Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
PROGRAM
GRAMMATIK I FOKUS i Lund
Torsdagen den 5 och fredagen den 6 februari 2015
Hörsalen, Humanisthuset (SOL-centrum)
Torsdagen 5 februari
1410-1415 SYMPOSIET ÖPPNAS
1415-1500 Dianne Jonas: Adverbial clauses in Faroese
1500-1515 KAFFE
1515-1600 Arthur Holmer: Factors governing NP-internal word order
variation in Formosan
1600-1645 Maria Alm: The interaction between sentence types and modal particles
from a construction-grammatical perspective
1645-1650 KORT PAUS
1650-1735 Marit Julien: Inceptives in North Sámi: spanning and maximal expression
1735-1810 Ana Rodriguez: Possessivmarkörens utveckling i svenska
1810-1855 Elisabet Engdahl och Anu Laanemets: Prepositional passives in mainland
Scandinavian
1900—RECEPTION på Institutionen för lingvistik (Humanisthuset, rum Hu 428)
Fredagen den 6 februari
0945-1000 KAFFE
1000-1045 David Håkansson: Expletivt ’det’ vid transitiva verb i fornsvenskan
1045-1130 Filippa Lindahl: Swedish Relative Clauses as Weak Islands
1130-1135 KORT PAUS
1135-1210 Fredrik Heinat, Eva Klingvall, Damon Tutunjian & Anna-Lena Wiklund:
Processing Long-Distance Dependencies in Swedish
SYMPOSIET AVSLUTAS
Adverbial clauses in Faroese – a diachronic perspective
Dianne Jonas�Goethe University Frankfurt�
The goal of this paper is to take a diachronic approach to variation and change in word order in adverbial clauses in Faroese. The data discussed here comes from four translations of Færeyinga saga spanning a time period 1832-2012. What are of interest are instances of adverbial clauses with main clause word order. Examples of adverbial clauses exhibiting embedded verb second from the oldest Faroese text (1832) are given in (1): (1) a. men ikki kemur tað óvart á meg, um vær komum ikki allir heilir heim aftur í kvøld but not comes it unawares to me, if we come not all whole home back in evening ‘but it will not come on me unawares if we do not all get back whole in the evening’ b. hann var frekur blótmaður, tí at tá vóru allar Føroyar heidnar. he was great sacrificer because then were all Faroes heathens ‘He was a great sacrificer because all Faroese were heathens then.’ The starting point of the discussion is the division of adverbial clauses into central and peripheral based on discourse factors and their differing syntax as outlined in Haegeman (2010): Central adverbial clauses resist main clause phenomena, whereas peripheral adverbial clauses are more liberal in this respect. Here, we examine from this perspective the variation in word order in adverbial clauses of a number of types in the Faroese texts and provide comparative data from the Old Icelandic source text, older Danish and Dano-Norwegian, and German. �
�
References Haegeman, Liliane. 2010. Adverbial clauses, main clause phenomena, and the composition of the
left periphery. The cartography of syntactic structures, volume 8. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Rafn, Carl Christian, ed. 1832. Færeyinga saga. Copenhagen. �
Factors(governing(NP0internal(word(order(variation(in(Formosan(Grammatik(i(Fokus(2015((Arthur&Holmer&[email protected]&(The(Austronesian( languages( in(Taiwan( (Formosan( languages)(display(overwhelmingly(verb0initial(order((VOS(or(VSO).(In(the(light(of(this,(it(would(be(expected(that(NP0internal(word(order(should(be(N0Rel.(However,(in(most(Formosan(languages,(both(N0Rel(and(Rel0N(orders(obtain,(and(in(some(languages,(notably(Bunun(and(Tsou,(Rel0N(appears(to(be(more(frequent,(or(even(the(norm.(It(will(be(shown(that(the(choice(of(the(one(order(or(the(other(is(determined(by(different(factors(in(the(different(languages.(After(work(primarily(on( three( maximally( distinct( Formosan( languages( (Puyuma,( Takituduh( Bunun( and(Tgdaya( Seediq)( it( appears( that( we( can( draw( some( conclusions( about( the( ordering(patterns.(The(surface(generalization(seems(to(be(as(follows:((·(if(clause0level(word(order(is(free,(NP0internal(order(also(appears(to(be(determined(by(information(structure;(·(if(word(order(is(semantically(determined,(i.e.