Investigating variation in island effects

A case study of Norwegian wh-extraction
Article

Abstract

We present a series of large-scale formal acceptability judgment studies that explored Norwegian island phenomena in order to follow up on previous observations that speakers of Mainland Scandinavian languages like Norwegian accept violations of certain island constraints that are unacceptable in most languages cross-linguistically. We tested the acceptability of wh-extraction from five island types: whether-, complex NP, subject, adjunct, and relative clause (RC) islands. We found clear evidence of subject and adjunct island effects on wh-extraction. We failed to find evidence that Norwegians accept wh-extraction out of complex NPs and RCs. Our participants judged wh-extraction from complex NPs and RCs to be just as unacceptable as subject and adjunct island violations. The pattern of effects in Norwegian paralleled island effects that recent experimental work has documented in other languages like English and Italian (Sprouse et al. 2012, 2016). Norwegian judgments consistently differed from prior findings for one island type: whether-islands. Our results reveal that Norwegians exhibit significant inter-individual variation in their sensitivity to whether-island effects, with many participants exhibiting no sensitivity to whether-island violations whatsoever. We discuss the implications of our findings for universalist approaches to island constraints. We also suggest ways of reconciling our results with previous observations, and offer a systematic experimental framework in which future research can investigate factors that govern apparent island insensitivity.

Keywords

Island effects Norwegian Experimental syntax wh-movement Cross-linguistic variation Scandinavian 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported, in part, by NIH NRSA grant 5F32HD080331 to DK and NSF grants BCS-0843896 and BCS-1347115 to JS. The authors wish to thank Caroline Heycock and three anonymous reviewers for feedback that helped us improve the paper. Versions of this work were presented at a variety of venues, including the 2015 LSA conference, NTNU, UCONN, and UMASS, where audiences provided insightful discussion. We thank Alex Drummond for creating and maintaining the IbexFarm platform. Susanna Brock, Filippa Lindahl, Ragnhild Eik, and Maria Boer Johannessen provided assistance with the materials, logistical support and helpful comments.

Supplementary material

11049_2017_9390_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (107 kb)
Supplementary Materials

