“Gap” matters: reflections on the notion of “gap” of relative clauses
-
Tong Wu
Abstract
This study aims to re-examine the essential notion of “gap” in the studies of relative clauses. Following Creissels’ (Creissels, Denis. 2006. Syntaxe générale: une introduction typologique. Paris: Hermès; Creissels, Denis. 2019. Remarks on the typology of noun-modifying clause constructions. Paper presented at the Conference of Complex Sentences, Central China Normal University, 26–29 July) discussion, we argue that there are at least three types of gaps in terms of their respective compositions, namely the gap corresponding to a zero-marked constituent, the gap corresponding to a case-marked constituent, and the gap corresponding to an adposition-marked constituent. This classification, which is not based on the grammatical relation of the relativized constituent in the relative clause but focuses on the composition of the gap, can better explain the existence of the so-called “enlarged gap”, a special type of gap that has been almost completely ignored so far. Moreover, this marking-based approach can shed new light on Keenan and Comrie’s (Keenan, Edward & Bernard Comrie. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8(1). 63–99) Accessibility Hierarchy. In particular, we argue that some interplay of the syntactic position and the morphological marking of a syntactic object determines whether the constituent can be relativized.
Funding source: Key Project of the Sino Foreign Language Cooperation and Exchange Center of the Ministry of Education
Award Identifier / Grant number: 22YH44B
Funding source: 2021 Project Supported by the National Social Science Foundation in the Later Stage
Award Identifier / Grant number: 21FYYB022
Funding source: Central China Normal University High Level Later Stage Funding Project Cultivation Special Project
Award Identifier / Grant number: 30106220212
Funding source: 2023 National Social Science Fund of China
Award Identifier / Grant number: 23FYYB015
Acknowledgments
We would especially like to thank Professor Denis Creissels, with whom we discussed data and analysis, and the editorial office of PSiCL for proofreading and stylistic improvement. Our thanks also go to the editors and the anonymous reviewers of PSiCL for their comments and suggestions. If any imperfections remain, we are entirely to blame.
-
Research funding: This study is financed by Key Project of the Sino Foreign Language Cooperation and Exchange Center of the Ministry of Education (22YH44B), 2021 Project Supported by the National Social Science Foundation in the Later Stage (21FYYB022), Central China Normal University High Level Later Stage Funding Project Cultivation Special Project (30106220212) and 2023 National Social Science Fund of China (23FYYB015).
References
Abondolo, Daniel. 1998. Introduction. In Daniel Abondolo (ed.), The Uralic languages, 1–42. London & New York: Routledge.Suche in Google Scholar
Aissen, Judith. 2003. Differential object marking: Iconicity versus economy. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 21(3). 435–483. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1024109008573.10.1023/A:1024109008573Suche in Google Scholar
Asbury, Anna. 2008. The morphosyntax of case and adpositions. Utrecht: Utrecht University dissertation.Suche in Google Scholar
Bacskai-Atkari, Julia. 2018. Deletion phenomena in comparative constructions: English comparatives in a cross-linguistic perspective. Berlin: Language Science Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Ball, Rodney. 2000. Colloquial French grammar: A practical guide. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.Suche in Google Scholar
Berwick, Robert & Noam Chomsky. 2017. Why only us: Recent questions and answers. Journal of Neurolinguistics 43. 166–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2016.12.002.Suche in Google Scholar
Bhatt, Rajesh. 2002. The raising analysis of relative clauses: Evidence from adjectival modification. Natural Language Semantics 10(1). 43–90. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1015536226396.10.1023/A:1015536226396Suche in Google Scholar
Bianchi, Valentina. 1999. Consequences of antisymmetry: Headed relative clauses. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110803372Suche in Google Scholar
Birner, Betty & Gregory Ward. 1998. Information status and noncanonical word order in English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.40Suche in Google Scholar
Birner, Betty & Gregory Ward. 2019. The interaction of topicalization and left-dislocation in English. Anglophonia 28. https://doi.org/10.4000/anglophonia.2801.Suche in Google Scholar
