Universal 619: gapping for attributive ⇒ gapping for non-direct object ⇒ gapping for direct object = gapping for subject
Original
If a given language can relativize a position low on the Accessibility Hierarchy by gapping then it can generally relativize all higher positions by gapping.
Standardized
IF an attributive can be relativized by gapping, THEN non-direct objects, direct objects, and subjects can be as well. IF a non-direct object can be relativized by gapping, THEN direct objects and subjects can be as well. IF a direct object can be relativized by gapping, THEN subjects can be as well.
1. Hawkins 1999: 256 reformulates this universal in terms of his complexity hierarchy:Relative Clause Gap Hierarchy: If a relative clause gap is grammatical in position P on a complexity hierarchy H, then gaps will be grammatical in all higher positions on H.2. Note that the two implicational patterns #619 and #622 go in opposite directions in the relative clause data: gaps from low to high, copy pronouns from high to low. The gaps cut off in more complex environments, while the pronouns cut off in simpler environments.
1. Hawkins 1999: 256 reformulates this universal in terms of his complexity hierarchy:Relative Clause Gap Hierarchy: If a relative clause gap is grammatical in position P on a complexity hierarchy H, then gaps will be grammatical in all higher positions on H.2. Note that the two implicational patterns #619 and #622 go in opposite directions in the relative clause data: gaps from low to high, copy pronouns from high to low. The gaps cut off in more complex environments, while the pronouns cut off in simpler environments.