Elamur Research⌕
☰
home / papers / 2026 / Animacy as a key to island amelioration: evidence from Saudi Arabic <em>wh-</em>questions

Animacy as a key to island amelioration: evidence from Saudi Arabic <em>wh-</em>questions

Paper · 2026 · Asmaa Ali Hayyas

Summary

The paper asks whether the animacy of a wh-filler makes island-violating questions in Saudi Arabic better, and whether that depends on how the dependency ends: in a gap or in a resumptive pronoun (RP). Two families of theory make different predictions. Syntactic analyses (Aoun et al. 2009) treat Arabic who as a [+D] element that can bind an RP, while what is a bare wh-NP that cannot. Memory-based accounts (Kluender 1991) expect accessible, animate fillers to ease retrieval and so speed reading.

The author ran a 2×2 study (who vs. what × gap vs. RP) on adjunct islands. It combined self-paced reading with acceptability judgments. Animate fillers raised ratings slightly but reliably, and only when an RP was present. Yet they slowed reading in every tail condition.

Neither single-factor view fits this pattern. The author proposes a multivariate explanation: salience lets readers build an anaphoric link to the RP when movement is blocked. That link improves interpretability but costs processing effort.

Key points

  • The design crossed filler animacy (who/what) with tail type (gap/RP), all inside adjunct islands. Self-paced reading was paired with an acceptability judgment task.
  • Animacy gave a modest, significant acceptability gain only with RPs. Animate fillers produced longer reading times regardless of tail.
  • Reading times and ratings diverged for the island items. For filler items, however, reading times cleanly separated grammatical from ungrammatical sentences and matched the judgments.
  • The materials contained a high share of unacceptable sentences, above the roughly 15–20% usual in naturalistic reading studies. The author flags this as possibly inducing cautious parsing.
  • All data and scripts are on OSF (doi 10.17605/OSF.IO/SGWZ5). The work builds on earlier Baha Arabic findings on D-linking (Hayyas 2020).

Interesting ideas

  • I1. Interpretability and integration cost are measured as two separate outcomes, since a repair can make a sentence understandable while making it harder to process.
  • I2. When a structural gap link is blocked, a salient filler can still connect to a pronoun through an anaphoric relation rather than through movement.
  • I3. A lexical feature distinction (a DP-like who vs. a bare what) decides which dependency types an expression may enter.
  • I4. Before trusting an odd divergence between measures, the method was validated on control items where the expected contrast should appear.
  • I5. The author notes that the proportion of bad inputs in a test set can shift how the system under test behaves.

For Mova

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

  • I1 (learn): Evaluation could score whether an analysis yields a coherent meaning apart from how much repair it needed, instead of folding both into one accuracy number.
  • I2 (frames): When the UD tree offers no licit gap for a wh-word, coreference could try binding it to a pronoun, ranking candidates by animacy and salience.
  • I3 (tokens): Wh-words could carry a feature that tells later stages whether pronoun-binding resolution is permitted for them.
  • I4 (learn): Any surprising disagreement between witness parsers or metrics should first be checked on negative-control sentences with known behaviour.
  • I5 (answer): Test suites for readers should control the share of ill-formed or trick items so that scores reflect comprehension rather than adaptation to the input mix.

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

Also on the byline: Al Baha University.

📚 Shelves 6The field of science this work belongs to (OpenAlex fields).Arts and Humanities · 9,296 worksLanguage and Linguistics · 9,206 worksPsychology · 798 worksDevelopmental and Educational Psychology · 260 worksNeuroscience · 95 worksCognitive Neuroscience · 95 works

🧭 Topics 1Research subjects and languages the work is about.Semitic languages · 1,484 works

Cite

Cite as Asmaa Ali Hayyas. 2026. Animacy as a key to island amelioration: evidence from Saudi Arabic <em>wh-</em>questions. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics.

