Misplaced Pages

#377622

68-407: In theoretical linguistics , a speaker's judgement on the well-formedness of a linguistic 'string'—called a grammaticality judgement —is based on whether the sentence is interpreted in accordance with the rules and constraints of the relevant grammar. If the rules and constraints of the particular lect are followed, then the sentence is judged to be grammatical. In contrast, an ungrammatical sentence

136-452: A wh -expression drags its containing phrase with it to the front of the clause. The pied-piped material can be a noun phrase (NP), an adjective phrase (AP), an adverb phrase (AdvP), or a prepositional phrase (PP). In the following examples, the focused expression is indicated in bold, and the fronted word/phrase in the (b) and (c) sentences is underlined, with the gap marking its canonical position. The material that has been pied-piped

204-557: A certain age. On another view, decreased L2 learning ability with age is not inevitable, and can be explained by factors such as motivation, learning environment, pressure, and time commitment. Although there is evidence that supports the claim that speakers outside the L2 mastery age range are not capable of acquiring native-like mastery of a language, there is also evidence supporting the opposite, as well as evidence for young learners not mastering an L2. General processing problems, rather than

272-478: A child, may reject this sentence because elephants do not jump. To avoid this misinterpretation, researchers need to clarify with the participants regarding the meaning of yes and no responses. Studies have shown that when native speakers judge ungrammatical sentences to be more acceptable than their grammatical counterpart, grammaticality illusion has occurred. Consider Frazier's example: The English grammar allows structures such as sentence (18), while sentence (19)

340-534: A correlation between this group and a less localized language module in the brain. Cowart conducted a study specifically testing for the effects of familial sinistrality in grammatical judgement tasks. Using a 4-point scale, the experiment asked participants to judge sentences that followed the following model: Examples (17a-c) are structural violations, (17a) violates the Specified Subject Condition , and (17b-c) violate Subjacency, while (17d)

408-448: A deficit in some syntax specific process or module, offer a viable explanation for populations that exhibit poor grammatical performance. Performance on L2 grammaticality judgments might be partially due to variable accessibility to and use of relevant grammatical knowledge. Difficulties in basic level cognitive processing are due to: These issues have been tied to grammatical processing performance by testing native speakers of English on

476-552: A factor of grammaticality illusion. English sentences follow the order of subject, verb, object (SVO) while both German and Dutch have the subject, object, verb (SOV) order. Based on the results, German and Dutch participants do not show the effect of the illusion. However, if they were shown the sentences in English, they also show the illusion. Examples of grammatical and ungrammatical sentences in German: Sentence (20)

544-583: A frequency affect, sentences with preposition copying are judged to be ungrammatical, as shown in (11c). The prevailing models on grammaticality since Chomsky postulated that the acceptability of sentences is a scale, with clearly acceptable on one side, clearly unacceptable on the other, and all manner of ranges of partial acceptability in between. To explain the scale of partial acceptability, linguists have said that phenomena other than grammatical knowledge —such as semantic plausibility, working memory limitations, etc.—account for speakers reporting acceptability on

612-421: A model of grammaticality based around a computer program developed for computer-assisted language instruction which was designed to perform automatic error diagnosis and correction of ungrammaticalities produced by second-language learners. The program classified errors made by language-learners in their sentences as being due to errors in phrase structure, transformations, morphology, verb subcategorization, or by

680-537: A pre-noun modifier in Russian (16) and Latin (17) does not need to pied-pipe the noun that it modifies. Č′ju i whose ty you čitaješ read knigu? book Č′ju i ty čitaješ knigu? whose you read book Whose book are you reading? ( lit. Whose you reading book?) Cuius whose legis you.read librum? book Cuius legis librum? whose you.read book Whose book are you reading? ( lit. Whose you.reading book?) When

748-458: A preceding sentence to give the string context. When researchers interpret a yes/no response on grammaticality, they need to take into account of what the participants are responding to. The speaker could be rejecting the sentence for reasons other than its grammaticality, including the context or meaning of the sentence, a particular word choice, or other factors. For example, consider this ungrammatical sentence: A participant, whether an adult or

SECTION 10

#1732780126378

816-407: A scale of 0-?-*-**, with 0 being acceptable and ** being unacceptable. On a seven-point scale, speakers can rate sentences from 1 (least acceptable) to 7 (most acceptable). Note that examples (3)-(8) are open to interpretation as judgement is based entirely on intuition, and determination of grammaticality is dependent on one's theory of what the grammar is. Therefore, different individuals may assign

