UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ WHEN HUMAN UNIVERSAL MEETS LANGUAGE SPECIFIC A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in LINGUISTICS by Jed Sam Pizarro Guevara June 2020 The Dissertation of Jed Sam Pizarro Guevara is approved: Associate Professor Matthew Wagers, Chair Distinguished Professor Emerita Sandra Chung Assistant Professor Amanda Rysling Quentin Williams Acting Vice Provost and Dean of Graduate Studies Copyright © by Jed Sam Pizarro Guevara 2020 Table of Contents List of Figures vii List of Tables viii Abstract x Dedication xii Acknowledgments xiii 1 Introduction 1 1.1 The goals of the dissertation . .3 1.2 Outline of the dissertation . .6 2 Tagalog essentials 9 2.1 Language background . 10 2.2 Basic clause structure . 10 2.3 Morphological case and pronouns . 12 2.4 An excursus: Subjecthood in Tagalog . 14 2.5 Voice morphology . 16 2.6 The interaction of voice and word order . 17 2.7 Three syntactic constructions in Tagalog . 20 2.7.1 Ay-inversion . 20 2.7.2 Relative clauses . 22 2.7.3 Wh-questions . 25 2.8 The interaction of voice and extraction . 28 2.9 The theoretical landscape . 30 2.9.1 Approach 1: Multiple specifiers . 30 2.9.2 Approach 2: Agreement with C . 35 2.10 Conclusion . 39 iii 3 The extraction restriction, revisited 41 3.1 The alternative: Voice-mismatch restriction . 42 3.2 Mismatches under non-AV voices “in the wild” . 47 3.3 Experiment 1: Comparing voice (mis)match extractions under AV and PV 51 3.3.1 Participants . 51 3.3.2 Materials . 52 3.3.3 Procedure . 52 3.3.4 Data analysis . 53 3.3.5 Results . 54 3.3.6 Discussion . 56 3.4 Experiments 2: Comparing voice (mis)match extractions under AV and PV again . 60 3.4.1 Participants and procedure . 60 3.4.2 Materials . 61 3.4.3 Data analysis . 64 3.4.4 Results . 64 3.4.5 Discussion . 66 3.5 Experiments 3: Comparing voice (mis)match extractions under applicatives 68 3.5.1 Participants and procedure . 68 3.5.2 Materials . 68 3.5.3 Data analysis . 69 3.5.4 Results . 72 3.5.5 Discussion . 74 3.6 A model of the participants’ judgment process . 75 3.6.1 Method . 76 3.6.2 Judgment process in Experiment 1 . 78 3.6.3 Judgment process in Experiment 2 . 79 3.6.4 Judgment process in Experiment 3 . 80 3.6.5 Discussion . 82 3.7 General discussion and conclusion . 82 3.7.1 A reformulation: Two grammars? . 83 3.7.2 Implications for formal analyses of the extraction restriction . 85 3.7.3 Implications for sentence processing . 100 4 The role of voice in dependency formation 103 4.1 Comprehenders actively construct dependencies . 105 4.2 A hypothesis . 108 4.3 Experiment 4: Isolating the contribution of voice . 113 4.3.1 Voiceless verbs impose similar restrictions on movement . 114 4.3.2 Participants . 116 4.3.3 Materials . 116 4.3.4 Procedure . 119 iv 4.3.5 Analysis . 119 4.3.6 Results . 121 4.3.7 Discussion . 123 4.4 Experiment 5: Comparing voice cues . 124 4.4.1 Participants . 125 4.4.2 Materials, procedure, and analysis . 125 4.4.3 Results and discussion . 126 4.4.4 Discussion . 132 4.5 General discussion . 133 4.5.1 Tagalog comprehenders attend to voice information at the FGD- level . 134 4.5.2 Unrejected reading times: A more nuanced picture of choice . 137 4.5.3 (A)symmetries as a window to interactions . 142 4.5.4 Issues and future directions . 144 5 The role of word order in relative clause processing 148 5.1 Subject-object asymmetry in relative clauses . 150 5.2 Accounting for the asymmetry . 151 5.2.1 The role of intervening material . 152 5.2.2 The role of linguistic experience . 156 5.3 Attenuating the asymmetry . 158 5.3.1 Animacy of the head noun . 158 5.3.2 Referential type of intervening elements . 159 5.3.3 Relative order of the head noun and relative clause . 161 5.4 The present studies: An overview . 166 5.4.1 Participants . 167 5.4.2 Procedure . 167 5.4.3 Data analysis . 169 5.4.4 Preview of the results . 170 5.5 Experiment 6: Unambiguous RCs with R-expression co-arguments . 171 5.5.1 Materials . 171 5.5.2 Predictions . 172 5.5.3 Data analysis . 176 5.5.4 Results and discussion . 176 5.6 Experiment 7: Unambiguous RCs with pronominal co-arguments . 180 5.6.1 Materials . 181 5.6.2 Prediction . 181 5.6.3 Data analysis . 186 5.6.4 Results and discussion . 187 5.7 Experiment 8: Ambiguous RCs with R-expression co-arguments . 190 5.7.1 Materials . 192 5.7.2 Prediction . 192 v 5.7.3 Data analysis . 194 5.7.4 Results and discussion . 195 5.8 General discussion . 199 6 Conclusion 203 6.1 The extraction restriction is not clean-cut . 204 6.2 Voice is a cue used in FGD-processing . 205 6.3 SRCs are easier to process than ORCs in Tagalog . 206 6.4 Future directions and concluding remarks . 207 6.4.1 Two grammars of Tagalog?: Collecting child data . 207 6.4.2 Do different FGDs exhibit varying mismatch penalties? . 209 6.4.3 Voice mismatches in islands . 211 6.4.4 What other cues do Tagalog comprehenders use? . 213 6.4.5 Quantifying how informative voice is . 215 6.4.6 Eye-movement in relative clause processing . 216 References 219 vi List of Figures 2.1 Map of the Tagalog-speaking regions of the Philippines. 11 3.1 Mean ratings by voice, match, and type in Experiment 1 . 55 3.2 Mean ratings by voice, match, and type in Experiment 2 . 65 3.3 Mean ratings by agex, match, and type in Experiment 3 . 72 3.4 Two potential underlying distributions of intermediate ratings . 76 4.1 A schema of how a comprehender could use voice to guide interpretation. 110 4.2 Phrase-by-phrase discrimination scores in experiment 4 . 122 4.3 Phrase-by-phrase discrimination scores in Experiment 5 . 130 5.1 A schematization of a typical trial in Experiments 6–8 . 168 5.2 Breakdown of responses by accuracy and confidence in Experiment 6 . 177 5.3 RTs of correct responses in Experiment 6 . 178 5.4 Breakdown of responses by accuracy and confidence in Experiment 7 . 187 5.5 RTs of correct responses in Experiment 7 . 188 5.6 Breakdown of responses by accuracy and confidence in Experiment 8 . 196 6.1 Sample item of the proposed reward/punishment judgment study for children . 210 6.2 Sample picture selection screen used in the experiments presented in Chapter 5 . 217 vii List of Tables 2.1 Case marker allomorphy . 13 2.2 Pronominal allomorphy . ..