In the syntax literature, it is commonly assumed that a constraint on linguistic competence blocks extraction of wh-expressions (e.g. what or which book) from embedded questions, referred to as wh-islands. Furthermore, it is assumed that there is an argument/adjunct asymmetry in extraction from wh-islands. We report results from two acceptability judgment experiments on long and short wh-movement and wh-extraction from wh-islands in Danish. The results revealed four main findings: (1) No adjunct/argument asymmetry in extraction from wh-islands. (2) Long adjunct wh-movement is less acceptable than long argument wh-movement, and this difference is attributable to matrix verb compatibility and factivity, not D-linking. (3) Long movement reduces acceptability, but is more acceptable than island violations. (4) Training effects reveal that island violations, though degraded, are grammatical in Danish. Since the standard assumptions cannot account for the range of results, we argue in favor of a processing account referring to locality (processing domains) and working memory.

It is generally assumed that universal island constraints block extraction from relative clauses. However, it is well-known that such extractions can be acceptable in the Scandinavian languages. Kush & Lindahl (2011) argue that the acceptability in Swedish is illusory; relative clauses that allow extraction have a different structure (small clause structure) from those that block extraction (true relatives, CPs). We present data from an acceptability survey of relative clause extraction in Danish. In the survey, extraction significantly decreased acceptability but we found no statistically significant effect of the ability of the verb to take a small-clause complement. We also found no difference between som 'that/who/which' and der 'that/who/which', both of which can head a relative clause while only som can head a small clause. We argue that our results do not warrant the stipulation of a structural contrast between acceptable and unacceptable extractions, and that variation in acceptability stems from processing.

Though negation is unique and central to human language, it has so far received little attention in cognitive neuroscience. The goal of the present study was to investigate the contrast between affirmative and negative sentences using fMRI, focusing on two central aspects, namely, (1) a semantic difference: affirmation is upward entailing, whereas negation is downward entailing; (2) a syntactic difference: negation involves more syntactic structure than affirmation. The behavioural data showed that negation significantly increased response times (but not the level of performance), even when negation was only in the preceding context to the response condition. The imaging results showed increased activation in the left premotor cortex from negation, compatible with rule-governed memory processing, and increased activation in the right supramarginal gyrus from affirmation, compatible with semantic processing. Finally, affirmation showed ''default mode'' activation in the cingulate cortex.