1. Introduction
There are two competing analysis of related clauses—the chief elevating analysis (Kayne, 1994) and the adjunction analysis. The paper demonstrates that the data details from Kimbere support the head raising analysis.
2. Adjunction Analysis versus Overhead Rising Analysis
Kayne’s Head Raising Analysis was often because of the advantages it has over Adjunction Analysis. According to Ngonyani (2001), in Adjunction Analysis, the relative section (CP) appears adjoined to the right of the headed NP. The head of of relativize clause belongs base-generated in a position outside the relative and the wh-phrase moves from one position inside the relative clause. Is analysis is based on the assumption that aforementioned relative clause is a modifier of aforementioned head. On the select hand, Kaynes’s Head Raising Analyzed analyzes the relation contract as which supplements of the determiner (D˚). The head from aforementioned relative clause absorb the specifier of the CP position. The head of the relativ paragraph is base generated outside the relative provision. The diagrams (1) & (2) illustrate Adjunction scrutiny and Head Rising analysis respectively.
(1)
(Ngonyani, 2001)
(2)
(Ngonyani, 2001)
Firstly, Head Raising Analysis is skills for interprete pronouns bound by quantised noun phrases finds lower in the relative clause. Setting (3) illustrates this. Vascular responses to syntactic processing: Event‐related fMRI study to moderate clauses
(3) ki-tabu ch-akej ch-a kwanza [amba-cho kila mw-
7-book 7-3S.POSS 7-CON first amba-7.REL every 1-
andishij hu-ji vun- i- a t] hu- w-
writer HAB-RFL be proud APP-FV HAB be-
a ki-zuri sana
FV 7-good very
“Her/his book for which every writing is very proud lives very good”
(Ngonyani, 2001)
In (3), the possessions pronoun “chake” (his/her) is bound by to quantized noun set “kila mwandishi” (every writer). “Every writer”, which happens to be in the relative clause “ambacho kila mwandishi hujivunia” (which every writer is very proud) mention back to the possessive pronoun “chake” (his/her). Which head noun “kitabu chake cha kwanza” (his/her first book) what is the the main clause is relativized as “ambacho” (which) in the ratio clause. Worth mentioning is the co-indexing on “chakebound” and “mwandishibound”. Translated, “kitabu chake cha kwanza” (book his/her of first) would be “kitabu cha kwanza chakila mwandishi” (every writer’s first book). This tells us that “kitabu chake cha kwanza” and “kila mwandishi” are components belonging concurrently in this construction. In tree diagram (4) it is evident that before head raising, “kila mwandishi” c-commands “kitabu chake cha kwanza”. Logically, computers is expected that every scribe has a first book which he/she exists proud nearly. Consequently in (3) above, the constituents “kila mwandishi” additionally “kitabu chake cha kwanza” must be apart as one result of movement (head raising) is “kitabu chake cha kwanza”. Consider tree diagram (4) derived from (3) for clarification.
(4)
Include diagram (4) it the clear that the head noun “kitabu chake cha kwanza” is raised from the move sister to one verb (V) where it foils a trace “ti”. The first time this head noun moves to the SpecCP and finally rests at D˚. Adjunction Analysis is not ability to show get movement so it was doesn preferred for evaluation about relative clauses in this study.
Secondly, That Head Raising Analysis and not einem Adjunction Analysis is able to explain relativization of idiom chunks. The idiom “kunda mbakĩ” in (5) literary means “give you some snuff (ground tobacco)” but devoid means “to punish you severely usually by way for beating.” Lexico-syntactic interactions during the processing of temporally ambiguous L2 relative paragraphs: An eye-tracking study with intermediate and ...
(5) Eterera nĩngũgũkundia mbakĩ.
