Grammatical weight and relative clause extraposition in English

Abstract In relative clause extraposition (RCE) in English, a noun is modified by a non-adjacent RC, resulting in a discontinuous dependency, as in: Three people arrived here yesterday who were from Chicago. Although discourse focus is known to influence the choice of RCE over truth-conditionally equivalent sentences with canonical structure (Rochemont and Culicover, English focus constructions and the theory of grammar, Cambridge University Press, 1990; Takami, A functional constraint on Extraposition from NP, John Benjamins, 1999), Hawkins (Efficiency and complexity in grammars, Oxford University Press, 2004) and Wasow (Postverbal behavior, CSLI Publications, 2002) have proposed in addition that RCE should be preferred when the relative clause is long (or ‘heavy’) relative to the VP because such structures are processed more efficiently in comprehension and production. The current study tested this hypothesis based on Hawkins' (Efficiency and complexity in grammars, Oxford University Press, 2004) domain minimization principles. In an acceptability judgment task, canonical sentences were rated significantly higher than extraposition sentences when the RC was light, but this difference disappeared when the RC was heavy. In a self-paced reading task, extraposition sentences were read significantly faster than canonical sentences when the RC was heavy, but there was no difference when the RC was light. In an analysis of RCE in the ICE-GB corpus, extraposed RCs were significantly longer than the VP on average, whereas canonical RCs were significantly shorter, and the proportion of sentences with extraposition decreased as the ratio of VP-to-RC length increased. These findings support Hawkins' (Efficiency and complexity in grammars, Oxford University Press, 2004) domain minimization principles and help explain why a discontinuous dependency is allowed and sometimes preferred even in a language with relatively fixed word order.

[1]  R. Quirk A Grammar of contemporary English , 1974 .

[2]  V. Bianchi Headed relative clauses in generative syntax - Part II , 2002 .

[3]  Anna Siewierska Syntactic weight vs. pragmatic factors and word order variation in Polish , 1993 .

[4]  Holger Diessel,et al.  Iconicity of sequence: A corpus-based analysis of the positioning of temporal adverbial clauses in English , 2008 .

[5]  O. Behaghel Beziehungen zwischen Umfang und Reihenfolge von Satzgliedern. , 1909, Indogermanische Forschungen.

[6]  P. O'Seaghdha,et al.  Phrasal Ordering Constraints in Sentence Production: Phrase Length and Verb Disposition in Heavy-NP Shift , 1998 .

[7]  J. Hawkins Efficiency and complexity in grammars , 2004 .

[8]  John A. Hawkins,et al.  A Performance Theory of Order and Constituency , 1995 .

[9]  Thomas Wasow End-Weight from the Speaker's Perspective , 1997 .

[10]  Sam Featherston,et al.  That-trace in German , 2005 .

[11]  Wojciech Skut,et al.  Studien zur performanzorientierten Linguistik , 1998, Kognitionswissenschaft.

[12]  John A. Hawkins,et al.  Why are categories adjacent , 2001 .

[13]  Geoffrey J. Huck,et al.  Extraposition and focus , 1990 .

[14]  Thomas Wasov,et al.  Postverbal behavior , 2002, CSLI lecture notes series.

[15]  Richard L. Lewis,et al.  Argument-Head Distance and Processing Complexity: Explaining both Locality and Antilocality Effects , 2006 .

[16]  Bas Aarts,et al.  Exploring Natural Language: Working with the British Component of the International Corpus of English , 2002 .

[17]  L Konieczny,et al.  Locality and Parsing Complexity , 2000, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[18]  Hiroko Yamashita,et al.  Scrambled sentences in Japanese : Linguistic properties and motivations for production , 2002 .

[19]  J. Bresnan Is syntactic knowledge probabilistic ? Experiments with the English dative alternation ∗ , 2006 .

[20]  Jennifer E. Arnold,et al.  Heaviness vs. newness: The effects of structural complexity and discourse status on constituent ordering , 2015 .

[21]  John Robert Ross,et al.  Constraints on variables in syntax , 1967 .

[22]  James D. McCawley,et al.  The syntactic phenomena of English , 1988 .

[23]  Stephen Matthews,et al.  Processing motivations for topicalization in Cantonese , 2000 .

[24]  Jennifer E. Arnold RUNNING HEAD : AVOIDING ATTACHMENT AMBIGUITIES Avoiding Attachment Ambiguities : the Role of Constituent Ordering , 2004 .

[25]  E. Gibson Linguistic complexity: locality of syntactic dependencies , 1998, Cognition.

[26]  Richard S. Kayne The Antisymmetry of Syntax , 1994 .

[27]  Jan Strunk,et al.  Extraposition without Subjacency , 2008 .

[28]  Information and contrastochastic dynamic economic policies , 1974 .

[29]  Ki-shun Antonio. Cheung,et al.  Processing factors in language comprehension and production: the case of Cantonese dative constructions , 2006 .

[30]  Barbara John A Thomas Lohse,et al.  Domain Minimization in English Verb-Particle Constructions , 2004 .