Search

In parasitic gap constructions an illicit gap inside a syntactic island becomes acceptable in combination with an additional licit gap, a result that has interesting implications for theories of grammar. Such constructions hold even greater interest for the question of the relation between grammatical knowledge and real time language processing. This article presents results from two experiments on parasitic-gap constructions in English in which the parasitic gap appears inside a subject island, before the licensing gap. An off-line study confirms that parasitic gaps are acceptable when they occur inside the infinitival complement of a subject NP, but not when they occur inside a finite relative clause. An on-line self-paced reading study using a plausibility manipulation technique shows that incremental positing of gaps inside islands occurs in just those environments where parasitic gaps are acceptable. The fact that parasitic gaps are constructed incrementally in language processing presents a challenge for attempts to explain subject islands as epiphenomena of constraints on language processing and also helps to resolve apparent conflicts in previous studies of the role of island constraints in parsing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article the author presents his comments to critiques about the article "Grammar is grammar and usage is usage." Critiques recognizes that one possible objection to stochastic grammar is by mixing data from different individuals together in a large data set, evidence relevant to the investigation of the mental grammar of particular individuals is potentially obscured. But he then dismisses the importance of the objection. Critiques goes on to argue, that stochastic grammar is supported by the fact that phenomena that are categorial in some languages are simply a matter of statistical preference in others. So, the person of the subject argument cannot be lower than the person of a no subject argument. A consequence is that one never finds first or second person subjects of passives in that language where the agent is in the third person. In English, as it turns out, similar passives are possible, but very rare compared to passives with, say, third person subjects. As they note, a traditional generative model would ascribe the Lummi facts to competence and the English facts to performance. They see this as a lost generalization. In their view, only a model of grammar allowing stochastic constraints can unite the facts in the two languages, assigning them two different points along the same continuum with respect to relations involving grammatical person.