(V0Agt0Pat((regardless(of(the(voice(of(the(verb),(there(is(a(strong(correlation(between(the(voice(of(the(verb(and(the(relative(order(of(Rel(and(N;(·( if( word( order( is( uniformly( subject0final,( no( such( voice( correlation( is( found,( and(preferred(order(varies(cross0linguistically(between(N0Rel(and(Rel0N;((It(will(proposed(that(Rel0N(order(is(a(relic(of(a(matrix(clause(which(has(evolved(into(an(internally( headed( relativization( construction,( and( that( N0Rel( order( has( subsequently(developed(to(disambiguate(relativization(from(a(matrix(clause.(How(this(disambiguation(actually( is( realized(depends(on(other(properties(of( the( language,(as(does(how( the( two(different(constructions(are(further(used(for(other(purposes.((Interestingly(enough,(this(analysis(places(the(central0southern(Formosan(language(Tsou(in(a(position(as(the(most(archaic(exponent(of(the(Formosan(languages,(which(fits(well(in(with( its( generally( accepted( position( today( as( the( first( primary( branch( of( the(Austronesian(family.(((
Maria Alm Syddansk Universitet, Sønderborg [email protected]
The interaction between sentence types and modal particles from a construction-grammatical perspective In this talk I will investigate the relation between the concepts of sentence types, sentence moods and illocutionary force. This is necessary for a correct description of the usage restrictions of modal particles. The background for the discussion is the popular claim in the German literature that modal particles function as “illocutionary indicators/modifiers” (e.g. Thurmair 1989; Altmann 1993; Kwon 2005; Coniglio 2011). Modal particles are short, unstressed words with sentence scope and a non-propositional meaning. They are predominantly restricted to a mid-sentence position between the finite verb and before the infinite parts of the predicate (cf. Thurmair 2013): (1) Ich habe ja nichts gesagt.
I have PRT nothing said “But I haven’t said anything, as both you and I know.”
There are also modal sentence adverbials with sentence scope and a similar meaning to the modal particles but they are not suggested to be “illocutionary modifiers” (Zifonun et al. 1997:1209f.). The main support for the claim that modal particles have this special function, then, is the undisputable observation that every modal particle (but usually not modal sentence adverbials) displays a remarkable, individually arranged set of “sentence-type” usage restrictions.1 For example, the modal particle ja (literally “yes”) in example (1) above is restricted to the verb-second declarative sentence type. Such restrictions make sense if you assume that modal particles take scope over the illocutionary force of their host sentence. Then, there has to be to semantical compatibility between the modal particle and the illocutionary-force potential of the host sentence. An investigation of the interaction between modal particles and the sentence type/sentence mood of their host utterance shows that there are no straight-forward dependences between sentence types and modal particles – and that the concepts of sentence types, sentence mood and illocutionary force are often used in an intuitive, not very well defined way in the modal particle literature. In this talk, I thus focus on straightening out the definitions of sentence type, sentence mood and illocutionary force from a construction grammatical perspective (cf. Goldberg 1995). I will demonstrate how a construction grammatical analysis of sentence types works and what advantages it has both from a theoretical perspective (cf. Jacobs 2008) and for the specific analysis of modal-particle usage restrictions (cf. Alm/Schendel/Fischer forthcoming). 1 The term “sentence-type” is not the optimal term to describe the basis for these usage restrictions, but the basis of these restrictions are so complex that most researchers use “sentence type” or “sentence mood” for want of a better term (cf. Diewald 2008).
