Cover not available
Article published In:
Linguistics in the Netherlands 2021
Edited by Mark Dingemanse, Eva van Lier and Jorrig Vogels
[Linguistics in the Netherlands 38] 2021
► pp. 4–20

The effect of filler complexity and context on the acceptability of wh-island violations in Dutch

| Radboud University
| Radboud University
| Radboud University
| Radboud University
| Radboud University
| Radboud University
| Radboud University

Acceptability judgements of syntactic island violations are often claimed to improve by either increasing the complexity of the wh-filler phrase or integrating the violating sentence into a discourse. In two acceptability judgement tasks, we looked at wh-island violations in Dutch by varying the complexity of the filler phrase and by presenting the sentences either in isolation or with a preceding discourse. We found that neither variable had a significant effect in isolation, but that only in their combination a significant effect was observed. The same effect showed up in non-island conditions, however. This is in contrast to findings in the literature on English and French and suggests that the complexity effect in Dutch is not syntactic. We therefore conclude that wh-islands are strong islands in Dutch (Broekhuis & Corver 2015) and show that the contrast with English and French can be made to follow from featural Relativized Minimality (Rizzi 2017), taking into account the verb second property of Dutch.

Keywords: island constraints, filler complexity, D-linking, context, relativized minimality
Article outline
  • 1.Amelioration effects in island violations
  • 2.Experiment 1
    • Participants
    • Design and materials
    • Procedure
    • Data analysis
    • Results
  • 3.Experiment 2
    • Participants
    • Design and materials
    • Procedure
    • Data analysis
    • Results
      • Discussion
  • 4.General discussion
  • Acknowledgments
  • Note
  • References
Published online: 29 October 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.00047.bel
References
Barr, Dale J., Levy, Roger, Scheepers, Christoph, & Harry J. Tily
2013 “Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal.” Journal of Memory and Language 68 (3): 255–278. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Broekhuis, Hans & Norbert Corver
2015 Syntax of Dutch: verbs and verb phrases. Volume 3. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
2013 “Problems of Projection.” Lingua 1301: 33–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Donkers, Jantien, Hoeks, John & Laurie Stowe
2013 “D-Linking or set-restriction? Processing which-questions in Dutch.” Language and Cognitive Processes 28 (1–2): 9–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Friedmann, Naama, Belletti, Adriana & Luigi Rizzi
2009 “Relativized relatives: types of intervention in the acquisition of A-bar dependencies.” Lingua 119 (1): 67–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodall Grant
2015 “The D-linking effect on extraction from islands and non-islands.” Frontiers in psychology 51: 1493. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hofmeister, Philip & Ivan A. Sag
2010 “Cognitive constraints and island effects.” Language 86 (2): 366–415. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kush, Dave, Lohndal, Terje & Jon Sprouse
2019 “On the island sensitivity of topicalization in Norwegian: An experimental investigation.: Language 95 (3): 393–420. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuznetsova, Alexandra, Brockhoff, Per & Rune Christensen
2017 ”lmerTest Package: Tests in linear mixed effects models.” Journal of Statistical Software 82 (13): 1–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matuschek, Hannes, Kliegl, Reinhold, Vasishth, Shravan, Baayen, Harald & Douglas Bates
2017 “Balancing Type I error and power in linear mixed models.” Journal of Memory and Language 941: 305–315. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pesetsky, David
1987 “Wh-in-Situ: movement and unselective binding”. The Representation of (in)Definiteness ed. by Eric Reuland and Alice ter Meulen, 98–129. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
R Core Team
2019 R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available at: [URL]
Rizzi, Luigi
1990 Relativized minimality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2017 “Comparing extractions from wh-islands and superiority effects.” Wiener Linguistische Gazette 821: 253–261.Google Scholar
Sabel, Joachim
2002 A minimalist analysis of syntactic islands. The Linguistic Review 191: 271–315. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sprouse, John, Matthew W. Wagers, and Colin Phillips
2013 “Deriving competing predictions from grammatical approaches and reductionist approaches to island effects”. Experimental Syntax and Island Effects ed by John Sprouse, and Norbert Hornstein, 21–41. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sprouse, Jon, Caponigro, Ivano, Greco, Ciro & Carlo Cecchetto
2016 “Experimental syntax and the variation of island effects in English and Italian.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 341: 307–344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Starke, Michal
2001 Move dissolves into merge: a theory of locality. Doctoral dissertation. University of Geneva.Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna & Frans Zwarts
1993 ”Weak islands and an algebraic semantics of scope taking. Natural Language Semantics 11: 235–284. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Villata, Sandra, Rizzi, Luigi, & Julie Franck
2016 “Intervention effects and relativized minimality: new experimental evidence from graded judgements.” Lingua 1791: 76–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zwart, Jan-Wouter
2011 The syntax of Dutch. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Bondevik, Ingrid & Terje Lohndal
2023. Extraction from finite adjunct clauses: an investigation of relative clause dependencies in Norwegian. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 8:1 DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2024. Wh-island Effects in Chinese [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 282], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 march 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.