When more specific definitions are given, however, they typically exclude words from their intended category while continuing to include words from other categories. Moreover, the definitions of all three pragmatic functions are often so vague and general that they apply with equal ease to words of all three major lexical categories. Thus, the definitions of predication and modification that feature in such accounts are typically so similar they render attempts to distinguish verbs and adjectives in terms of them vacuous. The first set of problems arise from the definitions of the pragmatic functions that are employed in these accounts. The current article argues that such accounts are prone to two distinct sets of problems.
Typically, such pragmatic accounts argue that nouns distinguish themselves by referring, verbs distinguish themselves by predicating and adjectives distinguish themselves by modifying. Much recent work has argued that the major lexical categories can be distinguished in terms of pragmatic functions (e.g., Baker 2003 Bhat 1994 Croft 2001 Hengeveld 1992).
Data for the analysis comes from authentic written materials and elicited constructions. As part of syntax, the paper discusses agreement properties in relative clause constructions and reports that a clausal relative takes the agreement of the head of the relative clause, but this is not always the case since anti-agreement cases are reported. The paper further asserts that the augment is not a relative clause marker as it is stated in Morris and Kirwan (1972) and Taylor (1985) but expresses a restrictive relative clause when present.
The paper offers an alternative position to the status of the object relative clause marker, proposing that it is not a pronoun equivalent to the English Wh-relative pronoun, and that it is not a demonstrative per se, but rather an agreement-bearing complementizer that heads a CP. This paper describes the properties and use of the object relative marker as it has previously been regarded as a demonstrative or a pronoun. The subject clausal relative is realized within the subject nominal prefix by differential tone marking while the object clausal relative is an obligatory agreement-bearing complementizer which stands alone in agreement with the object antecedent. The second category, namely clausal relatives, is subcategorized into subject and object clausal relatives. The nominal relative clause category comprises elements which have been previously regarded as adjectives (Morris and Kirwan 1972 Taylor 1985) which include some color terms among other lexical items. Relative clauses in this paper are categorized into nominal and clausal relatives on the basis of their exhibited morphosyntactic properties. This paper discusses the morphosyntactic properties of relative clause constructions in the Runyankore-Rukiga language cluster (Bantu, JE13/14, Uganda).
0 kommentar(er)
