An unexpected split within Nepali simple correlatives

This study deals with a previously unnoticed syntactic distinction within the simple correlative
construction in Nepali (1). Recent analyses of correlatives in Indo-Aryan languages (Bhatt 2003,
Srivastav 1991, Dayal 1995, 1996) have recognized two different underlying positions for
relative clauses, in order to accommodate both embedded and multiple relatives (2, 3). While
there is no consensus on just how the simple correlatives relate to these two structures, they are
generally assumed to be equivalent in meaning. Previously unreported Nepali data suggest that
two semantic types of relativization are associated with the possible syntactic positions for the
correlative structure in Nepali.

This paper argues that, in opposition to the simple restrictive relatives, Nepali free relatives share
semantics and underlying syntax with multiple correlatives. In support of this proposal, attention
is brought to correlative constructions such as (4), which is ambiguous between free and
restrictive interpretations of the relative clause. This ambiguity is straightforwardly explained by
the existence of two distinct syntactic structures, as required independently for multiple and
restrictive relative clauses in correlative constructions.

The restrictive relative clause in single-head correlatives usually appears sentence-initially, but
may also appear embedded with identical interpretation, when the initial position is unavailable
due to movement constraints (6). This fact appears to support the analysis of correlatives as
originating adjoined to the matrix-clause DP. However, the existence of multiple-head
correlatives is strong evidence against a uniform DP-adjunction analysis of correlatives (7). The
semantic and structural consequences of more than one binding relationship between clauses
mean that multiple relative clauses cannot originate in an embedded position. Free relatives,
expressed exclusively with correlative constructions in Nepali (5), appear sentence-initially only.

Simple restrictive correlatives in Nepali are analyzed along the lines of previous work on
correlatives (Bhatt 2003, Mahajan 2000), as originating exclusively in an embedded (DPadjoined)
position and moving to sentence initial position (adjoined to IP). However, while Hindi
may derive all simple correlatives through optional movement, Nepali resists this analysis
because the two positions do not share all interpretations. Free correlatives are analyzed as
originating in sentence-initial position, adjoined to IP, exactly as multiple correlatives (Srivastav
1991, Dayal 1995).

A uniform syntactic analysis of correlatives cannot account for the formal distinction between
restrictive relatives and free relatives in Nepali. Under the split analysis proposed here, Nepali
correlative constructions are divided into two types and receive different interpretations
according to the underlying positions of relative clauses.

Examples (Nepali unless otherwise marked):
1) [Jun keTilai Ramle dekhyo], ma tyo keTilai cinchu
REL girl-DAT Ram-ERG see-PST 1SG.NOM DEM girl-DAT know-1SG.PR
‘I know the girl who Ram saw’

2) Hindi: Vo laRkii [ jo khaRii hai] lambii hai
DEM girl [REL standing is] tall is
‘The girl who is standing is tall’

3) Hindi: [Jis laRkii-ne jis laRke-ko dekhaa] usne usko passand kiyaa
REL girl-ERG REL boy-ACC saw DEM-ERG DEM-ACC liked
‘Which girl saw which boy, she liked him’

4) [Jun manche-lai bhok lag-cha] uslai khana din-chu
REL man-DAT hunger feel-3SGPR 3SG-DAT food give-1SGPR
a. Restrictive: ‘I will give food to the man who is hungry’
b. Free: ‘I will give food to any man who is hungry’

5) [Jaslai bhok lag-cha] usle khan-cha
REL-DAT hunger feel-3SGPR 3SG-ERG eat-3SGPR
‘Whoever is hungry will eat’

6) [Jun kukur-le hamilai lakhetiyo, tyaslai] ra [Jun keTa bhagyo, uslai] Ram-le dekhjo
REL dog-ERG 1P-DAT chased DEM-DAT & REL boy-DAT ran away, 3S-DAT Ram-ERG saw
‘Ram saw the dog that chased us and the boy who ran away’

7) [Jasle jun kitab paDcha] usle tyasko barema nibanda lekhcha
REL-ERG REL book reads 3S-ERG DEM-GEN about essay writes
‘Whoever reads whatever book, he writes about that’

References

Bhatt, Rajesh. 2003. Locality in Correlatives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 210. 485-
541.

Dayal, Veneeta. 1995. Quantification in Correlatives. Quantification in Natural Language, ed.
by E. Bach, E. Jelinek, A. Kratzer and B. Partee. pp. 179-205. Kluwer: Dordrecht.

Dayal, Veneeta. 1996. Locality in Wh-Quantification: Questions and Relative Clauses in Hindi.
Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, 2. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Mahajan, Anoop. 2000. Relative Asymmetries and Hindi Correlatives. The Syntax of Relative
Clauses, ed. by A. Alexiadou, A. Meinunger, C. Wilder, and P. Law. 201-229.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Srivastav, Veneeta. 1991. The Syntax and Semantics of Correlatives. Natural Language and
Linguistic Theory 9. 637-686.