Why Is There No Raising to Object in Spanish? A Study of Code-Switching

Raising to Object (RtoObj), like other types of Raising configurations, features a determiner phrase (DP) in a dual-clausal relationship with both the matrix and the embedded clauses. RtoO is possible in English and a few other languages, most famously, Icelandic. However, it is not possible in many other languages, such as Spanish. As far as we can tell, insight into what licenses RtoObj is largely speculative. The main goal of this paper is to limit the range of possible hypotheses by pinpointing the source of the cross-linguistic difference using code-switching data. A priori, we could hypothesize two possible sources for the licensor of RtoObj: It could be a feature in the matrix clause or a feature in the infinitival complement. In this chapter, we present code-switching data that support the second option: English TdefP is linked to the licensing of RtoObj. We find that early Spanish/English bilinguals overwhelmingly prefer code-switched RtoObj samples when the infinitival complement is in English and they reject RtoObj when the complement is a Spanish infinitival. This suggests that Spanish Tdef is either different or altogether missing

Allocation of Attention to Second Language Form and Meaning

The aims of the present study were twofold. The study addressed the issues of simultaneous attention to form and meaning in second language (L2) written input and reactivity of think-alouds. Specifically, the study examined the comprehension of L2 learners of Spanish who either attended to lexical or grammatical forms while reading for meaning or read for meaning alone. Learners completed these tasks while either thinking aloud or not. Results indicated only a minimal effect for thinking aloud that did not appear to compromise the internal validity of the study. Additionally, results showed that attending to grammatical or lexical form while reading for meaning did not affect comprehension. Indeed, learners who processed these forms more deeply evidenced greater comprehension

Is the current pertussis incidence only the results of testing? A spatial and space-time analysis of pertussis surveillance data using cluster detection methods and geographically weighted regression modelling - Fig 1

<p>Spatial distribution of a) pertussis testing, b) incidence and c) test-positivity, 2007–2013.</p

Results of the geographically weighted Poisson regression of pertussis incidence among the total population.

<p>Results of the geographically weighted Poisson regression of pertussis incidence among the total population.</p

Poisson regression models of pertussis incidence stratified by age.

<p>Significance levels: * = 0.05; ** = 0.01; *** = 0.001. Only significant predictors are reported.</p

Poisson regression models for pertussis testing, stratified by age.

<p>Significance levels: * = 0.05; ** = 0.01; *** = 0.001. Only significant predictors are reported.</p

Explanatory variables.

<p>Explanatory variables.</p

Local coefficients for model 2.

<p>Local coefficients for model 2.</p

Significant (p<0.05) coefficients per HCV cluster for model 1.

<p>Significant (p<0.05) coefficients per HCV cluster for model 1.</p

Rates of testing, test positivity and population incidence.

<p>SD = standard deviation.</p