Publishing Partner: Cambridge University Press CUP Extra Wiley-Blackwell Publisher Login
amazon logo
More Info

New from Oxford University Press!


Language Planning as a Sociolinguistic Experiment

By: Ernst Jahr

Provides richly detailed insight into the uniqueness of the Norwegian language development. Marks the 200th anniversary of the birth of the Norwegian nation following centuries of Danish rule

New from Cambridge University Press!


Acquiring Phonology: A Cross-Generational Case-Study

By Neil Smith

The study also highlights the constructs of current linguistic theory, arguing for distinctive features and the notion 'onset' and against some of the claims of Optimality Theory and Usage-based accounts.

New from Brill!


Language Production and Interpretation: Linguistics meets Cognition

By Henk Zeevat

The importance of Henk Zeevat's new monograph cannot be overstated. [...] I recommend it to anyone who combines interests in language, logic, and computation [...]. David Beaver, University of Texas at Austin

Summary Details

Query:   Inversion in embedded clauses
Author:  Ming-Wei Lee
Submitter Email:  click here to access email
Linguistic LingField(s):   Syntax

Summary:   - ---

I asked whether native speakers of English accept (2b) and (3b) as
stylistically marked variants of (2a) and (3a), or whether (2b) and (3b)
are plainly ungrammatical?

(2a) I wonder into which garden my mother went.
(2b) I wonder into which garden went my mother.
(3a) That is the garden into which my mother went.
(3b) That is the garden into which went my mother.

I received 15 replies. A few respondents cautioned that (in American
English) even (2a) and (2b) are stylistically marked because of the use
of pied piping. Some other respondents mentioned a contrast between (2b)
and (3b), so I think I had better list what each respondent/informant
said about each sentence in this summary. (16 informants' judgments are
listed here because two replies contain data from more than one informant
and one contains no judgment data.)

For (2b):
(1) 'sound fine ... seem a little less stylistically marked than the
non-extracted case ... sound even better if the inverted subject is heavy'
(2) 'ungrammatical, or at least very odd'
(3) 'plainly ungrammatical'
(4) 'ungrammatical ... one step beyond "stylistically odd"'
(5) 'cannot accept'
(6) 'borderline'
(7) 'odd'
(8) 'fine'
(9) 'impossible'
(10) 'a stylistic variant'
(11) 'distinctly strange to me, but not absolutely ungrammatical'
(12) 'I believe all of the types you are looking for are attested.
However, the pragmatics (or discourse function) of this construction make
a lot of examples that are constructed without any salient context sound
pretty weird'
(13) 'a little awkward, pretentious, perhaps archaic, and pseudo-literary
... not ungrammatical' (14) 'completely impossible'
(15) 'right out'
(16) 'not acceptable'

For (3b):
(1) Same as (2b)
(2) 'possible, as a means of expressing focus'
(3) Same as (2b)
(4) Same as (2b)
(5) Same as (2b)
(6) 'not at all acceptable'
(7) 'fine if somewhat marked'
(8) 'strange'
(9) 'OK if you make the inverted subject heavy'
(10) 'awkward and strained, though not ungrammatical'
(11) Same as (2b)
(12) Same as (2b)
(13) Same as (2b)
(14) 'conceivable (if we make "my mother" a bit heavier), though it
sounds like fancy literary style'
(15) 'marginally less bad'
(16) Same as (2b)

Many thanks for the replies.

Ming-Wei Lee
Anglia Polytechnic University, UK

LL Issue: 11.165
Date Posted: 26-Jan-2000
Original Query: Read original query


Sums main page