---
title: "Animacy as a key to island amelioration — paper by Hayyas (2026)"
description: "The author proposes a multivariate explanation: salience lets readers build an anaphoric link to the RP when movement is… 69 references."
authors: ["Asmaa Ali Hayyas"]
year: 2026
venue: "Glossa: a journal of general linguistics"
source: "https://www.glossa-journal.org/article/id/25777/"
doi: "10.16995/glossa.25777"
licence: "CC BY 4.0"
licence_url: "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"
summary_licence: "Elamur Cosmic License"
canonical: "https://research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/hayyas-2026-animacy-as-key-island-amelioration/"
---
[Elamur Research](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/) · [this page in HTML](https://research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/hayyas-2026-animacy-as-key-island-amelioration/)

[home](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/) / [papers](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/) / [2026](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/2026/page/4/) / 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

**Authors:** Asmaa Ali Hayyas · **Year:** 2026 · **Venue:** [Glossa: a journal of general linguistics](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/venues/glossa-a-journal-of-general-linguistics/) ([Glossa a journal of general linguistics 2026](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/venues/glossa-a-journal-of-general-linguistics/2026/)) · **Publisher:** [Ubiquity Press](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/publishers/ubiquity-press/) · **Licence:** [CC BY 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

**Links:** [Publisher's page](https://doi.org/10.16995/glossa.25777) · [PDF](https://www.glossa-journal.org/article/25777/galley/44375/download) · [DOI 10.16995/glossa.25777](https://doi.org/10.16995/glossa.25777) · [OpenAlex](https://openalex.org/W7157250553)

**Citations:** 0 citations (OpenAlex, 2026-10-14)

## 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
- Interpretability and integration cost are measured as two separate outcomes, since a repair can make a sentence understandable while making it harder to process.
- When a structural gap link is blocked, a salient filler can still connect to a pronoun through an anaphoric relation rather than through movement.
- A lexical feature distinction (a DP-like *who* vs. a bare *what*) decides which dependency types an expression may enter.
- Before trusting an odd divergence between measures, the method was validated on control items where the expected contrast should appear.
- 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](https://ror.org/0403jak37).

📚 Shelves (6): [🎭 Arts and Humanities](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/arts-and-humanities/) · 9,296 works · [🗣️ Language and Linguistics](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/arts-and-humanities/language-and-linguistics/) · 9,206 works · [💭 Psychology](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/psychology/) · 798 works · [💭 Developmental and Educational Psychology](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/psychology/developmental-and-educational-psychology/) · 260 works · [🧠 Neuroscience](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/neuroscience/) · 95 works · [🧠 Cognitive Neuroscience](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/neuroscience/cognitive-neuroscience/) · 95 works

🧭 Topics (1): [Semitic languages](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/topics/semitic-languages/) · 1,485 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.

```bibtex
@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}
}
```

- [← previous Ancient Greek to Modern Greek Machine Translation: A Novel Benchmark and Fine-Tuning Experiments on LLMs and NMT Models](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/mavromatis-2026-ancient-greek-modern-greek-machine/)
- [next → Annotating Indian Regional Biases using Large Language Models: Evaluation and Analysis](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/panda-2026-annotating-indian-regional-biases-large/)
- [↑ back to papers of 2026](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/2026/page/4/)

