The acquisition of questions with long-distance dependencies

A number of researchers have claimed that questions and other constructions with long distance dependencies (LDDs) are acquired relatively early, by age 4 or even earlier, in spite of their complexity. Analysis of LDD questions in the input available to children suggests that they are extremely stereotypical, raising the possibility that children learn lexically specific templates such as WH do you think S-GAP? rather than general rules of the kind postulated in traditional linguistic accounts of this construction. We describe three elicited imitation experiments with children aged from 4;6 to 6;9 and adult controls. Participants were asked to repeat prototypical questions (i.e., questions which match the hypothesised template), unprototypical questions (which depart from it in several respects) and declarative counterparts of both types of interrogative sentences. The children performed significantly better on the prototypical variants of both constructions, even when both variants contained exactly the same lexical material, while adults showed prototypicality e¤ects for LDD questions only. These results suggest that a general declarative complementation construction emerges quite late in development (after age 6), and that even adults rely on lexically specific templates for LDD questions

Syntactic microvariation and methodology: problems and perspectives

Variation in empirical data has been a perseverant problem for theoretical linguistics, especially syntax. Data inconsistencies among authors allegedly analyzing the same phenomenon are ubiquitous in the syntactic literature (e.g., literature on focus-raising in Hungarian; É. Kiss 1987 vs. Lipták 1998), and partly result from the highly informal methodology of data collection. However, even if adequate controls are used to exclude potential biases, variation might remain. The general practice in syntactic research has been to ignore these „microvariations”-mainly in the lack of any systematic empirical method to detect them. The present paper shows that this practice leads to serious theoretical problems and proposes a new empirical method, cluster analysis, to discover, explore and systematize these variations. It also illustrates how this richer empirical basis gives rise to a more fine-grained theoretical analysis

Linguistics

Contains table of contents for Section 4, an introduction and abstracts of nine doctoral dissertations

Communications Biophysics

Contains reports on ten research projects.National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 P01 NS13126)National Institutes of Health (Training Grant 5 T32 NS0704)National Science Foundation (Grant BNS80-06369)National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 R01 NS11153)National Science Foundation (Grant BNS77-16861)National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 RO1 NS12846)National Science Foundation (Grant BNS77-21751)National Institutes of Health (Grant 1 P01 NS14092)Karmazin Foundation through the Council for the Arts at MITNational Institutes of Health (Fellowship 5 F32 NS06386)National Science Foundation (Fellowship SP179-14913)National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 RO1 NS11080

Uphold the nuclear weapons test moratorium

The Trump administration is considering renewing nuclear weapons testing (1), a move that could increase the risk of another nuclear arms race as well as an inadvertent or intentional nuclear war. Following in the long tradition of scientists opposing nuclear weapons due to their harmful effects on both humanity and the planet (2), we ask the U.S. government to desist from plans to conduct nuclear tests. During the Cold War, the United States conducted 1030 nuclear weapons tests, more than all other nuclear-armed nations combined (3). In 1996, the United States signed the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), agreeing not to conduct a nuclear weapons test of any yield (4). The United States has not yet ratified the CTBT but did spearhead the 2016 adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 2310, which calls upon all countries to uphold the object and purpose of the CTBT by not conducting nuclear tests (5). Eight of the nine nuclear-armed states, including the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, have observed a moratorium on nuclear testing since 1998 (3, 4). The ninth, North Korea, responding to international pressure, stopped testing warhead detonations (as opposed to missile flights) in 2017 (6). If the United States ratified the CTBT, joining the 168 countries who have already done so (4), there is a good chance that the other holdout countries would ratify the treaty as well (7)

Uphold the nuclear weapons test moratorium

The Trump administration is considering renewing nuclear weapons testing (1), a move that could increase the risk of another nuclear arms race as well as an inadvertent or intentional nuclear war. Following in the long tradition of scientists opposing nuclear weapons due to their harmful effects on both humanity and the planet (2), we ask the U.S. government to desist from plans to conduct nuclear tests. During the Cold War, the United States conducted 1030 nuclear weapons tests, more than all other nuclear-armed nations combined (3). In 1996, the United States signed the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), agreeing not to conduct a nuclear weapons test of any yield (4). The United States has not yet ratified the CTBT but did spearhead the 2016 adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 2310, which calls upon all countries to uphold the object and purpose of the CTBT by not conducting nuclear tests (5). Eight of the nine nuclear-armed states, including the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, have observed a moratorium on nuclear testing since 1998 (3, 4). The ninth, North Korea, responding to international pressure, stopped testing warhead detonations (as opposed to missile flights) in 2017 (6). If the United States ratified the CTBT, joining the 168 countries who have already done so (4), there is a good chance that the other holdout countries would ratify the treaty as well (7)

Communications Biophysics

Contains reports on eight research projects split into four sections.National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 P01 NS13126)National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 K04 NS00113)National Institutes of Health (Training Grant 5 T32 NS07047)National Science Foundation (Grant BNS80-06369)National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 ROl NS11153)National Institutes of Health (Fellowship 1 F32 NS06544)National Science Foundation (Grant BNS77-16861)National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 R01 NS10916)National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 RO1 NS12846)National Science Foundation (Grant BNS77-21751)National Institutes of Health (Grant 1 R01 NS14092)National Institutes of Health (Grant 2 R01 NS11680)National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 ROl1 NS11080)National Institutes of Health (Training Grant 5 T32 GM07301