Search

Recent research suggests that island effects may vary as a function of dependency type, potentially challenging accounts that treat island effects as reflecting uniform constraints on all filler-gap dependency formation. Some authors argue that cross-dependency variation is more readily accounted for by discourse-functional constraints that take into account the discourse status of both the filler and the constituent containing the gap. We ran a judgment study that tested the acceptability of wh-extraction and relativization from nominal subjects, embedded questions (EQs), conditional adjuncts, and existential relative clauses (RCs) in Norwegian. The study had two goals: (i) to systematically investigate cross-dependency variation from various constituent types and (ii) to evaluate the results against the predictions of the Focus Background Conflict constraint (FBCC). Overall we find some evidence for cross-dependency differences across extraction environments. Most notably wh-extraction from EQs and conditional adjuncts yields small but statistically significant island effects, but relativization does not. The differential island effects are potentially consistent with the predictions of the FBCC, but we discuss challenges the FBCC faces in explaining finer-grained judgment patterns. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This predicts that extraction from EQs under rogative verbs should yield structural island effects, typically associated with stark unacceptability, whereas extraction from EQs under responsive verbs should yield no structural island effects and should obtain acceptable ratings. Applying this logic to EQs, we make the following predictions: If EQs under rogative verbs are necessarily analyzed as structural islands, extraction from EQs under rogative verbs should be consistently judged unacceptable and we expect to see large island effects. The preponderance of acceptable ratings in both EQ-island conditions suggests that neither EQ is a syntactic island in Spanish, contrary to the analysis in [60], where it was proposed that I ask i -EQs were syntactic islands and I know i -EQs were not. In the non-island conditions (10a), (10c), the embedded structure is a declarative clause, which does not give rise to island effects, whereas in the island conditions (10b), (10d), it is an EQ, expected to yield island effects. If, on the other hand, EQs under rogative verbs are not structural islands we either expect to see (i) no island effects at all, or (ii) smaller island effects characterized by inconsistent judgment distributions. [Extracted from the article]

This article investigates how children acquire word order generalizations from ambiguous and infrequent input. We focus on verb placement in Norwegian relative and complement clauses. In two elicitation experiments we explore where children (age 3–7) place verbs in three embedded clauses types: one requiring a purely syntactic generalization and two requiring a semantic-pragmatic generalization. We find that children overgeneralize the main clause word order to embedded clauses. However, this happens with different probabilities across all three clause types. We take this to mean that children overgeneralize and that they entertain both coarse and fine-grained hypotheses simultaneously. We also suggest that children make use of frequency information, both in making initial hypotheses and when retracting from overgeneralization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]