The paper itself, not this page. BibTeX from the library's record of the work. DOI 10.16995/glossa.25777

@article{hayyas2026animacy,
  title = {{Animacy as a key to island amelioration: evidence from Saudi Arabic <em>wh-</em>questions}},
  author = {Asmaa Ali Hayyas},
  journal = {Glossa: a journal of general linguistics},
  year = {2026},
  doi = {10.16995/glossa.25777},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.16995/glossa.25777}
}

References

69 references, 1 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

  1. Abeillé, Anne & Hemforth, Barbara & Winckel, Elodie & Gibson, Edward. 2020. Extraction from subjects: Differences in acceptability depend on the discourse function of the construction. Cognition 204. 104293. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104293 ↗
  2. Ackerman, Lauren & Frazier, Michael & Yoshida, Masaya. 2018. Resumptive pronouns can ameliorate illicit island extractions. Linguistic Inquiry 49(4). 847–859. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00291 ↗
  3. Al-Aqarbeh, Rania & Sprouse, Jon. 2023. Island effects and amelioration by resumption in Jordanian Arabic: An auditory acceptability-judgment study. Syntax 27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/synt.12262 ↗
  4. Aldosari, Saad & Covey, Lauren & Gabriele, Alison. 2024. Examining the source of island effects in native speakers and second language learners of English. Second Language Research 40. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/02676583221099243 ↗
  5. Alexopoulou, Theodora. 2010. Truly intrusive: resumptive pronominals in questions and relative clauses. Lingua 120(3). 485–505. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2008.10.009 ↗
  6. Alexopoulou, Theodora & Keller, Frank. 2013. What vs. who and which: kind-denoting fillers and the complexity of whether-islands. In Sprouse, Jon & Hornstein, Norbert (eds.), Experimental Syntax and Island Effects, 310–340. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139035309.016 ↗
  7. Almeida, Diogo. 2014. Subliminal wh-islands in Brazilian Portuguese and the consequences for syntactic theory. Revista Da ABRALIN 13. 55–91. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5380/rabl.v13i2.39611 ↗
  8. Ambridge, Ben & Goldberg, Adele. 2008. The island status of clausal complements: Evidence in favor of an information structure explanation. Cognitive Linguistics 19(3). 357–389. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/COGL.2008.014 ↗
  9. Aoun, Joseph & Benmamoun, Elabbas & Choueiri, Lina. 2009. The Syntax of Arabic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511691775 ↗
  10. Atkinson, Emily & Apple, Aaron & Rawlins, Kyle & Omaki, Akira. 2016. Similarity of wh-phrases and acceptability variation in wh-islands. Frontiers in Psychology 6. 2048. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.02048 ↗
  11. Baayen, Harald & Vasishth, Shravan & Kliegl, Reinhold & Bates, Douglas. 2016. The cave of shadows: Addressing the human factor with generalized additive mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language 94. 206–234. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2016.11.006 ↗
  12. Barr, Dale J. & Levy, Roger & Scheepers, Christoph & Tily, Harry J. 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 ↗
  13. Bates, Douglas & Mächler, Martin & Bolker, Ben & Walker, Steve. 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 ↗
  14. Boeckx, Cedric. 2012. Syntactic Islands. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139022415 ↗
  15. Bošković, Željko. 2018. On movement out of moved elements, labels, and phases. Linguistic Inquiry 49(2). 247–282. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00273 ↗
  16. Box, G. E. P. & Cox, D. R. 1964. An analysis of transformations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological) 26(2). 211–243. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1964. tb00553.x Chacón, Dustin. 2019. Minding the gap?: Mechanisms underlying resumption in English. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 4. 68. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.839 ↗
  17. Chaves, Rui P. & Putnam, Michael T. 2020. Unbounded dependency constructions: Theoretical and experimental perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ oso/9780198784999.001.0001 ↗
  18. Chomsky, Noam. 1973. Conditions on transformations. In Anderson, Stephen R. & Kiparsky, Paul (eds.), A festschrift for Morris Halle, 232–286. New York: Rinehart and Winston. find
  19. Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers. MIT Press. find
  20. Choueiri, Lina. 2017. Resumption in varieties of Arabic. In Benmamoun, Elabbas & Bassiouney, Reem (eds.), The Routledge handbook of Arabic linguistics, 379–394. London: Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315147062-8 ↗
  21. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1990. Types of Ā-dependencies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. find
  22. Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 1973. On the nature of island constraints. MIT dissertation. find
