Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T20:01:22.306Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Why subject relatives prevail: Constraints versus constructional licensing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 March 2014

Cecily Jill Duffield  and
Laura A. Michaelis
Cecily Jill Duffield
Affiliation:
University of Colorado at Boulder
Laura A. Michaelis*
Affiliation:
University of Colorado at Boulder
*
Correspondence addresses: Laura A. Michaelis, Department of Linguistics, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309, USA. Email: laura.michaelis@colorado.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Relative clauses containing subject relative-pronouns (e.g. that go to Utah all the time,) are the prevalent type both across languages (Keenan and Comrie 1977) and in conversation, accounting for 65% of relative clauses in the American National Corpus (Reali and Christiansen 2007) and 67% of relative clauses in the corpus examined for this study, the Switchboard corpus. This fact appears attributable to parsing preferences, as per Hawkins (1999, 2004), Gibson (1998) and Gibson et al. (2005): subject extractions are the most local filler-gap dependency and therefore impose the lowest burden on short-term memory. This explanation, however, not only lacks strong psycholinguistic support but also fails to explain a major pattern in Switchboard: subject relatives are not preferred across the board but only as modifiers of postverbal (object and oblique) nominals. We propose that the preference for subject relatives is an effect not of general-purpose interpretive or encoding constraints but rather of constructional licensing: the subject relative belongs to an entrenched syntactic routine, the Presentational Relative construction, e.g. I have friends that clip articles (McCawley 1981; Lambrecht 1987, 1988, 2002). We investigate this hypothesis by examining the formal, semantic and pragmatic properties of relative-clause modifiers of postverbal nominals in the Switchboard corpus.

Keywords

syntaxConstruction Grammarrelative clausespresentational relative clausessentence processingcorpus linguisticsdiscourse pragmaticslocality
Type
Research Article
Information
Language and Cognition , Volume 3 , Issue 2 , June 2011 , pp. 171 - 208
Copyright
Copyright © UK Cognitive Linguistics Association 2011

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

Aissen, J. 1999. Agent focus and inverse in Tzotzil. Language 75(3). 451–485.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, A., Law, P., Meinunger, A. & Wilder, C.. 2000. The syntax of relative clauses. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. 2007. Frequency of use and the organization of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chen, J., Dligach, D. & Palmer, M.. 2007. Towards large-scale high performance English verb sense disambiguation by using linguistically motivated features. First IEEE International Conference on Semantic Computing Proceedings, 378–388.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1989. Some notes on economy of derivation and representation. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 10. 43–74.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Demuth, C. 1989. Maturation and the acquisition of the Sesotho passive. Language 65(1). 56–80.Google Scholar
Diessel, H. 2008. Iconicity of sequence: A corpus-based analysis of the positioning of temporal adverbial clauses in English. Cognitive Linguistics 19(3). 465–490.Google Scholar
Diessel, H. & Tomasello, M.. 2000. The development of relative clauses in spontaneous child speech. Cognitive Linguistics 11(1/2). 131–151.Google Scholar
Dligach, D. & Palmer, M.. 2008. Improving verb sense disambiguation with automatically retrieved semantic knowledge. Proceedings of the Second IEEE International Conference on Semantic Computing (ICSC), 182–189.Google Scholar
Duffield, C. J., Hwang, J. D., Brown, S. W., Dligach, D., Vieweg, S. E., Davis, J. & Palmer, M.. 2007. Criteria for the manual grouping of verb senses. Proceedings of the Linguistic Annotation Workshop held in conjunction with ACL-2007, 49–52.Google Scholar
Fellbaum, C. (ed). 1998. WordNet: An electronic lexical database. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, V. S. & Dell, G. S.. 2000. Effect of lexical ambiguity on syntactic and lexical production. Cognitive Psychology 40(4). 296–340.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C., Kay, P. & O'Connor, M. C.. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language 64(3). 501–538.Google Scholar
Fox, B. & Thompson, S.. 1990. A discourse explanation for the grammar of relative clauses in English conversation. Language 66(2). 297–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Francis, E. J. & Michaelis, L. A.. 2010. Combining weight and discourse factors to predict relative clause extraposition in English. Poster presented at the Annual Meeting of the Linguistics Society of America, Baltimore, MD, 01 2010.Google Scholar
Geisler, C. 1998. Infinitival relative clauses in spoken discourse. Language Variation and Change 10(1). 23–41.Google Scholar
Gennari, S. P. & MacDonald, M. C.. 2009. Linking production and comprehension processes: The case of relative clauses. Cognition 111(1). 1–23.Google Scholar
Gernsbacher, M. A. & Shroyer, S.. 1989. The cataphoric use of the indefinite this in spoken narratives. Journal of Memory and Cognition 17(5). 536–540.Google Scholar
Gibson, E. 1998. Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition 68(1). 1–76.Google Scholar
Gibson, E., Desmet, T., Grodner, D., Watson, D. & Ko, K.. 2005. Reading relative clauses in English. Cognitive Linguistics 16(2). 313–353.Google Scholar
Godfrey, J., Holliman, E. & McDaniel, J.. 1992. SWITCHBOARD: Telephone speech corpus for research and development. Proceedings of ICASSP-92, 517–520.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. 2006. Constructions at work. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goodluck, H. & Rochemont, M. (eds.). 1992. Island constraints: Theory, acquisition and processing. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
Gundel, J., Hedberg, N. & Zacharski, R.. 1993. Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 69(2). 274–307.Google Scholar
Hartsuiker, R. J. & Barkhuysen, P. N.. 2006. Language production and working memory: The case of subject-verb agreement. Language and Cognitive Processes 21(1/2/3). 181–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, J. 1999. Processing complexity and filler-gap dependencies across grammars. Language 75(2). 244–285.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. 2004. Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Homer, K. 2000. A discourse constraint on subject information questions. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado dissertation.Google Scholar
Hovy, E., Marcus, M., Palmer, M., Ramshaw, L. & Weischedel, R.. 2006. OntoNotes: The 90% solution. Proceedings of HLT-NAACL 2006, 57–60.Google Scholar
Kay, P. 2002. English subjectless tag sentences. Language 78(3). 453–481.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. & Comrie, B. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8(1). 63–69.Google Scholar
Koenig, J. P. & Lambrecht, K.. 1999. French relative clauses as secondary predicates. In Corbin, F., Dobrovie-Sorin, C. & Marandin, J.-M. (eds.), Empirical issues in formal syntax and semantics 2. 191–214. The Hague: Thesus.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, K. 1987. Presentational cleft constructions in spoken French. In Haiman, J. & Thompson, S. A. (eds.), Clause combining in grammar and discourse, 135–179. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, K. 1988. There was a farmer had a dog: Syntactic amalgams revisited. Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 319–339.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, K. 1994. Information structure and sentence form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, K. 2000. When subjects behave like objects: An analysis of the merging of S and O in sentence-focus constructions across languages. Studies in Language 24(3). 611–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, K. 2002. Topic, focus, and secondary predication: The French presentational relative construction. In Beyssade, C., Bok-Bennema, R., Drijkoningen, F. & Monachesi, P. (eds.), Romance languages and linguistic theory 2000, 171–212. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lin, C. J. C. & Bever, T. G.. 2006. Subject preference in the processing of relative clauses in Chinese. Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 254–260.Google Scholar
Lohse, B., Hawkins, J. & Wasow, T. 2004. Domain minimization in English verb-particle constructions. Language 80(2). 238–261.Google Scholar
MacDonald, M. C. & Christiansen, M. H.. 2002. Reassessing working memory: Comment on Just & Carpenter (1992) and Waters & Caplan (1996). Psychological Review 109(1). 35–54.Google Scholar
Mak, W., Vonk, W. & Schrieffers, H.. 2008. Discourse structure and relative clause processing. Memory and Cognition 36(1). 170–181.Google Scholar
Malouf, R. 2003. Cooperating constructions. In Francis, E. J. & Michaelis, L. A. (eds.), Mismatch: Form-function incongruity and the architecture of grammar, 403–424. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Marcus, M., Santorini, B. & Marcinkiewicz, M. A.. 1993. Building a large annotated corpus of English: The Penn treebank. Computational Linguistics 19(2). 313–330.Google Scholar
McCawley, J. 1981. The syntax and semantics of English relative clauses. Lingua 53(2/3). 99–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCawley, J. 1988. The syntactic phenomena of English, Volume 1. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Michaelis, L. A. & Francis, H. S.. 2007. Lexical subjects and the conflation strategy. In Hedberg, N. & Zacharski, R. (eds.), Topics in the grammar-pragmatics interface: Papers in honor of Jeanette K. Gundel, 19–48. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Michaelis, L. A. & Lambrecht, K.. 1996. Toward a construction-based model of language function: The case of nominal extraposition. Language 72(2). 215–247.Google Scholar
Mithun, M. 1991. The Role of motivation in the emergence of grammatical categories: The grammaticization of subjects. In Traugott, E. C. & Heine, B. (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, Volume 2, 159–184. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ouhalla, J. 1993. Subject extraction, negation and the anti-agreement effect. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 11(3). 477–518.Google Scholar
Pickering, M. J. & Garrod, S.. 2007. Do people use language production to make predictions during comprehension? Trends in Cognitive Science 11(3). 105–110.Google Scholar
Prince, E. 1984. Topicalization and left-dislocation: A functional analysis. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 433. 213–225.Google Scholar
Prince, E. 1992. The ZPG letter: Subjects, definiteness, and information status. In Mann, W. C. & Thompson, S. A. (eds.), Discourse description: Diverse linguistic analyses of a fund-raising text, 295–325. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Reali, F. & Christiansen, M.. 2007. Processing of relative clauses is made easier by frequency of occurrence. Journal of Memory and Language 53. 1–23.Google Scholar
Roland, D., O'Meara, C., Yun, H. & Mauner, G.. 2007. Processing object relative clauses: Discourse or frequency? Poster presented at the CUNY sentence processing conference, San Diego.Google Scholar
Sag, I. 2010a. English filler-gap constructions. Language 86(3). 486–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sag, I. 2010b. Feature geometry and predictions of locality. In Corbett, G. & Kibort, A. (eds.), Features: Perspectives on a key notion in linguistics, 236–271. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Sasse, H. J. 1987. The thetic/categorical distinction revisited. Linguistics 25(3). 511–580.Google Scholar
Traxler, M., Morris, R. & Seely, R.. 2002. Processing subject and object relative clauses: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language 47(1). 69–90.Google Scholar
Van Valin, R. D. & LaPolla, R. J.. 1997. Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ward, G. & Prince, E.. 1991. On the topicalization of indefinite NPs. Journal of Pragmatics 16(2). 167–177.Google Scholar
Wardlow Lane, L. & Ferreira, V. S.. 2008. Speaker-external versus speaker-internal forces on utterance form. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 34(6). 1466–1481.Google Scholar
Warren, T. & Gibson, E.. 2002. The influence of referential processing on sentence complexity. Cognition 85(1). 79–112.Google Scholar
Wells, J., Christiansen, M., Race, D., Acheson, D. & MacDonald, M. C.. 2009. Experience and sentence comprehension: Statistical learning and relative clause comprehension. Cognitive Psychology 58(2). 250–271.Google Scholar
Zwicky, A. 1994. Dealing out meaning: Fundamentals of grammatical constructions. Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 611–625.Google Scholar