Elamur Research⌕
☰
home / papers / 2019 / Minding the gap?: Mechanisms underlying resumption in English

Minding the gap?: Mechanisms underlying resumption in English

Paper · 2019 · Dustin A. Chacón

Summary

The paper asks why English resumptive pronouns, which are ungrammatical, still seem to help comprehenders process filler dependencies, especially inside syntactic islands. This is puzzling because gap prediction normally respects island constraints. Chacón proposes that a filler first triggers a predicted gapped structure. As more words arrive, that prediction fades in memory, so the reader becomes less likely to notice when no gap appears. A pronoun that corefers with the filler then sets up a reference dependency, which lets the reader still build a coherent meaning. On this view, resumption is a fallback that operates only when grammar-guided gap processing breaks down. The account predicts that filler accessibility as an antecedent, dependency length, and processing load should all affect how acceptable resumption sounds. Four acceptability-judgment experiments test these predictions. They compare resumptive and anaphoric pronouns, and island-internal resolution with later gaps. The experiments also introduce a paradigm in which a word-list recall task loads working memory during reading. Under memory load, people become less sensitive to unresolved filler dependencies. This helps reconcile fast grammatical constraint use with the existence of resumption.

Key points

  • Four acceptability-judgment studies manipulated dependency length, whether the pronoun referred back to the filler NP, and memory load.
  • In the new Memory Load paradigm, participants hold a word list while reading. Extra strain improved ratings for gapless filler dependencies.
  • Coreference between the filler and the pronoun raised ratings, but only in a subset of conditions.
  • The account builds on Hofmeister & Norcliffe (2013), who found resumptives speed self-paced reading only in long dependencies. It revises Chacón (2015), whose sentence-completion study found that filler–pronoun coreference reduced gap completions.
  • ATB processing results (Wagers & Phillips 2009; Parker 2017) show that gap search continues even after a thematic role is assigned. This is why the paper attributes resumption to memory degradation rather than to deliberately abandoning the gap search.

Interesting ideas

  • I1. An unmet structural expectation can be treated as a decaying memory item, so a late violation counts less than an early one; this also explains why such violations go unnoticed.
  • I2. A pronoun can play two roles, ordinary anaphor or resumptive binder of a filler, and the choice depends on whether the filler is an accessible antecedent and whether competing referents exist.
  • I3. The design is layered: strict grammatical processing runs first, and a tolerant meaning-recovery route activates only after it fails. This keeps the system principled while staying robust to sloppy input.
  • I4. A secondary load task tests whether a judgment depends on limited resources. Swapping linguistic load for non-linguistic load separates interference effects from capacity effects.
  • I5. Real spontaneous speech, such as podcast transcripts, yields naturally occurring resumptive sentences that make good test items.

For Mova

How these ideas could serve Mova, our small open language model — its files, stages and tests:

  • I1 (tree): The parser could store open filler–gap predictions with a distance-based weight, and flag long unresolved dependencies as plausible resumptive structures rather than hard errors.
  • I2 (frames): Coreference could add a "resumptive" reading in which the filler inherits the pronoun's semantic role, chosen only when gap resolution failed and no better antecedent is present.
  • I3 (world): When a relative clause has no gap but contains a coreferent pronoun, the world builder could still link the head noun to the event and record that a repair was applied, keeping the step explainable.
  • I4 (learn): Evaluations could add distractor material, linguistic versus non-linguistic, to check whether parser or reader accuracy on long dependencies degrades, as a negative control for spurious robustness.
  • I5 (answer): Conversational test sets could include resumptive relative clauses so that readers are checked on attaching the head noun to the right role despite the ungrammatical form.

Our summary of the paper, in our own words — not its text. The work belongs to its authors; read it at the links above.

 Institutions

🎓University of MinnesotaMinneapolis · United States30 works · 2,466 citations

 Fields, topics and concepts

📚 Shelves 6The field of science this work belongs to (OpenAlex fields).Arts and Humanities · 17,959 worksLanguage and Linguistics · 17,789 worksPsychology · 1,673 worksDevelopmental and Educational Psychology · 533 worksNeuroscience · 192 worksCognitive Neuroscience · 191 works

🧭 Topics 1Research subjects and languages the work is about.English · 2,381 works

Cite

Cite as Dustin A. Chacón. 2019. Minding the gap?: Mechanisms underlying resumption in English. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics.

The paper itself, not this page. BibTeX from the library's record of the work. DOI 10.5334/gjgl.839

@article{chacon2019minding,
  title = {{Minding the gap?: Mechanisms underlying resumption in English}},
  author = {Dustin A. Chacón},
  journal = {Glossa: a journal of general linguistics},
  year = {2019},
  doi = {10.5334/gjgl.839},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.839}
}

References

88 references, 2 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

  1. Ackerman, Lauren, Michael Frazier & Masaya Yoshida. 2018. Resumptive pronouns can ameliorate illicit island extractions. Linguistic Inquiry 49(4). 847–859. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00291 Alexopoulou, Theodora & Frank Keller. 2007. Locality, cyclicity, and resumption: At the Interface between the grammar and the human sentence processor. Language 83(1). 110–160. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2007.0001 ↗
  2. Alexopoulou, Theodora & Frank Keller. 2013. What vs. who and which: Kind-denoting fillers and the complexity of whether-islands. In Jon Sprouse & Norbert Hornstein (eds.), Experimental syntax and island effects, 310–340. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139035309.005 ↗
  3. Almeida, Diogo. 2014. Subliminal wh-islands in Brazilian Portuguese and the consequences for syntactic theory. Revista da ABRALIN 13. 55–93. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5380/ rabl.v13i2.39611 Anderson, Jordan. 1983. The architecture of cognition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. ↗
  4. Aoshima, Sachiko, Colin Phillips & Amy Weinberg. 2004. Processing fillergap dependencies in a head-final language. Journal of Memory and Language 51(1). 23–54. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2004.03.001 ↗
  5. Aoun, Joseph, Lina Choueiri & Norbert Hornstein. 2001. Resumption, movement, and derivational economy. Linguistic Inquiry 32(3). 371–403. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/002438901750372504 Apel, Jens, Pia Knoeferle & Matthew W. Crocker. 2007. Processing parallel structure: Evidence from eye-tracking and a computational model. In Stella Vosniadou, Daniel Kayser & Athanassios Protopapas (eds.), Proceedings of the European Cognitive Science Conference, 125–131. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. ↗
  6. Ariel, Mira. 1999. Cognitive universals and language conventions: The case of resumptive pronouns. Studies in Language 23(2). 217–269. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/ sl.23.2.02ari Arnold, Jennifer E. 2010. How speakers refer: The role of accessibility. Linguistics and Language Compass 4(4). 187–203. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2010.00193.x ↗
  7. Arnold, Jennifer E., Janet G. Eisenbrand, Sarah Brown-Schmidt & John C. Trueswell. 2000. The rapid use of gender information: Evidence of the time course of pronoun resolution from eyetracking. Cognition 76(1). B13–B26. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0010-0277(00)00073-1 ↗
  8. Arnold, Jennifer E. & Shin-Yi C. Lao. 2015. Effects of psychological attention on pronoun comprehension. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 30(7). 832–852. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2015.1017511 Asudeh, Ash. 2012. The logic of pronominal resumption. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199206421.001.0001 ↗
  9. Atkinson, Emily, Aaron Apple, Kyle Rawlins & Akira Omaki. 2015. Similarity of wh-phrases and acceptability variation in wh-islands. Frontiers in Psychology 6(2048). DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.02048 ↗
  10. Baddeley, Alan. 2000. The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 4(11). 417–423. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01538-2 ↗
  11. Baddeley, Alan D. & Graham Hitch. 1974. Working memory. Psychology of Learning and Motivation 8. 47–89. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60452-1 ↗
  12. Badecker, William & Kathleen Straub. 2002. The processing role of structural constraints on interpretation of pronouns and anaphors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 28. 748–768. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037//0278-7393.28.4.748 ↗
  13. Barr, Dale J., Roger Levy, Christoph Scheepers & Harry J. Tily. 2013. Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language 68(3). 255–278. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001 ↗
  14. Bates, Douglas, Martin Mächler, Ben Bolker & Steve Walker. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67(1). 1–48. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 Beltrama, Andrea & Ming Xiang. 2016. Unacceptable but comprehensible: The facilitation effect of resumptive pronouns. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 1(1). 29. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.24 ↗
  15. Boeckx, Cedric. 2003. Islands and chains: Resumption as stranding. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/la.63 ↗
  16. Chacón, Dustin Alfonso. 2015. Comparative psychosyntax. College Park, MD: University of Maryland dissertation. DOI: https://doi.org/10.13016/M29D2B. ↗
  17. Chacón, Dustin Alfonso, Mashrur Imtiaz, Shirsho Dasgupta, Sikder Monoare Murshed, Mina Dan & Colin Phillips. 2016. Locality and word order in active dependency formation in Bangla. Frontiers in Psychology 7(AUG). DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/ fpsyg.2016.01235 Chao, Wynn & Peter Sells. 1983. On the interpretation of resumptive pronouns. In Peter Sells & Charles Jones (eds.), North eastern linguistics society 13, 47–61. Amherst, MA: Graduate Linguistics Student Association. ↗
  18. Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding: The Pisa lectures. Dordrecht: Foris. find
  19. Chow, Wing-Yee & Yangzi Zhou. 2018. Eye-tracking evidence for active gapfilling regardless of dependency length. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021818804988 Crain, Stephen & Janet Dean Fodor. 1985. How can grammars help parsers? In David R. Dowty, Lauri Karttunen & Arnold M. Zwicky (eds.), Natural language parsing, 94–128. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/ CBO9780511597855.004 Creswell, Cassandre. 2002. Resumptive pronouns, wh-island violations, and sentence production. Proceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on Tree Adjoining Grammar and Related Frameworks 6. 101–109. ↗
  20. Diaconescu, Rodica Constanta & Helen Goodluck. 2004. The pronoun attraction effect for d(iscourse)-linked phrases: Evidence from speakers of a null subject language. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 33(4). 303–319. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/ B:JOPR.0000035103.19149.dc Drummond, Alex. 2018. Ibexfarm. www.spellout.net/ibexfarm. ↗
  21. Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 1992. Resumptive pronouns in islands. In Helen Goodluck & Michael Rochemont (eds.), Island constraints: Theory, acquisition, and processing, 89–108. Dordrecht: Kluer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1980-3_4 ↗
  22. Farby, Shira, Gabi Danon, Joel Walters & Michal Ben Shachar. 2010. The acceptability of resumptive pronouns in Hebrew. In Yehuda Falk (ed.), Proceedings of Israel Association for Theoretical Linguistics 26. http://linguistics.huji.ac.il/IATL/26/Farby_et_al.pdf. ↗
  23. Ferreira, Fernanda & Benjamin Swets. 2005. The production and comprehension of resumptive pronouns in relative clause “island” contexts. In Anne Cutler (ed.), Twenty-first century psycholinguistics: Four cornerstones, 263–278. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. find
  24. Fiebach, Christian J., Matthias Schlesewsky & Angela D. Friederici. 2001. Syntactic working memory and the establishment of filler-gap dependencies: Insights from ERPs and fMRI. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 30(3). 321–338. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010447102554 Fiebach, Christian J., Matthias Schlesewsky & Angela D. Friederici. 2002. Separating syntactic memory costs and syntactic integration costs during parsing: The processing of german wh-questions. Journal of Memory and Language 47(2). 250–272. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00004-9 Fodor, Janet Dean. 1978. Parsing strategies and constraints on transformations. Linquistic Inquiry 9(3). 427–473. ↗
  25. Frazier, Lyn. 1985. Syntactic complexity. In David R. Dowty, Lauri Karttunen & Arnold M. Zwicky (eds.), Natural language parsing, 129–189. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511597855.004 ↗
  26. Frazier, Lyn. 1987. Processing Dutch sentence structures. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 22. 85–108. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01067826 ↗
  27. Frazier, Lyn, Alan Munn & Charles Clifton. 2000. Processing coordinate structures. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 29(4). 343–370. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005156427600 Frazier, Lyn & Charles Clifton. 2001. Parsing coordinates and ellipsis: Copy alpha. Syntax 4(1). 1–22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9612.00034 ↗
  28. Frazier, Lyn & Charles Clifton Jr. 2002. Processing ‘d-linked’ phrases. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 31. 633–660. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021269122049 ↗
  29. Gibson, Edward. 2000. The dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. In Alec P. Marantz, Yasushi Miyashita & Wayne O’Neil (eds.), Image, language, brain: Papers from the first mind articulation project symposium, 95–126. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. find
  30. Gibson, Edward T. & James Thomas. 1999. Memory limitations and structural forgetting: The perception of complex ungrammatical sentences as grammatical. Language and Cognitive Processes 14(3). 225–248. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/016909699386293 ↗
  31. Goodall, Grant. 2015. The d-linking effect on extraction from islands and non-islands. Frontiers in Psychology 5. 1493. https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/ fpsyg.2014.01493. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01493 ↗
  32. Gordon, Peter C., Randall Hendrick, Marcus Johnson & Yoonhyoung Lee. 2006. Similarity-based interference during language comprehension: Evidence from eye tracking during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition 32(6). 1304–1321. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.32.6.1304 ↗
  33. Grosz, Barbara J., Aravind K. Joshi & Scott Weinstein. 1995. Centering: Aframework for modeling the local coherence of discourse. Computational Linguistics 21(2). 203–225. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21236/ADA324949 ↗
  34. Gundel, Jeanette K., Nancy Hedberg & Ron Zacharski. 1993. Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 69(2). 274–307. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/416535 Han, Chung-hye, Noureddine Elouazizi, Christina Galeano, Emrah Görgülü, Nancy Hedberg, Jennifer Hinnell, Meghan Jeffrey, Kyeong-Min Kim & Susannah Kirby. 2012. Processing strategies and resumptive pronouns in English. In Nathan Arnett & Ryan Bennett (eds.), Proceedings of the 30th west coast conference on formal linguistics. 153–161. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. ↗
  35. Hawkins, John A. 1999. Processing complexity and filler-gap dependencies across grammars. Language 75(2). 244–285. DOI https://doi.org/10.2307/417261 ↗
  36. Hawkins, John A. 2004. Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199252695.001.0001 ↗
  37. Heestand, Dustin, Ming Xiang & Maria Polinsky. 2011. Resumption still does not rescue islands. Linguistic Inquiry 42(1). 138–152. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00032 ↗
  38. Hofmeister, Philip & Elisabeth Norcliffe. 2013. Does resumption facilitate sentence comprehension? In Philip Hofmeister & Elisabeth Norcliffe (eds.), The core and the periphery: Data-driven perspectives on syntax inspired by Ivan A. Sag, 225–246. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. find
  39. Hofmeister, Philip & Ivan A. Sag. 2010. Cognitive constrainst and island effects. Language 86(2). 366–415. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.0.0223 ↗
  40. Jäger, Lena A., Felix Engelmann & Shravan Vasishth. 2017. Similarity-based interference in sentence comprehension: Literature review and Bayesian meta-analysis. Journal of Memory and Language 94. 316–339. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2017.01.004 ↗
  41. Jonides, John, Steven C. Lacey & Derek Evan Nee. 2005. Processes of working memory in mind and brain. Current Directions in Psychological Science 14(1). 2–5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00323.x Kaan, Edith, Anthony Harris, Edward Gibson & Phillip Holcomb. 2000. The P600 as an index of syntactic integration difficulty. Language and Cognitive Processes 15(2). 159– 201. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/016909600386084 ↗
  42. Keenan, Edward L. & Bernard Comrie. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility hierarchy and Universal Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8(1). 63–99. find
  43. Keffala, Bethany. 2013. Resumption and gaps in English relative clauses: Relative acceptability creates an illusion of ‘saving’. In Chundra Catchart, I-Hsuan Chen, Greg Finley, Shinae Kang, Clare S. Sandy & Elise Stickles (eds.), Proceedings of the 37th annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 140–154. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v37i1.846 ↗
  44. Kempen, Gerard & Theo Vosse. 1989. Incremental syntactic tree formation in human sentence processing: A cognitive architecture based on activation decay and simulated annealing. Connection Science 1(3). 273–290. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09540098908915642 ↗
  45. Kennison, Shelia M. & Jessie L. Trofe. 2003. Comprehending pronouns: A role for word-specific gender stereotype information. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 32(3). 355–378. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023599719948 ↗
  46. Keshev, Maayan & Aya Meltzer-Asscher. 2017. Active dependency formation in islands: How grammatical resumption affects sentence processing. Language 93(3). 549–568. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2017.0036 ↗
  47. King, Jonathan W. & Marta Kutas. 1995. Who did what and when? Using word- and clause-level ERPs to monitor working memory usage in reading. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 7(3). 376–395. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.1995.7.3.376 ↗
  48. Kluender, Robert. 1998. On the distinction between strong and weak islands: A processing perspective. In P. Culicover & L. McNally (eds.), Syntax and Semantics 29: The limits of syntax, 241–279. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. find
  49. Kluender, Robert. 2004. Are subject islands subject to a processing account? In Vineeta Chand, Ann Kelleher, Angelo J. Rodriguez & Benjamin Schmeiser (eds.), Proceedings of the 23rd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 475–499. find