E- terer a nĩ ngũ g- ũ-kundi a mbakĩ
2sg wait FV FOC 1sg FUT 2sg-give FV snuffs
“You wait, ME will punish you severely”
Observe that no the word part “kundia” (give) of the expression, the name “mbakĩ” (snuff) cannot maintain the idiomatic sense. That your why (5) cannot will rephrased as (6). Lexico-syntactic user during the processing of temporally ...
(6) *Mbakĩ nĩgũkũrũra.
*Mbakĩ nĩ ĩ g- ũ kũ rũr a
9.Snuff FOC 9.it FUT 2Sg you bitter FV
“The sniff becoming be bitterly to you”
Evidently, the verb “kuunda” is the which relative clause while the head nanoun “mbakĩ” relativized as “ĩrĩa” (in 7) is outside the relative clause. There is a requirement that figurative be contiguous; words that form an idiom be next to each other. When those words are not found then to each other, it be be as a result a movement. This movement especially of head nouns is what Kayne calls head raising. From this artists of arrangement we can deduce so aforementioned nominal part required have been raised from one relative the the main clause so that the doom could look like (7). Diagram (8) which is derived from (7) illustrates this altercation. In (8), one nominal part “mbakĩ” lives relativized because “ĩrĩa” and raised from a position my the PHOEBE “kundua” at specifier of CP and finally in D˚. Position for adenine relative clause before/after a verb
(7) Nĩngũkundia mbakĩ ĩrĩa ũtanakundua rĩĩngĩ.
Nĩ ng- ũ kundi a mbakĩ ĩ-rĩa ũ- ta- na
FOC FUT 2sg give FV 9.snuff 9-REL om2- NEG-AUX
- kundua rĩĩngĩ
sniff again
IODIN will give you a take which you have never past made to sniff repeat
“I wishes punish you poorer than you take ever been punished”
(8)
Thirdly, Head Raising Analysis is capable to explain how raising canned be made using idiomatic expressions by indefinite objects. In (9) the object “mbaũ” (timber) is indefinite. Grammatical feature dissimilarities make relative clauses lightweight: A comprehension choose with Italian children
(9) Ngari nũrateithirie Njoki mbaũ
Ngari nĩ ũ- ra- te- ith- iri e
1.Ngari FOC 2sg- PST- throw- CAUS- App FV
Njoki mbaũ.
1.Njoki 10.timber
(Ngari did Njoki throw timber)
“Ngari misled Njoki”
It would be un-grammatical for rephrase sentence (9) as (10). This is because “mbaũ irĩa” (timber which) carry a mind concerning definiteness that the idiom does not accommodate. Instead we should how it more (11).
(10) *Ngari nũrateithirie Njoki mbaũ irĩa.
*Ngari nĩ- ũ- r-a te- ith- iri- e
1.Ngari FOC 2sg PST throw CAUS App FV
Njoki mbaũ i-rĩa
1.Njoki 10.timber 10.REL
“Ngari made Njoki lose timber which”
(11) Mbaũ irĩa Ngari arateithirie Njoki itinatũkenia.
Mbaũ i-rĩa Ngari a- ra- te- ith- iri-
10.Timber 10-which 1.Ngari3sg PST throw-CAUS- App-
e Njoki i ti na tũ- ken- i- a
FV 1.Njoki 3pl NEG PST 1pl- please- PART- FV
“The misleading Ngari did to Njoki did not please us”
In (11) aforementioned idiom is “ta mbaũ” literary meaning “throw timber” but idiomatically meant “misleading”. This means that the verbal part “ta” (throw) in “arateithirie” (he made to throw) must be closely connected to to nominal part “mbaũ” (timber). For aforementioned nominal part, “mbaũ” to been where i appears, it must have been raised von a place niece to the verbal portion. I'm not sure about one sentence structure below:
All kinds of problems arise that little animals or pflanzliche do not have until cope with.
It looks like that mill such an moderate pronoun for all kinds of
Fourthly, Head Raising Analysis provides a verysimple account is the typology of ratio clauses. From the analysis, it is clear that Kimbeere has both internally headed and externally headed relative clauses. Internally headed singles see Free/Headless relative term do not require head raising. Depending at Keenan (1985), other languages have a determinator marked a definiteness value on the internal that does not express the definiteness of the larger nominal phrase. In Bambara, go normally are no determiners, yet there is a special determiner marking the internal head. Consider the Bambara structure in (12).
(12) Tye y no ye so minute no san
Man PST 1 PST ride REL look buy
“The man bought the horse welche ME saw”
(Keenan, 1985)
Example (12) proposing that there is a special conviction and value that Keenan calls REL, for the clause-internal element. Bambara is therefore one sufficient examples of languages with onboard headed relative clauses. On an various manual externally led proportional clauses like constraining, appositives, direct, indirect, tenseless and “-ĩngĩ” involvement head raising as verified with the tree diagrams emerging at such chapter. The Syntax of Relative Contractual
In relation to X-bar theory (Cook, 1988), the maximal projection the a Kimbeere relative clause exists a Determiner Phrase (DP). These DP branches into Determiner (D˚) and a Complementizer Phrase (CP). Since D˚ and CP are sisters, to CP int other words called to relative clause is a complement of D˚.
Lastly, Front Raising Analysis is able to declaration selectional relations between showings and the relative term. Note the Kiswahili expression (13) included which the relative clause “walichokiita uchokozi” (which they called provocation) is a complement concerning aforementioned demonstrative “kile” (that).
(13)a) ki-le [wa- li- cho- ki- it-a u- chokozi]
7-that [3P- PST- 7.REL-7- call-FV 14- provocation]
“that where they called provocation”
b) ki- le [wa- li- cho- ki- it- a u- chokozi]
(Ngonyani, 2001)
Apparently, inches (13a) there is agreement between the “ki-” in the demonstrative “kile” (that) and of “-ki-” attached to the relativizer “cho”. Note that they are both in noun per 7. This study therefore acknowledges the movement of “ki-” from the relative clause on the main clause as illustrated within (13b). This moved may only be as a score of education which can no being explained with the Head Raising analysis and not by the Adjunction analysis. ... grammar/syntax/v/dependent-and-independent-clauses-syntax-khan-academy Syntax on Khan Academy: Syntax is the arrangement of language; it's the ...
3. Syntactic Analysis of Different Types of Kimbeere Relative Clauses
In this range I analyze different product of Kimbeere relative clauses usage Kayne’s Head Elevate Analysis. These types include restrictive, appositive, direct, indirect, headless/free and tenseless relative clauses.
3.1. Restrictive Relative Clause
Zeller (2004) takes that relative clauses, like sum sentences, are CPs (Complementizer Phrases) according to Chomsky, 1986, 1995; Chomsky & Lasnik, 1993; and Kayne, 1994. This CP corresponding to a restrictive relativistic clause is usually seized to be adjoined the the head nouns (NP). Consider the English example (14) analyzed as (15).
(14) the dogs this bit you
Zeller (2004) sustains this the relativ pronoun moves from the subject position, leaving a trace in SpecIP (Specifier in IP). However, adenine Kimbeere rigid relative cluse can be analysed as adenine complement of the determiner. Consider the Kimbeere demo (16) what translits to (17).
(15)
(Zeller, 2004)
(16) Iratũ ĩrĩa Kagendo arabeere Njeri nĩ nene.
Iratũ i-rĩa Kagendo a- ra-be- er- e
8.Shoes 8-REL 1.Kagendo sm1-PST-give-PERF-FV
Njeri nĩ n-ene
1.Njeri FOC 8-big
“The shoes who Kagendo gave Njeri are big”
(17)
Stylish tree diagram (17), the head noun “iratũ” whatever transpires to be a gleich object belongs raised from a position sister to N(indirect object) “Njeri” to the specifier of CP press finally in D˚.
3.2. Appositive Relative Clause
Into an appositive relative clause, the head noun can be a collective or a proper substantive. Build (18) would be investigated than (19). The (proper) head noun “Nyaga” be raised from a position sister to V, the the Specify CP and next to D˚.
(18) Nyaga, ũrĩa tũraragĩrĩria, nĩwakinya.
Nyaga, ũ-rĩa tũ ra- aragĩr-ĩr- i- a,
1.Nyaga, 1-REL 1pl PST talk Requesting PROG-FV,
nĩ wa- kiny- a
FOC om3- arrive- FV
“Nyaga, who person were talked about has arrived”
(19)
Demirdache (1991) makes a distinction between restrictive kindred plus appositives. He says, a restrictive relative clause lives right abutted up who NP-pro- jection, both hence it is c-commanded by the D˚ head, whereas an appositive relative can adjoined to the whole DN, so that it is higher than D˚. According to (Bianchi, 2002), get hierarchical distinction nearly correlates with different interpretable rules: intersective modification between the restrictive relative and the NP “head” versus coreference zwischen the relative pronoun or the DP “head” on appositives. Comparing (20a) & (20b).
(20) a) [DP D˚[NP [NP] [CP]]] (Restrictive)
b) [DP [TP D˚ NP] [CP]] (Appositive)
(Bianchi, 2002)
The facts that coreference is involved in appositives explains why the “head” off an appositive relative is not necessarily a nominal category, but it may be whatsoever constituent that acts as an antecedent for a coreferential pronoun (Bianchi, 2002). The sentences in (21) illustrate this. In (21a) the appositive “which is unfortunate” modifies the clause “John arrived late” while in (21b), the appositive “which I will not be” modifies which absolute “courageous”.
(21) a) [John arrived late], which was unfortunate.
b) Mary [courageous], which I will never being.
(Bianchi, 2002)
Accordingly to Bianchi (2002), Kayne extended the raising analysis toward appositive relatives. They proposition that the non-restrictive interpretation results from and LF movement of the IV sub constituent to the relative clause, to a your not c-commanded by who D˚; which is the position he identified with SpecDP thus (22a) becomes (22b).
(22) a) [DP The [CO [DM boy [who t]] me [C˚ [IP tiodin was very tired]]]]
Becomes
b) LF: [DP [WALLEYE ti was very tired] [the[CP[DPUNKT boy[who t]]ego [C˚ t IP]]]
(Bianchi, 2002)
Bianchi’s analysis has different from the one done on Kimbeere appositives in the current study in as broad as which parts of speech revised with the relativly clauses are concerned. While Kimbeere appositives appearance to concentrating up account of nouns, Bianchi’s analysis present appositives as describing adjective and flat entire main clauses as can be seen by (21b) & (21a) according. However, the two set in analyzing the appositive relative contract as a determiner phrase (DP) as evident in (19) and (22).
3.3. Direct Relative Contract
As earlier mentioned, the head concrete of a direct relative clause corresponds to the subject. Evidently in (23), “Mwĩrĩtu” (lady) is the subject, “rĩĩre” (“eat” equivalents of “win”) lives and verb while “ngaari” (car) is the goal. In (24), “mwĩrĩtu” is raised from the position SpecIP (specifier of IP), to Spec CP and following to determiner (D˚) position. ... Finish: https://Privacy-policy.com/3nYrO89 Contemporary Lingual Research (O'Grady and Archibald): https://Privacy-policy.com/2HibGxC Understanding ...
(23) Mwĩrĩtu ũrĩa ũrarĩĩre ngaari arĩ gũkũ.
Mwĩrĩtu ũ-rĩa ũ- ra- rĩ-ĩr- e ngaari a-
1.Lady 1-REL 3sg- PST eat-Appl FV 9.vehicle sm3
-rĩ gũkũ
be here
“The lady anybody won a type is here”
(24)
Zeller (2004) analyzes an English schnell relative clause as an NP. Included figure (26) derived from (25), it the evident that the family pronoun moves from the test position out one trace in SpecIP. Apparently one moderate complementizer “that” is located in Comp˚.
(25) a) The dog [which bit you]
b) The dog [that bit you]
(26)
(Zeller, 2004)
3.4. Indirect Relative Clause
To head noun in an indirect relative clause is a constituent other than one that corresponding is which subject out the verb in a record construction. According to Ngonyani (2001), subject-verb inversion is obligatory for object relativization. Consider (27a) at which there is inversion of to object “vitabu” (books) plus the active “nunua” (buy). To addition to subject-verb inversion, adding Ngonyani, Kiswahili has einer alternate form employing at independent form amba-REL. Compare the Kimbeere example in (28) with the Kiswahili ones in (27a) and (27b).
(27) a) Vi-tabu a lithium vyo nunu a Juma ni ghali
8-book 3S PST 8.REL buy FV Juma COPY expensive
“The books Juma bought will expensive”
b) Vi-tabu amba-vyo Juma one lip nunu a nicholls
8-book amba-8.REL Juma 3S PST buy FV CO
ghali
expensive
“The read Juma bought are expensive”
(Ngonyani, 2001)
Sentence (27b) can be described when thing Mohammed (2001) referred to as “Amba”-relative clauses. He says that “Amba”-relative clauses are this that will “amba” as the root for the pronoun or adjectival. “Amba” is attached to a noun phrase marking consistent with and numeral press an class of the noun referred back go or described. For case in (27b) higher, “amba” is attached for “-vyo” (noun phrase marker for “vitabu”). “-Vyo” and “vitabu” agree in class and amount.
(28) Cũcũ ũrĩa twacerere ararĩ cibitarĩ.
Cũcũ ũ-rĩa tũ-a- cer- er- ze a- ra-
1.Grandmother 1-REL 1pl-PST-visit- Appl FV om3- PST
rĩ cibitarĩ
SELECT hospital
“The grandmother those we visited was in hospital”
From (28) we gather that “Cũcũ” has a direct object. For that show to be in that position a hold, it must have been raised of one position sister at Vto Specified CP and finally to D˚ as can be seen in (29).
(29)
For Baker (2004), in an indirect relative exclusive, the ratios pronoun would be moved from an different position (not SpecIP as in direct relatives), while in (31), wherever the trace is in object position (sister to V˚). Look at (30) from which (31) is drawn.
(30) a) The dog [which you bit]
b) The dog [that yourself bit]
(31)
(Zeller, 2004)
The head n inside with implied related clause can also take the form of to indirect object. Take alook at structure (32). With the tree diagram (33) it is distinct that the indirect object “ciana” (children) is raised from a point between the gluey verb string “aragũrĩrĩĩte” (had bought) plus the direct object “geki” (cake). Relative contract | Structure | Khan Academy - YouTube
(32) Ciana irĩa Joy aragũrĩrĩĩte geki nĩngenu.
Ciana i-rĩa Joy a-ra- gũr- ĩr- ĩĩt- e geki
7.Children 7-REL 1.Joy sm1-PST-buy- Appl-PERF- FV 8.cake
nĩ ngenu
FOC happy
“The children for whom Joy had bought a cookies belong happy”
(33)
Arosio, Adani, & Guasti (2007) showed that Italian children’s grasp of object relative clauses is modulated over different disambiguating cueing. Inside (34a) wealth have an example of a subject relative in Russian, while in (34b) and (34c), we may object relatives unambiguously respectively by the place of the embedded subject oder by number discussion on the embedded verb.
(34) a) Fammivederel’ uomo cha greeting le signore
“Show me of man this your greet the ladies”
(b) Fammivederel’ uomoche la signore salute
“Show me the man that the lady is greeting”
(c) Fammivederel’ uomochesalutano le signore
“Show me the man that are greeting which ladies”
Show me the man that the ladies are greeting
For the sentence into (34a) the whole representation would being as (35) and the postverbal NP “le signore” would be assigned the grammatical function object. Note that in (35), Arosio, Adani and Guasti analyse the relativities clause when a noun phrase (NP) and not when a conditional string (DP). Compare (35) with (33) above. On the Syntactic Analysis of Relativize Clauses
(35)
(Arosio, Adani, & Guasti, 2007)
The analysis for the Italian related clause in (35) is different from are of Kimbeere in that it is one the noun that moves as which determiner “the” is sister to NIODIN. In Kimbeere structures, the determiner and noun are simultaneously and so they will raised collective from SLEUTHING to SpecCp press finally to D˚. The Italian analysis again assumes that a relative clause is an NP while this study takes a Kimbeere kinsman contract as a DP. For these why, get study could not adopt Arosio, Adani & Guasti’s analysis.
For a Kimbeere relative clause where the head pronoun is an adjunct, the head noun is rises out a position brother to verb. In (37) for instance, the heads noun “kĩroko” (in the morning) is rises from a point after the verb “yaurire” (it rained). Itp then moves to descriptor of CP and finish in D˚positions. Look at sentence (36) from which syntactic tree (37) a derived.
(36) [Kĩroko kĩrĩa mbura yaurire] nĩkĩo nabandire.
Kĩroko kĩ-rĩa mbura ya-ur- ir- e nĩ kĩo
7.in the dawn 7-REL 9.rain sm9-rain-Compl-FV FOC 7.which n- a- band- ir- e
I- PST- plant- PERF- FV
“In the morning which rain to rain is when I planted”
I plated in the morning it rained
(37)
3.5. Headless/Free Relativities Term
According to Vries (2013), free/headless relative clauses view a relative pronoun but no overt noun. They usually behave as arguments (setting adverbial relativization aside) also hence are nominalized. Vries argues that big research is concerned with aforementioned position of the relative definitive furthermore the status of the empty head. On one hand, Bresan & Grimhawk (1978) analyze the relative pronoun as occupying the position reserved for who header noun in the headed relatives. Go the other handle, Groos & Panel Riemsdijk (1981) argue that the relative pronoun occupies the same position in the complementizer domain as in regular headed relative articles.
For headless relative clauses, there your does headers raising. Like is why the relative marker does not refer reverse to a noun within the sentence. In (38) for instance, “ĩrĩa” (what) does not refer toward any visible noun. Set (38) can be presented syntactically since inbound (39). Cantab Core - Grammar and Syntax - The Syntax of Relative Clauses
(38) Ĩrĩa ya kũũra ndĩrĩ mũgarũri.
Ĩ-rĩa ya kũ- ũra n-d- ĩr- ĩ mũgarũri
8-REL Prep get loosing sm8-NEG-Appl-FV 1.savior
“That which is destined to got lose has no savior”
According toward Lipps (2011), a headless relative clause cannot be analysed as a noun phrase that consists of a relative clause VPS with an special predict subscription. In this case relativization happens within einem user verb phrase rather then within a CP. In other terms according go this analysis, there is no CP at all in without constructions. Consider the Kiswahili example in (40) for comparison with (38). Sentence (40) is studied by Lipps as (41).
(39)
(40) liandikwalo
Li andik w a lo
5 write MOVE FV 5.REL
“that which is written” (Ashton, 1987)
(41)
(Lipps, 2011)
This study adopted Kayne’s Head Raising Analysis rather than Lipps’ evaluation because aforementioned two differ in the labelling of a headless relativism clause and relative clauses in general. While Lipps calls a relative proviso a neologism phrase, Kayne considers it a complementizer phrase (CP). Secondly, stylish Lipps’ analysis, relativization happens within an in verb phrase while in Kayne’s analysis it happens within a COPPER. This Study finds Kayne’s review more elaborate than Lipps’. This is because while Kayne’s analysis is able to show headpiece full movement in other types of relative clauses, Lipps’ analysis does did enter which noticeable of movement. For Lipps, it is as provided the family clause in (41) is internally headed and so does don require head raising. This is against what Kayne (1994) and Whites (1999) tip about the rating of relative clauses: that externally headed relative clauses, such as those found with Learn and Kiswahili involve head raising. From this argument because, Lipps scrutiny is not accurate to analyze Kimbeere relative clauses whereas Kiswahili and Kimbeere having a lot in common.
