Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-54qdv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T13:11:26.166Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ambiguity avoidance in english relative clauses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

David Temperley
David Temperley*
Affiliation:
Eastman School of Music, University of Rochester
*
26 Gibbs St., Rochester, NY 14607 [dtemp@theory.esm.rochester.edu]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Are syntactic choices influenced by the need to avoid ambiguity? Studies of the use of that with English embedded clauses have reached negative conclusions on this point. It is argued here that these conclusions may be premature. Statistical analysis of another phenomenon of English—use of the optional relative pronoun or complementizer with object relative clauses—in written text suggests that both ambiguity avoidance and anaphoricity contribute to syntactic choices. Ambiguity avoidance is shown to operate at a ‘strategic’ level, influenced by general considerations of syntactic structure, but not by lexical distinctions or pragmatic factors.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 79 , Issue 3 , September 2003 , pp. 464 - 484
Copyright
Copyright © 2003 by the Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Arnold, Jennifer E., Wasow, Thomas, Losongco, Anthony; and Ginstrom, Ryan. 2000. Heaviness vs. newness: The effects of structural complexity and discourse status on constituent ordering. Language 76. 28–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bever, Thomas G. 1970. The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. Cognition and the development of language, ed. by Hayes, John R., 279–362. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Bever, Thomas G., and Langendoen, D. Terence. 1971. A dynamic model of evolution of language. Linguistic Inquiry 2. 433–63.Google Scholar
Biesenbach-Lucas, Sigrun. 1987. The use of relative markers in modern American English. In Denning, et al., 13–21.Google Scholar
Bock, J. Kathryn. 1986. Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology 18. 355–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Branigan, Holly P., Pickering, Martin J.; and Cleland, Alexandra A. 2000. Syntactic co-ordination in dialogue. Cognition 75.B13–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carter, David. 1987. Interpreting anaphors in natural language texts. Chichester, UK: Ellis Harwood Ltd.Google Scholar
Danchev, Andrei. 1991. Language change typology and some aspects of the SVO development in English. Historical English syntax, ed. by Kastovsky, Dieter, 103–24. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Denning, Keith, Inkelas, Sharon, McNair-Knox, Faye C.; and Rickford, John (eds.) 1987. Variation in language: NWAV-XV at Stanford. Stanford, CA: Dept. of Linguistics, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Doherty, Cathal. 1993. The syntax of subject contact relatives. Papers from the 29th regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 155–69. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Elsness, Johan. 1984. That or zero? A look at the choice of object clause connective in a corpus of American English. English Studies 65. 519–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erdmann, Peter. 1980. On the history of subject contact-clauses in English. Folia Linguistica Historica 1. 139–70.Google Scholar
Ferreira, Victor S., and Dell, Gary S. 2000. Effect of ambiguity and lexical availability on syntactic and lexical production. Cognitive Psychology 40. 296–340.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frazier, Lyn. 1985. Syntactic complexity. Natural language parsing: Psychological, computational, and theoretical perspectives, ed. by Dowty, David R., Karttunen, Lauri, and Zwicky, Arnold M., 129–89. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Guy, Gregory R. 1997. Competence, performance, and the generative grammar of variation. Variation, change, and phonological theory, ed. by Hinskens, Frans, Van Hout, Roeland, and Wetzels, W. Leo, 125–43. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Guy, Gregory R., and Bayley, Robert. 1995. On the choice of relative pronouns in English. American Speech 70. 148–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hankamer, Jorge. 1973. Unacceptable ambiguity. Linguistic Inquiry 4. 17–68.Google Scholar
Harris, Martin B. 1978. The interrelationship between phonological and grammatical change. Recent developments in historical phonology, ed. by Fisiak, Jacek. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 1994. A performance theory of order and constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hirst, Graeme. 1981. Anaphora in natural language understanding: A survey. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kikai, Akio, Schleppegrell, Mary; and Tagliamonte, Sali. 1987. The influence of syntactic position on relativization strategies. In Denning, et al., 266–77.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1982. Explanation in phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1974. The position of relative clauses and conjunctions. Linguistic Inquiry 5. 117–36.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1994. Principles of linguistic change: Internal factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Marcus, Mitchell P., Santorini, Beatrice; and Marcinkiewicz, Mary Ann. 1993. Building a large annotated corpus of English: The Penn Treebank. Computational Linguistics 19. 313–30.Google Scholar
Martin, Stefan, and Wolfram, Walt. 1998. The sentence in African-American Vernacular English. African-American English: History, structure, and use, ed. by Mufwene, Salikoko S., Rickford, John R., Bailey, Guy, and Baugh, John, 11–36. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Don L. 1994. Sentence parsing. Handbook of psycholinguistics, ed. by Gernsbacher, Morton Ann, 375–410. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Pyles, Thomas. 1971. The origins and development of the English language. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey; and Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Smith, Jeremy. 1996. An historical study of English: Function, form, and change. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wasow, Thomas, and Arnold, Jennifer. 2003. Post-verbal constituent ordering in English. Determinants of grammatical variation in English, ed. by Rohdenburg, Günter and Mondorf, Britta, 119–54. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar