Ctors. With percent SOV as the dependent measure, there was a main effect of native language [F(1,63) = 37.29, p < .001], indicating that Turkish speakers used more SOV than English speakers overall. There was also a main effect of reversibility [F(1,63) = 75.07, p < .001], indicating that SOV was less common for reversible events overall. Importantly, native language did not interact with reversibility [F(1,63) = .82, p = .37] or group [F(2,63) = 2.01, p = .14]. No other effects were significant (all Fs < 2, all p > .25). With percent SVO as the dependent measure, there was a main effect of native language [F(1,63) = 29.77, p < .001], indicating that English speakers used more SVO than Turkish speakers overall. There was also a main effect of reversibility [F(1,63) = 23.59, p < .001], indicating that SVO was more common for reversible events overall. Here, the main effect of group was significant [F(2,63) = 6.07, p < .01]. Planned comparisons revealed that SVO was more common in the shared group than in the baseline group [F(1,63) = 12.04, p < . 001]. SVO was also more common in the private group than in the baseline group [F(1,63) = 4.07, p < .05]. Importantly, native language did not interact with group or reversibility (all Fs < 1), and no other effects were significant (all Fs < 2.1, all p > .13). Discussion The data from Turkish speakers demonstrate that SVO begins to emerge for reversible events in the shared group, and to a lesser extent, for reversible events in the private group as well. Importantly, participants in the shared group were significantly more likely to use SVO to describe reversible events than participants in the baseline group. Participants in all groups avoided SOV, but many of the alternative orders employed by participants in the baseline group tended to put O before S (Table 3, Type B) or involved repetition (Table 3, Types C D). Those tendencies decreased in the private and shared groups, with both SOV and SVO increasing instead. However, whereas the PNB-0408 site increase in SOV is potentially attributable to influence from the participants’ native language, the increase in SVO is not.Leupeptin (hemisulfate) chemical information NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author ManuscriptCogn Sci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 June 01.Hall et al.PageInstead, we propose that it emerges because it uniquely satisfies the constraints against using SOV for reversible events while still being efficient and keeping S before O.NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author ManuscriptAs with English speakers, we did not find evidence that the instruction to create and use a consistent gestural lexicon led to reduced SOV. This is again consistent with the notion that SOV is an efficient order that keeps S before O. However, in contrast to English speakers, more participants in the private and shared groups were SOV-dominant for reversible events than in the baseline group. This pattern suggests that the instruction to create and use a consistent gestural lexicon may indeed have encouraged some participants to use verbal recoding, which in turn led to increased use of native-language order in the private and shared groups than the baseline group. (The lack of a corresponding increase in SOV among non-reversible events may be due to a ceiling effect.) Therefore, it seems likely that at least some of the increase in SVO that we observed in Experiment 1 might be attributable to influence from the participants’ native language, rather.Ctors. With percent SOV as the dependent measure, there was a main effect of native language [F(1,63) = 37.29, p < .001], indicating that Turkish speakers used more SOV than English speakers overall. There was also a main effect of reversibility [F(1,63) = 75.07, p < .001], indicating that SOV was less common for reversible events overall. Importantly, native language did not interact with reversibility [F(1,63) = .82, p = .37] or group [F(2,63) = 2.01, p = .14]. No other effects were significant (all Fs < 2, all p > .25). With percent SVO as the dependent measure, there was a main effect of native language [F(1,63) = 29.77, p < .001], indicating that English speakers used more SVO than Turkish speakers overall. There was also a main effect of reversibility [F(1,63) = 23.59, p < .001], indicating that SVO was more common for reversible events overall. Here, the main effect of group was significant [F(2,63) = 6.07, p < .01]. Planned comparisons revealed that SVO was more common in the shared group than in the baseline group [F(1,63) = 12.04, p < . 001]. SVO was also more common in the private group than in the baseline group [F(1,63) = 4.07, p < .05]. Importantly, native language did not interact with group or reversibility (all Fs < 1), and no other effects were significant (all Fs < 2.1, all p > .13). Discussion The data from Turkish speakers demonstrate that SVO begins to emerge for reversible events in the shared group, and to a lesser extent, for reversible events in the private group as well. Importantly, participants in the shared group were significantly more likely to use SVO to describe reversible events than participants in the baseline group. Participants in all groups avoided SOV, but many of the alternative orders employed by participants in the baseline group tended to put O before S (Table 3, Type B) or involved repetition (Table 3, Types C D). Those tendencies decreased in the private and shared groups, with both SOV and SVO increasing instead. However, whereas the increase in SOV is potentially attributable to influence from the participants’ native language, the increase in SVO is not.NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author ManuscriptCogn Sci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 June 01.Hall et al.PageInstead, we propose that it emerges because it uniquely satisfies the constraints against using SOV for reversible events while still being efficient and keeping S before O.NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author ManuscriptAs with English speakers, we did not find evidence that the instruction to create and use a consistent gestural lexicon led to reduced SOV. This is again consistent with the notion that SOV is an efficient order that keeps S before O. However, in contrast to English speakers, more participants in the private and shared groups were SOV-dominant for reversible events than in the baseline group. This pattern suggests that the instruction to create and use a consistent gestural lexicon may indeed have encouraged some participants to use verbal recoding, which in turn led to increased use of native-language order in the private and shared groups than the baseline group. (The lack of a corresponding increase in SOV among non-reversible events may be due to a ceiling effect.) Therefore, it seems likely that at least some of the increase in SVO that we observed in Experiment 1 might be attributable to influence from the participants’ native language, rather.
