1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Linguistics
  4. Volume 8, 2022
  5. Article

Annual Review of Linguistics

Volume 8, 2022

Structural, Functional, and Processing Perspectives on Linguistic Island Effects

Abstract

Ross (1967) observed that “island” structures like “Who do you think [ the gift from__] prompted the rumor?” or “Who did you hear [ the statement [ that the CEO promoted__]]?” are not acceptable, despite having what seem to be plausible meanings in some contexts. Ross (1967) and Chomsky (1973) hypothesized that the source of the unacceptability is in the syntax. Here, we summarize how theories of discourse, frequency, and memory from the literature might account for such effects. We suggest that there is only one island structure—a class of coordination islands—that is best explained by a syntactic/semantic constraint. We speculate that all other island structures are likely to be explained in terms of discourse, frequency, and memory.

Keyword(s): discourse constraints, filler-gap dependencies, Focus–Background Conflict, linguistic encoding, linguistic interference, long-distance dependencies, syntactic constructions, syntactic islands, usage-based grammar
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011619-030319
2022-01-14
2024-04-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/linguistics/8/1/annurev-linguistics-011619-030319.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011619-030319&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Abeillé A, Hemforth B, Winckel E, Gibson E 2020a. Extraction from subjects: differences in acceptability depend on the discourse function of the construction. Cognition 204:104293 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104293
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  2. Abeillé A, Hemforth B, Winckel E, Gibson E. 2020b. The subject island as a case of focus-background conflict Talk presented at Linguistic Evidence 2020 Eberhard Karls Univ. Tübingen Tübingen, Ger:.
  3. Abeillé A, Winckel E. 2020. French subject island? Empirical studies of dont and de qui. J. French Lang. Stud. 30:3275–300 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959269520000137
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  4. Acheson DJ, Postle BR, MacDonald MC. 2010. The interaction of concreteness and phonological similarity in verbal working memory. J. Exp. Psychol.: Learn. Mem. Cogn. 36:117–36 https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017679
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  5. Almeida D. 2014. Subliminal wh-islands in Brazilian Portuguese and the consequences for syntactic theory. Rev. ABRALIN 13:2 https://revista.abralin.org/index.php/abralin/article/view/1187
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Ambridge B, Goldberg AE. 2008. The island status of clausal complements: evidence in favor of an information structure explanation. Cogn. Linguist. 19:3357–89 https://doi.org/10.1515/COGL.2008.014
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  7. Ambridge B, Pine JM, Lieven EVM. 2014. Child language acquisition: why universal grammar doesn't help. Language 90:3e53–90 https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2014.0051
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  8. Anderson JR. 1983. The Architecture of Cognition Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
  9. Anderson JR, Reder L. 1979. An elaborative processing explanation of depth of processing. Levels of Processing in Human Memory L Cermak, F Craik 385–404 Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Atkinson E, Apple A, Rawlins K, Omaki A. 2016. Similarity of wh-phrases and acceptability variation in wh-islands. Front. Psychol. 6:2048 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.02048
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  11. Boeckx C. 2012. Syntactic Islands Cambridge, UK/New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
  12. Boston MF. 2012. A computational model of cognitive constraints in syntactic locality PhD Diss. Cornell Univ. Ithaca, NY:
  13. Bradshaw GL, Anderson JR. 1982. Elaborative encoding as an explanation of levels of processing. J. Verbal Learn. Verbal Behav. 21:2165–74 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(82)90531-X
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  14. Bresnan J, Asudeh A, Toivonen I, Wechsler S. 2015. Lexical-Functional Syntax Malden, MA/Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 2nd ed..
  15. Chaves RP. 2012. On the grammar of extraction and coordination. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 2:30465–512
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Chaves RP. 2013. An expectation-based account of subject islands and parasitism. J. Linguist. 49:2285–327
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Chaves RP, Dery JE. 2014. Which subject islands will the acceptability of improve with repeated exposure?. Proceedings of the 31st West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL 31) RE Santana-LaBarge 96–106 Somerville, MA: Cascadilla
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Chaves RP, Dery JE. 2019. Frequency effects in subject islands. J. Linguist. 55:3475–521 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226718000294
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  19. Chaves RP, King A. 2019. A usage-based account of subextraction effects. Cogn. Linguist. 30:4719–50 https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2018-0135
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  20. Chaves RP, Putnam MT. 2020. Unbounded Dependency Constructions: Theoretical and Experimental Perspectives. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  21. Cheng LL-S. 2009. Wh-in-situ, from the 1980s to now. Lang. Linguist. Compass 3:3767–91
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Chomsky N 1964. Current issues in linguistic theory. The Structure of Language: Readings in the Philosophy of Language JA Fodor, JJ Katz 50–118 Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Chomsky N. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  24. Chomsky N. 1973. Conditions on transformations. A Festschrift for Morris Halle S Anderson, P Kiparsky 232–85 New York: Winston
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Chomsky N 1977. On WH-movement. Formal Syntax PW Culicover, T Wasow, A Akmajian 71–132 New York: Academic
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Chomsky N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
  27. Chomsky N. 1986a. Barriers Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  28. Chomsky N. 1986b. Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use Westport, CT: Greenwood
  29. Chomsky N, Miller GA 1963. Introduction to the formal analysis of natural language. Handbook of Mathematical Psychology 2 R Duncan Luce, RR Bush, E Galanter 269–321 New York: John Wiley
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Chung S. 1994. Wh-agreement and ‘referentiality’ in Chamorro. Linguist. Inq. 25:11–44
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Cinque G. 1990. Types of Ā-Dependencies Cambridge MA: MIT Press
  32. Clifton C, Frazier L 1989. Comprehending sentences with long distance dependencies. Linguistic Structure in Language Processing GN Carlson, MK Tannenhaus 272–317 Dordrecht, Neth: Kluwer
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Culicover P, Winkler S. 2021. Parasitic gaps aren't parasitic: the case of the uninvited guest. Linguist. Rev. In press
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Dąbrowska E. 2008. Questions with long-distance dependencies: a usage-based perspective. Cogn. Linguist. 19:3391–425 https://doi.org/10.1515/COGL.2008.015
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  35. Davies WD, Dubinsky S. 2003. On extraction from NPs. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 21:11–37
     [Google Scholar]
  36. de Vries G. 1992. On coordination and ellipsis PhD Thesis Catholic Univ. Brabant Tilburg, Neth:.
  37. Deane P. 1991. Limits to attention: a cognitive theory of island phenomena. Cogn. Linguist. 2:11–63
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Dillon B, Hornstein N 2013. On the structural nature of island constraints. Experimental Syntax and Island Effects J Sprouse, N Hornstein 208–20 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139035309.011
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  39. Donkers J, Hoeks JCJ, Stowe LA. 2011. D-linking or set-restriction? Processing Which-questions in Dutch. Lang. Cogn. Process. 28:1–29–28 https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2011.566343
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  40. Engdahl E. 1982. Restrictions on unbounded dependencies in Swedish. Readings on Unbounded Dependencies in Scandinavian Languages E Engdahl, E Ejerhed 151–74 Stockholm: Almquist & Wiksell Int.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Erteschik-Shir N. 1973. On the nature of island constraints PhD Diss. MIT Cambridge, MA:
  42. Erteschik-Shir N 2006. What's what?. Gradience in Grammar: Generative Perspectives G Fanselow, C Féry, M Schlesewsky, R Vogel 317–35 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Erteschik-Shir N. 2007. Information Structure: The Syntax-Discourse Interface Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  44. Fiebach CJ, Schlesewsky M, Friederici AD. 2001. Syntactic working memory and the establishment of filler-gap dependencies: insights from ERPs and fMRI. J. Psycholinguist. Res. 30:321–38
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Frazier L. 1987. Syntactic processing: evidence from Dutch. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 5:519–59
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Friedmann N, Belletti A, Rizzi L. 2009. Relativized relatives: types of intervention in the acquisition of A-bar dependencies. Lingua 119:167–88 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2008.09.002
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  47. Futrell R, Gibson E, Levy RP. 2020a. Lossy-context surprisal: an information-theoretic model of memory effects in sentence processing. Cogn. Sci. 44:3e12814 https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12814
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  48. Futrell R, Levy R, Gibson E 2020b. Dependency locality as an explanatory principle for word order. Language 96:2371–413
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Futrell R, Mahowald K, Gibson E 2015. Large-scale evidence of dependency length minimization in 37 languages. PNAS 112:3310336–41 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1502134112
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  50. Gibson E. 1998. Linguistic complexity: locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition 68:11–76
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Gibson E 2000. The dependency locality theory: a distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. Image, Language, Brain: Papers from the First Mind Articulation Project Symposium A Marantz, Y Miyashita, W O'Neil 95–126 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Gibson E, Bergen L, Piantadosi ST. 2013. Rational integration of noisy evidence and prior semantic expectations in sentence interpretation. PNAS 110:208051–56 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1216438110
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  53. Gibson E, Hemforth B, Winckel E, Abeillé A 2021. Acceptability of extraction out of adjuncts depends on discourse factors Poster presented at the 34th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing Mar. 4–6 (virtual)
  54. Gibson E, Scontras G. 2013. Working memory and syntactic islands revisited Poster presented at the 26th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing Gainesville, FL: Mar. 21–23
  55. Gibson E, Thomas J. 1999. Memory limitations and structural forgetting: the perception of complex ungrammatical sentences as grammatical. Lang. Cogn. Process. 14:3225–48
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Goldberg AE. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  57. Goldberg AE. 2006. Constructions at Work Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  58. Goldberg AE 2013. Backgrounded constituents cannot be extracted. Experimental Syntax and Island Effects J Sprouse, N Hornstein 221–38 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Goldsmith JA. 1985. A principled exception to the Coordinate Structure Constraint. CLS 21: Papers from the General Session at the Twenty-First Regional Meeting133–43 Chicago: Chicago Linguist. Soc.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Gordon PC, Hendrick R, Johnson M. 2001. Memory interference during language processing. J. Exp. Psychol.: Learn. Mem. Cogn. 27:61411–23 https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.27.6.1411
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  61. Grodner D, Gibson E. 2005. Consequences of the serial nature of linguistic input for sentential complexity. Cogn. Sci. 29:2261–90 https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0000_7
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  62. Grosu A. 1973. On the nonunitary nature of the Coordinate Structure Constraint. Linguist. Inq. 4:88–92
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Hale JT. 2001. A probabilistic Earley parser as a psycholinguistic model. NAACL '01: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics on Language Technologies1–8 New York: Assoc. Comp. Mach https://doi.org/10.3115/1073336.1073357
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  64. Hale JT. 2003. Grammar, uncertainty and sentence processing PhD Thesis Johns Hopkins Univ. Baltimore, MD:
  65. Hawkins JA. 1999. Processing complexity and filler-gap dependencies across grammars. Language 75:2244–85 https://doi.org/10.2307/417261
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  66. Hoekstra T, Kooij JG. 1988. The innateness hypothesis. Explaining Language Universals JA Hawkins 31–55 Oxford, UK: Blackwell
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Hofmeister P. 2007. Representational complexity and memory retrieval in language comprehension PhD Thesis Stanford Univ. Stanford, CA:
  68. Hofmeister P. 2011. Representational complexity and memory retrieval in language comprehension. Lang. Cogn. Process. 26:3376–405 https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2010.492642
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  69. Hofmeister P, Casasanto LS, Sag IA. 2012a. Misapplying working-memory tests: a reductio ad absurdum. Language 88:2408–9 https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2012.0033
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  70. Hofmeister P, Casasanto LS, Sag IA 2013. Islands in the grammar? Standards of evidence. Experimental Syntax and Island Effects J Sprouse, N Hornstein 42–63 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Hofmeister P, Sag IA. 2010. Cognitive constraints and island effects. Language 86:2366–415
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Hofmeister P, Staum LC, Sag IA. 2012b. How do individual cognitive differences relate to acceptability judgments? A reply to Sprouse, Wagers, and Phillips. Language 88:2390–400
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Hsiao Y, Gao Y, MacDonald MC. 2014. Agent-patient similarity affects sentence structure in language production: evidence from subject omissions in Mandarin. Front. Psychol. 5:1015 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01015
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  74. Hsu A, Griffiths TL. 2016. Sampling assumptions affect use of indirect negative evidence in language learning. PLOS ONE 11:6e0156597 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0156597
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  75. Huang C-TJ. 1982. Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar PhD Thesis MIT, Cambridge, MA:
  76. Jurafsky D 2003. Probabilistic modeling in psycholinguistics: linguistic comprehension and production. Probabilistic Linguistics R Bod, J Hay, S Jannedy 39–96 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Kehler A. 2002. Coherence, Reference, and the Theory of Grammar Stanford, CA: CSLI Publ.
  78. Keller F. 2000. Gradience in grammar PhD Diss. University of Edinburgh Edinburgh, UK:
  79. Keshev M, Meltzer-Asscher A. 2019. A processing-based account of subliminal wh-island effects. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 37:2621–57
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Kidd E, Lieven EVM, Tomasello M. 2010. Lexical frequency and exemplar-based learning effects in language acquisition: evidence from sentential complements. Lang. Sci. 32:1132–42 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2009.05.002
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  81. King J, Just MA 1991. Individual differences in syntactic processing: the role of working memory. J. Mem. Lang. 30:5580–602 https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(91)90027-H
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  82. Kiparsky P, Kiparsky C 1970. FACT. Progress in Linguistics M Manfred, KE Heidolph 143–173 Berlin: De Gruyter
     [Google Scholar]
  83. Kluender R. 1991. Cognitive constraints on variables in syntax PhD Diss., Univ. Calif. San Diego:
  84. Kluender R 2004. Are subject islands subject to a processing account?. Proceedings of the WCCFL 23 B Schmeiser, V Chand, A Kelleher, A Rodriguez 101–25 Somerville, MA: Cascadilla
     [Google Scholar]
  85. Kluender R, Kutas M. 1993a. Bridging the gap: evidence from ERPs on the processing of unbounded dependencies. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 5:2196–214
     [Google Scholar]
  86. Kluender R, Kutas M. 1993b. Subjacency as a processing phenomenon. Lang. Cogn. Process. 8:573–633
     [Google Scholar]
  87. Koesterich N, Keshev M, Meltzer-Asscher A. 2021. Encoding interference in filler-gap and filler-resumptive dependencies Talk presented at the 34th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing Mar. 4–6 (virtual)
  88. Kothari A 2008. Frequency-based expectations and context influence bridge quality. Proceedings of the Thirty-Eighth Western Conference on Linguistics (WECOL 2008) M Grosvald, D Soares 136–49 Davis: Univ. Calif. Davis, Dep. Linguist.
     [Google Scholar]
  89. Kroch AS. 1998. Amount quantification, referentiality, and long wh-movement. Univ. Pa. Work. Pap. Linguist. 5:221–36
     [Google Scholar]
  90. Kuno S. 1987. Functional Syntax: Anaphora, Discourse and Empathy Chicago/London: Univ. Chicago Press
  91. Kush D, Lohndal T, Sprouse J. 2018. Investigating variation in island effects: a case study of Norwegian wh-extraction. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 36:3743–79 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-017-9390-z
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  92. Kush D, Lohndal T, Sprouse J. 2019. On the island sensitivity of topicalization in Norwegian: an experimental investigation. Language 95:3393–420
     [Google Scholar]
  93. Lakoff G. 1986. Frame semantic control of the Coordinate Structure Constraint. Papers from the 22nd Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society152–67 Chicago: Chicago Linguist. Soc.
     [Google Scholar]
  94. Levine R, Hukari T. 2006. The Unity of Unbounded Dependency Constructions Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  95. Levy R. 2008a. Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition 106:31126–77 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.05.006
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  96. Levy R. 2008b. A noisy-channel model of rational human sentence comprehension under uncertain input. EMNLP '08: Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing234–43 New York: Assoc. Comp. Mach https://doi.org/10.3115/1613715.1613749
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  97. Lewis RL, Vasishth S. 2005. An activation-based model of sentence processing as skilled memory retrieval. Cogn. Sci. 29:375–419
     [Google Scholar]
  98. Lewis RL, Vasishth S, Van Dyke JA. 2006. Computational principles of working memory in sentence comprehension. Trends Cogn. Sci. 10:10447–54 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.08.007
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  99. Liu Y, Ryskin R, Futrell R, Gibson E 2019. Verb frequency explains the unacceptability of factive and manner-of-speaking islands in English. Proceedings of the 41st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society AK Goel, CM Seifert, C Freksa 685–91 Montreal: Cogn. Sci. Soc.
     [Google Scholar]
  100. Liu Y, Ryskin R, Futrell R, Gibson E 2021. A verb-frame frequency account of constraints on long-distance dependencies in English. Cognition In press. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104902
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  101. Lu J, Thompson CK, Yoshida M. 2020. Chinese wh-in-situ and islands: a formal judgment study. Linguist. Inq. 51:3611–23
     [Google Scholar]
  102. McCawley JD. 1981. The syntax and semantics of English relative clauses. Lingua 53:2–399–149 https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(81)90014-0
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  103. McDaniel MA, Dunay PK, Lyman BJ, Kerwin MLE 1988. Effects of elaboration and relational distinctiveness on sentence memory. Am. J. Psychol. 101:3357–69 https://doi.org/10.2307/1423084
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  104. Müller G. 1998. Incomplete Category Fronting: A Derivational Approach to Remnant Movement in German Dordrecht, Neth: Kluwer
  105. Müller S. 2016. Grammatical Theory: From Transformational Grammar to Constraint-Based Approaches Berlin: Lang. Sci. 4th rev. ext, ed..
  106. Navarro DJ, Dry MJ, Lee MD. 2012. Sampling assumptions in inductive generalization. Cogn. Sci. 36:2187–223 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2011.01212.x
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  107. Newmeyer FJ. 1991. Functional explanation in linguistics and the origins of language. Lang. Commun. 11:1–23–28 https://doi.org/10.1016/0271-5309(91)90011-J
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  108. Nishigauchi T. 1990. Quantification in the Theory of Grammar Dordrecht, Neth: Springer
  109. Omaki A, Fukuda S, Nakao C, Polinsky M. 2020. Subextraction in Japanese and subject-object symmetry. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 38:2627–69
     [Google Scholar]
  110. Paape D, Vasishth S, von der Malsburg T. 2020. Quadruplex negatio invertit? The on-line processing of depth charge sentences. J. Semant. 37:4509–55 https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffaa009
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  111. Pearl L, Sprouse J 2013. Syntactic islands and learning biases: combining experimental syntax and computational modeling to investigate the language acquisition problem. Lang. Acquis. 20:123–68
     [Google Scholar]
  112. Pesetsky DM. 2000. Phrasal Movement and Its Kin Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  113. Phillips C. 2006. The real-time status of island phenomena. Language 82:4795–823
     [Google Scholar]
  114. Pollard CJ, Sag IA. 1994. Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar Stanford, CA: Cent. Stud. Lang. Inf.
  115. Pozniak C, Hemforth B. 2015. Processing subject and object relative clauses in French and Mandarin Chinese Poster presented at the 28th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing Los Angeles, CA: Mar. 19–21
    [Google Scholar]
  116. Pritchett BL. 1991. Subjacency in a principle-based parser. Principle-Based Parsing RC Berwick, SP Abney, C Tenny 301–45 Dordrecht, Neth.: Springer https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-3474-3_12
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  117. Reder LM. 1980. The role of elaboration in the comprehension and retention of prose: a critical review. Rev. Educ. Res. 50:15–53 https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543050001005
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  118. Reder LM, Charney DH, Morgan KI. 1986. The role of elaborations in learning a skill from an instructional text. Mem. Cogn. 14:164–78 https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03209230
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  119. Richter S, Chaves R. 2020. Investigating the role of verb frequency in factive and manner-of-speaking islands. Proceedings for the 42nd Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society1771–77 n.p. Cogn. Sci. Soc.
     [Google Scholar]
  120. Rizzi L. 1990. Relativized Minimality Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  121. Rizzi L. 2013. Locality. Lingua 130:169–86 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.12.002
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  122. Rizzi L 2017. Uniqueness of left peripheral focus, “further explanation”, and Int. Order and Structure in Syntax I: Word Order and Syntactic Structure LR Bailey, M Sheehan 333–43 Berlin: Lang. Sci.
     [Google Scholar]
  123. Ross JR. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax PhD Thesis MIT, Cambridge, MA:
  124. Sag IA. 2010. English filler-gap constructions. Language. 863486–545 https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2010.0002
    [Crossref]
  125. Schütze CT, Sprouse J, Caponigro I. 2015. Challenges for a theory of islands: a broader perspective on Ambridge, Pine, and Lieven. Language 91:2e31–39 https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2015.0014
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  126. Shannon CE. 1948. A mathematical theory of communication. Bell. Syst. Tech. J. 27:3379–423
     [Google Scholar]
  127. Simonenko A. 2016. Semantics of DP islands: the case of questions. J. Semant. 32:4661–702
     [Google Scholar]
  128. Snyder W. 1992. Wh-extraction and the lexical representation of verbs Work. Pap. MIT Cambridge, MA:
     [Google Scholar]
  129. Sprouse J. 2007. A program for experimental syntax: finding the relationship between acceptability and grammatical knowledge PhD Thesis Univ. Md. College Park:
  130. Sprouse J, Caponigro I, Greco C, Cecchetto C. 2016. Experimental syntax and the variation of island effects in English and Italian. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 34:1307–44 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-015-9286-8
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  131. Sprouse J, Wagers M, Phillips C. 2012. A test of the relation between working-memory capacity and syntactic island effects. Language 88:182–123 https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2012.0004
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  132. Sprouse J, Schütze CT, Almeida D. 2013. A comparison of informal and formal acceptability judgments using a random sample from Linguistic Inquiry 2001–2010. Lingua 134:219–48
     [Google Scholar]
  133. Stowe LA. 1986. Parsing WH-constructions: evidence for on-line gap location. Lang. Cogn. Process. 1:3227–45 https://doi.org/10.1080/01690968608407062
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  134. Stowell TA. 1981. Origins of phrase structure. PhD Thesis MIT, Cambridge, MA:
     [Google Scholar]
  135. Szabolcsi A, Den Dikken M. 2014. Islands. The Second Glot International State-of-the-Article Book L Cheng, R Sybesma 213–40 Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
     [Google Scholar]
  136. Szabolcsi A, Lohndal T. 2017. Strong versus weak islands. The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax M Everaert, HC van Riemsdijk Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2nd ed.. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom008
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  137. Tollan R, Heller D. 2016. Elvis Presley on an island: wh dependency formation inside complex NPs. Proceedings of the 46th Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS 46) Amherst, MA: Grad. Linguist. Stud. Assoc.
     [Google Scholar]
  138. Tollan R, Palaz B. 2021. The dual nature of subjecthood: unifying subject islands and that-trace effects Talk presented at the 34th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing Mar. 4–6 (virtual)
    [Google Scholar]
  139. Truswell R. 2007. Tense, events, and extraction from adjuncts. Proceedings from the Panels of the Forty-third Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 43 Part 2 233–47 Chicago: Chicago Linguist. Soc.
     [Google Scholar]
  140. Uriagereka J. 2012. Spell-Out and the Minimalist Program Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  141. Van Dyke JA, Lewis RL. 2003. Distinguishing effects of structure and decay on attachment and repair: a cue-based parsing account of recovery from misanalyzed ambiguities. J. Mem. Lang. 49:3285–316 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-596X(03)00081-0
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  142. Van Dyke JA, McElree B. 2006. Retrieval interference in sentence comprehension. J. Mem. Lang. 55:2157–66 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.03.007
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  143. Vasishth S, Lewis RL. 2006. Argument-head distance and processing complexity: explaining both locality and antilocality effects. Language 82:4767–94
     [Google Scholar]
  144. Verhagen A. 2007. Constructions of Intersubjectivity Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199226702.001.0001
    [Crossref]
  145. Villata S, Tabor W, Franck J 2018. Encoding and retrieval interference in sentence comprehension: evidence from agreement. Front. Psychol. 9:2 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00002
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  146. Voorspoels W, Navarro DJ, Perfors A, Ransom K, Storms G 2015. How do people learn from negative evidence? Non-monotonic generalizations and sampling assumptions in inductive reasoning. Cogn. Psychol. 81:1–25 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2015.07.001
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  147. Warren T, Gibson E 2002. The influence of referential processing on sentence complexity. Cognition 85:179–112 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00087-2
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  148. Weskott T, Fanselow G. 2011. On the informativity of different measures of linguistic acceptability. Language 87:2249–73
     [Google Scholar]
  149. Wiseman S, MacLeod CM, Lootsteen PJ. 1985. Picture recognition improves with subsequent verbal information. J. Exp. Psychol.: Learn. Mem. Cogn. 11:3588–95 https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.11.3.588
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  150. Xu F, Tenenbaum JB. 2007. Word learning as Bayesian inference. Psychol. Rev. 114:2245–72 https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.114.2.245
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  151. Yoshida M, Kazanina N, Pablos L, Sturt P 2014. On the origin of islands. Lang. Cogn. Neurosci. 29:7761–70 https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2013.788196
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  152. Zhang Y, Ryskin R, Gibson E. 2021. A noisy-channel explanation for depth-charge illusions Talk presented at Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing (AMLaP) 2021 Paris, Fr.: Sept. 2–4
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011619-030319
Loading
Structural, Functional, and Processing Perspectives on Linguistic Island Effects
Annual Review of Linguistics 8, 495 (2022); https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011619-030319
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011619-030319
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011619-030319
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error