Blanche-Benveniste, Claire. 2000. Approches de la langue parlée en français. Paris: Ophrys.Suche in Google Scholar
Blanche-Benveniste, Claire. 2003. La langue parlée. In Marina Yaguello (ed.), Le grand livre de la langue française, 317–344. Paris: Seuil.Suche in Google Scholar
Bossong, Georg. 1985. Empirische Universalienforschung: Differentielle Objektmarkierung in den neuiranischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Narr.Suche in Google Scholar
Bossong, Georg. 1997. Le Marquage Différentiel de L’Objet dans les Langues d’Europe. In Jack Feuillet (ed.), Actance et Valence dans les Langues d’Europe, 193–258. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110804485.193Suche in Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1973. Syntax of the comparative clause construction in English. Linguistic Inquiry 4(3). 275–343.Suche in Google Scholar
Caha, Pavel. 2009. The nanosyntax of case. Tromsø: University of Tromsø dissertation.Suche in Google Scholar
Cecchetto, Carlo & Caterina Donati. 2015. (Re)labelling. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9780262028721.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1976. Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and point of view. In Charles Li (ed.), Subject and topic, 27–55. New York: Academic Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2005. Rules and representations. New York: Columbia University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2006. Language and mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 2019. The syntax of relative clauses: A unified analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108856195Suche in Google Scholar
Citko, Barbara. 2001. Deletion under identity in relative clauses. Proceedings of the NELS 31(1). 131–145.Suche in Google Scholar
Creissels, Denis. 2006. Syntaxe générale: une introduction typologique. Paris: Hermès.Suche in Google Scholar
Creissels, Denis. 2019. Remarks on the typology of noun-modifying clause constructions. Paper presented at the Conference of Complex Sentences, Central China Normal University, 26–29 July.Suche in Google Scholar
de Vries, Mark. 2002. The syntax of relativization. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam dissertation.Suche in Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. W. 2010. Basic linguistic theory. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199571055.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar
Gadet, Françoise. 1992. Le français populaire. Paris: PUF.10.3406/linx.1991.1227Suche in Google Scholar
Gadet, Françoise. 1997. Le français ordinaire. Paris: Armand Colin.Suche in Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 2001. Syntax: An introduction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/z.synsSuche in Google Scholar
Grosu, Alexander. 2002. Strange relatives at the interface of two millenia. Glot International 6(6). 145–167.Suche in Google Scholar
Hagège, Claude. 2010. Adpositions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199575008.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar
Handschuh, Corinna. 2014. A typology of marked-S languages. Berlin: Language Science Press.10.26530/OAPEN_533871Suche in Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1993. A grammar of Lezgian. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110884210Suche in Google Scholar
Hewitt, George. 2004. Introduction to the study of the languages of the Caucasus. Munich: Lincom Europa.Suche in Google Scholar
Hole, Daniel. 2015. Arguments and adjuncts. In Tibor Kiss & Artemis Alexiadou (eds.), Syntax-theory and analysis, vol. 2, 1284–1320. Berlin, München & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110363708-014Suche in Google Scholar
Jäger, Agnes. 2019. The syntax of comparison constructions in diachronic and dialectal perspective. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 4(1). 70. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.651.Suche in Google Scholar
Kangasmaa-Minn, Eeva. 1998. Mari. In Daniel Abondolo (ed.), The Uralic languages, 219–248. London & New York: Routledge.Suche in Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward & Bernard Comrie. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8(1). 63–99.Suche in Google Scholar
Kennedy, Christopher. 2002. Comparative deletion and optimality in syntax. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 20(4). 553–621. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1015889823361.10.1023/A:1015889823361Suche in Google Scholar
Kennedy, Christopher & Jason Merchant. 2000. Attributive comparative deletion. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18(1). 89–146. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1006362716348.10.1023/A:1006362716348Suche in Google Scholar
Kennette, Lynne & Lee Wurm. 2016. On the disambiguation of meaning and the effect of cognitive load. Current Psychology 35(4). 295–308. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-014-9294-6.Suche in Google Scholar
König, Christa. 2008. Case in Africa. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199232826.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar
Kroeger, Paul. 2004. Analyzing syntax: A lexical-functional approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511801693Suche in Google Scholar
Lechner, Winfried. 2004. Ellipsis in comparatives. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110197402Suche in Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1986. On the typology of relative clauses. Linguistics 24(4). 663–680. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1986.24.4.663.Suche in Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 2003. Relative clauses. In William Frawley (ed.), International encyclopedia of linguistics, 460–461. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Matsumura, Kazuto. 1981. Mari (Cheremis) relative clauses. Working Papers in Linguistics 81. 45–55.Suche in Google Scholar
Miller, Jim. 1993. The grammar of Scottish English syntax. In James Milroy & Lesley Milroy (eds.), Real English: The grammar of English dialects in the British Isles, 99–138. London: Longman Publishing.Suche in Google Scholar
Munn, Alan. 1994. A minimalist account of reconstruction asymmetries. Proceedings of the NELS 24(1). 397–410.Suche in Google Scholar
Olawsky, Knut. 2006. A grammar of Urarina. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110892932Suche in Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen. 1997. On the functional of left-dislocation in English discourse. In Akio Kamio (ed.), Directions in functional linguistics, 117–144. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.36.08priSuche in Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Harlow: Longman.Suche in Google Scholar
Radford, Andrew. 2019. Relative clauses: Structures and variation in everyday English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108687744Suche in Google Scholar
Salzmann, Martin. 2006. Resumptive prolepsis: A study in indirect A’-dependencies. Utrecht: LOT.Suche in Google Scholar
Sauerland, Uli. 2003. Unpronounced heads in relative clauses. In Kerstin Schwabe & Susanne Winkler (eds.), The interfaces: Deriving and interpreting omitted structures, 205–226. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/la.61.10sauSuche in Google Scholar
Shi, Ding-Xu. 2000. Topic and topic-comment constructions in Mandarin Chinese. Language 76(2). 383–408. https://doi.org/10.2307/417661.Suche in Google Scholar
Song, Jae-Jung. 2001. Linguistic typology: Morphology and syntax. Harlow: Pearson Education.Suche in Google Scholar
Takami, Ken-ichi. 1992. Preposition stranding: From syntactic to functional analyses. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110870398Suche in Google Scholar
van Riemsdijk, Henk. 1978. A case study in syntactic markedness: The binding nature of prepositional phrases. Dordrecht: Foris.Suche in Google Scholar
Vergnaud, Jean-Roger. 1974. French relative clauses. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT dissertation.Suche in Google Scholar
Ward, Gregory. 1988. The semantics and pragmatics of preposing. New York: Garland.Suche in Google Scholar
Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena & Ilja Seržant. 2018. Differential argument marking: Patterns of variation. In Alena Witzlack-Makarevich & Ilja Seržant (eds.), Diachrony of differential argument marking, 1–40. Berlin: Language Science Press.Suche in Google Scholar
© 2024 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Research Article
- Investigating the effects of late sign language acquisition on referent introduction: a follow-up study
- Review Article
- A survey of Polish ASR speech datasets
- Research Articles
- Tense mismatches in Korean gapping and bare ko-coordination: an experimental study
- “Mapping and projecting otherness in media discourse of the Russia–Ukraine war”
- “Gap” matters: reflections on the notion of “gap” of relative clauses
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Research Article
- Investigating the effects of late sign language acquisition on referent introduction: a follow-up study
- Review Article
- A survey of Polish ASR speech datasets
- Research Articles
- Tense mismatches in Korean gapping and bare ko-coordination: an experimental study
- “Mapping and projecting otherness in media discourse of the Russia–Ukraine war”
- “Gap” matters: reflections on the notion of “gap” of relative clauses
