Limits on semantic prediction in the processing of extraction from adjunct clauses

Processing filler-gap dependencies (‘extraction’) depends on complex top-down predictions. This is observed in comprehenders’ ability to avoid resolving filler-gap dependencies in syntactic island contexts, and in the immediate sensitivity to the plausibility of the resulting interpretation. How complex can these predictions be? In this paper, we examine the processing of extraction from adjunct clauses. Adjunct clauses are argued to be syntactic islands, however, extraction is permitted if the adjunct clause and main clause satisfy specific compositional and conceptual semantic criteria. In an acceptability judgment task, we found that this generalization is robust. Additionally, our results show that this is a property specific to adjunct clauses by comparing adjunct clauses to conjunct VPs, which are similarly argued to permit extraction depending on semantic factors. However, in an A-Maze task, we found no evidence that this knowledge is deployed in real-time sentence processing. Instead, we found that comprehenders attempted to resolve a filler-gap dependency in an adjunct clause regardless of its island status. We propose that this is because deploying this linguistic constraint depends on a second-order serial search over event schemata, which is likely costly and time-consuming. Thus, comprehenders opt for a riskier strategy and attempt resolution into adjunct clauses categorically.

Spanish embedded question island effects revisited: an experimental study

It is often reported that embedded questions (EQs) are not syntactic islands in Spanish. However, some authors have observed that the acceptability of filler-gap dependencies (FGDs) into Spanish EQs varies with the EQ-embedding verb: FGDs into EQs under responsive verbs (e.g., know) do not result in island effects, but FGDs into EQs under rogative verbs (e.g., ask) do yield island effects. One account attributes the contrast to a structural difference between the two EQs, due to which ask-EQs violate Bounding constraints, but know-EQs do not. In two acceptability studies we investigated the reliability of verb-dependent island effects in EQs introduced by si ‘whether’ and cuándo ‘when’. We found no qualitative acceptability differences between ask and know EQ-island sentences, suggesting that the syntactic islandhood of Spanish EQs is not verb-dependent. Nevertheless, average island effects were numerically greater with ask, suggesting the presence of a non-syntactic constraint. In addition, FGDs into whether-EQs were generally acceptable, whereas FGDs into when-EQs obtained unacceptable average ratings and highly variable judgments. We argue that in neither case there is a Bounding constraint violation. Instead we explore alternative potential explanations for the differences in terms of features, presuppositions and processing pressures.

Against Tanglewood by Focus Movement: A Reply to Erlewine and Kotek 2018

We reply to Erlewine and Kotek’s (2018) claim that the phenomenon of covariation under focus ( Tanglewood sentences; Kratzer 1991 ) is subject to syntactic islands and that it should therefore be handled by a focus movement theory (contra Kratzer’s view). We present novel data that are at odds with Erlewine and Kotek’s conclusions and demonstrate the necessity of an island-insensitive mechanism to capture focus covariation. We revisit Erlewine and Kotek’s main arguments against such a system and show that they are systematically confounded. Moreover, removing the confounds cancels the force of the arguments, corroborating the central point of this article.

Neg-raising

Neg-raising is “the strong tendency in many languages to attract to the main verb a negative which should logically belong to the dependent nexus [=clause]”: a speaker uttering I don’t believe that p is typically taken to have conveyed ‘I believe that not-p’. Such lower-clause understandings of higher-clause negations are possible across certain predicates (believe, think, want) but not others (realize, regret, deny) in English and other languages. Grammatical theories of Neg-raising posit a movement rule based on evidence from the interaction of higher negation with strict negative polarity items, negative inversion, negative parentheticals, and syntactic islands. Semantic and pragmatic approaches cite the relation of Neg-raising to other processes involving contrary negation in contradictory form, the availability of excluded middle presuppositions (I believe that p v I believe that not-p), the Neg-first conspiracy, and the role of politeness or euphemism in motivating Neg-raising.

Anomaly detection in the processing of complex syntax by early L2 learners

This study investigates the processing of long-distance syntactic dependencies by native speakers of Slovenian (L1) who are advanced learners of Italian as a second language (L2), compared with monolingual Italian speakers. Using a self-paced reading task, we compare sensitivity of the early-acquired L2 learners to syntactic anomalies in their L2 in two empirical domains: (1) syntactic islands, for which the learners’ L1 and L2 grammars provide a converging characterization, and (2) verb–clitic constructions, for which the respective L1 and L2 grammatical descriptions diverge. We find that although our L2 learners show native-like processing patterns in the former, converging, grammatical domain, they may nevertheless perform non-native-like with respect to syntactic phenomena in which the L1 and L2 grammars do not align, despite the early age of L2 acquisition. Implications for theories of L2 acquisition and endstate are discussed.

Focus Association by Movement: Evidence from Tanglewood

We argue for the existence of covert focus movement in English focus association with only. Our evidence comes from Tanglewood configurations of the form in Kratzer 1991 . We show that Tanglewood configurations are sensitive to syntactic islands, contrary to Kratzer’s claims and predictions. We propose that Tanglewood configurations always involve covert movement of the focused constituent—possibly with covert pied-piping—to bind a bound variable in the ellipsis site. This availability of covert pied-piping explains examples such as Kratzer’s where the Tanglewood construction appears to be island-insensitive. We show that covert focus movement is long-distance and not simply Quantifier Raising. Kratzer’s proposal that ellipsis enforces the identity of focus indices and several other previous approaches are shown to overgenerate Tanglewood readings.

Tanglewood Untangled

We argue for the existence of covert focus movement in English focus association. Our evidence comes from Tanglewood configurations of the form in Kratzer 1991. We show that Tanglewood configurations are sensitive to syntactic islands, contrary to Kratzer’s claims and predictions. We propose that Tanglewood configurations always involve covert movement of the focused constituent—possibly with covert pied-piping (Drubig 1994; Krifka 1996, 2006; Tancredi 1997, 2004; Wagner 2006; Erlewine & Kotek 2014)—to bind a bound variable in the ellipsis site. This availability of covert pied-piping explains examples such as Kratzer’s which are apparently not island-sensitive. We show that covert focus movement is long-distance and not simply QR. Kratzer’s proposal that ellipsis enforces the identity of focus indices is shown to overgenerate Tanglewood readings.

Topic extraction from adverbial clauses

This paper offers new data to support findings about Topic extraction from adverbial clauses. Since such clauses are strong islands, they should not allow extraction of any kind, but we show here that if the appropriate conditions are met, Topics of the CLLD kind in Romance can move out of them. We propose that two conditions must be met for such movement to be possible: the first is that the adverbial clause must have undergone topicalisation in the first place; the second is that the adverbial clause is inherently topical from a semantic viewpoint. Contrast with other language families (Germanic, Quechua and Japanese) is provided and the semantic implications of the proposal are briefly discussed.Keywords: topicalisation; Clitic Left Dislocation; syntactic islands; adverbial clausesEste artículo ofrece nuevos datos sobre la extracción de Tópicos desde oraciones subordinadas adverbiales. Dado que dichas oraciones son islas fuertes, no deberían permitir extracción de ningún tipo, pero mostramos que si se dan las condiciones apropiadas, los Tópicos del tipo CLLD en lenguas románicas pueden desplazarse fuera de ellas. Proponemos que se deben cumplir dos condiciones para que ese movimiento sea posible: la primera es que la propia subordinada adverbial se haya topicalizado en primer lugar; la segunda es que la subordinada adverbial sea inherentemente un Tópico desde el punto de vista semántico. Proporcionamos también algunos contrastes con otras familias lingüísticas (germánica, quechua y japonés) y se discuten brevemente las implicaciones semánticas de la propuesta.Palabras clave: topicalización; dislocación a la izquierda con clítico; islas sintácticas; oraciones adverbiales