Jennifer E. Arnold, Atziri Marquez, Jiefang Li, G. Franck
The English pronoun system is undergoing a change in progress as singular they is used more frequently to refer to specific individuals, especially those who identify as nonbinary. How does this change affect the language production system? Research has shown that the production of he/she pronouns is supported by salient discourse status and inhibited in contexts where the pronoun would be ambiguous. In an analysis of naturally-occurring written texts, we test whether they production patterns with he/she production, controlling for discourse context. Results show that the overall rate of pronoun use is lower for references to nonbinary individuals than for references to binary individuals. This difference is not explained by the potential ambiguity of a referent in context. We speculate that relative unfamiliarity with nonbinary they and nonbinary gender may inhibit the activation of they during production, or may lead writers to avoid using a form that may not be familiar to their addressees.
{"title":"Does nonbinary they inherit the binary pronoun production system?","authors":"Jennifer E. Arnold, Atziri Marquez, Jiefang Li, G. Franck","doi":"10.5070/g601183","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5070/g601183","url":null,"abstract":"The English pronoun system is undergoing a change in progress as singular they is used more frequently to refer to specific individuals, especially those who identify as nonbinary. How does this change affect the language production system? Research has shown that the production of he/she pronouns is supported by salient discourse status and inhibited in contexts where the pronoun would be ambiguous. In an analysis of naturally-occurring written texts, we test whether they production patterns with he/she production, controlling for discourse context. Results show that the overall rate of pronoun use is lower for references to nonbinary individuals than for references to binary individuals. This difference is not explained by the potential ambiguity of a referent in context. We speculate that relative unfamiliarity with nonbinary they and nonbinary gender may inhibit the activation of they during production, or may lead writers to avoid using a form that may not be familiar to their addressees.","PeriodicalId":164622,"journal":{"name":"Glossa Psycholinguistics","volume":"84 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-02-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115434126","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Glossa Psycholinguistics: Open access by scholars, for scholars","authors":"Fernanda Ferreira, Brian Dillon","doi":"10.5070/g601195","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5070/g601195","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":164622,"journal":{"name":"Glossa Psycholinguistics","volume":"74 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-02-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133061025","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
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.
{"title":"The that-trace effect and island boundary-gap effect are the same:\u0000 Demonstrating equivalence with null hypothesis significance testing and\u0000 psychometrics","authors":"Adam M. Morgan","doi":"10.5070/g601140","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5070/g601140","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":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-02-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127573777","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Is reanalysis selective when regressions are consciously\u0000 controlled?","authors":"Dario Paape, S. Vasishth","doi":"10.5070/g601139","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5070/g601139","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":164622,"journal":{"name":"Glossa Psycholinguistics","volume":"76 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-02-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124684058","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Daniela Mertzen, Dario Paape, Brian Dillon, Ralf Engbert, S. Vasishth
A long-standing debate in the sentence processing literature concerns the time course of syntactic and semantic information in online sentence comprehension. The default assumption in cue-based models of parsing is that syntactic and semantic retrieval cues simultaneously guide dependency resolution. When retrieval cues match multiple items in memory, this leads to similarity-based interference. Both semantic and syntactic interferencehave been shown to occur in English. However, the relative timing of syntactic vs. semantic interference remains unclear. In this first-ever cross-linguistic investigation of the time course of syntactic vs. semantic interference, the data from two eye-tracking reading experiments (English and German) suggest that the two types of interference can in principle arise simultaneously during retrieval. However, the data also indicate that semantic cues may be evaluated with a small timing lag in German compared to English. This suggests that there may be cross-linguistic variation in how syntactic and semantic cues are used to resolve linguistic dependencies in real-time.
