English Resumptive Pronouns are More Common where Gaps are Less Acceptable

Morgan, Adam; Wagers, Matthew

doi:10.31219/osf.io/8mtsz

Cited by 17 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is well known that English speakers produce resumptive pronouns inside islands to 'rescue' ill-formed sentences (e.g. Morgan and Wagers, 2018;Ross, 1967). Importantly, English speakers produce resumptives in precisely the locations where Norwegian would allow gaps.…”

Section: Evidence Of Differencementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

L2 transfer of L1 island-insensitivity: The case of Norwegian

Kush

Dahl

2020

Second Language Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Norwegian allows filler-gap dependencies into embedded questions, which are islands for filler-gap dependency formation in English. We ask whether there is evidence that Norwegian learners of English transfer the functional structure that permits island violations from their first language (L1) to their second language (L2). In two acceptability judgment studies, we find that Norwegians are more likely to accept ‘island-violating’ filler-gap dependencies in L2 English if the corresponding filler-gap dependency is acceptable in Norwegian: Norwegian learners variably accept English sentences with dependencies into embedded questions, but not into subject phrases. These results are consistent with models that permit transfer of abstract functional structure. Norwegians are still less likely to accept filler-gap dependencies into English embedded questions than Norwegian embedded questions. We interpret the latter finding as evidence that, despite transfer, Norwegian speakers may partially restructure their L2 English analysis. We discuss how indirect positive evidence may play a role in helping learners restructure.

show abstract

Section: Evidence Of Differencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…. the sale of the uranium that nobody knows what it means' -Donald Trump (Gore et al, 2016, cited in Morgan andWagers, 2018: 861) c. 'Maybe it was a bad idea to get people together and try to record audio with some equipment that we didn't know how it worked.' (CBC Podcast Personal Best, Episode: 'Know more, Carry Less', ~9:00)…”

Section: Evidence Of Differencementioning

confidence: 99%

L2 transfer of L1 island-insensitivity: The case of Norwegian

Kush

Dahl

2020

Second Language Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One such strategy is the use of resumptive pronouns (RPs) (Ariel, 1990(Ariel, , 1999 instead of gaps, as demonstrated in ( 11 It has long been observed that when English speakers produce filler-gap dependencies which span syntactic configurations known as islands, rendering an ungrammatical utterance, they sometimes produce a pronoun in the embedded argument position instead of leaving a gap (Alexopoulou & Keller, 2007;F. Ferreira & Swets, 2005;McCloskey, 2017;Morgan & Wagers, 2018;Polinsky, Clemens, Morgan, Xiang, & Heestand, 2013;Ross, 1967;Sells, 1984, among others). In English, this dependency formation technique is categorized as 'intrusive resumption' (McCloskey, 2006) that is, not a part of the grammar.…”

Section: Experiments 2: Restrictiveness and Resumption In Hebrewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In English, this dependency formation technique is categorized as 'intrusive resumption' (McCloskey, 2006) that is, not a part of the grammar. Accordingly, it is often viewed as related to the processing of these constructions (Alexopoulou & Keller, 2007;Asudeh, 2004;Dickey, 1996;Erteschik-Shir, 1992;Hawkins, 1999Hawkins, , 2003Morgan & Wagers, 2018; among others).…”

Section: Experiments 2: Restrictiveness and Resumption In Hebrewmentioning

confidence: 99%

It depends: Optionality in the production of filler-gap dependencies

Fadlon

Morgan

Meltzer‐Asscher

et al. 2019

Journal of Memory and Language

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigates the language production mechanisms underlying the creation of filler-gap dependencies (e.g., relative clauses: This is the boy that the girl from Norway saw_ yesterday), which require speakers to establish an argument-predicate relationship between a phrase, the 'filler', (the boy) and a further embedded predicate (saw). We show that filler-gap dependency production involves the retention of a representation of the filler until the relevant embedded position. We then report three elicitation experiments examining how English and Hebrew speakers manage and moderate filler retention demands via production choices. In Experiments 1 (English) and 2 (Hebrew), speakers produced restrictive relative clauses and non-restrictive relative clauses with the latter predicted to impede filler retention. In Experiment 3 (Hebrew), speakers produced relative clauses with and without intervening material creating interference for filler retention. We found that English speakers use passivization to moderate filler-retention demands via the creation of shorter dependencies. In Hebrew, impeded filler retention resulted in increased rate of grammatical resumption. We conclude that the production of filler-gap dependencies invokes cognitive strategies that manage the memory burdens that they impose

show abstract

“… 3 See Morgan and Wagers (2018) for a recent discussion of how acceptability and production of RPs are connected in RRCs.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Is English resumption different in appositive relative clauses?

Loss

Wicklund

2019

Can. J. Linguist.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Resumptive pronouns are produced in English in unguarded speech in restrictive relative clauses and appositive relative clauses. However, numerous studies have found that resumptive pronouns in restrictive relative clauses are not acceptable. To our knowledge, no studies have examined the acceptability of resumptive pronouns in appositive relative clauses, despite hints in the literature that they may be more acceptable in appositive than in restrictive relative clauses. This article fills that gap. We found that resumptive pronouns were rated as more natural in appositive relative clauses than in restrictive relative clauses. These findings may be due to which currently undergoing a reanalysis from a relative pronoun to a solely connective word, as has been suggested in the literature. A small-scale corpus search also reveals that appositive relative clauses with resumptive pronouns are increasing in American English.

show abstract

English Resumptive Pronouns are More Common where Gaps are Less Acceptable

Cited by 17 publications

References 6 publications

L2 transfer of L1 island-insensitivity: The case of Norwegian

L2 transfer of L1 island-insensitivity: The case of Norwegian

It depends: Optionality in the production of filler-gap dependencies

Is English resumption different in appositive relative clauses?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About