Due to influence from English.NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author ManuscriptExperimentMethod Participants–All testing was conducted in Turkey by a native Pepstatin A chemical information Turkish speaker, mainly in Sariyer and Istanbul. Our goal was to find monolingual Turkish speakers who were relatively young and familiar with computers. Most people in this demographic have had some exposure to English during school, but vary widely in their actual proficiency. Due to the practical realities of recruitment in Turkey, we needed a simple and quick measure, and chose to use a 0? self-report scale. Then, because different people might have different interpretations about what a “3” meant, we added the descriptions, reported in Table 2, as anchors. An ideal participant would have no contact with or knowledge of any SVO language, and would therefore report a “0”. Potential participants were excluded if an SVO N-hexanoic-Try-Ile-(6)-amino hexanoic amide supplier language was spoken in their home. All but one of the participants were raised in a home where only Turkish was spoken; the one exception had one parent who spoke Arabic (VSO) at home. (Two participants reported having one parent who was fluent in an SVO language (Albanian), but did not indicate that it was spoken in their home.) Roughly two thirds of potential participants reported having some contact with English or another SVO language in school. Potential participants were excluded if they reported “3” or above in any SVO language. This left 33 participants, of whom 9 reported “0”, 19 reported “1”, and 5 reported “2”. All participants gave consent to be videotaped as part of the study, and were paid for their participation. Materials–We used the same materials as in Experiment 1. Design and procedure–The design and procedure were identical to Experiment 1, except that written and spoken instructions were delivered in Turkish. Coding and analysis–Coding procedures were identical to Experiment 1. The first two coders agreed on 1915/2013 utterances (95.1 ). After the third coder, only 27 trials (1.3 of the data) were excluded. Unless otherwise noted, the statistical methods were identical to those in Experiment 1. Results Prevalence of SOV–Figure 2 shows the relative prevalence of efficient orders with subject before object in each condition. The distribution of all orders is given in Table 3. AsCogn Sci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 June 01.Hall et al.Pagein Experiment 1, the proportion of trials that had SOV order was analyzed at both the group and individual level.NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author ManuscriptGroup results: The 2 x 3 ANOVA revealed a trend for SOV to be more common in some groups than others [F(2,30) = 2.84, p = .07]. Planned comparisons found that SOV was more common in the private group than in the baseline group [F(1.30) = 4.49, p < .05], and that SOV was marginally more common in the shared group than in the baseline group [F(1,30) = 4.02, p = .05]. SOV was significantly less common on reversible events than on nonreversible events [F(1,30) = 47.02, p < .001]. There was no interaction between group and reversibility [F(2,30) = 1.53, p = .23]. Individual results: At the individual level, we used Fisher's exact test to determine whether the reversibility manipulation influenced the probability of participants being SOVdominant. In the baseline group, 10/11 participants were SOV-dominant for non-reversibles, whereas 0/10 were SOV-dominant for reversibles (p < .001). In the.Due to influence from English.NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author ManuscriptExperimentMethod Participants--All testing was conducted in Turkey by a native Turkish speaker, mainly in Sariyer and Istanbul. Our goal was to find monolingual Turkish speakers who were relatively young and familiar with computers. Most people in this demographic have had some exposure to English during school, but vary widely in their actual proficiency. Due to the practical realities of recruitment in Turkey, we needed a simple and quick measure, and chose to use a 0? self-report scale. Then, because different people might have different interpretations about what a "3" meant, we added the descriptions, reported in Table 2, as anchors. An ideal participant would have no contact with or knowledge of any SVO language, and would therefore report a "0". Potential participants were excluded if an SVO language was spoken in their home. All but one of the participants were raised in a home where only Turkish was spoken; the one exception had one parent who spoke Arabic (VSO) at home. (Two participants reported having one parent who was fluent in an SVO language (Albanian), but did not indicate that it was spoken in their home.) Roughly two thirds of potential participants reported having some contact with English or another SVO language in school. Potential participants were excluded if they reported "3" or above in any SVO language. This left 33 participants, of whom 9 reported "0", 19 reported "1", and 5 reported "2". All participants gave consent to be videotaped as part of the study, and were paid for their participation. Materials--We used the same materials as in Experiment 1. Design and procedure--The design and procedure were identical to Experiment 1, except that written and spoken instructions were delivered in Turkish. Coding and analysis--Coding procedures were identical to Experiment 1. The first two coders agreed on 1915/2013 utterances (95.1 ). After the third coder, only 27 trials (1.3 of the data) were excluded. Unless otherwise noted, the statistical methods were identical to those in Experiment 1. Results Prevalence of SOV--Figure 2 shows the relative prevalence of efficient orders with subject before object in each condition. The distribution of all orders is given in Table 3. AsCogn Sci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 June 01.Hall et al.Pagein Experiment 1, the proportion of trials that had SOV order was analyzed at both the group and individual level.NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author ManuscriptGroup results: The 2 x 3 ANOVA revealed a trend for SOV to be more common in some groups than others [F(2,30) = 2.84, p = .07]. Planned comparisons found that SOV was more common in the private group than in the baseline group [F(1.30) = 4.49, p < .05], and that SOV was marginally more common in the shared group than in the baseline group [F(1,30) = 4.02, p = .05]. SOV was significantly less common on reversible events than on nonreversible events [F(1,30) = 47.02, p < .001]. There was no interaction between group and reversibility [F(2,30) = 1.53, p = .23]. Individual results: At the individual level, we used Fisher's exact test to determine whether the reversibility manipulation influenced the probability of participants being SOVdominant. In the baseline group, 10/11 participants were SOV-dominant for non-reversibles, whereas 0/10 were SOV-dominant for reversibles (p < .001). In the.