Relative Clauses in Japanese Sign Language
ENDO, Eita
A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfilment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
Master of Arts
in
Linguistics
The Chinese University of Hong Kong
June 2015
1
ABSTRACT
Japanese Sign Language (JSL) is an indigenous sign language that the Deaf people in Japan
use every day. JSL has some types of constructions that occur frequently, which some
researchers preliminarily coined them as relative clauses (RCs). To date, only a few
researchers have attempted to examine such clauses. To gain further understanding about
them, an elicited production task was designed in which Deaf JSL signers were invited to
produce several sentences after viewing some pictures, which were designed to induce them
to sign RCs. The second task involved the participants to produce monologues. They were
given three familiar topics such as „What was your most enjoyable experience of travelling?‟,
„What is your most impressive experience at the deaf school?‟, and „What topic/activities are
you most interested in now?‟ All the data were recorded and transcribed by ELAN, and
subsequently analyzed with a focus on the distribution of nonmanual (NM) features. On the
basis of the findings, I have confirmed the existence of two types of RCs: prenominal and
internally headed, which the previous research has proposed. The findings also showed that
NMs, such as movement of the head and eye blinks, play a role in marking the relative
clauses.
2
Contents
Abstract ...................................................................................................................................... 2
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 4
1.1. Relative clauses: defining properties? ............................................................................ 5
1.2. Typology of relative clauses ......................................................................................... 14
1.2.1. Relative clauses are subordinate clauses................................................................ 15
1.2.2. Nominalizer and nominalization ............................................................................ 18
1.2.3. Embedded or adjunction ........................................................................................ 21
1.2.4. Externally headed: prenominal or postnominal ..................................................... 22
1.2.5. Internally headed relative clauses .......................................................................... 25
1.2.6. Correlatives ............................................................................................................ 25
1.3. Relative clauses in sign languages: previous studies .................................................... 27
1.4. Relative clauses in Japanese Sign Language: some previous analysis ......................... 30
1.5. Interim conclusion ........................................................................................................ 32
2. THE CURRENT STUDY .................................................................................................... 33
2.1. Methodology ................................................................................................................. 33
2.1.1 Participants and data collecting conditions ............................................................. 33
2.1.2 Types of data ........................................................................................................... 34
2.1.3. Transcription of the data ........................................................................................ 37
3. RESULTS ............................................................................................................................ 37
3.1. Prenominal relative clauses........................................................................................... 39
3.2. Internally headed ........................................................................................................... 41
4. DISCUSSION ...................................................................................................................... 44
5. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................... 48
Appendix: abbreviations .......................................................................................................... 49
BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................... 51
3
1. INTRODUCTION
Relative clauses (RCs)1 attract much attention in diverse fields. For example, Fabb (1990)
syntactically investigated two types of RCs in English: restrictive RCs and nonrestrictive RCs.
He argued that the differences between the two types are explainable by the fact that the
former is a modifier and the latter is not. In addition, he claims that a restrictive RC is a „part
of the same sentence as its antecedent N‟ (i.e. the head noun) but the nonrestrictive RCs is not.
RCs also catch interests of the researchers into the language acquisition. They carried
out their investigation into how children become capable of establishing RCs through
examining the comprehension and production of RCs by young speakers. For example, the
early literature on the acquisition of RCs attributed the children‟s error in understanding RCs
to a hypothesis that children do not have „the hierarchical structure that is characteristic of
adult syntactic representations‟ and „children assign “flat” phrasal structure‟ (Crain & LilloMartin 1999: 389) to RCs. According to this hypothesis, children analyze a sentence
including an RC (1), not as a sentence (2a) (adults‟ analysis), but as a sentence (2b).
(1)
The dog pushed the sheep that jumped over the fence.
(2)
(a) [The dog pushed [the sheep jumped over the fence].
(b) [The dog pushed the sheep][… jumped over the fence].
(Crain & Lillo-Martin 1999: 392)
The analysis as in (2b) is frequently referred to as the conjoined-clause analysis, because the
analyzed sentence looks like a conjoined sentence „The dog pushed the sheep and (the dog)
jumped over the fence‟. However, the research that was conducted afterwards suggested the
difference of the RC interpretation between children and adults should be due to elicitation of
RCs. In other words, young children at the age of three or four can produce sentences that
include a RC „if conditions (to produce RCs) are met‟ (Crain & Lillo-Martin 1999: 397) as in
(3).
(3)
Jabba, please come over to point to the one that‟s asleep. (3;5)
(Crain & Lillo-Martin 1999: 397)
1
In this paper, square brackets ([ ]) are placed around the RCs in the original sentence and/or
its glosses. E.g., He loved the woman [who killed him].
4
Sentences which have RCs are generally complex. Nevertheless, they are found in
human languages because they have some functions. One of them is a discourse function.
Relevant to it, Fox and Thompson (1990), in their study of the grammar of RCs in English
conversations, pointed out that information-flow factors decide how to combine the head NP
(including the determiner) and the relative pronoun in the discourse. One of such factors is
grounding as in (4).
(4)
(talking about upkeep on houses)
But uh – the original price of it, eh – you can‟t even (inaud.) the original price,
just that little screen porch alone is five hundred dollars,
the air condish- the uh heater thing [we put in] I think was a hundred uh five six
hundred dollars,
(Fox and Thompson 1990: 300)
In (4): the RC grounds the head NP „the heater thing‟ and makes it clear that the heater (the
air conditioner) is not the old one but the new one that „we‟ (the speaker and his/her
coworker(s)) put in. Thus, RCs make it clear what the speaker is talking about.
Thus, RCs attract linguists in various fields. But what kind of properties define RCs?
1.1. Relative clauses: defining properties?
There have been various definitions of RCs such as (5).
(5)
A construction consisting of a (possibly empty) nominal and subordinate clause which
semantically modifies the nominal. The nominal is the head, and the subordinate
element the R[elative] C[lause].
(Lehmann 2003: 460)
For example, Downing (1978) observed ten syntactic properties that may be found among a
variety of RC constructions in his survey (see (6)).
(6)
Syntactic properties of relative clause constructions (Downing 1978: 377)
(a) A RC contains a finite verb.
(b) The verb of a RC assumes a distinctive nonfinite form.
5
(c) A RC contains a pronoun coreferential with a noun that immediately precedes (or
follows) the RC.
(d) No nominal in the RC is coreferential with a preceding (or following) noun.
(e) A RC together with a nominal expression forms a noun phrase (NP) constituent.
(f) A RC is the sole constituent of a NP.
(g) A RC is not a constituent of a NP.
(h) A RC begins (or ends) with a distinctive marker.
(i) A RC contains a marker that is linked by cooccuance with a nominal marker outside
the clause.
(j) The internal structure of a RC is indistinguishable from that of (some) nonrelative
clauses.
Since some of them are contradictory to each other (e.g., (6a) and (6b); (6f) and (6g)), one
given type of RCs cannot have those contradictory properties at the same time. For example,
in an example of English such as „Mary knows the man who killed (*kill) the boss last week‟,
the verb kill must be finite, since verbs must be finite in the RCs. If the verb is nonfinite, it is
ungrammatical. Then, how do these properties appear in the natural languages? Before its
discussion, I mention RC types. Typologically, RCs may be categorized2 as follows: (7).
(7)
Types of relative clauses in this paper
(a)
i.
Subordination -- embedded
Externally headed
1. Prenominal3
2. Postnominal
ii.
2
Internally headed4
De Vries (2002) divided RCs into six types: prenominal relatives, prenominal participial
relatives, postnominal relatives, postnominal participial relatives, circumnominal relatives,
and correlatives. There is little documentation of participials among signed languages, I
would leave these two types of RCs aside in my current discussion.
3
Although both prenominal and postnominal are called adnominal (Lehmann 1986), the
difference between adnominal RCs and other types of RCs needs further research.
4
Internally headed RCs are also called circumnominal relative clauses.
6
(b)
Subordination -- adjunction
(c)
Subordination -- correlative5
Then, let us discuss some examples, each of which includes one of RC types in (7), from
natural languages, in order to observe which property in (6) is involved.
The first example from Walbiri shows the property „A RC contains a finite verb‟ (6a):
(8).
(8)
njuntulu-ḷu kutja-Ø -npa
wawiri
[you-ERG
kangaroo spear-PAST]
SR-AUX-SBJ.2
ŋula lapi-ṇa pura-mi
DEM FUT-SBJ
pantu-ṇu,
ŋatyulu-ḷu.
cook-PRES I-ERG
„The kangaroo that you speared, I will cook.‟
(Lehmann 1986: 6 citing from Hale 1976: 79)
In (8), inside the RC „njuntulu-ḷu kutja-Ø -npa wawiri pantu-ṇu‟ (that you speared), we can
find the finite verb „pantu-ṇu’ (speared), which is marked by the past suffix -ṇu. The type of
this RC is called a correlative, which is preposed (placed to the left peripheral edge), with its
head noun „wawiri‟ (kangaroo) inside6, and the anaphoric relationship is established between
the noun „wawiri‟ in the RC and the demonstrative „ŋula‟in the main clause.
Next, in Quechua, we can find the second property „The verb of a RC assumes a
distinctive nonfinite form.‟ (6b) such as (9).
(9)
[[hamu-q]
runa-ta]
come-AGT man-ACC
riqai-ni
know-I
„I know the man who comes.‟
(Muysken 1994: 2813)
5
Correlatives can be analyzed as internally headed RCs as well as adjunct RCs, but in this
paper, it is classified into one type, because they are „very common‟ among adjunct RCs
(Lehmann 1986).
6
Literally, correlatives are internally headed RCs (IHRCs), but they are so different from
other IHRCs that I classified correlatives into one group.
7
In (9), in the RC „hamu-q‟, the verb „hamu’ (come) is non-finite, although suffixed by the
agentive marker „-q’, since it is not changed in form by tense, person, or number, while the
verb of the matrix clause7 „riqai-ni’ (I know) is finite with the person marker „-ni’ (I). This
RC can be called an externally headed prenominal RC, since the head noun „runa‟ (man) is
outside the RC which precedes its head noun.
The third property „A RC contains a pronoun coreferential with a noun that
immediately precedes (or follows) the RC.‟ (6c) can be observed in Modern Greek such as
(10).
(10)
o
anthropos pu (ton) skotosa
the man
[SR him killed :1.SG]
„the man that I killed‟
(Lehmann 1986 : 7)
In (10), the pronoun „ton‟ (him) co-refers to a man with the head noun „anthropos‟ (man)
immediately preceding the RC „pu (ton) skotosa‟ (that I killed). The type of this RC is called
a postnominal RC, because the RC follows the head noun.
The fourth property (i.e. 6d), that „No nominal in the RC is coreferential with a
preceding (or following) noun‟, can be identified in Japanese such as (11).
(11)
Satoo-sensei-ga [gakusei-ga kaita] ronbun-o
Prof.Sato-NOM
yondeiru.
student-NOM wrote article-ACC is-reading
„Prof. Sato is reading the article that the student wrote.‟
(Tsujimura 2007: 301)
7
I use the distinction between the term „main clause‟ and „matrix clause‟ by Velupillai (2012:
315): „A matrix clause is a main (or superordinate) clause minus its subordinate clause part.‟
While a main clause is always independent, a matrix clause does not always be independent.
For example, in the sentence Mary told John that she saw him, the matrix clause Mary told
John is not independent without a subordinate clause that she saw him.
8
In (11), the RC „gakusei-ga kaita’8 (the student wrote) is referred to as a prenominal RC,
since it precedes its head noun „ronbun‟ (article). We cannot find any nominal inside the RC
that is coreferential with a following head noun. Since the head noun is outside the RC, the
clause is an externally headed RC (EHRC). We can also find the fifth property in (11), which
is „An RC together with a nominal expression forms a noun phrase (NP) constituent.‟ (6e).
That is, the RC plus the nominal forms an NP „gakusei-ga kaita ronbun ‟, so that the NP can
be attached with an accusative marker „-o’.
The sixth property „A RC is the sole constituent of a NP.‟ (6f) is represented in
Japanese such as (12).
(12)
John-wa [RC [ringo-ga
John-TOP
sara-no
ue-ni
at-ta]
-no] -o
toriage-ta
apple-NOM plate-GEN upper.area-at be-PAST -NMR -ACC pick.up-PAST
„John picked up an apple, which was on a plate.‟
(Hendery 2012: 23 citing from Fuji 2010: 47)
In (12), since the RC „ringo-ga sara-no ue-ni at-ta-no‟ (An apple was on a plate) has the head
noun „ringo‟ inside itself, it is an internally headed relative clause (IHRC). It is also
nominalized by „no‟, thus becoming the object, the internal argument of the matrix verb
„toriage‟ (pick up). In addition, the seventh property, „The internal structure of a RC is
indistinguishable from that of (some) nonrelative clauses.‟ (i.e. 6j), can be observed in this
example. That is, this type of RCs has the same structure inside as that of a Japanese simple
sentence „ringo-ga sara-no ue-ni at-ta‟ (An apple was on a plate).
The eighth property is „A RC is not a constituent of an NP.‟ (6g), and it can be
observed in Hindi such as (13).
(13)
[Jo
larkaa mere paas rhtaa hai], vah meraa chotaa bjaaii hai
REL
boy
me
near living is
he my
small brother is
„The boy who lives near me is my small brother.‟
(Alexiadou et al. 2000: 21)
8
The verb „kak-‟ (write) and the past suffix -ta turns phonologically into „kai-ta‟ (wrote).
9
In (13), the RC „Jo larkaa mere paas rhtaa hai‟ (which boy lives near me) is a correlative,
since it is preposed and the anaphoric relationship between the RC and the main clause is
marked by the relative marker „Jo‟ in the correlative and the pronoun „vah‟ in the main clause.
Also, the correlative does not constitute an NP argument of any given verb. It is followed by
the pronoun „vah‟ (he). However, the RC has a link with the matrix sentence in that the NP
„jo larkaa‟ co-refers to the same boy with „vah‟. The ninth property, that is „A RC contains a
marker that is linked by cooccuance with a nominal marker outside the clause‟ (i.e. 6i), can
also illustrated by (13). In this sentence, the RC contains a relative marker „jo‟ (which) that
co-refers with a nominal marker „vah‟ (he), that is a pronoun in this case, outside the clause.
The last property, „A RC begins (or ends) with a distinctive marker.‟ (i.e. 6h), is
observed in one dialect of Ojibwe (Downing 1978). Compare a simple declarative sentence
(14a) and the same clause embedded as an RC (14b).
(14)
(a) Ikwe
ogī wābamān ininiwan bijīnāgō
woman did see
man
yesterday
„The woman saw the man yesterday.‟
(b) Ikwe
gā
wābamān ininiwan bijīnāgō
woman [did:REL see
man
yesterday]
„the woman who saw the man yesterday‟
(Downing 1978: 386)
In (14b), the RC „gā wābamān ininiwan bijīnāgō‟ (who saw the man yesterday) is a
postnominal RC, because the head noun „Ikwe’ is followed by the RC. The only difference is
the ogī/gā between these two examples. Both include the identical past marker „-gī’.
However, while it appears as „ogī‟9 in (14a), it occurs „gā‟ with the vowel change in (14b).
According to Downing (1978: 386), in this dialect, this vowel change is „generalized as a
present and past tense relative marker‟. Thus, different RCs show different RC properties
proposed by Downing (1978).
Lehmann (1986), in his study on the typology of RCs, proposed that a relative
construction is formed by a „bundle of operations‟: (15).
9
Downing (1978) did not mention the origin of „o‟.
10
(15)
A bundle of operations forms a relative construction (Lehmann 1986: 4)

Subordination – nominalization10,

Anaphora – empty place formation,

Attribution/head formation.
The first operation means how much an RC is nominalized as a subordinate clause. For
example, if a RC is preposed or postposed, Lehmann (1986) analyzed it is not embedded and
least nominalized such as (16) and (17) (the data come from Walbiri and Ancient Greek,
respectively cited by Lehmann (1986)).
(16)
njuntulu-ḷu kutja-Ø -npa
wawiri
[you-ERG
kangaroo spear-PAST]
SR-AUX-SBJ.2
ŋula lapi-ṇa pura-mi
DEM FUT-SBJ
pantu-ṇu,
ŋatyulu-ḷu.
cook-PRES I-ERG
„The kangaroo that you speared, I will cook.‟ (=(8))
(17)
autíka d‟
égnō
oulēn,
at.once however recognized scar:ACC.SG.F
tēn
poté min sŭs
ēlase
[DEM:ACC.SG.F once him boar:NOM.SG stroke:3.SG]
„At once she recognized the scar which once a boar had struck him.‟
(Lehmann 1986: 6 citing from Od. 19, 392f)
In (16), the RC „njuntulu-ḷu kutja-Ø -npa wawiri pantu-ṇu‟ (the kangaroo that you speared) is
preposed, while in (17), the RC „tēn poté min sŭs ēlase‟ (which once a boar had struck him) is
postposed11. Both the RCs do not show any marking of nominalization.
On the other hand, if the RC is externally headed (prenominal or postnominal), it is
nominalized to a large degree (Lehmann 1986). For example, Turkish prenominal RCs are
analyzed as nominalized: (18).
10
Nominalization will be discussed more in section 1.2.2.
11
According to Lehmann (1986: 3), both preposed and postposed RCs are not a constituent of
the main clause, not inside (embedded in) it, and always at its margin. Their original positions
were not discussed.
11
(18)
iç-in-den
ev
cık-tıg-ım-ız
[interior-POSS.3-ABL leave-NR-POSS.1-PL] house
„house which we left‟
(Lehmann 1986: 6 citing from Andrews 1975: 54)
In (18), the RC „iç-in-den cık-tıg-ım-ız‟ (which we left) is prenominal, because it is followed
by its head noun „ev‟ (house). We can find the RC is nominalized by the nominalizer „-tıg‟.
Furthermore, the possessive suffix „-ım‟ and the plural suffix „-ız‟ at the end of the RC
indicate the subject of the RC and its number and link the RC to the head noun. As for
postnominal RCs, we can find an example in Yaqui such as (19).
(19)
lni-meɁe hu-me haam-im
in
DEM-PL
[POSS.1 3.PL-about speak-REAL-REL]
DET-PL
woman-PL
ame-t
noka-k-aɁu
„Those are the woman that I spoke about.‟
(Lehmann 1986: 7 citing from Lindenfeld 1973)
In (19), since the RC „in ame-t noka-k-aɁu’ (that I spoke about) follows its head noun „haamim‟ (women), it is postnominal. Inside the RC, we cannot find such an obvious nominalizer as
(18), while the possessive „in‟ (our) represents the subject of the RC in the similar way to
(18).
Let us return to the bundle in (15). The second operation (anaphora – empty place
formation) accounts for how to relate the RC to the head. Languages around the world
employ various strategies for that. For example, the most common way is to leave an empty
space in the RC such as (20).
(20)
The book [you are consulting] is up-to-date.
(Lehmann 2003: 460; partly modified)
In (20), the transitive verb consulting within the RC „you are consulting‟ lacks the object NP
inside the clause, but the RC finds the object NP „The book‟, that is the head noun, outside.
Thus, the anaphoric relationship is established between the head and the RC. The next
common strategy is to use an anaphoric pronoun to refer to the head. Persian provides us with
examples such as (21) and (22):
12
(21)
Mard-i
[ke u
man-IND
SR
va zan-aš
diruz
āmad-and] mi-rav-ad.
he and wife-POSS.3.SG yesterday came-3.PL
IMPF-leave-3.SG
(lit.) „The man that he and his wife came yesterday is leaving.‟
(Lehmann 2003: 460)
(22)
Kārxāne-yi ke dar ān kār mi-kard-am
baste šode
factory-IND [SR in
closed become is
D3
work IMPF-did-1.SG]
ast.
„The factory in which I used to work has been closed.‟
(Lehmann 1986: 3 citing from Amin-Madani & Lutz 1972: 175)
In (21), the pronoun „u’ (he) in the RC „ke u va zan-aš diruz āmad-and’ (that he and his wife
came yesterday) refers to the head NP „mard-i’ (the man). In (22), on the other hand, the
demonstrative element „ān‟ in the RC „ke dar ān kār mi-kard-am‟ (in it I used to work) refers
to the head NP „Kārxāne-yi‟ (the factory). In both examples, the anaphoric elements agree
with the head NPs in person12. Thus, we can observe the connection between the head and the
RC.
The last operation of the bundle in (15) is attribution/head formation. It is to combine
the head with the RC together. In fact, it is a matter of the position the head takes: inside
(internally headed) or outside (externally headed), before (prenominal) or after (postnominal)
-- the head. The positions of the head will be discussed later.
Among the studies on RCs, De Vries (2002) redefined RCs as follows:
(23)
Defining properties of relative constructions: (De Vries 2002: 14)
(a) A relative clause is subordinated.
(b) A relative clause is connected to the surrounding materials by a pivot constituent.
While (23a) follows the previous researchers‟ point of view, (23b) is very different from the
previous analyses mentioned above. In order to understand this definition, compare the
following examples: (24)–(26).
12
Lehmann (1986) did not mention whether the demonstrative element „ān‟ is singular or
plural. Therefore, it is unclear whether the anaphoric elements in the RC agree with the head
nouns in number only through (21) and (22).
13
(24)
The mouse [that I caught yesterday] was hungry. (De Vries 2002: 15)
(25)
The mouse [that I caught yesterday]
(26)
The mouse
was hungry.
The example (24) is a sentence embedding the RC „that I caught yesterday.‟ We can analyze
the sentence in this way. The NP in (25) (the head NP plus the RC) and the matrix sentence in
(26) (the subject NP plus the predicate) are connected together using the head NP „the mouse‟
as a pivot constituent. As a result, the RC is connected to the surrounding materials (was
hungry). I illustrate this idea with Figure 1.
Figure 1
„The mouse that I caught yesterday was hungry.‟
In sum, an RC is a subordinate clause to be related to the matrix clause through the head NP.
At the same time, the RC modifies the head NP.
1.2. Typology of relative clauses
So far, we have taken a brief look at the various definitions of RCs as well as their
characteristic properties. Technically, all clauses that fit the definitions are considered as RCs.
As mentioned above, RCs may be typologically categorized as follows: (27).
(27)
Types of relative clauses in this paper (=(7))
(a) Subordination -- embedded
i.
Externally headed
1. Prenominal
2. Postnominal
14
ii.
Internally headed
(b)
Subordination -- adjunction
(c)
Subordination -- correlative
In the next section, I will discuss why RCs are subordinate clauses.
1.2.1. Relative clauses are subordinate clauses
As mentioned above, RCs are subordinate clauses. Then, what is a subordinate clause? A
subordinate clause can only occur as part of a larger clause, so it cannot stand alone. A
subordinate may be a complement of a matrix verb. Compare the two sentences: (28).
(28)
(a) Angela reported [the result].
(b) Angela reported [that the team had won].
(Vincent 1994: 4391)
In both examples, the verb report is used. This predicate takes two arguments: the
source/agent (where the report comes from or who delivers the report) and the theme (what is
reported). How many and what kind of arguments are required depends on each predicate13.
The verb report takes an NP (e.g., the result in (28a)) or a CP (e.g., „that the team had won‟
in (28b). In other words, the clause „the team had won‟ is a subordinate clause within the
sentence, with the complementizer „that‟, theoretically the head of CP, preceding the clause.
In many languages, subordinate clauses have the following properties (Vincent 1994):
(29).
(29)
Properties of subordinate clauses
 Subordinating conjunctions introducing a subordinate clause
13
This may also be an interesting topic for researchers. For example, in Japanese, the
adjective „takai‟ (high) has multiple meanings referring to such as position, level, price
(meaning „expensive‟), and sound (in high frequency), as well as in the idiom „me-ga takai‟
(lit. the eye is high) (to have a sharp eye (e.g., for antiques)). In JSL, EXPENSIVE is frequently
used for price but also for sense organs such as eye, nose, tongue, ear, and skin: „YOU NOSE
EXPENSIVE!‟
(lit. „Your nose is expensive!‟ meaning „Your nose is very sensitive!‟
15
 Different word order from that of the main clause
 Special verb form
 Nonfinite forms such as infinitives
In English, for instance, subordinating conjunctions like the complementizer that in (28a) and
adverbial conjunctions (e.g., when, because) are used, as in (30) and (31).
(30)
[When the jar was full], he turned the water off.
(31)
I couldn‟t feel angry [because I liked him too much].
(Sinclair (Ed.) 2012: 515–516)
As for the different word order, in German, the finite verbs always occur in the
second position in the main clause but in the final position of the subordinate clause, as in
(32a) and (32b).
(32)
(a) Joachim liebt
Joachim love:3.SG.IND.PRES
das
Mädchen.
DA:NEU.SG.ACC
girl
„Joachim loves the girl.‟
(b) Ich glaube,
I
think:1.SG.INDIC.PRES
daß
Joachim das
Mädchen liebt.
CMR
Joachim D:NEU.SG.ACC
girl
love:3.SG.INDIC.PRES
„I think that Joachim loves the girl.‟
(Vincent 1994: 4392)
Note the position of the finite verb liebt. In (32a), the simple declarative sentence, the finite
verb liebt occurs in the second position. On the other hand, in (32b), the complex sentence,
the finite verb liebt occurs at the end of the subordinate clause „daß Joachim das Mädchen
liebt‟, while the finite verb glaube still occurs in the second position of the main clause.
Next, let us look at how verbs appear in a special form when they are used in the
subordinate clauses in Italian. Before looking at its subordinate clauses, I will mention its
declarative sentence as in (33).
16
(33)
Giorgio non capisce.
Giorgio NEG understand:3.SG.PRES.IND
„Giorgio does not understand.‟
(Vincent 1994: 4392)
The verb capire „understand‟ is used in the indicative form capisce, when it is used in the
declarative sentence. However, the verb is in the subjunctive form capisca, when it is used in
the subordinate clauses as in (34) and (35).
(34)
benché Giorgio non capisca
although Giorgio
NEG
understand:3.SG.PRES.SUBJ
„although Giorgio does not understand‟
(35)
temo
che Giorgio non capisca
fear:1.SG.PRES.IND CMR Giorgio NEG understand:3.SG.PRES.SUBJ
„I fear Giorgio does not understand.‟
(Vincent 1994: 4392)
Example (34) is adverbial, and it is not a complement clause, but an adjunct clause. On the
other hand, example (35) is the complement clause to the verb „temo‟ (I fear).
Lastly, verb nonfinite forms such as infinitives can be observed in subordinate clauses
such as (36).
(36)
Credo
[Caesarem
trans flumen transisse]
believe.1.SG [Caesar-ACC across river
cross-PERF.INF]
„I believe Caesar has crossed the river.‟
(Vincent 1994: 4394)
In (36), we can see a subordinate clause (complement clause), and it has the subject
Caesarem in the accusative and the verb transisse in the infinitive form.
Having gone discussed the properties of subordination, we need to ask in what way an
RC is considered as a subordinate clause to the matrix clause? Lehmann (1986) pointed out
two processes: embedding and adjoining (adjunction). Before entering the discussion of the
processes, I will first discuss two important terms related to embedding: nominalizer and
nominalization.
17
1.2.2. Nominalizer and nominalization
Brown & Miller (2013) defined the term nominal as a „constituent that functions like a noun
phrase‟, and nominalization as „the process by which clauses or verb phrases are converted
into constituents functioning like noun phrases‟. But how does it actually occur?
According to the web site of Oxford English Dictionary (accessed 1/4/2015), the
term nominalizer is defined as „an affix which may be added to a word or phrase so as to
convert it into a nominal‟. For example, there are two nominalizer suffixes in English. One is
the verb suffix -er (hunt/hunter), while the other is the adjective suffix -ness
(white/whiteness). However, among languages around the world, there is a variety of
nominalization, and we will see some examples.
According to Muysken (1994), nominalized elements are noun phrases which have
something verbal. He mentioned two types of nominalization. One type is to turn a verb
phrase into a noun phrase (e.g., in English, to apply for a job  application for a job). The
other is to change a clause into a noun phrase with the same marker as that is used for verbnoun changing (e.g., in English, „I apply for a job.‟  „my application for a job‟). However,
cross-linguistically, there are cases in between, so it is not easy to draw the line between them.
First, let us look at nominalization morphology. If nominalization happens at the
morphological level, it is through the process of derivation. Among languages, the two main
types of morphological nominalization are agentive (e.g., hunt/hunter in English) and action
nominals (e.g., sell/sale in English) (Muysken 1994). In Quechua, some suffixes nominalize
verbs in different ways: (37)–(39).
(37)
suwa-q
stealing-AGT
„someone in the act of stealing; thief‟
(38)
puqlla-na
playing-INST
„playing (some time); playing, toy‟
(39)
puñu-na
sleeping-LOC
„sleeping (some time); bed‟
(Muysken 1994: 2812)
18
In (37), the agentive suffix -q converts the verb „suwa‟(stealing) into a noun „thief‟, while in
(38), the instrumental suffix -na nominalizes the verb „puqulla‟ (playing), and the noun
means playing (n.) or a toy. Similarly in (39), the locative -na changes the verb „puñu‟
(sleeping) into a noun meaning „bed‟.
In many languages, an agentive nominal can modify another nominal. If a verb is
nominalized by an agentive marker and modifies another nominal, we can interpret the
agentive nominal as an RC and the modified nominal as its head noun (Muysken 1994). Let
us see an example from Quechua: (40).
(40)
[[hamu-q]
runa-ta]
come-AGT man-ACC
riqai-ni
know-I
„I know the man who comes.‟ (=(9))
In this example, the agentive marker -q attaches to the verb „hamu‟ (come) in the process of
nominalization. The nominalized verb (nominal) modifies the following nominal „runa‟
(man). As a result, the whole phrase „hamu-q runa-ta‟ (the man who comes) is an NP, and it
is an object of the verb „riqai-ni‟ (I know).
How deeply the clause is nominalized varies. Compare these English examples: (41)
and (42).
(41)
They had a strong disagreement about capital punishment.
(42)
John‟s disagreeing so strongly about capital punishment has not made things any
easier.
(Muysken 1994: 2814)
Both sentences show nominalization of the verb disagree, but the ways they are nominalized
are different. In (41), the verb is nominalized with a suffix -ment, while in (42), the verb is
nominalized with the gerund suffix -ing. This difference affects how each nominal is
modified. For the former, the adjective strong can be used. On the other hand, the adverb
phrase „so strongly‟ is used for the latter.
Next, Turkish shows a different but similar phenomenon as in (43).
(43)
[Ahmet-in ev-i
yap-tığ-ın-ı]
bil-i-yor-um
Ahmet-GEN house-ACC build-NMR-3-ACC know-PRES-3-1
19
„I know that Ahmet has built the house.‟
(Muysken 1994: 2814)
In (43), since the verb yap „build‟ is nominalized by the nominalizer -tığ, it is assigned the
accusative marker -ı by the verb „bil-i-yor-um‟ (I know). However, the nominal „yap-tığ-ın-ı‟
(that s/he has built) also assigns the accusative case „-ı‟ to its object „ev‟ (house). On the
contrary, the nominal „yap-tığ-ın-ı‟ takes the genitive-marked noun „Ahmet-in‟ (Ahmet‟s) as
its subject.
Then, what is the relation between nominalization and RCs? Lehmann (1986)
proposes that the positions of the RC (prenominal or postnominal) have something to do with
how much the clause is nominalized. If the RC is prenominal, the clause is well nominalized
and the subject of the RC is attached with a genitive (possessive) affix, as shown by the
Japanese and Turkish shows us examples: (44) and (45), respectively.
(44)
Kore-wa [ano hito-no
D1-TOP
D3
kai-ta]
hon desu.
person-GEN write-PAST book COP
„This is the book which that man wrote.‟
(Lehmann 1986:7 citing from Kuno 1973)
(45)
[Orhan-ın
gör-düğ-ü]
adam cık-tı
Orhan-GEN see-NMR-POSS.3 man leave-PAST
„The man Orphan saw left.‟
(Lehmann 1986: 3 citing from Andrew 1975: 152)
In (44), the verb „kai-‟ (to write) is affixed by the past marker, not by the nominalizer.
However, by being preceded by the genitive-marked nominal „hito-no‟ (that man), the verb
works as if it was a nominal. In (45), the clause is nominalized by the nominalizer „-düğ‟, and
its subject „Orhan‟ attached by the possessive affix „-ın‟. In addition, the RC has the thirdperson possessive marker „-ü‟ at its end to link the RC to the head noun „adam‟ that the RC
modifies.
In sign languages, nominalization is represented in different ways. In American Sign
Language (ASL), for example, reduplication is frequently used to change a verb into a noun
(Valli et al. 2005). The language also has an agentive affixes -ᴇʀ to change a verb into a
person who does it as an occupation as in ᴛᴇᴀᴄʜᴇʀ (<ᴛᴇᴀᴄʜ + -ᴇʀ). Australian Sign Language
(Auslan) has the similar nominalization strategy. Reduplication, in many cases, differentiates
20
between a verb (no reduplication) and a noun (one reduplication), depending on the context,
such as OPEN-DOOR vs. DOOR (Johnston & Schembri 2007: 27).
So far, we have looked at various ways for nominalization. Then, I will mention the
strongly nominalized RCs (embedded RCs) and others (adjunct RCs).
1.2.3. Embedded or adjunction
First, let us see an example of embedded RCs in Turkish: (46).
(46)
Orhan-ın
gör-düğ-ü
[[Orphan-GEN see-NMR-POSS.3]
adam cık-tı
man] leave-PAST
„The man Orphan saw left.‟ (= (45))
In (46), the verb „gör‟ (see) is nominalized by a nominalizer „-düğ‟. The genitive suffix „-ın‟
indicates that the noun „Orhan‟ is the subject of the verbal noun „gör-düğ‟ and links „Orhan‟
with the verbal noun „gör-düğ‟. The possessive marker „-ü‟, whose person (third-person)
agrees with that of the subject of the verbal noun, is suffixed to the verbal noun and connects
the verbal noun to the following noun „adam‟. As a result, the whole chunk „Orhan-ın gördüğ-ü adam‟ becomes a NP.
Next, an adjunct RC is also a subordinate clause. The language Bambara shows us
one of its examples: (47)14.
(47)
[n ye
I
COMPL
ty
m n ye],
man
REL
be
fn
f re.
saw D3 IMPF cloth:DEF sell
„The man I saw (, he) sells the cloth.‟
(Lehmann 1986: 2 citing from Bird 1968: 43)
In (47), there are two clauses. One is „n e t
m n ye‟ (I saw which man), which is an RC.
The other is „ be f n f re’, which is the matrix clause. The RC is an adjunct to the left side
of the matrix clause, and they form a whole sentence. They are related to each other, because
the anaphoric relationship is established between the relative pronoun „m n’ and the
demonstrative „ ‟ (he).
