The genesis and typology of correlatives: Supplementary materials

The genesis and typology of correlatives Typological dataset Oleg Belyaev and Dag Haug Lomonosov Moscow State University and University of Oslo Definition and sample This document contains the relevant information about correlative constructions in our sample . The sample includes virtually all constructions for which sufficient information is available and which conform to our definition of correlatives as given in section 2.1 of the main paper, repeated here for convenience: (1) A correlative structure consists of two clauses, the correlative clause and the matrix clause, where 1. a noun phrase containing a relativizer occurs in the correlative clause; 2. a noun phrase anaphorically related to the first one occurs in the matrix clause; 3. the correlative clause is wholly to the left of the matrix clause. Note that, due to requirement of an NP-internal relativizer and the preposition of the relative clause, this definition excludes certain constructions that have sometimes been labeled as ‘correlatives’. Two examples are particularly noteworthy. Australian ‘adjoined clauses’ as in (2) can mark any kind of subordinate clause and have no marking apart from a general subordinating morpheme on the verb. The tradition since K. L. Hale (1976) is to treat such constructions as a special kind of subordinate clause, but others, such as Bittner (2001), have argued that they are, in fact, structurally and semantically analogous to correlatives. Since no special marking is found on the relative NP (which may even be absent altogether, as in ex. 2), and the subordinate clause is postposed, these do not fit our definition; in fact, this result is justified as there is no consensus in the literature on the extent to which Australian ‘adjoined clauses’ are akin to correlatives (see Nordlinger 2006).¹ 1. The glossing follows the Leipzig Rules (https://www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/resources/glossing-rules.php). Glosses in the original (if there were any) are mostly left unchanged, with the exception of minor notational modifications to comply with the Leipzig Rules. The following non-standard abbreviations are used: absup: ablativesuperessive (Shina), acp.pos: positive completive (French accompli), act: active voice, add: additive, agp: agent perfective case marker (Shina); agt: agent, anim: animate, aoR: aorist, apud: apudessive, c: common gender (Hittite ), cont: contessive, cl: clitic, compaR: comparative, conc: concessive, conn: connective, coRef: coreference, deont: deontic mood marker, detR: detransitive, dist: distributive, emph: emphasis, exp: experiencer, g1: first gender (East Caucasian), g4: fourth gender (East Caucasian), gen2: second genitive (Tsez), gnt: general tense, hab: habitual, hpl: human plural, hum: human, ill: illative, inacp.pos: positive incompletive (French inaccompli), inanim: inanimate, inteRR: interrogative, iq: indirect question, lat: lative, opt: optative, pst.w: witnessed past, postp: postposition, ptcl:particle, pRet: preterite,pRosp: prospective, pv: preverb, Rep: repetitive, seq: sequential auxiliary, sim: simultaneous, sub: subordinate, supeR: superessive, st: stem. For consistency, the glosses ‘who’, ‘what’ and ‘which’ referring to relativization markers have been replaced by Rel.anim, Rel.inanim and Rel.poss. 1 Supplementary materials for ‘The genesis and typology of correlatives’, by Oleg Belyaev and Dag Haug. Language 96(4).874–907, 2020. (2) Warlpiri (Pama-Nyungan) Ngajulu-rlu I-eRg rna aux yankirri emu pantu-rnu, spear-pst [kuja-lpa comp-aux ngapa water nga-rnu drink-pst ] ‘I speared the emu which was / while it was drinking water.’ (K. L. Hale 1976, 78) Another similar case is Modern Georgian, where a new construction (3) developed that some authors, e.g. Hendery (2012, 180ff.), treat as a correlative. In these construction, the subordinate clause precedes the main clause, which contains a noun phrase containing a demonstrative ; the subordinate clause is introduced by the preverbal universal subordinator ro(m),² which is also used for many other types of subordinate clauses (see Hewitt 1987 for an overview of the Georgian system of subordination). (3) Georgian (South Caucasian) [a-m this-det.obl kʼac-ma man-eRg rom comp naxa he.saw.her.aoR ], i-m that-det.obl kal-s woman-dat vicnob I.know.her ‘I know that woman which this man saw.’ (Hewitt 1987, 188)³ The relative NP, when present, is often accompanied by a demonstrative, as in (3), which may make it seem that this construction is a dem-correlative; however, this is not necessarily...