About

A Polinsky is the Josephine Scott Crocker Professor of Law and a Senior Fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research. He is affiliated with the Stanford Law School and specializes in law and the legal system, with a focus on legal and regulatory interventions. His work involves analyzing and developing legal frameworks and policies to address complex societal issues, contributing to the academic and practical understanding of law's role in economic and public policy contexts.

Research topics

• History
• Psychology
• Linguistics
• Computer Science
• Pedagogy
• Engineering

Selected publications

• English Restrictive Relative Clauses Are Subject to Crossover Violations

  Linguistic Inquiry · 2025-09-18 · 1 citations

  articleSenior author

  Abstract The literature on crossover effects has yet to arrive at a consensus on the status of weak crossover (WCO) in restrictive relative clauses (RRCs). We present the first experimental investigation of this construction, finding clear evidence for the presence of WCO effects in English RRCs, contra claims in the theoretical literature (e.g., Chomsky 1982, Reinhart 1997, Rouveret 2002). In our large-scale acceptability judgment task, participants consistently rated WCO-inducing constructions lower than their non-WCO counterparts. Our results also show similarly strong crossover effects for both referential and quantificational antecedents, a finding that aligns more closely with a head-external analysis of relative clauses rather than a head-raising analysis. While our results do not adjudicate among the many analyses of crossover effects in the literature, they confirm the presence of WCO in English RRCs, thereby refuting the empirical claim that English RRCs do not exhibit this effect whatsoever. Accordingly, our findings can be used to argue against analyses of WCO that predict its absence in RRCs. This work also sets the stage for cross-linguistic investigations of WCO, extending our paradigm to other, lesser-studied languages.

  PublisherDOI

• Heritage language gaps

  2025-02-24 · 2 citations

  book-chapter1st authorCorresponding

  Abstract This chapter presents and analyzes the alternation between overt and null expressions in heritage languages (HLs), with a special emphasis on coreference and the structure of relative clauses. It is commonly observed that languages under contact minimize the use of null forms in favor of overt ones. I examine this claim in detail and conclude that while HLs generally do not change the licensing conditions on null elements, the dependencies in which such elements appear tend to be shortened or eliminated. In discussing structural change in HLs, this chapter also makes a connection between HLs and other language contact situations, in particular, between HLs and endangered languages. Although socio-cultural conditions on heritage and endangered languages may be quite different, structural similarities between the two language types are striking. As a consequence, grammatical observations from one empirical domain can be tested on the other.

  PublisherDOI

• What can only returnees teach us about language?

  Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism · 2025-11-28 · 1 citations

  articleSenior author
  PublisherDOI

• Weak crossover in Spanish relative clauses

  Probus · 2025-09-12

  articleOpen accessSenior author

  Abstract We investigate the status of weak crossover violations (WCO) in Spanish restrictive relative clauses. Claims in the literature lead to the expectation that Spanish does not show sensitivity to WCO in this context; however, ours is the first systematic investigation of the phenomenon in the language. We find that Spanish restrictive relative clauses do exhibit WCO violations: when the relative clause is headed by que , participants rate crossover configurations lower than configurations without crossover; when the relative clause is introduced by a quien , the status of WCO violations is less clear. We consider two explanations for our results in a quien clauses: potential structural differences between que and a quien , and the possibility for an appositive parse for some of our a quien configurations. Our results set the stage for further cross-linguistic investigations of crossover phenomena.

  PublisherDOI

• Multiple grammars within linguistic populations

  Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism · 2025-07-04

  article1st authorCorresponding

  Abstract This paper explores the concept of multiple grammars (MGs) and their implications for linguistic theory, language acquisition, and bilingual language knowledge. Drawing on evidence from phenomena such as scope interactions, verb raising, and agreement patterns, I argue that seemingly identical surface structures can be undergirded by different grammatical analyses that may compete within speaker populations. I then propose a typology of MG distributions, including shared MGs, competing MGs, and partial MGs , each with distinct consequences for acquisition and use. Contrary to expectations of simplification, bilingualism can sometimes lead to an expansion of grammatical analyses and does not always lead to the elimination of MGs. The paper discusses methods for predicting environments conducive to MGs, considering factors such as structural ambiguity and silent elements. The examination of MGs compels us to explore how learners navigate underdetermined input, especially in bilingual contexts, and to examine the interplay between gradient acceptability judgments and categorical grammatical distinctions. The study of MGs offers valuable insights into language variation, change, and the nature of linguistic competence.

