New York: Academic Press. A seminal work that shows common features of A-bar movement, and lends further support to the view that all overt movements are bounded and respect Subjacency. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Foris. Before this work, separate movement rules were proposed for different types of target constituents e.
Whether each movement is grammatical or not is determined by independently motivated principles e. This book proposes a novel explanation of bounding nodes; it is argued that bounding nodes are not fixed representational units, but rather can be derivationally created in the course of syntactic computation. The Minimalist Program. This work presents an extensive study of the derivational model of transformational syntax, in which movement operations are driven by the requirement to check formal features that would otherwise be uninterpretable at the PF or LF interfaces.
Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language. Edited by M. Kenstowicz, 1— This paper discusses in detail how syntactic derivation proceeds in a series of smaller computational domains called phases. The phase system resembles some of the core features of barriers in Chomsky Ross, J. Constraints on variables in syntax. The first extensive study on the constraints on movement operations and variables in transformation rules.
This work inspired subsequent works on many major topics on movement, such as island constraints, pied piping, resumption, rightward movement, and scrambling. Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content on this page.
It also predicts that the magnitude of degradation should not differ between the two identity island conditions. Third, the inclusion configuration should yield an amelioration of wh -island violations. Thus, the inclusion condition should yield a degradation compared to its non-island counterpart due to a wh -island violation, but the resulting acceptability should still be higher than the island identity conditions.
Finally, the reverse inclusion configuration and its non-island counterpart are included in the design to test all combinations of the three factors we used in this experiment. The feature set taxonomy of Featural RM see Table 1 does not make explicit predictions for these conditions; however, given that Rizzi and colleagues generally attribute the amelioration effects to the superset-subset relation of feature set between the fronted wh -phrase and intervener, we can infer the predictions of Featural RM to be that the acceptability of the reverse inclusion configuration should be similar to that of the two island identity conditions, and lower than the acceptability of the inclusion condition.
These 24 items were counter-balanced across eight lists, so that each participant saw only one version of a target item. Forty-eight filler items of comparable length and varying acceptability were randomly interspersed with these target items.
This experiment used the same procedure and data analysis steps as Experiment 1. In the statistical analysis, we added planned pairwise comparisons for the island version of the bare identity, inclusion, and D-linked identity conditions, as the comparison of these three conditions is critical for establishing the amelioration of wh -island violations that are predicted by Featural RM.
The other non-island conditions were judged similarly with mean z -score ratings around zero means The remaining three extraction conditions received similar ratings means Mean z -score acceptability rating in Experiment 2. The Linear Mixed Effect model analysis confirmed that the overall pattern is consistent with Experiment 1. Table 5 presents the estimated coefficients, the standard error, and the estimated p -value for the Linear Mixed Effect model with islandhood, feature relation, and matrix wh -phrase as fixed effects and random intercepts for participants and items.
TABLE 5. Fixed effects summary for Experiment 2 with by-participant and by-item random intercepts for islandhood, feature relation, and matrix wh -phrase type. As in Experiment 1, there was a main effect of islandhood, but there was no main effect of either feature relation or matrix wh -phrase. Importantly, there was an interaction of islandhood and feature relation as well as feature relation and matrix wh -phrase, which suggests that the feature relation factor modulates the effects of islandhood or matrix wh -phrase type on the acceptability. This suggests that the D-linking amelioration effect was not observed for the inclusion configuration.
This pattern suggests that the D-linked identity condition showed a reliable amelioration of wh -island violations. Replicating the findings from Experiment 1, wh -island violations with D-linked identity received a reliably higher acceptability rating than bare identity or inclusion configurations. Furthermore, there was no clear evidence for amelioration of the wh -island violation in the inclusion condition.
This selective wh -island amelioration effect is, again, not easily explained by Featural RM, which predicts that the inclusion configuration should be rated as more acceptable than bare or D-linked identity conditions. Finally, the finding that inclusion and reverse inclusion do not differ in acceptability also conflicts with the predictions of Featural RM. The absence of an amelioration effect in the inclusion condition was surprising, given that amelioration effects in the inclusion configuration have been widely reported in the literature Pesetsky, ; Cinque, ; Alexopoulou and Keller, ; Goodall, Experiment 3 explores whether the animacy of wh -phrases may play a role in amelioration of wh -island violations.
