The intricacies of A’-syntax is one of the glories of GB.[1] The unification of Ross’s islands in terms of
subjacency and the discovery of ECP dependencies (especially the adjunct/argument
distinction) coupled with wide ranging investigations of these effects in a
large variety of different kinds of languages marked a high point in Generative
Grammar. This all changed with the Minimalist (M) “Revolution” (yes; these are
scare quotes). Thereafter, Island and ECP effects mostly fell from the hot
topics list (compare post M work with that done in the 80s and early 90s where
it seemed that every other paper/book was about A’-dependencies and their
island/ECP restrictions). Moreover, though early M was chock full of
discussions of Superiority, an A’-effect, it was mainly theoretically
interesting for the light that it threw on Minimality and Shortest Move/Attract
rather than how it bore on Islands or the ECP.
Indeed, from where I sit, the bulk of the interesting work within M has
been on A rather than A’ dependencies.[2]
Moreover, whereas there has been interesting research aiming
to unify various grammatical modules, subjacency and ECP have resisted
theoretical integration, at least interesting versions thereof. It is possible,
indeed easy, to translate bounding theory or barriers into phase terminology.[3]
However, there is nothing particularly insightful gained in doing this. It is
also possible to unify Islands with Minimality given the right use of features
placed in appropriate edge positions, but IMO little has been gained to date in
so proceeding. So Island and ECP effects, once the pride of theoretical syntax
have become a backwater and a slightly embarrassing one for three related
reasons.
First, though it is pretty easy to translate Subjacency
(viz. bounding theory) in phase terms, this translation simply duplicates the
peccadillos of the earlier approaches (e.g. we stipulated bounding nodes, we
now stipulate (strong) phases, we stipulated escape hatches (C yes, D no) we
now stipulate phase edges (both which phases have any to use and how many they
have)).
Second, ad hoc as
this is, it’s good compared to the problems the ECP throws up. For example, the
ECP is conceptually a trace licensing requirement. Where does this leave us when
we replace traces with copies as M does? Do copies need licensing? Why if they
are simply different occurrences of a single expression? Moreover, how do we
code the difference between adjuncts versus arguments? What makes the former so restricted when compared
to the latter?
Last, the obvious redundancy between Subjacency and the ECP
raises serious M questions. Both involve the same island like configurations
yet they are entirely different licensing conditions. Talk of redundancy! One
of Subjacency or the ECP is bad enough, but both? Argh!!
So, A’-syntax raises M issues and a natural hope is to
dispose of these problems by placing them in someone else’s trash bin. And
there have been several attempts, to do just this, e.g. Kluender & Kutas,
Sag & Hoffmeister, Hawkins, among others. The idea has been to treat island
effects as a reflection of processing complexity, the latter arising when
parsers try to relate elements outside an island (fillers) to positions (gaps)
within an island. It is well known that
filler/gap dependencies impose a memory/storage cost as the process of relating
a filler to a gap requires keeping the filler “live” until it’s discharged in
the appropriate position. Interestingly, there is independent psycho-ling
evidence that the cost of keeping elements active can depend on the details of
the parse quite independently of whether islands are involved (e.g. beginnings
of finite clauses induce load, as does the parsing of definites).[4]
Island effects, on this view, are just the sum total of these island-independent
processing costs. In effect, Islands are just structures where these other costly
independently manifested requirements converge. If true, this idea could, with some work, let M off the island
hook.[5]
Wouldn’t that be nice?
It would be, but I personally doubt that this strategy will
work out. The main problem is that it
seems very hard to explain the unacceptability profiles of island effects in
processing terms. A recent volume (of which I am co-editor though Jon Sprouse
did all the really heavy lifting and deserves all the credit, Experimental Syntax and Island Effects)
reviews the basic issues. The main take home message is that when considered in
detail, the relevant cited complexity inducers (e.g. definiteness) do not
eliminate the structural contributions of islands to the perceived
acceptability, though they can modulate it (viz. the super-additive effects of
islands remain even if the severity of the unacceptability can be manipulated).
Many of the papers in the volume address these issues in detail (see especially
those by Jon Sprouse, Matt Wagers, and Colin Phillips). The book also contains
good representatives of the processing “complexity” alternative and the
interested reader is encouraged to take a look at the papers (WARNING: being a
co-editor forbids me in good conscience, from advocating purchase but I believe
that many would consider this book a
perfect holiday gift even for those with no interest in the relevant
intellectual issues, e.g. it’s really heavy and would make a perfect
paperweight or door stopper).
