+1 Recommend
1 collections
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Reconsidering asymmetries in voice-mismatched VP-ellipsis


      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.


          Previous research on VP-ellipsis has revealed the existence of a Mismatch Asymmetry, whereby cases with passive voice ellipsis clauses and active antecedent clauses are less acceptable than cases with active ellipsis clauses and passive antecedents. According to the memory-based explanation offered by the Recycling Hypothesis (RH; Arregui et al. 2006), this effect arises because passive clauses are more prone to be misremembered as active than the other way around, and hence passive-active mismatches are more likely to create an “illusion of grammaticality”. This paper describes three experiments that explore the source of the asymmetry, with particular attention to the predictions of the RH account on previously unexamined cases. The findings are inconsistent with the predictions of memory-based explanations such as the RH, and instead point to the existence of a penalty against passive ellipsis clauses in subject focus environments, one that applies to both matched and mismatched cases of VP-ellipsis and in both anaphoric and cataphoric discourse configurations. A possible explanation for the penalty is offered as a subject for future work.

          Related collections

          Most cited references30

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal.

          Linear mixed-effects models (LMEMs) have become increasingly prominent in psycholinguistics and related areas. However, many researchers do not seem to appreciate how random effects structures affect the generalizability of an analysis. Here, we argue that researchers using LMEMs for confirmatory hypothesis testing should minimally adhere to the standards that have been in place for many decades. Through theoretical arguments and Monte Carlo simulation, we show that LMEMs generalize best when they include the maximal random effects structure justified by the design. The generalization performance of LMEMs including data-driven random effects structures strongly depends upon modeling criteria and sample size, yielding reasonable results on moderately-sized samples when conservative criteria are used, but with little or no power advantage over maximal models. Finally, random-intercepts-only LMEMs used on within-subjects and/or within-items data from populations where subjects and/or items vary in their sensitivity to experimental manipulations always generalize worse than separate F 1 and F 2 tests, and in many cases, even worse than F 1 alone. Maximal LMEMs should be the 'gold standard' for confirmatory hypothesis testing in psycholinguistics and beyond.
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Cognitive Status and the Form of Referring Expressions in Discourse

              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics


                Author and article information

                Glossa: a journal of general linguistics
                Ubiquity Press
                18 June 2019
                : 4
                : 1
                : 60
                [1 ]UC San Diego, La Jolla, CA, US
                Copyright: © 2019 The Author(s)

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                : 27 June 2018
                : 27 February 2019

                General linguistics,Linguistics & Semiotics
                voice mismatch,information structure,memory retrieval,sentence processing,VP-ellipsis


                Comment on this article