Cognitive constraints and island effects

Competence-based theories of island effects play a central role in generative grammar, yet the graded nature of many syntactic islands has never been properly accounted for. Categorical syntactic accounts of island effects have persisted in spite of a wealth of data suggesting that island effects are not categorical in nature and that nonstructural manipulations that leave island structures intact can radically alter judgments of island violations. We argue here, building on work by Paul Deane, Robert Kluender, and others, that processing factors have the potential to account for this otherwise unexplained variation in acceptability judgments. We report the results of self-paced reading experiments and controlled acceptability studies that explore the relationship between processing costs and judgments of acceptability. In each of the three self-paced reading studies, the data indicate that the processing cost of different types of island violations can be significantly reduced to a degree comparable to that of nonisland filler-gap constructions by manipulating a single nonstructural factor. Moreover, this reduction in processing cost is accompanied by significant improvements in acceptability. This evidence favors the hypothesis that island-violating constructions involve numerous processing pressures that aggregate to drive processing difficulty above a threshold, resulting in unacceptability. We examine the implications of these findings for the grammar of filler-gap dependencies

Understanding acceptability judgments: Additivity and working memory effects

Linguists build theories of grammar based largely on acceptability contrasts. But these contrasts can reflect grammatical constraints and/or constraints on language processing. How can theorists determine the extent to which the acceptability of an utterance depends on functional constraints? In a series of acceptability experiments, we consider two factors that might indicate processing contributions to acceptability contrasts: (1) the way constraints combine (i.e., additively or super-additively), and (2) the way a comprehender’s working memory resources influence acceptability judgments. Results suggest that multiple sources of processing difficulty combine to produce super-additive effects, but multiple grammatical violations do not. Furthermore, when acceptability judgments improve with higher working memory scores, this appears to be due to functional constraints. We conclude that tests of (super)-additivity and of differences in working memory can help to identify the effects of processing difficulty (due to functional constraints)

Islands in the grammar? Standards of evidence

When considering how a complex system operates, the observable behavior depends upon both architectural properties of the system and the principles governing its operation. As a simple example, the behavior of computer chess programs depends upon both the processing speed and resources of the computer and the programmed rules that determine how the computer selects its next move. Despite having very similar search techniques, a computer from the 1990s might make a move that its 1970s forerunner would overlook simply because it had more raw computational power. From the naïve observer’s perspective, however, it is not superficially evident if a particular move is dispreferred or overlooked because of computational limitations or the search strategy and decision algorithm. In the case of computers, evidence for the source of any particular behavior can ultimately be found by inspecting the code and tracking the decision process of the computer. But with the human mind, such options are not yet available. The preference for certain behaviors and the dispreference for others may theoretically follow from cognitive limitations or from task-related principles that preclude certain kinds of cognitive operations, or from some combination of the two. This uncertainty gives rise to the fundamental problem of finding evidence for one explanation over the other. Such a problem arises in the analysis of syntactic island effects – the focu

How do individual cognitive differences relate to acceptability judgments?: A reply to Sprouse, Wagers, and Phillips

Sprouse, Wagers, and Phillips (2012) carried out two experiments in which they measured individual differences in memory to test processing accounts of island effects. They found that these individual differences failed to predict the magnitude of island effects, and they construe these findings as counterevidence to processing-based accounts of island effects. Here, we take up several problems with their methods, their findings, and their conclusions. First, the arguments against processing accounts are based on null results using tasks that may be ineffective or inappropriate measures of working memory (the n-back and serial-recall tasks). The authors provide no evidence that these two measures predict judgments for other constructions that are difficult to process and yet are clearly grammatical. They assume that other measures of working memory would have yielded the same result, but provide no justification that they should. We further show that whether a working-memory measure relates to judgments of grammatical, hard-to-process sentences depends on how difficult the sentences are. In this light, the stimuli used by the authors present processing difficulties other than the island violations under investigation and may have been particularly hard to process. Second, the Sprouse et al. results are statistically in line with the hypothesis that island sensitivity varies with working memory. Three out of the four island types in their experiment 1 show a significant relation between memory scores and island sensitivity, but the authors discount these findings on the grounds that the variance accounted for is too small to have much import. This interpretation, however, runs counter to standard practices in linguistics, psycholinguistics, and psychology

Une analyse lexicaliste des affixes pronominaux en français

Cet article considère comme acquis que les pronoms faibles du français sont des affixes flexionnels morphologiquement attachés à une base verbale et introduit le terme affixe pronominal pour les désigner. Nous proposons une analyse syntaxique strictement lexicaliste, dans le cadre HPSG, des formes verbales fléchies pour des affixes pronominaux objets. Cette analyse explique les propriétés spécifiques de ces formes verbales au niveau de la syntaxe de la phrase, notamment (i) l’impossibilité d’un complément plein si la forme verbale est fléchie pour l’affixe correspondant; (ii) le phénomène des affixes pronominaux « non locaux », c’est-à-dire les cas où les affixes pronominaux n’apparaissent pas sur la base verbale dont ils sont des arguments sémantiques; (iii) les corrélations entre la syntaxe des dépendances qu- et des affixes pronominaux, notamment au niveau du flottement des quantificateurs. Nous faisons crucialement appel à une forme de composition de fonctions, qui permet à une tête exigeant normalement un complément saturé de se combiner avec un complément non saturé et avec les compléments exigés par celui-ci.This paper takes as its premise the idea that French weak pronouns are in fact morphologically attached inflectional affixes, and introduces the term pronominal affix for them. We propose a strictly lexicalist syntactic analysis for verbs inflected for object pronominal affixes, couched in the framework of HPSG. This analysis explains the special syntactic properties of these verb forms, especially (i) the impossibility of a full complement in the presence of the corresponding affix on the verb; (ii) the phenomenon of "non local" pronominal affixes, i.e. cases where the affixes do not appear on the verb of which they are semantic arguments; (iii) the correlations between the syntax of wh- dependencies and that of pronominal affixes specifically with respect to quantifier floating. We crucially rely on a form of function composition that allows a head which normally requires a saturated complement to combine with a non-saturated complemement and with those complements which the latter normally requires

Processing effects in linguistic judgment data: (super-)additivity and reading span scores

abstractLinguistic acceptability judgments are widely agreed to reflect constraints on real-time language processing. Nonetheless, very little is known about how processing costs affect acceptability judgments. In this paper, we explore how processing limitations are manifested in acceptability judgment data. In a series of experiments, we consider how two factors relate to judgments for sentences with varying degrees of complexity: (1) the way constraints combine (i.e., additively or super-additively), and (2) the way a comprehender’s memory resources influence acceptability judgments. Results indicate that multiple sources of processing difficulty can combine to produce super-additive effects, and that there is a positive linear relationship between reading span scores and judgments for sentences whose unacceptability is attributable to processing costs. These patterns do not hold for sentences whose unacceptability is attributable to factors other than processing costs, e.g., grammatical constraints. We conclude that tests of (super)-additivity and of relationships to reading span scores can help to identify the effects of processing difficulty on acceptability judgments, although these tests cannot be used in contexts of extreme processing difficulty.</jats:p

Locality and Accessibility in Wh-Questions

Even in relatively configurational languages, such as English, speakers frequently have a choice between different constituent orders. Many of these word order variations have been linked to complexity (Hawkins 2005; inter alia). For example, heavy-NP shift is more likely if the shifted NP is more complex than the NP it shifts over (Wasow 1997). Other cases of word order variations, however, have not been considered in these terms. The choice between different wh-phrase orders, as in (1), has been said to be determined by (categorical) grammatical constraints, such as Superiorit