Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-45l2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T13:28:19.406Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Heavy NP Shift does not cause Freezing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2018

Andreas Konietzko ,
Susanne Winkler  and
Peter W. Culicover
Andreas Konietzko*
Affiliation:
Universität Tübingen
Susanne Winkler*
Affiliation:
Universität Tübingen
Peter W. Culicover*
Affiliation:
The Ohio State University
*
andreas.konietzko@uni-tuebingen.de
susanne.winkler@uni-tuebingen.de
culicover.1@osu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Squib/Notule
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 63 , Issue 3 , September 2018 , pp. 454 - 464
Copyright
© Canadian Linguistic Association/Association canadienne de linguistique 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

This research was partly conducted within the project A7 (Focus Constructions and Freezing) of the Collaborative Research Center 833 at the University of Tübingen, funded by the German Science Foundation (DFG). We would like to thank the audience of the Linguistic Evidence Conference (2016) held at the University of Tübingen and two anonymous reviewers for valuable comments and suggestions. All remaining errors are ours.

References

Arnon, Inbal, Hofmeister, Philip, Jaeger, T. Florian, Sag, Ivan A., and Snider, Neal. 2005. Rethinking superiority effects: a processing model. Poster presented at the CUNY Sentence Processing Conference.Google Scholar
Belletti, Adriana, and Shlonsky, Ur. 1995. The order of verbal complements: A comparative study. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13(3): 489–526.Google Scholar
Chaves, Rui P. 2013. An expectation-based account of subject islands and parasitism. Journal of Linguistics 49(2): 285–327.Google Scholar
Culicover, Peter W., and Rochemont, Michael. 1997. Deriving dependent right adjuncts in English. In Rightward Movement, ed. van Riemsdijk, Henk, LeBlanc, David, and Beermann, Dorothee, 279–300. Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Culicover, Peter W., and Nowak, Andrzej. 2002. Markedness, antisymmetry and complexity of constructions. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 2: 5–30.Google Scholar
Culicover, Peter W., and Winkler, Susanne. To appear. Freezing, between grammar and processing. In Freezing: Theoretical approaches – Empirical domains, ed. Hartmann, Jutta, Konietzko, Andreas, Knecht, Marion, and Winkler, Susanne. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Engdahl, Elisabeth. 1983. Parasitic Gaps. Linguistics and Philosophy 6(1): 5–34.Google Scholar
Gallego, Angel. 2009. On freezing effects. Iberia 1: 33–51.Google Scholar
Gibson, Edward. 1998. Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition 68(1): 1–76.Google Scholar
Gibson, Edward. 2000. The dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. In Image, language, brain, ed. Marantz, Alec, Miyashita, Yasushi, and O'Neil, Wayne, 95–126. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gibson, Edward, Piantadosi, Steve, and Fedorenko, Kristina. 2011. Using Mechanical Turk to obtain and analyze English acceptability judgments. Language and Linguistics Compass 5: 509–524.Google Scholar
Gieselman, Simone, Kluender, Robert, and Caponigro, Ivano. 2013. Isolating processing factors in negative island contexts. In Proceedings of NELS 41, ed. Fainleib, Yelena, LaCara, Nicholas, and Park, Yangsook, 233–246. Amherst, MA: GLSAGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 1994. A performance theory of order and constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 2004. Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hofmeister, Philip, Jaeger, T. Florian, Sag, Ivan A., Arnon, Inbal, and Snider, Neal. 2007. Locality and accessibility in wh-questions. In Roots: Linguistics in search of its evidential base, ed. Featherston, Sam and Sternefeld, Wolfgang, 185–206. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hofmeister, Philip, and Sag, Ivan A.. 2010. Cognitive constraints and island effects. Language 86(2): 366–415.Google Scholar
Hofmeister, Philip, Jaeger, T. Florian, Arnon, Inbal, Sag, Ivan, and Snider, Neal. 2013a. The source ambiguity problem: Distinguishing the effects of grammar and processing on acceptability judgments. Language and Cognitive Processes 28(1/2): 48–87.Google Scholar
Hofmeister, Philip, Casasanto, Laura Staum, and Sag, Ivan A.. 2013b. Islands in the grammar? Standards of evidence. In Experimental syntax and the islands debate, ed. Sprouse, Jon and Hornstein, Norbert, 42–63. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hofmeister, Philip, Culicover, Peter W., and Winkler, Susanne. 2015. Effects of processing on the acceptability of frozen extraposed constituents. Syntax 184: 464–483.Google Scholar
Kluender, Robert. 1991. Cognitive constraints on variables in syntax. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
Kluender, Robert. 1992. Deriving islands constraints from principles of predication. In Island constraints: Theory, acquisition and processing, ed. Goodluck, Helen and Rochemont, Michael, 223–258. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Kluender, Robert. 1998. On the distinction between strong and weak islands: A processing perspective. In Syntax and Semantics 29: The Limits of Syntax, ed. Culicover, Peter and McNally, Louise, 241–279. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kluender, Robert, and Kutas, Marta. 1993a. Bridging the gap: Evidence from ERPs on the processing of unbounded dependencies. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 5(2): 196–214.Google Scholar
Kluender, Robert, and Kutas, Marta. 1993b. Subjacency as a processing phenomenon. Language and Cognitive Processes 8(4): 573–633.Google Scholar
Müller, Gereon. 2010. On deriving CED effects from the PIC. Linguistic Inquiry 41(1): 35–82.Google Scholar
Polinsky, Maria, Gallo, Carlo Gómez, Graff, Peter, Kravtchenko, Ekaterina, Morgan, Adam Milton, and Sturgeon, Anne. 2013. Subject islands are different. In Experimental syntax and Island effects, ed. Sprouse, Jon, 286–309. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 2006. On the form of chains: Criterial positions and ECP effects. In Wh-movement: Moving on, ed. Cheng, Lisa and Corver, Norbert, 97–133. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 2007. On some properties of criterial freezing. CISCL Working Papers – STiL – Studies in Linguistics 1:145–158.Google Scholar
Ross, John. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan A., Hofmeister, Philip, and Snider, Neal. 2007. Processing complexity in Subjacency violations: The Complex Noun Phrase Constraint. In Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 215–229. Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Scontras, Gregory, and Gibson, Edward. 2011. Short report: A quantitative investigation of the imperative-and-declarative construction in English. Language 87 (4): 817–829.Google Scholar
Sprouse, Jon. 2007. A program for experimental syntax: Finding the relationship between acceptability and grammatical knowledge. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.Google Scholar
Sprouse, Jon. 2011. A validation of Amazon Mechanical Turk for the collection of acceptability judgments in linguistic theory. Behavior Research Methods 43(1):155–167.Google Scholar
Sprouse, Jon, Caponigro, Ivano, Greco, Ciro, and Cecchetto, Carlo. 2016. Experimental syntax and the variation of island effects in English and Italian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 34(1): 307–344.Google Scholar
Sprouse, Jon, Wagers, Matt, and Phillips, Colin. 2012. A test of the relation between working-memory capacity and syntactic island effects. Language 88(1): 82–123.Google Scholar
Stepanov, Arthur. 2007. The end of CED? Minimalism and extraction domains. Syntax 10(1): 80–126.Google Scholar
Wexler, Kenneth, and Culicover, Peter W.. 1980. Formal principles of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Winkler, Susanne, Radó, Janina, and Gutscher, Marian. 2016. What determines ‘freezing’ effects in was-für split constructions? In Firm foundations: Quantitative approaches to grammar and grammatical change, ed. Featherston, Sam and Versley, Yannick. Boston: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar