Linguistic Society of America

[Download PDF file ] Supplementary Material

This PDF provides additional information about the following: (A) the clausal complements of the twenty predicates in experiments 1, 2, and 3; (B) the control stimuli in experiments 1, 2, and 3; (C) data exclusion criteria and details; (D) model details for experiments 1, 2, and 3; (E) comparisons of gradient and categorical ratings; and (F) mixture models applied to data from experiment 1a.

The relevant figures from the main article are repeated here in color, with their captions.

Figure 2 (p. 562). Mean certainty ratings by predicate in experiment 1a. Error bars indicate 95% bootstrapped confidence intervals. Violin plots indicate the kernel probability density of the individual participants’ ratings.
Click for larger view
View full resolution
Figure 2 (p. 562).

Mean certainty ratings by predicate in experiment 1a. Error bars indicate 95% bootstrapped confidence intervals. Violin plots indicate the kernel probability density of the individual participants’ ratings.

Figure 4 (p. 565). Proportion of ‘yes’ ratings by predicate in experiment 1b. Error bars indicate 95% bootstrapped confidence intervals. Vertically and horizontally jittered light gray dots indicate individual participants’ responses of ‘yes’ (coded as 1) and ‘no’ (coded as 0).
Click for larger view
View full resolution
Figure 4 (p. 565).

Proportion of ‘yes’ ratings by predicate in experiment 1b. Error bars indicate 95% bootstrapped confidence intervals. Vertically and horizontally jittered light gray dots indicate individual participants’ responses of ‘yes’ (coded as 1) and ‘no’ (coded as 0).

Figure 5 (p. 566). Mean certainty ratings by predicate, with number of discourses in parentheses, for 982 discourses in the CommitmentBank (de Marneffe et al. 2019). Error bars indicate 95% bootstrapped confidence intervals. Predicates included in our experiments 1a,b shown in bold.
Click for larger view
View full resolution
Figure 5 (p. 566).

Mean certainty ratings by predicate, with number of discourses in parentheses, for 982 discourses in the CommitmentBank (de Marneffe et al. 2019). Error bars indicate 95% bootstrapped confidence intervals. Predicates included in our experiments 1a,b shown in bold.

Figure 6 (p. 343). Mean projection ratings by predicate, with 95% bootstrapped confidence intervals, for the seventy-eight predicates in the VerbVeridicality data set (Ross & Pavlick 2019), with labels for the fifteen predicates featured in our experiments.
Click for larger view
View full resolution
Figure 6 (p. 343).

Mean projection ratings by predicate, with 95% bootstrapped confidence intervals, for the seventy-eight predicates in the VerbVeridicality data set (Ross & Pavlick 2019), with labels for the fifteen predicates featured in our experiments.

Figure 7 (p. 568). Mean projection ratings by predicate, with 95% bootstrapped confidence intervals, for the 517 predicates in the MegaVeridicality data set (White & Rawlins 2018, White et al. 2018), with labels for the nineteen predicates featured in our experiments.
Click for larger view
View full resolution
Figure 7 (p. 568).

Mean projection ratings by predicate, with 95% bootstrapped confidence intervals, for the 517 predicates in the MegaVeridicality data set (White & Rawlins 2018, White et al. 2018), with labels for the nineteen predicates featured in our experiments.

Figure 9 (p. 571). Mean inference ratings by predicate in experiment 2a, including the nonentailing and entailing controls. Error bars indicate bootstrapped 95% confidence intervals. Violin plots indicate the kernel probability density of the individual participants’ ratings.
Click for larger view
View full resolution
Figure 9 (p. 571).

Mean inference ratings by predicate in experiment 2a, including the nonentailing and entailing controls. Error bars indicate bootstrapped 95% confidence intervals. Violin plots indicate the kernel probability density of the individual participants’ ratings.

Figure 11 (p. 573). Proportion of ‘yes’ ratings by predicate in experiment 2b. Error bars indicate 95% bootstrapped confidence intervals. Vertically and horizontally jittered light gray dots indicate individual participants’ responses of ‘yes’ (coded as 1) and ‘no’ (coded as 0).
Click for larger view
View full resolution
Figure 11 (p. 573).

Proportion of ‘yes’ ratings by predicate in experiment 2b. Error bars indicate 95% bootstrapped confidence intervals. Vertically and horizontally jittered light gray dots indicate individual participants’ responses of ‘yes’ (coded as 1) and ‘no’ (coded as 0).

Figure 13 (p. 575). Mean contradictoriness ratings by predicate in experiment 3a, including the noncontradictory and contradictory controls. Error bars indicate bootstrapped 95% confidence intervals. Violin plots indicate the kernel probability density of the individual participants’ ratings.
Click for larger view
View full resolution
Figure 13 (p. 575).

Mean contradictoriness ratings by predicate in experiment 3a, including the noncontradictory and contradictory controls. Error bars indicate bootstrapped 95% confidence intervals. Violin plots indicate the kernel probability density of the individual participants’ ratings.

Figure 15 (p. 577). Proportion of ‘yes’ ratings by predicate in experiment 3b. Error bars indicate 95% bootstrapped confidence intervals. Vertically and horizontally jittered light gray dots indicate individual participants’ responses of ‘yes’ (coded as 1) and ‘no’ (coded as 0).
Click for larger view
View full resolution
Figure 15 (p. 577).

Proportion of ‘yes’ ratings by predicate in experiment 3b. Error bars indicate 95% bootstrapped confidence intervals. Vertically and horizontally jittered light gray dots indicate individual participants’ responses of ‘yes’ (coded as 1) and ‘no’ (coded as 0).

Figure 16 (p. 579). Mean veridicality ratings by predicate, with 95% bootstrapped confidence intervals, for the seventy-eight predicates in the VerbVeridicality data set (Ross & Pavlick 2019), with labels for the fifteen predicates featured in our experiments.
Click for larger view
View full resolution
Figure 16 (p. 579).

Mean veridicality ratings by predicate, with 95% bootstrapped confidence intervals, for the seventy-eight predicates in the VerbVeridicality data set (Ross & Pavlick 2019), with labels for the fifteen predicates featured in our experiments.

Figure 17 (p. 580). Mean veridicality ratings by predicate, with 95% bootstrapped confidence intervals, for the 517 predicates in the MegaVeridicality data set (White & Rawlins 2018, White et al. 2018), with labels for the nineteen predicates featured in our experiments.
Click for larger view
View full resolution
Figure 17 (p. 580).

Mean veridicality ratings by predicate, with 95% bootstrapped confidence intervals, for the 517 predicates in the MegaVeridicality data set (White & Rawlins 2018, White et al. 2018), with labels for the nineteen predicates featured in our experiments.

Figure 18a (p. 584).. Different simulated ratings distributions with overlaid optimal number of Gaussian components: One Gaussian component, mean = 0.4.
Click for larger view
View full resolution
Figure 18a (p. 584)..

Different simulated ratings distributions with overlaid optimal number of Gaussian components: One Gaussian component, mean = 0.4.

Figure 18b (p. 584).. Different simulated ratings distributions with overlaid optimal number of Gaussian components: One Gaussian component, mean = 0.85.
Click for larger view
View full resolution
Figure 18b (p. 584)..

Different simulated ratings distributions with overlaid optimal number of Gaussian components: One Gaussian component, mean = 0.85.

Figure 18c (p. 584). Different simulated ratings distributions with overlaid optimal number of Gaussian components: Two Gaussian components, mean = 0.6.
Click for larger view
View full resolution
Figure 18c (p. 584).

Different simulated ratings distributions with overlaid optimal number of Gaussian components: Two Gaussian components, mean = 0.6.

Figure 18d (p. 584). Different simulated ratings distributions with overlaid optimal number of Gaussian components: Two Gaussian components, mean = 0.7.
Click for larger view
View full resolution
Figure 18d (p. 584).

Different simulated ratings distributions with overlaid optimal number of Gaussian components: Two Gaussian components, mean = 0.7.

Figure 18e (p. 584). Different simulated ratings distributions with overlaid optimal number of Gaussian components: Three Gaussian components.
Click for larger view
View full resolution
Figure 18e (p. 584).

Different simulated ratings distributions with overlaid optimal number of Gaussian components: Three Gaussian components.

Figure 18f (p. 584). Different simulated ratings distributions with overlaid optimal number of Gaussian components: Four Gaussian components.
Click for larger view
View full resolution
Figure 18f (p. 584).

Different simulated ratings distributions with overlaid optimal number of Gaussian components: Four Gaussian components.

Judith Degen
Stanford University
Judith Tonhauser
University of Stuttgart

Share