Modality-independent patterns in relative clauses 1. Introduction This paper examines a popular topic in linguistic typology; the realisation of subordinate clauses. Within linguistic typology researchers investigate similarities and differences between languages and try to reveal the underlying structures of languages (Song 2001). This way correlations can be found between structures and languages. This research is compelling since it could eventually lead to the prediction of structures of languages that are not extensively studied yet. One particularly interesting subject of linguistic typology is language universals. Language universals are characteristics every language is considered to have. A simple example is the statement that every language has nouns and verbs. The study of language universals, however, has been focused on spoken languages only. To really investigate characteristics of all languages, one should include sign languages. Sign languages are of important value in this matter since by including sign languages one cannot only investigate cross-linguistically but also cross-modally. This way the research of language universals becomes more complete and more can be revealed about the nature of human language. Within linguistic typology, subordination has been widely discussed since many variation has been shown among languages. This paper will especially look into one type of subordinate clause; the relative clause. First I will present a definition of a subordinate clause and explain the function of a relative clause. Then I will discuss a study of Thompson (1977), which claims that American Sign Language (ASL) does not have subordination. This is an interesting conclusion since all spoken languages investigated so far have the possibility of recursion and if sign languages are typologically alike to spoken languages, one would expect the same for ASL. After this discussion I will look into distinctions that have been made for relative clauses in spoken languages and describe whether these distinctions are also found in several sign languages. The paper will be concluded with a summary of the findings. 2. Definition A subordinate or dependent clause is a clause that forms a constituent inside another clause (Hengeveld 2002). It differs from a coordinated clause since a subordinate clause cannot stand on its own while a coordinated clause can. A subordinate clause can fulfil several functions; one of them is the function of modification. The type of subordinate clause that is working as a modifier for nouns is called a relative clause (Hengeveld 2002). The noun that is modified is called the head of the relative clause. An example is the following: English (1) The bike [I wanted to use] was broken. The clause 'The bike was broken' is completely grammatical thus the dependent clause 'I wanted to use' is not obligatory. This clause has a modifying function for the noun 'bike' and is therefore a relative clause (RC). Now the general definition of a RC is clear, I will describe Thompson's study of subordination in ASL. 3. Subordination in ASL Thomson (1977) studied subordination in ASL and he stated that subordinate clauses, especially RCs, do not exist in this sign language. In his study, he compares English clauses with ASL clauses by using translations of English into ASL and vice versa. He analysed these sentences and concludes that ASL does not use subordinate clauses, only coordinated clauses, since ASL does not show any marking for subordination. One of his examples is the following: American Sign Language (2) LYNN MEET MATH TEACHER SHE LIKE 'Lynn saw the math teacher whom she admires'. (Thompson 1977:184) In the English translation of (2) the word 'whom' is used although there is no such marker in the ASL sentence. In addition, there does not seem to be a difference in word order for the two ASL clauses. Thompson (1977) considers that deletion could be a marker for a subordinate clause since the head 'MATH TEACHER' is not repeated in the second clause. He revisits this opinion, however, since deletion occurs in multiple discourse situations, not only with embedded clauses. Finally Thompson (1977) suggests that the sentence in (2) consists of two coordinated clauses instead of a main clause and subordinate clause. He concludes that relative clauses do not occur in ASL, at least not in the same contexts as in English. For complement clauses - another type of subordinate clause - he argues the same; ASL does not use this kind of clause construction. Especially for sentences with verbs like 'feel', 'think' and 'say' he claims that ASL signers always use direct speech and therefore do not need complement clauses with indirect speech (Thompson 1977). The conclusion that ASL is not using subordination is interesting since every spoken language investigated so far can formulate subordinated clauses; recursion