CHAPTER 3: RELATIVE CLAUSE CONSTRUCTIONS:
1 FATHER READ]
3.3.4. RCCs in Other Sign Languages
raise’ and ‘tensed cheeks’ function distinctively. In other words, ‘eyebrow raise’ is associated with topicalization, while ‘tense cheeks’ marks restrictivity in relative clauses. Therefore, it is also possible for LIS to produce appositive relative clauses.
‘the same’, however, the function of MATEIX does not seem to be related to this lexeme. Mosella Sanz suggests that MATEIX has gained nominalizing function through grammaticalization over time. Mosella Sanz prefers to label this sign as a nominalizer because it can be used in different contexts: e.g., RED MATEIX ‘the red one’ or POSS1 MATEIX ‘mine.’
(93) LSC:
rel
a. TEACHER IX1 SON HELP+++ MATEIX IX1 PLANT GIVE I gave a plant to the teacher who has helped my son a lot.
rel
b. TEACHER IX1 SON HELP+++ IX1 PLANT GIVE
(Mosella Sanz 2011)
The nonmanual markers, here glossed as ‘rel’, are raised eyebrows, body lean and squinted/tensed eyes. However, Mosella Sanz specifies that eyebrow-raise is compulsory, while squint is optional for shared information (see also ISL, Dachkovsky & Sandler 2009). Mosella Sanz’s descriptions of nonmanual markers used in relative clauses may indicate that restrictive relative clauses in LSC are realized with squint/tensed eyes. Furthermore, spreading of the nonmanual markings over the relative clause is compulsory, if MATEIX is absent. Otherwise, it is sufficient to indicate the nonmanual markers only on MATEIX, and spreading can vary, e.g., starting from MATEIX and going back up to the beginning of the left boundary of the relative clause. However, MATEIX is occasionally favored as in (94a), in order to distinguish restrictive relative clauses from counterfactual conditionals (94b). Note that the nonmanual markers for both constructions are the same: raised eyebrows ‘rb’ and squint:
(94) LSC:
rb+squint
a. PERSON SMOKE NO NEG MATEIX LAW TOBACCO SUPPORT The person who has never smoked supports the anti-smoking law.
rb+squint
b. PERSON SMOKE NO NEG LAW TOBACCO SUPPORT Relative clause reading:
The person who has never smoked supports the anti-smoking law.
or counterfactual reading:
If a person has never smoked, s/he would support the anti-smoking law.
(Mosella Sanz 2011)
Mosella Sanz (2011) investigates the possible positions of relative clauses.
Relative clauses cannot be located within their matrix clause (95a). However, relative clauses can be either fronted (95b) or extraposed/postposed (95c). Such a finding is also in common in LIS PE-clauses (Branchini et al. 2007). Branchini’s examples can be seen in (85).
(95) LSC:
a. * JOAN [YESTERDAY BOOK BUY IX1 MATEIX] BRING NEG.
Joan has not brought the book that he bought yesterday.
rel
b. [YESTERDAY BOOK BUY IX1 MATEIX] JOAN BRING NEG.
rel c. JOAN BRING NEG [YESTERDAY BOOK BUY IX1 MATEIX].
(Mosella Sanz 2011)
Tang, Prudence & Lee (2010) investigated relativization strategies in Hong Kong Sign Language (HKSL). The nonmanuals for relative clauses in HKSL are as follows: brow raise, occasionally forward head movement and eye contact with the addressee. However, Tang et al. distinguish between two different IX types
exhibited in relative clauses: (i) clause-initial IX (96a) and (ii) clause final IX (96bc). The nonmanual markers for each IX seem to differ: while clause-initial IX is accompanied by brisk pointing and gaze to the location of the nominal referent, clause-final IX is marked with a hold on the IX sign accompanied with an open mouth and eye contact with the addressee. It seems that the first IX is related to definiteness, whereas the last IX is a determiner/relativizer. However, according to Tang et al., final IX are not necessarily utilized when the referents and the nonmanual markers are clearly uttered (for instance, 96a). They argue that relative clauses in HKSL are indeed head internal, since temporal adverbs may precede head nouns and have scope over the relative clauses.
(96) HKSL:
rel
a. [IXi FEMALEi CYCLE] TOMORROW proi FLY BEIJING.
The lady who is cycling will fly to Beijing tomorrow.
rel/bl31 b. Hey! IX3 LIKE [IXi MALEi EAT CHIPS IXi].
Hey! She likes the man that is eating chips.
rel/bl
c. Hey! [IXi MALEi EAT CHIPS IXi] IX3 LIKE ti. Hey! She likes the man that is eating chips.