  23. Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 1992. Resumptive pronouns in islands. In Goodluck, Helen & Rochemont, Michael (eds.), Island Constraints: Theory, acquisition and processing, 89–108. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1980-3_4 ↗
  24. Frazier, Lyn & Clifton, Charles Jr. 2002. Processing “d-linked” phrases. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 31(6). 633–659. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1021269122049 ↗
  25. Frazier, Lyn & d’Arcais, Giovanni B. Flores. 1989. Filler driven parsing: A study of gap filling in Dutch. Journal of Memory and Language 28. 331–344. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(89)90037-5 ↗
  26. Gibson, Edward & Hemforth, Barbara & Winckel, Elodie & Abeillé, Anne. 2021. Acceptability of extraction out of adjuncts depends on discourse factors. Presented at the 34th CUNY conference on human sentence processing. find
  27. Goldberg, Adele E. 2013. Backgrounded constituents cannot be “extracted.” In Sprouse, Jon & Hornstein, Norbert (eds.), Experimental syntax and island effects, 221–238. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139035309.012 ↗
  28. Goodall, Grant. 2014. The D-linking effect on extraction from islands and non-islands. Frontiers in Psychology 5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01493 ↗
  29. Haegeman, Liliane & Jiménez‐Fernández, Ángel L. & Radford, Andrew. 2014. Deconstructing the Subject Condition in terms of cumulative constraint violation. The Linguistic Review 31. 150–73. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2013-0022 ↗
  30. Hammerly, Christopher. 2021. The pronoun which comprehenders who process it in islands derive a benefit. Linguistic Inquiry 53. 823–835. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00422 ↗
  31. Hammerly, Christopher & Staub, Adrian & Dillon, Brian. 2019. The grammaticality asymmetry in agreement attraction reflects response bias: Experimental and modeling evidence. Cognitive Psychology 110. 70–104. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2019.01.001 ↗
  32. Hayyas, Asmaa. 2020. Resumptive pronouns in Baha Arabic: An experimental study. Leeds: University of Leeds dissertation. find
  33. Hayyas, Asmaa & De Cat, Cecile. 2023. Resumptive pronouns in Baha Arabic wh-dependencies. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/xpt3g ↗
  34. Hofmeister, Philip. 2011. Representational complexity and memory retrieval in language comprehension. Language and Cognitive Processes 26(3). 376–405. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2010.492642 ↗
  35. Hofmeister, Philip & Norcliffe, Elizabeth. 2013. Does resumption facilitate sentence comprehension? In Hofmeister, Philip & Norcliffe, Elizabeth (eds.), The core and the periphery: Data-driven perspectives on syntax inspired by Ian A. Sag, 225–246. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. find
  36. Hofmeister, Philip & Sag, Ivan A. 2010. Cognitive constraints and island effects. Language 86(2). 366–415. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.0.0223 ↗
  37. Huang, C. 1982. Move WH in a language without WH movement. The Linguistic Review 1(4). 369–416. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.1982.1.4.369 ↗
  38. Huang, Nick & Almeida, Diogo & Sprouse, Jon. 2025. A nearly exhaustive experimental investigation of bridge effects in English: Supplementary material. Language 101. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2025.a955267 ↗
  39. Jäger, Lena A. & Engelmann, Felix & Vasishth, Shravan. 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/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2017.01.004 ↗
  40. Keshev, Maayan & Meltzer-Asscher, Aya. 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 ↗
  41. Kluender, Robert. 1991. Cognitive constraints on variables in syntax. San Diego, CA: University of California dissertation. find
  42. Kluender, Robert & Kutas, Marta. 1993a. Bridging the gap: evidence from ERPs on the processing of unbounded dependencies. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 5(2). 196–214. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.1993.5.2.196 ↗
  43. Kluender, Robert & Kutas, Marta. 1993b. Subjacency as a processing phenomenon. Language and Cognitive Processes 8(4). 573–633. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01690969308407588 ↗
  44. Kroch, Anthony. 1981. On the role of resumptive pronouns in amnestying island constraint violations. In Hendrick, Roberta A. & Masek, Carrie S. & Miller, Mary Frances (eds.), Papers from the seventeenth regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 125–135. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. find
  45. Kush, Dave & Lohndal, Terje & Sprouse, Jon. 2018. Investigating variation in island effects: A case study of Norwegian WH-extraction. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 36(3). 743–779. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-017-9390-z ↗
  46. Laurinavichyute, Anna & von der Malsburg, Titus. 2024. Agreement attraction in grammatical sentences and the role of the task. Journal of Memory and Language. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31234/ osf.io/n75vc Laurinavichyute, Anna & Yadav, Himanshu & von der Malsburg, Titus & Vasishth, Shravan. 2023. The role of goal in sentence processing. In Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing (AMLaP). San Sebastian, Spain. ↗
  47. Liu, Yingtong & Winckel, Elodie & Abeillé, Anne & Hemforth, Barbara & Gibson, Edward. 2022. Structural, functional, and processing perspectives on linguistic island effects. Annual Review of Linguistics. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011619-030319 ↗
  48. McDaniel, Dana & Cowart, Wayne. 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 ↗
  49. Meltzer-Asscher, Aya. 2021. Resumptive pronouns in language comprehension and production. Annual Review of Linguistics 7(1). 177–194. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-031320-012726 ↗
  50. Open Science Tools Ltd. 2023. Pavlovia. Retrieved from https://pavlovia.org ↗
  51. Pañeda, Claudia & Lago, Sol & Vares, Elena & Veríssimo, João & Felser, Claudia. 2020. Island effects in Spanish comprehension. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 5. 21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.1058 ↗
  52. Peirce, Jonathan W. & Gray, Jeremy R. & Simpson, Sol & MacAskill, Michael & Höchenberger, Richard & Sogo, Hiroyuki & … Lindeløv, Jonas K. 2019. PsychoPy2: experiments in behavior made easy. Behavior Research Methods 51. 195–203. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-01193-y ↗
  53. Pham, Catherine & Covey, Lauren & Gabriele, Alison & Aldosari, Saad & Fiorentino, Robert. 2020. Investigating the relationship between individual differences and island sensitivity. Glossa: An International Journal of Linguistics 5(1). 1–17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.1199 ↗
  54. Phillips, Colin. 2013. On the nature of island constraints I: Language processing and reductionist accounts. In Sprouse, Jon & Hornstein, Norbert (eds.), Experimental Syntax and Island Effects, 64–108. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/ CBO9781139035309.005 ↗
  55. Ross, John Robert. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. find
  56. Sag, Ivan A. & Hofmeister, Philip & Casasanto, Laura. 2013. Islands in the grammar? Standards of evidence. In Sprouse, Jon & Hornstein, Norbert (eds.), Experimental Syntax and Island Effects, 42–63. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/ CBO9781139035309.004 ↗
  57. Saul, Niki & Keshev, Maayan & Meltzer-Asscher, Aya. 2025. Interference in the formation of filler-gap dependencies: Evidence from Hebrew relative clauses. Journal of Memory and Language 143. 104626. DOI: https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2025.104626 ↗
  58. Shafiei, Nazila & Graf, Thomas. 2020. The subregular complexity of syntactic islands. In Proceedings of the Society for Computation in Linguistics (SCiL), Vol. 3, 1–10. ↗
  59. Sprouse, Jon. 2007. A program for experimental syntax: Finding the relationship between acceptability and grammatical knowledge. University of Maryland dissertation. find
  60. Sprouse, Jon & Caponigro, Ivano & Greco, Ciro & Cecchetto, Carlo. 2016. Experimental syntax and the variation of island effects in English and Italian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 34(1). 307–344. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-015-9286-8 ↗
  61. Sprouse, Jon & Wagers, Matthew & Phillips, Colin. 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 ↗
  62. Stowe, Laurie A. 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 ↗
  63. Traxler, Matthew J. & Pickering, Martin J. 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 ↗
  64. Truswell, Robert. 2011. Events, phrases, and questions. Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199577774.001.0001 ↗
  65. Tucker, Matthew A. & Idrissi, Ali & Sprouse, Jon & Almeida, Diogo. 2019. Resumption ameliorates different islands differentially: Acceptability data from Modern Standard Arabic. In Benmamoun, Elabbas & Bassiouney, Reem (eds.), Perspectives on Arabic linguistics XXX: Papers from the annual symposia on Arabic linguistics, Stony Brook, New York, 2016 and Norman, Oklahoma, 2017, 213– 232. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/sal.7.09tuc ↗
  66. Villata, Sandra & Franck, Julie. 2024. An empirical investigation of featural similarity in wh-islands. International Journal of Linguistics 16(1). 1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5296/ijl.v16i1.21596 ↗
  67. Villata, Sandra & Sprouse, Jon & Tabor, Whitney. 2019. Modeling ungrammaticality: A self-organizing model of islands. In Proceedings of the 41st annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 1178–1184. Montreal, QC, Canada. find
  68. Villata, Sandra & Tabor, Whitney. 2022. A self-organized sentence processing theory of gradience: The case of islands. Cognition 222. 104943. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. cognition.2021.104943 ↗
  69. Wood, Simon N. 2011. Fast stable restricted maximum likelihood and marginal likelihood estimation of semiparametric generalized linear models. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B 73(1). 3–36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9868.2010.00749.x ↗

Updated

↑ back to top

This page in Markdown → https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/hayyas-2026-animacy-as-key-island-amelioration/