Maria Alm Syddansk Universitet, Sønderborg [email protected] References
Alm, Maria/Schendel, Janina/Fischer, Kerstin (forthcoming): “The interaction between modal particles and sentence
types.”
Altmann, Hans (1993): “Satzmodus.” In: Jacobs, Joachim/Stechow, Arnim von/Sternefeld, Wolfgang (eds.): Syntax:
Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung. Vol. 1. Berlin/ New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1006–
1029.
Coniglio, Marco (2011): Die Syntax der deutschen Modalpartikeln. Ihre Distribution und Lizenzierung in Haupt- und
Nebensätzen. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
Diewald, Gabriele (2008): “Die Funktion ‘idiomatischer’ Konstruktionen bei Grammatikalisierungsprozessen –
illustriert am Beispiel der Modalpartikel ruhig.” In: Stefanowitsch, Anatol/Fischer, Kerstin (eds.):
Konstruktionsgrammatik II: Von der Konstruktion zur Grammatik. Tübingen: Stauffenburg, 33-57.
Goldberg, Adele E. (1995): Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure.
Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.
Kwon, Min-Jae (2005): Modalpartikeln und Satzmodus: Untersuchungen zur Syntax, Semantik und Pragmatik der
deutschen Modalpartikeln. Dissertation. Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München.
Thurmair, Maria (1989): Modalpartikeln und ihre Kombinationen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Thurmair, Maria (2013): “Satztyp und Modalpartikeln.” In: Meibauer, Jörg/Steinbach, Markus/Altmann, Hans (eds.):
Satztypen des Deutschen. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 627-651.
Zifonun, Gisela/Hoffmann, Ludger/Strecker, Bruno (1997): Grammatik der deutschen Sprache. Berlin: Walter de
Gruyter.
1
Inceptives in North Sámi: spanning and maximal expression
I this talk I will propose some revisions of the model of vocabulary insertion assumed in
Distributed Morphology. My arguments are based on North Sámi inceptive verbs, i.e. verbs
denoting the beginning of an event, that differ from their base verb only in having a different
theme vowel, as shown in (1).
(1) BASE VERB INCEPTIVE VERB
a. ballat ‘fear’ > ballát ‘begin to fear, become afraid’
b. buollat ‘burn (intr.)’ > buollát ‘begin to burn’
c. duoldat ‘boil (intr.)’ > duldet ‘begin to boil’
The theme vowel in the base verb is arguably the phonological realisation of the v head. This can
be seen in pairs of verbs and nouns built on the same root but having different theme vowels,
such as ballat ‘fearV’ and ballu ‘fearN’. In the inceptive verbs, on the other hand, the theme
vowel does not spell out just v. However, assuming that it is the realisation of the inceptive
aspectual head Inc, which is generated above vP, leads to a violation of the Generalisation on
root-conditioned allomorphy (Embick & Marantz 2008), since the realisation of Inc must then be
conditioned by the root, which is not adjacent to Inc. Instead, I think the theme vowels in the
inceptive verbs should be seen as the joint realisation of v and Inc. In a traditional DM analysis,
this would mean that the two terminal nodes are fused into one. However, the concept of fusion
is deeply problematic, since it implies that the syntax can tailor the structure to fit the contents of
the vocabulary. Instead, my proposal is that we have here what Svenonius (2012) terms
spanning, i.e. one single vocabulary item spelling out two or more unfused nodes.
The base verbs in (1) all belong to a conjugation class which is different from the conjuga-
tion class of the inceptives. For example, the past tense first person singular of ballat is ballen,
while the past tense first person singular of ballát is ballájin. Since these verbs are built on the
same root, conjugation class membership cannot be marked as a diacritic feature on the root
(contra Embick & Halle 2005). A structural specification would also not give the desired result,
since some non-inceptive verbs are inflected like ballát. My proposal is that the vocabulary item
/jin/ is specified to appear after the vowels /e/ /o/ or /a/ while the feature content of the nodes that
have one of these vowels as their phonological realisation may vary. Hence, the architecture of
the vocabulary items cannot be as stated in Halle & Marantz (1994). Moreover, vocabulary
insertion must be strictly cyclic and proceed from the bottom upwards.
