1 / 41

The Finiteness Effect and Island Constraints in Syntax: Insights from UCSD

This talk presents an exploration of islands in syntax, focusing on how finiteness influences filler-gap dependencies. Key concepts include the accumulation view, which attributes islands to a composite of processing challenges, and the disruption view, highlighting the effect of interfering elements. Through discussions of various experiments, including the acknowledgment of adjunct islands and the role of finiteness, the presentation aims to clarify how these syntactic phenomena interact. Insights suggest that accumulation and disruption may not be exclusive, expanding our understanding of wh-phrases and syntax processing.

nay
Télécharger la présentation

The Finiteness Effect and Island Constraints in Syntax: Insights from UCSD

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. (Adjunct) islandsand the finiteness effect Dan Michel Grant Goodall UC San Diego

  2. Overview of talk

  3. Islands • Domains in which gap is not possible, despite earlier filler wh-phrase … [ … __ … ] … *What did Mary eat pie [while John drank _ ]?

  4. Two views of islands Accumulation Islands result from accumulation of several independent processing difficulties (filler-gap dependency, complex syntactic structure, etc.) E.g. Kluender (1998, 2004), Hofmeister & Sag (2010) Disruption Islands result from otherwise unproblematic element that may disrupt filler-gap dependency (bounding node, intervening feature, etc.) E.g. Ross (1967), Chomsky (1986), Rizzi(2004)

  5. Things to keep in mind • These two views are not mutually exclusive. • Accumulationoften associated with processing. Disruptionoften associatedwith grammar. But these associations aren’t logically necessary.

  6. Role of finiteness in islands • Finiteness has been claimed to be important for wh-islands: a book which I can’t figure out… a. [what to do about __] b. ?? [what I should do about __] (from Ross (1967)) Finiteness effect: Finite clause is more resistant to gap.

  7. Role of finiteness in islands • And for subject islands: We investigated what [the campaign… a. ?*to preserve __ ] had harmed the forest. b. *that preserved __ ] had harmed the forest (adapted from Phillips (2006)) Finite clause is more resistant to gap.

  8. Role of finiteness in islands • Adjunct islands are less often discussed. Many have assumed there is no effect. Who did John go home… a. ?? [after kissing __] b. * [after he kissed __] (See Szabolcsi (2006), Truswell (2011)) Finite clause is more resistant to gap?

  9. How to view the finiteness effect? Accumulation Islands result from accumulation of several independent processing difficulties (filler-gap dependency, complex syntactic structure, etc.) E.g. Kluender (1998, 2004), Hofmeister & Sag (2010) • Finiteness • Intrinsically difficult for processing. • Should see finiteness effect • very generally. • Suggested in Kluender (2004), Hofmeister (2007). Disruption Islands result from otherwise unproblematic element that may disrupt filler-gap dependency (bounding node, intervening feature, etc.) E.g. Ross (1967), Chomsky (1986), Rizzi(2004) • Finiteness • Not intrinsically difficult. • Should see effect with some dependencies. • Suggested in Cinque (1990), Manzini (1992), Truswell (2011).

  10. What accumulation looks like n.s. n.s. y/n y/n y/n Main Effect *** 5.69 (1.09) 5.72 (1.07) Accumulation p = 0.68 *** wh wh *** wh

  11. What disruption looks like n.s. n.s. y/n y/n y/n Main Effect *** 5.69 (1.09) 5.72 (1.07) Disruption p = 0.68 *** wh wh *** wh

  12. Format for experiments • 195-220 participants, all UCSD students. • Non-native or non-English-dominant speakers excluded. • 2 x 2 design, where one factor is question-type: wh- vs. yes/no question • Each participant sees at least 4 tokens of each type, mixed with at least 40 fillers. • Latin square design, randomized. • Acceptability judgment task, 7-point scale

  13. Experiment 1: Adjunct islands • Do adjunct islands also have finiteness effect? • Both make similar predictions. If they are both on the wrong track, we need to know! Accumulation: Yes, definitely! If finiteness is intrinsically difficult, it should be here too. Disruption: Yes, probably. If finiteness disrupts wh-dependencies elsewhere, it probably will here also.

  14. Experiment 1: Adjuncts he negotiated negotiating

  15. Experiment 1: Adjuncts he negotiated negotiating n.s. n.s. n.s. y/n y/n y/n Main Effect *** Main Effect *** 5.69 (1.09) 5.72 (1.07) p = 0.68 *** wh *** *** wh wh

  16. Yes.

  17. A confound • Finiteness often co-occurs with the presence of an overt subject. … after he negotiated … … after negotiating … • Is the finiteness effect due to: • Finiteness itself? • The extra argument (subject)?

  18. Yes. Finiteness constant / ± extra argument Exp. 2: CNPC Exp. 3: Subject island Exp. 4: Complement clause Extra argument constant / ± finiteness Exp. 5: CNPC

  19. Experiment 2: CNPC the children

  20. Experiment 2: CNPC the children n.s. Main Effect: *** y/n Main Effect: *** wh y/n *** y/n 5.69 (1.09) 5.72 (1.07) p = 0.68 Interaction: n.s. wh wh

  21. Experiment 3: Subject islands the defendant

  22. Experiment 3: Subject islands the defendant Main Effect: n.s. y/n Interaction: n.s. wh

  23. Experiment 4: Complements the contractor

  24. Experiment 4: Complements the contractor Main Effect: *** y/n wh Interaction: n.s. No Main Effect of Question: Complement clauses are not islands

  25. Eliminating a confound CNPC Subject islands Complement Cl

  26. Yes. Finiteness constant / ± extra argument Exp. 2: CNPC General preference for fewer arguments, but not specific to wh-dependency. Exp. 3: Subject island Exp. 4: Complement clause Extra argument constant / ± finiteness Exp. 5: CNPC

  27. Experiment 5: CNPC buried burying

  28. Experiment 5: CNPC buried burying y/n *** Interaction: * wh **

  29. Experiment 5: CNPC buried burying y/n *** Non-finite preferred only in wh condition wh **

  30. Yes. It’s finiteness. Finiteness constant / ± extra argument Exp. 2: CNPC General preference for fewer arguments, but not specific to wh-dependency. Exp. 3: Subject island Exp. 4: Complement clause Extra argument constant / ± finiteness Exp. 5: CNPC Preference for non-finite only in wh-dependency.

  31. Where do we stand at this point? Accumulation Islands result from accumulation of several independent processing difficulties (filler-gap dependency, complex syntactic structure, etc.) E.g. Kluender (1998, 2004), Hofmeister & Sag (2010) • Finiteness • Intrinsically difficult for processing. • Should see finiteness effect • very generally. • Suggested in Kluender (2004), Hofmeister (2007). Disruption Islands result from otherwise unproblematic element that may disrupt filler-gap dependency (bounding node, intervening feature, etc.) E.g. Ross (1967), Chomsky (1986), Rizzi(2004) • Finiteness • Not intrinsically difficult. • Should see effect with some dependencies. • Suggested in Cinque (1990), Manzini (1992), Truswell (2011).

  32. One version of disruption view • Truswell (2011): Event Locality Condition (roughly) Filler and gap must be within single event. Adjuncts: Finite → independent event Non-finite → possibly part of main clause event Complements (of bridge verbs): Finite and non-finite: part of main clause event Prediction: Finiteness disrupts wh-dependencies in adjunct clauses. Confirmed in Experiment 1. Prediction: But not in complement clauses. To be tested in Experiment 6!

  33. Experiment 6: Complements was to be

  34. Experiment 6: Complements was to be Main Effect: ** y/n wh Finite > Nonfinite Interaction: n.s.

  35. Yes. It’s finiteness. No. Only in islands.

  36. Back to the beginning Accumulation Islands result from accumulation of several independent processing difficulties (filler-gap dependency, complex syntactic structure, etc.) E.g. Kluender (1998, 2004), Hofmeister & Sag (2010) Extra argument effect is most consistent with accumulation view. It occurs everywhere. Disruption Islands result from otherwise unproblematic element that may disrupt filler-gap dependency (bounding node, intervening feature, etc.) E.g. Ross (1967), Chomsky (1986), Rizzi(2004) Finiteness effect is most consistent with disruption view. It occurs with: -wh-dependencies (and not generally) -islands (and not complements)

  37. Grammar or processing? Given the usual associations: Accumulationoften associated with processing. Disruptionoften associatedwith grammar. It is tempting to conclude that: Extra argument effect is a processing effect. Finiteness effect is a grammatical effect. If so, islands are (partly) a grammatical effect.

  38. However… • This conclusion could change if disruption is shown to be due to processing. • The extra argument effect does seem to be due to processing, and this degrades some already bad island violations. • So processing effects do play a role in the unacceptability of some island sentences.

  39. Summary of findings Yes. It’s finiteness. No. Only in islands. Extra argument→ processing Finiteness → grammar

  40. Thank you! grammar.ucsd.edu/syntaxlab Special thanks to: Chris Barkley Boyoung Kim IvanoCaponigro Robert Kluender Gabe Doyle Emily Morgan Simone Gieselman Research assistants: Adrienne LeFevre Michelle McCadden

More Related