CHAPTER 3. A PSYCHOLINGUISTIC EXPERIMENT 60 appearance, whereas for other verbs the scores are higher when the relative clause is extra-posed from a non-typical direct object rather than from a subject. Hence, the acceptability of extraposition sentences with non-appearance verbs is affected by the factor of grammatical function, but this effect is not seen for verbs of appearance. An account for this will be given in Section 3.5.
3.4.3.3 Grammatical Function
Figure 3.2 also displays the results for the factor of grammatical function, distinguished by the factor of verb class because of the interaction that was found between these two factors.
An acceptability difference in relative clause extraposition due to grammatical function is only found for sentences with non-appearance verbs, where extraposition from non-typical direct object receives higher ratings than extraposition from subject. Such a difference is not perceived for sentences with verbs of appearance, which receive about the same scores for subject and object extraposition. My prediction that the grammatical function would have no effect on the acceptability of relative clause extraposition is thus only partly verified, namely for sentences with verbs of appearance. For the other verbs, grammatical function is relevant. These findings reveal some interesting detail that has not been considered before, which I will turn to in the discussion in Section 3.5.
3.4.3.4 Comparison with Filler Sentences
The sentences that were assessed in this psycholinguistic study also included a set of filler sentences, which were constructed so as to cover a wide range of acceptability, including some fully acceptable sentences (Filler High), e.g., I left the house early in the morning, and some fully unacceptable sentences (Filler Low), e.g., The couple through the woods walked.
The judgments on these sentences can be used as an absolute criterion to assess the judgments given for the sentences under investigation (cf. Featherston (2007, 84)). The findings for all conditions of the experiment including the filler sentences are summarized in Figure 3.3.
As can be seen, none of the experimental sentences, i.e., sentences with extraposed relative clauses, were judged as bad as the fully unacceptable and hence ungrammatical sentences.
On the other hand, none of the experimental sentences were judged as good as the fully acceptable sentences, and this difference was even stronger. All extraposition sentences lie somewhere in between the “good” and “bad” sentences and in line with the filler sentences of medium acceptability (Filler Medium).
Figure 3.3: Mean acceptability scores for relative clause extraposition for all conditions, including judgments on filler sentences
the grammatical function of the antecedent NP. Clear differences in the acceptability of the sentences were revealed that can be attributed to these factors.
It is worth noting that the data from experimentally obtained relative judgments do not establish any binary division between “grammatical” and “ungrammatical”. Instead they establish the relative acceptability of sentences, i.e., whether one sentence is more or less acceptable than another sentence. Being less acceptable does not automatically mean that the structure is unacceptable or even ungrammatical (see Featherston (2007), Cowart (1997, 9)). However, the data set of the experiment included some fully acceptable and some fully unacceptable filler sentences in order to provide absolute standards to which the experimental sentences can be compared (cf. Featherston (2007)).
Regarding the definiteness status of the antecedent NP of relative clause extraposition, the experiment revealed that a definite NP is less accepted as an antecedent of the extraposed clause than an indefinite NP. In comparison to the filler sentences, however, extraposition from definite NPs is judged not as bad as the fully unacceptable sentences, such as The couple through the woods walked (see Figure 3.3). Following Keller (2000) and Sorace and Keller (2005), this can be taken as an indication that extraposition from NPs with definite determiners “only” violates a soft constraint. This term is introduced by Keller (2000) to refer to constraints whose violation causes mild unacceptability and which are subject to
CHAPTER 3. A PSYCHOLINGUISTIC EXPERIMENT 62 contextual variation. Hard constraints, on the other hand, induce strong unacceptability when violated and fail to show context effects.11
Interestingly, it has been suggested in the literature that the acceptability of extraposi-tion from definite NPs depends on semantic and/or pragmatic factors and might improve when an appropriate discourse context is given (see Section 3.3.1). This claim can nei-ther be verified nor disproved by the results of this experiment since the experimental sen-tences were presented in isolation. Further research is needed to explore–both theoretically and experimentally–the contextual behavior of relative clause extraposition from definite an-tecedent NPs. Yet, the finding of this study that sentences with extraposition from definite NPs are not as bad as fully unacceptable sentences indicates that the definiteness constraint might not be a purely structural, i.e., syntactic constraint of the grammar. Together with the point about the context dependence of relative clause extraposition, this is compatible with the hypothesis that the definiteness constraint can be considered a soft constraint, which is assumed to apply at the syntax-pragmatics and/or syntax-semantics interface (cf. Sorace and Keller (2005)). Any theory of grammar that is to account for the phenomenon of extraposi-tion should be able to explain the contrast in acceptability due to the definiteness status of the antecedent NP, but must also account for the fact that the definiteness constraint does not appear to be a hard constraint but is subject to contextual variation.
The results of the experiment also indicate that the predicate restriction could be consid-ered a soft constraint. The experimental data clearly show a significant decrease in accept-ability when verbs other than verbs of appearance are used in sentences with relative clause extraposition. Comparing these scores with the ratings of the fully unacceptable filler items, however, reveals that the former are not judged as bad as the latter. As with the effect of the definiteness of the antecedent NP, this suggests that the predicate restriction cannot be a hard constraint of the grammar. The feature [- appearance] on the verb does not inevitably rule out a sentence with an extraposed relative clause as ungrammatical. Following the assump-tions made in the literature, it again seems to be the case that the context plays a role: in an appropriate context, any verb can apparently be “turned into” a verb of appearance, i.e., receive the function of merely introducing an element into the discourse (see Section 3.3.2).
However, the evidence that is provided in the literature is unconvincing and insufficient to corroborate the claim. Whether this context effect can be empirically verified would have to be investigated in another objective and reliable study. Nevertheless, the empirically proven fact that the factor of verb class affects relative clause extraposition in some way cannot be ignored.
As mentioned in Section 3.4.3, the results of the experiment revealed a significant in-teraction of the factors of verb class and definiteness of the antecedent in relative clause
11In addition, soft constraints are subject to developmental optionality, whereas hard constraints do not show such effects. Both types of constraints are subject to constraint ranking and show cumulativity and “ganging up” effects. The distinction between them is crosslinguistically stable (Sorace and Keller, 2005).
extraposition. The best judgments of relative clause extraposition are achieved for sentences with verbs of appearance and with indefinite antecedent NPs, i.e., when neither the predicate constraint nor the definiteness constraint is violated (see Figure 3.1). In case of a violation of either of the two constraints, the acceptability scores clearly decrease. When both constraints are violated at the same time, the degree of unacceptability is even higher. These findings are in line with Keller (2000), who shows that both soft and hard constraints are cumulative, i.e., that a structure is less acceptable the more constraints it violates (see also Sorace and Keller (2005)). According to this claim, then, the low acceptability ratings for sentences with extraposition from definite NPs and with non-appearance verbs can be explained straightfor-wardly: Violations of both the definiteness constraint and the predicate constraint have been shown to trigger unacceptability. The combined violation of the two constraints results in an even lower acceptability; the constraints interact in a cumulative fashion.
By looking only at the acceptability scores given for relative clause extraposition with verbs of appearance, a very clear difference in the acceptability of definite and indefinite an-tecedent NPs becomes evident (see Figure 3.1). Sentences with indefinite NPs receive much higher ratings than sentences with definite NPs. I assume that this observation is not just idiosyncratic to extraposition, but that it is a background effect and that any structure with a verb of appearance will receive a higher degree of acceptability if the subject is expressed with an indefinite referent. According to Levin (1993, 258), the meaning and function of verbs of appearance is “to describe the appearance of an entity on the scene.” In other words, a verb of appearance introduces an element into the discourse; hence, this element provides new information. It is widely assumed that there is a strong tendency for new and/or unfa-miliar information in an utterance to be expressed with an indefinite description, whereas old and/or familiar information is expressed with a definite item (see, for example, Chafe (1970, 1976, 38-43); for the notion of “given” and “new” information, see Clark and Haviland (1977) and Prince (1981, 1992), inter alia). Verbs of appearance introduce new informa-tion into the discourse and are therefore assumed to be more naturally and more often used with indefinite than with definite NPs. Consequently, any structure which combines verbs of appearance with indefinite NPs should be perceived as more acceptable than combina-tions of verbs of appearance with definite NPs, independent of relative clause extraposition.
