Article published In: Interfaces in Romance: A constraint-based approach
Edited by Gabriela Bîlbîie
[Lingvisticæ Investigationes 43:1] 2020
► pp. 95–128
French subject island constraint?
A discourse-based HPSG account
Published online: 16 October 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/li.00041.win
https://doi.org/10.1075/li.00041.win
Summary
We present new experimental results (corpora and experiments) showing that extraction out of subject, compared
with extraction out of object, obeys a pragmatic constraint and not a syntactic constraint. We show how such a constraint can be
formalized in an HPSG grammar of French which views relative clauses, wh-questions and
it-clefts as different constructions.
Keywords: island constraints, HPSG, French, relative clauses, it-clefts, questions
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 1.1The subject island constraint
- 1.2The subject island in Head-Driven Phrase-Structure Grammar
- 2.New empirical evidence for French
- 2.1Some French corpus data
- 2.2Experimental data on French
- 3.A discourse-based account
- 4.An HPSG account of French extraction constructions
- 4.1A lexicalist view on extraction
- 4.2Locality constraints in HPSG
- 4.3A classification of extraction constructions
- 4.4Cross-classification of French relative clauses
- 4.5C’est clefts
- 5.A discourse-based HPSG account
- 5.1Encoding information structure in HPSG
- 5.2Information structure in extractions
- 5.3Our proposal
- 6.Conclusion
- Acknowledgements
- Notes
References
References (88)
Abeillé, A., Clément, L. & Liégeois, L. 2019. Un corpus annoté pour le français : le French Treebank. TAL Traitement Automatique des Langues, 60(2), 19–43.
Abeillé, A. & Godard, D. 2007. Les relatives sans pronom relatif. In M. Abecassis, Ed., Le francais parlé, Normes et variations, p. 37–60. L’Harmattan.
Abeillé, A., Godard, D. & Sabio, F. 2008. Two types of NP preposing in French. In S. Müller, Ed., The Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, p. 306–324, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Abeillé, A., Hemforth, B. & Winckel, E. 2016. Les relatives en dont du français: études empiriques. In F. Neveu, G. Bergounioux, M.-H. Côté, J.-M. Fournier, L. Hriba & S. Prévost, Eds., 5e Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française, volume 27 of SHS Web of Conferences.
Abeillé, A. & Godard, D. 1997. The syntax of French negative adverbs. In D. Forget, P. Hirschbuhler & M.-L. Rivero, Eds., Negation and Polarity. John Benjamins.
Abeillé, A., Hemforth, B., Winckel, E. & Gibson, E. 2020a. Extraction from subjects: Differences in acceptability depend on the discourse function of the construction. Cognition. 2041, Article 104293.
2020b. Subject island: PP extraction depends on the construction. Poster at the 33rd Annual CUNY Sentence Processing Conference hosted virtually by the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. URL = [URL]
Abeillé, A. & Winckel, E. 2020. French subject island? Empirical studies of dont and de qui. Journal of French Language Studies. 1–26.
Aguila-Multner, G. & Crysmann, B. 2020. French clitic climbing as periphrasis. In G. Bîlbîie, Ed., Interfaces in Romance: a constraint-based approach. (This volume)
Ambridge, B. & Goldberg, A. 2008. The island status of clausal complements: evidence in favor of an information structure explanation. Cognitive Linguistics, 19(3), 349–381.
Bianchi, V. & Chesi, C. 2014. Subject islands, reconstruction, and the flow of the computation. Linguistic Inquiry, 45(4), 525–569.
Bîlbîie, G. 2017. Grammaire Des Constructions Elliptiques: Une étude comparative des phrases sans verbe en roumain et en français. Language Science Press.
Bîlbîie, G. & Laurens, F. 2010. Towards a non-elliptical analysis of verbless relative adjuncts. Bucharest Working Papers in Linguistics, 11, 51–67.
Bildhauer, F. 2008. Representing Information Structure in an HPSG Grammar of Spanish. Ph.d. thesis, Universität Bremen.
Bonami, O., Godard, D. & Marandin, J.-M. 1999. Constituency and Word Order in French Subject Inversion. In G. Bouma, E. Hinrichs, G.-J. M. Kruijff & R. Oehrle, Eds., Constraints and Resources in Natural Language Syntax and Semantics, p. 21–40. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Bouma, G., Malouf, R. & Sag, I. A. 2001. Satisfying Constraints on Extraction and Adjunction. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 19(1), 1–65.
Branca-Rosoff, S., Fleury, S., Lefeuvre, F. & Pires, M. 2012. Discours sur la ville. Présentation du Corpus de Français Parlé Parisien des années 2000 (CFPP2000). URL = [URL]
Broekhuis, H. 2006. Extraction from subjects: some remarks on Chomsky’s “On phases”. In H. Broekhuis, N. Corver, R. Huybregts, U. Kleinhenz & J. Koster, Eds., Organizing Grammar, p. 59–68. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter.
Chaves, R. 2013. An expectation-based account of subject islands and parasitism. Journal of Linguistics, 49(2), 297–344.
Chaves, R. P. 2012. On the grammar of extraction and coordination. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 30(2), 465–512.
Chaves, R. P. & Putnam, M. T. 2020. Unbounded Dependency Constructions: Theoretical and Experimental Perspectives. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Chomsky, N. 1973. Conditions on transformations. In S. Anderson & P. Kiparsky, Eds., A festschrift for Morris Halle, p. 232–285, New York: Winston.
Copestake, A. 2001. Implementing Typed Feature Structure Grammars. CSLI Lecture Notes. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Copestake, A., Flickinger, D., Pollard, C. & Sag, I. 2005. Minimal recursion semantics. Research on Language and Computation, 31, 281–332.
2020. Information structure. In S. Müller, A. Abeillé, R. D. Borsley & J.-P. Koenig, Eds., Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar: The handbook, Empirically Oriented Theoretical Morphology and Syntax. Language Science Press. To appear.
Destruel, E. 2012. The French c’est-cleft: An empirical study on its meaning and use. In C. Piñon, Ed., Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 9 (Selected papers from CSSP 2011), p. 95–112. CSSP.
Doetjes, J., Rebuschi, G. & Rialland, A. 2004. Cleft sentences. In F. Corblin & H. D. Swart, Eds., Handbook of French semantics, p. 529–552. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Engdahl, E. & Vallduví, E. 1996. Information packaging in HPSG. In C. Grover & E. Vallduví, Eds., Studies in HPSG, p. 1–31, Edinburgh: Centre for Cognitive Science.
Gallego, Á. J. & Uriagereka, J. 2007. Sub-extraction from subjects: A phase theory account. In J. Camacho, Ed., Romance linguistics 2006, p. 149–162. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Ginzburg, J. & Sag, I. A. 2000. Interrogative Investigations: the form, meaning, and use of English Interrogatives. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Godard, D. 1988. La syntaxe des relatives en français. Paris: Ed. du Centre national de la Recherche Scientifique.
Godard, D. & Sag, I. 1996. Quels compléments de nom peut-on extraire en français? Langages, 1221, 60–79.
2013. Backgrounded constituents cannot be extracted. In J. Sprouse & N. Hornstein, Eds., Experimental Syntax and Island Effects, p. 221–238. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Goldsmith, J. 1985. A principled exception to the coordinate structure constraint. In Chicago Linguistic Society. Papers from the General Session at the Twenty-First Regional Meeting, volume 11, p. 133–143.
Haegeman, L., Jiménez-Fernández, A. L. & Radford, A. 2014. Deconstructing the Subject Condition in terms of cumulative constraint violation. The Linguistic Review, 311, 73–150.
Hofmeister, P. 2011. Representational complexity and memory retrieval in language comprehension. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26(3), 376–405.
Jiménez-Fernández, A. 2009. On the composite nature of subject islands: A phase-based approach. SKY Journal of Linguistics, 221, 91–138.
Kayne, R. S. & Pollock, J.-Y. 1978. Stylistic inversion, successive cyclicity and nove NP in French. Linguistic Inquiry, 9(4), 595–621.
Kluender, R. 1991. Cognitive constraint on variables in syntax. Ph.d. thesis, University of California, San Diego.
2004. Are subject islands subject to a processing account? In B. Schmeiser, V. Chand, A. Kelleher & A. Rodriguez, Eds., Proceedings of the WCCFL, volume 231, p. 101–125, Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Kluender, R. & Kutas, M. 1993. Subjacency as a processing phenomenon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 81, 573–633.
Kolliakou, D. 1999. De-phrase extractability and individual/property denotation. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 171, 713–781.
Krifka, M. 2007. Basic notions of information structure. In G. F. Caroline Féry & M. Krifka, Eds., Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure (ISIS), Working Papers of the SFB 632, volume 61, p. 13–56, Potsdam: Universitätsverlag Potsdam.
Kuno, S. 1976. Subject, theme, and the speaker’s empathy – a reexamination of relativization phenomena. In C. N. Li, Ed., Subject and Topic, p. 417–444, New York, NY: Academic Press.
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1976. Subject. In M. Shibatani, Ed., Japanese Generative Grammar, p. 1–16. New York: Academic Press.
Ladusaw, W. A. 1994. Thetic and categorical, stage and individual, weak and strong. In M. Harvey & L. Santelmann, Eds., Proceedings of SALT IV, p. 220–229, Ithaca, NY: Cornell U. DMLL.
Lakoff, G. et al. 1986. Frame semantic control of the coordinate structure constraint. In Chicago Linguistic Society. Papers from the General Session at the Twenty-Second Regional Meeting, volume 21, p. 152–167.
Lambrecht, K. 1994. Information structure and sentence form : topic, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Miller, P. & Monachesi, P. 2003. Les pronoms clitiques dans les langues romanes. In D. Godard, Ed., Les langues romanes, problèmes de la phrase simple, p. 53–106. Paris: CNRS Éditions.
Miller, P. & Sag, I. A. 1997. French clitic movement without clitics or movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 151, 573–639.
Moreau, M.-L. 1971. L’homme que je crois qui est venu – que, qui : relatifs et conjonction. Langue française, 111, 77–90.
Müller, S. 2013. The CoreGram project: A brief overview and motivation. In D. Duchier & Y. Parmentier, Eds., Proceedings of the Workshop on High-level Methodologies for Grammar Engineering (HMGE 2013), Düsseldorf, p. 93–104.
Pollard, C. J. 1984. Generalized Phrase Structure Grammars, Head Grammars, and natural language. Ph.d. thesis, Stanford University.
Pollard, C. J. & Sag, I. A. 1994. Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Rizzi, L. 1982. Issues in Italian syntax. Dordrecht, Holland and Cinnaminson, N.J., U.S.A.: Foris Publications.
Sag, I. A. & Godard, D. 1994. Extraction of de-Phrases from the French NP. In Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 241, p. 519–541, Amherst, MA: GLSA.
Song, S. 2017. Modeling Information Structure in a cross-linguistic perspective. Berlin: Language Science Press.
Sportiche, D. & Bellier, P. 1989. Le mouvement syntaxique : contraintes et paramètres. Langages, 95, p. 35–80.
Sprouse, J., Caponigro, I., Greco, C. & Cecchetto, C. 2016. Experimental syntax and the variation of island effects in English and Italian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 34(1), 307–344.
Szabolcsi, A. 2006. Strong versus weak islands. In M. Everaert & H. van Riemsdijk, Eds., The Blackwell companion to syntax, p. 480–531. Oxford: Blackwell.
Takami, K. 1992. Preposition Stranding: From Syntactic to Functional Analyses. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter.
Tellier, C. 1990. Subjacency and Subject Condition violations in French. Linguistic Inquiry, 21(2), 306–311.
1991. Licensing theory and French parasitic gaps. Dordrecht, The Netherlands and Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Torrego, E. 1985. On Empty Categories in Nominals. unpublished ms., University of Massachusetts, Boston.
Uriagereka, J. 1988. On government. Ph.d. thesis, University of Connecticut. URL = [URL]
van Valin, R. D. J. 1995. Toward a functionalist account of so-called extraction constraints. In B. Devriendt, L. Goossens & J. van der Auwera, Eds., Complex structures: A functionalist perspective, p. 26–60. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.
