UC Santa Cruz UC Santa Cruz Electronic Theses and Dissertations Title Extraction from Relative Clauses: An Experimental Investigation into Variable Island Effects in English—or—This is a Dissertation That We Really Needed to Find Someone Who'd Write Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5k08q709 Author Vincent, Jake Wayne Publication Date 2021 Peer reviewed|Thesis/dissertation eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ EXTRACTION FROM RELATIVE CLAUSES: AN EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION INTO VARIABLE ISLAND EFFECTS IN ENGLISH —OR— THIS IS A DISSERTATION THAT WE REALLY NEEDED TO FIND SOMEONE WHO’D WRITE A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in LINGUISTICS by Jake Wayne Vincent June 2021 The dissertation of Jake Wayne Vincent is approved: Associate Professor Matthew Wagers, Chair Associate Professor Ivy Sichel Associate Professor Maziar Toosarvandani Quentin Williams Interim Vice Provost and Dean of Graduate Studies Copyright © by Jake Wayne Vincent 2021 Contents 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Some background ................................ 1 1.2 English ...................................... 4 1.3 Outline ...................................... 6 2 A cross‑linguistic survey of extraction from relative clauses 8 2.1 The Mainland Scandinavian languages ..................... 10 2.1.1 Danish .................................. 10 2.1.2 Swedish ................................. 12 2.1.3 Norwegian ................................ 14 2.2 Hebrew ...................................... 16 2.3 Romance languages ............................... 19 2.4 Interim summary ................................. 20 2.5 What we know about English .......................... 20 3 Measuring the strength of an island and estimating the source(s) of ratings dis‑ tributions 24 3.1 The factorial definition of islands ........................ 24 3.2 Experiment 1: Definiteness ............................ 30 3.2.1 Participants ............................... 30 3.2.2 Materials & methods ........................... 31 3.2.3 Analysis .................................. 33 3.2.4 Predictions ................................ 33 3.2.5 Results .................................. 33 3.2.6 Discussion ................................ 35 3.2.7 Interim summary ............................. 36 3.3 An alternative design: DEPENDENCY × ENViRONMENT .............. 36 3.3.1 Interim summary ............................. 43 3.4 Mixture modeling ................................. 43 3.4.1 Model definition ............................. 47 The DiSCRETE model ........................... 48 The GRADiENT model ........................... 48 The optimization of π .......................... 49 3.4.2 Model evaluation ............................. 50 3.4.3 A test case ................................ 51 iii 3.5 Interim conclusion ................................ 52 4 Finite relative clauses are selective islands in English 56 4.1 Experiment 2: Relative clause environment (dependency by environment) .. 56 4.1.1 Participants ............................... 57 4.1.2 Materials & methods ........................... 57 4.1.3 Analysis .................................. 59 4.1.4 Predictions ................................ 60 4.1.5 Results .................................. 61 Version 1 (Lab) .............................. 61 Version 2 (Mechanical Turk) ....................... 64 4.1.6 Discussion ................................ 66 4.2 Experiment 3: Relative clause environment (length by structure) ....... 67 4.2.1 Participants ............................... 67 4.2.2 Materials & methods ........................... 67 Filler sentences .............................. 71 4.2.3 Analysis .................................. 71 4.2.4 Predictions ................................ 72 4.2.5 Results .................................. 73 4.2.6 Mixture modeling ............................ 76 4.2.7 Discussion ................................ 78 5 Asymmetries between and within finite relatives and infinitival relatives 81 5.1 Background: Infinitival relative clauses ..................... 83 5.1.1 What are they? .............................. 83 Gaps ................................... 83 Another empty category ......................... 84 Left periphery .............................. 85 Covert modality ............................. 86 What aren’t they? ............................ 87 5.1.2 The syntax of infinitival relative clauses ................ 89 Subject infinitival relatives ....................... 89 Non‑subject infinitival relatives ..................... 91 5.1.3 Are they islands? ............................. 91 5.2 Experiment 4: Infinitival relatives I ........................ 93 5.2.1 Participants ............................... 93 5.2.2 Materials & methods ........................... 94 Filler sentences .............................. 96 5.2.3 Analysis .................................. 96 5.2.4 Predictions ................................ 96 5.2.5 Results .................................. 97 5.2.6 Discussion ................................ 99 5.3 Experiment 5: Infinitival relatives II ....................... 101 5.3.1 Participants ............................... 102 5.3.2 Materials & methods ........................... 102 iv Filler sentences .............................. 103 5.3.3 Analysis .................................. 103 5.3.4 Predictions ................................ 103 5.3.5 Results .................................. 104 5.3.6 Discussion ................................ 107 6 The role of the discourse function of the relative clause 108 6.1 Background: Evidential existentials ....................... 108 6.2 Experiment 6: Evidential existential verbs .................... 110 6.2.1 Participants ............................... 110 6.2.2 Materials & methods ........................... 110 6.2.3 Analysis .................................. 111 6.2.4 Predictions ................................ 112 6.2.5 Results .................................. 112 Descriptive statistics ........................... 112 Inferential statistics ........................... 113 6.2.6 Discussion ................................ 114 6.3 Experiment 7: Evidential existentials without context ............. 114 6.3.1 Participants ............................... 115 6.3.2 Materials & methods ........................... 116 6.3.3 Analysis .................................. 118 6.3.4 Predictions ................................ 118 6.3.5 Results .................................. 119 Descriptive statistics ........................... 119 Inferential statistics ........................... 119 6.3.6 Discussion ................................ 120 6.4 Experiment 8: Evidential existentials with context ............... 120 6.4.1 Participants ............................... 121 6.4.2 Materials & methods ........................... 121 6.4.3 Analysis .................................. 122 6.4.4 Predictions ................................ 122 6.4.5 Results .................................. 123 Descriptive statistics ........................... 123 Inferential statistics ........................... 123 6.4.6 Discussion ................................ 125 6.5 General discussion ................................ 125 7 Implications and conclusion 126 7.1 Summary ..................................... 126 7.2 Theoretical implications and future work .................... 127 7.2.1 An acceptability–grammaticality issue ................. 128 7.2.2 A grammatical (syntactic) issue ..................... 130 Only pseudo‑relatives are porous .................... 131 True relatives are selectively porous .................. 133 7.2.3 Where to go next ............................. 134 v A Supplementary experiment materials 137 A.1 Experiment 1: Definiteness ............................ 137 A.1.1 Model ................................... 137 A.1.2 CP complements to N .......................... 138 A.1.3 Items ................................... 138 A.1.4 Paper survey sample ........................... 146 A.2 Experiment 2: Existence presuppositions .................... 152 A.2.1 Model ................................... 152 Simple effects analysis: Version 1 .................... 152 Mixed effects analysis: Version 2 (Mechanical Turk) .......... 152 A.2.2 Items ................................... 152 A.3 Experiment 3: Environment ........................... 160 A.3.1 Model ................................... 160 A.3.2 Items ................................... 161 A.4 Experiment 4: Infinitival relatives I ........................ 175 A.4.1 Model ................................... 175 A.4.2 Items ................................... 176 A.5 Experiment 5: Infinitival relatives II ....................... 188 A.5.1 Model ................................... 188 A.5.2 Figures .................................. 188 A.5.3 Items ................................... 188 A.6 Experiment 6: Evidential existential verbs .................... 193 A.6.1 Model ................................... 193 A.6.2 Items ................................... 194 A.7 Experiment 7: Evidential existentials without context ............. 198 A.7.1 Model ................................... 198 A.7.2 Items ................................... 199 A.8 Experiment 8: Evidential existentials with context ............... 206 A.8.1 Model ................................... 206 A.8.2 Items ................................... 207 B R scripts 215 B.1 Discrete