However, since a similar yet not as big an effect is found for non-appearance verbs, i.e., ex-traposition from indefinite NPs is preferred over exex-traposition from definite NPs (see Figure 3.1), some of the acceptability difference must be attributed to the extraposition construction.
Comparing extraposition sentences with other constructions in one and the same experiment might reveal how much of the acceptability difference in relative clause extraposition must actually be attributed to a general preference for verbs of appearance to appear with indefinite NPs, and how much of the difference can be attributed to some property of the extraposition process.
CHAPTER 3. A PSYCHOLINGUISTIC EXPERIMENT 64 With regard to the factor of grammatical function, the experiment has revealed some interesting details. While it was predicted that there would be no acceptability difference between subject and object extraposition, this is only verified for extraposition sentences with verbs of appearance. When other verbs are used, the acceptability judgments are higher when the relative clause is extraposed from an object rather than a subject (see Figure 3.2).
However, since for experimental reasons as described in Section 3.4.2.2 the accusative and infinitive (AcI) construction (see (137)) was used for relative clause extraposition from ob-ject, I cannot draw the conclusion at this point that “real” object extraposition, i.e., extrapo-sition from a typical direct object, is more acceptable than subject extrapoextrapo-sition. The status of the accusative NP in these sentences is unclear; it could be both, the direct object of see and the subject of the infinitival verb.
(137) a. I + saw + NPacc+ Vinf + RC
b. I saw [N P a man] [V faint] [RCwho was smoking a pipe]
(138) A man fainted who was smoking a pipe.
What I can conclude is that for non-appearance verbs, extraposition from the accusative NP in this construction (see (137b)) is judged to be better than extraposition from a typi-cal subject (see (138)). I believe that the reason for this can be found in considering the function of extraposition and the meaning of the AcI construction. According to Rochemont (1978/1985, 1986), Guéron (1980), Rochemont and Culicover (1990), and others, extraposi-tion is a presentaextraposi-tional focus construcextraposi-tion, i.e., the extraposed phrase and/or the antecedent NP must find an interpretation as a presentational focus. Hence, the discourse function of extraposition is to introduce the presentationally focused element into the discourse. This function is compatible with the function or meaning of appearance verbs but not with the meaning of other verbs.
As explained above, verbs of appearance also have presentational meaning. They can therefore be very naturally used in extraposition sentences. The presentational meaning of the verb supports the presentational function of the extraposition construction, which leads to high acceptability judgments. Non-appearance verbs, on the other hand, do not have presen-tational meaning. When they are used in extraposition, a conflict arises between the function of the presentational focus construction and the non-presentational verb meaning. This leads to lower acceptability judgments, as can be seen in the scores given for the different verb classes in subject extraposition (see Figure 3.2).
However, when non-appearance verbs are used in object extraposition, which means that in the set of sentences assessed in this study they are used as the infinitival verb in the ac-cusative and infinitive construction, the acceptability judgments get significantly better. I claim that this is because the meaning of the sentence changes when the particular construc-tion “I saw NP Vinf” is used. In some sense the verb see describes the appearance of an en-tity, expressed by the object, on the scene. The sentence I saw a man faint describes what the
speaker (I) saw, namely a man who fainted; this can be introduced into the discourse using this structure. The whole sentence therefore obtains a presentational meaning, independent of the meaning of the verb faint. So, when a non-appearance verb is used in the AcI con-struction, the presentational meaning of the construction prevails over the non-appearance meaning of the infinitival verb. In consequence, the sentence can license extraposition of the relative clause and hence induces higher acceptability judgments.
In sum, while relative clause extraposition with non-appearance verbs is rather unac-ceptable in general, the acceptability is improved when the verb is embedded in the AcI construction that provides a presentational meaning and hence supports the presentational function of extraposition.