As it has already been mentioned above, the prototypical syntactic function of participle is adnominal modification. Since participle is verbal in nature, it can obviously serve as a predicate of a verbal clause. Therefore, it seems reasonable to base the comparative concept of participle on the type of clauses for which the function of adnominal modification is a defining feature, i.e. relative clauses (RCs). The definition of the relative clause adopted in this study is very straightforward, and uses the one provided by Lehmann (1986: 664) as a basis. The relative construction is understood here as a construction consisting of a nominal (head) and a subordinate clause interpreted as attributively modifying the nominal (relative clause). However, since the definition is so concise, several very important clarifications have to be made.
a) Restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses
It is fairly common among typologists to define relative clauses in a more semantic way, consider definitions in (19) and (20) below:
We consider any syntactic object to be an RC if it specifies a set of objects (perhaps a one-member set) in two steps: a larger set is specified, called the domain of relativization, and then restricted to some subset of which a certain sentence, the restricting sentence, is true. (Keenan and Comrie 1977: 63–64) A relative clause (RC) is a subordinate clause which delimits the reference of an NP by specifying the role of the referent of that NP in the situation described by the RC. (Andrews 2007: 206)
The reason why I prefer not to use such definitions is because they narrow the scope down to restrictive (or defining) relative clauses, thus excluding non-restrictive (or non- defining/appositive) ones. At the same time, the distinction between restrictive and non- restrictive relative clauses appears to be of some relevance for the distribution of participial relative clauses. For instance, Lehmann (1984: 270280) formulated a typological prediction, according to which if a language has two relativization strategies one of which is prenominal and participial and the other one is postnominal and finite, the participial strategy will be mostly used for restrictive relative clauses. The proposed explanation is based on the fact that semantic integration connected to the contribution to referent identification is parallel to syntactic integration into the noun phrase due to nominalization, which is characteristic of participial relative clauses. This claim, however, has not been tested on a representative sample of languages, and the illustrative example from Turkish provided by Lehmann (1984: 278) has been criticized by +DLJ 128), so Lehmann’s hypothesis clearly requires further investigation, for which purpose possible non-restrictive participial relative clauses should be considered in a typological study as well.
Unfortunately, the information on this matter is extremely limited, and is usually only available for some most thoroughly documented languages. In most cases, the lack of information in a description is probably due to the fact that the language makes no distinction between the two constructions, or the dictinctional is only intonational, cf. Comrie (1981: 139), but it is also commonly the case that only restrictive relative clauses are taken into account by the author. Because of that, I am not aiming at conducting a proper research of this issue within the present study. Nevertheless, there seems to be no need to exclude non-restrictive relative clauses in general. Therefore, the comparative concept of relative clause used here as a basis for the concept of participle includes both restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses.
b) Headed and headless relative clauses
Another clarification concerns headless (or free) relative clauses, i.e. constructions that lack a head nominal. An example of such construction from Hup is given in (21a). Commonly, syntactic typologies only recognize the binary distinction between headed and headless relatives, but it has been recently shown by Epps (2012) that the ability of relative clauses to appear with or without a head nominal may be best understood as a continuum, based on the degree to which the element appearing in the role of the modified nominal may be understood as a lexical or a grammatical entity. For instance, apart from headless, cf. (21a), and headed relative clauses, cf. (21b), Hup also has several
intermediate constructions exhibiting varying degree of grammaticalization of the head nominal. One of such constructions, a relative clause with a bound noun =teg ‘tree’ cliticized to the dependent verb form, is given in (21c):
Hup (Nadahup; Brazil; Epps 2012: 195–198)
a. tѠh tэhэ-y࠴̗Ҍ-ay=mah, [tѠn࠴իh hܞ ni-ҌČ-p], 3SG finish-TEL-INCH=REP 3SG.POSS animal be-PFV-DEP
[húp n࠴իh hܞ ni-ҌČ-p] person POSS animal be-PFV-DEP
‘It was all gone, that which had been his game animal, that which had been the person’s game animal.’
b. Ҍm̗h=yѠҌ [Ҍám=t°֥hҌín tih ní-ƭS] hayám-n kéy-éh 1SG=FOC 2SG=wife 3SG be-DEP village-OBJ see-DEC
‘I have seen the village [that your wife is living in]!’ c. [ҌѠn w°̗d-œp]=teg Ҍám b’эt-y࠴̗Ҍ-࠴̗y!
1PL eat-DEP=tree 2SG chop.down-TEL-DYN
‘You’ve chopped down the tree we eat from!’
This phenomenon of gradual ‘headedness’, as noted by Epps (2012: 210), is likely to be relevant for languages that use nominalization as relativization strategy, as is the occurrence of headless relative clauses in general. Indeed, if a predicate of a relative clause exhibits some features of a noun, it is expected that it will be able to function as a participant of the main clause on its own or by attaching some minor grammatical material. The problem that arises in such languages is that of distinguishing between headless relative clauses and various kinds of participant nominalizations, such as, for example, agent nominalization, patient nominalization, or locative nominalization (see Section 2.4 below). Since many languages with deranked relative clauses belong to this type, in order to avoid the problem in question, in the present study I will only consider the forms that can introduce headed relative constructions of the type illustrated in (21b), in which the head is explicitly expressed by a full nominal element, whether within the main clause (the relative clause in this case is referred to as externally headed), or within the relative clause itself (the relative clause is then labelled internally headed). The illustrations of both types of constructions can be taken from Imbabura Quechua, where a deranked relative clause can have either external head, cf. (22a), or internal head, cf. (22b):
Imbabura Quechua (Quechuan; Ecuador; Cole 1985: 54, 55) a. [Juzi ri-ju-j] llajta
José go-PROG-NMZ town ‘the town José is going to’
b. [Juzi llajta-man ri-ju-shka]-ka maymi karu-mi ka-rka José town-to go-PROG-NMZ-TOP very big-VLD be-PST.3
It should be noted that internally headed relative clauses are in general a fairly rare phenomenon (according to Dryer 2013, only 24 languages in the sample of 824 employ them as primary relativization strategy), and when it comes to participial relative clauses, they might be even more restricted. In the sample of 100 languages examined for the current study, I have not found a single language where internally headed participial relative clauses would be the primary strategy, and in the languages that allow them at all they tend to be subject to various semantic restrictions, or simply appear to be less frequent than other types of participial constructions, cf., for instance, Genetti et al. (2008: 128) on Tibeto-Burman languages.
c) Participle as the locus of subordination marking
The final important specification that needs to be done is that I will only take into consideration the forms that do not simply have the ability to serve as predicates of relative clauses, but actually can be the only means of signalling this type of subordination relation. What is implied here is that I do not regard as participles the non-finite predicates requiring other markers of subordination to let the clause function as an adnominal modifier. An example of the latter case comes from the Miya language, where relative clauses with non-finite predicates are obligatorily introduced by clause-initial relativizers agreeing in gender with the modified noun, cf. (23):
Miya (West Chadic, Nigeria; Schuh 1998: 111) mbϷ֣rgu [bá pΩráw]
ram REL.M slaughtered.PTCP
‘a slaughtered ram’
It can be noted though, that constructions of this kind can develop into genuine participial relative clauses, as it apparently happened in Armenian. According to Hewitt (1978), relative clauses of the type illustrated in (24), where a non-finite form co-occurs with the relative clause marker or, represent the transitional structure between fully finite relative clauses attested on earlier stages, which combined the relative clause marker with a participle accompanied by an auxiliary verb, and prenominal participial relative clauses employed in modern variants of Armenian, cf. (25):
Classical Armenian (Indo-European > Armenian; Armenia; Thomson 1975: 71, as cited in Hewitt 1978: 128)
es em haF̙n kendani [or jerkniF̙ idž-eal]
I am bread.the living which from.heaven descend-PTCP
‘I am the living bread which has descended from heaven.’
Modern Eastern Armenian (Indo-European > Armenian; Armenia; Dum-Tragut 2009: 211)
Sa [lav kardac’-Rá] ašakert-n Ɲ
DEM well read-PTCP.SUBJ pupil.NOM-the it.is ‘This is the pupil who reads well.’
The languages excluded from the scope of the study by this specification, however, are not numerous, since, as predicted by $QGUHZV ), relative clause that demonstrate at least some degree of nominalization (which is characteristic of participial relatives clauses, cf. Chapters 4–6), tend to employ no relative pronouns or complementizers whatsoever.
This part of the definition appears to be slightly problematic in the case of Austronesian languages. In many of them, nominal modifiers, such as deictic elements, quantifiers, adjectives and relative clauses, are commonly connected to the head noun by special particles, or ligatures (Foley 1980: 171), cf. examples in (26) from Palauan, where the ligature el/’l is given in bold:
Palauan (Palauan, Palau; Foley 1976: 15–16) a. tirikey ’l Ҍekebil
those LIG girl
‘those girls’ b. betok el Ҍad
many LIG man ‘many men’
c. a odelekelek el bil-ek
ART black LIG clothes-POSS.1SG
‘my black clothes’
d. a [mley ҌelҌang] el Ҍad
ART came today LIG man
‘the man who came today’
If in the definition of participle we adhere to the requirement that participial form has to be the main locus of subordination, we cannot regard as participle any verb forms that have to be accompanied by a ligature, because it is at least partly the ligature that performs the subordinating function. On the other hand, if the ligature has to be used with any modifier of a noun, this restriction does not make much sense. Luckily, in a thorough study of the Austronesian noun phrase structure, Foley (1976) mentions only one language that uses ligature with participles, namely Palauan, examples from which were given above. Moreover, it is not at all clear from Foley’s analysis whether the forms that he regards as participles do indeed have any clear differences from independent clause predicates. The reference grammar of Palauan by Josephs (1975) does not mention any participial forms at all. Therefore, I do not consider Palauan in this study.
In the only other Austronesian language with participles mentioned by Foley (1976), namely Wolio, the use of ligature is actually one of the differences between deranked and balanced relative clauses. Relative clauses introduced by participles do not require a linking particle, cf. (27a), while for finite relative clauses the use of it is obligatory, cf. (27b). Apart from that, participles have special prefixes, which finite verbs do not have, and do not take prefixes for concord with their subjects:
Wolio (Austronesian > Celebic, Indonesia; Anceaux 1952: 41 as cited by Foley 1980: 192)
a. rampe [i-tau-na mawa]
flotsam PTCP.PASS-carry-3SG flood
‘flotsam carried down by the flood’ b. wakutuu na [a-umba-mo]
time LIG 3SG-come-DEF
‘the time he came’
To summarize the relationship between participles and relative clauses as comparative concepts, in the present study the label participle will only be used to refer to the forms that can introduce headed relative clauses (both restrictive and non-restrictive), and do not require any additional marking, such as relative pronouns or complementizers. So far it might have seemed that the notion of relative clause is not really necessary for the typological definition of participle, since it would suffice to simply refer to adnominal modification as the primary participial function. However, there are two substantial reasons why I choose to adhere to this concept. First, the domain of relativization is relatively well studied cross-linguistically, and the terminology is fairly established and abundant. Therefore, it is convenient to describe participles using the existing set of terms, and taking the recognized distinctions into account. Second, stating that participle can function as a predicate of a clause, though deranked, emphasizes its verbal properties and the ability to have verbal valency despite deranking. The connection of the participial form to the verb to whose paradigm it belongs is discussed in the next section.