Manner-of-Speaking Island Effects: Experimental Data #
@cite{lu-degen-2025}
Empirical data from @cite{lu-degen-2025}, "Evidence for a discourse account of manner-of-speaking islands," Language 101(4): 627–659.
Five acceptability judgment experiments testing the causal relationship between discourse backgroundedness and the manner-of-speaking (MoS) island effect.
Key Findings #
- Prosodic focus on the embedded object ameliorates the MoS island (Exp 1)
- The same manipulation creates island effects with the bridge verb say (Exp 2a)
- MoS verbs default-background their complements more than say (Exp 2b)
- Adding manner adverbs to say replicates the MoS island effect (Exp 3a)
- The say+adverb island is also sensitive to prosodic manipulation (Exp 3b)
- Verb-frame frequency does NOT predict the effect (all experiments)
All acceptability ratings coded as Nat (mean × 100, 0 = completely unacceptable, 100 = completely acceptable). Backgroundedness proportions coded as Nat (× 100).
Verb Inventory #
Manner-of-speaking verbs used in the experiments (12 verbs). These verbs lexically encode the manner of verbal communication.
- whisper : MoSVerb
- mutter : MoSVerb
- shout : MoSVerb
- yell : MoSVerb
- scream : MoSVerb
- mumble : MoSVerb
- stammer : MoSVerb
- whine : MoSVerb
- groan : MoSVerb
- moan : MoSVerb
- shriek : MoSVerb
- murmur : MoSVerb
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
Instances For
Focus conditions manipulated via prosodic capitalization/bolding.
- verbFocus : FocusCondition
Matrix verb capitalized: foregrounds verb, backgrounds complement
- embeddedFocus : FocusCondition
Embedded object capitalized: foregrounds embedded object
- adverbFocus : FocusCondition
Manner adverb capitalized (Exp 3b only)
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
Instances For
Experiment 1: Discourse Effects on MoS Islands #
Prosodic focus on the embedded object ameliorates the MoS island effect. N = 94 (after exclusions). Within-subjects: 2 focus conditions × MoS verbs.
Example stimuli (9):
- Verb-focus: "John didn't WHISPER that Mary met with the lawyer." "Then who did John whisper that Mary met with?"
- Embedded-focus: "John didn't whisper that Mary met with the LAWYER." "Then who did John whisper that Mary met with?"
(Figure 4)
Exp 1 mean acceptability (× 100). Figure 4b.
Instances For
Exp 1 backgroundedness proportion (× 100). Figure 4a.
Instances For
Focus manipulation changed backgroundedness (manipulation check). β = −2.46, SE = 0.40, z = −6.14, p < 0.001.
Main result: Foregrounding the embedded object ameliorates the island. β = 0.23, SE = 0.03, t = 7.10, p < 0.001.
MoS island sentences are degraded relative to grammatical fillers.
Even ameliorated MoS islands remain below grammatical filler level.
Experiment 2a: MoS Verbs and Say #
Both verb types show focus effects, but MoS verbs are overall more degraded. The same prosodic manipulation that ameliorates MoS islands can CREATE island-like effects for the bridge verb say. N = 97. 2 focus × 2 verb type.
(Figure 7)
Exp 2a acceptability (× 100). Figure 7b.
Instances For
Exp 2a backgroundedness (× 100). Figure 7a.
Instances For
MoS verbs show focus effect. β = 0.14, SE = 0.02, t = 9.14, p < 0.001.
Say also shows focus effect (can create island-like degradation). Focus × verb-type interaction NOT significant (β = 0.005, p = 0.509).
MoS verbs are overall more degraded than say. β = −0.08, SE = 0.01, t = −5.49, p < 0.001.
MoS verb complements are more backgrounded than say complements. β = 0.59, SE = 0.14, z = 4.27, p < 0.001.
Experiment 2b: Default Backgroundedness #
Without focus manipulation, MoS verbs default-background their complements more than say. This is the crucial baseline measurement. N = 94. MoS vs Say, no focus manipulation.
(Figure 10)
Exp 2b acceptability (× 100). Figure 10b.
Instances For
Instances For
Exp 2b backgroundedness (× 100). Figure 10a.
Instances For
Instances For
MoS verbs default-background complements more than say. β = 0.96, SE = 0.16, z = 6.06, p < 0.001.
MoS extraction is less acceptable than say extraction. β = −0.14, SE = 0.02, t = −9.26, p < 0.001.
Core correlation: more backgrounded → less acceptable extraction. This is the key link between backgroundedness and islandhood.
Say extraction approaches grammatical-filler level. β = −0.02, SE = 0.01, t = −1.83, p = 0.067 (n.s.).
Experiment 3a: Say + Manner Adverb Creates Islands #
The paper's key novel prediction: adding manner adverbs to say replicates the MoS island effect. This is predicted ONLY by the backgroundedness account. N = 93. Say vs Say+Adverb.
Example stimuli (18):
- Say: "John didn't say that Mary met with the lawyer." "Then who did John say that Mary met with?"
- Say+Adverb: "John didn't say softly that Mary met with the lawyer." "Then who did John say softly that Mary met with?"
(Figure 14)
Exp 3a acceptability (× 100). Figure 14.
Instances For
KEY RESULT: Adding a manner adverb to say degrades extraction. β = −0.24, SE = 0.02, t = −12.4, p < 0.001.
Predicted by backgroundedness account (manner adverb adds manner weight). NOT predicted by subjacency (same CP structure ± adverb). NOT predicted by frequency (predicate-frame frequency n.s., p = 0.664).
Say+adverb is substantially degraded relative to grammatical fillers.
Say alone patterns with grammatical fillers.
Experiment 3b: Discourse Effect on Say+Adverb Islands #
Prosodic focus ameliorates the say+adverb island, confirming that the effect in Experiment 3a is discourse-driven, not a structural complexity artifact. N = 94. 2 focus conditions (adverb-focus vs embedded-focus).
Example stimuli (20):
- Adverb-focus: "John didn't say SOFTLY that Mary met with the lawyer." "Then who did John say softly that Mary met with?"
- Embedded-focus: "John didn't say softly that Mary met with the LAWYER." "Then who did John say softly that Mary met with?"
(Figure 17)
Exp 3b acceptability (× 100). Figure 17b.
Instances For
Exp 3b backgroundedness (× 100). Figure 17a.
Instances For
Focus manipulation changes backgroundedness in say+adverb construction. β = −3.99, SE = 0.74, z = −5.42, p < 0.001.
Foregrounding embedded object ameliorates the say+adverb island. β = 0.21, SE = 0.03, t = 6.90, p < 0.001.
Negative Results: Frequency Does Not Predict #
Verb-frame frequency and sentence complement ratio (SCR) do not significantly predict the MoS island effect in ANY experiment. This rules out the verb-frame frequency account.
A regression coefficient that did not reach significance.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Exp 1: verb-frame frequency n.s. (β = −0.003, p = 0.874).
Equations
- Phenomena.FillerGap.Islands.MannerOfSpeaking.exp1_freq = { β := -3, p_gt_05 := true }
Instances For
Exp 1: SCR n.s. (β = −0.0002, p = 0.987).
Equations
- Phenomena.FillerGap.Islands.MannerOfSpeaking.exp1_scr = { β := 0, p_gt_05 := true }
Instances For
Exp 2b: verb-frame frequency n.s. (β = −0.001, p = 0.981).
Equations
- Phenomena.FillerGap.Islands.MannerOfSpeaking.exp2b_freq = { β := -1, p_gt_05 := true }
Instances For
Exp 2b: SCR n.s. (β = 0.008, p = 0.754).
Equations
- Phenomena.FillerGap.Islands.MannerOfSpeaking.exp2b_scr = { β := 8, p_gt_05 := true }
Instances For
Exp 3a: predicate-frame frequency n.s. (β = −0.005, p = 0.664).
Equations
- Phenomena.FillerGap.Islands.MannerOfSpeaking.exp3a_freq = { β := -5, p_gt_05 := true }
Instances For
Exp 3a: SCR n.s. (β = −0.003, p = 0.793).
Equations
- Phenomena.FillerGap.Islands.MannerOfSpeaking.exp3a_scr = { β := -3, p_gt_05 := true }
Instances For
Exp 3b: predicate-frame frequency n.s. (β = 0.01, p = 0.712).
Equations
- Phenomena.FillerGap.Islands.MannerOfSpeaking.exp3b_freq = { β := 10, p_gt_05 := true }
Instances For
Exp 3b: SCR n.s. (β = 0.01, p = 0.587).
Equations
- Phenomena.FillerGap.Islands.MannerOfSpeaking.exp3b_scr = { β := 10, p_gt_05 := true }
Instances For
Frequency is never significant across all experiments.
Cross-Experiment Generalizations #
Focus amelioration is consistent across all tested configurations.
More backgrounded → lower extraction acceptability, consistently.
The MoS island effect is NOT an artifact of verb-class confounds: the say+adverb construction replicates it with the same bridge verb.
Bridge to Islands/Data.lean #
The MoS island effect is classified as a weak, discourse-sourced island. These theorems connect our experimental data to the shared island infrastructure.
MoS islands are classified as weak — ameliorable by prosodic focus. This is empirically justified by Experiments 1 and 3b.
MoS islands are discourse-sourced, not syntactic. Justified by: (1) prosodic focus ameliorates the effect (Exps 1, 3b), (2) say+adverb replicates it without structural change (Exp 3a), (3) frequency is not predictive (all experiments).
The ameliorability of MoS islands (weak classification) is empirically supported: prosodic focus improves extraction across all tested configurations.
MoS islands differ from traditional weak islands (e.g., wh-islands):
traditional weak islands are ameliorated by D-linking (filler complexity),
while MoS islands are ameliorated by prosodic focus (information structure).
Both are classified as .weak, but the amelioration mechanisms differ.
MoS islands differ from traditional weak islands in source: wh-islands are syntactically sourced; MoS islands are discourse-sourced.