14
The RC can also be analyzed as a correlative. See 1.2.6.
21
On the other hand, an RC may be an adjunct to the right side of the matrix clause such
as (48) (from Ancient Greek).
(48)
autíka d‟
égnō
oulēn,
at.once however recognized scar:ACC.SG.F
tēn
poté min sŭs
ēlase
[DEM:ACC.SG.F once him boar:NOM.SG stroke:3.SG]
„At once she recognized the scar which once a boar had struck him.‟ (=(17))
In (48), the RC „tēn poté min sŭs ēlase‟ (which once a boar had struck him)‟ is an adjunct to
the right side of the matrix clause. We can observe the anaphoric relationship between the
head noun „oulēn‟ and the demonstrative „tēn‟ because they agree in number (singular) and
gender (feminine).
1.2.4. Externally headed: prenominal or postnominal
If an RC has a head, in other words, if an RC is headed, one needs to decide whether the head
is outside the RC or not. If the head is outside an RC, the clause is called an externally
headed RC (EHRC). EHRCs are further divided into two types, according to whether an RC
occurs before or after the head: prenominal and postnominal, respectively15. First, let us see
an example of prenominal RCs from Japanese: (49).
(49)
Satoo-sensei-ga [gakusei-ga
Prof.Sato-NOM
kaita] ronbun-o
yondeiru.
student-NOM wrote article-ACC is-reading
„Prof. Sato is reading the article that the student wrote.‟ (=(11))
In (49), the RC „gakusei-ga kaita‟ (that the student wrote) precedes and modifies the head
noun „ronbun-o‟ (the article). The verb „kak-‟ (write) and the past suffix „-ta‟ turns
phonologically into „kai-ta‟ (wrote). The clause lacks any anaphoric pronouns such as
relative pronouns, and this lack of an anaphor is one of the properties that most prenominal
RCs have (Lehmann 1986).
15
Prenominal and postnominal RCs are also referred to as RelN and NRel, respectively
(Velupillai 2012).
22
Next, let us see an example of postnominal RCs from Modern Greek: (50).
(50)
o
onthropos [pu (ton) skotosa]
the man
SR
him killed:1.SG
„the man that I killed‟
(Lehmann 1986: 7)
In (50), the RC „pu (ton) skotosa‟ (that I killed) comes after the head „onthropos‟ (man). The
subordinator „pu‟ (that) comes at the beginning of the RC. The pronoun „ton‟ (him) is
anaphoric to the head, but it is optional. In fact, most of postnominal RCs have zero anaphora
(i.e. the pronoun can be omitted) (Lehmann 1986).
Typological studies have shown interesting distribution of RCs. For example, most
languages have EHRCs (Velupillai 2012). According to Dryer (2013a), 720 out of 824
languages around the world have EHRCs (prenominal: 141; postnominal: 579). In addition,
VO languages tend to have postnominal RCs (Velupillai 2012). According to Dryer (2013b),
out of 829 languages around the world, 416 languages with the VO word order have
postnominal RCs, while only five have the VO order and prenominal RCs. On the contrary,
OV languages have no such strong correlation (out of 245 OV languages in the same data;
prenominal: 132; postnominal: 113). These figures are illustrated as below Table 1 and Table
2.
Num.
EHRC
720
Prenominal
Postnominal
Others
Total
141
579
104
824
Table 1
Externally headed relative clauses (Dryer 2013a)
23
Num.
VO
421
Prenominal
Postinomial
5
416
OV
245
Prenominal
Postinomial
132
113
Others
Total
163
829
Table 2
VO/OV languages and postnominal relative clauses (Dryer 2013b)
In other words, RCs in most languages are externally headed. If a language has a basic VO
order, its RCs are postnominal in most cases. However, other researchers observe the
distribution of RCs differently. According to Malmkjær (1991: 283), for instance, „Some
language universals may be explained by reference to the processing demands placed on
language users by, for instance, memory constraints and by the relative ease or difficulty
involved in processing certain structures in comprehension and production‟. Therefore,
languages generally avoid centre embedding, and it is more difficult to process centreembedded RCs than to process left-peripheral RCs or right-peripheral RCs. Hence, Malmkjær
(1991: 283) argued that most SOV languages have prenominal RCs; that is, if an RC is
postnominal, the RC would be embedded and interrupt the process of the utterance. For
example, let us look at an example from Japanese: (51).
(51)
Satoo-sensei-ga [gakusei-ga
Prof.Sato-NOM
kaita] ronbun-o
yondeiru.
student-NOM wrote article-ACC is-reading
„Prof. Sato is reading the article that the student wrote.‟ (=(11))
If the RC of (51) „gakusei-ga kaita‟ were postnominal such as „*Satoo-sensei-ga ronbun-o
[gakusei-ga kaita] yondeiru‟, the addressee‟s process of the sentence would be interrupted by
the RC, and the addressee would be confused about who is the subject of the verb „yondeiru‟
at the end of the sentence. Thus, in order to confirm the more precise distribution of RCs,
further research needs to be conducted on the RC distribution of much larger number of
languages around the world.
24
1.2.5. Internally headed relative clauses
For internally-headed RCs, the head is inside the RC. Internally headed RCs (IHRCs) are also
called circumnominal RCs (Lehmann 1986). They are found in some languages such as
Japanese: (52).
(52)
John-wa [RC [ringo-ga
John-TOP
sara-no
ue-ni
at-ta]
-no] -o
toriage-ta
apple-NOM plate-GEN upper.area-at be-PAST -NMR -ACC pick.up-PAST
„John picked up an apple, which was on a plate.‟ (=(12))
In (52), the head „ringo-ga‟ (apple) is case-marked as nominative, not by the verb of the
matrix sentence („toriage-ta‟ (picked up)), but by the verb of the RC („at-ta’ (be-PAST)).
Therefore, the head is inside the RC, hence the clause „ringo-ga sara-no ue-ni atta-no‟
(which an apple was on a plate) is an IHRC. The whole RC is nominalized by the
nominalizing particle „-no‟ (Hendery 2012: 23) and becomes an argument of the main verb
„toriage-ta‟ due to the accusative marker „-o‟.
1.2.6. Correlatives
The last type of RCs is correlatives. According to Lipták (2009: 1), „in a correlative
relativization strategy a left-peripheral relative clause is linked to a (possibly phonetically
unrealized) nominal correlate in the clause that follows the relative clause‟. In addition, their
construction has relative and/or demonstrative pronouns in the RC and the main clause to
„mark the anaphoric relationship‟ (Lehmann 1986) between the head and the personal or
demonstrative pronoun in the main clause16. A typical correlative construction is illustrated as
(53).
(53)
[correlative clause … relative phrase …][main clause … correlate …]
(Lipták 2009: 2)
What does a correlative construction look like? We will look at some example from natural
languages.
16
The phrase of the personal or demonstrative pronoun is especially called the correlate (De
Vries 2002).
25
First, the language Bambara shows us one of its examples: (54).
(54)
[n ye
I
COMPL
ty
m n ye],
man
REL
be
fn
f re.
saw D3 IMPF cloth:DEF sell
„The man I saw (, he) sells the cloth.‟ (=(47))
In (54), the RC „n e t
m n ye‟ (I saw which man) is located on the left periphery of the
sentence. There is the head noun „t ‟ (man) inside the RC. The anaphoric relationship is
established between the relative pronoun „m n’ in the RC and the demonstrative „ ‟ (he) in
the matrix clause.
Next, let us see an example from Hindi: (55).
(55)
[Jo
larkaa mere paas rhtaa hai], vah meraa chotaa bjaaii hai
REL
boy
me near living is
he my
small brother is
„The boy who lives near me is my small brother.‟ (=(13))
In (55), the head „larkaa’ (boy) is inside the correlative „Jo larkaa mere paas rhtaa hai‟
(which boy lives near me), and the clause is left-adjoined to the matrix clause „vah meraa
chotaa bjaaii hai‟ (he is my brother). The anaphoric relationship is maintained between the
relative pronoun „jo‟ (which) next to the head and the pronoun „vah‟ (he) in the main clause.
Interestingly, in the same language, the head of correlatives may occur twice: in the
correlative and the main clause again as in (56).
(56)
[jo laRkii khaRii
REL
girl
hai], vo laRkii lambii hai
standing is
that girl
tall
is
„The girl who is standing is tall‟
(Lipták 2009: 3)
In (56), the head noun „laRkii’ (girl) appears twice: inside the correlative „jo laRkii khaRii hai‟
(which girl is standing) and in the main clause „vo laRkii lambii hai‟ (that girl is tall). Like
(55), the anaphoric relationship is built by the relative pronoun „jo‟ (which) and the
demonstrative „vo‟ (that) in the main clause.
Velupillai (2012) mentions a unique type of RC. It is a paratactic relative clause. It is
like a simple sentence, but it is unmarked. Also, it is only very loosely connected with the
26
main clause. The language Amele in Papua New Guinea has an example of that kind of RCs:
(57).
(57)
mel mala
heje on
[boy chicken illicit take.3SG.SUBJ.REM.PAST]
((mel) eu) busali
boy
nu-i-a
that run.away go-3SG.SUBJ-TOD.PAST17
„The boy [that stole the chicken] ran away.‟
(Comrie & Kuteva 2013)
This type of RCs, unlike the correlatives, has no relative pronouns inside, while like
correlatives, there is a demonstrative „eu‟ in the matrix clause. However, (57) is analyzed not
as two independent clauses, but as one sentence, because of intonation (Velupillai 2012: 327).
To sum, we can divide various RCs into two large groups: embedding and adjunction.
Embedded RCs are further divided into three types. If an RC precedes the head, it is a
prenominal RC and strongly nominalized. If an RC follows the head, it is a postnominal RC
and not nominalized so much as prenominal ones. If a RC has the head inside, it is an
internally headed relative clause (IHRC). If an RC is not a constituent with the head but an
adjunct to the matrix clause, it is an adjunct RC. There is one more type. If a RC has the head
inside and the matrix clause has a determiner or something to corefer with the head, it is a
correlative.
Thus, there is a wide range of RC types in languages around the world. Signed
languages, as natural languages, are also expected to display such diversity. What do we
know about the signed language in Japan so far? Before discussing this issue, I will
summarize the findings based on previous studies.
1.3. Relative clauses in sign languages: previous studies
It is very difficult to identify the basic word order of a sign language since the order is quite
free. However, according to Leeson & Saeed (2012), ASL and Brazilian Sign Language
(LSB) have a basic SVO order, while a basic SOV order is recognized in Italian Sign
Language (LIS) and German Sign Language (DGS). JSL has a basic SOV order (Yonekawa
17
TOD.PAST=today‟s
past tense
27
1984; Ichida 2005c; Oka & Akahori 2011; Kimura & Ichida 2014). In this section, we will
take a brief look at what RC types have been documented in sign languages. If based on word
order typology and RC distribution illustrated in Table 2, we would expect to find
postnominal RCs in SVO sign languages.
First, let us see the RCs of SVO sign languages. Nonmanual (NM) markers play a role
in most of them. In ASL, an RC is marked by NM features such as „raised eyebrows, a
backward tilt of the head, and contraction of the muscles that raise both the cheeks and the
upper lip‟ (Liddell 2003: 54) as in (58).
r
(58)
RECENTLY DOG CHASE CAT COME HOME
„The dog which recently chased the cat came home.‟
(Liddell 1980: 136)
In (58), the relative NMs or marker co-occurs with the whole RC (marked by the line above),
which contains the head, DOG. Therefore, this type of RC is interpreted as an IHRC. On the
other hand, Liddell (1980) reported ASL also has EHRCs such as (59).
r
(59)
1ASK3 GIVE1 DOG [[URSULA KICK] THATc]
„I asked him/her to give me the dog that Ursula kicked.‟
(Liddell 1980: 162)
In (59), since the relative NMs do not co-occur with the head noun „DOG‟, the RC „URSULA
KICK‟
is interpreted as an EHRC. Also, it is a postnominal RC because it follows the head
noun.
