The that-trace effect and island boundary-gap effect are the same: Demonstrating equivalence with null hypothesis significance testing and psychometrics

Adam M. Morgan
{"title":"The that-trace effect and island boundary-gap effect are the same:\n Demonstrating equivalence with null hypothesis significance testing and\n psychometrics","authors":"Adam M. Morgan","doi":"10.5070/g601140","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper demonstrates a novel approach in experimental syntax, leveraging psychometric methods to resolve a decades-old puzzle. Specifically, gaps in subject position are more acceptable than gaps in object position in non-islands, while the reverse is true in islands (the Island Boundary-Gap Effect ). Attempts at explaining this asymmetry generally attribute it to a violation of the same constraint that renders gaps unacceptable after the overt complementizer ‘ that ’ (the That-Trace Effect ). However, the two effects involve distinct syntactic structures, and there is no a priori reason to believe they are the same beyond the elegance of a unified account. One limitation has been the difficulty of testing for equivalence in the Null Hypothesis Significance Testing framework: when two constructs behave similarly, it generally constitutes an uninterpretable null result. Experiments 1 and 2 use standard experimental methods to circumvent this problem, but ultimately provide evidence that is at best just consistent with equivalence. Experiment 3 demonstrates a novel approach which shows that individual differences in the That-Trace Effect correlate with individual differences in the Island Boundary-Gap Effect, after removing correlated variance from carefully-chosen controls. This psychometric approach provides positive evidence that the two effects do indeed derive from the same underlying phenomenon.","PeriodicalId":164622,"journal":{"name":"Glossa Psycholinguistics","volume":"36 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Glossa Psycholinguistics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5070/g601140","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

This paper demonstrates a novel approach in experimental syntax, leveraging psychometric methods to resolve a decades-old puzzle. Specifically, gaps in subject position are more acceptable than gaps in object position in non-islands, while the reverse is true in islands (the Island Boundary-Gap Effect ). Attempts at explaining this asymmetry generally attribute it to a violation of the same constraint that renders gaps unacceptable after the overt complementizer ‘ that ’ (the That-Trace Effect ). However, the two effects involve distinct syntactic structures, and there is no a priori reason to believe they are the same beyond the elegance of a unified account. One limitation has been the difficulty of testing for equivalence in the Null Hypothesis Significance Testing framework: when two constructs behave similarly, it generally constitutes an uninterpretable null result. Experiments 1 and 2 use standard experimental methods to circumvent this problem, but ultimately provide evidence that is at best just consistent with equivalence. Experiment 3 demonstrates a novel approach which shows that individual differences in the That-Trace Effect correlate with individual differences in the Island Boundary-Gap Effect, after removing correlated variance from carefully-chosen controls. This psychometric approach provides positive evidence that the two effects do indeed derive from the same underlying phenomenon.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
该痕迹效应和岛屿边界间隙效应相同:用零假设显著性检验和心理测量学证明等效性
本文展示了一种实验句法的新方法,利用心理测量方法来解决一个几十年来的难题。具体来说,在非岛屿中,主体位置的空白比客体位置的空白更容易被接受,而在岛屿中则相反(岛屿边界-空白效应)。解释这种不对称的尝试通常将其归因于违反了相同的约束,使得在明显的补语“that”之后出现不可接受的空白(that - trace效应)。然而,这两种效果涉及不同的语法结构,没有先验的理由认为它们是相同的,除了一个统一的描述。一个限制是在零假设显著性检验框架中测试等效性的困难:当两个结构的行为相似时,它通常构成不可解释的空结果。实验1和2使用标准的实验方法来规避这个问题,但最终提供的证据充其量只是与等效性一致。实验3展示了一种新颖的方法,该方法表明,在从精心选择的控制中去除相关方差后,that - trace效应的个体差异与岛屿边界-缺口效应的个体差异相关。这种心理测量方法提供了积极的证据,证明这两种效应确实源于相同的潜在现象。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The role of differential cross-linguistic influence and other constraints in predictive L2 gender processing Scalar Inferencing, Polarity and Cognitive Load Reproducible research practices and transparency across linguistics Dialect experience modulates cue reliance in sociolinguistic convergence Pre-verb reactivation of arguments in sentence processing
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1