is seen as one of the language universals. A language without the possibility of recursion would therefore be exceptional. Considered that ASL is such an exception, it could be determined that languages in general are fundamentally different than concluded so far, or that sign languages are fundamentally different than spoken languages (Sandler & Lillo-Martin 2001). In the latter case it would be a modality difference. However, Liddell (1980) and Padden (1988) argue that relative clauses do exist in ASL and that these clauses are marked non-manually. This marking consists of raised eyebrows, a tensioned upper lip and a slight backwards tilt of the head. More arguments for the existence of RCs in ASL will be discussed in paragraph 4. For complement clauses, Liddell (1980) and Padden (1988) assume the same; they do exist in ASL and are marked non-manually. Thompson (1977) mentioned non-manual marking but had not looked into that deeply since he did not have enough data to analyse non-manual aspects such as eye-gaze or movements of the eyebrows. It is highly likely that Thompson expected RCs in ASL to be more similar to RCs in English. Nowadays, however, it is known that non-manual markings often have grammatical functions in sign languages and for this reason non-manual aspects are always part of the analysis. Since 1977, more research on subordination in sign languages has been done, especially on RCs. For RCs in spoken languages, a distinction has been made between restrictive and non-restrictive RCs (Pfau 2008, Keenan 1985). I will now look further into this distinction. 4. Restrictive and non-restrictive RCs A restrictive RC is limiting the possible exact meanings of the noun while a non-restrictive RC is only adding extra information. Examples of respectively a restrictive RC and a non-restrictive RC are in (3): English (3) a The film [we saw yesterday] was very disappointing. b Last week I went to Paris, [which is the capital of France]. In (3a) the noun 'film' is specified by the RC 'we saw yesterday', this makes 'film' the head of the RC. With this restrictive RC, the choice of films the speaker could mean in (3a) is limited to only the films that the speaker saw yesterday. In (3b) the RC has a different function. Here, the clause 'which is the capital of France' is not limiting since there is no need to specify Paris; there is only one. This means that the RC in (3b) is exclusively adding extra information about the head noun. As mentioned earlier, the distinction between restrictive RCs and non-restrictive RCs was based on research on spoken languages. Several studies point out that this distinction can be found in sign languages as well. Most of this research focuses on restrictive RCs so this paper will exclusively investigate this kind of construction as well. Liddell (1978 in Miller 1990) was one of the first researchers to argue for the existence of (restrictive) RCs in ASL . He stated that the construction of a main clause with subordinate clause is produced differently than two main clauses or a coordinated clause. This difference was expressed in the non-manual marking. A second argument is the difference in grammaticality in the use of the sign 'BUT'; in a coordinated clause the sign 'BUT' could be placed between the two clauses while this would be ungrammatical between a main clause and subordinate clause (Liddell 1977 in Miller 1990). Padden (1988) also argues that some lexical elements and non-manual markers in ASL cannot be placed between a main clause and subordinate clause while they can be placed between two main clauses. The use of restrictive RCs has now also been confirmed in other sign languages, for example in German Sign Language (DGS), Brazilian Sign Language (LSB) and Dutch Sign Language (NGT) (Pfau & Steinbach, 2005). For most of these investigated sign languages, it has been shown that they can use non-restrictive RCs as well, which means the distinction mentioned earlier can also be applied to sign languages (Pfau & Steinbach, 2005). I will now look further into a distinction that has been made within restrictive RCs; the distinction between internal-headed and external-headed RCs. 5. Internal-headed and external-headed RCs Internal-headed RCs are RCs with the modified head inside the RC itself whereas external-headed RCs are RCs with the head outside the RC. For both these constructions I will provide an example. A sign language in which external-headed RCs are found is DGS: German Sign Language (4) ^^ & bl-3a TOMORROW MAN (INDEX3a) [RPRO-M3a YESTERDAY CAR BUY] MARRY. 