884-668: A scale of acceptability. Prescriptive grammar of controlled natural languages defines grammaticality as a matter of explicit consensus. On this view, to consider a string as grammatical, it should conform with a set of norms. These norms are usually based on conventional rules that form a part of a higher or literary register for a given language. For some languages, a group of experts are appointed to define and regularly update these rules. There are several methods that successfully investigate sentence processing , some of which include eye tracking , self-paced listening and reading, or cross-modal priming . The most productive method however,

952-503: A scale. However, there are a few exceptions to this trend, including those who claim that "strength of violation" plays a role in grammaticality judgements. Examples of linguists of this persuasion include Huang's proposal that ECP violations are stronger than Subjacency violations, Chomsky's proposal that each barrier crossed leads to lower acceptability, and Optimality Theory (esp. Keller). Subjacency says that you cannot relate two positions across two bounding nodes. In (12), we see that

1020-495: A sentence is grammatical: To illustrate this point, Chomsky created the nonsensical sentence in (1), which does not occur in any corpus, is not meaningful, and is not statistically probable. However, the form of this sentence is judged to be grammatical by many native speakers of English. Such grammaticality judgements reflect the fact that the structure of sentence (1) obeys the rules of English grammar. This can be seen by comparing sentence (1) with sentence (2). Both sentences have

1088-482: A sentence that is ungrammatical as grammatical. After the critical period , age of acquisition is no longer supposed to have an effect, and native-like performance is no longer supposed to be achievable. However, the idea that there is a critical period for the acquisition of syntactic competence, which is reflected by the ability to assess the well-formedness of a sentence, is controversial. On one view, biological or language-specific mechanisms become nonfunctional after

1156-506: A string significantly decreases participants grammaticality ratings of both grammatical and ungrammatical sentences. Two possible factors have been speculated to cause this affect, the first attributes this phenomenon to satiation, the phenomenon of prolonged repetition leading to illusory changes in perception. The second is that changes in participants’ judgement process occurred as a result of repetitions. Repetition effects have been shown to not be present when sentences are displayed along with

1224-408: A student, must first learn the theory i.e. properties of the linguistic system, or what Ferdinand de Saussure called internal linguistics . This is followed by practice, or studies in the applied field. The dichotomy is not fully unproblematic because language pedagogy , language technology and other aspects of applied linguistics also include theory. Similarly, the term general linguistics

1292-548: Is a grammatical control sentence. It was found that since the violations were structural in nature, participants with familial sinistrality were less sensitive to violations in such as the ones found(17a-c) while (17d) showed no variation between participant groups. In a similar study Bever, Carrithers, & Townsend found evidence that support Cowart's findings, also showing that no judgement differences were found when comparing groups across variables such as age, sex, and verbal SAT score. There have been numerous studies addressing

1360-443: Is a significant increase in the accuracy of grammaticality judgments, since metalinguistic skill is in critical development; the judgment relies on the psycholinguistic ability of the child to access their internalized grammar and to compute whether it can or cannot generate the target sentence. This ability to judge the grammaticality of sentences seems to develop in children well after basic grammar skills have been established, and

1428-409: Is any underlined material that is not bolded. The (b) sentences show the focused expression pied-piping the target phrase, and the (c) sentences show absence of pied-piping. which is often ungrammatical. Pied-piping also occurs in embedded wh -clauses: In (4), the possessive interrogative whose is contained within a determiner phrase (DP) that also includes paper . Attempting to move who and

SECTION 20

#1732780126378

1496-679: Is evidence for late L2 learners generally having issues with plurals and past tense, and not so many issues with Subject-Verb-Object testing, in which they show native-like results; there is better performance on Yes/No as well as Wh- questions than on articles and past tense. There is data supporting high-performing late learners well beyond the critical period: in an experiment testing grammaticality by J. L. McDonald, 7 out of 50 L2 English late-learner subjects had scores within range of native speakers. The results are linked to how individual differences in L2 memory capacity, decoding, or processing speed affect processing resources to automatically apply

1564-473: Is from German. In some cases, relative pronouns in German have the option to pied-pipe a governing zu -infinitive when they are fronted. In (18a), the relative pronoun das pied-pipes the zu -infinitive zu lesen 'to read' to the front of the relative clause. Pied-piping does not occur in (18b). Since both variants are acceptable, pied-piping in such cases is optional. Pied-piping in such constellations

1632-443: Is grammatical, whereas sentence (21) is ungrammatical. Theoretical linguistics Theoretical linguistics is a term in linguistics that, like the related term general linguistics , can be understood in different ways. Both can be taken as a reference to the theory of language , or the branch of linguistics that inquires into the nature of language and seeks to answer fundamental questions as to what language is, or what

1700-494: Is mandatory. Pied-piping is obligatory to form a grammatically sound sentence in the above (b) sentences, while absence of pied-piping results in an ungrammatical sentence in the (c) sentences. Contrastively, pied-piping is not acceptable in some cases. This typically occurs with prepositions that are part of a verb's meaning. For example, pied-piping is not acceptable for phrasal verbs such as look after and some idioms such as get rid of . In these cases, preposition stranding

1768-512: Is most visible in cases of wh-fronting of information questions and relative clauses, but it is not limited to wh -fronting. It can also occur with almost any type of discontinuity, including extraposition , scrambling , and topicalization . Most, if not all, languages that allow discontinuities employ pied-piping to some extent. However, there are significant differences across languages in this area, with some languages using pied-piping much more than others. In English, pied-piping occurs when

1836-492: Is no correlation between speed of processing measure and grammaticality judgment performance, age of arrival correlates with syntactic mastery, and knowledge of vocabulary probably drives grammaticality performance. Age for decrease of L2 grammaticality performance varies from early childhood to late adolescence, depending on the combinations of the speaker's first and second language. The age of acquisition at which L2 learners are worse than native speakers depends on how dissimilar

1904-414: Is not allowed. Notice that sentence (19) is missing the verb phrase "was cleaning every week." In several studies, participants carried out offline and online tasks. In the offline task, the participants rated their comprehension of sentences on a five-point scale in a questionnaire . The result revealed that the ungrammatical sentences were rated as good as or even better than grammatical sentences. In

1972-484: Is not necessarily a meaningful one. However, speakers can understand nonsensical strings by means of natural intonation. In addition, non-meaningful but grammatical sentences are often recalled more easily than ungrammatical sentences. When Chomsky introduced the concept of grammaticality, he also introduced the concept of acceptability. Chomsky has emphasized that "the notion of 'acceptable' is not to be confused with 'grammatical.'" For linguists such as Hopper, who stress

2040-425: Is obligatory. The following examples show cases where pied-piping is not acceptable. Broadly construed, pied-piping occurs in other types of discontinuities beyond wh -fronting. If one views just part of a topicalized or extraposed phrase as focused, then pied-piping can be construed as occurring with these other types of discontinuities. Assuming that just the bolded words in these examples bear contrastive focus,

2108-595: Is one that violates the rules of the given language variety. Linguists use grammaticality judgements to investigate the syntactic structure of sentences. Generative linguists are largely of the opinion that for native speakers of natural languages , grammaticality is a matter of linguistic intuition , and reflects the innate linguistic competence of speakers. Therefore, generative linguists attempt to predict grammaticality judgements exhaustively. Grammaticality judgements are largely based on an individual's linguistic intuition, and it has been pointed out that humans have

Grammaticality - Misplaced Pages Continue

2176-420: Is real-time grammaticality judgements. A grammaticality judgement is a test which involves showing participants sentences that are either grammatical or ungrammatical. The participant must decide whether or not they find the sentences to be grammatical as quickly as possible. Grammaticality is cross-linguistic, so this method has therefore been used on a wide variety of languages. Catt and Catt & Hirst created

2244-421: Is related to early reading acquisition—acquisitionists generally believe that the ability to make grammaticality judgments is a measure of syntactic awareness. Grammaticality judgment tasks can also be used to assess the competence of language learners. Late learners of L2 perform worse on grammaticality judgment tasks or tests than native speakers or early acquirers, in that L2 learners are more likely to accept

2312-427: Is sometimes optional with English prepositions ( in , of , on , to , with , etc.). In these flexible cases, preposition phrases can be constructed with a continuous structure (pied-piping) or an alternative discontinuous structure ( preposition stranding ). When pied-piping occurs, the preposition phrase is continuous, because the preposition follows the focused expression to a new position. In preposition stranding,

