Packaging Information as Fact Versus Opinion: Consequences of the (Information-)Structural Position of Subjective Adjectives

References

• Anand, P. (2009). Kinds of taste. Ms., UCSC.
   Google Scholar
• AnderBois, S., Brasoveanu, A., & Henderson, R. (2015). At-issue proposals and appositive impositions in discourse. Journal of Semantics, 32(1), 93–138. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/fft014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effectsfor subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language,59(4), 390–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baker, L., & Wagner, J. L. (1987). Evaluating information for truthfulness: The effects of logical subordination. Memory and Cognition, 15(3), 247–255. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197723
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Birch, S., & Garnsey, S. (1995). The effect of focus on memory for words in sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 34(2), 232–367. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1995.1011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Birch, S., & Rayner, K. (1997). Linguistic focus affects eye movements during reading. Memory & Cognition, 25(5), 653–660. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211306
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Birner, B., & Ward, G. (1998). Information status and noncanonical word order in English. John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Bredart, S., & Doquier, M. (1989). The Moses-Illusion: A follow-up on the focalization effect. Cahiers de Psychologie Cognitive: European Bulletin of Cognitive Psychology, 9, 357–362.
   Google Scholar
• Bredart, S., & Modolo, K. (1988). Moses strikes again: Focalization effects on a semantic illusion. Acta Psychologica, 67(2), 135–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(88)90009-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bylinina, L. (2014). The grammar of standards [PhD dissertation]. Utrecht Institute for Linguistics OTS.
   Google Scholar
• Chafe, W. L. (1976). Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and point of view. In C. N. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 27–55). Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chmielewski, M., & Kucker, S. C. (2020). An MTurk crisis? Shifts in data quality and the impact on study results. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11(4), 464–473. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550619875149
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, A. (2010). A tasty mixture. Ms., Ben-Gurion University of the Negev.
   Google Scholar
• Cornilescu, A. (1981). Non-restrictive relative clauses, an essay in semantic description. Revue roumaine de linguistique, 26(1), 41–67.
   Google Scholar
• Cousineau, D. (2005). Confidence intervals in within-subject design: A simpler solution to Loftus and Masson’s method. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 1(1), 42–45. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.01.1.p042
   Google Scholar
• Cunnings, I. (2012). An overview of mixed-effects statistical models for second language researchers. Second Language Research, 28(3), 369–382. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658312443651
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Saussure, L. (2013). Background relevance. Journal of Pragmatics, 59(part B), 178–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.08.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dillon, B., Clifton, C., Jr., Sloggett, S., & Frazier, L. (2017). Appositives and their aftermath: Interference depends on at-issue vs. not-at-issue status. Journal of Memory and Language, 96, 93–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2017.04.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erickson, T. D., & Mattson, M. E. (1981). From words to meaning: A semantic illusion. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20(5), 540–551. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(81)90165-1
   Google Scholar
• Gibson, E., Piantadosi, S., & Fedorenko, K. (2011). Using Mechanical Turk to obtain and analyze English acceptability judgments. Language and Linguistics Compass, 5(8), 509–524. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2011.00295.x
   Google Scholar
• Harris, J. A., & Potts, C. (2009). Perspective-shifting with appositives and expressives. Linguistics & Philosophy, 32(6), 523–552. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-010-9070-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hopper, P., & Thompson, S. A. (1980). Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language, 56(2), 251–299. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1980.0017
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hornby, P. A. (1974). Surface structure and presupposition. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13(5), 530–538. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(74)80005-8
   Google Scholar
• Jackendoff, R. (1972). Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. MIT.
   Google Scholar
• Kamp, H. (1975). Two theories about adjectives. In E. L. Keenan (Ed.), Formal semantics for natural language (pp. 123–155). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Karttunen, L., & Peters, S. (1979). Conventional implicature. In C. K. Oh & D. Dineen (Eds.), Presuppositions: Vol. 11. Syntax and semantics (pp. 1–56). Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kennedy, C. (2007). Vagueness and grammar: The semantics of relative and absolute gradable adjectives. Linguistics and Philosophy, 30(1), 1–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-006-9008-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kennedy, R., Clifford, S., Burleigh, T., Jewell, R., & Waggoner, P. (2020). The shape of and solutions to the MTurk quality crisis. Political Science Research and Methods,  8(4), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2020.6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klein, E. (1980). A semantics for positive and comparative adjectives. Linguistics and Philosophy, 4(1), 1–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00351812
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kölbel, M. (2003). Faultless Disagreement. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 104(1), 53–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9264.t01-1-00003
   Google Scholar
• Lambrecht, K. (1996). Information structure and sentence form. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lasersohn, P. (2005). Context dependence, disagreement, and predicates of personal taste. Linguistics and Philosophy, 28(6), 643–686. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-005-0596-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lenth, R. V. (2018). emmeans: Estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means (R package version 1.5.0). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans
   Google Scholar
• Loock, R. (2007). Appositive relative clauses and their functions in discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(2), 336–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.02.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loock, R. (2010). Appositive relative clauses in English: Discourse functions and competing structures. John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Lowder, M. W., & Gordon, P. C. (2015). Focus takes time: Structural effects on reading. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22(6), 1733–1738. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0843-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNally, L., & Stojanovic, I. (2017). Aesthetic adjectives. In J. Young (Ed.), The semantics of aesthetic judgments (pp. 17–37). Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• McNeil, B. J., Pauker, S. G., Sox, H. C., Jr., & Tversky, A. (1982). On the elicitation of preferences for alternative therapies. The New England Journal of Medicine, 306(21), 1259–1262. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM198205273062103
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitchell, A., Gottfried, J., Barthel, M., & Sumida, N. (2018, June). Distinguishing between factual and opinion statements in the news. Pew Research Center. https://www.journalism.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2018/06/PJ_2018.06.18_fact-opinion_FINAL.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Moltmann, F. (2010). Relative truth and the first person. Philosophical Studies, 150(2), 187–220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-009-9383-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morey, R. (2008). Confidence intervals from normalized data: A correction to Cousineau (2005). Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 4(2), 61–64. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.04.2.p061
   Google Scholar
• Murray, S. E. (2010). Evidentiality and the structure of speech acts [Doctoral dissertation]. Rutgers University.
   Google Scholar
• Pearson, H. (2013). A judge-free semantics for predicates of personal taste. Journal of Semantics, 30(1), 103–154. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffs001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Potts, C. (2005). The logic of conventional implicatures. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Prince, E. (1981). Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical pragmatics (pp. 223–254). Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• R Core Team. (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org/
   Google Scholar
• Rochemont, M. (1986). Focus in generative grammar. John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Russell, B. (1905). On denoting. Mind, 14(4), 479–493. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/XIV.4.479
   Google Scholar
• Russell, B. (1919). Introduction to mathematical philosophy. George Allen and Unwin.
   Google Scholar
• Sanford, A. J., & Sturt, P. (2002). Depth of processing in language comprehension: Not noticing the evidence. Trends in Cognitive Science, 6(9), 382. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(02)01958-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sassoon, G. (2013). A typology of multidimensional adjectives. Journal of Semantics, 30(3), 335–380. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffs012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shafto, M., & McKay, D. (2000). The moses, mega-moses, and armstrong illusions: Integrating language comprehension and semantic memory. Psychological Science, 11(5), 372–378. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00273
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simons, M., Tonhauser, J., Beaver, D., & Roberts, C. (2010). What projects and why. In N. Li & D. Lutz (Eds.), Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory (SALT) (Vol. 21, pp. 309–327). CLC Publications. https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v20i0.2584
   Google Scholar
• Singer, M. (1976). Thematic structure and the integration of linguistic information. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 15(5), 549–558. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5371(76)90049-9
   Google Scholar
• Solt, S. (2015). Vagueness and imprecision: Empirical foundations. Annual Review of Linguistics, 1(1), 107–127. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguist-030514-125150
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stephenson, T. (2007). Judge dependence, epistemic modals, and predicates of personal taste. Linguistics and Philosophy, 30(4), 487–525. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-008-9023-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stojanovic, I. (2007). Talking about taste: Disagreement, implicit arguments, and relative truth. Linguistics and Philosophy, 30(6), 691–706. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-008-9030-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sturt, P., Sanford, A. J., Stewart, A., & Dawydiak, E. (2004). Linguistic focus and good-enough representations: An application of the change-detection paradigm. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11(5), 882–888. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196716
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tonhauser, J. (2012). Diagnosing (not-)at-issue content. In Proceedings of Semantics of Under-represented Languages of the Americas (SULA) (Vol. 6, pp. 239–254). UMass Amherst, GLSA.
   Google Scholar
• Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453–458. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7455683
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Unger, P. (1975). Ignorance. Clarendon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Vallduví, E. (1992). The informational component. Garland.
   Google Scholar
• Vallduví, E., & Engdahl, E. (1996). The linguistic realization of information packaging. Linguistics, 34(3), 459–519. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1996.34.3.459
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ward, P., & Sturt, P. (2007). Linguistic focus and memory: An eye movement study. Memory & Cognition, 35(1), 73–86. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195944
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warriner, A. B., Kuperman, V., & Brysbaert, M. (2013). Norms of valence, arousal, and dominance for 13,915 English lemmas. Behavior Research Methods, 45(4), 1191–1207. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0314-x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiebe, J. (2000, July). Learning subjective adjectives from Corpora. In Proceedings of the 17th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-2000).
   Google Scholar
• Wiegand, M., Ruppenhofer, J., & Klakow, D. (2013). Predicative adjectives: An unsupervised criterion to extract subjective adjectives. In Proceedings of NAACL-HLT 2013 (pp. 534–539).
   Google Scholar
• Zimmer, H. D., & Engelkamp, J. (1981). The given-new structure of cleft sentences and their influence on picture viewing. Psychological Research, 43(4), 375–389. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00309223
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar