Skip to content
1. May 2020
FP
One Comment

Universal 1374: gap in complex NP ⇒ gap in finite subordinate clause ⇒ gap in infinitival phrase

Posted in Universals Archive

Universal 1374: gap in complex NP ⇒ gap in finite subordinate clause ⇒ gap in infinitival phrase

Original
Clause embedding hierarchy:
S[…VP’[ … Oi …] …] > S[…S’[… Oi …] …] > S[ …NP[Det N S’[ … Oi …] …].

If a language allows gaps on a certain point in the hierarchy, it will also allow gaps on all the points higher up.

Standardized
Clause embedding hierarchy:
IF a gap in a complex NP is grammatical, THEN gaps in finite subordinate clauses and infinitival phrases will also be grammatical.

IF a gap in a finite subordinate clause is grammatical, THEN a gap in an infinitival phrase will also be grammatical.

Keywords
gap, embedding, hierarchy
Domain
syntax
Type
implicational hierarchy
Status
achronic
Quality
absolute
Basis
Swedish, English (both Germanic), French (Italic), Russian (Slavic), Japanese (Japanese-Ryukyuan)
Source
Hawkins 1999: 263
Counterexamples
FP

FP

View more posts

One Comment

  1. FP
    FP

    This hierarchy says that infinitival phrases are most hospitable to gaps, finite subordinate clauses are more resistant, while complex NP environments are most resistant at all. This is exemplified in (i) for relative clause constructions.(i) Permitted Filler-Gap Domains for relative clause heads: a. S[… VP’ …] : Swedish, Japanese, English, French, Russian, German; b. S[… S’ …] : Swedish, Japanese, English, French; c. S[… NP[Det N S’] …] : Swedish, Japanese.

    1. May 2020

Comments are closed.