(Tang et al. 2010)
Their HKSL signers/informants prefer fronted relative clauses as in (96a) and (96c); however, relative clauses are also possible in situ (96b). They do not clearly state whether it is possible to post-pose relative clauses.
Nespor & Sandler’s (1999) seminal work on phonological phrases and prosody in Israeli Sign Language (ISL), which is a head complement language, includes a sample of relative clauses (97). The head noun ‘book’ in (97) is not
31 Tang et al. (2010) use the abbreviation bl for eye blinks. In RCCs in HKSL, eye blink is one of the prosodic boundary markers.
realized in the relative clause; hence, the sample is head external and non-restrictive. The researchers show that the pause between intonational phrases (not phonological phrases), i.e., between the relative clause and main clause in (97), has an important role in defining the characteristic border of the subordinate clause.
(97) ISL:
[books he write past] I [I like] I [deplete] I The books he wrote, which I like, are sold out.32
(Nespor & Sandler 1999, p. 22)
Sandler (2011) defines various functions of some nonmanual elements.
‘Squint’ is one of them, which is occasionally observed in Israeli Sign Language.
Squint is essential to mark restrictivity in relative clauses. But its functions also include referring to the past, counterfactual conditionals and so on. Sandler explains (p. 311):
It is associated with constituents whose status is negotiated between the interlocutors as retrievable, and is interpreted as an instruction to retrieve mutually accessible information that is not currently prominent in the discourse. The idea that intonation can signal shared knowledge between the speaker and the addressee is developed for English in Pierrehumbert and Hirschberg (1990).
Dachkovsky & Sandler (2009) observe squint mostly in restrictive relative clauses in ISL as in (98). Relative clauses which are not marked by squint are generally accompanied by brow raise. According to their analyses of Facial Action Units (AUs) in relative clauses, the percentages are as follows: 50% Upper lip raise (AU 10), 85% Squint (AU 44) and 67% Head forward (AU 57). Sandler points out that there is a strong difference between appositive relative clauses and relative clauses, in line with Brunelli (2011).
32 Here, ‘I’ stands for intonational phrases which Nespor & Sandler (1999) define as the
(98) ISL:
Squint
HOUSE INDEX I TOGETHER-WITH-YOU SEE INDEX RENT Finally we rented the apartment that I’d seen together with you.
(Dachkovsky & Sandler 2009, p. 305)
Dachkovsky & Sandler do not describe the syntactical properties in ISL and the examples in both (97) and (98) do not include a relative marker such as a complementizer or a relativizer. However, in (98), an IX after the sign HOUSE and an IX in the matrix clause occur. The first IX seems to take the determiner position. It is fairly parallel with the sample in LIS (82b). Furthermore, (97) seems to have EHRC properties, whereas (98) seems to be an IHRC. Since it has not been tested whether these examples are IHRCs or EHRCs, it is difficult to say which relativization strategy ISL prefers.
In his dissertation, Brunelli (2011) investigates relative clauses in Sign Language of the Netherlands (NGT), in addition to LIS. He has collected a data set of relative clauses in NGT, which is based on elicitations from a NGT signer who is translating Dutch relative clauses. NGT may exhibit EHRCs, as shown in (99a) and (99b), in line with DGS, because the temporal adverb YESTERDAY occurs after the head noun. Brunelli does not mention specific nonmanual markers for relative clauses other than topic markers, which are realized with raised eyebrows.
(99) NGT:
a. top top
MAN NIXLFT YESTERDAY IX11TALKLFT ENGAGEDLFT TWORGT SISTER IXRGT___________________
The man I talked to yesterday and (my) sister are engaged.33
33 Brunelli (2011) labels nominal index as NIX. He defines the nonmanual index as the index that is used to assign a location to those nouns which cannot be articulated in the desired location (p.
41).
b. top
RED PEN YESTERDAY IX2 2GIVE1 TODAY FALL BREAK The red pen you gave me yesterday today has fallen and broken.
(Brunelli 2011, pp. 241-242)
Brunelli uses NGT relative clause examples to show the differences in nonmanual markings in relative clauses in LIS and NGT. For instance, in the LIS sentence (100), which is semantically equivalent to (98b), a topic nonmanual marker is not exhibited, although LIS does have a specific marker for topics.
Brunelli uses this cross-linguistic difference as evidence for distinguishing nonmanual markers for topics and relative clauses.
(100) LIS:
_ _ _ _ tense eyes/cheeks
PEN RED YESTERDAY LOAN GIVE TODAY FALL BREAK [LIS]
The red pen I lent you yesterday today has fallen and broken.
(Brunelli 2011, p. 248)