Nordic Atlas of Language Structures (NALS) Journal, Vol. 1

Copyright © K. Bentzen 2014
Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License

Subject and object extraction from embedded clauses

Kristine Bentzen

UiT The Arctic University of Norway

1. Introduction

Many languages display a restriction on extraction of subjects from embedded clauses, in particular when the embedded clause is introduced by an overt complementizer. This phenomenon is called the “that-trace effect,” and it is illustrated with a Swedish example in (1a). However, the literature reports on variation among the Scandinavian languages on this point (cf. among many others Platzack 1986, Holmberg 1986, Hellan and Christensen 1986, and Westergaard et al. 2012 for a recent overview). According to the Swedish Reference Grammar (SAG, Teleman et al. 1999, cf. also Platzack 1986, Holmberg 1986), Swedish indeed displays a that-trace effect, in that the subject cannot be extracted when the embedded clause contains an overt complementizer as in (1a), while such extraction is possible when the complementizer is deleted, as in (1b) (Teleman et al. 1999 vol 4:426). The same pattern holds true for Danish (cf. Vikner 1995) and Faroese (cf. Thráinsson et al. 2004):

(1)	a.	*	Kalle	har	dom	sagt	att	Inte	kommer.		(Swedish)
			Kalle	have	they	said	that	Not	comes
	b.		Kalle	har	dom	sagt	inte	kommer.
			Kalle	have	they	said	not	comes
			‘They have said that Kalle isn’t coming.’

In Fenno-Swedish, on the other hand, the that-trace effect is claimed to be absent, and constructions like (2a) are acceptable (Teleman et al. 1999 vol 4: 426). Moreover, for Norwegian, Faarlund et al. (1999:986) claim that, although it is preferred to delete the complementizer when a subject is extracted, leaving it expressed overtly is also an option, as in (2b) (cf. also Hellan and Christensen 1986, Taraldsen 1978, Fiva 1985, 1991, and Westergaard et al. 2012 for a recent overview):

(2)	a.	Den	matchen	vet	jag	säkert	att	spelas	i morgon.	(FinSw)
		that	match.the	know	I	surely	that	play.pass	tomorrow
		‘This match I know for sure will be played tomorrow.’
	b.	Denne	boka	veit	eg	(at)	vil	interessere	deg.	(Nynorsk)
		this	book.the	know	I	that	will	interest	you
		‘This book I know will interest you.’

In Icelandic, the complementizer cannot be deleted (from Maling and Zaenen 1978: 478-479):

(3)	Hver	sagðir	þú	*(að)	væri	kominn	Til	Reykjavíkur?	(Icelandic)
	who	said	you	that	was	come	to	Reykjavik
	‘Who did you say had come to Reykjavik?’

An alternative strategy to leaving out the complementizer in order to avoid the that-trace effect is to insert a resumptive pronoun in the position following the complementizer. This strategy has been claimed to be used to varying degrees in the Scandinavian languages (cf. Engdahl 1982:166, 1985 for Swedish, Fiva 1991 for Norwegian):

(4)	Vilken	elev	trodde	ingen	att	han	skulle	fuska?	(Swedish)
	which	pupil	thought	noone	that	he	should	cheat
	‘Of which pupil did no one think that he would cheat?’

Moreover, in certain varieties of Norwegian, the relative pronoun som ‘that’ occurs with extraction of a wh-subject (cf. Westergaard et al. 2012):

(5)	Hvem	sa	du	som	kom	til	Tromsø?	(Norwegian)
	who	said	you	that	came	to	Tromsø
	‘Who did you say came to Tromsø?’

We know that there is quite a lot of variation across the Scandinavian languages with respect to issues related to subject extraction, and therefore these constructions were tested for in the Nordic Syntax Database.

Extraction of objects from embedded clauses is not known to be restricted by the presence or absence of the complementizer to the same extent, but for completeness, constructions parallel to those with subject extraction were included in the questionnaires.

