(Adjunct) islands and the finiteness effect Dan Michel

(Adjunct) islands and the finiteness effect Dan Michel

(Adjunct) islands and the finiteness effect Dan Michel Grant Goodall UC San Diego 1 Overview of talk Why might finiteness matter to islands? Islands and finiteness Exp. 1: Adjunct islands Is there a finiteness effect? Exp. 2-5: Eliminating a confound Is it finiteness or the overt argument? Exp. 6: Complement clauses Finiteness effect everywhere?

What does it all mean? About islands? About grammar and processing? Islands Domains in which gap is not possible, despite earlier filler wh-phrase [ __ ] *What did Mary eat pie [while John drank _ ]? 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) Things to keep in mind These two views are not mutually exclusive. Accumulation often associated with processing. Disruption often associated with grammar. But these associations arent logically necessary. Role of finiteness in islands Finiteness has been claimed to be important for wh-islands: a book which I cant figure out a. [what to do about __] b. ?? [what I should do about __] Finiteness (from Ross (1967))effect: Finite clause is more resistant to gap. 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 Finite clause is (adaptedto from Phillips (2006)) more resistant gap. 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 __] Finite clause is (See Szabolcsi (2006), Truswell (2011)) more resistant to gap? How to view the finiteness effect? Accumulation Finiteness

Intrinsically difficult for processing. Islands result from accumulation of several Should see finiteness effect independent processing difficulties (filler-gap very generally. dependency, complex syntactic structure, Suggested in Kluender (2004), etc.) Hofmeister (2007). E.g. Kluender (1998, 2004), Hofmeister & Sag (2010) Disruption Finiteness Not intrinsically difficult.

Islands result from otherwise unproblematic Shouldfiller-gap see effect with some element that may disrupt dependencies. dependency (bounding node, intervening Suggested in Cinque (1990), Manzini feature, etc.) (1992),Rizzi Truswell E.g. Ross (1967), Chomsky (1986), (2004)(2011). What accumulation looks like Non-Ameliorating y/n-Q Who did the carpenter restore the 7 n.s.antique table after he negotiated

wh-Q Ameliorating 6 y/n with _? y/n y/n 5 5.69 (1.09) Main Effect 4 Did the *** carpenter he negotiated 3 negotiating with _? p = 0.68

5.72 (1.07) Accumulation restore the antique table after wh withwh the wh 2 1 n.s. buyer? *** ***negotiating with the buyer? What disruption looks like Non-Ameliorating y/n-Q

Who did the carpenter restore the n.s.antique table after 7 he wh-Q Ameliorating n.s. negotiated 6withy/n _? y/n y/n negotiating with _? 5 Main 5.69 (1.09) 5.72 (1.07) p = 0.68

Effect 4 restore the antique table after Did the *** carpenter Disruption he negotiated 3 wh withwh the 2 1 wh buyer? *** ***negotiating

with the buyer? 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 questiontype: 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 Experiment 1: Adjunct islands Do adjunct islands also have finiteness effect? 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. Both make similar predictions. If they are both on the wrong track, we need to know!

Experiment 1: Adjuncts Ex 1 Finite he negotiated Non-finite negotiating y/n-Q Did the carpenter restore the antique table after he negotiated with the buyer? negotiating with the buyer? wh-Q Who did the carpenter restore the antique table after he negotiated with _? negotiating with _? Experiment 1: Adjuncts Ex 1

Finite y/n-Q Who did the carpenter restore the n.s.antique table after 7 he wh-Q he negotiated Non-finite negotiating n.s. n.s. negotiated 6withy/n _? y/n

y/n negotiating with _? 5 Main Main 5.69 (1.09) 5.72 (1.07) p = 0.68 Effect Effect 4 restore the antique table after Did*** the *** carpenter he 3 wh negotiated with the wh wh

2 1 buyer? *** ******negotiating with the buyer? Yes. 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)? Yes. Finiteness constant / extra argument Exp. 2: CNPC

Exp. 3: Subject island Exp. 4: Complement clause Extra argument constant / finiteness Exp. 5: CNPC Experiment 2: CNPC Ex 2 Overt argument No overt argument the children y/n-Q Does the principal like the thought of the children learning learning subtraction in kindergarten? subtraction in kindergarten? wh-Q What does the principal like the thought of the children learning _ in kindergarten? learning _ in kindergarten?

Experiment 2: CNPC Ex 2 Overt argument No overt argument the children y/n-Q Who did the y/n carpenter 77 n.s. Main Effect: *** restore antique Mainthe Effect: *** 6

he negotiated 6with _? wh 55 wh-Q y/n y/n 5.69 (1.09) negotiating with _? *** he negotiated with wh the wh buyer? 2 2 1 1

5.72 (1.07) Interaction: table after n.s. p = 0.68 44 restore the antique Did the carpenter 33 table after negotiating with the buyer? Experiment 3: Subject islands Ex 3 Overt argument the defendant No overt argument y/n-Q Does the prosecutor know that

the defendant presenting the child's testimony will convince the jury? presenting the child's testimony will convince the jury? wh-Q What does the prosecutor know that the defendant presenting _ will convince the jury? presenting _ will convince the jury? Experiment 3: Subject islands Ex 3 Overt argument the defendant No overt argument Mainthat

Effect: know n.s. y/n-Q Does the prosecutor 7 the defendant 6 presenting the child's testimony will y/n convince the 5jury? presenting the child's testimony will convince the jury? Interaction: n.s. 4 wh know that wh-Q What does the3 prosecutor the defendant presenting

2 _ will convince the jury? 1 presenting _ will convince the jury? Experiment 4: Complements Ex 4 Overt argument No overt argument the contractor y/n-Q Does the architect want the contractor to see the building plans before Monday? to see the building plans before Monday?

wh-Q What does the architect want the contractor to see _ before Monday? to see _ before Monday? Experiment 4: Complements Ex 4 Overt argument No overt argument the contractor Main Effect: *** want y/n-Q Does the architect 7 6 y/n the contractor to see

the building plans whbefore Monday? 5 wh-Q What does 4 the 3 to see the building plans before Monday? Interaction: architect want n.s. the contractor to see _ to see _ No Main Effect of Question: before Monday? 2 Complementbefore

clausesMonday? are not islands 1 Eliminating a confound 7 7 7 6 6 6 5 5 5 4

4 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 CNPC Subject islands

Complement Cl Main effect of additional overt argument? YES No, but same pattern YES Effect of additional overt argument specifically in WH? NO NO NO Yes. Finiteness constant / extra argument Exp. 2: CNPC General preference for fewer arguments, Exp.but

3: Subject island not specific to wh-dependency. Exp. 4: Complement clause Extra argument constant / finiteness Exp. 5: CNPC Experiment 5: CNPC Ex 5 Finite Non-finite buried burying y/n-Q Do many people believe the idea that the squirrels buried extra food under bushes? of the squirrels burying extra food under bushes?

wh-Q What do many people believe the idea that the squirrels buried _ under bushes? of the squirrels burying _ under bushes? Experiment 5: CNPC Ex 5 Finite Non-finite buried burying believe the idea y/n-Q Do many people 7 6 that the squirrels buried y/n extra food under bushes?

*** of the squirrels burying extra food under bushes? 5 4 people believe the idea wh-Q What do many 3 that the squirrels wh buried _ under bushes? 2 1 Interaction: * of the squirrels burying ** _ under bushes? Experiment 5: CNPC Ex 5

Finite Non-finite buried burying believe the idea y/n-Q Do many people 7 6 that the squirrels buried y/n extra food under bushes? *** of the squirrels burying extra food under bushes? 5 4 people believe the idea wh-Q What do many 3

that the squirrels wh buried _ under bushes? 2 1 Non-finite preferred only in wh condition of the squirrels burying ** _ under bushes? Yes. Its finiteness. Finiteness constant / extra argument Exp. 2: CNPC General preference for fewer arguments, Exp.but 3: Subject island

not specific to wh-dependency. Exp. 4: Complement clause Extra argument constant / finiteness Exp. 5: CNPC Preference for non-finite only in wh-dependency. Where do we stand at this point? Accumulation Finiteness Intrinsically difficult for processing. Islands result from accumulation of several Should see finiteness effect independent processing difficulties (filler-gap very generally. dependency, complex syntactic

structure, Suggested in Kluender (2004), etc.) Hofmeister (2007). E.g. Kluender (1998, 2004), Hofmeister & Sag (2010) Disruption Finiteness Not intrinsically difficult. Islands result from otherwise unproblematic Shouldfiller-gap see effect with some element that may disrupt dependencies. dependency (bounding node, intervening Suggested in Cinque (1990), Manzini feature, etc.) (1992),Rizzi Truswell E.g. Ross (1967), Chomsky (1986), (2004)(2011).