Experiment 2 provided no evidence for wh -island amelioration in the inclusion configuration. One plausible source of this unexpected finding is the number of animate nouns in the stimuli. Examples for wh -island amelioration in the literature typically included a single animate wh -phrase 5a , whereas the stimuli used in Experiment 2 5b included two animate wh -phrases.
Pesetsky, It is plausible that having two animate wh -phrases makes them less distinct from one another, which may have increased confusability or processing demands in our stimuli.
As discussed above, this is predicted by the similarity-based interference approach. In order to address this question, Experiment 3 replaces the animate wh -phrase [e. Thirty-one self-reported native English speakers participated via Amazon Mechanical Turk. The non-island conditions were identical to those in Experiment 2, where the matrix wh -phrase was animate. In the new island conditions, on the other hand, the fronted wh -phrase was changed from an animate to an inanimate noun e.
Because the animacy of the fronted NP has changed, what replaces who as the bare matrix wh -word in the bare identity and reverse inclusion conditions i. The 24 items were counter-balanced across eight lists, such that each participant saw only one version of each. Forty-eight filler items of comparable length and varying acceptability were randomly interspersed with these target items for a total of 72 items. The acceptability judgment pattern in this experiment Figure 3 resembles that of Experiment 2, as the D-linked identity condition received the highest rating among the extraction conditions Mean z -score acceptability rating in Experiment 3.
These data were submitted to Linear Mixed Effect model analyses, which used islandhood, feature relation, and matrix wh -phrase as fixed effects and random intercepts for participants and items. The coefficient estimates, standard error, and estimated p -values are presented in Table 7. TABLE 7. Fixed effects summary for Experiment 3 with by-participant and by-item random intercepts for extraction type, feature relation, and matrix wh -phrase type. Also, all three of the pairwise interactions are significant: islandhood and feature relation, islandhood and matrix wh -phrase, and feature relation and matrix wh -phrase.
This suggests that all of these factors influence acceptability, even though the three-way interaction is not significant. Next, following the data analysis procedure in Experiment 2, planned pairwise comparisons of the island conditions were conducted in order to examine the precise distribution of the amelioration effect. Once again, this experiment found that the D-linked identity condition was more acceptable than the other island conditions.
Also, the reverse inclusion conditions patterned with the inclusion conditions. Unlike Experiment 2, however, we found evidence for wh -island amelioration in the inclusion configuration, as the inclusion island condition was judged as more acceptable than the bare identity island condition.rochecorin.tk
Join Kobo & start eReading today
The fact that this effect was only found in Experiment 3 could be taken to suggest that the animacy manipulation plays a critical role in its emergence. However, there are reasons to be cautious of this interpretation. In Experiment 3, island and animacy factors were confounded as the fronted wh -phrases were always inanimate in the island conditions. This design does not allow a direct comparison of wh -island violations with fronted animate wh -phrases to those with inanimate ones. Experiment 4 explores this issue by manipulating animacy within the island conditions. This experiment manipulates animacy and feature relation as in Table 8 , in order to investigate whether wh -island amelioration in inclusion configurations is directly conditioned by the animacy of the fronted wh -phrase.
Read e-book Syntactic Islands (Key Topics in Syntax)
This allowed us to investigate the extent to which animacy contributed to wh-island amelioration effects. Given the results of Experiment 3, we predicted that the contrast between the inclusion and bare identity conditions should only appear in conditions with an inanimate wh -phrase. Twenty-nine self-reported native English speakers participated via Amazon Mechanical Turk. These items were largely based on stimuli from the previous experiments.
The 24 test items were counter-balanced across four lists, such that each participant only rated a single item from each set.
Related Syntactic Islands (Key Topics in Syntax)
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved