Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T14:43:37.212Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

9 - Island Effects

from Part II - Experimental Studies of Specific Phenomena

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2021

By
Jon Sprouse  and
Sandra Villata
Edited by
Grant Goodall
Grant Goodall
Affiliation:
University of California, San Diego
Get access

Summary

Island effects are one of the most studied phenomena in experimental syntax. There are at least two reasons for this. First, they are a terrific case study for a number of foundational questions in linguistics, covering topics such as the complexity of the grammar, the variation of languages, the dynamics of sentences processing, and the acquisition of abstract constraints. Second, they are a valuable case study for illustrating the benefits of formal experiments, such as defining an effect, isolating the source of an effect, and increasing the precision of the empirical bases of linguistic theories. In this chapter, we illustrate these benefits of formal experiments for island effects by reviewing the major empirical contributions that formal experiments have made to theories of island effects over the past two decades. Along the way, we also provide a relatively comprehensive list of articles that have used formal experiments to explore island effects.

Keywords

island effectsisland constraintslong-distance dependenciesacceptability judgmentsgrammaticality judgmentsworking memorysatiationresumptioncross-linguistic variation
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Syntax , pp. 227 - 257
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

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.)

References

Abrusán, M. (2014). Weak Island Semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ackerman, L., Frazier, M., & Yoshida, M. (2018). Resumptive pronouns can ameliorate illicit island extractions. Linguistic Inquiry, 49, 847–859.Google Scholar
Alexopoulou, T. & Keller, F. (2007). Locality, cyclicity, and resumption: At the interface between the grammar and the human sentence processor. Language, 83, 110–160.Google Scholar
Almeida, D. (2014). Subliminal wh-islands in Brazilian Portuguese and the consequences for syntactic theory. Revista da ABRALIN, 13.55–93. DOI: 10.5380/rabl.v13i2 .39611.Google Scholar
Atkinson, E., Apple, A. Rawlins, K., & Omaki, A. (2015). Similarity of wh-phrases and acceptability variation in wh-islands. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 2048.Google Scholar
Beltrama, A. & Xiang, M. (2016). Unacceptable but comprehensible: the facilitation effect of resumptive pronouns. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 1(1), 29. DOI:10.5334/gjgl.24Google Scholar
Chaves, R. P. & Dery, J. E. (2014). Which subject islands will the acceptability of improve with repeated exposure? In Santana-La Barge, R. E., ed., Proceedings of the 31st West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 96–106.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1986). Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Christensen, K. R., Kizach, J., & Nyvad, A. M. (2013). Escape from the island: Grammaticality and (reduced) acceptability of wh-island violations in Danish. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 42, 51–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clifton, C. & Frazier, L. (1989) Comprehending sentences with long-distance dependencies. In Carlson, G. N. & Tanenhaus, M. K., eds., Linguistic Structure in Language Processing (Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics 7). Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 273–317.Google Scholar
Crain, S. & Fodor, J. D. (1985). How can grammars help parsers? In Dowty, D., Kartuunen, L., & Zwicky, A., eds., Natural Language Parsing: Psychological, Computational, and Theoretical Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Crawford, J. (2012). Using syntactic satiation to investigate subject islands. In Choi, J., Hogue, E. A., Punske, J., Tat, D., Schertz, J., & Trueman, A., eds., Proceedings of the 29th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 38–45.Google Scholar
Culicover, P. W. & Postal, P. M. (eds.). (2001). Parasitic Gaps. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. (2010). Naive v. expert intuitions: An empirical study of acceptability judgments. The Linguistic Review, 27(1), 1–23.Google Scholar
Do, M. L. & Kaiser, E. (2017). The relationship between syntactic satiation and syntactic priming: A first look. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1851.Google Scholar
Engdahl, E. (1983). Parasitic gaps. Linguistic Inquiry, 6, 5–34.Google Scholar
Engdahl, E. (1985). Parasitic gaps, resumptive pronouns, and subject extractions. Linguistics, 23, 3–44.Google Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, N. (1973). On the nature of island constraints. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Featherston, S. (2005). Magnitude estimation and what it can do for your syntax: Some wh constraints in German. Lingua, 115, 1525–1550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, F. & Swets, B. (2005). The production and comprehension of resumptive pronouns in relative clause “island” contexts. In Cutler, A., ed., Twenty-First Century Psycholinguistics: Four Cornerstones. New York: Routledge, pp. 263–278.Google Scholar
Francom, J. C. (2009). Experimental syntax: Exploring the effect of repeated exposure to anomalous syntactic structure – evidence from rating and reading tasks. Doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona.Google Scholar
Frazier, L. & d’Arcais, G. B. F. (1989). Filler driven parsing: A study of gap filling in Dutch. Journal of Memory and Language, 28(3), 331–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freedman, S. E. & Forster, K. I. (1985). The psychological status of overgenerated sentences. Cognition, 19(2), 101–131.Google Scholar
Garnsey, S., Tanenhaus, M., & Chapman, R. (1989). Evoked potentials and the study of sentence comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18, 51–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. (2006). Constructions at Work. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goodall, G. (2011). Syntactic satiation and the inversion effect in English and Spanish wh‐questions. Syntax, 14(1), 29–47.Google Scholar
Goodall, G. (2015). The D-linking effect on extraction from islands and non-islands. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1493.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heestand, D., Xiang, M., & Polinsky, M. (2011). Resumption still does not rescue islands. Linguistic Inquiry, 42(1), 138–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hiramatsu, K. (2000). Accessing linguistic competence: Evidence from children’s and adults’ acceptability judgments. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.Google Scholar
Hofmeister, P. & Sag, I. A. (2010). Cognitive constraints and island effects. Language, 86: 366–415.Google Scholar
Hofmeister, P., Staum Casasanto, L., & Sag, I. A. (2012). How do individual cognitive differences relate to acceptability judgments? A reply to Sprouse, Wagers, and Phillips. Language, 88(2), 390–400.Google Scholar
Huang, C. T. J. (1982). Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Kaan, E., Harris, A., Gibson, E., & Holcomb, P. (2000). The P600 as an index of syntactic integration difficulty. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15, 159–201.Google Scholar
Kazanina, N., Lau, E. F., Lieberman, M., Yoshida, M., & Phillips, C. (2007). The effect of syntactic constraints on the processing of backwards anaphora. Journal of Memory and Language, 56, 384–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keffala, B. (2013). Resumption and gaps in English relative clauses: Relative acceptability creates an illusion of ‘saving.’ In Cathchart, C., Chen, I.-H., Finley, G., Kang, S., Sandy, C. S., & Stickles, E., eds., Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp. 140–154.Google Scholar
Keller, F. (2000). Gradience in grammar: experimental and computational aspects of degrees of grammaticality. Doctoral dissertation, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Keshev, M. & Meltzer-Asscher, A. (2017). Active dependency formation in islands: How grammatical resumption affects sentence processing. Language, 93, 549–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keshev, M. & Meltzer-Asscher, A. (2019). A processing-based account of subliminal wh-island effects. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 37(2), 621–657.Google Scholar
Kim, B. & Grant, G. (2016). Islands and non-islands in native and heritage Korean. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 134.Google Scholar
Kluender, R. & Kutas, M. (1993). Subjacency as a processing phenomenon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 573–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ko, H., Chung, H.-B., Kim, K., & Sprouse, J. (2019). An experimental study on scrambling out of islands: To the left and to the right. Language & Information Society, 37.Google Scholar
Kroch, A. (1981). On the role of resumptive pronouns in amnestying island constraint violations. In Hendrick, R., Maseh, C., & Miller, M., eds., Papers from the 17th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 125–135.Google Scholar
Kurtzman, H. S. & Crawford, L. F. (1991). Processing parasitic gaps. In Sherer, T., ed., Proceedings of the 21st Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society. Amherst, MA: LSA Publications, pp. 217–231.Google Scholar
Kush, D., Lohndal, T., & Sprouse, J. (2018). Investigating variation in island effects: A case study of Norwegian wh-extraction. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 36, 743–779.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kush, D., Lohndal, T., & Sprouse, J. (2019). On the island sensitivity of topicalization in Norwegian: An experimental investigation. Language, 95(3), 393–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loftus, G. R. (1978). On interpretation of interactions. Memory & Cognition, 6, 312–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lu, J., Thompson, C., & Yoshida, M. (2020). Chinese wh-in-situ and islands: A formal judgment study. Linguistic Inquiry, 51(3), 611–623.Google Scholar
Luka, B. J. & Barsalou, L. W. (2005). Structural facilitation: Mere exposure effects for grammatical acceptability as evidence for syntactic priming in comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 436–459.Google Scholar
Matchin, W., Sprouse, J., & Hickok, G. (2014). A structural distance effect for backward anaphora in Broca’s area: An fMRI study. Brain and Language, 138, 1–11.Google Scholar
Maxwell, S. E. & Delaney, H. D. (2003). Designing Experiments and Analyzing Data: A Model Comparison Perspective. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Maxwell, S. E., Delaney, H. D., & Kelley, K. (2017). Designing Experiments and Analyzing Data: A Model Comparison Perspective, 2nd ed. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
McCloskey, J. (2006). Resumption. In Everaert, M. & van Riemsdijk, H., eds., The Blackwell Companion to Syntax. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 94–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKinnon, R. & Osterhout, L. (1996). Event-related potentials and sentence processing: Evidence for the status of constraints on movement phenomena. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 495–523.Google Scholar
Michel, D. (2014). Individual cognitive measures and working memory accounts of syntactic island phenomena. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
Morgan, A. M. & Wagers, M. W. (2018). English resumptive pronouns are more common where gaps are less acceptable. Linguistic Inquiry, 49(4), 861–876.Google Scholar
Neville, H. J., Nicol, J., Barss, A., Forster, K. I., & Garrett, M. F. (1991). Syntactically based sentence processing classes: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 3, 151–165.Google Scholar
Omaki, A., Fukuda, S., Nakao, C., & Polinsky, M. (2020). Subextraction in Japanese and subject–object symmetry. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 38, 627–669.Google Scholar
Omaki, A., Lau, E. F., Davidson White, I., Dakan, M. L., Apple, A., & Phillips, C. (2015). Hyper-active gap filling. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 384.Google Scholar
Omaki, A. & Nakao, C. (2010). Does English resumption really help to repair island violations? Snippets, 21, 11–12.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. (1987). Wh-in-situ: Movement and unselective binding. In Reuland, E. & ter Meulen, A., eds., The Representation of (In)definiteness. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 98–129.Google Scholar
Phillips, C. (2006). The real-time status of island constraints. Language, 82, 795–823.Google Scholar
Phillips, C. (2013a). On the nature of island constraints. I: Language processing and reductionist accounts. In Sprouse, J. & Hornstein, N., eds., Experimental Syntax and Island Effects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 64–108.Google Scholar
Phillips, C. (2013b). On the nature of island constraints. II: Language learning and innateness. In Sprouse, J. & Hornstein, N., eds., Experimental Syntax and Island Effects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 132–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pickering, M. J., Barton, S., & Shillcock, R. (1994). Unbounded dependencies, island constraints, and processing complexity. In Clifton, C., Jr., Frazier, L., & Rayner, K., eds., Perspectives on Sentence Processing. London: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 199–224.Google Scholar
