case_images: PMC8382949_01
case_images: Results of Experiment 1.
case_images: fpsyg-12-629177-g001.jpg
case_images: PMC8382949_01_fpsyg-12-629177-g001.jpg
case_images: F1
case_images: Figure 1) showed neither the interaction nor the main effect for CC. That is, the comparison between wenn and falls was not significant (t = 0.15, p = 0.88). For the Event-likelihood, there is a numerical difference in the naturalness rating for likely events when compared to either unlikely or very likely events.
case_images: PMC8382949_02
case_images: Results of Experiment 3.
case_images: fpsyg-12-629177-g002.jpg
case_images: PMC8382949_02_fpsyg-12-629177-g002.jpg
case_images: F2
case_images: To further explore the effect of the RC, separate models were created for the two sets of items, see Figure 2 and Tables 5A,B.
case_images: PMC8382949_03
case_images: Results of Experiment 4b.
case_images: fpsyg-12-629177-g003.jpg
case_images: PMC8382949_03_fpsyg-12-629177-g003.jpg
case_images: F3
case_images: Figure 3. First, weil-sentences received significantly higher naturalness ratings overall than either wenn- or falls-sentences (weil vs. wenn: t = 8.19, p < 0.0001; weil vs. falls: t = 9.59, p < 0.0001), even though an reviewer pointed out rightly that the weil-sentences would have been more natural in present perfect (i.e., verpasst hat 'has missed').