Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T11:27:07.181Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Against the Small Clause Hypothesis: Evidence from Swedish relative clause extractions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 April 2015

Christiane Müller
Christiane Müller*
Affiliation:
Centre for Languages and Literature, Lund University, Box 201, SE-221 00 Lund, Sweden. [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

On the basis of data from Swedish, this paper examines the Small Clause Hypothesis (Kush & Lindahl 2011, Kush, Omaki & Hornstein 2013) proposed to account for relative clause (RC) extractions in Mainland Scandinavian. The hypothesis predicts that extraction possibilities differ for relative clauses in the complement of verbs which select and verbs which do not select a small clause (SC), and that the possibility of RC extraction hinges on the ability of the matrix verb to select SCs involving the predicational operator som. I report results from an acceptability judgment experiment on RC extraction in Swedish manipulating three conditions: (a) SC-selecting verbs compatible with som, (b) SC-selecting verbs incompatible with som, and (c) verbs that are incompatible with SCs. The results show no significant difference between these conditions, thus offer no support in favor of the Small Clause Hypothesis. Additional problems are posed by the possibility of extraction from object RCs and by extraction possibilities in the absence of som.

Keywords

acceptability judgmentsextractionisland constraintslocalityrelative clausessmall clausesSwedishsyntax
Type
Research Article
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 38 , Issue 1 , May 2015 , pp. 67 - 92
Copyright
Copyright © Nordic Association of Linguistics 2015 

