Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T16:29:24.781Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

16 - Extraction Restrictions in Complex Sentences

from Part Three - Topics in RRG: Complex Sentences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 June 2023

By
Mitsuaki Shimojo
Edited by
Delia Bentley ,
Ricardo Mairal Usón ,
Wataru Nakamura  and
Robert D. Van Valin, Jr
Delia Bentley
Affiliation:
University of Manchester
Ricardo Mairal Usón
Affiliation:
Universidad National de Educación a Distancia, Madrid
Wataru Nakamura
Affiliation:
Tohoku University, Japan
Robert D. Van Valin, Jr
Affiliation:
Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf
Get access

Summary

This chapter deals with the Role and Reference Grammar (RRG) approach to extraction restrictions, or island constraints. The cross-linguistic and language-internal (i.e. cross-constructional) variation in extraction restrictions is captured in RRG in terms of how deeply into sentence structure assertion may be represented. Some languages allow the potential focus domain to reach individual constituents in both complement and adverbial subordinate clauses, with consequences on the extractability of such constituents. One such case is Japanese, a more permissive language than English, which provides the main case study discussed in the chapter.

Keywords

extraction restrictionsisland constraintssubjacency conditionWH-questionsrelativizationtopicalizationpostposing constructionspotential focus domainJapanese
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Role and Reference Grammar , pp. 616 - 644
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2023

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

Allwood, Jens S. 1982. The complex NP constraints in Swedish. In Engdahl, E. and Ejerhed, E. (eds.), Readings on Unbounded Dependencies in Scandinavian Languages, 15–32. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. 1993. Belhare subordination and the theory of topic. In Ebert, K. H. (ed.), Studies in Clause Linkage, 23–55. Papers from the First Köln-Zürich Workshop. Zürich.Google Scholar
Chaves, Rui P. 2013. An expectation-based account of subject islands and parasitism. Journal of Linguistics 49: 285–327.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1973. Conditions on transformations. In Anderson, S. R. and Kiparski, P. (eds.), A Festschrift for Morris Halle, 232–285. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Knowledge of Language. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Deane, Paul. 1991. Limits to attention: A cognitive theory of island phenomena. Cognitive Linguistics 2: 1–63.Google Scholar
Deane, Paul. 1992. Grammar in Mind and Brain: Explorations in Cognitive Syntax. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 1973. On the Nature of Island Constraints. PhD dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 2007. Information Structure: The Syntax–Discourse Interface. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi and Lappin, Shalom. 1979. Dominance and the functional explanation of island phenomena. Theoretical Linguistics 6: 41–86.Google Scholar
Fujii, Tomohiro and Takita, Kensuke. 2007. Wh-adverbials in-situ, their island-(in)sensitivity and the role of demonstratives in wh-in-situ licensing. Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3(1): 107–126.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J. L. (eds.), Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Haig, John. 1979. What relative clauses are about. Papers in Linguistics 12: 57–109.Google Scholar
Haig, John. 1996. Subjacency and Japanese grammar: A functional account. Studies in Language 20: 53–92.Google Scholar
Hasegawa, Nobuko. 1981. A Lexical Interpretive Theory with Emphasis on the Role of Subject. PhD dissertation, University of Washington.Google Scholar
Hasegawa, Nobuko. 1985. On the so-called ‘zero pronouns’ in Japanese. The Linguistic Review 4: 289–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hasegawa, Yoko. 1989. Questioning vs. identifying: A functionalist analysis of the [a candidate that which professor recommended was hired?] construction in Japanese. In Hall, K., Meacham, M. and Shapiro, R. (eds.), Proceedings of the 15th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 138–149. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Hofmeister, Philip. 2007. Retrievability and gradience in filler-gap dependencies. In Elliott, M., Kirby, J., Sawada, O., Staraki, E. and Yoon, S. (eds.), Proceedings from the Main Session of the Forty-Third Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society: Vol. 43–1, 109–123. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Hong, Sun-ho. 2003. On island constraints in Korean. In Iverson, G. K. and Ahn, S.-C. (eds.), Explorations in Korean Language and Linguistics, 107–125. Seoul: Hankook Publishing.Google Scholar
Inoue, Kazuko. 1976. Henkei bunpoo to nihongo (Transformational Grammar and Japanese). Tokyo: Taishukan.Google Scholar
Jensen, Anne. 2001. Sentence intertwining in Danish. In Engberg-Pedersen, E. and Harder, P. (eds.), Ikonicitet og struktur, 23–39. Preprint from Netværk for Funktionel Lingvistik, Department of English, University of Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Jin, Dawei. 2013. Information structure constraints and complex NP islands in Chinese. In Muller, Stefan (ed.), Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, 110–120. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Jin, Dawei. 2019. A semantic account of quantifier-induced intervention effects in Chinese why-questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 43: 345–387.Google Scholar
Kempson, Ruth M. 1975. Presupposition and the Delimitation of Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kennedy, Becky. 1989. On Bridging. Unpublished manuscript, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Kluender, Robert. 1990. A neurophysiological investigation of wh-islands. In Hall, K., Koenig, J.-P., Meacham, M., Reinman, S. and Sutton, L. A. (eds.), Proceedings of the 16th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 187–204. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Kluender, Robert and Kutas, Marta. 1993. Subjacency as a processing phenomenon. Language and Cognitive Processes 8(4): 573–633.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1973. The Structure of the Japanese Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1987. Functional Syntax: Anaphora, Discourse and Empathy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu and Takami, Ken-ichi. 1993. Grammar and Discourse Principles: Functional Syntax and GB Theory. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lasnik, Howard and Saito, Mamoru. 1984. On the nature of proper government. Linguistic Inquiry 15: 235–289.Google Scholar
Matsumoto, Yoshiko. 1997. Noun-Modifying Constructions in Japanese: A Frame Semantic Approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 1987. Wa and the wh phrase. In Hinds, J., Maynard, S. K. and Iwasaki, S. (eds.), Perspectives on Topicalization: The Case of Japanese wa, 185–217. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Müller, Gereon. 1995. A-Bar Syntax: A Study in Movement Types. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Nakagawa, Natsuko, Asao, Yoshihiko and Nagaya, Naonori. 2008. Information structure and intonation of right-dislocation sentences in Japanese. Kyoto University Linguistic Research 27: 1–22.Google Scholar
Nishigauchi, Taisuke. 1986. Quantification in Syntax. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Richards, Norvin. 2000. An island effect in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 9: 187–205.Google Scholar
Ross, John Robert. 1967. Constraints on Variables In Syntax. PhD dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Shimojo, Mitsuaki. 1995. Focus Structure and Morphosyntax in Japanese: Wa and ga, and Word Order Flexibility. PhD dissertation, University at Buffalo (SUNY).Google Scholar
Shimojo, Mitsuaki. 2002. Functional theories of island phenomena: The case of Japanese. Studies in Language 26: 67–123.Google Scholar
Shimojo, Mitsuaki. 2011. The left periphery and focus structure in Japanese. In Nakamura, W. (ed.), New Perspectives in Role and Reference Grammar, 266–293. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Simon, Mutsuko E. 1989. An Analysis of the Postposing Construction in Japanese. PhD dissertation, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Takami, Ken-ichi. 1992. Preposition Stranding: From Syntactic to Functional Analyses. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Takita, Kensuke. 2014. Pseudo-right dislocation, the bare-topic construction, and hanging topic constructions. Lingua 140: 137–157.Google Scholar
Tomioka, Satoshi. 2009. Why questions, presuppositions, and intervention effects. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 18: 253–271.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 1996. Toward a functionalist account of so-called extraction constraints. In Devriendt, B., Goossens, L. and van der Auwera, J. (eds.), Complex Structures: A Functionalist Perspective, 29–60. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 1998. The acquisition of wh-questions and the mechanisms of language acquisition. In Tomasello, M. (ed.), The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure, 221–249. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 1999. A typology of the interaction of focus structure and syntax. In Raxilina, E. and Testelec, Y. G. (eds.), Typology and Linguistics Theory: From Description to Explanation, 511–524. Moscow: Languages of Russian Culture.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2002. The development of subject–auxiliary inversion in English wh-questions: An alternative analysis. Journal of Child Language 29: 161–175.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2005. Exploring the Syntax–Semantics Interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. and LaPolla, Randy J.. 1997. Syntax: Structure, Meaning and Function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Yoshimura, Kyoko. 1992. LF subjacency condition in Japanese. Coyote Papers: Working Papers in Linguistics 8: 143–162.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×