Examensarbeit, 2020
70 Seiten, Note: 1,3
1 INTRODUCTION
2 RESEARCH: BINDING IN ENGLISH
2.1 CHOMSKY
2.2 MOSKOVSKY
3 EXPERIMENTENGLISH
3.1 MOTIVATION AND DESIGN
3.2 METHOD
3.3 PARTICIPANTS
3.4 PREDICTIONS
3.5 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
4 RESEARCH: BINDING IN TURKISH
4.1 EXISTING LINGUISTIC ANALYSES IN TURKISH
4.2 ÖZBEK AND KAHRAMAN
5 EXPERIMENTTURKISH
5.1 MOTIVATION AND DESIGN
5.2 METHOD
5.3 PARTICIPANTS
5.4 PREDICTIONS
5.5 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
5.6 FURTHER THOUGHTS
6 STRUCTURALDIFFERENCES
7 CONCLUSION
8 APPENDIX
8.1 FULL SET OF MATERIAL ENGLISH
8.2 FULL SET OF MATERIAL TURKISH
9 BIBLIOGRAPHY
10 ONLINESOURCES
“[R]esearchers have seen binding phenomena as a rich source of data about the universals of human language.”
Featherston & Sternefeld (2003: 1)
Featherson and Sternefeld (2003) point out the significance of binding: Binding is more than only a subarea of linguistics dealing with pronouns and anaphors, as it provides more information about language than expected. The binding phenomena reveals several other aspects of the human language, such as its complexity and its dynamic interaction of syntax and context. Since the pioneering Pisa Lectures on Government and Binding by Noam Chomsky (1981, 1986), it has commonly been assumed that a single theoretical apparatus, such as the Binding Theory, universally determines the interpretation and distribution of pronouns and anaphors in English. The Binding Theory proposed by Chomsky expresses a generalization about syntactic relationships by using three principles and has been criticized, refined and modified over the past few decades. In particular, the revision proposed by Moskovsky (2004) attempts to provide remarks and improvements for the existing version of Chomsky’s classical Binding Theory. This is the reason why it is interesting to do more research on binding. As such, the primary research question addressed by this paper is: Is there a universally valid principle for pronoun reference in English and can we compare that principle to Turkish?
To answer this question, this work is structured as follows: The following thesis will first provide some theoretical background information on binding in English. The emphasis here will be especially on Chomsky’s classical Binding Theory (1988) which can be seen as the pioneer work in pronoun reference. This thesis will further show Moskovsky (2005)’s criticism on Chomsky’s Binding Theory and his idea for improvement. The aim of this work’s first main part is to determine whether Moskovsky’s criticism and his suggestion for improvement can be supported. Therefore, an experiment on pronoun reference in English was conducted. I will first clarify the motivation and design of my experiment by presenting variables, conditions, and items. Subsequently, I will explain the method and the participants used for this experiment. This section is finally followed by a presentation and analysis of the experimental results. In summary, first theoretical approaches will be discussed and then their current validity will be tested.
Whereas the first main part deals with binding in English, the second main aspect of this work will address the binding relations in the Turkish language. This will include a short overview on existing analyses in the field of theoretical linguistics in Turkish, as well as Özbek and Kahraman (2016)’s elaborate study about the interpretation of reflexive pronouns in Turkish. An adequate experiment in Turkish, testing the naturalness of sentences, will give further response to the question whether there is a universally valid Binding Theory in the Turkish language. This is once again achieved by first introducing the motivation and design of my experiment in Turkish, followed by presenting the method and the participants used for this experiment. In a final step, the results of the Turkish experiment will be presented, and the findings will be analyzed.
In section 6 of this work, I will compare the structural differences between English and Turkish by making use of our new findings. This will further contribute to the question whether or not binding can be considered to be a universally valid phenomenon. This thesis will close with a conclusion considering all mentioned aspects. The previous research, the findings of our two experiments and the comparison of structural differences between English and Turkish pronoun reference will give a final answer to the research question if there is a universally valid principle for pronoun reference in English and if it is possible to compare that principle to Turkish.
In this section, I will illustrate Moskovsky’s criticism on Chomsky’s classic Binding Theory. Therefore, the basic principle of Noam Chomsky’s Binding Theory will be clarified first.
The classic Binding Theory describes the conditions on the structural relations between nouns and deals with three specific types of noun phrases (NPs), namely R-expressions, pronouns and anaphors. Chomsky’s classic Binding Theory consists of the following three principles as in (1):
(1) BINDING THEORY
(A) An anaphor is bound in its local domain.