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

Allwood, Jens S. 1982. The Complex NP Constraint in Swedish. In Engdahl & Ejerhed (eds.), 15–32.Google Scholar
Andersson, Lars‐Gunnar. 1982. What is Swedish an exception to? Extractions and island constraints. In Engdahl & Ejerhed (eds.), 33–46.Google Scholar
Asudeh, Ash. 2012. The Logic of Pronominal Resumption. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Basilico, David. 2003. The topic of small clauses. Linguistic Inquiry 34, 1–35.Google Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric, 2012. Syntactic Islands. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1973. Conditions on transformations. In Anderson, Stephen R. & Kiparsky, Paul (eds.), A Festschrift for Morris Halle, 232–286. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1993. A Minimalist program for linguistic theory. In Hale, Kenneth & Keyser, Samuel Jay (eds.), The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Martin, Roger, David Michaels & Uriagereka, Juan (eds.), Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honour of Howard Lasnik, 89–115. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Kenstowicz, Michael (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Christensen, Ken Ramshøj, Kizach, Johannes & Nyvad, Anne Mette. 2013a. Escape from the island: Grammaticality and (reduced) acceptability of wh-island violations in Danish. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 42 (1), 51–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Christensen, Ken Ramshøj, Kizach, Johannes & Nyvad, Anne Mette. 2013b. The processing of syntactic islands – an fMRI study. Journal of Neurolinguistics 26 (2), 239–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, Ken Ramshøj & Nyvad, Anne Mette. 2014. On the nature of escapable relative islands. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 37 (1), 29–45.Google Scholar
Chung, Sandra & McCloskey, James. 1983. On the interpretation of certain island facts in GPSG. Linguistic Inquiry 14, 704–713.Google Scholar
Creswell, Cassandre. 2002. Resumptive pronouns, wh-island violations, and sentence production. The Sixth International Workshop on Tree Adjoining Grammar and Related Frameworks (TAG+ 6), 101–109. Universitá di Venezia.Google Scholar
Engdahl, Elisabeth. 1982. Restrictions on unbounded dependencies in Swedish. In Engdahl & Ejerhed (eds.), 151–174.Google Scholar
Engdahl, Elisabeth. 1997. Relative clause extractions in context. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 60, 59–86.Google Scholar
Engdahl, Elisabeth & Ejerhed, Eva (eds.). 1982. Readings on Unbounded Dependencies in Scandinavian Languages. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 1973. On the Nature of Island Constraints. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 1982. Extrability in Danish and the pragmatic principle of dominance. In Engdahl & Ejerhed (eds.), 175–191.Google Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi & Lappin, Shalom. 1979. Dominance and the functional explanation of island phenomena. Theoretical Linguistics 6, 41–86.Google Scholar
Fanselow, Gisbert & Frisch, Stefan. 2006. Effects of processing difficulty on judgments of acceptability. In Fanselow, Gisbert, Fery, Caroline & Schlesewsky, Matthias (eds.), Gradience in Grammar: Generative Perspectives, 291–316. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ferreira, Fernanda & Swets, Benjamin. 2005. The production and comprehension of resumptive pronouns in relative clause ‘island’ contexts. In Cutler, Anne (ed.), Twenty-first Century Psycholinguistics: Four Cornerstones, 263–278. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gibson, Eward. 1998. Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition 68, 1–76.Google Scholar
Gibson, Edward. 2000. The Dependency Locality Theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. In Marantz, Alec, Miyashita, Yasushi & O'Neil, Wayne (eds.), Image, Language, Brain, 95–126. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 1994. A Performance Theory of Order and Constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 2004. Efficiency and Complexity in Grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heinat, Fredrik & Wiklund, Anna-Lena. 2015. Scandinavian relative clause extractions: Apparent restrictions. Ms., University of Lund.Google Scholar
Hofmeister, Philip & Sag, Ivan A.. 2010. Cognitive constraints and island effects. Language 86, 366–415.Google Scholar
Kluender, Robert. 1992. Deriving island constraints from principles of predication. In Goodluck, Helen & Rochemont, Michael (eds.), Island Constraints: Theory, Acquisition, and Processing, 223–258. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Kluender, Robert. 2004. Are subject islands subject to a processing account. WCCFL 23, 475–499.Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony S. 1981. On the role of resumptive pronouns in Amnestying Island Constraint violations. 17th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS 17), 125–135. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Kush, Dave & Lindahl, Filippa. 2011. On the escapability of islands in Scandinavian. Presented at the LSA Annual Meeting, 7 January 2011. [http://ling.umd.edu/~kush/KushLindahl_LSA_ScandinavianExtraction.pdf, accessed 26 March 2014]Google Scholar
Kush, Dave, Omaki, Akira & Hornstein, Norbert. 2013. Microvariation in Islands? In Sprouse, Jon & Hornstein, Norbert (eds.), Experimental Syntax and Island Effects, 239–264. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lindahl, Filippa. 2010. Spetsställda led och rematiska relativer. En korpusstudie av satsflätor med presenteringsomskrivning/existentialsats. Göteborg: Göteborgs universitet/Institutionen för svenska språket.Google Scholar
Lohndal, Terje. 2009. Comp–t effects: Variation in the position and features of c. Studia Linguistica 63, 204–232.Google Scholar
Lundin, Katarina. 2003. Small Clauses in Swedish: Towards a Unified Account (Lundastudier i nordisk språkvetenskap A 60). Lund: Department of Scandinavian Languages.Google Scholar
Maling, Joan & Zaenen, Annie. 1982. A phrase structure account of Scandinavian extraction phenomena. In Jacobson, Pauline & Pullum, Geoffrey K. (eds.), The Nature of Syntactic Representation, 229–282. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Müller, Christiane. 2014. Swedish relative clause extraction: The Small Clause Hypothesis. Master's thesis, Lund University.Google Scholar
Platzack, Christer. 1999. Satsfläta med relativsats. In Haskå, Inger & Sandqvist, Carin (eds.), Alla tiders språk. En vänskrift till Gertrud Pettersson, 189–199. Lund: Department of Nordic Languages.Google Scholar
Ross, John R. 1967. Constraints on Variables in Syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Sprouse, Jon. 2007. Continuous acceptability, categorical grammaticality, and experimental syntax. Biolinguistics 1, 123–134.Google Scholar
Starke, Michal. 1995. On the format for small clauses. In Cardinaletti, Anna & Guasti, Maria Teresa (eds.), Small Clauses (Syntax and Semantics 28), 237–269. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Taraldsen, Knut Tarald. 1982. Extraction from relative clauses in Norwegian. In Engdahl & Ejerhed (eds.), 205–222.Google Scholar
Teleman, Ulf, Hellberg, Staffan & Andersson, Erik. 1999. Svenska Akademiens Grammatik, 4 vols. Stockholm: Svenska akademien.Google Scholar
Wellander, Erik. 1948. Riktig svenska. En handledning i svenska språkets vård, 3rd edn. Stockholm: Norstedt.Google Scholar