HKSL, according to Sze (2000), has a basic SVO order and has a similar NM marker.
Tang & Lau (2012) proposes only brow raise as the relative marker as in (60).
(60)
br
HEY! IX3 LIKE [IXi MALE EAT CHIP IXi]
„Hey! She likes the man who is eating chips.‟
(Tang & Lau 2012: 359)
28
In (60), brow raise scopes over the whole RC „IXi MALE EAT CHIP IXi‟ (the man who is eating
chips) including the head noun „MALE’. Therefore, the RC is an IHRC. In addition, the
pointing IXi occurs both at the beginning and the end of the RC.
Thus, the distribution of RCs in SVO sign languages does not seem to match that of
spoken languages illustrated in Table 2. IHRCs may be more frequent in sign languages than
in spoken languages. Further research on RCs in SVO sign languages will confirm that.
So far, we have seen what types of RC markers are used in the sign languages that
have a basic SVO word order. The next question is whether SOV sign languages have any
different ways to sign RCs? For example, LIS is a SOV language, but the analysis of RCs has
been controversial. On the one hand, Cecchetto et al. (2006) termed RCs as „PROREL
constructions‟, where there consists of a PROREL clause (correlative) with a demonstrative
marker which they call PROREL at the end of the clause as in (61).
br
(61)
[BOY iCALL PRORELi] LEAVE DONE
„A boy that called left.‟
(Cecchetto et al. 2006: 953)
In (61), the RC „BOY iCALL PRORELi‟ (a boy that called) is left-adjoined, because LIS usually
„avoid center-embedded structures‟ (Cecchetto et al. 2006: 973). For example, the translation
of sentence (62), which includes a complement clause, would not be (63) (center-embedded),
but (64) or (65) (staying peripheral).
(62)
Gianni says that Maria left.
(63)
*GIANNI MARIA LEAVE DONE SAY
(64)
MARIA LEAVE DONE GIANNI SAY
(65)
GIANNI SAY MARIA LEAVE DONE
(Cecchetto et al. 2006: 973)
Cecchetto et al. (2006) hypothesized that the avoidance of center embedding of clauses is due
to lower memory span of deaf signers than that of hearing people. As for NMs, the brow raise
scopes over the verb and the special sign PROREL. There are no anaphoric elements such a
demonstrative in the matrix clause. According to Cecchetto et al. (2006), RCs in LIS are
correlative constructions illustrated as (66).
29
(66)
[PROREL CLAUSE … NPi … PRORELi][MAIN CLAUSE … PRONOUNi …]
(Cecchetto et al. 2006: 952))
In fact, the construction in (66) matches a typical correlative construction illustrated in (53).
Cecchetto et al. (2006) attributed the lack of anaphoric elements in the main clause to prodrop, because LIS is a pro-drop language. Thus, Cecchetto et al. (2006) concluded that LIS
has a correlative with the demonstrative marker PROREL occurring at the end of the clause.
On the other hand, Branchini & Donati (2009) proposed to term an RC as a „PE
clause‟. It is internally headed and the RC is an embedded clause, with a PE marker
(determiner), which consists of the unvoiced bilabial stop and downward shaking pointing,
that appears at the end of the clause as in (67).
(67)
rel
[TODAY MANi PIE BRING PEi] YESTERDAY (IXi) DANCE
„The man that brought the pie today danced yesterday.‟
(Branchini & Donati 2009: 164)
In (67), the RC „TODAY MANi PIE BRING PEi‟ (the man that brought the pie today) is embedded
in the main clause, and there is the marker PE at the end of the clause. NMs glossed „rel‟ are
made up of „raised eyebrow, tension of eyes and upper cheeks‟ (Branchini & Donati 2009:
163). The NMs scope over the whole RC.
Thus, Cecchetto et al. (2006) and Branchini & Donati (2009) agreed that a pointing
occurs at the end of the RC, but they disagreed over two points. One is how the relative NMs
scope over the RC. The other is how the RC is related to the main clause.
1.4. Relative clauses in Japanese Sign Language: some previous analysis
Before discussing the present study on RCs in JSL, we will take a look at what the previous
study has to say about this construction. JSL is an indigenous sign language used by about
45000 Deaf people in Japan (Kanda 2009). To date, only a few papers have reported on RCs
in JSL; however, many properties of RCs have not been thoroughly discussed. In a study by
Yonekawa (1984), it was claimed that JSL has prenominal EHRCs18 as in (68).
18
Yonekawa (1984) did not refer to whether JSL has INRCs.
30
rel
(68)
I [PRICE HIGH] TOKYO GO
„I go to Tokyo where prices are high.‟
(Yonekawa 1984: 211)
In (68), a subordinate clause „PRICE HIGH‟, which is an RC, plus the head noun ‘TOKYO’ fills
the argument position of the verb „GO‟ of the main clause. As for NMs, the special marker,
glossed „rel‟ in (68), which consist of slight backward head tilts, brow raise, and lip pout,
scope over from the beginning of the sentence to the end of the head noun. In addition, a
short interval occurs between the head noun before the next sign.
Furthermore, Yonekawa (1984) argued that JSL has postnominal RCs. It seems rare
for a language to have both postnominal and prenominal RCs, because out of 172 languages
around the world, only eleven, such as Finnish and Tagalog, have both (De Vries 2002). Let
us see an example of JSL: (69).
(69)
I TOKYO [PRICE HIGH] GO
(= (68))
(Yonekawa 1984: 213)
In (69), according to Yonekawa (1984), the noun TOKYO is the head, and that the RC „PRICE
HIGH‟
follows it. However, there are the constraints with this type of RCs, which is that not
every noun can be the head of a postnominal RC. Non-concrete nouns (e.g., TIME, PLACE,
MEANS, REASON)
as in (70), locative nouns (e.g., SIDE, FRONT, UPPER-PART), and nouns
stimulating senses (e.g., SMELL, SOUND) as in (71) can never be followed by RCs.
(70)
[SHE MARRIAGE REJECT] REASON KNOW LIKE
„I want to know the reason she rejected the marriage.‟
(71)
[FISH GRILL] SMELL HATE
„I hate the smell when fish is grilled.‟
(Yonekawa 1984: 214)
However, without NMs in the description of these examples, we cannot exclude other
analyses that deny the existence of postnominal RCs. For example, (69) can be analyzed as „I
31
[TOKYO PRICE HIGH] GO‟; that is, a sentence including an IHRC meaning the same as (69). We
can also analyze (70) as two conjoined sentences that mean: „She rejected the marriage, and I
want to know its reason‟. Similarly, we can also interpret (71) as the complex sentence of an
adverbial clause and a matrix clause meaning: „Whenever fishes are grilled, I hate the smell.‟
In order to confirm the postnominal RCs in JSL, further research needs to be conducted.
Besides EHRCs, JSL has one more RC type: internally headed relative clauses
(IHRCs) (h=hold of the head, shn=small head nod) as in (72).
h
(72)
TANAKA
(shn)
[SUZUKI BENTO MAKE]
EAT
„Mr. Tanaka eats the bento lunch which Mr. Suzuki makes.‟
(Kimura & Ichida 2014: 37)
In (72), we can observe two NMs: hold of the head (h) and small head nod (shn). Hold of the
head is that the head is held at a specific position for a very short moment (Ichida 2005c: 93).
According to Ichida (2014), the head movement, or the change of the head position, indicates
phrase or syllable boundaries. Therefore, since the clause „SUZUKI BENTO MAKE‟ is sandwiched
by the two head movements (h and shn), it is not analyzed as an independent clause but a
subordinate clause embedded in the main clause. Recall that the basic word order of JSL is
SOV. Example (72) yields an SOV order, so the whole clause „SUZUKI BENTO MAKE‟ must be a
nominal (NP) to take the argument of the verb „EAT‟, representing something to eat. Hence,
the noun „BENTO‟ inside the clause can be interpreted as the head. Therefore, the clause can be
interpreted as an IHRC.
To sum up, previous literature has made the following claims: JSL has EHRCs. They
are prenominal and postnominal RCs, but the latter needs further research to be confirmed.
Besides, JSL has IHRCs. Based on my knowledge, I think these observations are correct and
postnominal RCs are non-restrictive or appositive RCs. Further research need to be done for
the confirmation.
1.5. Interim conclusion
So far, we have taken a glance at what the previous research has discussed concerning RCs.
In Section 1.1, we have mainly discussed RC properties proposed by Downing (1978). The
verb inside the RC may be finite or non-finite. It differs how RCs are related to the head noun,
according to language to language. Relative markers differ as well.
32
In Section 1.2, we have observed what several types of RCs actually look like, by
watching the natural data from various languages. Some RCs are nominalized to the various
degree, connected to the head noun and embedded to become an NP with the head. Or, they
are adjuncts to the matrix clause. The head noun may be located inside the RC (internally
headed relative clause: IHRC). Or, outside (externally headed relative clause: EHRC). If it is
an EHRC, is it before the RC or after (postnominal RC and prenominal RC, respectively)?
Correlatives have the head noun and are preposed to the left edge of the matrix clause. Then,
it matters how is anaphoric relationship established between the head noun and the relative
element in the matrix clause.
In Section 1.3, we have taken a brief look at what has been researched with regard to
sign languages. The distribution of IHRCs may be different in sign languages from that in
spoken counterparts. NMs, one of unique features signed languages have, play a role in the
relative construction of sign languages, but their ways are varied from language to language.
However, there are still unknown things about sign RCs such as controversial RCs in LIS.
In Section 1.4, previous literature has reported three types of RCs: prenominal,
postnominal, and internally headed RCs. However, postnominal RCs leave more controversy
than the rest. Still, further research must be performed for the investigation into RCs in JSL.
2. THE CURRENT STUDY
So far, we have got a general view on the diversity of RCs that both spoken and signed
languages represent. This paper will focus on JSL‟s RCs for the following purposes: (a) to
confirm the RC types (prenominal, postnominal, and IHRC) proposed by the previous studies,
(b) to verify the available NM adopted and use of NM features, and (c) to find out the
grammatical status of a relative marker, if any.
2.1. Methodology
2.1.1 Participants and data collecting conditions
In order to obtain spontaneous signing data, two strategies were adopted. I aimed to recruit
native signers as participants and followed specific elicitation procedures during the
recording sessions.
First, I narrowed down the participants to the native adult signers that were born deaf,
acquired JSL at home and/or at school, and are profoundly deaf. In order to minimalize the
33
influence of spoken Japanese, hearing CODAs (children of deaf adults) were excluded as
participant, because their productions might be influenced by knowledge of spoken Japanese.
Secondly, I made sure that no hearing people were in the recording room. Based on
my experience, I found out it is very difficult to see the native deaf signers produce natural
JSL when there is a hearing person within their sight. In fact, they do code-switch among JSL,
signed Japanese, and spoken Japanese. Therefore, except for before and after data recording,
hearing people were refrained from entering the recording room in order to make the JSL
data as genuine as possible.
In this current study, the data were produced by two native signers of JSL.
2.1.2 Types of data
2.1.2.1 Picture elicitation task
RCs are difficult to elicit just passive sentences (Fischer, S.: PC). It was highly expected that
the participants would not use RCs but produce other types of structures such as conjoined
sentences. Sign linguistic researchers have struggled with this difficulty and used various
methodologies. For example, Liddel (1980: 139) asked native ASL signers to translate
English RCs into ASL, not on the spot but after a few days. Cecchetto et al. (2006: 946) first
asked native deaf signers to translate Italian RCs into LIS, and then sorted out the LIS RCs
from the data and made sure that the clauses meant the same as the original spoken Italian
RCs by asking other native signers to judge the adequacy of the translation. Branchini &
Donati (2009: 158) asked the LIS informants to translate the RCs of spoken Italian „through
the aid of a LIS interpreter who presented the signers with a relevant context‟ and sometimes
asking the signers to sign in the most natural LIS. Li (2013) asked a Deaf signer to be an
interviewer, and the interviewer told a story to a native Deaf signer (i.e. participant). Then,
the interviewer asked the participant multiple-choice questions, which would elicit RCs, and
obtained answers including RCs. In this study, for the constraints of time and human
resources and in order to eliminate the influence of spoken Japanese, I did not utilize these
translation methods.
In addition, it was very problematic to predict which types of RCs would occur. A
subject is more easily relativized than other syntactic functions such as an object, according
to Lehmann (1986). Therefore, in this study, as a preliminary exploration, an elicitation task
was designed to elicit only SS RCs (e.g., in English, „A man who is holding a book is
intelligent.‟) from the participants.
34
In order to elicit sentences including SS RCs, I modified the Preference Task used by
Utzeri (2007), in which hearing children at the age of six to eleven were encouraged to
produce Italian RCs. For example, in order to elicit subject RCs, the experimenter showed a
picture (Figure 2) and asked a participant a question (73) aimed to elicit the target answer
(74).
Figure 2
(73)
Elicitation of a subject relative:
Ci sono due bambine. Una bambina sta leggendo una storia, l‟altra bambina sta
ascoltando una storia. Quale bambina preferiresti essere? Inzia con “(Preferirei essere)
la bambina che…
„There are two children. One child is reading a story, the other child is listening to a
story. Which child would you rather be? Start with “(I would rather be) the child
that…‟
(74)
Target answer subject RC:
Il
bambino che sta leggendo una storia
The child
that is reading a
story
(Utzeri 2007: 289)
In the present task, I used 24 picture sets as stimuli. Out of 24 sets, 21 consist of two
pictures, and three consist of four pictures. An example of the stimuli may be found in Figure
3.
35
Figure 3
(75)
Question: Who is more intelligent?
(76)
Target answer: A man who is holding a book is intelligent.
In most sets, each picture represents a person doing one or two things at a time.
The elicitation was conducted between the Deaf interviewer and the participant. The
interviewer was also a fluent deaf signer. First, the interviewer showed one set of pictures
(e.g., Figure 3) to the participant, and after confirming the participant that he/she understood
the contents of the stimuli, the interviewer hid the picture set. Then, the interviewer asked a
question (e.g., „Who is more intelligent?‟ (75)), and the participant was invited to answer the
question (e.g., „A man who is holding a book is intelligent.‟ (76)). A total of 24 stimuli were
used in the elicitation. I expected the replies signed by the participant to include an RC. It is
important to note that hiding the stimulus before asking the questions was crucial in order to
prevent the participant from answering the question only by pointing directly at the picture.
Also, the questions were not which questions, which Utzeri (2007) used, but open questions
using who, in order to prevent obtaining the answers without a head.
The data collected were transcribed by ELAN19 (e.g., Figure 4), the language
annotation software, with four parameters: manual signs, extra manual signs, head movement,
eye brow movement, and eye opening (eye blinks).
19
For more details, see the website (https://tla.mpi.nl/tools/tla-tools/elan/).
36
Figure 4
The reason why there are two parameters for manual sign is the simultaneity shared by sign
languages. That is, sign languages have two articulators (both hands) and can express two
different signs at the same time.
Thus, I collected and analyzed the data produced by one of the participants in order to
obtain the prototypes of JSL‟s RCs. Through using 48 sets of elicitation pictures (24 sets per
participant) and I obtained eight examples to be RCs.
2.1.2.2. Monologues
I also examined other data produced by the participants in order to capture more examples
that can be analyzed as RCs. Some of the data were produced by another set of picture stimuli,
which was originally designed for word order research. Other data involved monologues, in
which I gave the Deaf participants three topics (questions) such as „What is your most
enjoyable experience of travelling?‟, „What is your most impressive experience at the deaf
school?‟, and „What topic/activities are you most interested in now?‟
2.1.3. Transcription of the data
As for the transcription, I glossed the targeted RCs including manual and NM elements of the
signing produced by the participants. After the clauses that I suspected to be RCs were
confirmed by the two Japanese Deaf signers. I asked them whether the clauses were not
simple sentences but one which modifies a nominal (EHRCs), or one which can be analyzed
as a nominal (IHRCs). Thus, all the RCs (13 tokens) in this study have been confirmed.
3. RESULTS
From the data, two types of RCs have been confirmed: prenominal and internally-headed RCs.
Postnominal RCs (Yonekawa 1984) are not been identified in the present data. Before
discussing the results, I will present the usual declarative sentence in JSL.
37
As mentioned above, the basic word order is SOV in JSL. However, it is difficult to
identify a sentence in JSL because the language, unlike spoken Japanese, does not have any
obvious sentence final markers (Kato 2013). Therefore, in this study, I defined a point as a
sentence boundary where I found long pauses or longer sign duration. I sometimes consulted
Deaf signers about the point when it was difficult to confirm the boundaries. Therefore, I
analyze the following line of signs as one sentence although it seems to be a long predicate:
(77)20.
(77)
(Describing the man on the right side of Figure 3)
„A man is holding a book, bored, and smart.‟
In (77), there are a head nod (hn) and an eye blink (eb) before „BOOK‟. By analyzing other
declarative sentences, I found out that a head nod and an eye blink tend to occur between the
subject and predicate in a declarative sentence. Therefore, we can interpret that the subject is
„MAN‟ and the predicate is „BOOK …SMART VERY-EAS(ILY) IX-1‟. Inside the predicate, we can
observe a role shift, which is illustrated by the square brackets. During the role shift, „IX-1‟
represents not the signer but the man. The long brow raise (br) that co-occurs with some part
of the „CL:holding-a-book‟ does not have a syntactic role. It just depicts the man‟s smartlooking appearance. The predicate consists of several phrases that are divided by eye blinks,
but the classifier construction on the non-dominant hand (CL: holding-a-book), kept in space
till the end, suggests that the predicate can be analyzed as forming a larger and complete
constituent. At the end, a head nod and an eye blink occur, but I usually observed only an eye
blink at the end of other sentences. In sum, a declarative sentence is illustrated as in (78).
20
„Gloss 1‟is for the main transcription of the manual signs, while „Gloss 2‟ is used when
separating two hands is necessary.
38
(78)
a declarative sentence in JSL
hn
eb
Subject
eb
[Predicate …]
Keeping (78) in mind, let us look at the first type of RCs: prenominal RCs.
3.1. Prenominal relative clauses
The first type of RCs in JSL to mention is prenominal RCs. Among 13 tokens of RCs, I have
recognized nine as prenominal RCs. They precede and modify the head as in (79).
(79)
„The man who is sitting and eating noodles (is angry).‟21
In (79), the participant answered to the question „Who is angry?‟ with an NP, not a simple
sentence (subject and predicate). There are two „MAN‟ in the NP, and they can be taken as
appositive. Between them, there is the RC „SIT EAT-NOODLES‟. The question is: which „MAN‟ is
the head noun of the RC. Since we can observe an eye blink between the first „MAN‟ and the
RC, we can analyze the „MAN‟ and the RC as different constituents. On the contrary, we
cannot find any constituent-cutting NMs between the RC and the second „MAN‟. Therefore,
we interpret that the RC and „MAN‟ form a constituent (NP). Also, there are two head nods.
The first nod that is associated with „SIT‟ is gestural; that is, when you sit down, your head
sometimes moves like a nod. Hence, the nod is not syntactic. The second nod can be
interpreted as the marker of the end of the NP including the RC. Eye blinks occur at three
points. However, they do not occur at the end of RC (between „EAT-NOODLES‟ and „MAN‟) or
sentence (IX3), although eye blinks normally are observed at the beginning of the sentences
21
„the man sitting and eating noodles‟ would be more natural, but for the sake of comparison
between the original and translation, I used the RC for the translation.
39
and the right edge of a prosodic phrase (i.e. end of a phrase or syntactically a constituent) in
sign languages (Tang, G.: PC). Further research need to be done to find out the functions that
eye blinks in JSL have.
As for the linkage between the RC and its head noun, why are not there any
connecting elements (manual or NM) to link the RC and the head? I assume that the word
order signals the modification relationship between the RC and head, because the order VVS
(„SIT EAT-NOODLES MAN) is different from a basic SOV order; this unusualness hints that the
utterance is not a simple sentence.
Are prenominal RCs accompanied with by a pointing sign? In four out of nine
prenominal RCs produced by the Deaf participant in this research, a pointing occurs
immediately after the head noun. In (79), for example, IXdet occurs immediately after the head
noun „MAN‟. I think that this kind of pointings is a simple determiner, rather than a relative
determiner, because it is common that prenominal RC languages lack a relative determiner
(28 out of 38; De Vries (2002)).
Eye blink sometimes occurs before and after the RC as in (80).
(80)
„The man on the right side, smart, holding a book, looks smart‟
In(80), after the second „TO-THE-RIG(HT)‟, the head nod and eye blink represent the end of the
constituent representing the subject. After that, the NMs (the back head tilt (htb) and brow
raise (br)) are interpreted as depicting the attitudes of the man, hence they are not syntactic
markers. The rightward head tilt (htr) occurs twice, and both seem to be lexical (TO-THERIGHT
and SMART), rather than syntactic markers. The head movement such as head nod and
backward head tilt that occur at the end of the NP here are interpreted as prosodic cues for
making the RC and the head noun. The part of the RC, which ranges from „CL:holding-abook‟ to the end of two NMs (the back head tilt and brow raise), represents the role shift (the
40
smart-looking man), and the ending of the role shift matches the end of the RC. Thus, I
suppose the end of the role shift may also indicate the end of the RC.
Thus, prenominal RCs can be illustrated as in (81).
(81)
Prenominal relative clauses in JSL
(eb)
(eb)
hn
[NP [RC … V]
Nhead]
In the next section, we will look at one more RC type confirmed in this study: IHRCs.
3.2. Internally headed
Some RCs have the head inside and are embedded in the main clause as the NP. This type of
RCs is commonly referred to as an internally headed relative clause (IHRC). Among 13
tokens of RCs, I have recognized four as IHRCs. They typically no change of the word order;
however, in JSL, these IHRCs are not marked with clause-cutting NMs. However, JSL‟s
IHRCs are frequently followed by a pointing sign and different NMs according to its position
in the main clause. For example, when it is the subject, the clause itself is not marked by any
prominent NMs but followed by the pointing with the head nod and eye blink as in (82).
(82)
„The man with a stethoscope hanging from his neck is licking a lollipop.‟
In (82), since the RC „MANa DOCTOR CL-STETHOSCOPE-HANGING-FROM-THE-NECK‟ is not
marked by any phrase dividing NMs, it can be interpreted as a phrase. After the RC is
followed by a pointing IX-3, a head nod and eye blink occur. This pointing does not seem
obligatory because another example lacks it as in (83).
(83)
„The woman who is sitting in a chair is eating a chocolate bar.‟
41
In (83), the RC „WOMAN SIT WOMAN SIT‟ (a sitting woman) is in the subject position, not
marked by any NMs. When this clause ends, we observe a head nod and an eye blink. It is
difficult to analyze the pair of hn and eb as markers for RC because the set also appears in the
same position (cf. (78)) of the declarative sentence. These may not be syntactic marker for
RC but they are prosodic marker for clause boundary (Tang, G: PC). In (83), if we analyze
the chunk of signs (the RC plus the pointing) as the subject NP, the chunk is followed by the
eye blink and head nod, then, the sentence has the same structure as a declarative sentence
such as (77).
Next, the IHRC comes as the object. First, let us look at (84).
