A New Outlook of Complementizers

Shim, Jin Young; Ihsane, Tabea

doi:10.3390/languages2030017

Cited by 2 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, for de Cuba (2018: 11), some semi-factives, such as NOTICE, KNOW, DISCOVERED, seem to allow THAT-omission in Example (23). The same observation comes from Shim & Ihsane (2017), based on an informal survey from 10 native speakers of various varieties of English: THAT can be optional under semi-factive verbs (24).…”

Section: Testing the Interaction Between Factivity And Complementizer...mentioning

confidence: 79%

Factivity and complementizer omission in English embedded gapping

Bîlbîie¹,

Fuente²,

Abeillé³

2022

J. Ling.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Taking as a starting point the variation in introspective judgments on embedded gapping in English in the literature, the main goal of this paper is to test the ‘No Embedding Constraint’ experimentally. Building on a first experimental study designed to measure the interaction between that-omission and factivity in English embedded complement clauses, we conducted two experiments testing the role of the complementizer in embedded gapping, paying special attention to the semantic nature of the matrix predicates (non-factives vs semi-factives vs true factives). Our results show, on the one hand, that the ‘No Embedding Constraint’ makes too strong claims that are not backed up by our experimental findings, and, on the other hand, that embedded gapping is affected by both the presence/absence of that and by the semantic class of the matrix predicate in English. In particular, embedded gapping seems to be more acceptable under non-factive verbs, especially in the absence of a complementizer. Both constraints (that-omission and factivity) can be accounted for by a constructionist fragment-based analysis, where the gapped clause is a non-finite phrase that has to address the same Question Under Discussion as its source. This explains, in turn, why embedded gapping under true factive predicates is considered significantly less acceptable. We show that the acceptable cases of embedded gapping involve true syntactic embedding (so, the matrix clause has no parenthetical use). We conclude that English has the same sensitivity to the semantic class of the matrix predicate as other languages, but that the requirements on the presence/absence of that are English specific.

show abstract

Section: Testing the Interaction Between Factivity And Complementizer...mentioning

confidence: 79%

Factivity and complementizer omission in English embedded gapping

Bîlbîie¹,

Fuente²,

Abeillé³

2022

J. Ling.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These articles collectively investigate one of the key theoretical issues that generative linguists have pursued for a long time: how languages are encoded similarly or differently. In so doing, three articles concentrate on nominal complements and clausal complements in monolingual grammars [18][19][20], and four articles focus on nominal and clausal complements in bilingual grammars [21][22][23][24].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The distinction between factive and non-factive clausal complements is also discussed in detail by Ji Young Shim and Tabea Ihsane [20]. They investigate clausal complements of factive and non-factive predicates in English, with particular focus on the distribution of overt and null that complementizers.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The interim conclusion of the papers by Laenzlinger [18], den Dikken [19] and Shim and Ihsane [20], which are based on the monolingual grammar of diverse languages, suggest that, despite the widely assumed structural parallelism between clauses and nominals, the clausal left periphery is more complex than the nominal left periphery, and the inner structure of the clausal left periphery also varies depending on its selection of predicates, such as factivity. Thus, to understand the precise nature of clausal and nominal left peripheries, we must also consider their interface with semantics and the lexical items that comprise them.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Introducing the Special Issue: Clausal and Nominal Complements in Monolingual and Bilingual Grammars

2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To introduce this Special Issue entitled Clausal and Nominal Complements in Monolingual and Bilingual Grammars, we begin by explaining what originally motivated this Special Issue. The first two co-editors (Ji Young Shim and Tabea Ihsane) worked on the research project entitled Selection at the Interfaces, in which various linguistic aspects (e.g., syntactic structure, interface with semantics, etc.) of clausal and nominal complements in monolingual grammars were explored. 1 To extend an investigation of these issues to bilingual contexts, they organized a two-day workshop entitled Clausal and Nominal Complements in Monolingual and Bilingual Grammars in June 2016, where the third co-editor (M. Carmen Parafita Couto) of this Special Issue was an invited speaker. 2 The workshop aimed to investigate the left periphery of complements, in particular the left periphery of the clause and the nominal phrase and its edge, such as C(omplementizers) and D(eterminer) and other topmost functional layers, where languages may be parametrized differently, thus leading to linguistic variation. Within generative grammar, it has long been assumed that language variation is due to variation in the domain of functional categories and their morpho-syntactic properties [1,2]. Following this tradition, the left periphery of the clause has been extensively investigated, confirming the hypothesis that the functional category C(omplementizer) and its morpho-syntactic properties may be parameterized differently across languages within research on monolingual grammar [3-6]. In addition, the left periphery of a nominal phrase has also been investigated to a great extent [7-9], based on the proposal that clauses and nominal phrases have parallel structures ([10] and in subsequent work). In recent years, generative linguists have also started to pay attention to the left periphery of bilingual grammars, especially in relation to diverse patterns of code-switching, which is the mixed use of two or more languages in conversation, and which is frequently observed in bilingual speech. Under the assumption that monolingual and bilingual grammars are subject to the same grammatical principles [11-14], several researchers have investigated the grammar of code-switching in various language pairs and showed that the left periphery of a particular functional category such as C, D, or v may be parameterized differently across languages and derive certain patterns of code-switching, 1 The projected was funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation (#100012_146699/1), and the second Editor was the principal investigator of the project. 2 The workshop was funded by the University of Geneva and the Swiss National Science Foundation.

show abstract

A New Outlook of Complementizers

Cited by 2 publications

References 28 publications

Factivity and complementizer omission in English embedded gapping

Factivity and complementizer omission in English embedded gapping

Introducing the Special Issue: Clausal and Nominal Complements in Monolingual and Bilingual Grammars

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About