Extraction from subjects: Differences in acceptability depend on the discourse function of the construction
Extraction from subjects: Differences in acceptability depend on the discourse function of the construction
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104293
复制
发表时间：
2020-11-01
期刊：
影响因子：
3.4
通讯作者：
Gibson, Edward
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Abeille, Anne;Hemforth, Barbara;Gibson, Edward
为了解释某些长距离依存关系（Ross（1967）称之为句法岛）的不可接受性，句法学家提出了对长距离依存关系的限制，这些限制是普遍的，纯粹是句法的，因此不依赖于结构的意义（乔姆斯基，1977;乔姆斯基，1995 a.o.）。这预示着这些限制应该在结构和语言中保持不变。在本文中，我们调查的“主题岛”的限制，在英语和法语的结构，限制块提取的主题。特别是，我们比较提取出的名词性主语提取出的名词性宾语，在关系从句和疑问句，使用类似的材料跨结构和语言。与句法解释相反，我们发现，从主语中提取的不可接受的成分包括：（a）在两种语言中的wh-疑问句提取;或（B）介词搁浅（英语）。但是，在两种语言中，从关系从句的主语中提取整个介词短语，与从宾语中提取类似的介词短语一样好，甚至更好。根据Erteschik-Shir（1973）和Kuno（1987）等人的理论，我们提出了一个考虑抽取成分在当前结构中的话语地位的理论：抽取成分在wh疑问句中是焦点（对应于新信息），而在关系从句中不是。焦点状态与主语的非焦点状态（通常是给定的或话语旧的）相冲突。这些结果表明，大多数以前的岛屿讨论可能依赖于错误的前提下，所有提取类型的行为一样。一旦不同的提取类型被认为是不同的构式（Croft，2001; Ginzburg & Sag，2000; Goldberg，2006; Sag，2010），具有各自的话语功能，人们就可以根据构式来解释不同的提取模式。
In order to explain the unacceptability of certain long-distance dependencies - termed syntactic islands by Ross (1967) - syntacticians proposed constraints on long-distance dependencies which are universal and purely syntactic and thus not dependent on the meaning of the construction (Chomsky, 1977; Chomsky, 1995 a.o.). This predicts that these constraints should hold across constructions and languages. In this paper, we investigate the "subject island" constraint across constructions in English and French, a constraint that blocks extraction out of subjects. In particular, we compare extraction out of nominal subjects with extraction out of nominal objects, in relative clauses and wh-questions, using similar materials across constructions and languages. Contrary to the syntactic accounts, we find that unacceptable extractions from subjects involve (a) extraction in wh-questions (in both languages); or (b) preposition stranding (in English). But the extraction of a whole prepositional phrase from subjects in a relative clause, in both languages, is as good or better than a similar extraction from objects. Following Erteschik-Shir (1973) and Kuno (1987) among others, we propose a theory that takes into account the discourse status of the extracted element in the construction at hand: the extracted element is a focus (corresponding to new information) in wh-questions, but not in relative clauses. The focus status conflicts with the non-focal status of a subject (usually given or discourse-old). These results suggest that most previous discussions of islands may rely on the wrong premise that all extraction types behave alike. Once different extraction types are recognized as different constructions (Croft, 2001; Ginzburg & Sag, 2000; Goldberg, 2006; Sag, 2010), with their own discourse functions, one can explain different extraction patterns depending on the construction.