(B) A pronominal is free in its local domain.
(C) An R-expression is free. (Chomsky 1988:188)
A local domain, which can be also called “binding domain”, is the smallest IP (Inflectional Phrase) containing the NP (Noun Phrase). For the case of Principle A of the Binding Theory, the binding domain is the smallest IP containing the anaphor and its antecedent. I will explain this more precisely by using three example sentences:
(2) a. [IP Lillyj danced with herselfj ].
b. [IP Cameroni said [CP that [IP Lillyj danced with herselfj ] ]].
c. *[IP Cameroni said [CP that [IP Lillyj danced with himselfi ] ]].
The smallest IPs are marked by bold squared brackets. In (2a), Herself is the anaphor which has the antecedent Lilly within its smallest IP. In sentences such as (2b), which contain two IPs, the embedded clause [IP Lillyj danced with herselfj ] is the binding domain of the anaphor. The anaphor herself has its binder Lilly within this embedded IP. Hence, sentences (2a) and (2b) are grammatical. Whereas (2a) and (2b) are grammatical, sentence (2c) is ungrammatical because the anaphor is not bound within its binding domain. Himself refers to the antecedent Cameron which is outside the smallest IP. This violates Principle A of the Binding Theory. Therefore, sentence (2c) is not grammatical.
Principle B of the Binding Theory states the opposite to Principle A. The crucial difference to an anaphor is that a pronoun is not bound within its local domain. I will present three example sentences below. As in the previous examples, the smallest IPs (binding domains) are marked by bold squared brackets. Sentence (3a) is grammatical, as the pronoun him does not refer to the subject Joey which means that the pronoun is free in its binding domain. This is illustrated by the different indexes j and k. Hence, the binder of the pronoun him must be outside the sentence (3a). The same pattern works for sentence (3b). (3b) has two IPs and the smallest IP containing the pronoun is the embedded clause [IP Joeyj hit himi ]. The antecedent John of the pronoun him is outside the binding domain which means that the pronoun is free. In contrast to (3a) and (3b), the last sentence (3c) is not grammatical, as it violates Principle B. The pronoun him in the inner IP has its binder Joey within the binding domain. As already mentioned, this condition solely applies to Principle A of the Binding Theory.
(3) a. [IP Joeyj hit himk ].
b. [IP Johni said [CP that [IP Joeyj hit himi ] ]].
c. *[IP Johni said [CP that [IP Joeyj hit himj ] ]].
Based on this information, we can more closely examine Principles A, B and C. Principle A of the Binding Theory claims that a noun phrase (antecedent) X must bind an anaphor Y in its local domain. As already explained, the local domain here is the smallest clause containing the anaphor Y. X binding Y is fulfilled, if and only if X and Y are co-indexed and X c-commands Y (Featherston 2018). Consider the following example:
(4) Johni hit himselfi.
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Sentence (4) contains the NP John (antecedent) and the anaphor himself. The tree below the sentence shows clearly that both criteria of principle A are fulfilled. The antecedent John c-commands the anaphor himself. A c-command, i.e. constituent-command, depicts the relationship of dominance between the nodes of a grammatical tree, as in (2). A node X c-commands the node Y only if a sister of X dominates Y. Sisters in a linguistic structural relation (trees) are sibling nodes which have the same mother. In our case, the sister of the DP John is I´, as John and I´ have the same mother IP. Accordingly, John c-commands himself, since himself is dominated by the sister node of John. In addition to the c-command, the second condition of Principle A is fulfilled. The indices illustrate that John and himself belong together, hence, are co-indexed.
In contrast, Principle B of the Binding Theory claims that a pronoun must be free. In other words, pronouns are not bound within the local domain (Chomsky 1981). Consider the following example sentences:
(5) a. Johni hates himj. (him ≠ John)
b. *Johni hates himi. (him = John)
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Though the antecedent John does c-command the pronoun him in the tree above, the sentence (5a) shows that him is still free in its local domain as there is no co-indexation between the pronoun him and the antecedent John. Both NPs not being co-indexed clearly implies that him does not refer to John in this sentence. The pronoun needs to refer to another 3rd person. However, according to principle B, the sentence (5b), which is structurally identical with (5a), would be unacceptable. A co-indexation in sentences like this would indicate that a pronoun is bound within the local domain. More precisely, the co-indexation would imply that the pronoun him is the referent to the antecedent John. The co-indexation, however, is restricted to be solely a criterion of principle A. As both sentences (5a) and (5b) only differ in matters of co-indexation, it becomes clear that the unacceptability of (5b) cannot be accounted for in terms of syntactic structure, but rather from a non-structural (pragmatic) factor here (Moskovsky 2004). If the co-indexation was left out, both sentences would be structurally identical. The following paragraphs will specifically discuss this issue as being part of Moskovsky’s investigations on third person binding.
Before proceeding to Moskovsky’s investigations on third person binding, I will present the last condition of the classical Binding Theory: Principle C. This principle declares that an R-expression is globally free. In other words, R-expressions are neither bound, co-indexed, or c-commanded by anything it refers to (Chomsky 1981). R-expressions are referential expressions which express content and get their meaning by referring to entities in the real world. Unlike anaphora, reciprocals, or pronouns, R-expressions are descriptively richer. Some examples for R-expressions could be common nouns such as “an iPad”, or proper names such as “Lucy” or “Mitchell”. Consider the following two example sentences:
(6) a. Hej admires Mitchelli.
b. *Hei admires Mitchelli.
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Mitchell is the R-expression in both sentences. The first sentence (6a) is grammatical as Mitchell is neither bound, co-indexed or c-commanded to anything it refers to. In contrast to that, the R-expression Mitchell in sentence (6b) is bound to the antecedent He within the sentence. As Mitchell is not free in this example sentence, it violates Principle C and becomes ungrammatical.
There are several criticisms and suggestions for improvement on Chomsky’s classical Binding Theory. One of these improvements is suggested by Moskovsky’s (2004). In general, it examines problems of Chomsky’s classic Binding Theory in sentences which are differing in morphological number, though having the same structure (Moskovsky 2004). Chomsky assumes that binding depends on syntactical factors, whereas Moskovsky’s “Third person effects on binding” is based on the assumption that binding is subject to pragmatic factors (Moskovsky 2004). According to this hypothesis, sentences with the 1st and 2nd person allow the binding of pronouns and only sentences with the 3rd person do not allow pronominal binding. Although this assumption violates the existing version of Binding Theory, Moskovsky provides the following two example sentences as evidence:
(7) a. I am not thinking of me.
b. *She i is not thinking of her i . (Moskovsky 2004:1035)
Though both sentences (7a) and (7b) are structurally identical, Moskovsky argues solely for the acceptability of the sentence (7a). According to “Third person effects on binding”, the use of the 1st person in the sentence (7a) allows the binding of the pronoun to be acceptable, whereas the latter does not allow any pronominal binding because it contains the 3rd person. What can be said so far is that the principle B (pronominal must be free) of the classic Binding Theory cannot explain the acceptability of (7a). The explanation required is the Neo-Gricean Conversational Principle which Moskovsky calls Avoid Ambiguity Principle (2004) . This principle states that if there are two syntactically identical types A and B of a language, and structure A is ambiguous between the meanings X and Y, and structure B has only meaning X, speakers of this language should use structure A to express meaning Y and B to express X (Dowty 1980 qtd. in Moskovsky 2004). In brief, the sentence (7a) is not ambiguous, as the pronoun me can only refer to the subject of the sentence, namely I. On the other hand, the pronoun her in the sentence (7b) can refer to any 3rd person. This may be the subject she or any other referent. This is why Moskovsky revises the classic Binding Theory by proposing the usage of the Avoid Ambiguity Principle in combination with the Binding Theory for 3rd person sentences.
In summation, Moskovsky criticizes Chomsky’s classic Binding Theory and proposes the operation of the Avoid Ambiguity Principle for 3rd person sentences as in (8):
(8) a. *Hei saw himi.
(syntactic structure A = ambiguous between X and Y)
b. Hei saw himselfi.
(syntactic structure B = unambiguous = only meaning X)
Syntactically, (8a) and (8b) are sentences of the equally simple type A and B. Following the Avoid Ambiguity Principle, the first sentence is structure A. It is ambiguous, as him can refer to any 3rd person. This could be the antecedent he or any other referent. On the other hand, there is the sentence (8b) which is an example for structure B. It is unambiguous because the reflexive pronoun himself can only refer to the subject he. When the intended referent is someone outside of the sentence, speakers should use sentences like (8a) to avoid any confusion. But if the referent and the subject of the sentence are the same person, speakers should use sentences like (8b).
In essence, Moskovsky (2004) attempts to provide a solution for a problem of the classic Binding Theory. There are several crucial points that Moskovsky claims: unambiguous structures are always preferred over ambiguous structures. Since reflexive pronouns are always unambiguous, they are mostly preferred over pronouns where there is ambiguity. The 1st and 2nd person pronouns are also unambiguous. They can normally refer to one specific person, namely the speaker or hearer of the sentence, whereas the 3rd person can have more than one possible referent. Consequently, the question is whether 1st and 2nd person pronouns are as good as reflexives.
In order to investigate Moskovksy’s assumption, an experimental case study was conducted and will be presented in the following section.
CREATING CONDITIONS
The goal of this experiment is to determine whether the distinction between the 1st, the 2nd and the 3rd person is distinct as Moskovsky (2004) argues and if there is a difference between the use of personal pronouns and reflexive pronouns. Therefore, I used transitive verbs and distinguished between 1st, 2nd and 3rd person both singular and plural, and distinguished between personal pronouns, reflexive pronouns and names. The distinction between personal pronouns and reflexive pronouns is necessary as the point of this experiment is whether 1st and 2nd personal pronouns are equal to reflexives.
Transitive verbs need a complement or an object directly following it to make the sentence meaningful. In our experiment, the subject and the object of every single transitive verb refer to the same person. The following sentences will exemplify transitive verbs and the distinction between the 1st person and the 3rd person:
(9) a. Ii am looking at mei.
b. *Hei is looking at himi.
The verb look at needs two syntactic arguments, namely someone who looks and something or someone that is looked at. Therefore, the NP me is an obligatory argument, which contributes to the meaning of the verb phrase. As the focus of this experiment is on differences between pronoun and grammatical person, the arguments in (9a) and (9b) refer to the same person used in each sentence. In (9a) it is clear that the subject pronoun I refers to the object personal pronoun me. In the case of the 1st person, there is no ambiguity since it can only refer to one specific person. However, in sentences like (9b), this is not the case. 3rd person pronouns can have more than one referent. Thus, it is not clear whether the object personal pronoun him refers to the subject pronoun he or to another third male person. Here, the index i indicates that him is meant to refer to the subject he which makes (9b) ungrammatical. If the index i was left out, the sentence in (9b) would be grammatical as the object pronoun would not refer to the subject pronoun.
(10) a. *Johni saw himi.
b. Johni saw himselfi.
As mentioned before, 3rd person pronouns can have more than one possible referent. Both (9b) and (10a) are ungrammatical for the same reason. In both sentences, it is not clear whether the object personal pronoun him refers to the subject pronoun He or John or to another third male person. Here, the index i indicates that him is meant to refer to the subject he which makes (9b) and (10a) ungrammatical. This violates Principle B of the Binding Theory. If the index i was left out in both sentences, the pronouns would be free in their binding domains and Principle B would apply properly. As a result, both (9b) and (10a) would be grammatical. This is the reason why 3rd person sentences need reflexives as in (10b).
This leads to the conclusion that two variables are needed to compare both the influence of grammatical person and pronoun type on binding. The first variable, which is depicted as V1 in the table below, is grammatical person with the values containing person and grammatical number. This means it starts with the 1st person singular and continues with the 2nd person singular, 3rd person singular, 1st person plural, 2nd person plural and 3rd person plural. The second variable V2 contrasts personal pronouns and reflexive pronouns. As a result, the combination of these variables provides only twelve conditions. In order to create 16 conditions, four more conditions were needed. I added four “dummy” conditions, namely the value “name” which gave us the last four conditions marked with a cross in the table.
Table 1: CONDITIONS – Variable 1: grammatical person, Variable 2: pronoun
V1: grammatical person
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
CREATING ITEMS
Now that all variables and conditions were set up, I needed to create our items. Therefore, I formed eight natural sounding sentences by using eight reflexive verbs which are the base forms for our conditions. The items were created in each of the conditions, therefore, the experimental material included 128 items in complete. The full set of materials can be found in the appendix at the end of this paper. One set of 16 conditions will be shown below to give an idea of the remaining 112 items’ structure:
Table 2: ITEMS – one set of sample items with 16 conditions
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
As mentioned previously, I formed eight natural sounding sentences for the items by using transitive verbs, well-known vocabulary and a credible context. To make it more authentic and logical for the subject, a context sentence is placed before every condition sentence. Additionally, I attempted to avoid any effects caused by these aspects by controlling the sentence structure, lexical frequency and word and sentence length. Therefore, I chose common words and kept the sentence structure constant as possible which also applies for the word and sentence length.