As for /en/, it appears to represent both the verbaliser and the past tense, in addition to
person and number features. It must also be specified to appear with a certain set of roots, since it
alternates with /on/ (not shown here). The question is then why /en/ does not appear in the
paradigm of the inceptive verb ballát, whose syntactic structure would also meet the
specification of /en/. I propose that /en/ loses to /jin/ because /en/ would leave Inc unexpressed.
More specifically, competition between vocabulary items is resolved by the Principle of
Maximal Expression, which states that when two or more vocabulary items meet the conditions
for insertion, the item leaving the smallest number of features in the terminal sequence
unexpressed must apply (rather than the more specified one). Conjugation classes arise as a
consequence of the specifications of individual vocabulary items, together with the principle of
maximal expression, which regulates the competition between them.
Grammatik i Fokus Lund, 5-6 februari 2015
Ana María Rodríguez-González Svenska och flerspråkighet & FoSpråk, Stockholms universitet
Possessivmarkörens utvekling i svenska Possessivmarkören (POSS-s) i modern standardsvenska är inte någon kasusändelse utan ett frasklitiskt element. Detta är särskilt uppenbart när possessorn utgörs av en utbyggd NP, i vilket fall POSS-s läggs till på det sista ordet i frasen, i stället för på huvudordet. I tidigare stadier av svenskan var possessivmarkören ett äkta morfologiskt element men någon gång mellan fornsvenska och yngre nysvenska omanalyserades och kom att uppfattas som en klitisk partikel som jobbar på frasnivå. Diakront material i fornsvenska och yngre nysvenska som är hämtade från Arboga och Stockholms tänkeböcker kan bidra till att kasta ljus över det diakrona utveklingen av svenskans POSS-s. Man kan identifiera fyra huvudtyper av possessiva konstruktioner som består av komplexa possessorsfraser, som är listade nedan med exempel i modern svenska:
(1) Konstruktioner med ”split” gruppgenitiv: enbart possessorns huvudord markeras och attributet står efter det ägda.
Lenas hus i Lund
(2) Konstruktioner med ”normativ” gruppgenitiv: enbart possessorns huvudord markeras och sitt attribut står förre det ägda.
Lenas i Lund hus
(3) Konstruktioner med ”dubbelmarkerad” gruppgenitiv: både possessorns huvudord och sitt efterställda attribut markeras.
Lenas i Lunds hus
(4) Konstruktioner med modern gruppgenitiv: Possessivmarkören knyts till en hel nominalfras
Lena i Lunds hus
Syftet med denna presentation är (1) att presentera fyra olika konstruktioner och diskutera deras karakteristiska drag, (2) att diskutera possessivmarkörens morfosyntaktiska status i svenska utifrån ett diakront perspektiv och (3) att redogöra för en preliminär version av den strukturella uppbyggnaden av dessa konstruktioner.
Prepositional passives in mainland Scandinavian
Elisabet Engdahl & Anu Laanemets Göteborg København
Prepositional passives, or pseudopassives, (henceforth Prep-passives), as illustrated in (1) from English, have received a lot of attention from both traditional and generative grammarians.
