Dataset Information

Child Relativized Minimality and Grammaticality Judgement.

ABSTRACT: Grammaticality judgements are the fundamental experimental source of generative linguistic theory. They may be difficult to elicit, especially in some populations, but generally they inform us neatly about what the grammar licenses or, on the contrary, bans. On the other hand, acceptability is multifactorial and therefore, unlike grammaticality judgement, can be quantified. In this paper I consider a particular empirical domain, that of Relativized Minimality (RM) in acquisition, and its relation to the dichotomy between grammaticality and acceptability. Friedmann et al. (2009) argued that children hold a stricter version of RM than adults. In particular, children would require a disjoint feature specification, not just a distinct feature specification, between target and intervener. The literature shows asymmetries in comprehension of subject and object relative clauses in various languages which fulfill the predictions of child RM. Variation between adults and children might be expected not only in production and comprehension, but also in grammaticality judgement. If so, children would be predicted to reject object relatives as well as the classic RM violations. Alternatively, if child RM is a processing effect, the prediction is that children would be able to tease apart object relative clauses from RM violations under favorable processing conditions. The question I address is: do children assimilate RM violations and object relative clauses? Grammaticality judgement should provide an answer to this question. In this paper I present an experiment targeting grammaticality judgement for object relatives and RM violations and report preliminary results for a group of 6-year-old Catalan-speaking children showing that object relatives and RM violations are not judged in a parallel fashion, since RM violations are rejected more often than object relatives.

SUBMITTER: Gavarro A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7025466 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Child Relativized Minimality and Grammaticality Judgement.

Gavarró Anna A

Frontiers in psychology 20200207

Grammaticality judgements are the fundamental experimental source of generative linguistic theory. They may be difficult to elicit, especially in some populations, but generally they inform us neatly about what the grammar licenses or, on the contrary, bans. On the other hand, acceptability is multifactorial and therefore, unlike grammaticality judgement, can be quantified. In this paper I consider a particular empirical domain, that of Relativized Minimality (RM) in acquisition, and its relatio ...[more]

PMID: 32116916

Similar Datasets

Project description:The majority of paediatric femur fractures result from accidental trauma; however, it is important to consider non-accidental trauma, especially in pre-ambulatory children. We study whether irrelevant contextual information subconsciously influences conclusions of healthcare professionals with respect to whether observations provide evidence for non-accidental trauma. A survey with nine radiographs of femur shaft fractures was designed. Two different clinical histories (vignettes) with contextual information were designed, non-abuse versus abuse context. One of both vignettes was randomly assigned to the radiograph shown to the participant, followed by a question with a 5-point answer scale, which represents a verbal expression of the likelihood ratio of the fracture regarding a non-accidental versus accidental cause. Participants were medical residents and staff members of different specialties from several Dutch hospitals. A total of 172 participants responded. The reported evidential strength of the vignettes with a non-abuse context was 0.19 (n = 784; 95%CI 0.10-0.28) and for the abuse context 0.94 (n = 764; 95%CI 0.86-1.02; p < 0.001). Women reported a stronger evidential strength than men, but both were influenced by context. Emergency department and paediatric doctors were more likely to decide that non-accidental trauma was the cause; paediatric radiologists were the least likely. Experience in years of practice and current function did not prevent participants from being bias.Conclusion: This study shows that the interpretation of medical results by healthcare professionals can be influenced by contextual information, such as low income and marital status, which are irrelevant to the decision as to whether abuse might have occurred. Given the same information about an injury, women, emergency department and paediatric doctors were more likely to decide that non-accidental trauma was the cause, while paediatric radiologists were least likely to decide this outcome. It is important to prevent contextual influence as much as possible, by recognizing it and implementing a management contextual information procedure. What is Known: • Contextual information is of possible influence on healthcare professionals in identifying non-accidental trauma. • Increased working experience is thought to be protective against this influence. What is New: • Contextual information influenced the interpretation of medical results by healthcare professionals regardless of work experience. • The interpretation of medical results by healthcare professionals is influenced by both affirmative and negative contextual information.

Dataset Information

Child Relativized Minimality and Grammaticality Judgement.

Publications

Child Relativized Minimality and Grammaticality Judgement.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets