5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Correction by Focus: Cleft Constructions and the Cross-Linguistic Variation in Phonological Form

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          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.

          Abstract

          A challenging issue of cross-linguistic variation is that the same syntactic construction may appear in different arrays of contexts depending on language. For instance, cleft constructions appear with contrastive focus in English, but in a larger array of contexts in French. A part of the cross-linguistic variation may be due to prosodic differences, since prosodic possibilities determine the array of focus structures that can be mapped onto one and the same syntactic configuration. In the present study, we compare languages with flexible nuclear-accent placement (English, German), with languages that do not use this prosodic strategy (French, Mandarin Chinese). In a speech production experiment, we examine the prosodic realization of contrastive focus and identify prosodic reflexes of focus in all languages. The presence of different phonetic reflexes of focus suggests that – anything else being equal – the same syntactic constructions should be possible in the same array of contexts. In an acceptability study with written questionnaires, we examined the felicity of cleft constructions in contexts licensing a focus within the cleft clause. This focus structure is orthogonal to the preferred focus structure of cleft constructions and can appear in cases of second-occurrence foci (in contexts of correction). The obtained judgments reveal a distinction between languages with flexible nuclear-accent placement (English, German) and languages with other types of reflexes of focus (French, Chinese): languages of the former type have an advantage in using cleft constructions with a focus within the cleft clause, which shows that the array of contexts of using clefts in English and German is not a proper subset of the array of contexts applying to the same constructions in French and Chinese. The obtained differences can be explained by the role of prosodic devices and corroborate the view that prosodic reflexes of focus have different semantic-pragmatic import: it is easier to establish a focus structure that is orthogonal to the syntax in a language with flexible nuclear-accent placement (English, German); this does not hold for prosodic correlates of focus that reinforce the articulation of prosodic constituents (French) or the articulation of lexical tones (Chinese).

          Related collections

          Most cited references86

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

          Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Usinglme4

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

            lmerTest Package: Tests in Linear Mixed Effects Models

              Bookmark
              • 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.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Front Psychol
                Front Psychol
                Front. Psychol.
                Frontiers in Psychology
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                1664-1078
                29 November 2021
                2021
                : 12
                : 648478
                Affiliations
                [1] 1Linguistics Department, Bielefeld University , Bielefeld, Germany
                [2] 2Linguistics Department, University of Göttingen , Göttingen, Germany
                Author notes

                Edited by: Yan Huang, The University of Auckland, New Zealand

                Reviewed by: Gilbert Ambrazaitis, Linnaeus University, Sweden; Anja Arnhold, University of Alberta, Canada

                *Correspondence: Stavros Skopeteas, stavros.skopeteas@ 123456uni-goettingen.de

                This article was submitted to Language Sciences, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychology

                Article
                10.3389/fpsyg.2021.648478
                8666418
                2551fd22-ce59-4d6e-aa09-e380cca51052
                Copyright © 2021 Greif and Skopeteas.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 31 December 2020
                : 27 October 2021
                Page count
                Figures: 7, Tables: 3, Equations: 0, References: 89, Pages: 20, Words: 16162
                Funding
                Funded by: Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, doi 10.13039/501100001659;
                Categories
                Psychology
                Original Research

                Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry
                focus,correction,pitch accent,tonal compression,second occurrence focus,cleft constructions,deaccenting

                Comments

                Comment on this article