  50. Kluender, Robert & Marta Kutas. 1993. Subjacency as a processing phenomenon. Language and Cognitive Processes 8(4). 573–633. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01690969308407588 ↗
  51. Knoeferle, Pia. 2014. Conjunction meaning can modulate parallelism facilitation: Eye-tracking evidence from German clausal coordination. Journal of Memory and Language 75. 140–158. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2014.05.002 ↗
  52. Kroch, Anthony. 1981. On the role of resumptive pronouns in amnestying island constraint violations. In Proceedings of the 17th annual meeting of the chicago linguistics society, 125–135. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. find
  53. Kush, Dave, Jeffrey Lidz & Colin Phillips. 2017. Looking forwards and backwards: The real-time processing of strong and weak crossover. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 2(1). 70. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.280 ↗
  54. Lewis, Richard L. 1996. Interference in short-term memory: The magical number two (or three) in sentence processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 25(1). 93–115. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01708421 ↗
  55. Lewis, Richard L. & Shravan Vasishth. 2005. An activation-based model of sentence processing as skilled memory retrieval. Cognitive Science 29(3). 375–419. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0000_25 Lewis, Richard L., Shravan Vasishth & Julie A. Van Dyke. 2006. Computational principles of working memory in sentence comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10(10). 447–454. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.08.007 ↗
  56. Macmillan, Neil A. & C. Douglas Creelman. 2005. Detection theory: A user’s guide. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. find
  57. McCloskey, James. 2002. Resumption, successive cyclicity, and the locality of operations. In David Epstein & T. Daniel Seely (eds.), Derivation and explanation in the minimalist program, 184–226. Malden, MA: Blackwell. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470755662.ch9 ↗
  58. McCloskey, James. 2006. Resumption. In Martin Everaert & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.), The Blackwell companion to syntax, 94–117. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470996591.ch55 ↗
  59. McCloskey, James. 2017. New thoughts on old questions – resumption in irish. In Jason Ostrove, Ruth Kramer & Joseph Sabbagh (eds.), Asking the right questions: Essays in honor of Sandra Chung, 81–102. Santa Cruz, CA: UC Santa Cruz Previously Published Works. find
  60. McDaniel, Dana & Wayne Cowart. 1999. Experimental evidence for a Minimalist account of English resumptive pronouns. Cognition 70(2). 15–24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0010-0277(99)00006-2 McElree, Brian. 2006. Accessing recent events. Psychology of Learning and Motivation – Advances in Research and Theory 46(06). 155–200. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0079-7421(06)46005-9 McElree, Brian, Stephani Foraker & Lisbeth Dyer. 2003. Memory structures that subserve sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 48. 67–91. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00515-6 ↗
  61. McKee, Cecile & Dana McDaniel. 2001. Resumptive pronouns in English relative clauses. Language Acquisition 9(2). 113–156. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327817LA0902_01 ↗
  62. Morgan, Adam Milton & Matthew W. Wagers. 2018. English resumptive pronouns are more common where gaps are less acceptable. Linguistic Inquiry 49(4). 861–876. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00293 ↗
  63. Omaki, Akira & Chizuru Nakao. 2010. Does English resumption really help to repair island violations? Snippets 21(4). 11–12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023599719948 ↗
  64. Omaki, Akira, Ellen Lau, Imogen Davidson White, Myles Louis Dakan, Aaron Apple & Colin Phillips. 2015. Hyper-active gap filling. Frontiers in Psychology 6(MAR). 1–18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00384 ↗
  65. Pablos, Leticia. 2008. Filled-gap effects in sentence processing: Different accounts compared. International Journal of Basque Linguistics and Philology 42(1). 309–332. find
  66. Parker, Dan. 2017. Processing multiple gap dependencies: Forewarned is forearmed. Journal of Memory and Language 97. 175–186. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jml.2017.08.003 Pesetsky, David. 1987. Wh-in-situ: Movement and unselective binding. In Eric Reuland & Alice ter Meulen (eds.), The representation of (in)definiteness, 98–129. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ↗
  67. Phillips, Colin. 2006. The real-time status of island phenomena. Language 82(4). 795–823. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2006.0217 ↗
  68. Phillips, Colin. 2013. On the nature of Island constraints I: Language processing and reductionist accounts. In Jon Sprouse & Norbert Hornstein (eds.), Experimental syntax and island effects, 64–108. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139035309.005 Phillips, Colin, Nina Kazanina & Shani H. Abada. 2005. ERP effects of the processing of syntactic long-distance dependencies. Cognitive Brain Research 22(3). 407–428. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2004.09.012 ↗
  69. Postal, Paul. 1971. Crossover phenomena. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Wilson. find
  70. Prince, Ellen. 1990. Syntax and discourse: A look at resumptive pronouns. In David J. Costa (ed.), Proceedings of the sixteenth annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 482–497. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v16i0.1719 ↗
  71. R Development Core Team. 2008. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org. ISBN 3-900051-07-0. ↗
  72. Rizzi, Luigi. 2013. Locality. Lingua 130. 169–186. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.12.002 ↗
  73. Ross, John Robert. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011298526791 ↗
  74. Runner, Jeffrey T., Rachel S. Sussman & Michael K. Tanenhaus. 2006. Processing reflexives and pronouns in picture noun phrases. Cognitive science 30(2). 193–241. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0000_58 ↗
  75. Shlonsky, Ur. 1992. Resumptive pronouns as a last resort. Linguistic Inquiry 23(3). 443–468. find
  76. Sprouse, Jon, Matt Wagers & Colin Phillips. 2012. A test of the relation between working-memory capacity and syntactic island effects. Language 88(1). 82–123. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2012.0004 Stowe, Laurie. 1986. Parsing WH-Constructions: Evidence for on-line gap location. Language and Cognitive Processes 1(3). 227–245. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1080/01690968608407062 ↗
  77. Sturt, Patrick, Frank Keller & Amit Dubey. 2010. Syntactic priming in comprehension: Parallelism effects with and without coordination. Journal of Memory and Language 62(4). 333–351. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2010.01.001 ↗
  78. Traxler, Matthew J. & Martin J. Pickering. 1996. Plausibility and the processing of unbounded dependencies: An eye-tracking study. Journal of Memory and Language 35(3). 454–475. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1996.0025 ↗
  79. Van Dyke, Julie A. & Richard L. Lewis. 2003. Distinguishing effects of structure and decay on attachment and repair: A cue-based parsing account of recovery from misanalyzed ambiguities. Journal of Memory and Language 49(3). 285–316. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1016/S0749-596X(03)00081-0 Vasisth, Shravan, Katja Suckow, Richard L. Lewis & Sabine Kern. 2010. Short-term forgetting in sentence comprehension: Crosslinguistic evidence from verb-final structures. Language and Cognitive Processes 25(4). 533–567. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1080/01690960903310587 Villata, Sandra, Luigi Rizzi & Julie Franck. 2016. Intervention effects and relativized minimality: New experimental evidence from graded judgments. Lingua 179. 76–96. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2016.03.004 ↗
  80. Wagers, Matthew W. & Colin Phillips. 2009. Multiple dependencies and the role of the grammar in real-time comprehension. Journal of Linguistics 45(2). 395–433. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226709005726 ↗
  81. Wagers, Matthew W. & Colin Phillips. 2014. Going the distance: Memory and control processes in active dependency construction. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 67(7). 1274–1304. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2013.858363 ↗
  82. Wagers, Matthew W., Ellen F. Lau & Colin Phillips. 2009. Agreement attraction in comprehension: Representations and processes. Journal of Memory and Language 61(2). 206–237. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2009.04.002 ↗
  83. Wanner, Eric & Michael Maratsos. 1978. An ATN Approach to Comprehension. In Morris Halle, Joan Bresnan & George A. Miller (eds.), Linguistic theory and psychological reality, 119–161. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. find
  84. Wasow, Thomas. 1972. Anaphoric Relations in English. MIT dissertation. find
  85. Yoshida, Masaya, Nina Kazanina, Leticia Pablos & Patrick Sturt. 2014. On the origin of islands. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 29(7). 761–770. DOI: https://doi.org/10 .1080/01690965.2013.788196 Zukowski, Andrea & Jaiva Larsen. 2004. The production of sentences that we fill their gaps. Poster presented at 29th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence P rocessing. ↗
  86. How to cite this article: Chacón, Dustin A. 2019. Minding the gap?: Mechanisms underlying resumption in English. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 4(1): 68. 1–41. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.839 ↗
  87. Submitted: 14 October 2018 find
  88. Copyright: © 2019 The Author(s). This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics is a peer-reviewed open access journal published by Ubiquity Press. OPEN ACCESS ↗

Updated

↑ back to top

This page in Markdown → https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/chacon-2019-minding-gap-mechanisms-underlying-resumption/