<9>

A RC modifies or restricts the referent of a nominal constituent of another clause, the so called main clause (MC). Usually, only the MC is apt to figure as a simple independent clause, whereas the aptitude of a RC to occur as a simple clause depends on the degree of subordination of the RC, a point that will be addressed below. Only restrictive RCs are attested in Senufo languages.

The most frequently occurring RCs in Syer modify or restrict identifiable referents. The RC precedes the main clause (MC) and contains the head it modifies or a pronoun substituting a head. The RC does not directly assume a syntactic function in the MC which is rather indicated in it by means of a NP co-referentially related with the RC.

<10>

In the RC in (6), the relative morpheme -tyìí is suffixed to nã̂-, the stem of the head nã̂n ‘war’ with which it agrees in gender and number, exempt from the nominal suffix -n. The Syer relative morphemes are equivalent to the interrogative morphemes ‘which’ as illustrated in the question (7) [7]. The complete paradigm is given in (5) above.

Both the relative and the interrogative morphemes occur in free or bound form. As a free morpheme, they follow a full noun (8a) or replace it (8c, 15); as bound morphemes, they are suffixed to a stem. For instance, in (8b), the interrogative / relative nominal suffix is attached immediately to the stem, the basic nominal suffix -l of the full noun wugel does not occur. For other examples of nouns and noun stems, see Dombrowsky-Hahn (2015, chapters 2 and 4, and 2018).

<11>

The uses of the interrogative determiner in its free and bound form is illustrated in (9), of it functioning as relative morpheme in (10), the free relative determiner further in the attested example (11), the bound one in (6). The distribution of the free and the bound forms are not entirely clear, but see Dombrowsky-Hahn (2018) for a hypothesis.

<12>

Due to the strong association of some genders with semantic categories, for instance humans with gender 1/2, artifacts with gender 15 / 4 / 21, activities, problems, affairs or topics with gender 5/6 [8], the interrogative / relative morpheme is used as a pronoun when the type of entity can be inferred from the linguistic or extra-linguistic context. (12) illustrates the interrogative pronoun of class 5 referring to a topic, (13) the relative pronoun of class 2 referring to human beings.

<13>

There are two strategies available for the relativization of noun phrases in verbal clauses. In the first one, the in situ strategy, the constituents keep their unmarked order. It is the most frequent strategy attested for obliques (14), but is rather exceptional for objects.

<14>

The second one is the fronting strategy; it comprises the displacement of an object to clause-initial position, leaving a gap in its usual slot, indicated by Ø in the RC of (11). The fronting is a focusing mechanism that can be formulated as follows: S (Aux) O V -> O S (Aux) V. The extraction of the relativized object entails marking of the out-of-focus part of the clause as intransitive. This happens by means of an intransitive prefix, which is always present in intransitive clauses marked for certain TAM values (i.e. remote, hodiernal, hesternal past, general imperfective). (15) illustrates the in situ strategy of an interrogative clause, (16) the fronting strategy.

Fronting is one of several possible mechanisms to focus a constituent. A fronted constituent can be additionally marked with a simple or deictic identifier (7, 16). Alternatively, when a relativized item is fronted, the accompanying relative morpheme is marked with a H tone (11). Focusing is possible in situ as well, for instance by means of the focus marker wò in (15).

<15>

Fronting of obliques is possible, albeit rare. The fronting of an oblique does not involve preposition stranding nor pied piping in Syer. For subjects, only the fronting procedure is available. Since the subject is anyhow clause-initial in an unmarked clause it is not displaced. It is rather resumed by a simple pronoun which agrees with the head in gender and number. In (13), the simple pronoun pi of class 2 resumes the relative pronoun plɛɛ̀.

Constituents in clauses with nonverbal predicates cannot be fronted. For instance the locative predicate li nì in (10), designated as copula complement (CC) keeps its usual position following the copula [10].

<26>

Since the described RC in Syer corresponds to an independent simple interrogative clause, the entire complex sentence resembles a paratactic construction. Without a clear sign of subordination, the RC equivalent to a simple interrogative clause precedes the MC which equals an independent declarative clause [11]. In fact, the first clause can be qualified as RC only because of the relation that exists between it and a NP in the main clause that is coreferential with it, and because the whole functions as an intonational unit. Even if sometimes a very short suspensive pause can be perceived after the RC, there is neither an absolute pause, nor an utterance final lowering of pitch. These two features are present at the end of an independent clause.

<16>

In Comrie & Kuteva’s typology (2013b), a RC showing an element “which would not be present in the corresponding simple declarative sentence” equivalent to an interrogative pronoun is excluded from what they name the paratactic strategy. They reserve this category only to constructions in which RC and MC can function as independent declarative clauses. Within the authors’ typology based on relativizing strategies Syer RCs can rather be classified as a correlative RC. In this type, the RC modifies a NP that is a constituent in another clause (the MC), but it does not assume directly a syntactic role in it. Rather the MC contains an anaphoric NP that is coreferential with the RC and that indicates its syntactic role in the MC.

<17>

It is impossible to give an exhausting classification of conditional clauses for the languages discussed in the frame of the present contribution. Therefore, the description will be restricted to content conditionals [12], which are solely relevant for the conditional-relative constructions as the topic of this paper. The hypothetical conditionals (HC) and the course of events conditionals (CEC) are the most frequent content conditionals. They share the formal aspects in each language respectively. In this section the characteristics of Syer conditionals are presented.

<18>

In a hypothetical conditional construction, the apodosis follows the protasis, sometimes separated from it by a suspensive pause. There is no conditional conjunction; conditional marking is rather achieved through the combination of a L tone on the pronominal subject (17) (other NPs maintain their respective tune, as in (21)), the conditional auxiliary mɛ (glossed cond) and a HL tune [13]. The distribution of the HL tune is determined by two factors, first the presence or absence of an object following the auxiliary, and second, the tonal class of the verb. In an intransitive clause, when no object separates the auxiliary from the verb, the auxiliary is realized M and the verb shows HL, except when the verb belongs to the class of L verbs. The L tone is maintained on these verbs, and the H of the HL auxiliary moves to the auxiliary on its left. The realization of the conditional in intransitive clauses for all three tonal classes of verbs is illustrated in (18).

The distinction between M and HL verb classes is neutralized in the conditional, but in the L class of verbs, which is the most stable one, the verb maintains its L tone. When an oblique follows a verb of the M or the HL class, the verb is realized H instead of HL. For instance the verb klô, which is realized HL when it stands in utterance final position is realized H in nonfinal position in (19). Sometimes, the H realization is found also when the suspensive pause between the protasis and the apodosis is almost absent as in (17), stressing so the intonational unity of the complex sentence.

<19>

In a transitive clause, when an object precedes the verb, the distribution is more complex. It depends on the tone of the object. For instance, with a nominal object bearing an initial L tone (sã̀sugu in (15)) the characteristic HL is reduced to H, associated to the auxiliary. The tonal realization of the verb then depends on the tone of the object NP (cp. Dombrowsky-Hahn 2015, chap. 3, section 3.5.3).

<20>

Content conditionals can be distinguished according to the speaker’s attitude towards the likelihood of the realization of the event, ranging from factual at the one end to counterfactual conditionals (in the past) at the other, passing through less likely or unlikely conditionals. HCs are potentially real or unreal, whereas CECs are considered to be real. (17) is an example of a hypothetical conditional, in which “the consequent is somehow predicted to follow from satisfying the ‘condition’ expressed in the antecedent” (Athanasiadou & Dirven 1997:62). In such cases a non-factual hypothetical situation is expressed in the antecedent and therefore also in the consequent.

In a course of events conditional two events co-occur, and the one is dependent on the other. They express a factual ‘whenever’ relationship. According to Athanasiadou & Dirven (1997:71 ff), the CEC and the HC differ with respect to the speaker’s commitment to the realization of the situation: in a CEC the speaker makes a commitment as to the actual, frequent or general realization of the two situations, whereas in the HC the speaker distances her-/himself from any commitment to real occurrence but considers potential realities. In both cases the conditional marking creates a hypothetical world, but CECs differ from HCs among others by the use of ‘higher-order entities’ (Langacker 1997), such as for instance ndye ‘person’ in (21). Tense-aspect categories in the main clause contribute to a factual interpretation, too. Thus, the imperfective in (21) is interpreted as a habitual and consequently the entire sentence describes a generally observed situation [14].

<21>

CRCs are constructions that cumulate relative and conditional marking. An example is the elicited sentence (22). The relative pronoun in the RC and the simple pronoun coreferential with it in the MC are the elements characterizing a relative, and the conditional auxiliary and the HL tune on the verb the conditional clause.

Natural data from texts are usually more complex. Thus, in (23), the relative is separated from the main clause by the additional clause ‘the young is with her’. It expresses another condition, however without showing conditional marking.

<22>

This type of clause shares two features with referential definite relatives: first, the marking with a relative morpheme (yii in (22) and (23)), which determines or replaces a head, signaling that the so modified or restricted NP is a constituent in a following main clause. Second, the presence of a NP in the MC that is coreferential with the RC and which indicates its syntactic function in the MC. Insofar, the CRC is a correlative construction like the RC. The CRC shares with the conditional clause its marking by means of the conditional auxiliary mɛ and the tune characteristic of the conditional [15] (cf. 2.2.2). This conditional marking makes the CRC an unequivocally subordinated clause, whereas the referential RC resembles an independent interrogative clause. While two strategies are possible in the referential definite RCs (at least for objects and obliques), only the in situ strategy is available in the CRCs (and in the conditional). No displacement of constituents is possible; accordingly the fronting strategy does not apply. That is, the subject in (22) and (23) cannot be resumed by a simple pronoun respectively, nor can the object in (24) be fronted.

<23>

The examples in (25) through (27) illustrate a) a referential definite RC in the perfect aspect (Ø auxiliary), making use of the in situ strategy; b) same as a) but using the fronting strategy; c) a CRC and d) the unavailable fronting strategy within this type of relatives.

The CRC shares with both the relative and the conditional its intonational unity with the main clause, especially the absence of a final lowering and a suspensive pause at the frontier between the CRC and the MC.

<24>

In this section I have discussed three constructions: the RC, the conditional and the CRC, the last of which brings together the characteristic features of the two previous constructions.

The RC in Syer is a correlative construction; that is, the RC does not constitute directly a nominal constituent in the MC; it is rather represented in it by means of a coreferential NP. The relativized noun is marked or replaced by a relative morpheme which originates in the interrogative morpheme ‘which’ agreeing in gender and number with the antecedent. On a purely structural level, the complex sentence is a paratactic construction, for both the RC and the MC (exempt the characteristic intonation making them a coherent unit) can occur as independent interrogative and declarative clauses respectively. Nevertheless, in the current typology, the Syer RC is not considered to belong to the paratactic type which requires both the RC and the MC clauses to be apt to figure as independent declarative clauses. Two strategies are possible in typical RCs: the in situ and the fronting strategy. The latter serves to particularly focus on the relativized item

<25>

Syer conditionals are not introduced by a conjunction; they are marked by means of an auxiliary, which is a subordinator at the same time. Unable to figure as an independent clause, the conditional clause is unequivocally subordinated. Due to the presence of the conditional auxiliary, the CRC is subordinated, too. The CRC is, like the RC, a correlative construction. However, unlike RCs, CRCs only admit the in situ strategy.

<27>

Closely related, the northwestern Senufo language Supyire and its northeastern relative Syer share many features, but they also show dissimilarities. Those concerning relative clauses will be discussed in the following. The commonalities are the order RC – MC and the choice between the in situ and the fronting strategies. The fronting strategy, which is more common, includes the resumption of a relativized subject by a simple pronoun (28) and the dislocation of a relativized object (29) to clause-initial position. Like in Syer, a gap is left in the object’s usual position (signaled as Ø in 29).

<28>

Like in Syer, the MC in Supyire includes a NP coreferential with the RC (the discourse demonstrative kuru in (28) and in (30), the simple pronoun ci in (29)). Although both Syer and Supyire relatives belong to the correlative type in Kuteva & Comrie’s (2005) and Comrie & Kuteva’s (2013a, 2013b) typology, they differ with respect to the degree of subordination. As shown above, the typical Syer RC is part of a paratactic construction [19], whereas the Supyire RC bears traces of nominalization, and hence is in a more hypotactic relation to the MC (Carlson 1997:32). The sign of nominalization in Supyire RCs is the invariant clause-final particle ké. The form of this morpheme resembles the nominal suffix of nouns belonging to the singular class 15 (Carlson’s gender 2 singular), -gV and its definite counterpart -ge or -ke. This parallel between the clause-final marker and a nominal suffix is interpreted by Carlson as a sign of former nominalization and hence subordination of the RC. The nominalization hypothesis is corroborated by data from the central Senufo language Senari (Cebaara) where the corresponding clause-final morpheme is lè, showing the consonant l (cf. section 2.1) characteristic of the noun class 5 (Carlson’s gender 3 singular). The author therefore assumes that originally the final marker might have been variable, showing agreement with the head.

<29>

The nominalization of a clause is considered as the process by which a finite verbal clause is converted into a noun phrase. Usually, in the course of this process the verb becomes a head noun, the tense-aspect-modal morphology is lost, and subject or object acquires genitive case-marking, among others (Givón 2001:24). None of these adjustments is presently observable in Supyire (or Cebaara), considered by Givón (2001:29) to be an extreme finite (non-embedding) language. Nevertheless, the clause-final particle in Supyire relatives is never present in an independent clause and can be interpreted as a signal of subordination. Thus, the classification as correlative construction says nothing about the degree of subordination in the arrangement of the relative and main clauses, and both the paratactic construction in Syer and the more hypotactic construction in Supyire can be qualified as correlatives. That correlative relative clauses can be paratactic or hypotactic constructions has been shown also for different branches of Mande languages (Creissels 2009a, Nikitina 2012).

<30>

A major difference between Syer and Supyire is the marking of the head of a RC. While in Supyire the clause-final particle ké is obligatory in all RCs, the marking of the head NP as relativized is optional. This marking consists of a morpheme agreeing in gender and number with the head. In (28) its optional presence is indicated in brackets; in (29) the option is not indicated. The relative determiner corresponds to the deictic demonstrative; however, unlike the relative determiner, the demonstrative precedes the noun (i.e. ŋ̀ké yaagé ‘this thing’, but yaagé ŋké ‘the thing that’). In clauses with an unmentioned head, the same morphemes function as relative pronouns.

In the in situ version of the RC, the relative determiner is obligatory, and it is often extended by the suffix -mu. Like in the neighbor language Minyanka spoken in Mali (Dombrowsky-Hahn 1998), the form of this suffix concurrent with the maintenance of the canonical word order (or application of the in situ strategy) result from contact with Bambara, the lingua franca used in the region (Carlson 1997:33, and below). In Bambara, the word order is extremely strict, and in relative clauses the relative morpheme mîn [mĩ]~ mûn [mũ] (which is the source of the Supyire suffix -mu) follows the head or replaces it.

<31>

Content conditionals show the conditional auxiliary ká (or its allomorph ahá) in the protasis, and future tense in the apodosis. This is illustrated in (23).

<32>

Carlson (1994:507-509) deals with the conditional-relative clause in chapter 13 on relative clauses in a section entitled “conditional-relative clauses”, and, in chapter 15 on conditionals, he mentions them under the heading “other uses of the conditional” (1994:580). He notes that the “‘whoever’ meaning” is obtained by using the conditional auxiliary in a relative clause with a nonreferential relativized NP. (32) shows such a sentence with a relativized subject, (33) with a relativized object.

<33>

The account of the relative clauses on the one hand and of conditional clauses on the other hand shows that the conditional-relative clauses ((32) and (33)) combine features of the two previous constructions. They share the auxiliary with the conditional and the marking of the head NP by means of the demonstrative-relative determiner and the clause final relative marker ge with the relative. Furthermore, the main clause comprises a NP co-referentially related with the CRC (ura in (32) and (33)).

However, the CRC differs from the RC by the impossibility to dislocate the relativized item to the left; i.e. the fronting strategy does not apply with the CRC. Correspondingly, the relativized NP is always marked by means of the extended relative determiner rel+suf (Carlson 1994:507). The obligatory use of this determiner and the resemblance of this construction to similar sentences in Bambara (Manding, see below) suggest here again a certain influence of the lingua franca on the Senufo language. However, as shown in section 2.2, a very similar construction exists in Syer without any borrowed form. Syer seems generally to have undergone much less influence by the Dyula variety of the Manding cluster used as lingua franca in southwestern Burkina Faso, so that it is difficult to judge whether we are dealing with an instance of metatypy here as well, or whether it is a phenomenon of larger areal distribution.

<34>

RCs in Supyire are correlative constructions. Both strategies, the in situ and the fronting strategy are allowed in typical RCs. All RCs are obligatorily marked with the immutable clause-final marker ke or ge, which is interpreted as a trace of nominalization of the clause and which functions as subordinator. There is also a relative determiner marking a head as relativized and showing agreement with it. It follows the definite form of the head when used as determiner; the same form replaces the head when used as pronoun. The forms of the relative determiner correspond to deictic demonstratives, but their position with respect to the head differs, for the deictic demonstratives usually precede the head. Relative determiners are optional when the relativized item is fronted to the initial position of a RC. But when the in situ strategy is used, they are obligatory and, additionally, they show a suffix -mu added to the demonstrative element.

Conditional clauses are encoded by means of a conditional auxiliary. The same auxiliary is found in CRCs, which show at the same time features that characterize RCs. Allowing only the in situ strategy, relativized items in CRCs obligatorily bear the extended rel+suf marker.

<36>

Senufo and Mande languages share the word order S Aux (O) V (X). In Bambara, the auxiliary is a constitutive and obligatory part of an independent clause, which fuses a TAM value with either affirmative or negative polarity [21]. An exception is the perfective value in intransitive affirmative clauses for which the auxiliary is replaced by the inflectional morpheme -ra (or its allomorphs -la, -na) suffixed to the verb. This results in the schematic representation S V- ra for intransitive affirmative clauses in the perfective aspect. The difference can be seen comparing an intransitive affirmative clause in the imperfective (34) and in the perfective aspect (35).

In Bambara (and Manding in general), the verb does not show agreement with the subject or the object. Syntactic relations are determined by word order, which is much more strict than in Syer and Supyire (or Senufo in general). So, no dislocation of a constituent is possible in Bambara, for instance as a focusing strategy.

<37>

Next to clauses with verbal predicates, Manding varieties dispose of several types of clauses with nonverbal predicates.

<38>

A main difference vis-à-vis Senufo or Gur in general is the absence of a gender system in Mande. There is a unique nominal marker in Bambara, called the definite marker or definite modality by Dumestre (2003:137) and ‘definite’ article by Vydrin (2019:33), but ‘specific article’ in the Corpus bambara de référence  [22]. It has the form of a floating Low tone (noted `) causing a downstep of a following H, except for a few words in which it is rather perceived as part of the tonal contour of the word. Among the few words there is the relative morpheme mîn (Vydrin 2019). No thorough study of the role of the article for the marking of referentiality and definiteness in Bambara being available up to now, the author only adds that it occurrs more frequently than the definite article in French, and refers to Creissels’ (2009b) description of Kita Malinke where its use is very similar to that in Bambara. In both varieties it is the absence of the article that is marked, not its presence. Resuming and interpreting the most important of Creissels’ findings, it is possible to say that the article is present in the citation form of nouns and other generic contexts (for instance objects in affirmative clauses), and with nouns that have a referential-definite and a referential indefinite [23] interpretation. It is absent with non-referential NPs among others in such negative clauses as mùso tɛ́ ‘This is not a woman’.

<39>

In Bambara, there is a unique plural morpheme -u (written in the orthography as -w, i.e. mùso ` ‘woman’; mùsoẁ ‘women’) suffixed to the lexeme. In a noun phrase, the plural morpheme is added to the last element, for instance in a NP comprising a noun + an attribute, such as for instance an adjective, the plural is suffixed to the adjective which follows the noun (mùso ɲùman` ‘a nice woman’; mùso ɲùmanẁ ‘nice women’).

The tonal article is associated to the plural suffix -u, resulting in [ù] (ẁ in the orthography) (as in mùso ɲùmanẁ ‘nice women’). There is also the more recently developed ‘definite’ article ìn  ^[24] (40), originating in the deictic demonstrative nìn but whose distribution/function and delimitation vis-à-vis the tonal definite/specific article is not yet understood.

<40>

The typical relative clause in Bambara  ^[25] precedes the MC. The relativized item is followed by the tonal article in form of a floating low and marked by the relative morpheme mîn  [26]. As shown by Creissels (2009a:46), mîn originates from a demonstrative morpheme, whose demonstrative function got lost in Bambara but that has been maintained in Koyaga of Mankono (Ivory Coast), another Manding variety. In this variety it fulfills both the demonstrative and the relativizing functions. The same form is used as determiner and, when the head remains unmentioned, as pronoun. It varies only with respect to number, the plural being mínnù or múnnù. Like in Senufo, the RC and the MC constitute a correlative construction. This means that the MC shows a NP coreferential with the RC, frequently in form of the (discourse) demonstrative (d.dem) pronoun ò (36), or another pronoun, or the repetition of the head determined by the discourse demonstrative morpheme (37).

