Dominance and the Functional Explanation of Island Phenomena

Abstract

In this paper, we argue that syntactic islands, first characterized by Ross (1967), can best be described and explained in functional rather than purely structural terms. We define here first a pragmatic (discourse-based) property -dominance -and we offer operational criteria to discern its presence in a sentence. We then state our hypothesis concerning extraction which we formulate in terms of dominance. In part 2 we attempt to show that our hypothesis allows us to account for all of Ross' constraints and that we are also able to capture certain distinctions in acceptability, which elude his and other syntactic approaches. In the third section we argue that Postal's claim concerning a correlation between islands and certain ambiguities is incorrect. A partial correlation of a different sort can be predicted and explained in terms of dominance. 0.A considerable amount of attention has been devoted by linguists to the problem of characterizing and explaining syntactic islands. Ross (1967) provides an extensive discussion of islands and represents them in terms of constraints on extraction rules whose operation is blocked by these environments. A number of proposals have been put forward since then, notably by Chomsky (1973). More recently, Postal (1974) tries to show that there is a correlation between syntactic islands and a certain class of ambiguities. He explains this correlation by arguing that the ambiguous sentences in question are derived from alternative logical forms by syntactic operations which are sensitive to island constraints. What is common to the theories suggested by Ross, Chomsky, Postal, and others is that they seek to treat islands as essentially structural phenomena which are, in effect, defined by the syntactic constraints upon movement transformations, which limit the domain of these transformations to a specific class of environments.We wish to claim that it is both possible, and more fruitful to characterize islands in functional terms. In the first part of this paper we define a pragmatic (discourse-based) property which we refer to as dominance, and we offer operational criteria for discerning its presence in a sentence. We then state a hypotheseis concerning extraction which we formulate in terms of dominance. In part 2 we attempt to show that our hypothesis allows us to

Bridge verbs and V2 verbs – the same thing in spades?

“…The most common theme in discussion about bridge verbs is the question what decides whether a verb will join the class or not (for some early work see Erteschik-Shir 1973). A fundamental insight is that the meaning components of the verb play a role.…”

Centering, accessibility and the next mention

“…The Dominance test(Erteschik-Shir and Lappin, 1979) attests that the matrix here is nonDominant. A that's not true response would tend to deny the complement rather than the matrix.Brought to you by | University of Georgia Libraries Authenticated Download Date | 6/7/15 3:38 PM…”

Subordination in Native South American Languages

“…This is particularly true for the so-called "lie-test" (Erteshik-Shir & Lappin 1979: "The lie-test is a device for testing what parts of a sentence are dominant, that is can become the subject of further conversation. The lie-test consists in placing the sentence in a context of direct discourse, and then denying or assigning a probability or truth value to the various parts of the sentence, […]" (Cristofaro 2003: 36).…”