On the origin of islands

Yoshida, Minoru; Kazanina, Nina; Pablos, Leticia; Sturt, Patrick

doi:10.1080/01690965.2013.788196

Cited by 40 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the case of backward dependencies, the ASM hypothesizes that the human parser automatically starts a search for an antecedent in the upcoming sentence immediately after encountering a cataphoric pronoun. This has been shown in behavioral studies through gender mismatch effect (GMME) observations in experimental paradigms where possible antecedents for cataphoric pronouns are restricted by grammatical principles ( Sturt, 2003 ; Van Gompel and Liversedge, 2003 ; Kazanina et al, 2007 ; Yoshida et al, 2014 ). This paper presents an event related potential (ERP) study where we confirm that a similar effect can also be observed in neurophysiological data.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 85%

“…In particular, it uses gender mismatch to investigate whether a search for an antecedent is restricted by structural constraints. Given that the parser respects structural constraints such as Principles B and C of the Binding Theory when interpreting pronouns on-line as shown by behavioral studies that have examined reading times (e.g., Kazanina et al, 2007 ; Chow et al, 2014 ; Yoshida et al, 2014 ), we expect these effects to be visible through electroencephalography (EEG) as well.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Active search for antecedents in cataphoric pronoun resolution

et al. 2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cataphoric dependencies where a pronoun precedes its antecedent appear to call on different mechanisms in language comprehension from forward dependencies where the antecedent precedes the pronoun. Previous research has shown that the resolution of cataphoric dependencies involves predictive processes such as the active search mechanism, which hypothesizes the automatic search for an antecedent immediately after encountering a cataphoric pronoun. The current study employs gender mismatch to investigate whether the active search for an antecedent of a cataphoric pronoun is restricted only to grammatically licit positions. We present results from an event-related potential experiment on the reading comprehension of cataphoric dependencies in Dutch. Results show that gender mismatch gives rise to an anterior negativity at grammatically licit antecedent positions only. We hypothesize that this negativity reflects the prediction failure for an antecedent after encountering a pronoun, rather than a gender mismatch. We discuss the timing, topography and functionality of this negativity with respect to previous studies and how this relates to the ERPs elicited in the processing of structural constraints on pronoun resolution.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 85%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Active search for antecedents in cataphoric pronoun resolution

et al. 2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…An important and robust finding in sentence processing is that comprehenders actively construct filler-gap dependencies (Fodor 1978;Crain & Fodor 1985;Stowe 1986;Traxler & Pickering 1996;Kaan et al 2000;Aoshima et al 2004;Phillips et al 2005;Chacón et al 2016), and that these processes appear to be suppressed in syntactic island configurations (Stowe 1986;Traxler & Pickering 1996;Phillips 2006;Yoshida et al 2014;Chacón 2015). These findings have been argued to reflect rapid deployment of fine-grained grammatical constraints.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Minding the gap?: Mechanisms underlying resumption in English

Chacón

2019

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In processing filler-gap dependencies, comprehenders quickly postulate gaps in syntactically licensed positions, but not in syntactic islands. This suggests that comprehenders can accurately use syntactic constraints to guide processing. However, resumptive pronouns appear to challenge this generalization. Resumption is ungrammatical in English. Nevertheless, they appear to immediately allow resolution of a filler dependency in syntactic islands (Hofmeister & Norcliffe 2013). I resolve this tension by arguing that pronouns are analyzed as resumptive when typical filler-gap dependency processing fails. I argue that processing a filler-gap dependency requires anticipatorily building a gapped structure. However, as further linguistic material is processed, this representation degrades in memory. Resumption facilitates processing by triggering a reference dependency, which allows the comprehender to recover a coherent interpretation of the sentence. This predicts that the accessibility of filler NP as a referent for a pronoun, length, and processing difficulty all contribute to the acceptability of resumption. I present the results of four acceptability judgment studies that support this claim. I also introduce a novel experimental paradigm, in which participants' working memory capacity is taxed while processing a sentence. This increase in processing strain decreases sensitivity to ungrammatical filler dependencies. I argue that this partially explains the acceptability of resumption in syntactic island contexts, which are likely resource-intensive.

show abstract

“…The finding that L2 speakers respect island constraints during processing indicates some level of hierarchical structure building during L2 parsing. As noted by Felser et al (2012), there is debate in the theoretical linguistics literature regarding whether island constraints constitute syntactic restrictions or whether they can be reduced to a processing-based account, which claims that dependencies are not formed inside island domains as a result of processing overload (compare Kluender & Kutas, 1993; Hofmeister & Sag, 2010; Phillips, 2013; Sprouse, Wagers & Phillips, 2012; Yoshida, Kazanina, Pablos & Sturt, 2014). However, even under a processing account of island constraints, island sensitivity presupposes construction of some level of syntactic structure (Omaki & Schulz, 2011).…”

Section: Parsing and Working Memory In L2 Sentence Processingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Parsing and Working Memory in Bilingual Sentence Processing

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A growing body of research has investigated bilingual sentence processing. How to account for differences in native (L1) and non-native (L2) processing is controversial. Some explain L1/L2 differences in terms of different parsing mechanisms, and the hypothesis that L2 learners adopt ‘shallow’ parsing has received considerable attention. Others assume L1/L2 processing is similar, and explain L1/L2 differences in terms of capacity-based limitations being exceeded during L2 processing. More generally, the role that working memory plays in language acquisition and processing has garnered increasing interest. Based on research investigating L2 sentence processing, I claim that a primary source of L1/L2 differences lies in the ability to retrieve information constructed during sentence processing from memory. In contrast to describing L1/L2 differences in terms of shallow parsing or capacity limitations, I argue that L2 speakers are more susceptible to retrieval interference when successful comprehension requires access to information from memory.

show abstract

On the origin of islands

Cited by 40 publications

References 39 publications

Active search for antecedents in cataphoric pronoun resolution

Active search for antecedents in cataphoric pronoun resolution

Minding the gap?: Mechanisms underlying resumption in English

Parsing and Working Memory in Bilingual Sentence Processing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About