Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T04:13:31.975Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

L1 word order and sensitivity to verb bias in L2 processing – CORRIGENDUM

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 September 2013

EUN-KYUNG LEE ,
DORA HSIN-YI LU  and
SUSAN M. GARNSEY
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Predictors and control variables were not distinguished in Tables 4–8 of the paper by Lee, Lu and Garnsey (2013). The corrected tables are provided below. The authors apologize for these errors.

Type
Corrigendum
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 17 , Issue 1 , January 2014 , pp. 234 - 236
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Predictors and control variables were not distinguished in Tables 4–8 of the paper by Lee, Lu and Garnsey (2013). The corrected tables are provided below. The authors apologize for these errors.

Table 4. Fixed effect estimates for the mixed effects model of residual reading times at the NP (N = 5556, log-likelihood: –25810). The model also included by-participant and by-item random intercepts. Reliable effects are in bold. Control variables are shaded gray.

Table 5. Fixed effect estimates for the mixed effects model of residual reading times at the disambiguation (N = 5556, log-likelihood: –25360). The model also included by-participant and by-item random intercepts, and by-participant random slopes for verb bias. Reliable effects are in bold. Control variables are shaded gray.

Table 6. Fixed effect estimates for the mixed effects model of residual reading times at the disambiguation: native English speakers (N = 2346, log-likelihood: –10519). The model also included by-participant and by-item random intercepts. Reliable effects are in bold. Control variables are shaded gray.

Table 7. Fixed effect estimates for the mixed effects model of residual reading times at the disambiguation: higher proficiency L2 learners (N = 1666, log-likelihood: –7707). The model also included by-participant and by-item random intercepts. Reliable effects are in bold. Control variables are shaded gray.

Table 8. Fixed effect estimates for mixed effects model of residual reading times at the disambiguation: lower proficiency L2 learners (N = 1544, log-likelihood: –7173). The model also included by-participant and by-item random intercepts. Reliable effects are in bold. Control variables are shaded gray.

References

Lee, E.-K., Lu, D. H., & Garnsey, S. M. (2013). L1 word order and sensitivity to verb bias in L2 processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16, 761–775.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Table 4. Fixed effect estimates for the mixed effects model of residual reading times at the NP (N = 5556, log-likelihood: –25810). The model also included by-participant and by-item random intercepts. Reliable effects are in bold. Control variables are shaded gray.

Figure 1

Table 5. Fixed effect estimates for the mixed effects model of residual reading times at the disambiguation (N = 5556, log-likelihood: –25360). The model also included by-participant and by-item random intercepts, and by-participant random slopes for verb bias. Reliable effects are in bold. Control variables are shaded gray.

Figure 2

Table 6. Fixed effect estimates for the mixed effects model of residual reading times at the disambiguation: native English speakers (N = 2346, log-likelihood: –10519). The model also included by-participant and by-item random intercepts. Reliable effects are in bold. Control variables are shaded gray.

Figure 3

Table 7. Fixed effect estimates for the mixed effects model of residual reading times at the disambiguation: higher proficiency L2 learners (N = 1666, log-likelihood: –7707). The model also included by-participant and by-item random intercepts. Reliable effects are in bold. Control variables are shaded gray.

Figure 4

Table 8. Fixed effect estimates for mixed effects model of residual reading times at the disambiguation: lower proficiency L2 learners (N = 1544, log-likelihood: –7173). The model also included by-participant and by-item random intercepts. Reliable effects are in bold. Control variables are shaded gray.