2. Results

2.1 Nordic Syntax Database (NSD)

The following constructions with object extraction were tested in Norway, Sweden, and Finland: (6a) extraction from a that-complement without an overt complementizer; (6b) extraction from a that-complement with an overt complementizer; (6c) extraction from a that-complement with the complementizer som. This is illustrated here with Norwegian examples:

(6)	a.	Hvem	tror	du	jeg	skal	treffe	imorgen?	#325 (Norwegian)
		who	think	you	I	shall	meet	tomorrow

 

	b.	Hvem	tror	du	at	jeg	skal	treffe	imorgen?	#329 (Norwegian)
		who	think	you	that	I	shall	meet	tomorrow
	c.	Hvem	tror	du	som	jeg	skal	treffe	imorgen?	#333 (Norwegian)
		who	think	you	that	I	shall	meet	tomorrow
		‘Who do you think I am going to meet tomorrow?’

 

 

 

 

 

 

(6a) receives high scores everywhere (except in Närpes in Finland), and appears to be the typically accepted variant of the sentences in (6), see map 1. (6b) is also quite generally accepted. In Finland and Sweden, this example receives a high score everywhere. In Norway, however, there are several medium scores throughout the country, and there is also a cluster of low scores in the southern part of the country, see map 2. This is somewhat unexpected and calls for further investigation.

Map 1: wh-object extraction from that-clause without a complementizer.  (#325: Hvem tror du jeg skal treffe imorgen?	Map 2: wh-object extraction from that-clause with complementizer at ‘that’.  (#329: Hvem tror du at jeg skal treffe i morgen?)
(‘Who do you think I am going to meet tomorrow?’) (White = high score; grey = medium score; black = low score)

In contrast, (6c) was basically rejected everywhere:

Map 3: wh-object extraction from that-clause with complementizer som ‘that’.
(#333: Hvem tror du som jeg skal treffe imorgen? ‘Who do you think I am going to meet tomorrow?’)
(White = high score; grey = medium score; black = low score)

With respect to subject extraction from that-clauses, various types of constructions were tested in the NSD. First of all, the construction that has been reported as generally accepted, with complementizer deletion, was tested in Faroese (7a), Norwegian and Swedish (7b):

(7)	a.	Hvør	væntar	tú	fer	við?		#324 (Faroese)
		who	expect	you	go	with
		‘Who do you think will come along?’
	b.	Hvem	tror	du	har	gjort	det?		#324 (Norwegian)
		who	think	you	have	done	It
		‘Who do you think has done it?’

As expected, this construction is typically accepted all over Norway, Sweden, Finland, and the Faroe Islands:

Maps 4-5: wh-subject extraction from that-clause with complementizer deletion. (#324: Hvem tror du har gjort det? ‘Who do you think has done it?/Hvør væntar tú fer við? ‘Who do you think will come along?’)
(White = high score; grey = medium score; black = low score)

Secondly, constructions with an overt complementizer at ‘that’ were also tested in Faroese, Norwegian and Swedish (here illustrated with Norwegian examples):

(8)	a.	Hvem	tror	du	at	har	gjort	det?	#328 (Norwegian)
		who	think	you	that	have	done	it
		‘Who do you think have done it?’
	b.	Hvem	sa	du	at	ikke	hadde	kommet?	#1367 (Norwegian)
		who	said	you	that	not	had	come
		‘Who did you say hadn’t come?’

The results show that a that-trace effect is missing in Finland, as well as in various places in Eastern Norway; speakers in these areas accept examples like those in (8). Moreover, in Trøndelag and a few places in central Sweden, these examples receive a medium score. However, in other locations in Norway and Sweden, as well as on the Faroe Islands, the examples in (8) are rejected:

Maps 6-7: wh-subject extraction from that-clause with overt complementizer at ‘that’.  (#328: Hvem tror du at har gjort det? ‘Who do you think have done it?’)
(White = high score; grey = medium score; black = low score)

Third, it has been noted (Nordgård 1985, 1988, Westergaard et al. 2012) that several Norwegian dialects use the relative pronoun som rather than the complementizer at ‘that’ in constructions when a wh-subject has been extracted. Thus, the example in (9) was included in the questionnaire, and tested in Norwegian and Swedish:

(9)	Hvem	tror	du	som	har	gjort	det?	#332 (Norwegian)
	who	think	you	som	has	done	it
	‘Who do you think has done it?’

This sentence received a high score in Northern Norway, Trøndelag, and the North West coast of Norway (Sogn og Fjordane, Møre og Romsdal). However, it was rejected in South and East Norway, in Sweden and in Finland:

Map 8: wh-subject extraction from that-clause with overt relative pronoun som ‘that’.

(#332: Hvem tror du som har gjort det? ‘Who do you think has done it?’)
(White = high score; grey = medium score; black = low score)

Finally, constructions with a resumptive pronoun in the embedded clause were tested in Norwegian and Swedish; with an overt complementizer, (10a-b), and with complementizer deletion, (10c):

(10)	a.	Hvem	tror	du	at	han	har	gjort	det.	#336 (Norwegian)
		who	think	you	that	he	has	done	it
		‘Who do you think has done it?’
	b.	Vilka	killar	tror	du	att	de	har	rånat	banken?	#1397 (Swedish)
		which	boys.the	think	you	that	they	have	robbed	bank.the
		‘Which boys do you think have robbed the bank?’
	c.	Hvem	tror	du	han	har	gjort	det?	#1204 (Norwegian)
		who	think	you	he	had	done	that
		‘Who do you think has done it?’

All of the sentences in (10) were generally rejected everywhere in Norway, Sweden and Finland:

Map 9: wh-subject extraction from that-clause with a resumptive pronoun with an overt complementizer at ‘that’. (#336: Hvem tror du at han har gjort det? ‘Who do you think has done it?’)	Map 10: wh-subject extraction from that-clause with a resumptive pronoun without an overt complementizer at ‘that’.  (#1204: Hvem trur du han har gjort det? ‘Who do you think has done it?’)
(White = high score; grey = medium score; black = low score)

The availability of a resumptive pronoun was also tested in one type of complement clause with object extraction in Finland and Sweden, (11a), and with subject extraction Norway, Finland and Sweden, (11b-c):

(11)

a.

Den

boken

kommer

jag

inte

ihåg

om

jag

läste

den.

#1399 (Swedish)

that

book.the

come

I

not

in.mind

whether

I

read

it

‘That book I can’t remember whether I read.’

 

	b.	Ole	Gunnar	veit	jeg	ikke	om	han	kommer.	#997 (Norwegian)
		O.G.		knows	I	not	about	He	comes
		‘I don’t know whether Ole Gunnar will come.’

 

	c.	Per	Erik	vet	jag	inte	om	kommer.	#1398 (Swedish)
		P.E.		know	I	not	whether	comes
		‘I don’t know whether Per Erik is coming.’

Sentence (11a) with a resumptive pronoun with object extraction was in general not accepted in Finland and Sweden:

Map 11: wh-object extraction from complement if-clauses with a resumptive pronoun.
(#1399: Den boken kommer jag inte ihåg om jag läste den. ‘That book I can’t remember whether I read’).
(White = high score; grey = medium score; black = low score)

As Map 12 shows, sentence (11b) with a resumptive pronoun with subject extraction was rejected in Southern Norway, a few places in Trøndelag (Selbu, Namdalen, Lierne) and in Finnmark (Kvænangen, Hammerfest, Lakselv, and Vardø), in Leksand and Sproge in Sweden, and in Brändö in Finland. However, it was accepted in Northwestern Norway (between Bergen and Trondheim) as well as in a few places in Nordland county (Northern Norway). It was also accepted in various places in Sweden, especially in the South as well as in Munsala and Närpes, Dragsfjärd, and Borgå in Finland. It received medium scores in the Troms, Nordland and Trøndelag counties, and also here and there in Sweden and Finland.

Sentence (11c) without a resumptive pronoun with subject extraction was tested in Sweden and Finland, and as illustrated in Map 13, it was rejected in most places in Sweden except for Särna and Dalby, two locations close to the Norwegian border. In Finland, however, this sentence was typically accepted in the southern part of Finland, as well as in Larsmo, with Munsala, Snappertuna, and Kyrkslätt giving medium scores. This type is interesting since the complentizer om (‘if’) cannot be deleted. Additional investigation is required on this construction in Norway.

Map 12: wh-subject extraction from complement if-clauses with a resumptive pronoun.  (#997: Ole Gunnar veit jeg ikke om han kommer. ‘I don’t know whether Ole Gunnar will come.’)	Map 13: wh-subject extraction from complement if-clauses without a resumptive pronoun. (#1398: Per Erik vet jag inte om kommer. ‘I don’t know whether Per Erik is coming.’)
(White = high score; grey = medium score; black = low score)

 

3. Discussion

Object extraction appears to be possible from that-clauses both with and without an overt complementizer at ‘that’. However, certain places, particularly in the south of Norway, display some restrictions on extraction from clauses with the overt complementizer. Moreover, use of the complementizer som ‘that’ is completely out in these constructions.