As depicted on the right-hand side of the table above, always two consecutive sentences refer to one grammatical person. For example, the first two conditions refer to the 1st person singular. The first condition contains the personal pronoun and the second condition contains the reflexive pronoun. The same pattern applies to the remaining 14 sentences. Despite this, the personal pronoun “her” is ambiguous in condition (5). In this case, her could either refer to Anna herself, or to another female person. To make the referent clear for the subject, I added the explanation (her = Anna).
Now that both conditions and items were set up, I continued with our next step: coding 128 sentences for the statistical capturing of the results in SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences). The full set of 128 coded items can be found in the appendix at the end of this paper. This experiment was conducted by native speakers, who had to evaluate the sentences according to their acceptability and naturalness.
The method of Thermometer Judgement, introduced by Featherston (2008), was used. In this method, participants receive sentences and are instructed to judge each sentence’s naturalness by using two items of the values 20 and 30 presented as reference (Featherston 2008). One of these two references is relatively bad and is assigned the value 20, whereas the other reference is relatively good and assigned the value 30. These reference examples offer known anchors which define the scale (2008). Participants are then instructed to judge a sentence as to how much this sentence is better or worse when compared to the items offered as references. See following:
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Figure 1: The anchor points of the Thermometer Judgement Scale (Featherston 2009)
In order to make the judgements even better, additional standard values were included into the experiment. These values provide a standard scale which represents the whole range of well-formedness in syntax. The values range from the labels A to E. The label A is identified as very grammatical, whereas the label E is identified as very ungrammatical. The thermometer judgement has proved to be very effective. The advantage of this approach is accuracy as it delivers very precise results (2008).
The experiment will be performed online by using a website called Prolific which provides English native speakers and the software used is called OnExp experimental software. The different versions of the experiment will be distributed equally among the participants. Usually, five participants see the same version (5 native speakers per version). Our participants must be native speakers of English and between 18 and 40 years old. For these requirements we use an age and language filter. As soon as enough suitable participants are collected and each version is completed, the results can be downloaded and examined.
Before presenting the results, I will provide a summary of the predictions referring to the question whether grammatical person or pronoun types have an impact on binding: When both a personal pronoun and a reflexive pronoun are used for the same sentence, I expect the reflexive pronouns to be rated better. This can be based on the unambiguity of reflexives. It might be unclear whether the personal pronoun refers to the same person in the sentence or to another person. Thus, the subject is more likely to prefer sentences containing a reflexive pronoun. Here I agree with Moskovsky’s claim. However, I assume in general that the personal pronouns of the 1st and the 2nd person is likely to be judged as more natural, meaning that the personal pronouns of the 1st and the 2nd person are expected to be evaluated more natural than the personal pronoun of the 3rd person. The reason for this might be the same as in the previous prediction, namely the ambiguity. This follows Mosokovsky’s Avoid Ambiguity Principle. Whereas both the 1st person and the 2nd person have only one referent, namely the subject of the sentence, the 3rd person can refer to more than one person and thus is ambiguous. Furthermore, I expect a slightly lower rating of sentences containing a personal pronoun of the 2nd person. The reason for this might be the one of spelling. The pronoun in the subject position and the pronoun in the object position have the exact same spelling. See the following examples:
(11) a. Paul looks at his friends in the photo album, but not you. You focus on you in the pictures. (2nd singular; personal pronoun)
b. Paul looks at his friends in the photo album, but not you guys. You focus on you in the pictures. (2nd plural; personal pronoun)
Regarding the examples (11a) and (11b), one could not distinguish between the singular and the plural of the 2nd person if there was neither a context sentence in front of the experiment sentence nor a description in the brackets. For sentences containing personal pronouns I expect the 2nd person will be rated slightly less acceptable than the 1st person, but still more natural than the 3rd person. Finally, I expect the last four conditions (13-16) to have significant differences concerning their naturalness. I expect a very high rating of condition 15 (name; refl.) and a low rating of the conditions 13 (name; name), 14 (name; pers.) and 16 (3sg.; name). A high ranking of condition 15 is expected as it contains a reflexive pronoun. Therefore, it widely correlates with our first prediction that reflexive pronouns are more natural than personal pronouns.
In the following chapter, the analysis of the results will show whether the distinction between grammatical persons is as clear as Moskovsky (2004) argues and whether there is a difference between the use of personal pronouns and reflexive pronouns. The items were analyzed based on how natural and acceptable they appeared for the native speaker subjects.