<41>

There are two different conditional constructions in Bambara distinguished formally: first, a construction displaying the conjunction ní ‘if’, and second, a clause showing the auxiliary mána  [27]. Clauses introduced by the conjunction ní occur most often initially; in rare cases the order is inverted, so that they follow the MC (Dumestre 2003:380). The conjunction ní can be considered as a subordinator; a clause it introduces cannot function as independent clause. On the contrary, the MC corresponds without any change to an independent clause. If the subordinate part is a verbal clause, the choice of the TAM category depends on the aspectual relation between the conditioning event and the predicted event. If both the event encoded in the conditional and the one in the MC take place at the same time, the conditional contains an imperfective predicate marker (38). If the prediction (expressed in the MC) is such that the conditioning event is expected to be completed before the MC event takes place, the conditional clause bears perfective and the MC imperfective aspect (39), (40), or future tense. As the comparison of (38) with (39) illustrates, the difference of perfective vs imperfective marking in the conditional clause does not correspond to the distinction between course of events conditionals (or the realis type) and hypothetical conditionals (or the irrealis type).

<42>

The alternative conditional clause displays the conditional auxiliary mána. Its use is restricted to affirmative clauses with verbal predicates, whereas the conjunction ní introduces both affirmative (38) and negative ((39), (40)) clauses, and both clauses with a verbal and a nonverbal predicate (42d) [28]. In the conditionals with mána, no conjunction or other temporal or aspectual marker or copula can be added, and the negative counterpart of the auxiliary has almost fallen into oblivion [29]. To express negative parallels speakers of standard Bambara rather use conditionals with the conjunction ní described above.

<43>

The copula of a clause with a nonverbal predicate (42a) cannot simply be combined with or substituted by the auxiliary mána (42b). mána can be used, when the copula is replaced by the verb kɛ́ ‘happen, become, do’ (42c); otherwise the alternative construction bearing the conjunction ní is used (42d).

<44>

Although generalizing relative clauses are frequent in Bambara, the construction was not expressly discussed in Dumestre’s (1987, 2003) grammar. The first examination of the topic is found in Vydrin’s (2019) “Cours de grammaire bambara”. Vydrin follows Creissels (2009) and Creissels & Sambou (2013) who studied the corresponding construction in Malinké of Kita and Mandinka calling it “construction relative généralisante” (generalizing relative construction). The generalizing relative is described as a construction combining features of a relative and a conditional and meaning ‘the one who’, ‘any X who’ or ‘if there is a X that …’ (Vydrin 2019). The feature characteristic of conditionals found in this construction is the marking by means of the conjunction ní (43-46) or the auxiliary mána (47); the feature characteristic of relative clauses, a relativized NP marked by the relative morpheme mîn, and a NP coreferential with the RC in the MC.

<45>

Showing the deictic demonstrative ò, the coreferential NPs in the MCs are similar to those in sentences showing typical relatives. Furthermore, some show an element stressing the general meaning, expressing a higher-order category, i.e. tìgi ‘person, agent’ in (43), or mùso ‘woman’ in (45), always accompanied by the deictic demonstrative ò. Alternatively the second person singular pronoun í stands for an impersonal pronoun (44) ‘the one, the person concerned’. A plural head is sometimes referred to by the pronoun òlu ‘they’ (46).

<46>

The coreference in the last example builds on the metonymic relation between dú ‘compound’ as a place where the dog enters and dú ‘family’, represented by òlu ‘they’ as the people living in one compound and who the dinner has been prepared for.

<47>

Like in the Senufo languages discussed above, Bambara relatives are correlative constructions. The typical RC precedes the MC. The head is marked by means of the relative morpheme mîn / mínnù ~ múnnù originating in a deictic demonstrative, which is still in use in this function in another Manding variety. In a Bambara RC, mîn has subordinating function, and its position signals the syntactic role relativized. The main difference vis-à-vis the Senufo languages is the strict word order in Manding. A coreferential NP in the MC usually consists of or is determined by the discourse demonstrative ò.

<48>

There are two types of conditionals, one introduced by the conjunction ní ‘if’, possible with all clause types and both polarity values, and another one that shows the (affirmative) conditional auxiliary mána, which is restricted to verbal clauses.

CRCs are possible with either conditional marking. The other features of the clause correspond to those of RCs.