Search for: All records

Abstract Dialect differences between African American English (AAE) and Mainstream American English (MAE) impact how children comprehend sentences. However, research on real-time sentence processing has the potential to reveal the underlying causes of these differences. This study used eye tracking, which measures how children interpret linguistic features as a sentence unfolds, and examined how AAE- and MAE-speaking children processed “was” and “were,” a morphology feature produced differently in MAE and AAE. Fifty-nine participants, ages 7;8 to 11;0 years, completed standardized measures of dialect density and receptive vocabulary. In the eye tracking task, participants heard sentences in MAE with either unambiguous (e.g., “Jeremiah”) or ambiguous (e.g., “Carolyn May”), subjects and eye movements were measured to singular (image of one person) or plural referents (image of two people). After the onset of the auxiliary verb, AAE-speaking children were sensitive to “was” and “were” when processing sentences but were less likely than MAE-speaking children to use “was” as a basis for updating initial predictions of plural referents. Among African American children, dialect density was predictive of sensitivity to “was” when processing sentences. Results suggest that linguistic mismatch impacts how contrastive verb morphology is used to update initial interpretations of MAE sentences. 

Energy costs are large and increasing in rural Alaska communities, so communities are turning to renewable energy. While, many of these communities have a mixed subsistence-cash economy, the relationship between renewable energy and subsistence has not been studied. Tanana, Alaska has a biomass program and we conducted interviews with 61 households in 2017 to understand how residents perceive the program and its association with subsistence activities. We analyzed Alaska Department of Fish & Game subsistence surveys from 89 communities to estimate differences in subsistence harvest between households that harvest wood and those that do not. Interviews indicated that people who harvest wood for the biomass program were six times more likely to engage in subsistence. Subsistence harvests were nearly double (184 kg/per capita) in households that harvested wood for personal use versus those that did not (101 kg/per capita). Equipment used for both activities was similar, and 57% respondents combined wood harvesting with other activities (e.g. subsistence, travel, etc.). Higher household incomes and employment were positively associated with subsistence participation (p < 0.001) while only household incomes was positively associated with wood harvest through the biomass program (p < 0.001). Overall, the program was perceived as having a positive effect (69%) for the community because it has created jobs (36%), saved people money (23%), promoted sharing (16%), and reduced fuel use by the community (15%). Our research shows that biomass programs have the potential to complement subsistence activities and enhance the sustainability of communities in rural Alaska that are faced with high energy costs.