'The man who bought a car yesterday is getting married tomorrow.' (Pfau 2008:157)1 There are several indications to conclude that the RC in (4) is external-headed. First, there is the non-manual marking that indicates a subordinate clause. This marking consists of a raising of the eyebrows and of a body-lean (bl) in the direction of the location of the head; in this case location 3a. The marking has not started yet with the sign 'MAN', which is the head. This means that the head is external to the non-manual marking and thus external to the RC. Second, the sign 'RPRO-M' is used. This sign is a relative pronoun and introduces a RC. Third, the sign 'TOMORROW' is preceding the head and since the head is not included in the RC, it is clear that 'TOMORROW' is part of the main clause (Pfau 2008). A sign language that uses internal-headed RCs is ASL: American Sign Language (5) rc RECENTLY aDOG CHASE bCAT aCOME HOME. 'The dog that chased the cat came home.' (Sandler & Lillo-Martin 2001:5) In (5) the non-manual marking is indicated with 'rc', the marking for a RC (Sandler & Lillo-Martin 2001). This marking includes the head 'DOG', whereas the marking in DGS does not include the head (see (4)). For this reason it is clear that the head in (5) is inside the RC. Another indication is the non-manual marking on the sign 'RECENTLY'; this sign is marked thus it is included in the RC and since 'DOG' is preceded by 'RECENTLY', 'DOG' is automatically part of the RC as well. Taken together, the conclusion is that the RCs in (4) and (5) are clearly different. They show an external-headed and internal-headed RC respectively and thereby support the hypothesis that sign languages have these kind of constructions as well as spoken languages. 6. Conclusion Based on research on spoken languages, several typological patterns are found for constructions of subordination. Although Thompson (1977) claimed that subordination is not used in ASL, multiple studies have disqualified this claim and shown how some of the found patterns are also used in sign languages. This paper has specifically looked into RCs, where for spoken languages a distinction has been made between restrictive and non-restrictive RCs and further between internal-headed restrictive RCs and external-headed restrictive RCs. For both these distinctions, studies of DGS, LSB, NGT and ASL show that sign languages seem to follow the patterns of spoken languages (Pfau & Steinbach, 2005; Sandler & Lillo-Martin, 2001; Pfau, 2008; Liddell, 1977 in Miller, 1990; Padden, 1988). Therefore the fragile conclusion can be drawn that these patterns are modality-independent, since the only main difference between the construction of subordination in spoken and sign languages is the use of non-manual marking, which one would not expect in spoken languages but is to be expected in sign languages. What is now needed is more research on sign languages in general and more research on subordination in general, as the latter seems to strongly focus on restrictive RCs only. With more studies on these subjects more knowledge could be gained on sign languages, spoken languages and especially on modality-independent language universals and thus the nature of human language. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- References: Hengeveld, Kees. 2002. 'Complexe zinnen'. In: Baker, Anne e.a. (red.) Taal en Taalwetenschap. Malden etc.: Blackwell Publishing, 134-147 Keenan, Edward L. 1985. 'Relative clauses'. In: Shopen, Timothy (ed.) Language Typology and Syntactic Description. Volume II: Complex Constructions. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press, 141-170 Liddell, Scott K. 1980. American Sign Language Syntax. Den Haag: Mouton Publishers Miller, Dana. 1990. 'ASL Relative Clauses and Their Interaction with Null Categories.' In: Lucas, Ceil (ed.) Sign Language Research. Theoretical Issues. Washington (DC): Gallaudet University Press, 223-237 Pfau, Roland. 2008. 'Complexe zinnen'. In: Baker, Anne e.a. (red.) Gebarentaalwetenschap. Een inleiding. Deventer: Van Tricht, 145-166 Pfau, Roland & Markus Steinbach. 2005. 'Relative clauses in German Sign Language: Extraposition and reconstruction'. In: Bateman, L. & C. Ussery (eds.) Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS 35), Vol. 2. Amherst, MA: GLSA, 507-521 Sandler, Wendy & Diane Lillo-Martin. 2001. 'Natural Sign Languages'. In: Aronoff, Mark & Janie Rees-Miller (eds.) Handbook of Linguistics. Malden etc.: Blackwell Publishing, 533-562 Song, Jea J. 2001. Linguistic Typology. Morphology and Syntax. Longman Linguistics Library. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited. Thompson, Henry. 1977. 'The lack of subordination in American Sign Language'. In: Friedman, Lynn A. (ed.) On the Other Hand. New Perspectives on American Sign Language. New York: Academic Press, 181-241 1 The original example is written in Dutch but I have tried to stay as close to the original meaning as possible. The symbol ^^ stands for raised eyebrows. Pfau (2008) uses a different symbol in his example but with the same intention. The subscripts are clarifying the referents: 'INDEX' en de 'RPRO-M' refer to the same referent, in this case 'MAN'.