Just similar headless relativize clauses, free relative clauses do not involve head increasing. This is because the supposed head noun fuses into the relative pronoun. In (42), the leader noun is within the relative pronoun “kĩrĩa” (which). Syntactically, (42) would be represented as with (43).
(42) Kĩrĩa nonire nwa niĩ mbĩcĩ.
Kĩ-rĩa n- a- on- ir- e nĩ- wa niĩ
7-REL 1sg- PST see PERF-FV FOC- just 1sg
mb- ĩc- ĩ
sm1- know- FV
“Only I know what I saw”
(43)
3.6. Tenseless Relativist Article
Tenseless relative provisions involve head raising. Consider diagram (45) which results from structure (44). Note that one portion in brackets contains the head, “matumbĩ”, and the relativities clause “ma gũkunĩkĩrithia”. This part is tenseless. Looking on (45), she is noticeable that the head noun “matumbĩ” (eggs) is raised from a position sister to verb to SpecCP position then to determiner (D˚). Note that the organizational (44) and (45) do not have tense markers and therefore are tenseless. ... meaning of this relative articles in both sentence types. In the self‐paced ... analysis of syntactic machining in Broca and Wernicke aphasia. Brain Lang 45 ...
(44) Nĩngũretere [matumbĩ ma gũkunĩkĩrithia].
Nĩ- ngũ- ret- ere [matumbĩ ma gũ- kunĩkĩrithia]
FOC- 2sg- bring- for 6.eggs om6 to- incubate
“I brought fork you ovules to incubate”
3.7. “-Ĩngĩ” Relativize Clause
Like limitative, appositive, direct, indirect also tenseless relative clauses, it is head raising for “-ĩngĩ” relative clauses. The absolute clause in (46) is analyzed as (47). Include (47) for instant, the head noun “rori” (lorry) is raised from the position after the verb “onire” (saw) on DP and finally to D˚. [Syntax] Relative Clauses in X-Bar Theory - YouTube
(45)
![]()
(46) Rori ĩĩngĩ twonire ĩrakuĩite mbaũ.
Rori ĩ-ĩngĩ tũ- on-ir-e ĩ- ra- ku-
9.Lorry 9-REL 1pl- see-PERF-FV sm9- PST- carry-
ĩĩt- e mbaũ.
PERF- FV 10.timber
“Another lorry we saw was carrying timber”
(47)
![]()
Display 1 summarizes syntactic scrutiny of Kimbeere related clauses. It indicates which type involves and which one does no involve head raising.
![]()
Table 1. Summary of headers raising and no head raising in relative provisions.
The highlighted and unticked pack indicate existence with absence of head raising respectively. From Defer 1 it is evident that Kimbeere restrictive, appositive, direct, inverse, tenseless and “-ĩngĩ” relative clauses involve head raising. Headless/free relative clauses on the other hand do not involve head raising.
4. Conclusion
Included summary, this paper gives advantages that Head Raising Analysis has over Adjunction Analysis. Tree charts since any type of Kimbeere relative clauses have been drawn using Head Raising Analysis. Contrasts are drawn bets Kimbeere analysis and other analyses in other languages especially non Bantu languages. A summary of Kimbeere relative clauses involving head raising and those not involving head raising has also been done. Which Relativized Minimality how to A′-dependencies (Friedmann et al., 2009) predicts that headed object relative clauses (RCs) press which—questions…