ITEMS
The data collected from SPSS allows us to evaluate the items and conditions of our experiment, with the results depicted in error-bar charts. First, we will have a look at the graph with the items of our experiment. The x-axis in the graph below presents the eight items used in our experiment, while the y-axis illustrates the evaluation of the conditions on a scale with the mean value 0 between the average distances -1,5 and 1,5. The higher a condition is rated, the more natural it is evaluated by the native subjects. Correspondingly, the lower a condition is rated, the less natural it is evaluated by native speakers. Now, we will analyze the items according to their naturalness.
Figure 1: Graph with all Items
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
If we consider the graph above, we can assume that no items had any negative influence on the results since the items were judged similarly. However, some difference can be recognized which will be discussed in the following: Items 1, 2, 5 and 6 were judged slightly than the remaining items. Consequently, items 1, 2, 5 and 6 are more acceptable than the items 3, 4, 7 and 8 for native subjects. There are only two items that are striking because they scored a weaker ranking. Compared to all other items, it is item 4 and item 7 that are judged less natural. First, consider item 4:
(12) Bob can cut vegetables safely, but not me. I cut me/myself with that knife. (1st singular; personal pronoun/reflexive pronoun)
Also, consider item 7:
(13) Everybody blames the unfaithful husband, but not me. I reproach me/myself for the breakup. (1st singular; personal pronoun/reflexive pronoun)
Both (12) and (13) are sample sentences of the items 4 and 7. The significant points that need our attention are the syntactic structure and the content of these sentences. I will illustrate these using the 1st person singular. The 1st person singular is only an example here which can be changed by any other grammatical person. In other words, we need to keep in mind that in sentence (12) anyone can be compared to Bob’s skill of cutting vegetables safely, not only the depicted 1st person singular. In sentence (13), anyone can be compared to the unfaithful husband. As both sentences deal with comparisons between opposed characters, the rough structure of both items should be clear now. The same pattern of comparing opposed characters applies to all eight items used in this experiment. Whereas the content of item 4, in general, deals with Bob cutting vegetables safely, item 7 deals with the breakup of an unfaithful husband. My goal is to show that the structure of all items is following a certain pattern, but the content of each item is unique. Therefore, I doubt that the structure is responsible for items 4 and 7 scoring low rankings, but rather assume that the contextual framework is decisive in these cases. Take the case of item 4, a possible reason for the low evaluation could be that that knife implies that it is the same knife as Bob’s which cuts people. Therefore, it may be difficult to imagine that the chances are high enough that someone cuts himself or herself with the same knife as Bob uses for cutting vegetables. This might also mirror the case of item 7. The participants might be unsatisfied with the fact that someone else is reproaching him- or herself for a breakup caused by a husband being unfaithful.
CONDITIONS
The second graph below represents the data of all conditions used in our experiment. As discussed in the previous chapter, I expect the conditions containing a reflexive pronoun in the object position to be more natural than the conditions containing a personal pronoun in the object position. Moreover, I predict that both the personal pronoun and the reflexive pronoun of the 1st and 2nd person will be more acceptable than the pronouns for the 3rd person. See the following graph for the results:
Figure 2: Graph with all Conditions
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
In the graph above, the collected data of all 16 conditions from SPSS is illustrated, with the x-axis representing all 16 conditions of the experiment. Beginning with the personal pronoun of the 1st person singular on the left side, followed by the reflexive pronoun of the 1st person singular, the x-axis continues with the remaining 14 conditions and ends with five fillers labeled from A to E. The y-axis represents the judgements of the participants that were processed with SPSS and then transformed into z-scores, which gives an objective scale, helps when comparing sentence judgements across participants and can be used to interpret results. The z-scores can be identified by subtracting the participants’ mean from each rating. Then, they must be divided by the participant’s standard deviation.
[...]
Der GRIN Verlag hat sich seit 1998 auf die Veröffentlichung akademischer eBooks und Bücher spezialisiert. Der GRIN Verlag steht damit als erstes Unternehmen für User Generated Quality Content. Die Verlagsseiten GRIN.com, Hausarbeiten.de und Diplomarbeiten24 bieten für Hochschullehrer, Absolventen und Studenten die ideale Plattform, wissenschaftliche Texte wie Hausarbeiten, Referate, Bachelorarbeiten, Masterarbeiten, Diplomarbeiten, Dissertationen und wissenschaftliche Aufsätze einem breiten Publikum zu präsentieren.
Kostenfreie Veröffentlichung: Hausarbeit, Bachelorarbeit, Diplomarbeit, Dissertation, Masterarbeit, Interpretation oder Referat jetzt veröffentlichen!
Kommentare