Turning to extraction of a wh-subject, we have seen that such extraction is generally accepted from that-clauses without an overt complementizer. In this respect, subject and object wh-extraction pattern alike. Moreover, while in Finland and Sweden, wh-subject extraction out of a clause with an overt complementizer is rejected, we find a complementary distribution with respect to such extraction in Norway. In the Eastern part, such extraction is allowed out of complements with the overt complementizer at ‘that’ but disallowed out of a complement with the overt complementizer som ‘that’, while in the rest of Norway, we see the opposite pattern. These results have been reported on by Westergaard et al. (2012) based on the data from the Nordic Syntax Database, and readers are referred to this paper for further reading.

Finally, notice that although resumptive pronouns in constructions with extraction of a wh-subject from a that–clause were generally rejected, resumptive pronouns were accepted with extraction of a non-wh-subject from an if-clause in Finland, Sweden, and large parts of Norway.

References

Engdahl, Elisabet. 1982. Restrictions on unbounded dependencies in Swedish. In Elisabet Engdahl and E. Ejerhed (eds.) Readings on Unbounded Dependencies in Scandinavian Languages, 151–174. Almqvist & Wiksell, Umeå.

Engdahl, Elisabet. 1985. Parasitic gaps, resumptive pronouns and subject extractions. Linguistics 23: 3–44.

Fiva, Toril. 1985. Resumptive pronomen i nordnorske dialekter. In Tove Bull and Anton Fjeldstad Heidersskrift til Kåre Elstad, 48–68. Tromsø: Institutt for språk og litteratur. [Reprinted in Tromsø Linguistics in the Eighties, 134–160. Oslo: Novus.]

Fiva, Toril. 1991. Resumptive pronouns and binding theory. In Papers from the 12th Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics, ed. Halldór Á. Sigurðsson, 66–77. Linguistic Institute, University of Iceland.

Hellan, Lars and Kirsti Koch Christensen. 1986. Introduction. In Lars Hellan and Kirsti Koch Christensen (eds.) Topics in Scandinavian Syntax, 1–29. Reidel, Dordrecht.

Holmberg, Anders. 1986. Word Order and Syntactic Features in the Scandinavian Languages and English. University of Stockholm, Stockholm.

Maling, Joan and Annie Zaenen. 1978. The nonuniversality of a surface filter. Linguistic Inquiry 9: 475–497.

Nordgård, Torbjørn. 1985. Word Order, Binding and the Empty Category Principle. Cand. Philol thesis, University of Trondheim.

Nordgård, 1988. Omkring ordstilling i hv-spørsmål i norske dialekter. Skriftserie fra Institutt for fonetikk og lingvistikk, University of Bergen 33, 26–37.

Platzack, Christer. 1986. COMP, INFL, and Germanic word order. In L. Hellan and K. K. Christensen, eds. Topics in Scandinavian Syntax, 185-234. Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. Dordrecht: Reidel.

Taraldsen, Knut Tarald. 1978. On the scope of wh-movement in Norwegian. Linguistic Inquiry 9, 623–640.

Teleman, Ulf, Staffan Hellberg and Erik Andersson. 1999. Svenska Akademiens Grammatik. Svenska Akademien, Stockholm.

Thráinsson, Höskuldur, Hjalmar Petersen, Jógvan í Lon Jacobsen and Zakaris Svabo Hansen. 2004. Faroese. An Overview and Reference Grammar. Føroya Fróðskaparfelag, Tórshavn.

Vikner, Sten. 1995. Verb Movement and Expletive Subjects in the Germanic Languages. Oxford University Press, New York.

Westergaard, Marit, Øystein Vangsnes and Terje Lohndal. 2012. ‘Norwegian som: The complementizer that climbed to the matrix Left Periphery and caused Verb Second violations,’ CISCL Working Papers.

 

Web sites:

Nordic Atlas of Language Structures (NALS) Journal: http://www.tekstlab.uio.no/nals

Nordic Dialect Corpus: http://www.tekstlab.uio.no/nota/scandiasyn/index.html

Nordic Syntax Database: http://www.tekstlab.uio.no/nota/scandiasyn/index.html