Spanish Monolinguals

As mentioned in Section 5.1, the context in each target scenario was manipulated in such a way that participants were expected to choose a concluding sentence with a null

pronoun. Figure 1 displays the overall results for the monolingual Spanish participant group. The results in this figure are grouped according to antecedent type (quantified, wh-word, and referential) to show how this group performed overall and which sentence they chose as their concluding sentence (containing which type of pronoun: null, overt, or both). Because the only acceptable answer was to choose the sentence with a null

pronoun, the other two options were grouped together as one (overt/both) since both options are rendered as inadequate. Based on this figure, participants chose the null option most frequently with referential antecedents (common names) at a rate of 89%, and they chose the sentence with the null pronoun with quantified and wh-word antecedents 75% and 74% respectively.

Figure 1. Monolingual Spanish choice of null or overt subject based on grouped quantifiers

A paired samples t-test was done comparing the means of the null and overt pronouns for each antecedent type: Quantified, WH-word, and Referential. It is important to note here that within the analysis for the SST the “overt” option also includes the results for

choosing “both” as their option. These two means are grouped together because they are both considered to be the incorrect or unexpected response for the contexts provided. The results show the difference in pronoun choice in the SST is significant for all

antecedent types: Quantified (M = .431, SE = .081, t(19) = 5.334, p < .001); WH-word (M = .475, SE = .078, t(19) = 6.024, p < .001); Referential (M = .762, SE = .102, t(19) = 7.494, p < .001). These results indicate that when being forced to choose the null subject, they understood the difference in interpretation between the two pronoun types.

A one-way repeated-measures ANOVA was calculated to look at the difference between the three antecedent types (Quantified, WH-word, Referential) in responding with a null subject pronoun and the results show that the type of quantifier had a

significant effect, F(2, 38) = 6.816, p = .003. Tests of a within-subjects contrast show that the difference in responses between the quantified antecedents and the referential

antecedents is significant, F(1, 19) = 12.55, p = .002. A Bonferroni post hoc test showed that the difference between quantified and referential antecedents is significant, p < .05 as well as between WH-word and referential antecedents, p < .05. There is no significant difference between quantified and WH-word antecedents, p > .05.

In Figure 2, the groups of antecedents (as show in Figure 1) are separated in the specific six quantifiers that were used throughout this task. Also the group of referential quantifiers is present here again. Because this group consists of common names, it will not be divided per token. Instead it will in all future figures appear as one individual entity. Figure 2 shows that again, participants chose the null option most frequently with referential antecedents at a rate of 89%, quién at 81%, la mayoría de at 79%, nadie at 78%, followed by todos at 69%, quiénes at 66%, and finally muchos at 61%.

Figure 2. Monolingual Spanish choice of null or overt subject based on specific quantifiers

A paired sample t-test was done in order to compare the means of the null and overt pronouns for each quantifier used in this task. All contrasts appear to be

significant, except for the muchos antecedent, where the difference between the two pronouns is not significant (M = .225, SE = .123, t(19) = 1.831, p = .083). The rest of the contrasts are significant, p < .01.

A one-way repeated-measures ANOVA was calculated to look at the difference between the seven antecedent types used in this study in responding with a null subject pronoun and the results show that the type of quantifier had a significant effect, F(6, 114) = 4.24, p = .001. Tests of a within-subjects contrast show that there is a significant difference between singular quién and plural quiénes, F(1, 19) = 7.28, p < .05, as well as between quiénes plural and referential antecedents, F(1, 19) = 10.8, p < .05. A pairwise comparison shows that there is a significant difference between nadie and referential antecedents, p < .05. No other contrast displayed a significant difference.

Moreover, the quantifiers were grouped into Quantifier Types as discussed in Chapter 2. It was discussed in greater detail in Chapter 2 that according to Beghelli and Stowell (1996) all quantifiers fall within a specific type that has its own syntactic position as explained in their “Checking Theory”. The three types that are found in this study are the Negative QP, Group QP, and Wh QP. When working with a negative quantifier phrase, Spanish monolinguals choose the correct null subject at a rate of 79%. The Wh- phrase quantifiers are chosen correctly at a rate of 73.5% and the group quantifier phrases scored closely at 69.6%.

A one-way repeated-measures ANOVA was used to calculate the significance of the quantifier type looking specifically at Spanish monolinguals. The results show that

the quantifier type is not significant within the language group of the Spanish

monolinguals, F(2, 38) = .832, p > .05, this result indicates that the Spanish monolinguals do not discriminate between the quantifier-types in how they responded to the SST.