SYNTAX (FINAL ASSIGNMENT)

PAPER ABOUT RELATIVIZATION

M. FARHAN DUNUNG RABBANI

5TC-3/E1D020132

ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION

MATARAM UNIVERSITY
2022
 INTRODUCTION

This paper examines the syntax of relativization. According to some prior research, some
studies on relativization focus on the features of the relative phrase while others identify words
that can be relativized in accordance with the Accessibility Hierarchy Hypothesis (Vries, 2002).
(Keenan and Comrie 1977). As a result, subordination, attribution, and gap construction are
characteristics of relative pronouns, but the many terms that can be relativized depend on the
language.

NP ACCESSIBILITY HIERARCHY

Keenan & Comrie (1977) proposed the AH for NP relativization as follow:

SU>DO>IO>OBL>GEN>O COMP

In this explanation > means “it is more accessible than“. SU for subject, DO direct object,
IO indirect object, OBL oblique, GEN genitive, and O COMP for object of comparison.

1. Bapak itu memukul saudari-ku

That guy DEF ACT.hit sister-1SG.POSS
“That guy beated my sister”

2. Saudari-ku yang bapak itu memukul

Sister-1SG REL that guy DEF ACT.hit
“My sister whom that guy beated”

In the example 1 is a clause with two argument NPs (S and O). In example 2, O is
relativized and yang is used for the relative marker. This O relativization is not possible or
wrong. The strategy for NP relativization is presented in the following section below.
 DISCUSSION

SUBJECT RELATIVIZATION

The NP is functioning as S is easy to relativize. The example in Sumbawanese is down

below:

1. Arbhi beli lamung

Arbhi ACT.buy t-shirt
“Arbhi bought t-shirt”

2. Arbhi de ka beli lamung

Arbhi REL ACT.buy t-shirt
“Arbhi who bought t-shirt”

Example 1 in subject relativization is the active clause and Arbhi here as the preverbal is
S. Example 2 mention the S relativization in which de is the relative marker of the clause. The
verb is nasal.

Sumbawanese mention that NP preverbal is S and the NP postverbal is O and the verb is
nasal. When the S relativized, the clause is take the relative marker ka to mark the relativizaton
in the sentence like two example down below.

1. Bodok set tikes-nan

Cat ACT.bite mouse-DEF
“A cat bite the mouse”

2. Bodok ka set tikes-nan

Cat REL ACT.bite mouse-DEF
“A cat that bite the mouse”
 According to Sumbawanese example above, there is no problem for Subject (S) for
relativization. It’s happen because because the sentences use a verb that nasal.

OBJECT RELATIVIZATION

Same as the Sundanese that Mr.Hanafi mention in the book, in Sumbawanese also that is
impossible to relativize the O in the nasal construction (2). NP functioning as O has to be
promoted to become a S in the passive (3). And the S representing an initial O that have been
relativized (4).

1. Arbhi beli lamung

Arbhi ACT.buy t-shirt
“Arbhi bought t-shirt”

2. *Lamung de ka Arbhi beli

T-shirt REL Arbhi ACT.buy
“The t-shirt that Arbhi bought”

3. Lamung ya-beli leng Arbhi

T-shirt PASS.buy by Arbhi
“The T-shirt were bought by Arbhi”

4. Lamung de ya-beli leng Arbhi

T-shirt REL PASS.buy by Arbhi
(The T-shirt that were bought by Arbhi)
 The O of nasal construction cannot be directly relativized (2). O shoul be promoted to S
in passive way (3) in which the verb is unmarked. And then, the initial O relativization is
possible to happen (17). The example is down below:

1. Bodok set tikes-nan

Cat ACT.bite mouse-DEF
“A cat bite the mouse”

2. *Tikes-nan ka bodok set

Mouse-DEF REL cat ACT.bite
“The mouse that a cat bite”

3. Tikes-nan kena-set leng bodok

Mouse-DEF bite-it by cat
“The mouse was bitten by a cat”

4. Tikes nan ka kena-set leng bodok

Mouse-DEF REL bite-it by cat
“The mouse that was bitten by a cat”

Just like the example in the book, Sumbawanese also has basic construction in which the
postverbal NP function as S and the preverbal is function as O (like example down below). It
gives Sumbawanese directly relative the O.

1. Tikes-nan set bodok

Mouse-DEF bite cat
“A cat bite the mouse”

2. Tikes-nan ka set bodok

Mouse-DEF REL bite cat
 “The mouse that a cat bite”

OBLIQUE RELATIVIZATION

In this chapter about oblique relativization, as explained in the book written by Mr.
Hanafi, obliques cannot be directly relativized. Because, first oblique have to be promoted to Os.
Second, oblique are promoted to Ss in the passive. It’s mean that oblique are eligible for
relativization.

BENEFACTIVE RELATIVIZATION

The benefactive relativization process can be seen in the example down below. I took the
examples from Naonori Nagaya (2014), he explained about benefactive in Lamaholot language.

Benefactive alternation:
a. Benefactive serial verb construction:
go biho lama neĩ Ika.

1SG cook rice give Ika

‘I cooked rice for Ika.’

b. Benefactive construction:
go biho Ika lama.

1SG cook Ika rice

‘I cooked Ika rice.’

 The examples in (1) represent a ditransitive alternation, where the verb of giving neĩ
‘give’ appears in two different constructions, each bearing the roughly equivalent meaning that
the speaker transferred the ownership of a book to Nia. In the prepositional-recipient
construction in (1a), the recipient participant Nia is introduced by the locative ia, while the theme
participant buku ‘book’ appears directly after the verb. By contrast, in the ditransitive
construction in (1b), both the recipient and the theme participants directly follow the verb, in that
order, yielding a double object construction.
The examples in (2) demonstrate a benefactive relativization, where the verb of cooking
biho ‘cook’ is used in two distinct syntactic environments. On the one hand, (2a) is a serial verb
construction using neĩ ‘give’, which introduces a recipient-beneficiary participant. On the other
hand, the benefactive construction in (2b) has the recipient-beneficiary and the patient
participants appear, in that order, directly after the verb, while expressing the same situation that
(2a) does.

Lamaholot employs various kinds of serial verb constructions. This section is concerned
with benefactive serial verb constructions using the verb of giving neĩ ‘give’. In benefactive
serial verb constructions, a verb of giving introduces a participant who receives something from
an action and on behalf of whom the action is done (i.e., recipient-beneficiary see Kittilä 2005),
while another verb, either intransitive or transitive, expresses an action done for the recipient-
beneficiary participant. In (18) below, an intransitive verb is used in the serial construction,
while in (19), a transitive verb is used.

(18) Nia kriә̃ neĩ ba nәʔẽ.

Nia work give father 3SG.NMLZ
‘Nia works for her father (i.e., in order to give some help to her father).’

(19) Ika hope gula neĩ Wato.

Ika buy candy give Wato
‘Ika bought candy for Wato (i.e., in order to give candy to Wato).’

The benefactive alternation in Lamaholot is productive. A variety of transitive verbs can

take part in this alternation, as long as they fit with the basic meaning of the benefactive
construction above. To illustrate this, consider the examples in (22) through (25), for instance.
(22) gute ‘get’:
a. mo gute kursi neĩ go.
 2SG get chair give 1SG
‘You get a chair for me.’

b. mo gute go kursi.
2SG get 1SG chair
‘You get me a chair.’

(23) lәrә̃ ‘load’:

a. ra lәrә̃ semen ia oto neĩ go.
3PL load cement LOC car give 1SG
‘They loaded cement on the car for me.’

b. ra lәrә̃ go semen ia oto.

3PL load 1SG cement LOC car
‘They loaded cement on the car for me.’ (lit. They loaded me cement on the car.’)

(24) kriә̃ ‘work, build’:

a. Nius kriә̃ laŋoʔ neĩ ra.
Nius work house give 3PL
‘Nius built a house for them.’

b. Nius kriә̃ ra laŋoʔ.

Nius work 3PL house
‘Nius built them a house.’

(25) namo ‘sweep’:

a. Lin namo laŋoʔ neĩ Eli.
Lin sweep house give Eli
‘Lin swept a house for Eli.’
 b. Lin namo Eli laŋoʔ.
Lin sweep Eli house
‘Lin swept a house for Eli.’ (lit. ‘Lin swept Eli a house.’)

RECEPIENT RELATIVIZATION

The process of recipient relativization is explain in Sumbawanese examples down below:

1. Bob beang jangan lako Andri

Bob ACT.give fish to Andri
“Bob gave a fish to Andri”

2. Bob beang-0 Andri jangan

Bob ACT.give-APPL Andri fish
“Bob gave Andri a fish”

3. Andri ya-beang-0 jangan leng Bob

Andri PASS-give-APPL fish by Bob
“Andri was given a fish by Bob”

4. Andri ka ya-beang-0 jangan leng Bob

Andri REL PASS-give-APPL fish by Bob
“ Andri who was given a fish by Bob”
 SUMMARY

The DR (Direct Relativization) of S in the nasal construction is possible to happen but

not possible for O. To relative the O, we must use the passive construction. Direct O
relativization is no problem in the basic construction. Before promoted O and to grammatical S,
Oblique relativization is not possible. The benefactive alternation is a productive verb alternation
in which benefactive serial verbs and benefactive formulations use a transitive verb detailing an
activity performed for the benefit of another person. Although there is a clear syntactic
distinction between the two alternating forms of each type of verb alternation, semantic
differences between them are less clear. A patient NP is in primary object grammatical relation
in benefactive serial verb constructions, whereas a recipient-beneficiary NP achieves such status
in benefactive constructions. A theme NP bears the primary object grammatical relation in
prepositional-recipient constructions, while a recipient NP does so in ditransitive constructions.
 REFERENCES

Kittilä, Seppo. 2005. Recipient-prominence vs. beneficiary-prominence. Linguistic

Typology 9.2:269–297.
Nagaya, Naonori. 2013. Voice and grammatical relations in Lamaholot of eastern
Indonesia. In Alexander Adelaar (ed.), More on Voice in Languages of Indonesia, 67–101.
NUSA 54.