Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T02:11:05.122Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Constraints on multiple center-embedding of clauses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 June 2007

FRED KARLSSON
Affiliation:
University of Helsinki

Abstract

A common view in theoretical syntax and computational linguistics holds that there are no grammatical restrictions on multiple center-embedding of clauses. Syntax would thus be characterized by unbounded recursion. An analysis of 119 genuine multiple clausal center-embeddings from seven ‘Standard Average European’ languages (English, Finnish, French, German, Latin, Swedish, Danish) uncovers usage-based regularities, constraints, that run counter to these and several other widely held views, such as that any type of multiple self-embedding (of the same clause type) would be possible, or that self-embedding would be more complex than multiple center-embedding of different clause types. The maximal degree of center-embedding in written language is three. In spoken language, multiple center-embedding is practically absent. Typical center-embeddings of any degree involve relative clauses specifying the referent of the subject NP of the superordinate clause. Only postmodifying clauses, especially relative clauses and that-clauses acting as noun complements, allow central self-embedding. Double relativization of objects (The rat the cat the dog chased killed ate the malt) does not occur. These corpus-based ‘soft constraints’ suggest that full-blown recursion creating multiple clausal center-embedding is not a central design feature of language in use. Multiple center-embedding emerged with the advent of written language, with Aristotle, Cicero, and Livy in the Greek and Latin stylistic tradition of ‘periodic’ sentence composition.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
2007 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Several colleagues have offered valuable help and criticism, which is gratefully acknowledged here: Andrew Chesterman, Guy Deutscher, John W. Du Bois, Marita Gustafsson, Risto Hiltunen, Richard Hudson, Jarmo Korhonen, Kimmo Koskenniemi, Heikki Mattila, Terttu Nevalainen, Martti Nyman, Simo Parpola, and especially Geoffrey Sampson. Sincere thanks for constructive criticism are due also to two JL referees. The work reported here was supported by the Academy of Finland under grant 201601.