Reassessing the argument–adjunct asymmetry in wh-in-situ islands in Mandarin: An experimental investigation

This paper conducted formal judgment tasks that test the island status in Mandarin. There has been significant disagreement in the literature regarding which type of wh-phrases gives rise to island violations. The pattern of variation is theoretically significant, as it distinguishes between available explanations of wh-in-situ islands. The current study examined three island types. Within each type, it was found that argument-in-situ differs from adjunct-in-situ. Specifically, our results pointed to a three-way distinction, with wh-arguments inducing no islands, the how-adjunct inducing mild, inconsistent island violation, and the why-adjunct inducing a robust island effect with severe degradation in acceptability. The results also found differences in the between-participant distribution among the wh-categories.