Thursday: 24 July
Subject Islands
Subject Islands and Parasitic Gaps
Main Points:
- no parameterization claims with subjects.
- distance effects (from matrix predicate in subject islands; Kluender)
- intervention effects in relative clauses (Frampton (1990) observation)
- finiteness effects (Engdahl, Kluender, Phillips)
- amelioration of finite as well as infinitival subject islands with
parasitic gaps (Phillips)
Kluender, R. 2004: Are subject islands subject to a
processing account?. Basic points in the last three paragraphs of the
Conclusion, pp. 496-497.
Phillips, C. 2007: The real-time status of island phenomena.
Claims processing accounts are inadequate.
Engdahl, E. 1983: The original paper on parasitic gaps.
Mainly interested in the accessibility hierarchy on p. 9: "untensed domains"
are more accessible than "tensed domains", and there's something suspicious
about the left side of the hierarchy. This, in combination with Frampton's
(1990) observation about quantified head nouns making relative clauses more
accessible to parasitic gaps than definite NPs, seems to point to
referentiality effects as well.
Readings:
- Kluender, R. 2004. Are subject islands subject to a processing account?
In V. Chand, A. Kelleher, A.J. Rodriquez, and B. Schmeiser (eds.).
Proceedings of the 23rd West Coast Conference on Formal
Linguistics,
Pp. 475-499. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
(.doc
file) (.pdf
file)
- Phillips, C. 2007. The real-time status of island phenomena.
Language 82: 795-823.
(.pdf file)
Further Reading:
- Engdahl, E. 1983. Parasitic gaps. Linguistics and Philosophy 6: 5-34.
(.pdf file)
Back to
Course Webpage
Last Updated: June 28, 2007