{"title":"Syntactic and semantic interference in sentence comprehension: Support from English and German eye-tracking data","authors":"Daniela Mertzen, Dario Paape, Brian Dillon, Ralf Engbert, S. Vasishth","doi":"10.31234/osf.io/ua9yv","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/ua9yv","url":null,"abstract":"A long-standing debate in the sentence processing literature concerns the time course of syntactic and semantic information in online sentence comprehension. The default assumption in cue-based models of parsing is that syntactic and semantic retrieval cues simultaneously guide dependency resolution. When retrieval cues match multiple items in memory, this leads to similarity-based interference. Both semantic and syntactic interferencehave been shown to occur in English. However, the relative timing of syntactic vs. semantic interference remains unclear. In this first-ever cross-linguistic investigation of the time course of syntactic vs. semantic interference, the data from two eye-tracking reading experiments (English and German) suggest that the two types of interference can in principle arise simultaneously during retrieval. However, the data also indicate that semantic cues may be evaluated with a small timing lag in German compared to English. This suggests that there may be cross-linguistic variation in how syntactic and semantic cues are used to resolve linguistic dependencies in real-time.","PeriodicalId":164622,"journal":{"name":"Glossa Psycholinguistics","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130200301","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Many word forms exist in multiple languages, and can have either the same meaning (cognates) or a different meaning (interlingual homographs). Previous experiments have shown that processing of interlingual homographs in a bilingual’s second language is slowed down by recent experience with these words in the bilingual’s native language, while processing of cognates can be speeded up (Poort et al., 2016; Poort & Rodd, 2019a). The current experiment replicated Poort and Rodd’s (2019a) Experiment 2 but switched the direction of priming: Dutch-English bilinguals (N = 106) made Dutch semantic relatedness judgements to probes related to cognates (n = 50), interlingual homographs (n = 50) and translation equivalents (n = 50) they had seen 15 minutes previously embedded in English sentences. The current experiment is the first to show that a single encounter with an interlingual homograph in one’s second language can also affect subsequent processing in one’s native language. Cross-lingual priming did not affect the cognates. The experiment also extended Poort and Rodd (2019a)’s finding of a large interlingual homograph inhibition effect in a semantic relatedness task in the participants’ L2 to their L1, but again found no evidence for a cognate facilitation effect in a semantic relatedness task. These findings extend the growing literature that emphasises the high level of interaction in a bilingual’s mental lexicon, by demonstrating the influence of L2 experience on the processing of L1 words. Data, scripts, materials and pre-registration available via https://osf.io/2swyg/?view_only=b2ba2e627f6f4eaeac87edab2b59b236.
{"title":"Cross-lingual priming of cognates and interlingual homographs from L2 to L1","authors":"Eva D Poort, J. Rodd","doi":"10.31234/osf.io/dehrt","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/dehrt","url":null,"abstract":"Many word forms exist in multiple languages, and can have either the same meaning (cognates) or a different meaning (interlingual homographs). Previous experiments have shown that processing of interlingual homographs in a bilingual’s second language is slowed down by recent experience with these words in the bilingual’s native language, while processing of cognates can be speeded up (Poort et al., 2016; Poort & Rodd, 2019a). The current experiment replicated Poort and Rodd’s (2019a) Experiment 2 but switched the direction of priming: Dutch-English bilinguals (N = 106) made Dutch semantic relatedness judgements to probes related to cognates (n = 50), interlingual homographs (n = 50) and translation equivalents (n = 50) they had seen 15 minutes previously embedded in English sentences. The current experiment is the first to show that a single encounter with an interlingual homograph in one’s second language can also affect subsequent processing in one’s native language. Cross-lingual priming did not affect the cognates. The experiment also extended Poort and Rodd (2019a)’s finding of a large interlingual homograph inhibition effect in a semantic relatedness task in the participants’ L2 to their L1, but again found no evidence for a cognate facilitation effect in a semantic relatedness task. These findings extend the growing literature that emphasises the high level of interaction in a bilingual’s mental lexicon, by demonstrating the influence of L2 experience on the processing of L1 words. Data, scripts, materials and pre-registration available via https://osf.io/2swyg/?view_only=b2ba2e627f6f4eaeac87edab2b59b236.","PeriodicalId":164622,"journal":{"name":"Glossa Psycholinguistics","volume":"48 3","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114112670","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：