ArticleLanguage, cognition and neuroscience2024
Decomposing unaccusativity: a statistical modelling approach.
Article in Language, cognition and neuroscience, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
While the two types of intransitive verbs, i.e., unergative and unaccusative, are hypothesised to be syntactically represented, many have proposed a semantic account where abstract properties related to agentivity and telicity, often conceptualised as binary properties, determine the classification. Here we explore the extent to which graded, embodied features rooted in neurobiological systems contribute to the distinction, representing verb meanings as continuous human ratings over various experiential dimensions. Unlike prior studies that classified verbs based on categorical intuition, we assessed the degree of unaccusativity by acceptability of the prenominal past participle construction, one of the unaccusativity diagnostics. Five models were constructed to explain these data: categorical syntactic/semantic, feature-based event-semantic, experiential, and distributional models. The experiential model best explained the diagnostic test data, suggesting that the unaccusative/unergative distinction may be an emergent phenomenon related to differences in underlying experiential content. The experiential model's advantages, including interpretability and scalability, are also discussed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.