Accessibility hierarchy

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Akzessibilitätshierarchie (engl .: Accessibility Hierarchy , also accessibility hierarchy or Keenan Comrie hierarchy ) is a linguistic hierarchy which the syntactic behavior of relative clauses in simple main sets on individual languages describes. It was proposed in 1977 by Edward L. Keenan and Bernard Comrie . According to this hierarchy, whether certain noun phrases (NPn) can be used to qualify depends on the status of other items.

The definition of relative clause applied here is strongly semantically oriented. This is especially necessary to allow a comparison between as many languages ​​as possible, because every definition based on syntactic criteria would prefer the structures of individual languages. As a relative clause, Keenan and Comrie define any construction in which a more general set - the domain  - is specified and then restricted .

While there are some counterexamples and it has been suggested that the hierarchy be refined, it is generally accepted as valid.

The levels of the accessibility hierarchy

According to Keenan and Comrie, the accessibility hierarchy is as follows (" > " means "more accessible for relativization than", the names of Keenan and Comrie are in brackets): 

Subjekt (SU) > Direktes Objekt (DO) > Indirektes Objekt (IO) > Oblique NP (OBL) > Genitiv-/Possessor-NP (GEN) > Vergleichsobjekt (OCOMP)

The various positions in the hierarchy represent possible distinctions that a language can make; this does not mean that a language must necessarily differentiate between all these positions in their syntax. Hindi treats objects of comparison, for example, in the same way as objects of adpositions ; So Keenan and Comrie would classify them at OBL and simply leave the OCOMP position blank. Kinyarwanda distinguishes z. B. DO and IO not.

From the accessibility hierarchy it follows that every language that has relative clauses can at least relativize the subject of a sentence, that every strategy of relative clause formation comprises a continuous segment of the hierarchy (i.e. no position in the hierarchy may be skipped) and that strategies that include a Allow relativization over a position in the hierarchy, also allow relativization over all higher-level positions. The hierarchy therefore does not allow strategies that e.g. B. can relativize through the subject and the indirect object, but not through the direct object.

Different strategies of relative clause formation allow a relativization over different positions. There can be several strategies within a language.

Examples of strategies

German

In German , each noun phrase - with the exception of the object of comparison - can be relativized with both a participle and a relative pronoun .

  • Participle: The working office man like the working also in the office woman.
  • Construction with relative pronouns: In some cities, children who do not go to school, who do not punish truancy , play all day in playgrounds, which are often on the outskirts .

English

In English , subjects and direct objects can be relativized with the relative pronoun who ; In order to relativize about other positions in the hierarchy, however, a preposition must be added or the form whose must be used.

Toba Batak

In Toba Batak (a Malayo-Polynesian language ), on the other hand, only a relativization via subjects is possible; it is not possible to relativize via direct objects (the asterisk indicates ungrammaticality ). In order to relativize these NPs anyway, the sentence must first be passivated so that the direct object becomes the subject of a passive sentence.

Relativization via a subject in Toba Batak:

boruboru n / A manussi abit i
woman Relative markers to wash dress items
"The woman who washes the clothes"

Relativization via a direct object is not possible in the Toba Batak:

* abit n / A manussi boruboru i
dress Relative markers to wash woman items
meant: "the clothes that the woman washes"

In order to relativize about an object, the sentence must first be converted to passive so that the object becomes the subject of the passive sentence and can then be relativized:

abit n / A ninussi ni boruboru i
dress Relative markers wash (passive, simple past ) by woman items
"The clothes that were washed by the woman"

The example sentences show that in Toba Batak it is only possible to relativize using the highest element of the accessibility hierarchy if only one relative marker is used. This strategy covers the minimal part of the hierarchy. In order to relativize via elements beyond direct objects (i.e. from IO), another relativization strategy - namely relative markers na + case marking - is used in the language. There is now a gap in this language: Subjects can be relativized by using the relative marker and elements from an indirect object can be relativized by using the relative marker and a case marker. However, direct objects cannot be relativized; they must first be made subjects through passivation. However, this is not a contradiction to the accessibility hierarchy, as it only makes statements about the properties of individual relativization strategies.

Further examples

Keenan and Comrie give examples of relativization strategies across all segments of their hierarchy:

covered area of ​​the hierarchy Examples
only subject Javanese , Minangkabau
Subject-direct object Welsh , Finnish , Malay
Subject-indirect object Basque , Tamil
Subject-oblique NP Korean
Subject-genitive French
Subject comparison object Urhobo , possibly English

literature

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ a b c d e E. L. Keenan, B. Comrie: Noun Phrase Accessibility and Universal Grammar . (PDF; 3.7 MB) In: Linguistic Inquiry , 8 (1), 1977, pp. 63-99.
  2. ^ DN Maxwell: Strategies of Relativization and NP Accessibility . In: Language , 55 (2), 1979, pp. 352-371.
  3. ↑ a b c I. Nikolaeva: Relative Clauses . In: K. Brown (Ed.): Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics , Volume 10. 2nd edition. Elsevier, Amsterdam / Heidelberg 2006, pp. 501–508.