Poulsen, M. (2008). Acceptability and processing of long-distance dependencies in Danish. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 31, 73–107.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. (1981). A second COMP position. In Belletti, A., Brandi, L., & Rizzi, L., eds., Theory of Markedness in Generative Grammar. Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore, pp. 517–557.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1982). Violations of the wh-island constraint and the subjacency condition. In Rizzi, L., ed., Issues in Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris, pp. 49–76.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1990). Relativized Minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. (2013). Locality. Lingua, 130, 169–186.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. [Published as Infinite Syntax!, Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1986.]Google Scholar
Sells, P. (1984). Syntax and semantics of resumptive pronouns. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Snyder, W. (2000). An experimental investigation of syntactic satiation effects. Linguistic Inquiry, 31, 575–582.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J. (2007). A program for experimental syntax. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J. (2009). Revisiting satiation: Evidence for a response equalization strategy. Linguistic Inquiry, 40, 329–341.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J. & Almeida, D. (2017). Design sensitivity and statistical power in acceptability judgment experiments. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 2(1), 1–32. DOI:10.5334/gjgl.236Google Scholar
Sprouse, J., Caponigro, I., Greco, C., & Cecchetto, C. (2016). Experimental syntax and the variation of island effects in English and Italian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 34, 307–344.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J., Fukuda, S., Ono, H., & Kluender, R. (2011). Reverse island effects and the backward search for a licensor in multiple wh-questions. Syntax, 14, 179–203.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J. & Messick, T. (2015). How gradient are island effects? Poster presented at NELS 46.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J., Wagers, M., & Phillips, C. (2012). A test of the relation between working memory capacity and syntactic island effects. Language, 88, 82–123.Google Scholar
Stepanov, A., Mušič, M., & Stateva, P. (2018). Two (non-)islands in Slovenian: A study in experimental syntax. Linguistics, 56(3), 435–476.Google Scholar
Stowe, L. A. (1986). Parsing WH-constructions: Evidence for on-line gap location. Language and Cognitive Processes, 3, 227–245.Google Scholar
Sturt, P. (2003). The time-course of the application of binding constraints in reference resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 48(3), 542–562.Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, A. & Lohndal, T. (2017). Strong vs. weak islands. In Everaert, M. & Riemsdijk, H. C., eds., The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, A. & Zwarts, F. (1993). Weak islands and an algebraic semantics of scope taking. Natural Language Semantics, 1, 235–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torrego, E. (1984). On inversion in Spanish and some of its effects. Linguistic Inquiry, 15, 103–129.Google Scholar
Traxler, M. J. & Pickering, M. J. (1996). Plausibility and the processing of unbounded dependencies: An eye-tracking study. Journal of Memory and Language, 35: 454–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tucker, M. A., Idrissi, A., Sprouse, J., & Almeida, D. (2019). Resumption ameliorates different islands differentially: Acceptability data from Modern Standard Arabic. In Khalfaoui, A. & Tucker, M. A., eds., Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics, 30: Papers from the Annual Symposia on Arabic Linguistics, Stony Brook, New York, 2016 and Norman, Oklahoma, 2017. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 159–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Gompel, R. P. & Liversedge, S. P. (2003). The influence of morphological information on cataphoric pronoun assignment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29(1), 128.Google ScholarPubMed
Villata, S., Rizzi, L., & Franck, J. (2016). Intervention effects and relativized minimality: New experimental evidence from graded judgments. Lingua, 179, 76–96.Google Scholar
Wagenmakers, E., Krypotos, A., Criss, A. H., & Iverson, G. (2012). On the interpretation of removable interactions: A survey of the field 33 years after Loftus. Memory and Cognition, 40, 145–160.Google Scholar
Wagers, M. W. & Phillips, C. (2009). Multiple dependencies and the role of the grammar in real-time comprehension. Journal of Linguistics, 45, 395–433.Google Scholar
Yoshida, M., Kazanina, N., Pablos, L., & Sturt, P. (2014). On the origin of islands. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29, 761–770.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×