Abstract
This work provides evidence that Subject Island violation effects vanish if subject-embedded gaps are made as frequent and pragmatically felicitous as non-island counterpart controls. We argue that Subject Island effects are caused by the fact that subject-embedded gaps are pragmatically unusual-A s the informational focus does not usually correspond to a dependant of the subject phrase-A nd therefore are highly contrary to comprehenders' expectations about the distribution of filler-gap dependencies (Chaves 2013, Hofmeister, Casasanto & Sag 2013). This not only explains why sentences with subject-embedded gaps often become more acceptable 'parasitically', in the presence of a second gap outside the island, but also explains why some Subject Island violations fail to exhibit any amelioration with repetition (Sprouse 2009, Crawford 2011, Goodall 2011); some ameliorate marginally (Snyder 2000, 2017) or moderately (Hiramatsu 2000, Clausen 2011, Chaves & Dery 2014), and others become fully acceptable, as in our case. This conclusion extends to self-paced reading Subject Island studies (Stowe 1986, Kurtzman & Crawford 1991, Pickering, Barton & Shillcock 1994, Phillips 2006), which sometimes find evidence of gap filling and sometimes do not.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 475-521 |
| Number of pages | 47 |
| Journal | Journal of Linguistics |
| Volume | 55 |
| Issue number | 3 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - Aug 1 2019 |
Keywords
- Experimental syntax
- filler-gap dependencies
- parasitism
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Frequency effects in Subject Islands'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver