Abstract

In this article, I will argue that many of the theoretical approaches to extraction from participle adjunct islands suffer from the fact that the focus of investigation lies on perceived grammaticality differences in interrogative structures. Following approaches which make an explicit connection between extraction asymmetries and properties of the underlying proposition, I will argue that there is good evidence for the existence of similar differences in declarative adjunct constructions which can explain most of the grammaticality patterns observed for interrogatives. A crucial distinction to the majority of previous theories is the focus on acceptability rather than grammaticality, and the assumption that acceptability in declaratives is determined by a variety of semantic and syntactic complexity factors which do not influence how strongly extraction degrades the structure. This line of argumentation is more compatible with approaches to island phenomena that explain the low acceptability of some extractions by independent effects such as processing complexity and discourse function instead of syntactic principles blocking the extraction. I will also discuss a partially weighted, multifactorial model for the acceptability of declarative and interrogative participle adjunct constructions, which explains the judgment patterns in the literature without the need for additional, complex licensing conditions for extraction.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.