Subject-Object Asymmetries in English Sentences with Two Negatives

This paper presents the results of an experimental study on gradient acceptability of English sentences with two negatives such as ‘John didn’t eat nothing’ and ‘nobody didn’t eat’. These sentences have two possible interpretations. In the Negative Concord interpretation, the two negatives contribute a single semantic negation (e.g. ‘John ate nothing’). In the Double Negation interpretation, each negative contributes a semantic negation, yielding a logical affirmative (e.g. ‘John ate something’). Negative Concord is heavily stigmatized in contemporary English. The results of this study show that despite their overall unacceptability, Negative Concord sentences with a negative object are significantly more acceptable than Negative Concord sentences with a negative subject. This subject-object asymmetry is not present in Double Negation sentences, which are equally unacceptable with negative subjects and negative objects. This paper discusses how these results support the hypothesis that Negative Concord constructions have the same underlying structure as Negative Polarity Item constructions (e.g. John didn’t eat anything), which also exhibit subject-object asymmetries in acceptability (cf. *Anybody didn’t eat.

Using audio stimuli in acceptability judgment experiments

In this paper, we argue that moving away from written stimuli in acceptability judgment experiments is necessary to address the systematic exclusion of particular empirical phenomena, languages/varieties, and speakers in psycholinguistics. We provide user‐friendly guidelines for conducting acceptability experiments which use audio stimuli in three platforms: Praat, Qualtrics, and PennController for Ibex. In supplementary materials, we include data and R script from a sample experiment investigating English constituent order using written and audio stimuli. This paper aims not only to increase the types of languages, speakers, and phenomena which are included in experimental syntax, but also to help researchers who are interested in conducting experiments to overcome the initial learning curve. Video Abstract link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoWYY1O9ugsPeer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/156434/2/lnc312377_am.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/156434/1/lnc312377.pd

Marking Topic or Marking Case: A Comparative Investigation of Heritage Japanese and Heritage Korean

In this paper, we examine the relationship between grammatical and discourse-related domains of linguistic organization in heritage speakers by comparing their knowledge of categories mediated at different structural levels: grammatical case marking, which is mediated within the structure of the clause, and the marking of information structure, grammatically mediated at the syntax-discourse interface. To this end, we examine the knowledge of case and topic particles in heritage speakers and L2 learners of Japanese and Korean as assessed through a series of rating tasks. We find that heritage speakers in both languages experience different degrees of difficulty with elements that belong to different linguistic modules: phenomena which involve semantic and discourse computation are found to be more difficult than phenomena governed primarily by structural syntactic constraints.Linguistic

SNAP judgments: A small N acceptability paradigm (SNAP) for linguistic acceptability judgments

While published linguistic judgments sometimes differ from the judgments found in large-scale formal experiments with naive participants, there is not a consensus as to how often these errors occur nor as to how often formal experiments should be used in syntax and semantics research. In this article, we first present the results of a large-scale replication of the Sprouse et al. 2013 study on 100 English contrasts randomly sampled from Linguistic Inquiry 2001–2010 and tested in both a forced-choice experiment and an acceptability rating experiment. Like Sprouse, Schütze, and Almeida, we find that the effect sizes of published linguistic acceptability judgments are not uniformly large or consistent but rather form a continuum from very large effects to small or nonexistent effects. We then use this data as a prior in a Bayesian framework to propose a small n acceptability paradigm for linguistic acceptability judgments (SNAP Judgments). This proposal makes it easier and cheaper to obtain meaningful quantitative data in syntax and semantics research. Specifically, for a contrast of linguistic interest for which a researcher is confident that sentence A is better than sentence B, we recommend that the researcher should obtain judgments from at least five unique participants, using at least five unique sentences of each type. If all participants in the sample agree that sentence A is better than sentence B, then the researcher can be confident that the result of a full forced-choice experiment would likely be 75% or more agreement in favor of sentence A (with a mean of 93%). We test this proposal by sampling from the existing data and find that it gives reliable performance.*American Society for Engineering Education. National Defense Science and Engineering Graduate Fellowshi

The D-linking effect on extraction from islands and non-islands

D-linked wh-phrases such as 'which car' are known to increase the acceptability of sentences with island violations. One influential account of this attributes the effect to working memory: the D-linked filler is easier to retrieve at the site of the gap and this leads to the amelioration in acceptability. Such an account predicts that this effect should occur in general with non-trivial wh-dependencies, not just in island environments. An experiment is presented here to test this prediction. Wh-questions with both D-linked and bare wh-phrases and with both island and non-island embedded clauses are presented to participants, who rate their acceptability on a 7-point scale. Results show that D-linking significantly increases acceptability in both island and non-island environments, in accord with analyses that attribute the effect to working memory. In addition, the increase in acceptability is uniform in both types of environments, suggesting that the island effect itself may not be attributable to working memory

Knowledge-Driven Intelligent Survey Systems Towards Open Science

Open Access via Springer Compact Agreement. Acknowledgements: We are grateful to all of our survey participants, and to Anne Eschenbruecher, Sally Lamond, and Evelyn Williams for their assistance in participant recruitment. We are also grateful to Patrik Bansky for his work on refinement of the survey system.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Call to claim your prize: Perceived benefits and risk drive intention to comply in a mass marketing scam.

Mass marketing scams extract an enormous toll, yet the literature on scams is just emerging. In Experiment 1, 211 adults reviewed a solicitation and rated their intention of contacting an "activation number" for a prize. Scarcity and authority were manipulated. Many (48.82%) indicated some willingness to contact to "activate" the winnings. Intention of responding was inversely related to the perception of risk (b = -.441, p < .001) and positively associated with perception of benefits (b = .554, p < .001), but not with the experimental condition. In Experiment 2, 291 adults were randomly assigned to one of the three conditions (low, medium, or high activation fee), and were asked to report willingness to contact. Activation fees decreased intent to contact, but percentages remained high (25.70%), with higher perception of risk reducing contact rates (b = -.581, p < .001), and benefit perception increasing intent to contact (b = .381, p < .001). Our studies indicate that consumers are responding to perceived risks and benefits in their decision-making, regardless of persuasion elements used by scammers. In summary, our studies find that consumers with lower levels of education and high perception of benefits are at increased risk for mass marketing scams. (PsycINFO Database Recor

Using two-alternative force choice tasks and Thurstone's law of comparative judgments for code-switching research

This article argues that 2-alternative forced choice tasks and Thurstone's law of comparative judgments (Thurstone, 1927) are well suited to investigate code-switching competence by means of acceptability judgments. We compare this method with commonly used Likert scale judgments and find that the 2-alternative forced choice task provides granular details that remain invisible in a Likert scale experiment. In order to compare and contrast both methods, we examined the syntactic phenomenon usually referred to as the Adjacency Condition (AC) (apud Stowell, 1981), which imposes a condition of adjacency between verb and object. Our interest in the AC comes from the fact that it is a subtle feature of English grammar which is absent in Spanish, and this provides an excellent springboard to create minimal code-switched pairs that allow us to formulate a clear research question that can be tested using both methods

El book or the libro? Insights from acceptability judgments into determiner/noun code-switches

Objectives/research questions:We used two types of acceptability judgments to experimentally test the predictions of two theoretical models of code-switching regarding the surface realization of the determiner in nominal constructions: lexicalist approaches within the Minimalist Program (MP) versus the Bilingual NP Hypothesis within the Matrix Language Frame Model (MLF).Methodology:Two separate groups of 40 early Spanish-English bilinguals evaluated the acceptability of sentences with code-switches between the determiner and the noun that reflected the predictions of the MP model, the MLF, of both or none. The first group rated them on a Likert scale, while the second group performed a two-alternative forced-choice acceptability task (2AFC).Data and analysis:Ratings from the Likert ratings were subjected to an analysis of variance while results from the 2AFC were analyzed using Thurstone’s Law of Comparative Judgment.Conclusions:Both experiments yielded converging evidence supporting the predictions of the MLF. Results from the 2AFC provided a more detailed picture that suggests also a (smaller) contribution of the language of the determiner.Originality:This is the first study to use acceptability judgments to directly contrast the predictions of these major theoretical models regarding switches between determiner and noun. An additional novelty is the use of the 2AFC and Thurstone’s Law of Comparative Judgment, which yielded a more detailed picture than the more commonly used Likert-scale ratings.Implications:Our results provide further support for Eppler, Luescher, and Deuchar’s recent claim that we can only advance our understanding of grammaticality in code-switching if we combine the insights of the different frameworks rather than considering them in isolation.Theoretical and Experimental Linguistic