Universal #1379
Legacy number: 1379
| Number | 1375 |
| Original | Subordinate Gap/No Gap Hierarchy: If a matrix filler can be matched with a gap in a subordinate clause of complexity n containing another gap, then it can be matched with a gap in a subordinate clause of complexity n containing no other gap. |
| Standardized | Subordinate Gap/No Gap Hierarchy: IF a matrix filler can be matched with a gap in a subordinate clause of complexity n containing another gap, THEN it can be matched with a gap in a subordinate clause of complexity n containing no other gap. |
| Formula | matrix filler & gap (subordinate clause of complexity n containing gap) ⇒ matrix filler & gap (subordinate clause of complexity n containing no gap) |
| Keywords | filler, gap, complexity |
| Domain | syntax |
| Type | implication |
| Status | achronic |
| Quality | absolute |
| Basis | Russian (Slavic), English, German, Swedish, Norwegian (all Germanic) |
| Source | Hawkins 1999: 269 |
Discussion
Notes
1. The terms “filler” and “gap” are used for the moved element and its trace respectively.2. Hawkins claims that this hierarchy can be explained by the following processing preference: Reduce Additional Syntactic Processing in FGDs: The human processor prefers to minimize the syntactic rules and processing operations that apply in FGDs.3. One manifestation of this preference can be seen in the WH-island effects of Chomsky 1973. A subordinate clause that has undergone the syntactic process of WH-fronting and coindexation with a gap, e.g. in an indirect question, is more difficult to extract out of than a simple that-clause in English.(i) a. What(i) did you hope [that they would bake O(i)]? b. *What(i) did you wonder [how(j) they would bake O(i) O(j)]?
Log in to join the discussion.
2. Hawkins claims that this hierarchy can be explained by the following processing preference: Reduce Additional Syntactic Processing in FGDs: The human processor prefers to minimize the syntactic rules and processing operations that apply in FGDs.
3. One manifestation of this preference can be seen in the WH-island effects of Chomsky 1973. A subordinate clause that has undergone the syntactic process of WH-fronting and coindexation with a gap, e.g. in an indirect question, is more difficult to extract out of than a simple that-clause in English.
<table class = "textTable">
<tr>
<td> (i)</td>
<td>a.</td>
<td> What(i) did you hope [that they would bake O(i)]?</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> </td>
<td>b.</td>
<td> *What(i) did you wonder [how(j) they would bake O(i) O(j)]?</td>
</tr>
</table>