Documentation

Linglib.Phenomena.Islands.Studies.HofmeisterSag2010

Cognitive Constraints and Island Effects #

@cite{hofmeister-sag-2010}

@cite{hofmeister-sag-2010} argue that island effects are gradient along multiple dimensions and that acceptability varies systematically with nonstructural manipulations (filler complexity, referential load) that leave island configurations intact. This challenges every categorical island constraint proposed: Subjacency, Complex NP Constraint, Barriers, and the Minimal Link Condition.

Key findings #

  1. More complex fillers (which-N phrases) improve acceptability inside islands relative to bare wh-words (who, what) — counterintuitively, richer representations resist interference and aid memory retrieval.
  2. Indefinite/plural island NPs improve acceptability relative to definite NPs, consistent with lower referential processing cost.
  3. Even the best island condition remains below non-island baselines: islands are ameliorated, not eliminated.

The cross-theory comparison (competence vs. performance vs. discourse) lives in Phenomena.FillerGap.Studies.LuPanDegen2025, which integrates these findings with @cite{lu-pan-degen-2025}'s discourse-based account.

Processing factors that independently contribute to the difficulty of filler-gap dependencies inside islands.

  • locality : ProcessingFactor

    Distance between filler and gap increases memory load (section 3.1). Confirmed by processing studies.

  • referentialLoad : ProcessingFactor

    Referential processing of intervening constituents depletes resources (section 3.2). Definites trigger referent search; proper names > definites > indefinites > pronouns in processing cost.

  • clauseBoundary : ProcessingFactor

    Clause boundaries impose processing cost independent of extraction (section 3.3). Even in yes-no questions, different complementizers elicit different neurological responses and acceptability.

  • fillerComplexity : ProcessingFactor

    Syntactic/semantic complexity of the filler phrase affects retrieval (section 3.4). Counterintuitively, MORE complex fillers REDUCE processing difficulty because richer representations resist interference and aid retrieval.

Instances For
    Equations
    • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
    Instances For

      Complexity of the displaced wh-phrase. More complex fillers (which-N phrases) facilitate processing inside islands, because richer representations aid memory retrieval (section 3.4).

      • bare : FillerType

        Bare wh-word: who, what

      • whichN : FillerType

        Complex wh-phrase: which convict, which employee

      Instances For
        Equations
        • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
        Instances For
          @[implicit_reducible]
          Equations

          Type of the island-forming NP (Experiment 1 only). Definite NPs trigger referent search and presupposition accommodation, consuming resources needed for dependency resolution (section 3.2).

          Instances For
            Equations
            • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
            Instances For
              @[implicit_reducible]
              Equations

              An experimental condition from @cite{hofmeister-sag-2010}. Acceptability stored as Nat (judgment ratio x 100, so 78 means 0.78).

              Instances For
                Equations
                • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                Instances For

                  Experiment 1: CNPC violations (section 5). 36 items, (2 x 3) + 1 design. Acceptability ratings on 1-8 scale, normalized as ratio of subject mean. Data from Figure 3 (p. 393).

                  Equations
                  • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                  Instances For

                    Experiment 2: Wh-island violations (section 6). 24 items, 2 + 1 design. Acceptability on 1-7 scale, normalized. Data from Figure 5 (p. 397). Key finding: F1(1,15)=15.964, p=0.001; F2(1,19)=14.428, p=0.001.

                    Equations
                    • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                    Instances For

                      Non-island baseline acceptability (CNPC experiment, Figure 3).

                      Equations
                      Instances For

                        Average acceptability for a filler type across a set of conditions.

                        Equations
                        • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                        Instances For

                          Filler complexity effect in CNPC: which-N > bare wh (section 5.2). F1(1,20)=48.741, p<0.0001; F2(1,35)=39.494, p<0.0001. The structure is identical -- only the filler changes.

                          theorem Phenomena.Islands.Studies.HofmeisterSag2010.cnpc_indefinite_gt_definite :
                          have indef := List.filter (fun (x : IslandCondition) => x.npType == some IslandNPType.indefinite) cnpcAcceptability; have def_ := List.filter (fun (x : IslandCondition) => x.npType == some IslandNPType.definite) cnpcAcceptability; List.foldl (fun (x1 : ) (x2 : IslandCondition) => x1 + x2.acceptability) 0 indef > List.foldl (fun (x1 : ) (x2 : IslandCondition) => x1 + x2.acceptability) 0 def_

                          NP type effect: indefinite > definite across both filler types (section 5.2). Consistent with lower referential processing cost for indefinites.

                          Even the best island condition (which-PL, 85) remains below the non-island baseline (108). Islands are ameliorated, not eliminated.

                          Pareto profiles re-encode H&S's key conditions in the format used by Theories.Processing.Cost.Profile, supporting weight-free ordinal comparison via Pareto dominance.

                          Bare wh + definite island-forming NP: worst CNPC condition. "I saw who Emma doubted the report that we had captured ___"

                          Equations
                          Instances For

                            Which-N + indefinite island-forming NP: best CNPC condition. "I saw which convict Emma doubted a report that we had captured ___"

                            Equations
                            Instances For

                              Non-island baseline (no extraction): "I saw who Emma doubted that ___"

                              Equations
                              Instances For

                                Bare wh into wh-island: "Who did Albert learn whether they dismissed ___"

                                Equations
                                Instances For

                                  Which-N into wh-island: "Which employee did Albert learn whether they dismissed ___"

                                  Equations
                                  Instances For

                                    Conditions tagged for use with OrderingPrediction.

                                    Instances For
                                      Equations
                                      • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                                      Instances For
                                        @[implicit_reducible]
                                        Equations
                                        • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

                                        Complex fillers reduce processing difficulty in CNPC. Pareto: cnpcWhichIndefProfile is easier than cnpcBareDefProfile because referentialLoad is lower (1 < 2) and ease is higher (2 > 0); locality and boundaries are equal.

                                        Complex fillers reduce processing difficulty in wh-islands. Pareto: whIslandWhichProfile is easier than whIslandBareProfile because ease is higher (2 > 0) with all other dimensions equal.

                                        Worst CNPC condition is harder than baseline. Pareto: cnpcBareDefProfile dominates on locality (8 > 5), boundaries (1 > 0), and referentialLoad (2 > 0); ease is equal.

                                        Which-indef CNPC vs baseline is incomparable under Pareto: which-indef is worse on locality (8 > 5), boundaries (1 > 0), and referentialLoad (1 > 0) but better on ease (2 > 0). The trade-off is genuine — Pareto reports it as incomparable rather than forcing a cardinal aggregate.

                                        Pareto-orderable predictions over the H&S conditions. Which-indef CNPC vs baseline is omitted because it is incomparable under Pareto (see which_indef_vs_baseline_incomparable).

                                        Equations
                                        • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                                        Instances For