Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T09:43:23.454Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Regional variation in the syntactic distribution of null finite complementizer

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 October 2007

Kate Kearns
Kate Kearns
Affiliation:
University of Canterbury
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article explores syntactic and regional variation in the choice between declarative (nonrelativizer) that and zero complementizer. Using a corpus of contemporary prose from New Zealand, Australian, American, and British newspapers, the study examines complementizer choice in complements to verbs and adjectives, extraposed complements to verbs, it-subject constructions (It is obvious (that)), and copula constructions (The trouble is (that), It could be (that), What matters is (that), It was only later (that)). The form of the embedded subject (pronoun, short NP (noun phrase), long NP) is also taken into account. It is shown that significant regional differences in zero rates are to some extent syntactic. The New Zealand and Australian data show less inhibition of zero in clauses that are not adjacent to the clause-selecting lexical head than the American and British data.

Type
Research Article
Information
Language Variation and Change , Volume 19 , Issue 3 , October 2007 , pp. 295 - 336
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan, & Finegan, Edward. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Essex, UK: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. (1972). That's that. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bošković, Željko, & Lasnik, Howard. (2003). On the distribution of null complementizers. Linguistic Inquiry 34:527–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burchfield, Robert. (ed.). (1996). The new Fowler's modern English usage. (3rd ed.). Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Cacoullos, Rena Torres, & Walker, James A. (2003). Taking a complement … variably. Paper presented at the 32nd NWAV conference, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Cedergren, Henrietta, & Sankoff, David. (1974). Variable rules: Performance as a statistical reflection of competence. Language 50:333–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. (1986). Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. (1999). Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dor, Daniel. (2005). Toward a semantic account of that-deletion in English. Linguistics 43:345–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elsness, Johan. (1984). That or zero? A look at the choice of object clause connective in a corpus of American English. English Studies 65:519–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, Victor S., & Dell, Gary S. (2000). Effect of ambiguity and lexical availability on syntactic and lexical production. Cognitive Psychology 40:296–340.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Finegan, Edward, & Biber, Douglas. (1995). That and zero complementisers in Late Modern English: Exploring ARCHER from 1650–1990. In Aarts, Bas & Meyer, Charles F. (eds.), The verb in contemporary English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 241–257.Google Scholar
Fowler, H.W. (1926). A dictionary of Modern English usage. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Garnsey, S.M., Pearlmutter, N.J., Myers, E., & Lotocky, M.A. (1997). The contributions of verb bias and plausibility to the comprehension of temporarily ambiguous sentences. Journal of Memory and Language 37:58–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, John A. (2003). Why are zero-marked phrases close to their heads? In Rohdenburg, Günter & Mondorf, Britta (eds.), Determinants of grammatical variation in English. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 175–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henry, Alison. (1995). Belfast English and Standard English: Dialect variation and parameter setting. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney, & Pullum, Geoffrey K. (eds.). (2002). The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaeger, T. Florian, & Wasow, Thomas. (2005). Processing as a source of accessibility effects on variation. Paper presented at the 31st annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. To appear in Proceedings of the 31st annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Jesperson, Otto. (1932). A Modern English grammar on historical principles. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony, & Small, Cathy. (1978). Grammatical ideology and its effect on speech. In Sankoff, David (ed.), Linguistic variation: Models and methods. New York: Academic Press. 45–55.Google Scholar
McDavid, Virginia. (1964). The alternation of ‘that’ and zero in noun clauses. American Speech 39:102–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pesetsky, David. (1991). Zero syntax, vol. 2. Manuscript, MIT.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David, & Torrego, Esther. (2004). Tense, case, and the nature of syntactic categories. In Guéron, Jacqueline & Lecarme, Jacqueline (eds.), The syntax of time. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 495–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poutsma, H. (1929). A grammar of Late Modern English. Groningen: Noordhoff.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey, & Svartvik, Jan. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Race, David S., & MacDonald, Maryellen C. (2003). The use of ‘that’ in the production and comprehension of object relative clauses. Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. 946–951.Google Scholar
Rissanen, Matti. (1991). On the history of that/zero as object clause links in English. In Aijmer, Karin & Altenberg, Bengt (eds.), English corpus linguistics: Studies in honour of Jan Svartvik. London: Longman. 272–289.Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter. (1999). Clausal complementation and cognitive complexity in English. In Neumann, Fritz-Wilhelm & Schülting, Sabine (eds.), Anglistentag 1998, Erfurt. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag. 101–112.Google Scholar
Roland, Douglas, Elman, Jeffrey L., & Ferreira, Victor S. (2006). Why is that? Structural prediction and ambiguity resolution in a very large corpus of English sentences. Cognition 98:245–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Staum, Laura. (2005). When stylistic and social effects fail to converge: A variation study of complementizer choice. Manuscript, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Storms, G. (1966). That-clauses in Modern English. English Studies 47:249–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stowell, Timothy. (1981). Origins of phrase structure. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali & Smith, Jennifer. (2005). No momentary fancy! The zero complementizer in English dialects. English Language and Linguistics 9:289–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A., & Mulac, Anthony. (1991a). The discourse conditions for the use of the complementizer that in conversational English. Journal of Pragmatics 15:237–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A., & Mulac, Anthony (1991b). A quantitative perspective on the grammaticization of epistemic parentheticals in English. In Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Heine, Bernd (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization (Vol. 2). Amsterdam: Benjamins. 313–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Urmson, J. O. (1963). Parenthetical verbs. In Caton, Charles E. (ed.), Philosophy and ordinary language. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. 220–246.Google Scholar
Yaguchi, Michiko. (2001). The function of the non-deictic that in English. Journal of Pragmatics 33:1125–1155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar