Jana Häussler, Margaret Grant, G. Fanselow, L. Frazier
Do the grammars of English and German contain a ban on moving the lower of two wh - s (‘Superiority’), or is the ir lower acceptability due simply to the complexity of processing the longer dependency that results when the lower wh- is moved? The results of four acceptability judgment studies suggest that a processing-alone account is inadequate. Crossing wh -dependencies lower the acceptability of both German and English questions, but with a significantly larger penalty in English than in German (Experiment 1). The larger penalty in English cannot be attributed to greater sensitivity to violations in English, since relative clause island violations result in comparable effects in the two languages (Experiment 2). A processing- only account might claim long dependencies are easier to process in German than in English because of richer case, but a control experiment did not support this possibility (Experiment 4). We suggest that moving the lower of two wh -s is banned in the grammar in English but not in the grammar of German. This predicts that there should be a penalty for crossing dependencies in English even in helpful (Bolinger) contexts, confirmed in Experiment 3, and even in short easy- to-process sentences, confirmed by simple six word sentences in Clifton, Fanselow and Frazier (2006). Finally, if German grammar does not contain a ban on crossing, it is not surprising that the penalty in German is smaller than in English, or that like-Animacy of the two wh-s plays a larger role in German than in English since feature similarity generally gives rise to difficulty in processing whereas in English a grammatical ban on crossing will lower acceptability whether there is processing difficulty or not. Syntax
{"title":"Superiority in English and German: Cross-language grammatical differences?","authors":"Jana Häussler, Margaret Grant, G. Fanselow, L. Frazier","doi":"10.1111/SYNT.12030","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/SYNT.12030","url":null,"abstract":"Do the grammars of English and German contain a ban on moving the lower of two wh - s (‘Superiority’), or is the ir lower acceptability due simply to the complexity of processing the longer dependency that results when the lower wh- is moved? The results of four acceptability judgment studies suggest that a processing-alone account is inadequate. Crossing wh -dependencies lower the acceptability of both German and English questions, but with a significantly larger penalty in English than in German (Experiment 1). The larger penalty in English cannot be attributed to greater sensitivity to violations in English, since relative clause island violations result in comparable effects in the two languages (Experiment 2). A processing- only account might claim long dependencies are easier to process in German than in English because of richer case, but a control experiment did not support this possibility (Experiment 4). We suggest that moving the lower of two wh -s is banned in the grammar in English but not in the grammar of German. This predicts that there should be a penalty for crossing dependencies in English even in helpful (Bolinger) contexts, confirmed in Experiment 3, and even in short easy- to-process sentences, confirmed by simple six word sentences in Clifton, Fanselow and Frazier (2006). Finally, if German grammar does not contain a ban on crossing, it is not surprising that the penalty in German is smaller than in English, or that like-Animacy of the two wh-s plays a larger role in German than in English since feature similarity generally gives rise to difficulty in processing whereas in English a grammatical ban on crossing will lower acceptability whether there is processing difficulty or not. Syntax","PeriodicalId":293042,"journal":{"name":"The Mind Research Repository","volume":"245 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114830397","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}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.1163/22105832-00402001
Martijn Wieling, Jelke Bloem, Kaitlin Mignella, Mona Timmermeister, J. Nerbonne
With an eye toward measuring the strengths of foreign accents in American English, we evaluate the suitability of a modified version of the Levenshtein distance (LD) for comparing (the phonetic transcriptions of) accented pronunciations. Although this measure has been used successfully inter alia to study the differences among dialect pronunciations, it has not been applied to study foreign accents. Here, we use it to compare the pronunciation of non-native English speakers to native American English speech. Our results indicate that the Levenshtein distance is a valid native-likeness measurement, as it correlates strongly with the average "native-like" judgments given by more than 1000 native American English raters (r = -0.8, p < 0.001).
为了测量美国英语中外国口音的强度，我们评估了一个改进版本的Levenshtein距离(LD)用于比较口音发音(语音转写)的适用性。尽管这一方法已被成功地用于研究方言之间的发音差异，但它还没有被应用于研究外国口音。在这里，我们用它来比较非英语母语者和美国英语母语者的发音。我们的研究结果表明，Levenshtein距离是一种有效的母语相似度测量方法，因为它与1000多名美国本土英语评分者给出的平均“母语相似”判断密切相关(r = -0.8, p < 0.001)。
{"title":"Measuring foreign accent strength in English : Validating Levenshtein distance as a measure","authors":"Martijn Wieling, Jelke Bloem, Kaitlin Mignella, Mona Timmermeister, J. Nerbonne","doi":"10.1163/22105832-00402001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/22105832-00402001","url":null,"abstract":"With an eye toward measuring the strengths of foreign accents in American English, we evaluate the suitability of a modified version of the Levenshtein distance (LD) for comparing (the phonetic transcriptions of) accented pronunciations. Although this measure has been used successfully inter alia to study the differences among dialect pronunciations, it has not been applied to study foreign accents. Here, we use it to compare the pronunciation of non-native English speakers to native American English speech. Our results indicate that the Levenshtein distance is a valid native-likeness measurement, as it correlates strongly with the average \"native-like\" judgments given by more than 1000 native American English raters (r = -0.8, p < 0.001).","PeriodicalId":293042,"journal":{"name":"The Mind Research Repository","volume":"26 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115058856","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}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.1515/9783110401929-004
G. Fanselow, J. Haeussler, Thomas Weskott
In many languages of the world, in particular those with a clause-final positioning of the verb, the order of the constituents of a clause is fairly free. Nevertheless, clauses have an “unmarked” or “normal” arrangement of their constituents in most of these free constituent order languages – polysynthetic languages such as Mohawk are a notable exception (Baker, 1996). The present paper is concerned with the factors that determine whether a given constituent order is unmarked or not. In particular, we report a series of judgment experiments concerned with constituent order preferences in German multiple questions. Their results show that multiple questions are a further, hitherto unknown, argument for the claim that normal order is not just determined by (semantic) role but also by cast: normal word order for wh-phrases differs from normal word order in simple declaratives. We will offer an attempt of an explanation for this difference in terms of a hierarchy of Case assigning heads in the final section of the paper. LE-Proceedings
{"title":"Constituent Order in German Multiple Questions: Normal Order and (Apparent) Anti-Superiority Effects","authors":"G. Fanselow, J. Haeussler, Thomas Weskott","doi":"10.1515/9783110401929-004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110401929-004","url":null,"abstract":"In many languages of the world, in particular those with a clause-final positioning of the verb, the order of the constituents of a clause is fairly free. Nevertheless, clauses have an “unmarked” or “normal” arrangement of their constituents in most of these free constituent order languages – polysynthetic languages such as Mohawk are a notable exception (Baker, 1996). The present paper is concerned with the factors that determine whether a given constituent order is unmarked or not. In particular, we report a series of judgment experiments concerned with constituent order preferences in German multiple questions. Their results show that multiple questions are a further, hitherto unknown, argument for the claim that normal order is not just determined by (semantic) role but also by cast: normal word order for wh-phrases differs from normal word order in simple declaratives. We will offer an attempt of an explanation for this difference in terms of a hierarchy of Case assigning heads in the final section of the paper. LE-Proceedings","PeriodicalId":293042,"journal":{"name":"The Mind Research Repository","volume":"20 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132681574","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}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.1037/0012-1649.28.1.121
P. Baltes, R. Kliegl
Earlier testing-the-limits research on age differences in cognitive plasticity of a memory skill was extended by 18 additional assessment and training sessions to explore whether older adults were able to catch up with additional practice and improved training conditions. The focus was on the method of loci, which requires mental imagination to encode and retrieve lists of words from memory in serial order. Of the original 37 subjects, 35 (16 young, ranging from 20 to 30 years ofage, and 19 older adults, ranging from 66 to 80 years of age) participated in the follow-up study. Older adults showed sizable performance deficits when compared with young adults and tested for limits of reserve capacity. The negative age difference was substantial, resistant to extensive practice, and applied to all subjects studied. The primary origin for this negative age difference may be a loss in the production and use of mental imagination for operations of the mind. Developmental Psychology
{"title":"Further Testing of Limits of Cognitive Plasticity: Negative Age Differences in a Mnemonic Skill Are Robust","authors":"P. Baltes, R. Kliegl","doi":"10.1037/0012-1649.28.1.121","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.28.1.121","url":null,"abstract":"Earlier testing-the-limits research on age differences in cognitive plasticity of a memory skill was extended by 18 additional assessment and training sessions to explore whether older adults were able to catch up with additional practice and improved training conditions. The focus was on the method of loci, which requires mental imagination to encode and retrieve lists of words from memory in serial order. Of the original 37 subjects, 35 (16 young, ranging from 20 to 30 years ofage, and 19 older adults, ranging from 66 to 80 years of age) participated in the follow-up study. Older adults showed sizable performance deficits when compared with young adults and tested for limits of reserve capacity. The negative age difference was substantial, resistant to extensive practice, and applied to all subjects studied. The primary origin for this negative age difference may be a loss in the production and use of mental imagination for operations of the mind. Developmental Psychology","PeriodicalId":293042,"journal":{"name":"The Mind Research Repository","volume":"52 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129371456","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}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.1515/9781614510888.43
Zhong Chen, L. Jäger, S. Vasishth
{"title":"How structure-sensitive is the parser? Evidence from Mandarin Chinese","authors":"Zhong Chen, L. Jäger, S. Vasishth","doi":"10.1515/9781614510888.43","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614510888.43","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":293042,"journal":{"name":"The Mind Research Repository","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125867584","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}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.1037/0012-1649.25.2.247
R. Kliegl, Jacqui Smith, P. Baltes
Investigated the range and limits of cognitive reserve capacity as a general approach to the under- standing of age differences in cognitive functioning. Testing-the-limits is proposed as a research strategy. Data are reported from 2 training studies involving old (65 to 83 years old) and young adults (19 to 29 years old). The training, designed to engineer an expertise in serial word recall, involved instruction and practice in the Method of Loci. Substantial plasticity was evident in pretest to posttest comparisons. Participants raised their serial word recall several times above that of pretest baseline. Age-differential limits in reserve capacity were evident in amount of training gain but not in responses to conditions of increased test difficulty (speeded stimulus presentation). Group differences were magnified by the training to such a degree that age distributions barely overlapped at posttests. Testing-the-limits offers promise in terms of understanding the extent and nature of cognitive plasticity. Developmental Psychology
{"title":"Testing-the-Limits and the Study of Adult Age Differences in Cognitive Plasticity of a Mnemonic Skill","authors":"R. Kliegl, Jacqui Smith, P. Baltes","doi":"10.1037/0012-1649.25.2.247","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.25.2.247","url":null,"abstract":"Investigated the range and limits of cognitive reserve capacity as a general approach to the under- standing of age differences in cognitive functioning. Testing-the-limits is proposed as a research strategy. Data are reported from 2 training studies involving old (65 to 83 years old) and young adults (19 to 29 years old). The training, designed to engineer an expertise in serial word recall, involved instruction and practice in the Method of Loci. Substantial plasticity was evident in pretest to posttest comparisons. Participants raised their serial word recall several times above that of pretest baseline. Age-differential limits in reserve capacity were evident in amount of training gain but not in responses to conditions of increased test difficulty (speeded stimulus presentation). Group differences were magnified by the training to such a degree that age distributions barely overlapped at posttests. Testing-the-limits offers promise in terms of understanding the extent and nature of cognitive plasticity. Developmental Psychology","PeriodicalId":293042,"journal":{"name":"The Mind Research Repository","volume":"168 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115187817","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：