao bought got lost' It is not only these higher NP positions on the Accessibility Hierarchy that are relativized in Ewe; the lower positions are also accessible to relativization. For instance, the indirect object (10) sukuvi la 'the student' in (18a) is relativized in (18b). 33 (18) a. Dudowola rjb la the write agbale na letter to Minister T he minister wrote a letter to the student' sukuvi student la the b. Sukuvi si dudawola nb Student who minister write agbale letter na to la kpa see CFM T he student to whom the minister wrote a letter was very delighted' dzidzo happiness nuts very It is also possible to relativize oblique case NPs or locatives. For instance, the oblique NP k pb in (19a) is relativized in (19b). (19) a. Kofi Kofi da put nud_ud,u food -a the 4e on k pb dzi table top b. K pb si Table which dzi top Kofi Kofi da put nud,ud.u food d.o on T he table on which Kofi set the food is dirty' /o catch la CFM 4i dirt Another lower NP position on the Accessibility Hierarchy that is relativizable is a genetive or the possessor of a possessive phrase.10 For example nutsua 'the m a n' in (20) is relativized in (20b). (20) a. Dowolawo Workers T he workers destroyed the man's workshop' gba destroy man rjutsu je -a the POSS workshop dowo/e b. IJutsu Man je dowolawo si who POSS workshop workers dowofe gba CFM -a the la dziku anger do plant T he man whose workshop was destroyed by the workers got infuriated' Finally, an object of comparison (OCOMP), which is the lowest position on the Accessibility Hierarchy, may be relativized in Ewe. For instance, in (21a), nyonuvi 34 Igj which is an OCOMP, is relativized and represented by the relative pronoun si 'whom' in (21b). nyonuvi (21) a. Esi Esi girl 'Esi is taller than the girl' koko wu be tall than la the b. Nyonuvi Girl Esi si whom Esi koko wu be tall than la CFM The name of the girl whom Esi is taller than is Adzo' nko nye name- FOCUS be Adzo Adzo -e Extraposed Relative Clauses So far, we have looked at regular types of RCs in Ewe. The structural frame below represents a complex sentence containing an RC. (W and X represent optional elements). [ W [ANP NP [si... ] la] X ] NP This type of regular RC has a head noun referred to as the antecedent NP (ANP) followed by the restrictive RC which has the clause-initial relative pronoun sii the RC with its ANP terminates in the clause final marker la^ In this section, attention will be focused on one variation of RC construction in Ewe: the extraposed RC. An RC is extraposed when it is moved away from its ANP. An RC that occurs to the right of the matrix clause is called a right-extraposed RC (Downing 1978). When the converse of this occurs, we have a left-extraposed RC. Some languages have left-extraposed RCs. Both right -extraposed and left-extraposed RCs are termed adjoined RCs. Regular RCs occurring within the matrix clause and immediately before or after the ANP are called embedded RCs (Hale 1974).11 We have already seen several examples of postnominal embedded RCs. (There are no left-extraposed RCs in Ewe). In (22c), we have an example of extraposed RC. (22) a. Ame ad,e Person some 'Someone is available' li exist b. Ame a