References

  1. Abels, Klaus. 2012. The Italian left periphery: A view from locality. Linguistic Inquiry 43: 229–254. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adams, Marianne. 1985. Government of empty subjects in factive clausal complements. Linguistic Inquiry 16: 305–313. Google Scholar
  3. Åfarli, Tor A., and Kristin Melum Eide. 2003. Norsk generative syntaks. Ismaning: Novus-Verlag. Google Scholar
  4. Allwood, Jens. 1982. The complex NP constraint in Swedish. In Readings on unbounded dependencies in Scandinavian languages, eds. Elisabet Engdahl and Eva Ejerhed, 15–32. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell International. Google Scholar
  5. Andersson, Lars-Gunnar. 1982. What is Swedish an exception to? Extractions and island constraints. In Readings on unbounded dependencies in Scandinavian languages, eds. Elisabet Engdahl and Eva Ejerhed, 33–45. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell International. Google Scholar
  6. Beck, Sigrid 1996. Quantified structures as barriers for LF movement. Natural Language Semantics 4: 1–56. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beck, Sigrid, and Shin-Sook Kim. 1997. On wh- and operator scope in Korean. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 6: 339–384. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bobaljik, Jonathan D., and Susie Wurmbrand. 2005. The domain of agreement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23: 809–865. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boeckx, Cedric. 2008. Islands Language and Linguistics Compass 2: 151–167. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chomsky, Noam. 1964. Current issues in linguistic theory. Mouton: The Hague. Google Scholar
  11. Chomsky, Noam. 1973. Conditions on transformations. In A festschrift for Morris Halle, eds. Stephen Andersen and Paul Kiparsky, 232–286. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Google Scholar
  12. Chomsky, Noam. 1977. On wh-movement. In Formal syntax. eds. Peter Culicover, Thomas Wasow, and Adrian Akmajian, 71–132. New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar
  13. Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  14. Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. Michael Kenstowicz, 1–52. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  15. Christensen, Kirsti Koch. 1982. On multiple filler-gap constructions in Norwegian. In Readings on unbounded dependencies in Scandinavian languages, eds. Elisabet Engdahl and Eva Ejerhed, 77–98. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell International. Google Scholar
  16. Christensen, Ken Ramshøj, and Anne Mette Nyvad. 2014. On the nature of escapable relative islands. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 37: 29–45. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Christensen, Ken Ramshøj, Johannes Kizach, and Anne Mette Nyvad. 2012. Escape from the island: Grammaticality and (reduced) acceptability of wh-island violations in Danish. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 42: 51–70. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1989. On the scope of ‘long’ and ‘successive’ cylic movement. Paper presented at the Second Princeton Workshop on Comparative Grammar, Princeton. Google Scholar
  19. Cole, Peter, and Gabriella Hermon. 1994. Is there LF WH movement? Linguistic Inquiry 25: 239–262. Google Scholar
  20. Cresti, Diana. 1995. Extraction and reconstruction. Natural Language Semantics 3: 79–122. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Deane, Paul. 1991. Limits to attention: A cognitive theory of island phenomena. Cognitive Linguistics 2: 1–63. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. den Dikken, Marcel. 2007. Phase extension: Contours of a theory of the role of head movement in phrasal extraction. Theoretical Linguistics 33: 1–41. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Drummond, Alex. 2012. IbexFarm (Version 0.3.7) [Software]. Available at http://spellout.net/ibexfarm. Accessed 1 November 2017.
  24. Engdahl, Elisabet. 1982. Restrictions on unbounded dependencies in Swedish. In Readings on unbounded dependencies in Scandinavian languages, eds. Elisabet Engdahl and Eva Ejerhed, 151–174. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell International. Google Scholar
  25. Engdahl, Elisabet. 1983. Parasitic gaps. Linguistic Inquiry 6: 5–34. Google Scholar
  26. Engdahl, Elisabet. 1997. Relative clause extractions in context. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 60: 51–79. Google Scholar
  27. Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 1973. On the nature of island constraints. Doctoral dissertation, Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Google Scholar
  28. Fanselow, Gisbert. 2001. Features, Θ-roles, and free constituent order. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 405–437. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Featherston, Sam. 2005. Magnitude estimation and what it can do for your syntax: Some wh constraints in German. Lingua 115: 1525–1550. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gallego, Ángel J. 2010. Phase theory and phase sliding. In Phase theory, ed. Ángel J. Gallego, 51–142. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Goodall, Grant. 2015. The D-linking effect on extraction from islands and non-islands. Frontiers in Psychology 5: 1493. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Grewendorf, Günther. 1988. Aspekte der deutschen Syntax. Tübingen: Narr. Google Scholar
  33. Haider, Hubert. 1993. Deutsche Syntax: Generativ. Tübingen: Narr. Google Scholar
  34. Han, Chung-hye, and Jong-Bok Kim. 2004. Are there “double relative clauses” in Korean? Linguistic Inquiry 35: 315–337. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hofmeister, Philip, and Ivan Sag. 2010. Cognitive constraints and island effects. Language 86: 366–415. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hoshi, Koji. 2004. Parameterization of the external D-system in relativization. Language, Culture, and Communication 33: 1–50. Google Scholar
  37. Huang, C. T. James. 1982. Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. PhD diss., MIT. Google Scholar
  38. Ishizuka, Tomoko. 2009. CNPC violations and possessor raising in Japanese. Ms., UCLA. Google Scholar
  39. Jurka, Johannes. 2010. The importance of being a complement: CED effects revisited. PhD diss., University of Maryland. Google Scholar
  40. Kayne, Richard S. 1981. ECP extensions. Linguistic Inquiry 12: 93–133. Google Scholar
  41. Keller, Frank. 2000. Gradience in grammar: Experimental and computational aspects of degrees of grammaticality. PhD diss., University of Edinburgh. Google Scholar
  42. Kiss, Katalin É. 1993. Wh-movement and specificity. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 11: 85–120. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kluender, Robert, and Marta Kutas. 1993. Subjacency as a processing phenomenon. Language and Cognitive Processes 8: 573–633. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kush, Dave, Akira Omaki, and Norbert Hornstein. 2013. Microvariation in islands? In Experimental syntax and island effects, eds. Jon Sprouse and Norbert Hornstein, 239–264. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lasnik, Howard, and Mamoru Saito. 1992. Move alpha. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  46. Lasnik, Howard, and Timothy Stowell. 1991. Weakest crossover. Linguistic Inquiry 22: 687–720. Google Scholar
  47. Lindahl, Filippa. 2014. Relative clauses are not always strong islands. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 93: 1–25. Google Scholar
  48. Lindahl, Filippa. 2017. Extraction from relative clauses in Swedish. Doctoral dissertation, Gothenburg, Sweden: University of Gothenburg. Google Scholar
  49. Lødrup, Helge. 2004. Clausal complementation in Norwegian. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 27(1): 61–95. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lutz, Uli. 1996. Some notes on extraction theory. In On extraction and extraposition in German, eds. Uli Lutz and Jürgen Pafel, 1–44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Maling, Joan, and Annie Zaenen. 1982. A phrase-structure account of Scandinavian extraction phenomena. In The nature of syntactic representation, eds. Pauline Jacobson and Geoffrey K. Pullum, 229–282. Dordrecht: Reidel. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Manzini, Rita. 1992. Locality: A theory and some of its empirical consequences. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  53. Maxwell, Scott E., and Harold D. Delaney. 2003. Designing experiments and analyzing data: A model comparison perspective. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Google Scholar
  54. Michel, Daniel. 2014. Individual cognitive measures and working memory accounts of syntactic island phenomena. PhD diss., University of California, San Diego. Google Scholar
  55. Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2004. The nature of weak islands. Ms., MIT. Google Scholar
  56. Müller, Gereon. 1991. Beschränkungen für W-in-situ. Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik 34: 106–154. Google Scholar
  57. Nunes, Jairo, and Juan Uriagereka. 2000. Cyclicity and extraction domains. Syntax 3: 20–43. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Pesetsky, David. 1987. Wh-In-situ: movement and unselective binding. In The representation of (in)definiteness, eds. Eric Reuland and Alice ter Meulen, 98–129. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  59. Phillips, Colin. 2006. The real-time status of island constraints. Language 82: 795–823. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Phillips, Colin. 2013a. On the nature of island constraints 1: Language processing and reductionist accounts. In Experimental syntax and island effects, eds. Jon Sprouse and Norbert Hornstein, 64–108. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Phillips, Colin. 2013b. On the nature of island constraints 2: Language learning and innateness. In Experimental syntax and island effects, eds. Jon Sprouse and Norbert Hornstein, 132–157. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Platzack, Christer. 2000. A complement-of-N0 account of restrictive and non-restrictive relatives. In The syntax of relative clauses, eds. Artemis Alexiadou, Paul Law, André Meinunger, and Chris Wilder, 265–308. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Reinhart, Tanya. 1981. A second COMP position. In Theory of markedness in generative grammar, ed. Adriana Belletti, 518–557. Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore. Google Scholar
  64. Richards, Norvin. 2001. Movement in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  65. Rizzi, Luigi. 1982. Issues in Italian syntax. Dordrecht: Foris. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. Relativized minimality. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  67. Rizzi, Lugi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of grammar, ed. Liliane Haegeman, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Rizzi, Luigi. 2004. Locality and left periphery. In Structures and beyond, ed. Adriana Belletti, 223–251. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  69. Rizzi, Luigi. 2013. Locality. Lingua 130: 169–186. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Ross, John Robert. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. PhD diss., MIT. [Published 1986 as Infinite syntax! Norwood: Ablex.] Google Scholar
  71. Ross, John R. 1984. Inner islands. In Proceedings of the tenth annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society, eds. C. Brugmann and M. Macaulay. Google Scholar
  72. Rouveret, Alain. 1980. Sur la notion de proposition finie: gouvernement et inversion. Langages 60: 61–88. Google Scholar
  73. Rudin, Catherine. 1988. On multiple wh-questions and multiple wh-fronting. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6: 445–601. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Sprouse, Jon. 2007. A program for experimental syntax: Finding the relationship between acceptability and grammatical knowledge. PhD diss., University of Maryland. Google Scholar
  75. Sprouse, Jon 2008. The differential sensitivity of acceptability to processing effects. Linguistic Inquiry 39, 686–694. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Sprouse, Jon, Shin Fukuda, Hajime Ono, and Robert Kluender. 2011. Reverse island effects and the backward search for a licensor in multiple wh-questions. Syntax 14: 179–203. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Sprouse, Jon, Matt Wagers, and Colin Phillips. 2012. A test of the relation between working memory and syntactic island effects. Language 88: 82–124. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Sprouse, Jon, Ivano Caponigro, Ciro Greco, and Carlo Cecchetto. 2016. Experimental syntax and the variation of island effects in English and Italian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 34: 307–344. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Starke, Michal. 2001. Move dissolves into merge: A theory of locality. PhD diss., University of Geneva. Google Scholar
  80. de Swart, Henriëtte 1992. Intervention effects, monotonicity and scope. In SALT II: Proceedings of the second conference on semantics and linguistic theory, eds. C. Barker and D. Dowty, 387–406. Columbus: The Ohio State University. Google Scholar
  81. Stepanov, Arthur 2007. The end of CED? Minimalism and extraction domains. Syntax 10: 80–126. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Szabolcsi, Anna, and Frans Zwarts. 1993. Weak islands and an algebraic semantics of scope taking. Natural Language Semantics 1: 235–284. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Taraldsen, Knut Tarald. 1982. Extraction from relative clauses in Norwegian. In Readings on unbounded dependencies in Scandinavian languages, eds. Elisabet Engdahl and Eva Ejerhed, 205–221. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell International. Google Scholar
  84. Uriagereka, Juan. 1999. Multiple spell-out. In Working minimalism, eds. Samuel David Epstein and Norbert Hornstein, 251–282. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  85. Yoshida, Masaya, Nina Kazanina, Leticia Pablos, and Patrick Sturt. 2014. On the origin of islands. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 29: 761–770. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Villata, Sandra, Luigi Rizzi, and Julie Franck. 2016. Intervention effects and relativized minimality: New experimental evidence from graded judgments. Lingua 179: 76–96. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa. 1982. Theoretical implications of subject extraction in Portuguese. The Linguistic Review 2: 79–96. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Language and LiteratureNTNU: Norwegian University of Science and TechnologyTrondheimNorway
  2. 2.NTNU: Norwegian University of Science and Technology, UiT: The Arctic University of NorwayTromsøNorway
  3. 3.University of ConnecticutStorrsUSA

Personalised recommendations