In:New Perspectives on Mauritian Creole and Reunion Creole: Standardization, grammar and language use
Edited by Muhsina Alleesaib and Julie Lefort
[Contact Language Library 61] 2025
► pp. 119–134
Chapter 4Gaps, resumptive pronouns and the complementizer ki
in Mauritian Creole relative clauses
Published online: 7 April 2025
https://doi.org/10.1075/coll.61.04all
https://doi.org/10.1075/coll.61.04all
Abstract
The present chapter looks at the internal structure of restrictive relative clauses in Mauritian
Creole. The first part of this chapter deals with the alternation between gaps and resumptive pronouns, and its
relation to the syntactic position of the relativized NP. A list of all pronouns and locative forms which may occur as
resumptives is provided. The data also suggest that resumption is only permissible with definite relativized DPs. The
alternation between gaps and resumptives is further compared with Keenan and Comrie’s Noun Accessibility Hierarchy
(1977). Gaps are used for subject and object relativisation. A
resumptive form is required when possessors, prepositional phrases and comparative constituents are relativized. In
double object constructions, the beneficiary object allows both gaps and resumptives. Pied-piping of PPs is also
available in Mauritian Creole. The second part of the chapter looks at the distribution of ki versus
that of the null complementizer. The form ki serves both as a complementizer and a relative pronoun.
Its characteristics meet the criteria for both, according to the typology presented by De Vries (2002: 162). Since ki may sometimes be omitted in relative clauses, the last
part of the chapter looks at its role in the avoidance of syntactically ambiguous sentences.
Article outline
- 1.Relative clauses with gaps and resumptives
- 1.1Subject relativization and resumption
- 1.2Object relativization
- 1.3Prepositional phrase relativization
- 2.Ki vs. null complementizer
- 2.1The syntactic status of ki
- 2.2The ki/null alternation in C
- 3.Summary
Notes References
References (14)
Aboh, Enoch. 2005. Deriving
relative and factive clauses. In Laura Brugè, Giuliana Giusti, Nicola Munaro, Walter Schweikert, Giuseppina Turano (eds.), Contributions
to the thirtieth Incontro di Grammatica Generativa, Venice, February 26–28,
2004 (pp. 265–287). Venice: Università Ca’ Foscari Venezia.
Bever, Thomas G. 1970. The cognitive
basis for linguistic structure. In John R. Hayes (ed.), Cognition
and the development of
language, 279–362. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Keenan, Edward L. & Bernard Comrie. 1977. Noun
Phrase Accessibility and Universal Grammar. Linguistic
Inquiry 8(1). 63–99.
Koopman, Hilda. 1982. Les
constructions relatives. In Claire Lefebvre, Hélène Magloire-Holly & Nanie Piou (eds.), Syntaxe
de l’haïtien, 167–201. Ann Arbor: Karoma.
McCloskey, James. 1990. Resumptive
Pronouns, A’-Binding, and Levels of Representation in
Irish. In Randall Hendrick (ed.), The
Syntax of modern Celtic
languages, 199–248. New York: Academic Press.
Radford, Andrew. 1990. Syntactic
theory and the acquisition of English syntax: the nature of early child grammars of
English. Oxford: Blackwell.
Smits, Rik J. C. 1989. The relative
and cleft constructions of the Germanic and Romance
languages. Tilburg: Katholieke Universiteit Brabant Ph.D. dissertation.
Vries, Mark de. 2002. The syntax of
relativization. Utrecht/Amsterdam: LOT publications. Available at [URL] (last
access: 2 December
2023)
