Examination of the importance of age of onset, callous-unemotional traits and anger dysregulation in youths with antisocial behaviors.

Age of onset, callous-unemotional (CU) traits and anger dysregulation have separately been proposed as relevant factors in explaining the heterogeneity of antisocial behaviour (ASB). Taking a dimensional perspective, this study examined the specific contributions and the mutual influences (i.e., interactions) of these three characteristics on specific dimensions of ASB (i.e., criminal behaviours and externalizing symptoms). Assessments were conducted on 536 youths from institutions with the youth psychopathic traits inventory (CU traits), the Massachusetts youth screening instrument-second version (anger dysregulation), the criminology questionnaire (criminal behaviours) and the child behavior checklist (externalizing symptoms), rated by both the youths and their carers. Using Bayes as estimators, the results revealed that the number and frequency of crimes (and, more specifically, damage to property, property offenses and media crimes) were explained by a specific contribution of each factor (age of onset, CU traits and anger dysregulation). Additionally, the interactions between age of onset and CU traits or anger dysregulation were relevant predictors of some types of crimes (i.e., damage to property, property offences and media crimes). Furthermore, when rated by youths, externalizing symptoms were explained by CU traits and anger dysregulation. However, when rated by the carer, anger dysregulation was more important in explaining externalizing symptoms. This study highlights the importance of considering these factors altogether and the value of using a dimensional perspective when examining the structure of ASB in youths. Consequently, future classifications should take into account the mutual account of these characteristics, which were previously studied separately

The influence of only and even on online semantic interpretation

Focus particles such as only and even indicate that the focused element(s) in a sentence should be contrasted with a set of contextually defined alternatives. Only indicates that properties assigned to the focus set are not shared by elements of the alternative set, whereas even indicates that the focus and alternative sets share the properties mentioned in the sentence. Even has the additional function of marking the focused element as being low on a scale of alternatives ranked in terms of likelihood, thereby signaling that what is being described is somewhat surprising. Using eyetracking, we demonstrate that contrast information associated with only and even is rapidly processed online, with effects for even being delayed, as compared with only (Experiment 1). This difference in time course was not driven by the underlying semantics of the sentence without the focus particle (Experiment 2) but was probably due to even's more complex semantic function

Our even

We discuss a phenomenon that appears when ‘even’ occurs in questions. Specifically, an inference of what we call “extreme ignorance” is projected onto the speaker. We argue that this effect arises when the known unlikelihood ‘even’ focuses an entire question, resulting in the focused question being the least likely to be asked. Specific implicatures then conspire to bring about the inference that the speaker does not know the answer to the question that is most expected to be known. The environments explored are Wh-questions and Y/N questions, and the languages looked at primarily English, Greek, German and Russian