## 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 [↗](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 [↗](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 [↗](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 [↗](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 [↗](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 [↗](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 [↗](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 [↗](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 [↗](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 [↗](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 [↗](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 [↗](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](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/bates-2015-fitting-linear-mixed-effects-models/). Journal of Statistical Software 67(1). 1–48. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18637/ jss.v067.i01 [↗](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 [↗](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 [↗](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 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1964)
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 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/)
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](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Chomsky%2C+Noam%2E+1973%2E+Conditions+on+transformations%2E+In+Anderson%2C+Stephen+R%2E+%26+Kiparsky%2C+Paul+%28eds%2E%29%2C+A+festschrift+for+Morris+Halle%2C+232%E2%80%93286%2E+New+York%3A+Rinehart+and+Winston%2E)
19. Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers. MIT Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Chomsky%2C+Noam%2E+1986%2E+Barriers%2E+MIT+Press%2E)
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 [↗](https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315147062-8)
21. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1990. Types of Ā-dependencies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Cinque%2C+Guglielmo%2E+1990%2E+Types+of+%C4%80%2Ddependencies%2E+Cambridge%2C+MA%3A+MIT+Press%2E)
22. Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 1973. On the nature of island constraints. MIT dissertation. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Erteschik%2DShir%2C+Nomi%2E+1973%2E+On+the+nature+of+island+constraints%2E+MIT+dissertation%2E)
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 [↗](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 [↗](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 [↗](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](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Gibson%2C+Edward+%26+Hemforth%2C+Barbara+%26+Winckel%2C+Elodie+%26+Abeill%C3%A9%2C+Anne%2E+2021%2E+Acceptability+of+extraction+out+of+adjuncts+depends+on+discourse+factors%2E+Presented+at+the+34th+CUNY+conference+on+human+sen)
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 [↗](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 [↗](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 [↗](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 [↗](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 [↗](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](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Hayyas%2C+Asmaa%2E+2020%2E+Resumptive+pronouns+in+Baha+Arabic%3A+An+experimental+study%2E+Leeds%3A+University+of+Leeds+dissertation%2E)
33. Hayyas, Asmaa & De Cat, Cecile. 2023. Resumptive pronouns in Baha Arabic wh-dependencies. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/xpt3g [↗](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 [↗](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](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Hofmeister%2C+Philip+%26+Norcliffe%2C+Elizabeth%2E+2013%2E+Does+resumption+facilitate+sentence+comprehension%3F+In+Hofmeister%2C+Philip+%26+Norcliffe%2C+Elizabeth+%28eds%2E%29%2C+The+core+and+the+periphery%3A+Data%2Ddriven+perspec)
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 [↗](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 [↗](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 [↗](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 [↗](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 [↗](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](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Kluender%2C+Robert%2E+1991%2E+Cognitive+constraints+on+variables+in+syntax%2E+San+Diego%2C+CA%3A+University+of+California+dissertation%2E)
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 [↗](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 [↗](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](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Kroch%2C+Anthony%2E+1981%2E+On+the+role+of+resumptive+pronouns+in+amnestying+island+constraint+violations%2E+In+Hendrick%2C+Roberta+A%2E+%26+Masek%2C+Carrie+S%2E+%26+Miller%2C+Mary+Frances+%28eds%2E%29%2C+Papers+from+the+seventeen)
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 [↗](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. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2024.104525)
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 [↗](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 [↗](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 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-031320-012726)
50. Open Science Tools Ltd. 2023. Pavlovia. Retrieved from [https://pavlovia.org](https://pavlovia.org) [↗](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 [↗](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 [↗](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 [↗](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 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139035309.005)
55. Ross, John Robert. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Ross%2C+John+Robert%2E+1967%2E+Constraints+on+variables+in+syntax%2E+Cambridge%2C+MA%3A+MIT+dissertation%2E)
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 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1017/)
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 [↗](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. [↗](https://doi.org/10.7275/scil.1202)
59. Sprouse, Jon. 2007. A program for experimental syntax: Finding the relationship between acceptability and grammatical knowledge. University of Maryland dissertation. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Sprouse%2C+Jon%2E+2007%2E+A+program+for+experimental+syntax%3A+Finding+the+relationship+between+acceptability+and+grammatical+knowledge%2E+University+of+Maryland+dissertation%2E)
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 [↗](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 [↗](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 [↗](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 [↗](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 [↗](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 [↗](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 [↗](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](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Villata%2C+Sandra+%26+Sprouse%2C+Jon+%26+Tabor%2C+Whitney%2E+2019%2E+Modeling+ungrammaticality%3A+A+self%2Dorganizing+model+of+islands%2E+In+Proceedings+of+the+41st+annual+meeting+of+the+Cognitive+Science+Society%2C+1178%E2%80%931)
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 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j)
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 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9868.2010.00749.x)

*Updated 24 October 2026*