Article published In: Linguistics in the Netherlands 2021
Edited by Mark Dingemanse, Eva van Lier and Jorrig Vogels
[Linguistics in the Netherlands 38] 2021
► pp. 81–97
Strange nominative case in topicalized object pronominal relative clauses
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.
For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.
Published online: 29 October 2021
https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.00051.sui
https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.00051.sui
Abstract
In an online production experiment, we investigated the effect of sentence position on the preference for either a
nominative or object form of an object pronoun restricted by a relative clause in Dutch. Results show a significant preference for
the nominative form of the restricted object pronoun in sentence-initial position as it was chosen in 95% of the cases. In the
original object position this percentage is only 20%. The preference for a nominative pronominal object is considered a
grammatical norm violation. We account for this in terms of a combination of two factors. First, the presence of the relative
clause makes the object ‘long’. Second, the sentence-initial position is a syntactic position that is relatively far removed from
the original object position. We argue that when a long object is topicalized, there are too many intervening elements between the
pronoun and the verb of which it is the complement. If the distance between the pronominal object and the verb has become too
long, the object case fades from the working memory. This then results in the appearance of nominative case as the default case
for topicalized object pronominal relative clauses in Dutch.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Nominative case on object pronominal relative clauses
- 2.1Pronominal relative clauses and case
- 2.2Strange nominative case on topicalized objects
- 2.3Topicalized personal pronoun objects in Dutch
- 2.4Three hypotheses
- 3.An online production experiment
- 3.1Methodology
- 3.1.1Participants
- 3.1.2Materials
- 3.1.3Procedure
- 3.2Results
- 3.1Methodology
- 4.Discussion
- 5.Conclusion
- Acknowledgements
- Notes
- Abbreviations
- Open data
References
References (14)
Bates, Douglas, Martin Mächler, Ben Bolker & Steve Walker. 2015. “Fitting
linear mixed-effects models using lme4.” Journal of Statistical
Software 67 (1): 1–48.
Bouma, Gerlof. 2008. Starting
a sentence in Dutch. A corpus study of subject- and object-fronting. PhD
dissertation, University of Groningen.
Conrod, Kirby, Rachael Tatman & Rik Koncel-Kedziorski. 2016. “We
who tweet: Pronominal relative clauses on Twitter.” In: Proceedings
of the Corpus Linguistics Fest: 17–21. Bloomington, Indiana. Retrieved from [URL]
Felser, Claudia, Harald Clahsen & Thomas F. Münte. 2003. “Storage
and integration in the processing of filler-gap dependencies: An ERP study of topicalization and wh-movement
in German.” Brain and
Language 871: 345–354.
Hubers, Ferdy, Tineke M. Snijders & Helen de Hoop. 2016. “How
the brain processes violations of the grammatical norm: An fMRI study.” Brain &
Language 1631: 22–31.
Hubers, Ferdy, Thijs Trompenaars, Sebastiaan Collin, Kees de Schepper, Helen de Hoop. 2020. “Hypercorrection
as a by-product of education.” Applied
Linguistics 411: 552–574.
Kluender, Robert & Marta Kutas. 1993. “Bridging
the gap: evidence from ERPs on the processing of unbounded dependencies.” Journal of Cognitive
Neuroscience 5 (2): 196–214.
van der Meulen, Marten. 2018. “Do
we want more or less variation? The comparative markers als and dan in Dutch prescriptivism
since 1900.” Linguistics in the
Netherlands 2018: 79–96.
de Vries, Mark. 2004. “Congruentie-effecten
in uitbreidende en vrije relatieve zinnen.” Nederlandse
Taalkunde 91: 29–47.