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

Finite Non-finite was to be y/n-Q Did the children believe the guest was bringing a cake? the guest to be bringing a cake? wh-Q What did the children believe the guest was bringing _? the guest to be bringing _? Experiment 6: Complements Ex 6 Finite Non-finite

was to be report Main Effect: ** y/n-Q Did the teacher 7 the students knew 6 algebra? y/n 5 the students to know algebra? wh 4 Finite > Nonfinite wh-Q What did the teacher report 3

the students knew _? 2 1 the students toInteraction: know _? n.s. Yes. Its finiteness. No. Only in islands. Back to the beginning Accumulation Islands result from accumulation of several Extra processing argument effect is most consistent independent difficulties (filler-gap with accumulation view.structure, It occurs

dependency, complex syntactic everywhere. etc.) E.g. Kluender (1998, 2004), Hofmeister & Sag (2010) Disruption Islands result from otherwise unproblematic Finiteness effect is most consistent with element that may disrupt filler-gap disruption view. It occurs with: dependency (bounding node, intervening -wh-dependencies (and not generally) feature, etc.) -islands (and(1986), not complements) E.g. Ross (1967), Chomsky Rizzi (2004) Grammar or processing? Given the usual associations: Accumulation often associated with processing. Disruption often associated with 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. 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. Summary of findings Yes. Its finiteness. No. Only in islands. Extra argument processing Finiteness grammar Thank you! grammar.ucsd.edu/syntaxlab Special thanks to:

Chris Barkley Boyoung Kim Ivano Caponigro Robert Kluender Gabe Doyle Emily Morgan Simone Gieselman Research assistants: Adrienne LeFevre Michelle McCadden

Recently Viewed Presentations

  • PETE 310 Lectures 9 & 10 - Ideal and Real Gases

    PETE 310 Lectures 9 & 10 - Ideal and Real Gases

    Mixtures of Ideal Gases Dalton's law of partial pressures Amagat's law of partial volumes Specific gravity of a gas Apparent Molecular Weight of a Gas Mixture Determine the Mwa and density of a mixture of 30%C1, 40%C2, and 30%C3 at...
  • Organizing and Revising Essays - University of Illinois at ...

    Organizing and Revising Essays - University of Illinois at ...

    Organizing and Revising Essays The Writing Process Planning Shaping Drafting Revising Editing Proofreading Planning: Research and Note Taking Generate ideas Freewriting and brain storming (Focus on your topic if you have one) 5 W's and an "H" Make a list...
  • 13. Primary and secondary deviance  In Howard Beckers

    13. Primary and secondary deviance In Howard Beckers

    Deviant career. If more negative labelling followed, the perpetrator might eventually embark on a deviant career, viewing himself as having permanent master status as a deviant. 15. Labelling studies. What other labelling studies can you think of in relation to...
  • GHG emission projections from the agricultural sector in Denmark

    GHG emission projections from the agricultural sector in Denmark

    GHG emission projections from the agricultural sector in Denmark Steen Gyldenkærne (Agronomist, PhD) ... Restablisment of wetlands and extensification of agricultural areas Introduction Introduction to Danish agriculture The emission inventories - Agriculture - LULUC(F) State of the art in the...
  • Chapter 9 Water Erosion and Deposition

    Chapter 9 Water Erosion and Deposition

    Chapter 9 Water Erosion and Deposition 9.1 Water Erosion and Deposition Notes Sheet Runoff Water that flows across the Earth's surface is called runoff. The water does not soak into the ground or evaporate. Runoff The amount of rain and...
  • El alfabeto / El abecedario - ¡La Clase de Español!

    El alfabeto / El abecedario - ¡La Clase de Español!

    Al fin de esta lección, vas a poder… decir por que es importante saber el alfabeto en español. pronunciar las vocales en español y dar 3 hechos de ellas. decir el alfabeto en español. comparar el alfabeto español y el...
  • The Role of Information Literacy in Service Learning Courses ...

    The Role of Information Literacy in Service Learning Courses ...

    The Role of Information Literacy in Service Learning Courses: A Case Study and Best Practices. My background. Decade in a variety of libraries. Service-learning is the most effective way to teach information literacy that I've experienced
  • Distributed Security - SourceForge

    Distributed Security - SourceForge

    "Distributed Systems Require Distributed Security" Distributed Security Infrastructure Overview Goals Distributed Security Infrastructure Security context (ScID) Distributed Security Policy DSP Update Distributed Access Control (DisAC) DisAC Cluster-wide Access Control DisAC: Creating Virtual Security Zones Benchmarking results Conclusions ...