(1) This bed has been slept in. Regarding the Scandinavian languages, there are conflicting claims in the literature, both concerning the productivity and the grammatical status of Prep-passives. Herslund (1984) states that they are ungrammatical in his idiolect of Danish. Maling & Zaenen (1985:207) claim that they are ungrammatical in Danish and Swedish “or, at best, extremely marginal”, but the recent Danish reference grammar Grammatik over det Danske Sprog (Hansen & Heltoft 2011) treats Prep-passives as one of several options for forming the passive in Danish. The Swedish reference grammar Svenska Akademiens Grammatik (Teleman et al. 1999 IV:369) notes that Prep-passives are sometimes used, primarily in spoken and informal written Swedish. Lødrup (1991:118) writes “Norwegian has a rather productive pseudopassive (as opposed to the other Scandinavian languages)” and Norsk Referansegrammatikk (Faarlund et al. 1997) provides a number of examples without mentioning any genre restrictions. The conflicting reports call for a wider investigation of the use of Prep-passives in contemporary Scandinavian. The articles cited above mainly base their conclusions on constructed data and judgments from a few informants. In order to clarify the situation, we have conducted a corpus study of written Danish, Norwegian and Swedish. We have also systematically investigated if there are any differences in the use of Prep-passives between the morphological s-passive and the periphrastic passive bli-passive. Our results show that Prep-passives are used in similar ways in the three languages, as illustrated in (2)–(4). Somewhat surprisingly, Prep-passives are most common in Swedish bli-passives. (2) Vi er vant til at blive trådt på. (Da.) we are used to INF become trodden on ‘We are used to being trodden on.’ (3) Hun er lei av å ikke bli trodd på. (No.) she is tired of INF not become believed on ‘She is tired of not being believed in.’ (4) Jag begär ändå att bli lyssnad på. (Sw.) I request still INF become listened on ‘I still request to be listened to.’
References Faarlund, Jan Terje, Svein Lie & Kjell Ivar Vannebo. (1997) Norsk referansegrammatikk. Oslo:
Universitetsforlaget. Hansen, Erik & Lars Heltoft. 2011. Grammatik over det Danske Sprog. København: Det Danske
Sprog- og Litteraturselskab. Herslund, Michael. 1984. Particles, Prefixes and Preposition Stranding. NyS 14. Topics in Danish
Syntax, 34–71. Lødrup, Helge. 1991. The Norwegian Pseudopassive in Lexical Theory. Working Papers in
Scandinavian Syntax 47, 118–129. Maling, Joan & Annie Zaenen. 1985. Preposition-Stranding and Passive. Nordic Journal and
Linguistics 8, 197–209. Teleman, Ulf, Staffan Hellberg & Erik Andersson. 1999. Svenska Akademiens Grammatik.
Stockholm: Norstedts.
!
Expletivt ’det’ vid transitiva verb i äldre svenska
David Håkansson
Uppsala universitet
En ofta uppmärksammad syntaktisk skillnad mellan fastlandsnordiska och önordiska språk rör
användningen av expletivt ’det’. Medan även transitiva verb kan konstrueras med ’det’ i
isländska och färöiska har konstruktionen generellt ansetts begränsad till intransitiva verb i de
fastlandsnordiska språken: ”the standard claim is that transitive expeltives are not possible in
MSc [Mainland Scandinavian]” (Thráinsson 2007:337). Observationen att de önordiska
skiljer sig från de fastlandsnordiska på denna punkt går tillbaka åtminstone till Platzack 1983.
Senare forskning har därefter bekräftat att expletivt ’det’ inte kan förekomma tillsammans
med transitiva verb i de fastlandsnordiska språken (se t.ex. Vikner 1996; Holmberg 2010;
Josefsson 2012).
Att de fastlandsnordiska språken skiljer sig från de önordiska när det gäller möjligheten att
konstruera transitiva verb med ett expletivt ’det’ stämmer dock endast om vi begränsar
diskussionen till standardiserat skriftspråk; i svenskt talspråk förekommer – precis som i
isländska och färöiska – expletivt ’det’ även vid transitiva predikat. Följande exempel är
hämtade från Nordic Dialect Corpus (Johannessen et al. 2009):
(1) a. det ska jag förkovra mig lite grann
b. det har jag saknat andra grejor också
c. det har väl alla barn gjort något
d. det skulle vi då lossa det upp på lastbilen
e. det har jag en rolig historia ifrån förr
f. nej sa jag, det ska jag inte köpa någon bil
Även i äldre svenska kunde expletivt ’det’ förekomma vid transitiva predikat (se (2)), och i
mitt föredrag ska jag belysa konstruktionen i ett historiskt perspektiv och diskutera möjliga
diakroniska förklaringar till varför möjligheten att konstruera transitiva verb med expletivt
’det’ har begränsats i svenskt skriftspråk.
(2) a. thet haffuer iagh alt hållet vthaff min vngdom
b. Thet rådha wel andre Herrar offuer oss vtan tigh
(GVB 1541)
Swedish Relative Clauses as Weak IslandsFilippa Lindahl
University of GothenburgSwedish exhibits long-distance dependencies in which an antecedent outside of a relative clause(RC) is associated with an RC-internal gap. The phenomenon is called relative clause extraction, andis of interest from a theoretical perspective since it seems to violate purportedly universal localityconditions (i.e. the Complex NP Constraint (Ross 1967), Subjacency (Chomsky 1973) and the PhaseImpenetrability Condition (Chomsky 2001)).
Some recent analyses of Scandinavian relative clause extraction rely on the assumption that ex-traction is possible only from subject RCs (Kush, Omaki & Hornstein 2013), or that extraction fromsubject RCs should be analyzed differently than extraction from non-subject RCs (Platzack 2014).Common to these two accounts is that they argue that the relation between the (apparent) RC headand RC complementizer in subject RCs is not mediated by an A-dependency.
In this talk, I show that extraction is possible from non-subject RCs as well, and argue that exam-ples like (1) involve two A-dependencies.
(1) [Den[the
därthere
halloweenmasken]iHalloween mask-DEF
villwant
EdithEdith
hittafind
någonksomeone
somREL
honshe
kancan
skrämmascare
_k medwith
_i
‘Edith wants to find someone that she can scare with that Halloween mask.’
Some similar examples have been noted by Engdahl (1997), Koch Christensen (1982), and others, buthere I present new evidence from strong crossover, connectivity effects, and parasitic gap licensing,showing that both of the dependencies are in fact derived by A-movement. From this I conclude that,if we are to maintain that A-movement proceeds in a successive cyclic fashion through each Spec-CP,relative C in Swedish must tolerate multiple specifiers.
The observed A-dependencies can be created in several ways: clefting, questioning, relativizationand topicalization are all licit ways to extract a phrase from a Swedish RC. But it is not the casethat just any phrase can escape. For example, certain non-argument wh-phrases cannot move out.This means that Swedish RCs are weak, rather than strong islands, unlike what is usually assumedfor English RCs (e.g. by Szabolcsi 2006). Szabolcsi takes an algebraic approach to weak islands,where phrases that denote individuals, which can be collected into sets forming Boolean algebras,can be extracted, whereas phrases that denote non-individuals, which cannot be collected into suchsets, cannot. However, it is not obvious how to extend such an approach to Swedish RCs, since theyallow extraction of some phrases that denote non-individuals, like how late and that late.
Instead, I propose that the phrases that can move out of relative clauses carry one of a naturalclass of discourse-related features (DR). The C-heads in RCs attract DR-marked phrases, makingthem available in later stages of the derivation, as illustrated in (2).
(2) [CP1 XPi[DR]
... [DP XPi[DR]
... [CP2 XPi[DR]
Opk[Rel]
[C! som[¬Rel, ¬DR
[TP]
... Opk[Rel]
... XPi[DR]
... ]]]]]
Referencesf
Chomsky, 1973. Conditions on Transformations. In: Anderson, S. & P. Kiparsky (eds.) A Festschrift for Morris Halle. p. 232–286. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
Chomsky, 2001. Derivation by phase. In: Kenstowicz, M. (ed) Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. Michael Kenstowicz, p. 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MITPress.
Engdahl, E. 1997. Relative clause extractions in context. Working papers in Scandinavian syntax 60, p. 51–79.Koch Christensen, K. 1982. On Multiple Filler-Gap Constructions in Norwegian. In: Engdahl, E. & E. Ejerhed (eds) Readings on Unbounded
Dependencies in the Scandinavian Languages. p. 77–98. Umeå: Univ.Kush, D., Omaki, A. & Hornstein, N. 2013. Microvariation in Islands? In: Sprouse, J. & N. Hornstein (eds) Experimental Syntax and Island Effects. p.
239–265. Cambridge MA: Cambridge University Press.Platzack, C. 2014. A Feature Driven Account of Mainland Scandinavian Extraction from Relative Clauses. Talk given at Grammatikseminariet in Lund,
3 April 2014.Ross, J. R. R. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. PhD Dissertation. MIT.Szabolcsi, A. 2006. Strong vs. Weak Islands. In: Everaert, M. & H. C. van Riemsdijk (eds). The Blackwell companion to syntax. Vol. 4. Malden, MA:
Blackwell.
Processing Long-Distance Dependencies in Swedish
Fredrik Heinat, Eva Klingvall, Damon Tutunjian & Anna-Lena Wiklund Linneaus University (FH) & Lund University (EK, DT, A-LW)
Extraction from relative clauses typically yields unacceptable sentences across the majority of languages. Noun phrases involving relative clauses are therefore assumed to universally comprise syntactic “islands” for extraction. The fact that (1) is judged as acceptable in Swedish is thus unexpected, which poses a problem for both syntactic accounts (e.g. Sprouse et al. 2012) and processing accounts (e.g. Hofmeister & Sag 2010) of island effects. Our study (funded by the Crafoord foundation) uses a eyetracking while reading paradigm to determine whether extractions from restrictive relative clauses (RCE) (1), which purportedly do not comprise syntactic islands in Swedish, elicit similar processing costs as do extractions from non-restrictive relative clauses (StrongIs) (2), which are known to be strong islands in Swedish, or if they pattern closer to sentences in which an extraction has been made from an att-clause (NonIs) (3). In addition to the eyetracking task, participants also completed two working memory (WM) span tasks (Ospan and Reverse Digit Span). This allows us to examine the contribution of one non-linguistic factor towards any noted processing cost revealed in the eyetracking measures. (1) Såna där gamla skottkärror såg jag en man som alltid tvättade på bensinmacken när han var ledig. (2) Såna där gamla skottkärror såg jag en man som förresten tvättade på bensinmacken när han var ledig. (3) Såna där gamla skottkärror såg jag att en man alltid tvättade på bensinmacken när han var ledig. We used linear mixed models to examine the pattern of results for four eyetracking measures (first fixation duration, gaze duration, regression path duration, and total dwell time) across two regions of interest (embedded verb, tvättade; PP: på bensinmacken). In addition, analyses for these regions were run independently for each of two WM span measures (Ospan and Reverse Digit Span). The frequency by which the embedded verb is followed by the filler NP was also included in our models as a controlling factor. The primary finding at at the embedded verb region was that RCE and NonIs both patterned faster than StrongIs across measures, with effects generally growing larger as frequency increased, suggesting that RCE is processed more similarly to NonIs than StrongIs when verb/object integration first occurs and that frequency enhances this effect. In the PP region, NonIs saw additional facilitation over RCE in later measures, signaling that integrative processes may be more difficult for RCE than NonIs over time. In sum, we demonstrate support for the claim that RCEs are not only intuitively more more acceptable than StrongIs but are also easier to process, patterning with NonIs at early stages of integration and patterning faster than StrongIs at later stages. No clear benefits for greater WM spans were found for the processing of RCEs, though some benefits for greater frequency were found, suggesting that the acceptability of RCEs in Swedish is largely a grammatical phenomenon.