2380-574: Is that a native speaker's grammar produces grammatical strings and that the speaker can also judge whether the strings are acceptable in their language. The traditional categorical interpretation of grammaticality is that a sentence is either grammatical or ungrammatical. Many modern linguists, including Sprouse, support this idea. Acceptability judgments, on the other hand, fall in a continuous spectrum. Sentences may either be clearly acceptable or clearly unacceptable, but there are also sentences that are partially acceptable. Hence, according to Sprouse,

2448-400: Is ungrammatical, because the preposition in is copied. The rules of English prepositions only allow sentences such as (10a) and (10b), which show preposition pied-piping structure in (10a), and preposition stranding structure in (10b). Sentences (9) and (11c) are ungrammatical but acceptable because of the frequency with which people hear the structure. Although (10c) is acceptable due to

2516-587: Is up to the linguists and researchers to select sentences that would better reflect a learner's knowledge of L2. Studies have been conducted which explored the degree to which left or right handedness plays a role in idiolectal variation of grammaticality judgements, and have found that those with left-handed immediate family members, also referred to as familial sinistrality , perform differently than participants with only right handed family members. They suggest that those with familial sinistrality are less sensitive to violations of sentence structure likely due to

2584-435: Is used to distinguish core linguistics from other types of study. However, because college and university linguistics is largely distributed with the institutes and departments of a relatively small number of national languages , some larger universities also offer courses and research programmes in 'general linguistics' which may cover exotic and minority languages , cross-linguistic studies and various other topics outside

2652-468: The L1 and L2 are on phonological and grammatical level. For example, Chinese/English bilinguals at 7 years old perform just as well as Spanish/English bilinguals at 16 years old. This is due to the fact that a grammatical construction on an L2 that has a parallel structure in an L1 would impose less processing demand than one that does not have a parallel, causing a poorer performance on language structure. There

2720-490: The Left Branch Condition is not violated. At the time, PPs were considered to immediately dominate P and NP, and APs and AdvPs were seen as dominating or being dominated by NPs. Ross' constraints apply to English, but they are not universally applicable to all languages. The fact that pied-piping varies so much across languages is a major challenge facing theories of syntax. Together with other constraints,

2788-555: The Left Branch Condition was combined into the subjacency condition which governs movement. In English, this constraint applies to possessive determiners, as seen in the sentences in (4). In these sentences, moving only the DP who , or both who and the possessive D ' s (to form whose ) violates the Left Branch Constraint . To ensure grammaticality, the larger DP must move whereby the interrogative whose pied-pipes

Grammaticality - Misplaced Pages Continue

2856-558: The Pied Piper of Hamelin , where a piper lured rats and children away from their town. In syntactic pied-piping, a focused expression (such as an interrogative word ) pulls its host phrase with it when it moves to its new position in the sentence. Metaphorically, the focused expression is the piper, and the host phrase is the material being pied-piped. Pied-piping is an aspect of syntactic discontinuities and has to do with constituents that can or cannot be discontinuous. Pied-piping

2924-473: The (b) sentences present a formal register, while a colloquial register is observed in the (c) sentences. Although flexibility between pied-piping and preposition stranding exists, they are not always interchangeable. Pied-piping is mandatory in some cases. This occurs with some antecedent nouns (e.g., way, extent, point, sense, degree, time, moment ) and some prepositions (e.g., beyond, during, underneath ). The following examples show cases where pied-piping

2992-845: The NP complement paper , seen in (4b). As theories of syntax evolved, linguists have investigated the phenomenon of pied-piping in English and other languages using different syntactic models. Theoretical approaches to pied-piping have included Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar , Optimality Theory and assumptions from the Minimalist Program , and Word Grammar . Pied-piping varies across languages. Languages with relatively strict word order, such as English, tend to employ pied-piping more often than languages that have relatively free word order, such as Slavic languages. The following examples from Russian, Latin, and German illustrate variation in pied-piping across languages. Unlike in English,

3060-418: The ability to judge grammaticality in their native language . In an experiment by Cairns et al., preschool children aged 4–6 were presented sentences such as (14) and (15) orally. (To make sure that the meaning of the sentences was clear to the children, sentences were enacted with toys.) While sentence (14) is well-formed in the adult grammar, sentence (15) is not, as indicated by the asterisk (*). The source of

3128-455: The ability to understand as well as produce an infinitely large number of new sentences that have never been seen before. This allows us to accurately judge a sentence as grammatical or ungrammatical, even if it is a completely novel sentence. According to Chomsky , a speaker's grammaticality judgement is based on two factors: In his study of grammaticality in the 1950s, Chomsky identified three criteria which cannot be used to determine whether

3196-425: The common ground of all languages is. The goal of theoretical linguistics can also be the construction of a general theoretical framework for the description of language. Another use of the term depends on the organisation of linguistics into different sub-fields. The term theoretical linguistics is commonly juxtaposed with applied linguistics . This perspective implies that the aspiring language professional, e.g.

3264-551: The corresponding interrogative clause. The (d) examples, where pied-piping has occurred in a relative clause, are acceptable. The corresponding wh -clauses in the (b) and (c) sentences are much less acceptable. This aspect of pied-piping (i.e. that it is more restricted in wh -clauses than in relative clauses in English) is poorly understood, especially in light of the fact that the same contrast in acceptability does not occur in closely related languages such as German. Pied-piping

3332-465: The dichotomy of synchronic and diachronic linguistics , thus including historical linguistics as a core issue. There are various frameworks of linguistic theory which include a general theory of language and a general theory of linguistic description . Current humanistic approaches include theories within structural linguistics and functional linguistics . In addition to the humanistic approaches of structural linguistics and functional linguistics,

3400-559: The difference between grammaticality and acceptability is that grammatical knowledge is categorical, but acceptability is a gradient scale. Linguists may use words, numbers, or typographical symbols such as question marks (?) or asterisks (*) to represent the judged acceptability of a linguistic string. During a judgment task, the speaker may report the acceptability of a sentence as acceptable, marginally acceptable, unacceptable, terrible, good, etc. Degrees of acceptability can also be represented by symbols such as ?, ??, *, **, or on

3468-512: The effect of repetition on grammaticality judgements in experimental contexts. Repetition experiments are conducted by asking participants to give scaled ratings of sentences on their level of grammaticality. In the first phase, sentences are rated one at a time as a baseline measure of grammaticality level. In the repetition phase, participants rate each sentence after it has been displayed numerous times continuously, with short pauses between each repetition. They have generally found that repetition of

SECTION 50

#1732780126378

3536-448: The field of theoretical linguistics encompasses other frameworks and perspectives. Evolutionary linguistics is one such framework that investigates the origins and development of language from an evolutionary and cognitive perspective. It incorporates various models within generative grammar , which seeks to explain language structure through formal rules and transformations. Cognitive linguistics and cognitive approaches to grammar , on

3604-439: The ill-formedness is that the verb hug is a transitive verb and so must have a direct object, namely something or someone who receives the action of the verb. Sentence (15) is missing the receiver of hug . The results of this study show that the earliest age at which children can discriminate well-formed from ill-formed sentences, as well as correct these, is at 6 years. During the critical period between 4 and 6 years old, there

3672-461: The languages-learners translating their primary language directly into the language they are learning. The program worked primarily by utilizing a parser which consisted of constraints which, if a first parsing attempt failed, could be selectively relaxed. Thus, for a given parse, the constraints which were relaxed indicated the precise nature and location of ungrammaticality. There have been experiments conducted in order to test how early speakers gain

3740-463: The movement of the wh-expression 'what' was moved past a Complementizer Phrase (CP) and a Tense Phrase (TP) to get to the specifier position of CP, thus this phrase is ungrammatical. Within the past twenty years however, there has been a major shift in linguists' understanding of intermediate levels of acceptability. This is due to the increasing use of experimental methods to measure acceptability, making it possible to detect subtle differences along

3808-427: The object of a preposition must immediately follow its governing preposition. Preposition pied-piping is favoured in formal registers of English, such as academic writing and printed text. In comparison, pied-piping is disfavoured in colloquial registers. Speakers tend to prefer preposition stranding instead of pied-piping in informal contexts, such as private dialogue and private correspondence. In (8) and (9) above,

3876-627: The online study, participants did a self-paced reading (SPR) task. The sentence appears on a computer monitor word-by-word. After each word, participants were asked to choose if the sentence is still grammatical so far. Then they would go on to rate the sentence from 1 "perfectly good English" to 7 "really bad English." The result showed that ungrammatical sentences were rated to be better than the grammatical ones. To find out if grammaticality illusion also occurs in other languages, linguists have carried out similar experiments with different languages. Vasishth hypothesized that different word order could be

3944-411: The other hand, focuses on the relationship between language and cognition, exploring how language reflects and influences our thought processes. Pied-piping In linguistics, pied-piping is a phenomenon of syntax whereby a given focused expression brings along an encompassing phrase with it when it is moved . The term was introduced by John Robert Ross in 1967. It references the legend of

4012-534: The possessive ' s is syntactically impossible without also moving the possessive's complement, paper . As a result, (4b) is grammatical while (4c) is not because the focused expression has moved without the target phrase. Pied-piping is very frequent in relative clauses, where a greater flexibility about what can or must be pied-piped is discernible: In English, the pied-piping mechanism is more flexible in relative clauses than in interrogative clauses, because material can be pied-piped that would be less acceptable in

4080-452: The preposition phrase is discontinuous because the preposition stays in its original position while the focused expression moves away. The following examples show cases where either pied-piping or preposition stranding can occur. In cases where pied-piping and preposition stranding are interchangeable, both types of constructions are generally considered acceptable by native English speakers. However, prescriptive grammar rules specify that

4148-528: The relevant grammatical knowledge. The matter of reliability of L2 grammaticality judgments is an ongoing issue in the research field of second language acquisition . Undeniably, the case of second-language judgments involves participants to make judgments concerning their knowledge of a language system that is not necessarily complete compared to the knowledge of their first language. In an experiment, participants may encounter sentences beyond their current knowledge, resulting in guesswork. To minimize guessing, it

SECTION 60

#1732780126378

4216-401: The rest of the topicalized or extraposed phrase is pied-piped in each (b) sentence of (14) and (15). Similar examples could be produced for scrambling. In 1967, Ross defined a number of constraints including the Left Branch Condition . This condition constrains movement of a leftmost NP constituent out of a larger NP. When the leftmost NP moves, pied-piping is necessary in order to ensure that

4284-422: The role of social learning in contrast to innate knowledge of language, there has been a gradual abandonment of talk about grammaticality in favour of acceptability. Acceptability is: On the other hand, grammaticality is: In experiments, grammaticality and acceptability are often confused, but speakers may be asked to give their 'grammatical judgments' instead of 'acceptability judgments'. The general assumption

4352-600: The same sentence different degrees of acceptability. Some linguists believe that the informal use of these symbols is problematic because the exact meaning of the symbols have never been properly defined, and their usage is riddled with inconsistencies. Acceptability is about the actual use of a speaker's language in concrete situations. Since it is speaker-oriented, it is possible to find instances of sentences that are assumed to be acceptable but ungrammatical. (9) But if this ever-changing world in which we live in Example (9)

4420-407: The same structure, and both are grammatically well-formed. Sentence (1) is grammatical yet infelicitous , because the pragmatics of the verb 'sleep' cannot be expressed as an action carried out in a furious manner. Hence, a native speaker would rate this sentence as odd, or unacceptable, because the meaning does not make sense according to the English lexicon. Thus, for Chomsky a grammatical string

4488-711: The same tasks under stressful conditions: there is shown to be difficulty in grammatical agreement when memory capacity is curtailed, important cues in the language when given noisy input, and processing important structures when not given enough time to process input. This shows that knowledge cannot always be automatically and consistently applied under stressful situations without having processing difficulties. However, these issues are not necessarily independent of each other, as low decoding ability of structure could affect processing speed. Overall, individual differences in L2 working memory and decoding ability are correlated to grammaticality judgment accuracy and latencies. However, there

4556-448: The scope of the main philological departments. When the concept of theoretical linguistics is taken to refer to core or internal linguistics , it means the study of the parts of the language system. This traditionally means phonology , morphology , syntax and semantics . Pragmatics and discourse can also be included; delimitation varies between institutions. Furthermore, Saussure's definition of general linguistics consists of

4624-416: The word order of Russian in (16) and Latin in (17) is maintained in English, the sentences are unacceptable. This is because pre-noun modifiers must pied-pipe their noun in English. This is explained through the Left Branch Condition , as described in the section above. The Left Branch Condition appears to be absent in Russian and Latin. Another example illustrating variation in pied-piping across languages

#377622