2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Correction: Quantifier spreading: Children misled by ostensive cues

      1 , 1 , 2
      Glossa: a journal of general linguistics
      Ubiquity Press, Ltd.

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      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

          This article details a correction to the article É. Kiss, Katalin & Tamás Zétényi. 2017. Quantifier spreading: children misled by ostensive cues. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 2(1). 38. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.147

          Related collections

          Most cited references3

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

            Balancing Type I error and power in linear mixed models

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Quantifier spreading: children misled by ostensive cues

              This paper calls attention to a methodological problem of acquisition experiments. It shows that the economy of the stimulus employed in child language experiments may lend an increased ostensive effect to the message communicated to the child. Thus, when the visual stimulus in a sentence-picture matching task is a minimal model abstracting away from the details of the situation, children often regard all the elements of the stimulus as ostensive clues to be represented in the corresponding sentence. The use of such minimal stimuli is mistaken when the experiment aims to test whether or not a certain element of the stimulus is relevant for the linguistic representation or interpretation. The paper illustrates this point by an experiment involving quantifier spreading. It is claimed that children find a universally quantified sentence like Every girl is riding a bicycle to be a false description of a picture showing three girls riding bicycles and a solo bicycle because they are misled to believe that all the elements in the visual stimulus are relevant, hence all of them are to be represented by the corresponding linguistic description. When the iconic drawings were replaced by photos taken in a natural environment rich in accidental details, the occurrence of quantifier spreading was radically reduced. It is shown that an extra object in the visual stimulus can lead to the rejection of the sentence also in the case of sentences involving no quantification, which gives further support to the claim that the source of the problem is not (or not only) the grammatical or cognitive difficulty of quantification but the unintended ostensive effect of the extra object. This article is part of the special collection: Acquisition of Quantification
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Glossa: a journal of general linguistics
                Ubiquity Press, Ltd.
                2397-1835
                January 2 2019
                April 8 2019
                : 4
                : 1
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Research Institute for Linguistics of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences
                [2 ]Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Department of Ergonomics and Psychology
                Article
                10.5334/gjgl.902
                4f18728c-0181-4ada-8775-fbdb28337a0c
                © 2019

                https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0

                Product
                Self URI (article page): https://www.glossa-journal.org/article/id/5150/

                Comments

                Comment on this article