Two experiments investigated the acceptability of multiple questions. As expected, sentences violating the Superiority Condition were accepted less often than sentences obeying it. The status of the Superiority violations was not improved by the addition of a third wh, regardless of whether the third wh was an adjunct or an argument, though it was improved by the addition of a second question (e.g., and when). Further, in a small pilot study directly comparing a sentence with adjacent final wh-phrases that may induce a stress clash (I'd like to know who hid it where when) with a sentence violating Superiority but avoiding the final adjacent wh-phrases (I'd like to know where who hid it when), half the participants indicated that the Superiority violation sentence sounded better. This suggests that the status of some additional-wh sentences may appear to improve simply because the comparison sentence with adjacent final wh-phrases is degraded. Overall, the results of the studies suggest that there is no need to complicate syntactic theory to account for the additional-wh effect, because there is no general additional-wh effect.

According to the Unaccusative Hypothesis, unaccusative subjects are base-generated in object position and move to subject position. We examined this hypothesis using the cross-modal lexical priming technique, which tests whether and when an antecedent is reactivated during the online processing of a sentence. We compared sentences containing unergative verbs with sentences containing unaccusatives, both alternating and nonalternating, and found that subjects of unaccusatives reactivate after the verb, while subjects of unergatives do not. Alternating unaccusatives showed a mixed pattern of reactivation. The research directly supports the Unaccusative Hypothesis.

A recent computational model by Hayes and Wilson (2008) seemingly captures a diverse range of phonotactic phenomena without variables, contrasting with the presumptions of many formal theories. Here, we examine the plausibility of this approach by comparing generalizations of identity restrictions by this architecture and human learners. Whereas humans generalize identity restrictions broadly, to both native and non-native phonemes, the original model and several related variants failed to generalize to non-native phonemes. In contrast, a revised model equipped with variables more closely matches human behavior. These findings suggest that, like syntax, phonological grammars are endowed with algebraic relations among variables that support across-the-board generalizations.