{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03730229782154581, 'fraction_numerical': 0.012533572068039392, 'mean_word_length': 4.931563421828908, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 6, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Relativization Strategies of Sasak Ngeno Ngene Dialect in Lombok

Relative clauses (RC), in whatever the languages, are essential for investigation especially on how noun phrases as nuclear and oblique relations are workable in Keenan & Comrie’s (1977) Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarchy. In this paper, Relativization Strategies of Sasak Ngeno-Ngene Dialect in Lombok is presented with the aims are (1) describing the ability of these relations in direct relativization, (2) analyzing the strategies used when indirect relativization occurs, and (3) formulating the right orderings of these relations in the hierarchy. The data on relativization strategies were taken by elicitations, an interview with some informants and documentation of the previous related studies. Then, a careful analysis was made with reference to common linguistic typological approach. The results of this study showed that: (1) gap strategy underlines direct relativization for S (subject) of SVO, O (object) of OVS and OBL of destination, (2) case-coding strategy is preferred by OBL of locative, and (3) passivization strategy is suitable for all indirect relativizations for O (object) of SVO and OBL of benefactive, recipient, and instrumental. The hierarchy of nuclear and oblique relations were formulated: S (SVO) > O (OVS) > OBL (DES > LOC) in direct relativization. Conversely, the hierarchy of O (SVO) > OBL (BEN > RECIP > INST) is shown in indirect relativization.


Relativization Strategies of Sasak Ngeno Ngene Dialect in Lombok
In Linguistic typology, relative clauses (RCs) are essential for investigation on how noun phrases as nuclear and oblique relations are workable in Keenan & Comrie's (1977) Noun Phrase (NP) Accessibility Hierarchy. Comrie (1992) mentioned two types of relative clauses: restrictive and non-restrictive. The first illustrates the presence of a relative marker right after a noun phrase in a clause as in the boy who walked alone in the rain was my grandson. The second shows a relative marker directly after a comma in the girl, whom I saw in the rain alone, was my neighbor. Here, the markers who for S (subject) and whom for O (object) are performed in two different contexts of situation. Amongst the two RCs, a restrictive clause is more accessible for NP analysis in the hierarchy.
The NP Accessibility Hierarchy (AH) can be described as follows: [ Research on the relativization strategies within Keenan & Comrie's (1977) AH has received wide attention all over the world. Hanafi (2001), Lutfa (2003), Hanafi & Mahawan (2006) and Shibatani (2008) are a few of them whose interests are on it. Hanafi (2001) who worked on relativization strategies to nuclear relations (S = subject and O = object) of six languages in Indonesia found that S is accessible for direct relativization with gap strategy. Conversely, the passivization strategy is the only choice for O in indirect relativization. Lutfa (2003) who investigated NPs in Ngeno-Ngene RCs, clarified that S of SVO and O of OVS are more accessible to direct relativization compared to OBL relations. Unfortunately, she did not discuss the orderings of NPs in the AH which are considered important. Hanafi & Mahawan (2006) examined the employed strategies in direct relativization across languages. They turned up with six common strategies used by those languages. However, they did not include Sasak Ngeno-Ngene dialect as one of their examples.
Critics over Keenan & Comrie's RC theory on the AH was delivered by Shibatani (2008). He rejected the claim that S is more accessible than other nuclear relations by giving some evidence on Sasak and Sumbawa RCs whose Topic in these languages is more accessible to relativization than S, like in some other Austronesian languages.

This paper reports on Relativization Strategies of Sasak Ngeno-Ngene Dialect in Lombok with
the aims as follows: (1) describing the ability of nuclear and OBL relations in direct relativization within the AH, (2) analyzing the strategy patterns when indirect relativization occurs, and (3) reformulating the orderings of these relations in the AH. The reason for choosing Ngeno-Ngene dialect here is that it is the largest in Lombok, supported by approximately 1.153.773 people in East Lombok, West Nusa Tenggara (NTB BPS.GO.ID 2019). It is outstanding in its role, amongst others, as a medium of teaching Indonesian to young learners and is widely spoken by the majority of Sasak people of different dialects (Ahmadi, 1996). This dialect has two word-orders: SVO and OVS. The latter is syntactically ergative (Artawa, 1994;Hanafi & Udin, 2016).

Method
This research is qualitatively descriptive. It describes the phenomena of relativization strategies of Ngeno-Ngene Dialect in East Lombok. The data were collected from elicitations, interviews, and documentation of the previous research. The elicitations were done to get the real data and interviews with some informants were used to cross-check the data. Other data from documentation of the previous related study were taken for secondary data. Finally, a careful analysis was conducted with reference to the common linguistic typological approach. This approach provides guidelines for identifying patterns in the study of any language and allows description for many syntactic, morphological and phonological phenomena as well (Lehmann 1978).

Results
The results of relativization strategies on nuclear and oblique relations in Sasak Ngeno Ngene Dialect are presented in Table 1. Three types of strategies occur in direct relativization: (a) gap strategy is for S (SVO), O (OVS) and OBL of destination, and (b) case-coding strategy is for OBL of locative. Conversely, indirect relativization involves the use of (a) passivization strategy for O (SVO), OBL of benefactive, recipient and instrumental. Concerning the reformulation orderings of NPs in the hierarchy, we can say that in (1)

Direct relativization
The following are some nuclear and OBL relations in direct relativization as follows: S, O, OBL of locative and destination.

S relativization (SVO)
Example [9a] is the main clause whose core argument NPs are S kanak 'kid' and O panaq 'arrow' joined by the main verb singgaq 'borrow'. This verb is morphologically unmarked. In S direct relativization [9b], a relative marker siq and a gap strategy are used to signal it. On the other hand, the direct relativization of O, which has been previously promoted to the initial position as a grammatical S in the clause, cannot undergo relativization. This is exhibited in [9c] with an asterisk (*).

Relativization of destination
Clause [12a] consists of S and OBL indicating destination. The S Aku is preverbal while OBL of destination Sintung with a definite marker ino is preceded by a preposition aning 'to' and adverbial rubin 'yesterday'. The verb lalo 'go' is morphologically unmarked. When OBL of destination undergoes raising to the initial position in the clause, the initial S turns to become a post-clitic =ku which attaches to the preposition aning and followed by an adverbial rubin V o l . 7 ( 1 ) , 2 0 2 0 | 17

Indirect relativization
Some nuclear and OBL relations of SVO presented in this relativization. They are O, OBL of benefactive, recipient and instrumental.

O relativization (SVO)
The main clause in [13a] is two place-verb construction. It carries the preverbal NP Juki as S and the postverbal NP acong 'dog' as O, and the verb mantoq 'hit' is nasal. In the process of O relativization, it has to be firstly promoted to grammatical S in the passive clause and the initial S demotes to pronominal clitic = ne (3SG) on the verb. This enclitic = ne co-occurs with Juki. In this revaluation, the passive verb is marked with teprefix and isiq Juki behaves like an agentive adjunct [13b]. In the second process, the initial O, which is now taking the position of grammatical S in the passive, undergoes relativization signaled by siq 'that'. In short, [13] takes the passivization strategy for O relativization. [

Benefactive relativization (SVO)
A quasi-applicative is used to explicate the process of benefactive relativization. Accordingly, the quasi-applicative occurs when the underlying transitive clause whose oblique relation is absent as in [14a] Inaq miyaq jaje. When [14a] undergoes applicativeness in [14b], the verb miyaq 'make' receives = ang suffix (gloss APPL) as an applicative marker to denote "a process of valency mechanism to add an argument of a verb" (Spencer 1995). The addition of an argument NP is realized by the presence of Loq Bahrum as an O before jaje 'cake' in the clause. So [14b] is a form of a quasi -applicative proposed by Dixon (2012).
Benefactive OBL relativization takes place in two ways. First, Loq Bahrum is promoted to grammatical S position in the passive and the initial S Inaq becomes an agentive adjunct [14c].
The passivization process such as this is signaled by te= prefix (gloss PASS) on the verb and followed by isiq phrase. Second, benefactive OBL may undergo relativization in [14d] in which siq as a relative marker precedes the passive verb tepiyaqang. In this context, the benefactive OBL takes a passivization strategy for indirect relativization.

Conclusion
In conclusion, two types of relativizations in RCs of Sasak Ngeno-Ngeno Dialect were found.
They are interrelated with the strategies used in relativization. Direct relativization accommodates the use of gap and case-coding strategies triggered by the behaviors of two core argument NPs (S and O), locative OBL and destination OBL. In contrast, indirect relativization allows the application of the passivization strategy because of the obstacles in the direct relativization process. Thus, O and OBL of benefactive, recipient and instrumental belong to this group. It is interesting to note that quasi-applicatives in Ngeno-Ngene Dialect are without underlying clauses for benefactive and recipient OBLs and the applicative verbs are morphologically marked or unmarked APPL. Further research on Sasak quasi-applicatives are encouraged.