Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T22:14:21.488Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Relative clause extraction: Pragmatic dominance, processing complexity and the nature of crosslinguistic variation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 April 2015

John Löwenadler
John Löwenadler*
Affiliation:
University of Gothenburg, Department of Education and Special Education, Box 300, SE-40530 Gothenburg, Sweden. [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

This paper concerns crosslinguistic differences in the acceptability of so-called relative clause extraction constructions, exemplified by the unacceptable English sentence *This boat I know the guy that owns (associated with the acceptable canonical sentence I know the guy that owns this boat). It has sometimes been argued, since Ross (1967), that such extractions are universally blocked by a syntactic constraint. However, following observations of such structures in English and other languages, some linguists have argued that such sentences have varying degrees of acceptability and that the degree of acceptability depends on attention limits and pragmatic foregroundedness/backgroundedness. Another view which appears to have gained ground in recent years is one where the degree of acceptability is directly related to processing difficulty. The analysis presented in this paper is based on a comparison between English and Swedish, and includes authentic data, examples previously discussed in the literature, as well as acceptability-tested invented sentences. In the end it will be argued that, while the dominance- and processing-based proposals are on the right track, there is a more plausible and straightforward way of explaining the observed crosslinguistic variation using the theoretical framework of Construction Grammar. Thus, an alternative account will be presented drawing on general principles which are well established within cognitive- and construction-based theories.

Keywords

Construction Grammarextractionfiller–gap constructionsisland constraintspragmatic dominanceprocessing effects
Type
Research Article
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 38 , Issue 1 , May 2015 , pp. 37 - 65
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. 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.), 33–45.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 1985. Morphology: A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1977. On wh-movement. In Culicover, Peter W., Wasow, Thomas & Akmajian, Adrian (eds.), Formal Syntax, 71–132. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Christensen, Ken Ramshøj, Kizach, Johannes & Nyvad, Anne Mette. 2013. Escape from the island: Grammaticality and (reduced) acceptability of wh-island violations in Danish. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 42, 51–70.Google Scholar
Christensen, Ken Ramshøj & Nyvad, Anne Mette. 2014. On the nature of escapable relative islands. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 37, 29–45.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2003. Lexical rules vs. constructions. In Cuyckens, Hubert, Berg, Thomas, Dirven, René & Panther, Klaus-Uwe (eds.), Motivation in Language: Studies in Honor of Günter Radden, 49–68. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Culicover, Peter W. & McNally, Louise (eds.). 1998. The Limits of Syntax (Syntax and Semantics 29). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Deane, Paul D. 1991. Limits to attention: A cognitive theory of island phenomena. Cognitive Linguistics 2, 1–63.Google Scholar
Engdahl, Elisabet. 1982. Restrictions on unbounded dependencies in Swedish. In Engdahl & Ejerhed (eds.), 151–174.Google Scholar
Engdahl, Elisabet. 1985. Parasitic gaps, resumptive pronouns, and subject extractions. Linguistics 23, 3–44.Google Scholar
Engdahl, Elisabet. 1997. Relative clause extractions in context. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 60, 51–79.Google Scholar
Engdahl, Elisabet & 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. Extractability in Danish and the pragmatic principle of dominance. In Engdahl & Ejerhed (eds.), 175–191.Google Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 1998. The syntax–focus structure interface. In Culicover & McNally (eds.), 211–240.Google Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi & Lappin, Shalom. 1979. Dominance and the functional explanation of island phenomena. Theoretical Linguistics 6, 41–86.Google Scholar
Fodor, Janet Dean. 1992. Islands, learnability and the lexicon. In Goodluck, Helen & Rochemont, Michael (eds.), Island Constraints: Theory, Acquisition and Processing, 109–180. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 2004. Efficiency and Complexity in Grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hofmeister, Philip & Sag, Ivan A.. 2010. Cognitive constraints and island effects. Language 86, 366–415.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 2002. Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kluender, Robert E. 1998. On the distinction between strong and weak islands: A processing perspective. In Culicover & McNally (eds.), 241–279.Google Scholar
Kush, Dave & Lindahl, Filippa. 2011. On the escapability of islands in Scandinavian. Presented at the Linguistic Society of America (LSA) 2011, Pittsburgh, PA. [http://ling.umd.edu/~kush/KushLindahl_LSA_ScandinavianExtraction.pdf, accessed 25 February 2015]Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth. 2008. Dative verbs: A cross-linguistic perspective. Lingvisticae Investigationes 31, 285–312.Google Scholar
Levine, Robert D. & Hukari, Thomas E.. 2006. The Unity of Unbounded Dependency Constructions. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Lindahl, Filippa. 2010. Spetsställda led och rematiska relativer. En korpusstudie av satsflätor med presenteringsomskrivning/existentialsats. Ms., Swedish Department, University of Gothenburg. [https://gupea.ub.gu.se/bitstream/2077/23247/1/gupea_2077_23247_1.pdf, accessed 11 March 2015]Google Scholar
Löwenadler, John. 2008. Complementizer–gap phenomena: Syntactic or pragmatic constraints? In Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. (ed.), Investigations of the Syntax–Semantics–Pragmatics Interface, 359–379. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Löwenadler, John. 2012. Form deviation and constraints on productivity: A study of Comp–gap and intervention effects in English and Swedish. Constructions and Frames 4, 186–230.Google Scholar
Löwenadler, John. 2013. Possible in one language, impossible in another: The case of throw and kasta. In Bergh, Gunnar, Bowen, Rhonwen & Mobärg, Mats (eds.), Language, Football and All That Jazz: A Festschrift for Sölve Ohlander, 249–264. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.Google Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, Malka & Levin, Beth. 2008. The English dative alternation: The case for verb sensitivity. Journal of Linguistics 44, 129–167.Google Scholar
Ross, John R. 1967. Constraints on Variables in Syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Sprouse, Jon, Wagers, Matt & Phillips, Colin. 2012a. A test of the relation between working memory capacity and syntactic island effects. Language 88, 82–123.Google Scholar
Sprouse, Jon, Wagers, Matt & Phillips, Colin. 2012b. Working-memory capacity and island effects: A reminder of the issues and the facts. Language 88, 401–407.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2005. Exploring the Syntax–Semantics Interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Verhagen, Arie. 2009. The conception of constructions as complex signs: Emergence of structure and reduction to usage. Constructions and Frames 1, 119–152.Google Scholar