(84)
„The boy succeeded in catching the frog inside the jar.‟
In (84), the clause „FROG STAY INSIDE‟ is interpreted as one phrase, because it is not marked
inside by any phrase-dividing NMs such as a head nod. In the main clause, there is no NP to
be assigned the argument (object) by the verb „CATCH‟ except the chunk. Therefore, the chunk
is an NP. Inside it, there is only one noun to be the head of the NP: „FROG‟. Besides, since the
NP (clause) has its head FROG inside, so the clause can be analyzed as an IHRC. Example
(84) cannot be analyzed as two conjoined sentences, because the FROG cannot be the subject
of „CATCH‟ as well. After the RC, there is no pointing sign, probably because the pointing
probably fused with the former sign INSIDE, because INSIDE consists of the pointing sign of
the dominant hand and the big C-handshaped non-dominant hand.
In order to mark the end of the IHRC, a role shift and an agreement verb were used as
in (85).
(85)
42
„I see various footprints mixed on the beach.‟
In (85), the clause, which is illustrated between the brackets, can be interpreted as a preposed
clause to the front, because the subject „IX-(1)‟ comes after it. Besides, the agreement verb
„(IX-1)SEE(IX-3p)‟ needs to agree with an argument in the preceding discourse (i.e.
FOOTPRINTS).
There are no NMs inside the clause to make it a simple sentence, and the clause
includes the argument of the verb. Therefore, the clause can be analyzed as an IHRC. As for
NMs, inside the RC there are two instances of brow raise. The first one is used to form the
CL construction „FOOTPRINTS CL:two-feet-step‟, while the other is to attract the addressee‟s
attention, or to focus the footprints. The chunk „FOOTPRINTS CL:two-feet-step EX(IST) CL:twofeet-step‟ is analyzed as the NP („FOOTPRINTS CL:two-feet-step‟ and „CL:two-feet-step‟ are
appositive connected with the verb EXIST), and it is also the subject of the RC. Furrowed brow
(bf) is strongly connected to the sign „MIX‟. Head tilt forward (htf) often co-occur with
CL:two-feet-step
because feet are physically lower than arms. The end of the RC is very
obvious for two strategies. One is role shift: the signer changed the neutral description of
footsteps on the beach to the role „I saw the footsteps (i.e. „(IX-1)SEE(IX-3p)‟)‟ at the end of
the RC. The other strategy is the agreement verb „(IX-1)SEE(IX-3p)’. The verb is directed to
the footsteps established through a locus in space when signing the classifier constructions.
This directing verb is almost like a pointing sign, directing the location where the argument is
so that the referent can be identified through agreement. In other words, instead of using a
determiner or a demonstrative, native deaf signers of JSL can make use of verb agreement to
„relativize‟ a head noun, so to speak.
To sum up, I may formulate the IHRCs in JSL: (86).
(86)
Internally headed relative clauses in JSL
(eb)
(eb)
(hn)
[NP [IHRC … Nhead …] (IXhead)]
In a similar manner as prenominal RCs, the eye blink frequently occurs before and after the
RCs, and the head movement such as the head nod and backward head tilt occur at the end of
the NPs consisting of the RCs and the pointing sign. However, the pointing sign following
the RC is not obligatory. It may be a relative determiner. Further research is needed to reveal
how it occurs and to confirm what it is.
43
To sum up, through this research, two types of RCs have been confirmed in JSL:
prenominal and internally headed RCs. In many cases, at the beginning and ending of the RC,
eye blink occur, which enables the identification of a syntactic constituent which I would
claim to be an RC. Also, the pointing sign that occurs after the head noun (prenominal) or the
RCs (postnominal) may be a relative determiner, which needs to be confirmed by further
research. These manual signs or NM features are still yet to be investigated to further
consolidate our understanding of RCs in JSL.
4. DISCUSSION
In this study, I have identified 13 RCs in the data of 103‟29 (picture elicitation task: 35‟58”;
monologues: 66‟31”). Although the number of identified RCs was small, I have managed to
categorize them into the two types of RCs: prenominal (nine tokens) and internally headed
(four tokens). Postnominal RCs are not attested in my data. Since the size of data is small,
this does not exclude the possibility of postnominal RCs in JSL. Therefore, further
investigation on RCs is needed to confirm postnominal RCs.
As for the relative strategy in JSL, it has been revealed that both types share three
features. First, the eye blink frequently occurs immediately before and after the RCs. It seems
that the blink is omitted or merged to other eye blinks when the RCs is located at the
beginning of the sentence, followed by the predicate, or at the end of the sentence. Secondly,
the head movement, mostly head nod, appears at the end of the NP including the RC. This is
the feature ones previous studies such as Ichida (2005c) pointed out. Based on my knowledge
about JSL, I think other prosodic features, such as sign duration, intervals between the signs,
and the speed of signs, mark the RCs. Lastly, role shift may also mark the RC.
In the process of conducting the present study, I have encountered several problems
that are to be solved through further research in the future. First, more descriptive research on
RCs is needed. In this research, the data recorded and investigated for the search of RCs in
JSL amount to over 100 minutes (elicitation task: 35‟58; monologues: 66‟31). However, I
could identify only 13 RCs (elicitation task: 8; monologues: 5), which I could categorize into
two types – prenominal RCs and IHRCs. There are two reasons for such a small number.
First, RCs may rarely occur by default. In fact, RCs are rare in spoken language in its oral
mode, but surface more frequently in the written mode. In the future, more precise
descriptions about JSL and quantitative analysis are required. The other reason is the
44
elicitation task. It is true that the tasks were designed to elicit only the SS RCs, but still they
did not work well. As a result, I could obtain only a small number of RCs. With this number,
it is difficult to generalize the features of the RCs in JSL. In the coming research, it is
necessary to design elicitation materials that are sensitive to the production of RC.
Secondly, subordinate clauses in JSL must be explored. It seems to me that they have
been researched to some degree through the study of the conjunctive functions of head nod,
but there appears to be little research into coordination and subordination of JSL. The new
knowledge on subordinate clauses in JSL will help investigate the differences between
embedding and adjunction in JSL, which the current study has not examined.
Thirdly, we can investigate more on eye blinks (i.e. eye aperture) and word
lengthening. In this study, I have annotated head movement, brow raise, and eye blink as the
data transcription. Head movement, especially head nod22, seems to have been researched
more than other NMs. We will be able to research NMs in more details, owing to the
development of video recording technology.
Fourthly, the JSL types of RCs, prenominal and internally headed, remind me of how
spoken Japanese, which also has these two types of RCs. First, let us look at one type:
prenominal RCs. As noun modifiers such as adjectives (87), adjectival nouns (88), and APs
of the noun and the Genitive Case particle (-no) (89), RCs come before the head NP as in
(90).
(87)
Taroo-ga omosiroi hon-o
kaita. [adjective]
Taro-NOM interesting book-ACC wrote
„Taro wrote an interesting book.‟
(88)
Ziroo-ga kirei-na hana-o
Ziro-NOM pretty
Satiko-ni
okutta. [adjectival noun]
flower-ACC Sachiko-DAT sent
„Ziro sent pretty flowers to Sachiko.‟
(89)
Hanako-ga
tomodati-no uti-o
Hanako-NOM friend-GEN
katta. [noun + -no]
house-ACC bought.
„Hanako bought her friend‟s house.‟
22
Head nod is said to be one of the most unique features in JSL. In fact, the reduction of head
nod has been emphasized during my leaning of International Sign. However, in order to
prove the uniqueness of head nod in JSL, more scientific research may be necessary.
45
(90)
Satoo-sensei-ga [gakusei-ga kaita] ronbun-o
yondeiru. [RC]
Prof. Sato-NOM student-NOM wrote article-ACC is-reading
„Prof. Sato is reading the article that the student wrote.‟ (=(11))
(Tsujimura 2007: 301)23
What is common with these examples is that the modifiers (omosiroi, kirei-na, tomodati-no,
and gakusei-ga kaita) precede their heads (hon-o, hana-o, uti-o,and ronbun-o, respectively).
According to Siewierska (1994: 4996), „Non-rigidly verb-final SOV languages (SOV
languages which allow for the placing of some modifiers to the right of the verb) tend to have
some nominal modifiers following the noun, while rigidly verb-final SOV languages
generally serialize all the modifiers prenominally‟. Therefore, although it needs to be
investigated whether JSL is a rigidly verb-final SOV language or not, it is no wonder that JSL
and Japanese share prenominal RCs, because they share a basic SOV word order. As for the
verb form, in (90), the RC has the verb „kaita‟ (wrote), which is in the same form as in a
simple sentence. Compare these two sentences.
(91)
Satoo-sensei-ga [gakusei-ga kai-ta]
ronbun-o
yondeiru. [RC]
Prof. Sato-NOM student-NOM write-PAST article-ACC is-reading
„Prof. Sato is reading the article that the student wrote.‟ (=(11))
(92)
Gakusei-ga ronbun-o
kai-ta. [simple sentence]
student-NOM article-ACC write-PAST
„The student wrote the article.‟
In both examples, the verb „kak-‟ (write) appears in the same form, kai-ta „wrote‟, in the RC
(92), as well as in the simple sentence (92). Also, there are no relative elements in the
prenominal RCs in Japanese.
Next, the other RC type Japanese has is internally headed RCs (Kuroda 1992;
Tsujimura 2007). They resemble simple sentences, but we can find the head inside them as in
(93).
(93)
23
Taroo-wa [ringo-ga
sara-no
ue-ni
atta]-no-o
totte,
Prenominal RCs are also called sentence modifiers (Tsujimura 2007).
46
Taroo-TOP apple-NOM
plate-GEN top-at
existed-one-ACC
took
poketto-ni ireta.
pocket -to put-in
„Taro picked up an apple which was on a plate and put it in a pocket.‟
(Kuroda 1992: 147)
In (93), the noun „ringo‟ (an apple) has two roles in the sentence. First, it is the object or
internal argument of the verbs „totte‟ (took) and „ireta‟ (put in), hence marked by the
accusative „-o‟. The other role of „ringo‟ is that it is the head of the RC. In addition, the head
is inside the clause, marked with the nominative particle „-ga‟. Thus, this is an IHRC, not an
EHRC. Furthermore, the clause is embedded with the particle „-no‟. This particle can be
interpreted as a „nominalizing complementizer‟ (Kuroda 1992), or more precisely, „relative
additional nominalizing suffix‟ (De Vries 2002). IHRCs have no relative pronoun, either.
Thus, spoken Japanese has two types of RCs: prenominal RCs and internally headed
RCs. Both have no relative pronouns. These features are shared with JSL, but is this merely a
coincidence? I think language contact may be one of the reasons for the similarities between
JSL and Japanese. According to Hendery (2012), language contact could induce one language
(stronger) to change another (weaker). One of its examples is Singapore English. Singapore
English is changing through the influence of surrounding major languages such as English,
Malay, and the three Chinese varieties: Mandarin, Hokkien, and Cantonese (Alsagoff & Lick
1998: 128–129).
(94)
That boy pinch my mother one very naughty
„That boy who pinched my mother is very naughty‟
(Hendery 2012: 219 citing from Alsagoff & Lick 1998: 129, ex. 3)
(95)
The fruit they grow one very sweet
„The fruit that they grow is very sweet‟
(Hendery 2012: 219 citing from Alsagoff & Lick 1998: 134, ex. 31)
47
The word one in the two examples is the relative marker, and it occurs at the end of the RC
„on analogy with Chinese de‟ (Hendery 2012: 220)24. According to Hendery (2012),
multilingual speakers create „a new strategy in one language on analogy with a construction
in the other‟ (p. 235). In fact, most Deaf people around the world cannot help being bilingual
in order to survive surrounded by the hearing majority. In Japan, since the first deaf school
was established in 1878, deaf education had been conducted with the manual method; that is,
using sign language, for approximately half a century. Then, after the oral method had been
introduced from Europe in the early twentieth century, spoken Japanese has been dominant at
deaf schools (Yonekawa 1998). Also, deaf people have been surrounded by written Japanese.
These circumstances may have influenced the grammar of JSL, which includes relative
constructions. However, it is extremely hard to prove the existence of this influence, because
it would never be possible without the data produced by the illiterate Deaf signers, if any. Or,
the comparison of the elicited RCs between the elder generation and younger generation
could provide some clues regarding the Japanese influence on JSL.
5. CONCLUSION
Research in to RCs in JSL will enhance the training of translation or interpretation in JSL.
The structural complexity, such as subordinate clauses, of the target language sometimes
causes difficulties for interpreters. The more the structure of JSL is examined and revealed in
detail, the more effectively the interpreters perform. Therefore, I highly expect this research
to benefit the Deaf community in Japan as well as other people involved in the community.
This study, for the data number constraint, has left much unknown about RCs in JSL.
More researches are expected to figure out what other strategies to mark the end of IHRCs.
24
Hendery (2012: 220) footnoted: „Mandarin de, Cantonese ge and Hokkien ge or e all
function the same way (Alsagoff & Lick 1998: 134), but I will use de as shorthand to
encompass any of these here‟.
48
APPENDIX: ABBREVIATIONS
2h
two hands
ew
eye widening (nonmanual)
ABL ablative
FUT
future
ACC accusative
GEN genitive
AGT agentive
h
hold of head (nonmanual)
ASL
American Sign Language
hb
backward head shift (nonmanual)
Auslan Australian Sign Language
hf
forward head shift (nonmanual)
AUX auxiliary
hn
head nod (nonmanual)
bf
furrowed brow (nonmanual)
hs
head shake (nonmanual)
br
brow raise (nonmanual)
htb
head tilted backward (nonmanual)
CMR complementizer
htf
head tilted forward (nonmanual)
COMPL
hts
head tilted sideward
completive
CONN connective
IMPF imperfect(ive)
COP
INAN inanimate
copula
D1/2/3 demonstrative element of 1/2/3. ps.
deixis.
DA
definite article
DAT dative
DEF
definite
DEM demonstrative
DGS German Sign Language (Deutsche
Gebärdensprache)
IND
indicative
INST instrumental
IX
indexing (pronoun)
JSL Japanese Sign Language (Nihon
Shuwa)
LIS
Italian Sign Language (Lingua
Italiana dei Segni)
lit.
literally
locative
dh
dominant hand
LOC
eb
eye blink (nonmanual)
ec
eye closing (nonmanual)
LSB Brasilian Sign Language (Língua
de Sinais Brasileira)
ERG ergative
es
eye slit (nonmanual)
NEU neuter
NM
nonmanual
49
NMR nominalizer
REM remote
NOM nominative
SBJ
subject (personal affix slot)
O
SG
singular
PART participle
sh
subordinate hand (non-dominant)
POSS possessive
shn
small head nod (nonmanual)
PP
SR
subordinator
object
past participle
PRES present
SUBJ subjunctive
PRET preterite tense
TOD.PAST
r(el)
relative nonmanual
TOP
RC
relative clause
today‟s past tense
topic
REAL realis
REL
relative element
50
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alexiadou, A., Law, P., Meinunger, A. & Wilder, C. (2000). Introduction. In A. Alexiadou, P.
Law, A. Meinunger & C. Wilder (Eds.), The Syntax of relative clauses. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins Pub. Co. 1–51.
Alsagoff, L., & Lick, H. C. (1998). The relative clause in colloquial Singapore English.
World Englishes 17(2). 127–138.
Amin-Madani, S. & Lutz, D. (1972). Persische Grammatik. Heidelberg: J. Groos.
Andrews, A. D. I. (1975). Studies in the syntax of relative and comparative clauses.
Bird, C. (1968). Relative clauses in Bambara. Journal of West African Languages 5(1). 35–48.
Branchini, C. & Donati, C. (2009). Relatively Different: Italian Sign Language Relative
Clauses in a Typological Perspective. Correlatives Cross-Linguistically. 157–191.
Brown, E. K. & Miller, J. (2013). The Cambridge dictionary of linguistics. Cambridge; New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Cecchetto, C., Geraci, C. & Zucchi, S. (2006). Strategies of Relativization in Italian Sign
Language. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 24(4). 945–975.
Comrie, B. & Kuteva, T. (2013). Relativization on subjects. The World Atlas of Language
Structures Online. [Available at http://wals.info/chapter/122 (2015-06-18)]
Crain, S., & Lillo-Martin, D. (1999). An introduction to linguistic theory and language
acquisition. Malden: Blackwell Publishers.
Downing, B. T. (1978). Some universals of relative clause structure. Universals of Human
Language 4. 375–418.
Dryer, M. S. (2013a). Order of Relative Clause and Noun. The World Atlas of Language
Structures Online. [Available at http://wals.info/chapter/90 (2015-05-22)]
Dryer, M. S. (2013b). Relationship between the Order of Object and Verb and the Order of
Relative Clause and Noun. The World Atlas of Language Structures Online.
[Available at http://wals.info/chapter/96 (2015-5-22)]
Fabb, N. (1990). The difference between English restrictive and nonrestrictive relative
clauses. Journal of Linguistics, 26(1), 57-78.
Fox, B. A.;Thompson,S. A. (1990). A Discourse Explanation of the Grammar of Relative
Clauses in English Conversation. Language 66(2). 297–316.
Fuji, M. (2010). On internally headed relative clauses in Japanese and Navajo. Journal of the
Tokyo University of Marine Science and Technology, 6. 47–58.
Hale, K. (1976). The adjoined relative clause in Australia. Grammatical Categories in
Australian Languages 784105. 78–105.
51
Hendery, R. (2012). Relative clauses in time and space: a case study in the methods of
diachronic typology. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins Pub. Co.
Ichida, Y. (1998). Nihonshuwa-no bunpoo: tokushuu shuwa-no sekai–gengo-tosite deau-toki.
[Grammar of Japanese Sign Language: world of sign language–when you meet it as a
language]. Gengo 27. 44–51.
Ichida, Y. (2005c). Shuwa-no gengogaku (10) bunkoozoo-to atama-no ugoki–Nihon Shuwano bunpoo (6) gojun, hobun, kankeisetu. [Linguistics of Japanese Sign Language (10)
sentence construction and head movement--grammar of Japanese Sign Language
(6) word order, complement, and relative clauses]. Gengo 34. 91–99.
Ichida, Y. (2005a). Shuwa-no gengogaku (5) jikan kuukan-to te-no undoo--Nihon Shuwa-no
bunpoo (1) aspect etc. [Linguistics of Japanese Sign Language (5) time and space and
hand movement--grammar of Japanese Sign Language (1) aspect etc]. Gengo 34. 92–
99.
Ichida, Y. (2005b). Shuwa-no gengogaku (6) kuukan-no bunpoo--Nihonshuwa-no
bunpoo (2) daimeesi-to doosi-no icchi. [Linguistics of Japanese Sign Language (6)
grammar of space--grammar of Japanese Sign Language (2) pronouns and verb
agreement]. Gengo 34. 90–98.
Johnston, T., & Schembri, A. (2007). Australian sign language: an introduction to sign
language linguistics. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kanda, K. (2009). Shuwa no omosirosa. [Interestingness of sign language] Gekkan Gengo, 8,
8–15.
Kato, N. (2013), Shuwa-ni okeru gengoshigen-no kenkyuudookoo. [Research trend towards
language resource in sign language]. NHK STRL R&D 139. 10–19.
Kimura, H., & Ichida, Y. (2014). Hajimete-no shuwa shoho-kara yasashiku manaberu
shuwa-no hon. [First sign language: sign language book to learn easily from the
rudiments with]. Tokyo: Seikatsushoin.
Kuno, S. (1973). The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Kuroda, S. (1992). Japanese syntax and semantics: Collected papers. Dordrecht; Boston:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Leeson, L., & Saeed, J. (2012). Word order. In R. Pfau, M. Steinbach & B. Woll (Eds.), Sign
language: an international handbook. Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. 245-265.
Lehmann, C. (1986). On the Typology of Relative Clauses. Linguistics 24(4), 1–13.
Lehmann, C. (2003). Relative clauses. In J. Frawley, & W. Frawley (Eds.), International
encyclopedia of linguistics. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. 460–462.
52
Li, J. (2013). Relative constructions in Hong Kong Sign Language. (Unpublished MA).
Chinese University of Hong Kong,
Liddell, S. K. (2003). Grammar, gesture, and meaning in American Sign Language.
Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Liddell, S. K. (1980). American Sign Language syntax. The Hague; New York: Mouton.
Lindenfeld, J. (1973). Yaqui Syntax (University of California Publications in Linguistics 76).
Lipt k, A. K. (
). The landscape of correlatives: An empirical and analytical survey. In A.
K. Lipt k ( d.), Correlatives cross-linguistically. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John
Benjamins Pub. Co. 1–46.
Malmkjær, K. (1991). Language universals. In Malmkær, K. (ed.). The linguistics
encyclopedia. London; New York: Routledge. 277–284.
Muysken, P. (1994). Nominalizations. In R. E. Asher, & J. M. Y. Simpson (Eds.), The
Encyclopedia of language and linguistics. Oxford; New York: Pergamon Press. 2811–
2815.
Oka, N., & Akahori, H. (2011). In Bilingual Bicultural Education Center for Deaf Children
(Ed.), Bunpoo-ga kiso-kara wakaru Nihonshuwa-no sikumi. [Strucure of Japanese
Sign Language to understand from the basic about its grammar]. Tokyo: Taishukan
Shoten.
Siewierska, A. (1994).Word order and linearization. In R. E. Asher, & J. M. Y. Simpson
(Eds.), The Encyclopedia of language and linguistics. Oxford; New York: Pergamon
Press. 4993–4999.
Sinclair, J. (Ed.). (2012). Collins COBUILD English Usage (3rd ed.). Glasgow:
HarperCollins Publishers.
Sze, F. Y. B. (2000). Word order of Hong Kong Sign Language. Cross-Linguistic
Perspectives in Sign Language Research: Selected Papers from TISLR. 163–192.
Tang, G., & Lau, P. (2012). Coordination and subordination. In R. Pfau, M. Steinbach & B.
Woll (Eds.), Sign language: an international handbook. Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter
Mouton. 340–365.
Tsujimura, N. (2007). An introduction to Japanese linguistics (2nd Ed.). Malden, MA:
Blackwell Pub.
Utzeri, I. (2007). The production and acquisition of subject and object relative clauses in
Italian: a comparative experimental study. Nanzan Linguistics 2. 283–313.
53
Valli, C., Lucas, C., & Mulrooney, K. J. (2005). Linguisitcs of American Sign Language: an
introduction (4th Ed.). Washington, D.C.: Clerc Books.
Velupillai, V. (2012). An introduction to linguistic typology. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John
Benjamins Pub. Co.
Vincent, N. (1994). Subordination and complementation. In Asher, R.E. & Simpson, J.M.Y.
(Ed.), The Encyclopedia of language and linguistics. Oxford; New York: Pergamon
Press. 4391–4396.
Vries, M. d. (2002). The syntax of relativization. Utrecht: LOT.
Yonekawa, A. (1984). Shuwagengo-no kijututekikenkyuu. [Descriptive study of sign
language]. Tokyo: Meiji Shoin.
Yonekawa, A. (1998). Tokushu shuwa-no sekai: korekara shuwa-o manabu hito-no tameni.
[Special features sign language: for those who begin to learn sign language from now
on]. Gengo 27. 20–25.
(This is the end of this thesis.)
54