Factive islands in Russian: An experimental study of relative clause dependencies
DOI:10.30842/alp23065737202358407
Knyazev Mikhail Yu. Factive islands in
Russian: An experimental study of relative clause dependencies.
Acta Linguistica Petropolitana. 2024. 20(2):
358–407.
It is generally assumed that complements of factive predicates are less transparent for extraction compared to nonfactive predicates. It is also assumed that the violation produced by such extraction is relatively weak, at least for certain types of elements such as (object) arguments, as opposed to other types of elements such as adjuncts. This has led to the notion that complements of factive predicates are weak, or selective, islands. This paper compares complements of factive and nonfactive predicates with respect to argument and adjunct extraction in relative clause dependencies. The question is investigated in two acceptability rating studies, testing DP argument (Experiment 1) and PP adjunct (Experiment 2) extraction. An important feature of the design is that it tests both bare (čto) clauses and nominalized (to, čto) clauses (in oblique/object-of-P positions) with both classes of predicates using the nominalized clauses as a benchmark for strong islandhood. The results showed that factivity of the predicate is associated with a decrease in acceptability for both argument and adjunct extraction, whereas adjunct extraction did not show any degradation relative to argument extraction. Nominalization also lowered the acceptability of extraction but, surprisingly, not for adjunct extraction, which is tentatively explained as the result of processing facilitation (adjunct processing advantage). The results are best explained by two additively combining gradient constraints (penalizing extraction from complements of factive predicates and extraction from nominalized clauses). The paper ends with a brief discussion of the experimental results in the light of different approaches to weak islands, focusing on featural Relativized Minimality.
Keywords
References
A. Abeillé, B. Hemforth, E. Winckel,
E. Gibson. Extraction from subject: Differences in acceptability
depend on the discourse function of the construction.
Cognition. 2020. No. 204. P. 11–22. DOI:
10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104293.
K. Abels. The Italian left periphery:
A view from locality. Linguistic Inquiry. 2012. Vol. 43.
No. 2. P. 229–254. DOI: 10.1162/LING_a_00084.
M. Abrusán. Weak island
semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.
B. Ambridge, A. E. Goldberg. The
island status of clausal complements: Evidence in favor of an
information structure explanation. Cognitive Linguistics.
2008. Vol. 19. No. 3. DOI: 10.1515/COGL.2008.014.
J. Bailyn. The scrambling paradox.
Linguistic Inquiry. 2020. Vol. 51. No. 4. P. 635–669. DOI:
10.1162/ling_a_00361.
D. J. Barr, R. Levy, C. Scheepers, H.
J. Tily. Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis
testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language.
2013. Vol. 68. No. 3. P. 255–278. DOI:
10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001.
A. Beltrama, M. Xiang. Unacceptable
but comprehensible: the facilitation effect of resumptive pronouns.
Glossa: a journal of general linguistics. 2016. Vol. 1.
No. 1. P. 1–24. DOI: 10.5334/gjgl.24.
T. Bondarenko. Anatomy of an
attitude. PhD thesis. Cambridge, MA: MIT, 2022.
N. Chomsky. Barriers.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1986.
G. Cinque. Types of
A’-Dependencies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1990.
E. Dąbrowska. Questions with
long-distance dependencies: A usage-based perspective.
Cognitive Linguistics. 2008. Vol. 19. No. 3. P. 391–425.
DOI: 10.1515/COGL.2008.015.
J. Degen, J. Tonhauser. Are there
factive predicates? An empirical investigation. Language.
2022. Vol. 98. No. 3. P. 552–591. DOI: 10.1353/lan.0.0271.
Asimmetrii vydvizheniya argumentov i
adyunktov [Argument-adjunct asymmetry in Russian wh-questions]. E.
A. Lyutikova, A. A. Gerasimova (eds.). Russkiye ostrova v svete
eksperimentalnykh dannykh [Russian islands in the light of
experimental data]. Joint monograph. Moscow: Buki-Vedi, 2021. P.
132–169.
A. E. Goldberg. Backgrounded
constituents cannot be “extracted”. J. Sprouse, N. Hornstein
(eds.). Experimental syntax and island effects. Cambridge,
MA: Cambridge University Press, 2013. P. 221–238. DOI:
10.1017/CBO9781139035309.012.
G. Goodall. The D-linking effect on
extraction from islands and non-islands. Frontiers in
Psychology. 2015. Vol. 5. P. 1–11. DOI:
10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01493.
L. Haegeman, Á. L. Jiménez-Fernández,
A. Radford. Deconstructing the subject condition in terms of
cumulative constraint violation. The Linguistic Review.
2014. Vol. 31. No. 1. P. 73–150. DOI: 10.1515/tlr-2013-0022.
L. Haegeman, B. Ürögdi. Referential
CPs and DPs: An operator movement account. Theoretical
Linguistics. 2010. Vol. 36. P. 111–152. DOI:
10.1515/thli.2010.011.
L. Haegeman. Adverbial clauses,
main clause phenomena, and composition of the left periphery: The
cartography of syntactic structures. New York: Oxford
University Press, 2012.
M. Hegarty. Adjunct extraction
and chain configurations. PhD thesis. Cambridge, MA: MIT,
1992.
P. Hofmeister, I. A. Sag. Cognitive
constraints and island effects. Language. 2010. Vol. 86.
No. 2. P. 366–415. DOI: 10.1353/lan.0.0223.
C.-T. J. Huang. Logical Relations
in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar. PhD thesis. Cambridge,
MA: MIT, 1982.
I. Kastner. Factivity mirrors
interpretation: The selectional requirements of presuppositional
verbs. Lingua. Vol. 164. P. 156–188. DOI:
10.1016/j.lingua.2015.06.004.
O. Khomitsevich. Dependencies
across Phases: From sequence of tense to restrictions on
movement. PhD thesis. Utrecht: Utrecht University, 2007.
C. Kiparsky, P. Kiparsky. Fact. M.
Bierwisch, K. E. Heidolph (eds.). Progress in Linguistics.
The Hague: Mouton, 1970. P. 143–173.
R. Kluender. Deriving islands
constraints from principles of predication. H. Goodluck, M.
Rochemont (eds.). Island constraints: Theory, acquisition and
processing. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1992. P. 223–258. DOI:
10.1007/978-94-017-1980-3_8.
M. Knyazev. Licensing clausal
complements. The case of Russian čto-clauses. PhD
thesis. Utrecht: Utrecht University, 2016.
M. Yu. Knyazev. Protiv analiza
russkikh presuppozitsionalnykh klauz v kosvennoobyektnoy pozitsii
kak skrytykh nominalizatsiy: dannyye vynosa [Against the analysis
of Russian presuppositional clauses in oblique positions as
covertly nominalized: Evidence from extraction]. Typology of
Morphosyntactic Parameters. 2023. Vol. 6. No. 1. P. 27–69.
DOI: 10.37632/PI.2023.36.61.002.
I. M. Kobozeva. Usloviya
upotrebleniya «to» pered pridatochnym izyasnitelnym s soyuzom
«chto» [Conditions of use of to before the complement
clause with conjunction chto]. O. Inkova (éd.). Du mot
au texte. Études slavo-romanes. Bern: Peter Lang, 2013. P.
129–148.
N. A. Korotaev. Soyuz to
chto v ustnoy russkoy rechi [The conjunction to čto
in spoken Russian]. Acta Linguistica Petropolitana. 2016.
Vol. XII. Pt. 1. P. 101–106.
A. Kuznetsova, P. B. Brockhoff, R. H.
B. Christensen. lmerTest Package: Tests in Linear Mixed Effects
Models. Journal of Statistical Software. 2017. Vol. 82.
No. 13. P. 1–26. DOI: 10.18637/jss.v082.i13.
H. Lasnik, M. Saito. On the Nature of
Proper Government. Linguistic Inquiry. 1984. Vol. 15. No.
2. P. 235–289.
Y. Liu, R. Ryskin, R. Futrell, E.
Gibson. A verb-frame frequency account of constraints on
long-distance dependencies in English. Cognition. 2022.
No. 222. P. 1–17. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104902.
E. A. Lyutikova. Otnositelnyye
predlozheniya s soyuznym slovom kotoryy: obshchaya
kharakteristika i svoystva peredvizheniya [Relative clauses with
kotoryj: general characterization and movement
properties]. K. L. Kiseleva, V. A. Plungyan, E. V. Rakhilina, S. G.
Tatevosov (eds.). Korpusnye issledovaniya po russkoy
grammatike [Corpus studies on Russian grammar]. Moscow:
Probel, 2009. P. 436–511.
E. A. Lyutikova. K voprosu o
kategorialnom statuse imennykh grupp v russkom yazyke [Towards the
categorial status of noun phrases in Russian]. Vestnik
Moskovskogo universiteta. Seriya 9. Filologiya. 2010. No. 6.
P. 36–76.
E. A. Ljutikova. Kommunikativnaya
struktura v sintaksicheskoy derivatsii [Information structure in
syntactic derivation]. Voprosy Jazykoznanija. 2019. No. 1.
P. 7–29. DOI: 10.31857/S0373658X0003592-0.
E. A. Lyutikova, A. A. Gerasimova
(eds.). Russkiye ostrova v svete eksperimentalnykh dannykh
[Russian islands in the light of experimental data]. Joint
monograph. Moscow: Buki-Vedi, 2021.
E. V. Morgunova. Ostrovnyye
konstruktsii v russkom yazyke [Island constructions in Russian]. E.
A. Lyutikova, A. A. Gerasimova (eds.). Russkiye ostrova v svete
eksperimentalnykh dannykh [Russian islands in the light of
experimental data]. Joint monograph. Moscow: Buki-Vedi, 2021. P.
35–55.
E. V. Morgunova. Ostrovnyye svoystva
pridatochnykh izyas nitelnykh s soyuzom chto [Island
properties of finite embedded clauses with the complemetizer
chto]. E. A. Lyutikova, A. A. Gerasimova (eds.).
Russkiye ostrova v svete eksperimentalnykh dannykh
[Russian islands in the light of experimental data]. Joint
monograph. Moscow: Buki-Vedi, 2021. P. 79–99.
A. Pereltsvaig. The universality of
DP: A view from Russian. Studia Linguistica. 2007. Vol.
61. No. 1. P. 59–94. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9582.2007.00129.x.
C. Phillips. On the nature of island
constraints I: Language processing and reductionist accounts. J.
Sprouse, N. Hornstein (eds.). Experimental syntax and island
effects. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 2013. P.
64–108. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139035309.005.
S. Richter, R. Chaves. Investigating
the role of verb frequency in factive and manner-of-speaking
islands. Proceedings of the 42nd annual meeting of the
cognitive science society. Toronto, ON: Cognitive Science
Society, 2020. P. 1771–1777.
L. Rizzi. Relativized
Minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1990.
L. Rizzi. Locality and left
periphery. A. Belletti (ed.). Structures and beyond: The
cartography of syntactic structures. Vol. 3. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2005. P. 223–251. DOI:
10.1093/oso/9780195171976.003.0008.
L. Rizzi. Intervention effects in
grammar and language acquisition. Probus. 2018. Vol. 30.
No. 2. P. 339–367. DOI: 10.1515/probus-2018-0006.
I. Rygaev. Syntactic islands and
focality in Russian. Proceedings ExLing 2023: 14th
International Conference of Experimental Linguistics. To
appear.
B. Schwarz, A. Simonenko. Factive
islands and meaning-driven unacceptability. Natural Language
Semantics. 2018. Vol. 26. P. 253–279. DOI:
10.1007/s11050-018-9146-2.
A. Sorace, F. Keller. Gradience in
linguistic data. Lingua. 2005. No. 115. P. 1497–1524. DOI:
10.1016/j.lingua.2004.07.002.
Experimental syntax and the
cross-linguistic variation of island effects in English and
Italian. J. Sprouse, I. Caponigrio, C. Greco, C. Cecchetto.
Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. 2016. No. 34. P.
307–344. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-015-9293-9.
A. Szabolcsi, T. Lohndal. Strong vs.
weak islands. M. Everaert, H. C. Riemsdijk (eds.). The Wiley
Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Second Edition. Malden, MA:
John Wiley & Sons, 2017. P. 1–51. DOI:
10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom008.
S. Villata, L. Rizzi, J. Franck.
Intervention effects and relativized minimality: New experimental
evidence from graded judgments. Lingua. 2016. No. 179. P.
76–96. DOI: 10.1016/j.lingua.2016.03.004.
