what is experimental syntax good for? grant goodall uc san diego 1

What is experimental syntax good for?

Grant GoodallUC San Diego

1

Overview of talk

1. What is “experimental syntax”?

2. Controversy: What is experimental syntax for?

3. Case study:Experiments to explore islands and ECP

4. Conclusions

What is experimental syntax?

• non-linguist subjects • a clearly defined task, with training and/or

practice • factorial design for the construction of

sentences

Example of factorial design

extraction + that -that

Subject Who do you think that saw Mary? Who do you think saw Mary?

Object Who do you think that Mary saw? Who do you think Mary saw?

None Do you think that John saw Mary? Do you think John saw Mary?


• non-linguist subjects • a clearly defined task, with training and/or

practice • factorial design for the construction of

sentences • a counterbalanced and randomized sentence

list

Example of counterbalanced list




None Do you think that John saw Mary? Do you think John saw Mary?

A 1

A 3

A 2

A 4

A 5 A 6

Example of counterbalanced listSet A Set B Set C Set D Set E Set F

Type 1 A1 B1 C1 D1 E1 F1Type 2 A2 B2 C2 D2 E2 F2Type 3 A3 B3 C3 D3 E3 F3Type 4 A4 B4 C4 D4 E4 F4Type 5 A5 B5 C5 D5 E5 F5Type 6 A6 B6 C6 D6 E6 F6


Type 1 A1 B1 C1 D1 E1 F1Type 2 F2 A2 B2 C2 D2 E2Type 3 E3 F3 A3 B3 C3 D3Type 4 D4 E4 F4 A4 B4 C4Type 5 C5 D5 E5 F5 A5 B5Type 6 B6 C6 D6 E6 F6 A6


Type 1 A1 B1 C1 D1 E1 F1Type 2 F2 A2 B2 C2 D2 E2Type 3 E3 F3 A3 B3 C3 D3Type 4 D4 E4 F4 A4 B4 C4Type 5 C5 D5 E5 F5 A5 B5Type 6 B6 C6 D6 E6 F6 A6

Subject #1


• non-linguist subjects • a clearly defined task, with training and/or practice • factorial design for the construction of sentences • a counterbalanced and randomized sentence list • quantitative results• statistical analysis of the results• Note: This is not an “all or nothing” list!

Should we do syntax experimentally?

• Yes, definitely!

Without the quantitative evidence you just have a researcher's potentially biased judgment. I don't

think that that's good enough.

It's not very hard to do an experiment […], so

one should do the experiment.

Ted Gibson, MIT


Diogo Almeida, UC Irvine

…there is no empirical, logical, or statistical reason to think that … informal

experiments … are unreliable. In fact, [they] might be … much more powerful

than formal experiments.

Jon Sprouse,UC Irvine

Not necessarily!


• Not necessarily!

…one of the things that is at stake is how best to make use of scarce

resources. Almost all of us are using money that comes from students'

tuition, or from taxpayers' pockets, and when we are running

experiments we are typically expending the valuable time of talented young researchers…

Colin Phillips, Univ. of Maryland

My view

• New methods allow us to do new things.• This is not a criticism of earlier methods. They

were (and are) useful. • Questions: – What are the new things that we can do? – Are they worth doing?

New areas that we can now explore

• We can now detect very subtle contrasts in acceptability.

Testing hypotheses

• Sentences are not just black and white.Gradience

• We can now meaningfully compare acceptability across languages.

Cross-linguistic

• Working memory, handedness, early language exposure, etc.Populations

If our models make fine-grained predictions, we have to be able to

test those predictions.



Testing hypotheses



Cross-linguistic


This forces us to explore the interplay of syntax, semantics, pragmatics,

processing…



Testing hypotheses



Cross-linguistic


Very difficult to do reliably with traditional methods.



Testing hypotheses



Cross-linguistic


If individual differences play a role in acceptability, this opens up a new

area of exploration



Testing hypotheses



Cross-linguistic


Today: ECP effect and island constraints

• ECP effect*Who do you think that [ __ will see Mary]

• Island constraintsWh-island*Who do you wonder whether [Ann saw __]Complex NP Constraint (CNPC)*Who do you believe the claim that [Ann saw __]

ECP = that-trace filter

Some island constraints as processing phenomena?

Wh-island: Acceptability varies depending on factors known to affect ease of processing.

That’s the campaign [that I was wondering…a. [which aide could spearhead __ ]]b. [who could spearhead __ ]]c. [whether I could spearhead __ ]]d. [whether to spearhead __ ]]

Kluender 2004

Some island constraints as processing phenomena?

CNPC: Acceptability varies depending on factors known to affect ease of processing.

I saw who / which convict Emma doubted [DP the report that we had captured ___ in the nationwide FBI manhunt ]

Hofmeister & Sag (2010)

Effect of wh-filler

CNPC

Bare wh-filler

Which + N filler

Non-island

Where we are at this point

• Some island phenomena may be due to processing, not grammar.

• Question: Does processing play a significant role in ECP effects?

Yes: ECP due to processing

• Hawkins (2004):*Who do you think that [ __ will see Mary]

• That does not help processing, is redundant.• That increases distance between filler + gap.• So version with that is dispreferred.

Signals beginning of embedded

clause

Signals beginning of embedded

clause

No: ECP due to grammar

• Rizzi & Shlonsky (2007):

Subject Criterion: DP moving into subject position is frozen in place.*Who do you think that [ __ will see Mary]

This is part of larger theory of “Criterial Freezing”

Violates Subject Criterion

No: ECP due to grammarHow languages vary:A. Fixed subject strategies: The subject doesn’t

move; it remains in its freezing position.B. Skipping strategies: The subject moves, but is

allowed to skip the freezing position.English uses B:

Who do you think [ __ will see Mary]

Truncated structure: -no that -no extraction from freezing position

In rest of talk…

• Will present experimental evidence that island effects and ECP effect are very different.

• Processing account may be good for island effects, but not for ECP effect.

• Experiments are from various projects in my lab, (hopefully) of interest in their own right.

• 4 experiments, each approaching problem from different angle.

Exp #1: Is ECP effect real?

In collaboration with:• Shin Fukuda• Dan Michel• Henry Beecher

Exp #1: Is ECP effect real?

• 3 different response methods• 36 participants each (108 total).




Results

Categorical (yes/no) 5-point (Likert) Magnitude estimation

♦ = no that ■ = that

subj obj-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

subj obj-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

subj obj-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

Conclusion

• ECP effect is real!

Exp #2: Satiation

• Satiation: Unacceptable sentences increase in acceptability after repeated exposure.

• Snyder (2000):– Satiation can be induced experimentally.– Not all sentence types are susceptible.

Exp #2: Satiation

• Goodall (2011):– 5 blocks of 10 sentences (50 total)– Each block contains 4 acceptable + 6 unacceptable

sentence types.– Sentence types are the same, but lexicalization

varies in each block.– Among the unacceptable sentence types:• CNPC: *Who do you believe the claim that [Ann saw __]• ECP: *Who do you think that [ __ will see Mary]

Goodall, G. (2011), Syntactic Satiation and the Inversion Effect in English and Spanish Wh-Questions. Syntax, 14: 29–47.

Results I

CNPC ECP0

2

4

6

8

10

12

N → YY → N

Results II

Pres 1+2 Pres 4+515

20

25

30

35

40

45

CNPCECP

Conclusion

• CNPC (island effect): Susceptible to satiation.• ECP effect: Not susceptible to satiation.• Consistent with CNPC as processing effect.– Processor adapts to demands.

• Consistent with ECP as grammatical effect.– Subject Criterion is hard principle.

Exp #3: ECP + islands in L2

• Boyoung Kim

Exp #3: ECP + islands in L2

• 3 groups of subjects:– “Early” Korean immigrants (AoA = 6 - 10, N=36)– “Late” Korean immigrants (AoA = 12 - 15, N=36)– Native controls (N=70)

• Subjects rated English sentences (9-point scale)

– Extraction of embedded subject and object, with/without that.– Extraction of object from embedded that-clause, wh-clause,

complex NP

Results I

■ = no that♦ = that

subject object3

4

5

6

Native Control

subject object3

4

5

6

Korean Early

subject object3

4

5

6

Korean Late

Results II

that whether CNCP2

3

4

5

6

7

Embedded object wh-extraction

Korean Early

Korean Late

Native Control

Conclusions

• Island effects: L2 groups very similar to natives.• ECP effect: L2 groups very different from natives.• Consistent with islands as processing effects.– L2ers face same processing problems as natives.

• Consistent with ECP effect as grammatical.– L2ers have Subject Criterion, are slow to acquire

strategy to avoid it.

Exp #4: Resumptive pronouns

• Bethany Keffala


• Potential problem:– If island and ECP effects are both “saved” by

resumptive pronouns, does this suggest a common source of unacceptability?

CNPC: Who do you believe the claim that [Ann saw __/him]?

ECP: Who do you think that [ __/he will see Mary]?


• 121 participants• 11-point scale

Exp #4: Resumptive pronounsSubject (gap/resumptive) Object (gap/resumptive)

Plain Relative This is the chef that __/she prepared the potatoes.

These are the potatoes that Ted prepared __/them.

Embedded that-clauseThis is the chef that Ted realized that __/she prepared the potatoes.

These are the potatoes that Ted realized that the chef prepared __/them.

Wh-islandThis is the chef that Ted inquired how __/she prepared the potatoes.

These are the potatoes that Ted inquired how the chef prepared __/them.

Relative Clause IslandThis is the chef that Ted devoured the potatoes that __/she prepared.

These are the potatoes that Ted flirted with the chef that prepared __/them.

Results

Plain Relative That-clause WH-island Relative Clause Is-land

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

Sentence Type x Position x Gap Type

Object Gap

Object Re-sumptive

Subject Gap

Subject Re-sumptive

Conclusions

Resumptive pronouns:• Don’t save illicit gaps.• Show a relatively constant level of

(un)acceptability, unrelated to the level of acceptability of the gap.

• Are not a counterexample to the claim that island and ECP effects have different sources.

Summary of 4 experiments

• ECP effect is real.1• Island and ECP effects differ in

satiation.2• Island and ECP effects differ in

L2.3• Acceptability of resumptive pronouns

unrelated to acceptability of gap (island or ECP)4

Differences between island and ECP effects

Susceptible to satiation Evident in L2

Islands (wh- and CNPC)

ECP effect

Consistent with processing accountSusceptible to

satiation Evident in L2


ECP effect

Consistent with grammatical account

Susceptible to satiation Evident in L2


ECP effect

These four experiments

• Are highly suggestive, though not definitive.• Add new pieces of data to our understanding

of island and ECP phenomena.• Show concretely that techniques of

experimental syntax allow us to do things:– that were not possible before,

and– that are worth doing.

Thank you!

grammar.ucsd.edu/syntaxlab

idiom.ucsd.edu/~goodall

what is experimental syntax good for? grant goodall uc san diego 1

Documents