  PublisherDOI

• The antipassive and verbal projections

  Journal of Linguistics · 2025-03-10 · 2 citations

  articleOpen accessSenior author

  Abstract This paper presents and analyzes antipassive constructions in the Mayan language Kaqchikel. Through various syntactic tests, we show that antipassive constructions differ from both active transitive and Agent Focus structures in that they do not syntactically project a DP-sized object. Thus, we should think of antipassives as a type of unergative. When an object seems to disappear or become less important in an antipassive, this is not a special feature of antipassives – it is simply what happens in any intransitive structure. In other words, the ‘suppression’ or ‘demotion’ of thematic object is not an inherent characteristic of the construction but rather a byproduct of its intransitive nature. To better understand how transitive and intransitive constructions function cross-linguistically, we propose a novel framework for categorizing the functional heads v and Voice. We show that the external argument behaves differently in transitive versus intransitive clauses, appearing in different structural positions, which is backed up by evidence from causatives in Kaqchikel and scope patterns in other languages. While transitive and passive structures include a Voice projection, Agent Focus and antipassive structures do not. We compare our analysis to previous work on antipassives and explore what our findings might mean for understanding antipassives in other languages.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• On the inventory of v and Voice

  Repository of the Academy's Library (Library of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences) · 2024-01-01

  articleOpen accessSenior author
  OA PDF

• One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Once I Caught a Fish Alive: Numerical Phrases in Child and Adult Heritage Russian

  Languages · 2024-07-28 · 1 citations

  articleOpen accessSenior author

  This paper investigates the production of numerically-quantified phrases (NQPs) by monolingual and bilingual speakers of Russian, with Hebrew as the dominant language for the latter group. Russian NQPs exhibit a complex system of noun forms, distinguishing between singular (odin gorod ‘one city’), paucal (dva goroda ‘two cities’), and plural (pjat’ gorodov ‘five cities’); the endings of paucal and plural nouns vary depending on nominal declension class, which in turn correlates with gender. Adult and child bilinguals dominant in Hebrew (n = 37 and n = 27, respectively) were compared to monolingual Russian-speaking controls (n = 21 and n = 20, respectively). Production data were collected using a numeral-noun elicitation task, which involved eliciting 24 numerical phrases manipulated for gender (masculine, feminine) and number (paucal, plural). Compared to the monolingual controls, the bilinguals showed lower accuracy, with oversuppliance of nominative plural endings and overtly marked genitive plural endings. These non-target responses indicate the reliance on default forms and phonetically salient inflections, confirming that these factors influence non-target attainment in bilingual (heritage) grammars. The amount of exposure to Russian (as measured by age of bilingualism onset and proficiency) influenced performance significantly, underscoring the role of input in shaping bilingual grammars. The production of NQPs by Hebrew-dominant Russian speakers was similar to that by English-dominant Russian speakers as reported in previous studies, which may appear surprising given that Hebrew is characterized by richer morphology than English, and that may play a role in the maintenance of morphology in the weaker language. We offer some considerations for this lack of effect.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• 29 Understanding applicatives

  2024-01-15 · 1 citations

  book-chapter1st authorCorresponding

  This chapter presents and analyzes the main criterial properties of applicative constructions as proposed by Zúñiga and Creissels in their introductory chapter. These properties are as follows: (i) applicativization, as a subtype of nucleativization, alters the status of non-agentive non-subject arguments; (ii) the predicate in the applicative construction has overt morphological marking that sets it apart from the base-construction predicate; (iii) the applied phrase has a role other than S or A and refers to a participant that either requires a non-core coding different from its coding in the base construction or cannot be expressed at all in the latter. While generally in agreement with these criteria, the chapter proposes some adjustments to and expansions of all three of these properties. Concerning property (i), the chapter discusses the connection between causativization and applicativization, which is manifested through common causative- applicative syncretism. With regard to (ii), it argues for loosening the restriction on overt morphological marking of the applied verb, which would allow us to capture language- internal inconsistency in applicative marking and include agreement exponents as signals of the applicative as well. With respect to property (iii), the chapter advocates the inclusion of constructions with an external object possessor (object possessorraising constructions) in the range of applicatives.

  PublisherDOI

• Introduction

  Cambridge University Press eBooks · 2024-02-15

  book-chapterSenior author

  This introduction to the volume provides background on common themes that appear across its chapters. First, it contextualizes the notions of heritage languages and heritage speakers before providing reasons why research on heritage sound systems has lagged behind work on other linguistic areas. It then offers an overview of what we have discovered to date about heritage sound systems, while also pointing out gaps and topics that merit further exploration. Motivated by the discussion in the first portion of this piece, the latter half covers the breadth, goals, and novel aspects of the current volume before providing brief summaries of the empirical studies carried out in each of its seventeen chapters.

  PublisherDOI

Frequent coauthors

• Keith Plaster

  IIT@Harvard

  720 shared

• Kenneth Mai

  Harvard University Press

  552 shared

• Boyan Zhang

  176 shared

• Boyan Zhang

  174 shared

• Steven Shavell

  Harvard University Press

  124 shared

• Boyan Zhang

  109 shared

• Hisagi Miwako

  87 shared

• Daniel L. Rubinfeld

  University of California, Berkeley

  77 shared