A nice companion piece to the papers in the above volume
that I have recently read seconds the conclusion that Island Effects have a
structural source. The paper (here)
is by Yoshida, Kazanina, Pablos and Sturt (YKPS) and it explores the problem in
a very clever way. Here’s a quick review.
YKPS starts from the assumption that if the problem is one
of the processing complexities of islands, then any dependency into an island that
is computed online (as filler/gap dependencies are) should show island like
properties even if these dependencies are not products of movement. They
identify forward cataphora (e.g. his1
managers revealed that [island the studio that notified Jeffrey Stewart1 about the new
film] selected a novel for the script) as one such dependency. YKPS shows that
the indicated referential dependency is calculated online just as filler/gap
dependencies are (both are very greedy in fixing the dependency). However, in contrast to movement dependencies, pronoun
resolution in forward cataphora does not exhibit island effects. The argument
is easy to follow and the conclusion strikes me as pretty solid, but read it
and judge for yourself. What I liked about it is that it is a classic example
of a typical linguistic argument form: YKPS identifies a dog that doesn’t bark. If parsing complexity is
the relevant variable then it needs to explain both why some dependencies
exhibit island effects and, just as importantly, why some do not. In other
words, negative data counts! The absence of
island effects is as much a datum as its presence is, though it is often
ignored.[6]
As YKPS put it:
Complexity accounts, which
attribute island effects to the effect of processing complexity of the online
dependency formation process, need to explain why the same complexity does not affect (my emphasis, NH) the
formation of cataphoric dependencies. (17)
So, it seems to me that islands are here to stay, even if
their presence in UG embarrasses minimalists.
Three points and I end. First, the argument that YKPS
presents is another nice example of how psycho-techniques can be used to
advance syntactic ends. How so? Well, it
is critical to YKPS’s point that forward cataphora involves the same kind of
processing strategies (active filler) as do regular filler/gap dependencies
that one finds in movement despite the dependencies being entirely different
grammatically. This is what makes it possible to compare the two kinds of
processes and conclude from their different behavior wrt islands that
structural effects cannot be reduced to parsing complexity (a prima facie very reasonable hypothesis
and one that might even be nice were it true!).[7]
Second, the complexity theory of islands pertains to
Subjacency Effects. The far harder problem, as I mentioned earlier, involve ECP
effects. Indeed, were Subjacency Effects reduced to complexity effects, the
presence of ECP effects in the very same configurations would become even more puzzling, at least to me. At any
rate, both problems remain, and await a decent M analysis.
Third, let me end with some personal intellectual history. I
taught a course on the old GB A’ material with Howard Lasnik this semester (a
great experience, thx Howard) and have become pretty convinced that finding a
way to simply recapitulate ECP and Island effects in M terms is by no means
trivial. To see this, I invite you to simply
try to translate the GB theories into
an M acceptable idiom. Even this is pretty hard to do, and a simple translation
still leaves one short of a M acceptable account. Conclusion? This is still a
really juicy research topic for the unificationally inclined, i.e. a great
Minimalist research topic.
[1]
I take GB to be the logical culmination of work that first developed as the
Extended Standard Theory. Moreover, I here, again, take GB to be one of several
kissing cousins, such as GPSG, LFG, HPSG.
[2]
This is a bird’s eye evaluation and there are notable exceptions to this coarse
generalization. Here is one very conspicuous exception: how ellipsis obviates
island effects. Lasnik and Merchant have turned this into a small very
productive industry. The main theoretical effect has been to make us reconsider
what makes an island islandy. The ellipsis effects have revived an
interpretation that has some roots in Ross, that it is not the illicit
dependency that matters but the phonological realization thereof that counts. Islands, on this view, are PF rather than
syntactic effects. At any rate, this is really interesting stuff which has led
us to understand Island Effects in new ways.
[3]
At least if one allows D to be a phase, something some (e.g. Chomsky) has only
grudgingly accepted.
[4]
Rick Lewis has some nice models of this based on empirical work by Gibson.
[5]
Of course, more work needs doing. For example, one needs to explain, why,
ellipsis obviates these processing effects (see note 2).
[6]
Note 4 indicates another bit of negative data that needs explanation on the
complexity account. One might think, for example, that having to infer
structure would add to complexity and
thus increase the unacceptability of island violations, contrary to what we in
fact find.
[7]
Very reasonable indeed as witnessed by Chomsky’s extensive efforts to argue
against the supposition that island effects are simple complexity effects in On Wh Movement.
