Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T16:55:56.810Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Relativization in Likpakpaln (Ghana): New typological perspectives on the Mabia (Gur) languages

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2024

Abraham Kwesi Bisilki*
Affiliation:
University of Education, Winneba, Ghana
Nicolas Quint*
Affiliation:
LLACAN - UMR 8135 (CNRS / EPHE / INALCO), Paris, France
Kofi Yakpo*
Affiliation:
The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article provides the first systematic account of relativization in Likpakpaln, an understudied Mabia (Gur) language of Ghana. Broadly speaking, Likpakpaln features two types of relative clauses: restrictive and non-restrictive. Both types of relative clauses are finite and marked by a relative pronoun as well as a clausal definite determiner. The first type is always headed by an indefinite noun. The second is invariably headed by a definite head noun, is additionally marked by a prosodic break, and is usually under focus. The relative pronoun is a composite form comprised of a noun class agreement marker and an invariant relative marker. A number of the features of relative clauses in Likpakpaln align it with other Mabia languages of the region, whereas others distinguish it from these languages. This analysis situates Likpakpaln within its genealogical and areal context while providing new typological perspectives on the Mabia languages as a whole.

Résumé

Résumé

Cet article constitue la première étude systématique des mécanismes de relativisation en likpakpaln, une langue mabia (gour) parlée au Ghana qui demeure très peu étudiée. D'une façon générale, le likapkpaln connaît deux types de propositions relatives : restrictives et non restrictives. Ces deux types de relatives sont finis et marqués par un pronom relatif ainsi que par un déterminant défini bornant la proposition relative à droite. Les propositions restrictives sont caractérisées par un antécédent indéfini. Quant aux propositions non restrictives, elles ont un antécédent défini, sont également marquées par une rupture prosodique, et sont généralement focalisées. Le pronom relatif peut être lui-même décomposé en une marque de classe nominale et une base relative invariable. Les propositions relatives du likpakaln présentent des points communs mais aussi de nettes différences avec les langues mabia voisines. La présente étude s'attache d'une part à montrer la place qu'occupe le likpakpaln d'un point de vue phylogénétique et aréal, et d'autre part à fournir des considérations typologiques novatrices portant sur l'ensemble des langues mabia.

Type
Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association/Association canadienne de linguistique 2024

1. Introduction

This article describes aspects of the morphosyntax and semantics of relativization in Likpakpaln, a Mabia language of Ghana.Footnote 1 We also bring to attention some of the most salient typological correspondences and divergences that exist between relativization in Likpakpaln on the one hand and other Mabia and neighbouring Kwa languages on the other. The name Mabia for the linguistic grouping designated as Gur by colonial linguists reflects recent advocacy by native speaker linguists for ownership and greater authenticity of the label for this branch of Niger-Congo (see Musah Reference Musah2018, Bodomo Reference Bodomo, Bodomo, Abubakari and Issah2020).

A relative clause is a subordinate clause that modifies a head noun with which it forms a complex noun phrase (see, e.g., Cristofaro Reference Cristofaro2003, Saah Reference Saah, Aboh and Essegbey2010, Abubakari Reference Abubakari2018a). This is why Givón (Reference Givón2001) refers to relative clauses as clause-size modifiers embedded in noun phrases. According to Givón, the salient function of a (restrictive) relative clause is to furnish either anaphoric or cataphoric clues for referent identification. A relative clause, therefore, codes a state or an event, one of whose participants is coreferential with the head noun modified by the clause (Givón Reference Givón2001). Example (1) serves for illustration (Dzameshie Reference Dzameshie1995: 28):

  1. (1) The man who greeted you is Kofi's uncle.

In (1), the relative clause is bolded. The subject participant man constitutes the head, which is anaphorically modified by the relative clause. The use of the term anaphora implies that the relative clause refers back to the head noun as an antecedent earlier mentioned in discourse (Dixon Reference Dixon2010). The relative pronoun who, the subject of the relative clause, is coreferential with the subject participant of the main clause, man. The relative clause in (1), centred on the verb greeted, is subordinate to the main clause The man is Kofi's uncle. Dixon (Reference Dixon2010: 338) argues that a more appropriate label for the head noun of a relative clause is ‘common argument’. Dixon's proposal is based on the syntactic arrangement that the head noun is a shared argument of both the main clause and the relative/subordinate clause in the relative clause construction.

The topic of relativization has received a considerable amount of attention in crosslinguistic studies, with several Mabia relatives of Likpakpaln, such as Buli, Dagbani, Dagaare, Gurenɛ, Kabiyé, and Kusaal (Atintono Reference Atintono2003, Bodomo and Hiraiwa Reference Bodomo and Hiraiwa2004, Bodomo and Hiraiwa Reference Bodomo and Hiraiwa2010, Hiraiwa et al. Reference Hiraiwa, Akanlig-Pare, Atintono, Bodomo and Essisewa2017, Abubakari Reference Abubakari2019), receiving their fair share of studies regarding this phenomenon. However, there are no existing works on relativization in Likpakpaln, a gap our study aims to fill.

The corpus for this study was developed through sociolinguistic and ethnographic techniques of observation, both participant and non-participant (see Quint Reference Quint2007). We also made use of semi-structured interviews, informal conversations, and first-language-speaker introspection by the first author.

We will show that relativization in Likpakpaln is primarily marked by composite relative pronouns, which consist of a class pronoun, plus the suprasegmental features of nasality and low tone. The class pronoun is the corresponding third person agreement pronoun (see Winkelmann Reference Winkelmann, Miehe, Reineke and Winkelmann2012a, Reference Winkelmann, Miehe, Reineke and Winkelmann2012b; Bisilki and Akpanglo-Nartey Reference Bisilki and Akpanglo-Nartey2017; also cf. Figure 1). Class pronouns in Likpakpaln are also often formally identical to the class prefixes in the nouns of the class pronoun's corresponding class. Relative pronouns, in turn, display formal identity with class prefixes via class pronouns. There are two possibilities for pronoun retention in relative constructions in Likpakpaln: (i) the use of a portmanteau relative pronoun and (ii) the use of an optional resumptive pronoun. Cross-linguistically, subject asymmetries play a crucial role in resumption strategies in relative clauses. However, subject asymmetries and animacy principles do not influence resumption in Likpakpaln. An important finding of this study is that the principles of pronoun resumption in Likpakpaln relative clauses differ considerably from what has been described for its genealogical relatives in the Mabia grouping and its areal Kwa cohabiters in Ghana. This study therefore seeks to contribute to a better understanding of the typology of relativization, within Mabia, the genetic grouping of Likpakpaln, and beyond.

Figure 1. Likpakpaln noun classes and nominal agreementFootnote 5

This paper is organized as follows: Section 2 introduces Likpakpaln and its speakers. Section 3 provides a brief description of Likpakpaln noun classes and class pronouns (i.e., third person pronouns) as a source of relative pronouns in the language. In section 4, we provide an overview of relativization strategies in Likpakpaln, with reference to other African languages, and including the typologically interesting feature of pronoun resumption. Section 5 looks at the accessibility of noun phrases to relativization. Section 6 provides a summary of findings and section 7 concludes this study.

2. Sociolinguistic background

Likpakpaln is a Niger-Congo language of the Mabia, Oti-Volta, Gurma sub-branch (Naden Reference Naden and Kropp Dakubu1988, Bendor-Samuel Reference Bendor-Samuel1989). Speakers self-identify as Bikpakpaam. The exonym ‘Konkomba’ has, however, become a more widespread referential term for both the people and their language. Tait (Reference Tait and Goody1961) suggests that the form Konkomba derives from ‘Kpakpamba’, a term used to refer to the Bikpakpaam by the Dagomba. The Dagomba (speakers of Dagbani) have been long-standing neighbours of the Bikpakpaam (see Barker Reference Barker1991).

Likpakpaln speakers in Ghana are estimated to number some 831,000 peopleFootnote 2 (Eberhard et al. Reference Eberhard, Simons and Fennig2019). Additional speakers are found in neighbouring Togo (see Adouna Reference Adouna2009, Simons and Fennig Reference Simons and Fennig2017). Bimoba and BassariFootnote 3 (Ntcham/Ncham), which are spoken in both Ghana and Togo, are said to be the closest linguistic relatives of Likpakpaln (Eberhard et al. Reference Eberhard, Simons and Fennig2019).

The Bikpakpaam are indigenous to northern Ghana (Rattray Reference Rattray1932, Maasole Reference Maasole2006), where their presence predates the 1400s (Martinson Reference Martinson1995). The Saboba District in present-day northern Ghana, where most of the data for this study was gathered, is one of the traditional areas of the Bikpakpaam. In the Saboba area, the major languages geographically coterminous with Likpakpaln are Dagbani and Anufo (Chakosi). Minority languages in the area include Ewe and Bimoba (Ghana Statistical Service Reference Service2014). Likpakpaln speakers are also found in significant numbers across other parts of Ghana, for example in Atebubu-Amanten and the Kintampo Municipalities in Bono East and the Nkwanta North District and Nkwanta South Municipality in the Oti Region (Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada 1996). The map in Appendix I shows districts where Likpakpaln is spoken in Ghana.

Likpakpaln is split into numerous lects along clan lines (see Hasselbring Reference Hasselbring2006, Schwarz Reference Schwarz, Matondo and Potsdam2009). The actual number of dialects is yet to be systematically established, but from first-hand observation and from the first author's native speaker point of view, the dialects of Likpakpaln are highly mutually intelligible. Members of different clans and, hence, dialects live together and interact significantly on a daily basis in Likpakpaln-speaking areas. Individual Likpakpaln dialects are not restricted to specific geographical areas of the language area. Speakers of any particular dialect can be found everywhere that the Bikpakpaam are located in significant proportions. It is, however, noteworthy that this study is based on the Lichabɔl lect, which is the Likpakpaln-speaker community's choice of standard in Ghana (Orthography Committee 2020; Steele Reference Steele1966).

Having provided the necessary sociolinguistic background on Likpakpaln, we proceed with a short exposition of Likpakpaln noun classes and their corresponding class markers to provide the necessary backdrop for understanding relative clause formation in the language.

3. Likpakpaln noun classes and third person pronouns

Likpakpaln is a noun class language (Winkelmann Reference Winkelmann, Miehe, Reineke and Winkelmann2012a, Bisilki and Akpanglo-Nartey Reference Bisilki and Akpanglo-Nartey2017), meaning its nouns can be distinguished based on a system of affixal markings on nouns (see, e.g., Bodomo and Marfo Reference Bodomo and Marfo2007) and agreement targets. Noun class prefixes in Likpakpaln are largely formally identical with the corresponding class pronouns (i.e., third person pronouns) of the noun class (Winkelmann Reference Winkelmann, Miehe, Reineke and Winkelmann2012a, Bisilki and Akpanglo-Nartey Reference Bisilki and Akpanglo-Nartey2017). The correspondences in (2) illustrate the formal similarities between class prefixes and their corresponding class pronouns.

  1. (2) Class pronoun   Noun

      -sáá-k

    3sg   cl.sg-farm-cl.sg

    ‘farm’

    t ī   t ī-kú-r

    3pl   cl.pl-hair-cl.pl

    ‘hairs’

Figure 1 below shows how nominal prefixes may take the exact form of their corresponding class pronouns. This will receive further corroboration in section 4, where we cover pronoun-antecedent relations in Likpakpaln relative clauses.

Likpakpaln has been characterized as a bilateral noun class language in the sense of Winkelmann (Reference Winkelmann, Miehe, Reineke and Winkelmann2012b): nouns typically have a pair of circumfixes, that is, co-occurring prefixes and suffixes for the singular and then another pair of co-occurring prefixes and suffixes for the plural. According to Winkelmann, Moba is the only Mabia language of the Gurma sub-group that deviates from this type of affixal bilateralism. However, it may not be wholly correct to define contemporary Likpakpaln as a fully functional bilateral noun class language because a significant number of Likpakpaln nouns take a prefix only. Table 1 (a)–(c) provides examples of such nouns from classes 3 and 4, respectively. Furthermore, another category of nouns have no affix in the singular and take a suffix only in the plural. Table 1 (d)–(e) illustrates such nouns from classes 1a and 2a, respectively, with the symbol Ø in Figure 1 and Table 1 indicating that there is no prefix or suffix in the relevant class. We, therefore, propose that Likpakpaln features a mix of bilateral and non-bilateral noun classes.

Table 1. Examples of prefix-only, suffix-only, and affixless nouns.

Figure 1 summarizes the Likpakpaln noun classes, class affixes and third person class pronouns. Note that the numbers of the agreement classes (agr) in Figure 1 follow the numbering adopted for Mabia (Miehe et al. Reference Miehe, Kleinewillinghöfer, von Roncador, Winkelmann, Miehe, Reineke and Winkelmann2012), which take after Williamson's (Reference Williamson, Bendor-Samuel and Hartell1989) overarching numbering proposed for Niger-Congo noun class (i.e., agreement class) systems. The missing numbers (e.g., 7, 8, 9) represent agreement classes that are found in other Niger-Congo languages, but are absent in Mabia (see Miehe et al. Reference Miehe, Kleinewillinghöfer, von Roncador, Winkelmann, Miehe, Reineke and Winkelmann2012). In other words, the gaps in the Figure 1 agreement class numbers show that Mabia languages, including Likpakpaln, lack some of the classes that have been identified for the larger Niger-Congo family.

The items in bold in Figure 1 are the corresponding class pronouns, with singular forms on the left and plural on the right. Classes 1a and 2a are sub-classes of classes 1 and 2. The class pronouns of their superordinate classes 1 and 2 hold for them too, hence the empty pronoun spaces. Number is marked on most nouns by attaching a class prefix, with or without a corresponding class suffix. As we can see, class pronouns are formally largely identical with the corresponding class prefixes attached to the nouns. See Bisilki and Akpanglo-Nartey (Reference Bisilki and Akpanglo-Nartey2017) for ample data regarding details on the correspondence between class pronouns and noun class prefixes.

Singular class 1a nouns have neither a prefix nor a suffix and the corresponding plural class 2a only admit suffixes, in this case either -tííb or -mám. Classes 20, 22, and 23 have ‘transnumeral’ pronominal class affixes (Güldemann and Fiedler Reference Güldemann, Fiedler, Di Garbo, Olsson and Wälchli2019) – that is, they are neutral with respect to number. The class suffix *ci denotes a reconstructed class. The noun class system of Likpakpaln features mergers and resulting homophony and is therefore not fully symmetrical with respect to the distribution of singular and plural affixes and class pronouns. Classes written in the same line in the leftmost column of Figure 1 have homophonous markers. Classes 22 and 23 are merged into a homophonous class, of which N-…-N (a homorganic prefix and suffix) is the class affix and is the class pronoun. A merger has also occurred in 12 and 15, where serves as the singular pronoun to both classes, while the corresponding plural nominal class affixes and class pronouns are differentiated for class. The form also serves as the class pronoun of (singular) class 3. Finally, class 20 at the bottom of Figure 1 is only realized as the 3rd person neuter pronoun ni in contemporary Likpakpaln and therefore lacks corresponding nouns. Class 20 therefore features no class affixes in Figure 1.

Having presented the reader with the necessary understanding of class pronouns and their corresponding morphology, we take up relative clause formation in section 4.

4. Relative clause formation in Likpakpaln and other Mabia languages

This section presents an analysis of relative clause formation in Likpakpaln, comparing the data with other Mabia languages where relevant. Section 4.1 covers the basic structure of the relative clause, which features a relative pronoun and a clausal determiner. Section 4.2 outlines structural differences between restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses, while 4.3 discusses relative clauses without overt antecedents, the so-called condensed relative clauses. Finally, section 4.4 focuses on pronoun resumption strategies in Likpakpaln, which exhibits striking differences vis-à-vis the other Mabia languages and the Kwa languages of Ghana.

4.1. Relative pronouns and clausal determiners

The relative clause is a finite clause in Likpakpaln, marked by a relative pronoun and a clausal definite determiner. The finiteness of relative clauses in Likpakpaln is grounded in their full potential for independent arguments as well as tense, aspect, modality, and polarity marking. The relative pronoun in Likpakpaln is a composite form, comprising two elements: (i) a class pronoun that agrees with the head noun with respect to noun class membership (see Figure 1) and (ii) a relative marker [Ṽ̀]. The latter is a suprasegmental feature: the vowel (V) in the class pronoun is nasalized and at the same time bears a low tone. We follow the Likpakpaln orthography by representing nasality as <n> following the vowel. This means that the relative pronoun /tĩ̀/ in (3) is rendered as tìn:

  1. (3) Ū  jóó   t ī-bɔ́-r  [tìn  káá  ŋán     áá-pī].

    3sg.sbj  hold   cl.pl.issue-cl.pl  rel  neg  good   def   2sg.sbj-on

    ‘S/he's harbouring evil thoughts against you’, lit. ‘S/he holds an issue that's not good on you.’

Relative pronouns serve three crucial functions in Likpakpaln: (i) They serve as clause markers/linkers; (ii) they fulfil an argument role within the relative clause; (iii) they index the head noun (see section 4.4 for further details). As indicated, relative pronouns bear a formal resemblance to the class prefixes of their head nouns. We see the formal resemblance between the relative pronoun n and the class prefix of the head noun -nì-b ‘people’ in (4). Likewise, the relative pronoun ùn is partially identical with the class prefix of the head noun ú-nìì ‘person’ (4). In (5), the same holds for the relative pronoun n and the class prefix of the head noun -jí-k ‘knife’.

  1. (4) Bī-nì-b  [bìn  nyí  dàlbàdààl  ]  kán,   áá

    cl.pl-person-cl.pl  rel  know  some.day  def  cond   2sg

    pī sán gàà ń-làn kán, áá gā kán bī-nì-b

    dp run sing cl.sg-song cond 2sg fut see cl.pl-person-cl.pl

    àà féì kī dóó ké bī līk ké ŋmá yé

    part rise sm stretch.neck quot 3pl see quot q cop

    ú-nìì [ùn bī-gàà ń-lān gbààn ná].

    cl.sg-person rel prog-sing cl.sg-song def def

    ‘If it is people who are level-headed, when you raise a song (i.e., a song that is touching), you'll see them stretch their necks to see the person that is singing that song.’

  2. (5) Kī-jí-k   [kìn     ]   gíí   yá.

    cl.sg-knife-cl.sg   rel   be.sharp   def   be.broken   prf

    ‘The knife that is sharp is broken.’

In one instance, however, the relative pronoun and the noun class prefix show a divergence in form. The class pronoun mū- indexes a head noun of noun classes 3, 22, and 23 (see Figure 1). Since the nominal prefix of these noun classes is, however, a homorganic nasal /N/, the two forms diverge in form. Compare (6), featuring the head noun ń-nyún ‘water’ and the relative pronoun mùn:

  1. (6) Ń-nyúm   [mùn   tún   ]       jóó     ú-bópúàn.

    cl-water   rel   hot   def   foc   3pl   take   bath   cl.sg-baby

    ‘A baby should be bathed with hot water’, lit. ‘It is water that is hot that a baby is bathed with.’

Likpakpaln nouns are not inflected for case. They only display a morphological noun class (or gender) alternation expressing the contrast between singular and plural number (see Figure 1). Relative pronouns do not show case variation either. This distinguishes Likpakpaln and other Mabia languages, as well as Kwa languages (e.g., Ewe, see Dzameshie Reference Dzameshie1995), from many Indo-European languages (e.g., Russian, see Keenan and Comrie Reference Keenan and Comrie1977) where relative pronouns are inflected for case.

It is noteworthy that the relativization strategies of Likpakpaln are similar to those of some Mabia languages, but not others. Similar to Likpakpaln, Kabiyé (Togo) uses a composite relative pronoun. The relative pronoun in Kabiyé can also be decomposed into a homorganic nasal morpheme /N/ and an agreeing pronominal prefix, as (7) shows:Footnote 6

  1. (7) Mən-zole   [ɛ-na   ha   ǹ-   tede   ].

    1sg-like   3sg-see.pst   dog   rel-pron   yesterday   def

    ‘I like the dog that he saw yesterday.’ (Kabiyé; Hiraiwa et al. Reference Hiraiwa, Akanlig-Pare, Atintono, Bodomo and Essisewa2017: 9)

By contrast, the neighbouring Mabia languages Buli, Dagbani, Dagaare, Kusaal, Moore, and Gurenɛ use invariant, double relativizers (Hiraiwa et al. Reference Hiraiwa, Akanlig-Pare, Atintono, Bodomo and Essisewa2017, Abubakari Reference Abubakari2019). There is no agreement marking component. Examples follow from Buli (8), Dagbani (9), and Dagaare (10), respectively (glosses adapted):

  1. (8) Atim   nya   [Amoak   ale   sua   naa   buui   la].

    Atim   see.prf   Amoak   rel1   possess   cow   rel2   dem

    ‘Atim saw the cow that Amoak owned.’ (Buli; Hiraiwa et al. Reference Hiraiwa, Akanlig-Pare, Atintono, Bodomo and Essisewa2017: 5)

  2. (9) N   ŋubi   [a   ni   she   nim   sheli   maa].

    1sg   eat.prf   2sg   rel1   roast.prf   meat   rel2   det

    ‘I ate the meat that you roasted.’ (Dagbani; Hiraiwa et al. Reference Hiraiwa, Akanlig-Pare, Atintono, Bodomo and Essisewa2017: 5)

  3. (10) N   di   la   [a   mongo   na   Dakoraa   nang   da].

    1sg   eat   foc   def   mango   rel1   Dakoraa   rel2   buy

    ‘I ate the mango that Dakoraa bought.’ (Dagaare; Hiraiwa et al. Reference Hiraiwa, Akanlig-Pare, Atintono, Bodomo and Essisewa2017: 11)

Zero-relative constructions are not attested in Likpakpaln, regardless of which noun phrase position is relativized.Footnote 7 Further, all preceding examples have shown that Likpakpaln relative clauses are postnominal (see Asante and Ma Reference Asante and Ma2016 for more on post-nominal relativisation in Mabia).

A typologically interesting feature of Likpakpaln relativization is that it has both externally- (11) and internally-headed (12) relative clauses. In the latter type, the head noun is positioned within the relative clause (the head noun ú-pííbó ‘girl’ and the relative pronoun ùnrel’ are in bold in both examples). In the internally-headed relative clause in (12), the predicate of the relative clause precedes the head noun while the relative pronoun is stranded on the right side of the head noun. Note that ū3sg’ is placed in parentheses in (11) to show that it is an optional resumptive object pronoun (more on this in section 4.4).

  1. (11) Ń   nyí   ú-pííbó   [ùn   Jágēr   bɔ̀n-nī   (ū)   ].

    1sg.sbj   know   cl.sg-girl   rel   Jager   court-hab   (3sg)   def

    ‘I know the girl that Jager is courting.’

  2. (12) Ń   nyí   [Jágēr   àà   bɔ̀n-nī   ú-pííbó   ùn   ].

    1sg.sbj   know   name   part   court-hab   cl.sg-girl   rel   def

    ‘I know the girl that Jager is courting.’

Relativized head nouns in Likpakpaln do not co-occur with definite articles and demonstratives. This structural constraint falls in line with the indefiniteness restriction reported for the Mabia languages as a whole (see Hiraiwa et al. Reference Hiraiwa, Akanlig-Pare, Atintono, Bodomo and Essisewa2017; Abubakari Reference Abubakari2018a, Reference Abubakari2019). The relativization of definite head nouns appears to be prohibited in some neighbouring non-Mabia languages as well, for example, in the Kwa language Nkami (Asante and Ma Reference Asante and Ma2016). However, in the Akan cluster (also Kwa), definite and indefinite head nouns are eligible heads of relative clauses (see Saah Reference Saah, Aboh and Essegbey2010, McCracken Reference McCracken2013). Be that as it may, a Likpakpaln noun occurring as an object within the relative clause can take determiners, whether definite (13) or non-definite. Further, independent/emphatic personal pronouns can also be relativized in subject and object positions, see mìn1sg.emp’ in (13) and (14), respectively. Likpakpaln head nouns also co-occur with quantifiers, as well as adjectival and nominal modifiers, see (15) further below.

  1. (13) Mìn [ùn jóó ú-píí ńgbààn ná] áá nyí wáá-bɔ́-r.

    1sg.emp rel hold cl.sg-lady dist def neg know 3sg.poss-matter-cl

    ‘I who am married to that lady don't know her matter [i.e., affairs].’

  2. (14) Áá jín múnl mín [ùn máá sī ná].

    2sg.sbj eat.prf refuse.to.give 1sg.emp cl.sg-rel give.birth 2sg.obj def

    ‘You have eaten and left I who gave birth to you.’

  3. (15) Bī-nààchīpɔ́-m bī-léé [bìn bòò kù ú-bɔ́-r ná] sɔ́.

    cl.pl-young.men-cl.plcl-two rel bend farm cl.sg-chief-cl.sg def deic

    ‘These are the two young men who are farming for the chief.’

The relative clause regularly ends in the obligatory, invariable definite determiner ‘def’ (see all preceding examples with relative clauses), which otherwise specifies lexical nouns, as in (16) (for further discussion of the functions of the determiner, see Bisilki (Reference Bisilki2021)):

  1. (16) Ú-já     kún   nī.

    cl.sg-man   def   come   ven

    ‘The man has come [home].’

The use of clausal determiners is common in all Mabia (see Hiraiwa et al. Reference Hiraiwa, Akanlig-Pare, Atintono, Bodomo and Essisewa2017; Abubakari Reference Abubakari2018a, Reference Abubakari2019) and Kwa languages (Law and Lefebvre Reference Law and Lefebvre1995, Larson Reference Larson and Dany Adone2003, Saah Reference Saah, Aboh and Essegbey2010) of the region. The view is that clausal determiners in Mabia and Kwa encode event deixis in the relative clause (Bombi et al. Reference Bombi, Grubic, Renans, Duah and Espinal2019). The clausal determiner is said to flag the information contained in the relative clause as a pragmatic presupposition, that is, information already shared by the interlocutors. We concur with the analysis of as a clausal determiner with a discourse-deictic function, which also explains its occurrence in other types of subordinate clauses, among them time clauses (17):

  1. (17) Wáár   áán       búèn   kī-sáá-k   ,    

    Before   emp   1pl.sbj   hod   go   cl.sg-farm-cl.sg   def   1pl.sbj   hod

    jín bī-sáá.

    eatcl-food.type

    ‘Before we went to the farm, we ate bisaa.’

Finally, there appear to be no restrictions on the type of nominals that can head relative clauses in Likpakpaln. We have seen that independent/emphatic pronouns may even serve as heads of relative clauses (see (13)–(14)). As a matter of fact, any noun not marked for definiteness can be the antecedent of a relative clause in Likpakpaln. This also includes proper nouns like names of persons and places, see (18), in which a human referent named Táánèèn is relativized. Note that relative clauses headed by proper nouns in Likpakpaln are restrictive. From a semantic point of view, when a proper noun is relativized, the identity of the relativized referent is necessarily contrasted vis-à-vis other people (or places) that may share the same referent.

  1. (18) Táánèèn   [ùn   áá   nán   nyí   (ū)   ]   áá  

    name   rel   2sg.sbj   pst   know   (3sg.obj)   def   neg   no.longer

      wéé.

    cop   prox

    ‘The Taaneen that you knew is no longer this one (i.e., Taaneen is now a changed person).’

We should add that the sociopragmatics of personal naming, reference and addressing in Likpakpaln communities favour the relativization of personal names in particular. It is very common for people to share personal names within a clan or community. Additionally, people are generally addressed with their first names in everyday life (Bisilki Reference Bisilki2017, Reference Bisilki2018). In such a context, relativization may become the means by which a particular referent of a personal name is specified and/or contrasted with other potential referents.

4.2. Restrictive versus non-restrictive relative clauses

The relative clause type we have seen so far is the restrictive relative clause, that is, a clause that modifies and restricts the reference of the head noun. We have shown that restrictive relative clauses cannot be headed by nouns that are marked for definiteness in Likpakpaln. We do, however, find relative clauses that take definite head nouns. Such clauses are invariably non-restrictive relative clauses, that is, clauses that provide supplemental information to their head. Such clauses are also referred to as ‘appositive’ relative clauses (Perlmutter and Soames Reference Perlmutter and Soames1979, Asante and Ma Reference Asante and Ma2016, Abubakari Reference Abubakari2018a). The information contained in an appositive relative clause is a ‘parenthetical assertion’ (see, e.g., Givón Reference Givón2001, Dzameshie Reference Dzameshie1995). This is also why the non-restrictive relative clause in Likpakpaln is normally under focus, as indicated by the focus marker  in (19) and (20) (definiteness markers, relative pronouns, and focus marker in bold). By contrast, is rarely found in restrictive relative clauses. Furthermore, the boundary between the definite nominal head and the non-restrictive relative clause is characterized by a perceptible prosodic break, indicated by a comma in (19) and (20):

  1. (19) Sáá-jí-k  ,  [kìn    dɔ́  dóó  ]    ń  bán.

    2sg.poss-knife-cl.sg  def  rel  hod  lie.down  loc  def  foc  1sg  want

    ‘Your knife, the one which was lying here, is the one I'm looking for.’

  2. (20) Tī-nán   téé,   [tìn   kpá   lī-kpáb-l   ]     n

    cl.pl-meat   prox   rel   have   cl.sg-bone-cl.sg   def   foc   1sg

    búì áá  nyán   d ī   kún.

    say 2sg remove   take   go.home

    ‘This meat, the one which has a bone in it, is the one I said you should take home.’

4.3. The condensed relative clause

There are relative clauses without overt antecedents in Likpakpaln. We refer to these structures as ‘condensed’ relative clauses (Dixon Reference Dixon2010) because the antecedent is identical to the relative pronoun. Others refer to them as ‘free relatives’ (Yakpo Reference Yakpo2019: 402) or ‘headless relatives’ (Saah Reference Saah, Aboh and Essegbey2010: 104). We consider the term ‘headless’ to be a misnomer, however, since there is no relative clause without a head noun (Dixon Reference Dixon2010). The fact that a head noun does not overtly appear in a relative clause construction does not mean that there is no antecedent to it. The antecedent is always present, but implicit or infused in the relative pronoun (see also Givón Reference Givón2001).

The condensed relative clause in (21) features the relative pronoun ùn, which refers to an implicit animate antecedent indexed by a noun class 1 class pronoun (i.e., u-, see Figure 1). In turn, (22) features the relative pronoun tìn, which refers to an implicit non-animate antecedent in noun class 21, equivalent to ‘thing’ or ‘fact’.

  1. (21)   bán   [ùn   kpá   ń-lán   ]   lá.

    1sg.sbj   want   rel   have   cl-wisdom   def   foc

    ‘I want who is wise.’

  2. (22) [Tìn   ń   nyí   ]         wáán   dán dín.

    rel   1sg.sbj   know   def   foc   cop   quot   3sg.neg.fut   come today

    ‘What I know is that s/he won't come today.’

There is therefore no formal difference between relative pronouns with overt antecedents and condensed relative clauses with implicit antecedents. The relative pronouns in Likpakpaln condensed relative clauses are therefore also not identical to question words, nor do they function as question words as occurs in some other languages of the world (e.g., English, see Dixon Reference Dixon2010; French, N. Quint, p.c.).

4.4. Pronoun resumption in the relative clause

The resumptive pronoun is the relative clause internal element that is coreferential with the head noun of the relative clause. In other words, it recalls the relativized head noun within the relative clause (see Sigurd Reference Sigurd1989, Saah Reference Saah, Aboh and Essegbey2010). Research has established that the languages of the major African language families employ three main ways of coding the relativization site within the relative clause, namely pronoun retention, gapping, and correlatives (Kuteva and Comrie Reference Kuteva, Comrie and Erhard2005, Asante and Ma Reference Asante and Ma2016). The ensuing discussion will show that Likpakpaln uses the pronoun retention strategy.

We should first point out that Likpakpaln pronoun retention exhibits striking differences vis-à-vis other Mabia and Kwa languages of Ghana. Pronoun retention means that a resumptive element is present in the relative clause. In Likpakpaln subject relative clauses, the relativized head noun is picked up in the relative clause by the corresponding class pronoun that forms part of the composite relative pronoun (see e.g., (3)–(6)). Thus, no additional resumptive pronoun is introduced into the relative clause. The class pronoun that is part of the relative pronoun could, therefore, be seen as a portmanteau form. Not only does it index the head noun within the relative clause like a regular resumptive pronoun, it also contributes to the relativization and clause-linking functions by being part of the composite relative pronoun.

The fact that Likpakpaln relative pronouns agree with their antecedents contrasts with other Mabia (Hiraiwa et al. Reference Hiraiwa, Akanlig-Pare, Atintono, Bodomo and Essisewa2017; Abubakari Reference Abubakari2018a, Reference Abubakari2019) and Kwa (Dorvlo Reference Dorvlo2008, Asante and Ma Reference Asante and Ma2016, Saah Reference Saah, Aboh and Essegbey2010) languages of Ghana, in which it is common for subject resumptive pronouns to co-occur with invariable relativizers in the relative clause. The frequency of resumptive pronouns in subject relative clauses runs counter to the predictions of the relativization accessibility hierarchy (Keenan and Comrie Reference Keenan and Comrie1977) and is likely an areal West African phenomenon (Yakpo Reference Yakpo2019).

In object relative clauses, the relativized object participant is still referenced by the corresponding class pronoun that forms part of the composite relative pronoun. However, the relativized object can be additionally resumed by a coreferential object pronoun in the relative clause. Likpakpaln does not mark (relative) pronouns for morphological case, so the resumptive pronoun may be seen to index the objecthood of the relativized position by virtue of its post-verbal position, standard for object arguments in Likpakpaln, see (23) and (24). The resumptive object pronoun is also a class pronoun; hence it agrees in number and class with the antecedent of the relative clause. Resumptive object pronouns are optional, and therefore placed in parentheses in (23) and (24). Note that, according to our knowledge of Likpakpaln, resumptive object pronouns have a relatively low frequency, so a majority of object relative clauses lack them.

  1. (23) Ú-já   [ùn   ń   tíí   (ū)   tī-jíí-r   ]   búèn   ná.

    cl.sg-man   rel   1sg.sbj   give   (3sg)   cl-food-cl   def   go   def

    ‘The man whom I've given food to is gone.’

  2. (24) Ń   nyí   bī-nàyùk-b   [bìn   sòjà-tiib   chúú () ná].

    1sg.sbj   know   cl.pl-thief-cl.pl   rel   soldier-cl.pl   hold (3pl) def

    ‘I know the thieves that the soldiers have arrested.’

The occurrence of a resumptive object pronoun resumption is not affected by the animacy of the head. Thus, resumption is possible when we have a human head noun (25), a non-human animate head noun (26), and an inanimate head noun (27):

  1. (25) Táánèèn   [ùn   áá   nán   nyí   (ū)   ]   áá  

    name   rel   2sg.sbj   pst   know   (3sg)   def   neg   no.longer

     wéé.

    cop prox

    ‘The Taaneen that you knew is no longer this one (i.e., Taaneen is now a changed person).’

  2. (26) Ú-ŋòòb   [ùn   Jágēr   dáá   (ū)   ]   wáŋ   áá.

    cl.sg-goat   rel   name   buy   (3sg)   def   be.lost   prf

    ‘The goat that Jager has bought is missing.’

  3. (27) T ī-bɔ́-r   [tìn   àà   lèn   (t ī)   ]   áá   ŋán.

    cl.pl-issue-cl.pl   rel   2sg.sbj   say   (3pl)   def   neg   be.good

    ‘What you said is not good’, lit. ‘The issue that you said is not good.’

All instances of object pronoun resumption covered so far have exclusively featured externally-headed object relative clauses. Pronoun resumption is not found in internally-headed object relative clauses. The object argument in the relative clause serves as the head of the internally-headed relative clause and is the one that the class component of the relative pronoun agrees with, see ùnrel’ in (28) and (29). Since the head noun itself is already present in the relative clause, the use of another pronoun is blocked.

  1. (28) [Jágēr   àà   dáá   ú-ŋòòb   ùn   ]   wáŋ   áá.

    name   part   buy   cl.sg-goat   rel   def   be.lost   part

    ‘The goat that Jager has bought is missing.’

  2. (29) Ń   nyí   [Jágēr   àà   bɔ̀n-nī   ú-pííbó   ùn   ].

    1sg.sbj   know   name   part   court-hab   cl.sg-girl   rel   def

    ‘I know the girl that Jager is courting.’

5. Relativizable noun phrase positions

The responsiveness of different noun phrase positions to relativization has been theorized in the noun phrase accessibility hierarchy by Keenan and Comrie (Reference Keenan and Comrie1977) and Comrie (Reference Comrie1989), which suggests the following implicational scale of accessibility to relativization: subject > direct object > non-direct object > possessor. As argued by Comrie (Reference Comrie1989), the accessibility hierarchy is an implicational scale and defines the relative ease of relative clause formation for the various positions on the hierarchy. The implicational assumption of the hierarchy is that once a language is able to relativize a certain position on the scale, it should be possible for that language to also relativize all the other positions to the left. Thus, if a language A can relativize possessors, it follows that A should be able to produce relative constructions for all other positions of the hierarchy.

There is no restriction on the type of noun phrase in the main clause that can be relativized in Likpakpaln. This means that subjects (e.g., (6) and (13)), objects instantiating different types of semantic roles (e.g., theme objects, see (11) and (18), and recipient objects, see (25)), adpositional, and possessive noun phrases may be relativized. In this section, we illustrate the relativization of the latter two structures. The fact that possessor noun phrases can be conveniently relativized in Likpakpaln reinforces our claim that no noun phrase position seems to be excluded from relativization in the language.

Likpakpaln employs postpositional locative nouns for the expression of specific spatial relations. In adpositional relative constructions, the postposition is delinked from its head noun by an intervening relative pronoun, to which it then serves as a postposition. The postposition is therefore stranded to the right of the relative pronoun and to the left of the subordinate predicate within the relative clause (30).

  1. (30) Lī-jà-l   [lìn     áá     ]   áá   ŋán.

    cl.sg-chair-cl.sg   rel   on   2sg.sbj   sit   def   neg   be.good

    ‘The chair that you are sitting on isn't good.’

We also find constructions where the spatial relation expressed by a postpositional noun is relativized. Such constructions differ from those involving core arguments in that they use the catch-all locative relativizer nìnchéérel.loc’. Nìnchéé is a genuine relativizer because it is not used as a locative question word – the latter is ‘where’ – and therefore means something like ‘the location that’. In the internally-headed relative clause in (31), for example, the inferior spatial relation expressed by tááb ‘under(neath)’ is referenced by nìnchéé. If, by contrast, téìbōl table’ were the relativized element, the appropriate relative pronoun would be ùn.

  1. (31) [B ī-sáá   àà     téìbōl   tááb   nìnchéé   ]  

    cl.sg-food.type   part   stand   table   under   rel.loc   def   foc

    kī-jí-k   dɔ́.

    cl.sg-knife-cl.sg   lie

    The knife is lying under the table where the food is.’

Turning to possessor noun phrases, we note that these are cross-linguistically said to be the least likely to be relativized. Since possessors can be relativized in Likpakpaln, it follows that the language should be able to form relatives on all the other positions to the left of the possessor, and we have shown that this is indeed the case.

Likpakpaln permits the relativization of possessed (32) and possessor nouns (33) alike, whether they function as subjects or obliques. Possessed nouns are relativized like core participants. Reference is upheld via the juxtaposition of the possessed noun and the relative clause. In (32), the possessed noun púú ‘wife’ functions as the antecedent to an immediately adjacent subject relative clause introduced by the relative pronoun ùn.

  1. (32) Jágēr   áá   púú   [ùn     ]   nyán   ú-bó.

    name   poss   wife   rel   give.birth.prf   def   take.outside   cl.sg-child

    ‘Jager's wife who gave birth has outdoored [i.e., ceremonially presented] the baby.’

When the possessor is relativized, the relative pronoun immediately precedes the possessed noun in the relative clause. The possessive relative pronoun is a special form, however. The class pronoun is retained, but the relative marker (i.e., the nasalization feature and the low tone) is dropped and replaced by the invariant possessive linker -áá. Note, however, that the composite possessive-relative pronoun (comprising the class pronoun and the invariant possessive linker) is transparent, as speakers can reconstruct it in careful speech. In (33), the possessor noun únàà ‘cow’ is indexed by the possessive relative pronoun wáá, which is composed of the class pronoun coreferential with the head noun and the possessive linker (i.e., ū+áá). In (33), the possessed noun júúl ‘tail’ functions as the object of the relative clause serial predicate gàà gíí ‘cut break’. It can therefore be optionally picked up by a coreferential resumptive object pronoun, in this case . Internally-headed possessor relative clauses are also common, as in (34), which can be compared with (33). Example (35) features the possessive relative pronoun láá (i.e., lìn+áá) agreeing with a head noun from agreement class 5, which features the agreement circumfix lī…l (see Figure 1).

  1. (33) Ú-nàà   [wáá   júúl     gàà   gíí   (l ī)   ]   kpó   áá.

    cl.sg-cow   rel.poss   tail   3pl   cut   break   (3sg)   def   die   prf

    ‘The cow whose tail they cut is dead.’

  2. (34) [Bàà   gàà   gíí   ú-nàà   wáá   júúl   ]   (ū)

    3pl.sbj.prf   cut   break   cl.sg-cow   rel.poss   tail   def   (3sg)

    kpó áá.

    die prf

    ‘The cow whose tail they have cut is dead.

  3. (35) -nùù-l   [láá   júul   gíí   ]     kpó.

    cl.sg-yam-cl.sg   rel.poss   tail   cut   def   fut   die

    ‘The yam whose tail is broken will die (i.e., rot).’

6. Summary of relativization

As background to understanding relativization in Likpakpaln, we first provided a brief overview of noun classes and class pronouns in the language (section 3). We then turned to the details of relative clause formation (section 4). Relative clause constructions in Likpakpaln are marked by relative pronouns composed of two morphemes, (i) a class pronoun agreeing in class and number with its antecedent and (ii) an invariant relative marker, the low-toned nasal (Ṽ̀). Recall that vowel nasality is orthographically represented by a following -n after the vowel. The relative pronoun is mandatory in the relative clause. Any indefinite noun can be relativized in Likpakpaln and the relative clause invariably terminates in a clausal definite determiner. Nouns marked for definiteness are, by contrast, restricted to non-defining (or appositive) relative clauses. Further, both externally headed and internally headed relative clauses are attested in Likpakpaln.

Table 2 summarizes those relevant features of the Likpakpaln relative clause that are covered in preceding sections, with respect to the position relativized, that is, subjects (sbj), objects (obj) adpositional phrases (ap) and possessor (poss). ‘Yes/ no' in Table 2 indicates that the option concerned is attested/not-attested in the data; ‘yes?' indicates that the option is not attested in the data, but might be available; ‘n.a.' means that the option does not apply.

Table 2. Features of relative clauses in Likpakpaln

7. Conclusion

In this study, we have provided the first comprehensive description of the morphosyntax and semantics of relative clause constructions in Likpakpaln. We conclude that the characterization of relativization strategies in Likpakpaln introduces new perspectives to existing descriptions of the typology of relativization in the Mabia languages (Bodomo and Hiraiwa Reference Bodomo and Hiraiwa2004, Hiraiwa et al. Reference Hiraiwa, Akanlig-Pare, Atintono, Bodomo and Essisewa2017, Abubakari Reference Abubakari2018b).

First, Likpakpaln makes use of a relative pronoun that agrees in class and number with the relativized head noun. This relative pronoun is composed of two elements. The first is the agreement marker, identical to the corresponding 3sg class pronoun. The second element is the invariant relative marker Ṽ̀. By contrast, many Mabia languages of Ghana that we have surveyed only employ a monolithic and invariant relative marker (i.e., a subordinator or complementizer) with no agreement marking component. It is therefore noteworthy that unlike other Mabia languages, Likpakpaln uses a suprasegmental feature, namely a low-toned nasal for the function of a relative marker.

Secondly, the absence of separate pronouns for pronoun resumption in Likpakpaln subject relative clauses also differentiates the language from other Mabia languages in the vicinity. Likpakpaln only permits pronoun resumption in oblique relative clauses, where it is optional. Other Mabia languages follow the common areal pattern in which subject relative clauses also allow for or require resumptive pronouns. We suggest that Likpakpaln may be different in this regard because reference with head nouns is established by default through the class pronoun, which is, in turn, part of the composite relative pronoun.

There are however two aspects of overlap between Likpakpaln and other Mabia languages. Firstly, in all Mabia languages surveyed, including Likpakpaln, relative clauses obligatorily end in a clausal determiner. Secondly, head nouns marked for definiteness are excluded from serving as head nouns in restrictive relative clauses whereas they can serve as head nouns in non-restrictive (appositive) relative clauses. Another essential difference between restrictive and non-restrictive relative clause types in Likpakpaln is the fact that there is no prosodic break in restrictive relative clauses, whereas a prosodic break is used to mark the boundary between the head noun and a following non-restrictive relative clause. In all, this descriptive analysis of Likpakpaln relativization has revealed typologically interesting characteristics specific to Likpakpaln, besides genetic and areal features also found across Mabia and further afield.

Appendix I: Map of districts where Likpakpaln is spoken in GhanaFootnote 8

(Source: Bisilki Reference Bisilki2021: 9)

Footnotes

1 Abbreviations: 1/2/3: 1st/2nd/3rd Person; agr: Class number (for agreement); ap: Adpositional phrase; cl: (Noun) class marker; cond: Conditional marker; cop: Identity-equative copula; def: Definite marker; deic: Deictic-presentative marker; dem: Demonstrative; det: Determiner; dist: Distal demonstrative; dp: Discourse particle; emp: Emphasis; foc: Focus marker; fut: Future; hab: Habitual marker; hod: Hodiernal past; loc: Locative; nca: Noun class Affix; neg: Negative; obj: Object; part: Polyfunctional particle; pl: Plural; poss: Possessive; prf: Perfect; prog: Progressive; pron: Pronoun; prox: Proximal demonstrative; pst: Past; q: Question marker; quot: Quotative; rel: Relative; sbj: Subject; sg: Singular; sm: Subject marker; ven: Ventive.

2 To the best of our knowledge, there are no specific figures provided for the number of Likpakpaln speakers in any of the reports of the Ghana Statistical Service, which tend to lump Likpakpaln speakers with other Mabia (Gur) groups. This is why we refer to Ethnologue on this matter.

3 The above-mentioned Bassari language belongs to the Mabia branch of Niger-Congo. It has no direct phylogenetical relationship with its homonym Bassari, spoken in Senegal and Guinea and belonging to the Atlantic branch of Niger-Congo.

4 Throughout this paper, Likpakpaln data is transcribed following the recent orthographic conventions set up by the Likpakpaln Orthography Committee. Note that the recently set up orthography is a review of an earlier version proposed by Steele (Reference Steele1966). The tonal notation conventions adopted in this paper are the following: [à] = low tone, [ā] = mid tone, [á] = high tone. Note however that the orthography does not mark tone.

5 Numbers in the leftmost and rightmost columns stand for the corresponding agreement classes (AGR) (also known as ‘noun classes’). The two central columns (pron sg and pron pl) contain the singular and plural third person pronominal prefixes that agree with the corresponding singular (nca sg) and plural (nca pl) nominal class affixes on the left and right respectively.

6 Comparable composite relative pronouns are also found in other Niger-Congo branches, e.g., Djifanghor Nyun, an Atlantic language (see Quint Reference Quint, Creissels and Pozdniakov2015: 413, 416–417).

7 In ‘zero’ (Ordem Reference Ordem2017) or ‘gap’ (Comrie and Kuteva Reference Comrie, Kuteva, Dryer and Haspelmath2013) relative constructions, the relative pronoun is not explicitly stated, as in English I saw the man Ø the managers sacked (Dixon Reference Dixon2010: 353).

8 First author contracted Michael S. Agbozo: Corriolis Geospatial to design this map for a previous study on Likpakpaln.

References

Abubakari, Hasiyatu. 2018a. Relativization in Kusaal. SOAS Working Papers in Linguistics 19: 328.Google Scholar
Abubakari, Hasiyatu. 2018b. Aspects of the grammar of Kusaal: Syntax-information structure interface. PhD thesis, University of Vienna.Google Scholar
Abubakari, Hasiyatu. 2019. The syntax and semantics of relative clauses in Kusaal. Ghana Journal of Linguistics 8(2): 2762. http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/gjl.v8i2.2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adouna, Gbandi. 2009. Description phonologique et grammaticale du Konkomba–Langue GUR du Togo et du Ghana–Parler de Nawaré. PhD thesis, Université Rennes 2 and Université de Lomé.Google Scholar
Asante, Rogers K., and Ma, Qiuwu. 2016. Relative clause constructions in Nkami. Studies in African Linguistics 42(1/2): 2759.Google Scholar
Atintono, Samuel A. 2003. A functional analysis of the Gurenɛ relative clause. Unpublished manuscript, University of Education, Winneba.Google Scholar
Barker, Thomas R. 1991. Small bands of strangers: The contraposed lineage. Anthropos 86 1(3): 118.Google Scholar
Bendor-Samuel, John, ed. 1989. The Niger-Congo languages: A classification and description of Africa's largest language family. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Bisilki, Abraham Kwesi. 2017. A sociolinguistic analysis of kinship terms in Likpakpaln (Konkomba). Ghana Journal of Linguistics 6(3): 3358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bisilki, Abraham Kwesi. 2018. A study of personal names among the Bikpakpaam (the Konkomba) of Ghana: The linguistics, typology and paradigm shifts. LSC Language Sciences 66: 1527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bisilki, Abraham Kwesi. 2021. Aspects of the grammar of Likpakpaanl: A Mabia (Gur) language spoken in Ghana. PhD thesis, University of Hong Kong.Google Scholar
Bisilki, Abraham Kwesi, and Akpanglo-Nartey, Rebecca Atchoi. 2017. Noun pluralisation as a dialect marker in Likpakpaln “Konkomba.” Journal of West African Languages 44(2): 2442.Google Scholar
Bodomo, Adams. 2020. Mabia: Its genesis, geographical spread and some salient genetic features. In Handbook of the Mabia languages of West Africa, ed. Bodomo, Adams, Abubakari, Hasiyatu, and Issah, Samuel A., 534. Glienicke, Germany: Galda Verlag.Google Scholar
Bodomo, Adams, and Hiraiwa, Ken. 2004. Relativization in Dagaare. Journal of Dagaare Studies 4: 5375.Google Scholar
Bodomo, Adams, and Marfo, Charles. 2007. The morphophonology of noun classes in Dagaare and Akan. In Studi Linguistici e Filologici Online.Google Scholar
Bodomo, Adams, and Hiraiwa, Ken. 2010. Relativization in Dagaare and its typological implications: Left-headed but internally-headed. Lingua 120(4): 953983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bombi, Carla, Grubic, Mira, Renans, Agata, and Duah, Reginald A.. 2019. The semantics of the (so-called) clausal determiner nó in Akan. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 23, vol. 1, ed. Espinal, Teresa M., 181199. Konstanz: University of Konstanz.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1989. Language universals and linguistic typology: Syntax and morphology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard, and Kuteva, Tania. 2013. Relativization strategies. In The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, ed. Dryer, Matthew S. and Haspelmath, Martin. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. https://wals.info/chapter/s8.Google Scholar
Cristofaro, Sonia. 2003. Subordination Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. W. 2010. Basic linguistic theory 2: Grammatical topics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dorvlo, Kofi. 2008. A grammar of Logba (Ikpana). Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Dzameshie, Alex K. 1995. Syntactic characteristics of Ewe relative clause constructions. Research Review from the Inst. of African Studies (IAS), Univ. of Ghana 11(1/2): 2742.Google Scholar
Eberhard, David M., Simons, Gary F., and Fennig, Charles D., eds. 2019. Ethnologue: Languages of Ghana. 22nd edn. Dallas, Texas: SIL International. http://www.ethnologue.com.Google Scholar
Service, Ghana Statistical. 2014. 2010 population and housing census: District analytical report – Saboba District. Accra, Ghana: Ghana Statistical Service.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 2001. Syntax: An introduction. Vol. II. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Güldemann, Tom, and Fiedler, Ines. 2019. Niger-Congo “noun classes’” conflate gender with deriflection. In Grammatical gender and linguistic complexity. Volume I: General issues and specific studies, ed. Di Garbo, Francesca, Olsson, Bruno, and Wälchli, Bernhard, 95145. Berlin: Language Science Press. https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.3462762.Google Scholar
Hasselbring, Sue. 2006. Cross-dialectal acceptance of written standards: Two Ghanaian case studies. PhD thesis, University of South Africa.Google Scholar
Hiraiwa, Ken, Akanlig-Pare, George, Atintono, Samuel A., Bodomo, Adams, and Essisewa, Komlan E.. 2017. A comparative analysis of internally-headed relative clauses in Gur. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 2(1): 130. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.40.Google Scholar
Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 1996. Ghana: Information on where Konkomba tribe reside and on their tribal or mother language. https://webarchive.archive.unhcr.org/20230519082604/https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6ac251c.html.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L., and Comrie, Bernard. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8(1): 6399.Google Scholar
Kuteva, Tania, and Comrie, Bernard. 2005. The typology of relative clause formation in African languages. In Studies in African linguistics typology, ed. Erhard, Voeltz F. K., 209228. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Larson, Richard. 2003. Event description in Fɔ̀n and Haitian Creole. In Development in creole studies, edDany Adone, ., 6790. Berlin: Max Niemeyer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Law, Paul, and Lefebvre, Claire. 1995. On the relationship between event determiners and predicate cleft in the Kwa languages: The case of Fongbe. Linguistique africaine 14: 746.Google Scholar
Maasole, Cliff S. 2006. The Konkomba and their neighbours in the pre-European period up to 1914: A study in inter-ethnic relations in northern Ghana. Accra: Ghana Universities Press.Google Scholar
Martinson, Harold B. 1995. The hidden history of Konkomba wars in Northern Ghana. Ghana: Nyagse Foundation.Google Scholar
McCracken, Chelsea. 2013. Relative clauses in Asante Twi. Rice Working Papers in Linguistics 4: 128.Google Scholar
Miehe, Gudrun, Kleinewillinghöfer, Ulrich, von Roncador, Manfred, and Winkelmann, Kerstin. 2012. Overview of noun classes in Gur (II)(revised and enlarged version). In Noun Class Systems in Gur Languages, vol. 2, ed. Miehe, Gudrun, Reineke, Brigitte, and Winkelmann, Kerstin, 537. Köln: Rüdiger Köppe.Google Scholar
Musah, Anthony Agoswin. 2018. A grammar of Kusaal: A Mabia (Gur) language of northern Ghana. Berlin: Peter Lang.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naden, Tony. 1988. The Gur languages, In The languages of Ghana, ed. Kropp Dakubu, M. E., 1249. London: Kegan Paul International for the International African Institute.Google Scholar
Ordem, Eser. 2017. Acquisition of zero relative clauses in English by adult Turkish learners of English. Journal of Education and Training Studies 5(1): 190195. https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v5il.2056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orthography Committee. 2020. Unpublished manuscript. Accra, Ghana.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David M., and Soames, Scott. 1979. Syntactic argumentation and the structure of English. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quint, Nicolas. 2007. Décrire les langues pour comprendre le langage. Habilitation thesis, Université Louis Lumière-Lyon II, France.Google Scholar
Quint, Nicolas. 2015. Les classes nominales en nyun de Djifanghor. In Les classes nominales dans les langues atlantiques, ed. Creissels, Denis and Pozdniakov, Konstantin, 405443. Köln: Rudiger Köppe.Google Scholar
Rattray, Robert Sutherland. 1932. The tribes of the Ashanti hinterland. Vol. I. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Saah, Kofi. 2010. Relative clauses in Akan. In Topics in Kwa syntax (Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 78), ed. Aboh, Enoch O. and Essegbey, James, 91108. Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwarz, Anne. 2009. How many focus markers are there in Konkomba? In Selected proceedings of the 38th Annual Conference on African Linguistics: linguistic theory and African language documentation, ed. Matondo, Masangu and Potsdam, Eric, 182192. Somerville, MA.Google Scholar
Sigurd, Bengt. 1989. A referent grammatical analysis of relative clauses. Acta Linguistica 21(2): 95115.Google Scholar
Simons, Gary F., and Fennig, Charles D.. 2017. Ethnologue: Languages of the World. 20th edition. Dallas, Texas: SIL International. https://www.ethnologue.com/ (12 July, 2017).Google Scholar
Steele, Mary. 1966. Konkomba dialect survey. Accra: Ghana Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Tait, David. 1961. The Konkomba of northern Ghana. Ed. Goody, Jack. London: Oxford Univ. Press; International African Inst. (IAI).Google Scholar
Williamson, Kay. 1989. Niger-Congo overview. In The Niger-Congo languages: A classification and description of Africa's largest language family, ed. Bendor-Samuel, John T. and Hartell, Rhonda L.. New York and London: Lanham.Google Scholar
Winkelmann, Kerstin. 2012a. D 4. Konkomba (Likpakpaln). In Noun classes in Gur: North central Gur Languages, vol. II, ed. Miehe, Gudrun, Reineke, Brigitte, and Winkelmann, Kerstin, 472486. Köln: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag.Google Scholar
Winkelmann, Kerstin. 2012b. D 7. Gurma: Comparative notes. In Noun class systems in Gur languages: North central Gur languages, vol. II, ed. Miehe, Gudrun, Reineke, Brigitte, and Winkelmann, Kerstin, 529532. Köln: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag.Google Scholar
Yakpo, Kofi. 2019. A grammar of Pichi (Studies in Diversity Linguistics 23). Berlin: Language Science Press. http://langsci-press.org/catalog/book/85 (27 March, 2020).Google Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1. Likpakpaln noun classes and nominal agreement5

Figure 1

Table 1. Examples of prefix-only, suffix-only, and affixless nouns.

Figure 2

Table 2. Features of relative clauses in Likpakpaln