Factivity and complementizer omission in English embedded gapping

Abstract

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.

What Does That Mean? Complementizers and Epistemic Authority

“…We looked at the subset of the verbs from our Surveys A and B which are listed as either factive or semi-factive in Hooper ( 1975 ) and Hooper and Thompson ( 1973 ) and compared these with those which are listed by these authors listed as non-factive. Consistent with Bîlbîie et al ( 2023 ) we found that the non-factive verbs ( think , say , believe , suggest , guess , suppose , insist , admit , figure , state , claim , imagine , agree , indicate , point out , argue , presume , demonstrate , assert , maintain , affirm , remark , contend , intimate , hypothesize , predict , divulge ) yielded a lower rate of that -mention (11.7%) compared with the subset characterized as factive or semi-factive ( know , remember , realize , notice , find out , discover , note , reveal ; 29.5%). This is line with our earlier discussion of non-homogeneity of that -optionality across different kinds of embedding verbs ( Introduction ).…”

“…On the other hand, verbs like regret are factive, because they presuppose that the proposition in the embedded clause is true. Recent experimental work has found that embedded clause complements of factive verbs are judged by speakers of English to be less acceptable with that -omission as compared non-factive verbs (Bîlbîie et al, 2023 ), indicating that factivity is a key factor in conditioning acceptability of that -omission.…”

“…Kiparsky & Kiparsky, 1970 ; et seq. ), are judged by speakers of English to be less acceptable with that -omission as compared non-factive verbs (Bîlbîie et al, 2023 ). In short, that -optionality is sensitive to factivity.…”

“…Other speakers, meanwhile, do not permit that -drop with these kinds of predicates at all. Furthermore, recent work has examined the role of factivity in acceptability of that -omission (Bîlbîie et al, 2023 ). Factive verbs—verbs which presuppose the truth of a clausal/propositional complement, such as regret and like —were observed by Bîlbîie et al ( 2023 ) to be less acceptable without that as compared to non-factive verbs such as think and imagine .…”

“…Furthermore, recent work has examined the role of factivity in acceptability of that -omission (Bîlbîie et al, 2023 ). Factive verbs—verbs which presuppose the truth of a clausal/propositional complement, such as regret and like —were observed by Bîlbîie et al ( 2023 ) to be less acceptable without that as compared to non-factive verbs such as think and imagine . These sets of observations provide support for a long-held view in linguistic literature that that contributes meaning to a multi-clausal construction, carrying “interpretative information” (Staps & Rooryck, 2023 : 1169).…”