This work provides evidence that Subject Island violation effects vanish if subject-embedded gaps are made as frequent and pragmatically felicitous as non-island counterpart controls. We argue that Subject Island effects are caused by the fact that subject-embedded gaps are pragmatically unusual – as the informational focus does not usually correspond to a dependant of the subject phrase – and therefore are highly contrary to comprehenders’ expectations about the distribution of filler–gap dependencies (Chaves 2013, Hofmeister, Casasanto & Sag 2013). This not only explains why sentences with subject-embedded gaps often become more acceptable ‘parasitically’, in the presence of a second gap outside the island, but also explains why some Subject Island violations fail to exhibit any amelioration with repetition (Sprouse 2009, Crawford 2011, Goodall 2011); some ameliorate marginally (Snyder 2000, 2017) or moderately (Hiramatsu 2000, Clausen 2011, Chaves & Dery 2014), and others become fully acceptable, as in our case. This conclusion extends to self-paced reading Subject Island studies (Stowe 1986, Kurtzman & Crawford 1991, Pickering, Barton & Shillcock 1994, Phillips 2006), which sometimes find evidence of gap filling and sometimes do not.

中文翻译：

---

主题岛屿的频率效应

这项工作提供的证据表明，如果主题嵌入的差距与非岛对应控制一样频繁且务实有效，则主题岛违规影响就会消失。我们认为，主题岛效应是由以下事实引起的：主题嵌入的空白在语用上是不寻常的——因为信息焦点通常不对应于主题短语的依赖——因此与理解者对填充物分布的预期高度相反–gap 依赖项（Chaves 2013，Hofmeister，Cassanto & Sag 2013）。这不仅解释了为什么在岛外存在第二个间隙的情况下，带有主语嵌入间隙的句子通常“寄生地”变得更容易接受，而且还解释了为什么一些主语岛违规行为没有表现出任何重复的改善（Sprouse 2009，Crawford 2011年，古道尔 2011); 一些略有改善（Snyder 2000, 2017）或适度改善（Hiramatsu 2000, Clausen 2011, Chaves & Dery 2014），而另一些则完全可以接受，就像我们的案例一样。这一结论延伸到自定进度阅读主题岛研究（Stowe 1986、Kurtzman & Crawford 1991、Pickering、Barton & Shillcock 1994、Phillips 2006），这些研究有时会发现填补空白的证据，有时却没有。