Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T15:23:08.580Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An expectation-based account of subject islands and parasitism1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 November 2012

RUI P. CHAVES
RUI P. CHAVES*
Affiliation:
Linguistics Department –University at Buffalo The State University of New York
*
Author's address: Linguistics Department, University at Buffalo, 609 Baldy Hall, Buffalo, NY 14260, USArchaves@buffalo.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Subject phrases impose particularly strong constraints on extraction. Most research assumes a syntactic account (e.g. Kayne 1983, Chomsky 1986, Rizzi 1990, Lasnik & Saito 1992, Takahashi 1994, Uriagereka 1999), but there are also pragmatic accounts (Erteschik-Shir & Lappin 1979; Van Valin 1986, 1995; Erteschik-Shir 2006, 2007) as well as performance-based approaches (Kluender 2004). In this work I argue that none of these accounts captures the full range of empirical facts, and show that subject and adjunct phrases (phrasal or clausal, finite or otherwise) are by no means impermeable to non-parasitic extraction of nominal, prepositional and adverbial phrases. The present empirical reassessment indicates that the phenomena involving subject and adjunct islands defies the formulation of a general grammatical account. Drawing from insights by Engdahl (1983) and Kluender (2004), I argue that subject island effects have a functional explanation. Independently motivated pragmatic and processing limitations cause subject-internal gaps to be heavily dispreferred, and therefore, extremely infrequent. In turn, this has led to heuristic parsing expectations that preempt subject-internal gaps and therefore speed up processing by pruning the search space of filler–gap dependencies. Such expectations cause processing problems when violated, unless they are dampened by prosodic and pragmatic cues that boost the construction of the correct parse. This account predicts subject islands and their (non-)parasitic exceptions.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 49 , Issue 2 , July 2013 , pp. 285 - 327
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012 

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.)

Footnotes

[1]

I am very grateful to the three anonymous Journal of Linguistics referees for their suggestions and criticism, as well as to the audience of the ‘Linglunch’ meeting at the Université Paris Diderot – Paris 7. I wish to acknowledge my gratitude to Jeruen E. Dery for his collaboration on related experimental research that has helped shape my views of the phenomena under discussion. Finally, I must also thank Jillian K. Pugliese for her assistance and support. None of the above is to blame for the views expressed here however, or for any remaining errors and omissions.

References

REFERENCES

Abrúsan, Márta. 2007. Contradiction and crammar: The case of weak islands. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Ackerman, Lauren, Yoshida, Masaya & Pierrehumbert, Janet. 2011. Prosodic structure of center-embedded sentences. Poster presented at the 24th Conference on Human Sentence Processing, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Amy, Gérard & Noziet, Georges. 1978. Memory requirements and local ambiguities of parsing strategies. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 20.3, 233–250.Google Scholar
Berwick, Robert & Weinberg, Amy S.. 1984. The grammatical basis of linguistic performance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bloom, Lois. 1990. Subjectless sentences in child language. Linguistic Inquiry 21.4, 491–504.Google Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric A. 2008. Islands. Language and Linguistics Compass 2, 151–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borgonovo, Claudia & Neeleman, Ad. 2000. Transparent adjuncts. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique 45, 199–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouma, Gosse, Malouf, Robert & Sag, Ivan A.. 2001. Satisfying constraints on extraction and adjunction. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 19.1, 1–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, Cueni, Anna, Nikitina, Tatiana & Baayen, R. Harald. 2007. Predicting the dative alternation. In Boume, Gerlof, Kraemer, Irene & Zwarts, Joost (eds.), Cognitive foundations of interpretation, 69–94. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan & Ford, Marilyn. 2010. Predicting syntax: Processing dative constructions in American and Australian varieties of English. Language 81.1, 186–213.Google Scholar
Brysbaert, Marc & Mitchell, Don C. 1996. Modifier attachment in sentence parsing: Evidence from Dutch. The Quartely Journal of Experimental Psychology 49A.3, 664–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cattell, Ray. 1976. Constraints on movement rules. Language 52, 18–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaves, Rui P. 2012. On the grammar of extraction and coordination. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 30.2, 465–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaves, Rui P. & Dery, Jeruen E.. In press. Which subject islands will the acceptability of improve with repeated exposure? West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 31, Arizona State University.Google Scholar
Chen, Evan, Gibson, Edward & Wolf, Florian. 2005. Online syntactic storage costs in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 52, 144–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1962. The logical basis of linguistic theory. In Lunt, Horace (ed.), The Ninth International Congress of Linguistics, 914–978. The Hague: Mouton, 1964. [Reprinted as ‘Current issues in linguistic theory’ in The structure of language: Readings in the philosophy of language, edited by Jerry A. Fodor & Jerrold J. Katz, New York: Prentice-Hall, 1964; expanded in Janua Linguarum, Series Minor 38, 7–119, The Hague: Mouton, 1964.]Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1973. Conditions on transformations. In Anderson, Stephen R. & Kiparsky, Paul (eds.), A Festschrift for Morris Halle, 232–286. New York: Holt, Reinhart & Winston.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1977. Essays on form and interpretation. New York: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1982. Concepts and consequences of the theory of government and binding. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. In Freidin, Robert, Michaels, David, Otero, Carlos P. & Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa (eds.), Foundational issues in linguistic theory: Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, 133–165, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chung, Sandra. 1991. Sentential subjects and proper government in Chamorro. In Georgopoulos, Carol & Ishihara, Roberta (eds.), Interdisciplinary approaches to language: Essays in honor of S.-Y. Kuroda, 75–99. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chung, Sandra. 1994. Wh-agreement and ‘referentiality’ in Chamorro. Linguistic Inquiry 25, 1–44.Google Scholar
Chung, Sandra & McCloskey, James. 1983. On the interpretation of certain island facts in GPSG. Linguistic Inquiry 14, 703–714.Google Scholar
Cinque, Gugliemo. 1990. Types of Ā-dependencies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. & Wasow, Thomas. 1998. Repeating words in spontaneous speech. Cognitive Psychology 37, 201–242.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clausen, David R. 2010. Processing factors influencing acceptability in extractions from complex subjects. Ms., Stanford University.Google Scholar
Clausen, David R. 2011. Informativity and acceptability of complex subject islands. Poster presented at the 24th Annual CUNY Sentence Processing Conference, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Crawford, Jean. 2011a. Syntactic satiation of subject islands. Poster presented at the 24th Annual CUNY Sentence Processing Conference, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Crawford, Jean. 2011b. Using syntactic satiation effects to investigate subject islands. In Choi, Jaehoon, Hogue, E. Alan, Punske, Jeffrey, Tat, Deniz, Schertz, Jessamyn & Trueman, Alex (eds.), West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 29, 38–45. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Cuetos, Fernando & Mitchell, Don C.. 1988. Cross-linguistic differences in parsing: Restrictions on the use of the late closure strategy in Spanish. Cognition 30, 73–105.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Culicover, Peter W. 1999. Syntactic nuts: Hard cases in syntax (Foundations of Syntax 1). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culicover, Peter W. & Postal, Paul M. (eds.). 2001. Parasitic gaps. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Deane, Paul D. 1991. Limits to attention: A cognitive theory of island phenomena. Cognitive Linguistics 2.1, 1–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deane, Paul D. 1992. Grammar in mind and brain. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eady, Stephen J. & Fodor, Janet Dean. 1981. Is center embedding a source of processing difficulty? Presented at the Linguistics Society of America Annual Meeting, New York.Google Scholar
Ehrlich, Karen, Fernández, Eva M., Fodor, Janet Dean, Stenshoel, Eric & Vinereanu, Mihai. 1999. Low attachment of relative clauses new data from Swedish, Norwegian and Romanian. Poster presented at the 12th Conference on Human Sentence Processing, New York.Google Scholar
Elliot, Malcom, Kirby, James, Sawada, Osamu, Staraki, Eleni & Yoon, Suwon (eds.). 2007. Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS) 43.1. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Ellis, Rod. 1991. Grammaticality judgments and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 13.2, 161–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engdahl, Elisabet. 1983. Parasitic gaps. Linguistics and Philosophy 6, 3–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 1973. On the nature of island constraints. Ph.D.dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 1981. More on extractability from quasi-NPs. Linguistic Inquiry 12, 665–670.Google Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 2006. What's what? In , Fanselow et al. (eds.), 317–335.Google Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 2007. Information structure: The syntax–discourse interface. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi & Lappin, Shalom. 1979. Dominance and the functional explanation of island phenomena. Theoretical Linguistics 6, 41–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fanselow, Gisbert, Féry, Caroline, Vogel, Ralf & Schlesewsky, Matthias (eds.). 2006. Gradience in grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernández, Ángel Jiménez. 2009. On the composite nature of subject islands: A phase-based approach. SKY Journal of Linguistics 22, 91–138.Google Scholar
Ferreira, Fernanda. 1991. Effects of length and syntactic complexity on initiation times for prepared utterances. Journal of Memory and Language 30.2, 210–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, Fernanda & Henderson, John M.. 1991. Recovery from misanalyses of garden-path sentences. Journal of Memory and Language 31, 725–745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, Fernanda & Henderson, John M.. 1993. Basic reading processes during syntactic analysis and reanalysis. Reading and Language Processing: Special Issue of Canadian Journal of Psychology 47, 247–275.Google Scholar
Fodor, Janet Dean. 1978. Parsing strategies and constraints on transformations. Linguistic Inquiry 9, 427–473.Google Scholar
Fodor, Janet Dean. 1983. Phrase structure parsing and the island constraints. Linguistics and Philosophy 6, 163–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, Janet Dean. 1992. Islands, learnability and the lexicon. In Goodluck, & Rochemont, (eds.), 109–180.Google Scholar
Fodor, Janet Dean. 2002a. Prosodic disambiguation in silent reading. In Hirotani, Mako (ed.), Northeast Linguistic Society (NELS) 32, 113–132, Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Fodor, Janet Dean. 2002b. Psycholinguistics cannot escape prosody. In Bel, Bernard & Marlien, Isabelle (eds.), Speech Prosody 2002, Université de Provence, Aix-en-Provence, 83–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Francom, Jerid. 2009. Experimental syntax: Exploring the effect of repeated exposure to anomalous syntactic structure – evidence from rating and reading tasks. Ph.D. thesis, University of Arizona.Google Scholar
Frank, Robert E. 1992. Syntactic locality and Tree Adjoining Grammar: Grammatical, acquisition and processing perspectives. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Frazier, Lyn. 1987. Syntactic processing: Evidence from Dutch. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 5, 519–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frazier, Lyn & Clifton, Carles Jr. 1996. Construal. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Garnsey, Susan M. 1985. Function words and content words: Reaction time and evoked potential measures of word recognition (Cognitive Science Technical Report URCS-29). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester.Google Scholar
Garnsey, Susan M., Tanenhaus, Michael K. & Chapman, Robert M.. 1989. Evoked potentials and the study of sentence comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 18, 51–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, Edward. 1998. Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition 68, 1–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gibson, Edward. 2000. The Dependency Locality Theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. In Marantz, Alec, Miyashita, Yasushi & O'Neil, Wayne (eds.), Image, language, brain, 95–126. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ginzburg, Jonathan & Sag, Ivan A.. 2000. Interrogative investigations: The form, meaning and use of English interrogative constructions. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1979. On understanding grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goodluck, Helen & Rochemont, Michael (eds.). 1992. Island constraints: Theory, acquisition and processing. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grosu, Alexander. 1981. Approaches to island phenomena. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 1994. A performance theory of order and constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 1999. Processing complexity and filler–gap dependencies across grammars. Language 75.2, 244–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 2004. Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hegarty, Michael. 1990. On adjunct extraction from complements. In Cheng, Lisa & Demirdash, Hamida (eds.), Papers on wh- movement (MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 13), 101–124. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
Hemforth, Barbara, Konieczny, Lars, Scheepers, Christoph & Strube, Gerhard. 1985. Syntactic ambiguity resolution in German. In Hillert, Dieter (ed.), Syntax and semantics, vol. 31, 293–312. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hiramatsu, Kazuko. 1999. Subject and adjunct island asymmetries: Evidence from syntactic satiation. In Bird, Sonya, Carnie, Andrew, Haugen, Jason D. & Norquest, Peter (eds.), West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 18, 183–192. Sommerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Hofmeister, Philip. 2007. Retrievability and gradience in filler–gap dependencies. In Elliott, et al. (eds.), 109–123.Google Scholar
Hofmeister, Philip & Sag, Ivan A.. 2010. Cognitive constraints and island effects. Language 86.2, 366–415.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hofmeister, Philip, Casasanto, Laura Staum & Sag, Ivan A.. 2012a. How do individual cognitive differences relate to acceptability judgments? A reply to Sprouse, Wagers, and Phillips. Language 88.2, 390–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofmeister, Philip, Casasanto, Laura Staum & Sag, Ivan A.. 2012b. Misapplying working- memory tests: A reductio ad absurdum. Language 88.2, 408–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofmeister, Philip, Casasanto, Laura Staum & Sag, Ivan A.. In press. Islands in the grammar? Standards of evidence. In Sprouse, Jon & Hornstein, Norbert (eds.), Experimental syntax and the islands debate. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert, Lasnik, Howard & Uriagereka, Juan. 2006. The dynamics of islands: Speculations on the locality of movement. Linguistic Analysis 33.1–2, 149–175.Google Scholar
Horvath, Julia. 1992. The anti c-command and case-compatibility in the licensing of parasitic chains. The Linguistic Review 9, 183–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, Cheng-Teh James. 1982. Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney, Pullum, Geoffrey K. & Peterson, Peter. 2002. Relative clause constructions and unbounded dependencies. In Huddleston, Rodney, Pullum, Geoffrey K. et al. , The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, 1031–1096. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hukari, Thomas & Levine, Robert D.. 1991. On the disunity of unbounded dependency constructions. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 9, 97–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray S. 2002. Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jurafsky, Daniel. 1996. A probabilistic model of lexical and syntactic access and disambiguation. Cognitive Science 2.20, 137–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jurka, Johannes, Nakao, Chizuru & Omaki, Akira. 2011. It's not the end of the CED as we know it: Revisiting German and Japanese subject islands. In Washburn, Mary Byram, McKinney-Bock, Katherine, Varis, Erika, Sawyer, Ann & Tomaszewicz, Barbara (eds.), West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 28, 124–132. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Kamide, Yuki & Mitchell, Don C. 1997. Relative clause attachment: Non-determinism in Japanese parsing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 26, 247–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 1981. ECP extensions. Linguistic Inquiry 12, 93–133.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 1983. Connectedness. Linguistic Inquiry 14, 223–249.Google Scholar
Kehler, Andrew. 2002. Coherence, reference, and the theory of grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Kemper, Susan. 1986. Imitation of complex syntactic constructions by elderly adults. Applied Psycholinguistics 7, 277–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemper, Susan. 1987. Life-span changes in syntactic complexity. Journal of Gerontology 42.3, 323–328.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kimball, John. 1975. Predictive analysis and over-the-top parsing. In Kimball, John (ed.), Syntax and semantics, vol. 4, 155–179. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kitagawa, Yoshihisa & Fodor, Janet Dean. 2006. Prosodic influence on syntactic judgements. In Fanselow, et al. (eds.), 336–354.Google Scholar
Kluender, Robert. 1992. Deriving island constraints from principles of predication. In Goodluck, & Rochemont, (eds.), 223–258.Google Scholar
Kluender, Robert. 1998. On the distinction between strong islands and weak islands: A processing perspective. In Culicover, Peter W. & McNally, Louise (eds.), The limits of syntax (Syntax and Semantics 29), 241–279, New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kluender, Robert. 2004. Are subject islands subject to a processing account? In Chand, Vineeta, Kelleher, Ann, Rodríguez, Angelo J. & Schmeiser, Benjamin (eds.), West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 23, 101–125, Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Kluender, Robert & Kutas, Marta. 1993. Subjacency as a processing phenomenon. Language and Cognitive Processes 8, 573–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kravtchenko, Ekaterina, Polinsky, Maria & Xiang, Ming. 2009. Are all subject islands created equal? Poster at the 22nd CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, Davis, CA.Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony. 1989. Amount quantification, referentiality, and long wh-movement. Ms., Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1973a. Constraints on internal clauses and sentential subjects. Linguistic Inquiry 4, 363–386.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1973b. The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1987. Functional syntax – anaphora, discourse and empathy. Chicago, IL & London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu & Takami, Ken-Ichi. 1993. Grammar and discourse principles: Functional syntax and GB theory. Chicago, IL & London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kutas, Marta, Besson, Mireille & Petten, Cyma Van. 1988. Event-related potential asymmetries during the reading of sentences. Electroencephalography and Neurophysiology 69, 218–233.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kynette, Donna & Kemper, Susan. 1986. Aging and the loss of grammatical forms: A cross-sectional study of language performance. Language and Communication 6, 65–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lascarides, Alex & Copestake, Anne. 1999. Default unification in constraint-based frameworks. Computational Linguistics 25.1, 55–105.Google Scholar
Lasnik, Howard & Park, Myung-Kwan. 2003. The EPP and the subject condition under sluicing. Linguistic Inquiry 34, 649–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lasnik, Howard & Saito, Mamoru. 1992. Move α: Conditions on its application and output. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levine, Robert D. 2001. The extraction riddle: Just what are we missing? Journal of Linguistics 37, 145–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, Robert D. & Hukari, Thomas E.. 2006. The unity of unbounded dependency constructions. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Levine, Robert D., Hukari, Thomas E. & Calcagno, Michael. 2001. Parasitic gaps in English: Some overlooked cases and their theoretical implications. In Culicover, & Postal, (eds.), 181–222.Google Scholar
Levine, Robert D. & Sag, Ivan A.. 2003. Some empirical issues in the grammar of extraction. In Müller, Stefan (ed.), HPSG-2003 Conference, Michigan State University, East Lansing, 236–256. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Morgan, Jerry L. 1973. Sentence fragments and the notion of sentence. In Kachru, Braj B., Lees, Robert B., Malkiel, Yakov, Pietrangeli, Angelina & Sapotra, Sol (eds.), Issues in linguistics: Papers in honor of Henry and Renee Kahane, 719–751. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Müller, Gereon. 2010. On deriving CED effects from the PIC. Linguistic Inquiry 41.1, 35–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norcliffe, Elisabeth. 2009. Head-marking in usage and grammar: A study of variation and change in Yucatec Maya. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Nunes, Jairo & Uriagereka, Juan. 2000. Cyclicity and extraction domains. Syntax 3, 20–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 2000. Phrasal movement and its kin. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, Colin. 2006. The real-time status of island phenomena. Language 82, 795–823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pickering, Martin J., Barton, Stephen & Shillcock, Richard. 1994. Unbounded dependencies, island constraints and processing complexity. In Clifton, Charles Jr., Frazier, Lyn & Rayner, Keith (eds.), Perspectives on sentence processing, 199–224. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Pollard, Carl & Sag, Ivan A.. 1994. Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press & Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M. 1974. On raising. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M. 1993. Parasitic gaps and the across-the-board phenomenon. Linguistic Inquiry 24, 735–754.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M. 1994. Parasitic and pseudoparasitic gaps. Linguistic Inquiry 25, 63–117.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M. 1998. Three investigations of extraction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, James. 1995. The generative lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Quinn, Deirdre, Abdelghany, Hala & Fodor, Janet Dean. 2000. More evidence of implicit prosody in silent reading: French, English and Arabic relative clauses. Poster presented at the 13th Conference on Human Sentence Processing, La Jolla, CA.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. Relativized minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rogers, James & Pullum, Geoffrey K.. 2011. Aural pattern recognition experiments and the subregular hierarchy. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 20, 329–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, John R. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. [Published 1986 as Infinite Syntax!, Norwood, NJ: Ablex.]Google Scholar
Sabel, Joachim. 2002. A minimalist analysis of syntactic islands. The Linguistic Review 19, 271–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sag, Ivan A. 1992. Taking performance seriously. In Martin-Vide, Carlos (ed.), VII Congreso de Languajes Naturales y Lenguajes Formales, Barcelona, 61–74.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan A. 2010a. English filler–gap constructions. Language 86.3, 486–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sag, Ivan A. 2010b. Sign-based Construction Grammar: An informal synopsis. Ms., Stanford University. Available at http://lingo.stanford.edu/sag/papers/theo-syno.pdf (retrieved 9 October 2012). [To appear in Hans Boas & Ivan A. Sag (eds.), Sign-based Construction Grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.]Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan A., Hofmeister, Philip & Snider, Neal. 2007. Processing complexity in subjacency violations: The complex noun phrase constraint. In Elliot, et al. (eds.), 215–229.Google Scholar
Santorini, Beatrice. 2007. (Un?)expected movement. Ms., University of Pennsylvania. http://www.ling.upenn.edu/∼beatrice/examples/movement.html, retrieved 2 January 2012.Google Scholar
Sauerland, Uli & Elbourne, Paul D.. 2002. Total reconstruction, PF movement, and derivational order. Linguistic Inquiry 33.2, 283–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sells, Peter. 1984. Syntax and semantics of resumptive pronouns. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Sheehan, Michelle. 2009. The resuscitation of CED? In Kan, Seda, Moore-Cantwell, Claire & Staubs, Robert (eds.), North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 40. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Shimojo, Mitsuaki. 2002. Functional theories of island phenomena: The case of Japanese. Studies in Language 26, 67–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snyder, William. 2000. An experimental investigation of syntactic satiation effects. Linguistic Inquiry 31, 575–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sprouse, Jon. 2009. Revisiting satiation: Evidence for an equalization response strategy. Linguistic Inquiry 40.2, 329–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sprouse, Jon, Wagers, Matt & Phillips, Colin. 2012a. A test of the relation between working memory capacity and syntactic island effects. Language 88.1, 82–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sprouse, Jon, Wagers, Matt & Phillips, Colin. 2012b. Working-memory capacity and island effects: A reminder of the issues and the facts. Language 88.2, 401–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steedman, Mark. 1996. Surface structure and interpretation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Stepanov, Arthur. 2007. The end of CED? Minimalism and extraction domains. Syntax 10.1, 80–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stowe, Lauriea. 1986. Parsing WH-constructions: Evidence for on-line gap location. Language and Cognitive Processes 1, 227–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna. 2006. Strong vs. weak islands. In Everaert, Martin & Riemsdijk, Henk van (eds.), The Blackwell companion to syntax, vol. 4, 479–531. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna & Dikken, Marcel den. 1999. Islands. GLOT International 4/6, 3–8.Google Scholar
Tabor, Whitney & Hutchins, Sean. 2004. Evidence for self-organized sentence processing: Digging-in effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 30.2, 431–450.Google ScholarPubMed
Takahashi, Daiko. 1994. Minimality of movement. Ph.D. thesis, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Taraldsen, Knut Tarald. 1980. The theoretical interpretation of a class of marked extractions. In Belleti, Adriana, Brandi, Luciana & Rizzi, Luigi (eds.), The Third GLOW Conference, 475–516. Pisa: Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore.Google Scholar
Taylor, Heather Lee. 2007. Movement from IF-clause adjuncts. In Conroy, Anastasia, Jing, Chunyuan, Nakao, Chizuru & Takahashi, Eri (eds.), University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics (UMWPiL) 15, 192–206. College Park, MD: Department of Linguistics, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Traxler, Matthew J. & Pickering, Martin J.. 1996. Plausibility and the processing of unbounded dependencies: An eye-tracking study. Journal of Memory and Language 35, 454–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Truswell, Robert. 2011. Events, phrases and questions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsiamtsiouris, Jim & Cairns, Helen Smith. 2009. Effects of syntactic complexity and sentence-structure priming on speech initiation time in adults who stutter. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 52.6, 1623–1639.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Uriagereka, Juan. 1999. Multiple spell-out. In Epstein, Samuel D. & Hornstein, Norbert (eds.), Working Minimalism, 251–282. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Van Petten, Cyma & Kutas, Marta. 1991. Influences of semantic and syntactic context on open and closed class words. Memory and Cognition 19, 95–112.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 1986. Pragmatics, island phenomena, and linguistic competence. In Farley, Anne M., Farley, Peter T. & McCullough, Karl-Erik (eds.), Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS) 22.2: The Parasession on Pragmatics and Grammatical Theory, 223–233. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 1995. Toward a functionalist account of so-called extraction constraints. In Devriendt, Betty, Goossens, Louis & van der Auwera, Johan (eds.), Complex structures: A functionalist perspective, 26–60. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Vasishth, Shravan & Lewis, Richard L.. 2006. Argument-head distance and processing complexity: Explaining both locality and antilocality effects. Language 82.4, 767–794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wanner, Eric & Maratsos, Michael. 1978. An ATN approach to comprehension. In Hale, Morris, Bresnan, Joan & Miller, George A. (eds.), Linguistic theory and psychological reality, 119–161. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wasow, Thomas. 1997. Remarks on grammatical weight. Language Variation and Change 9, 81–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wasow, Thomas. 2002. Postverbal behavior. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Wasow, Thomas. 2007. Gradient data and gradient grammars. In Elliot, et al. (eds.), 255–271.Google Scholar
Wexler, Kenneth & Culicover, Peter W.. 1980. Formal principles of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Yngve, Victor. 1960. A model and an hypothesis for language structure. The American Philosophical Society 104, 444–466.Google Scholar
Zagar, Daniel, Pynte, Joel & Rativeau, Sylvie. 1997. Evidence for early closure attachment on first pass reading times in French. The Quartely Journal of Experimental Psychology 50A.2, 421–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zahn, Daniela & Scheepers, Christoph. 2011. Task effects in resolving RC attachment ambiguities. Poster presented at the 24th Conference on Human Sentence Processing, Stanford University.Google Scholar