Naive v. expert intuitions: An empirical study of acceptability judgments

Linguistic Review

Volumn 27, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 1-23

  Dabrowska, Ewa ^a  

^a NORTHUMBRIA UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77951609754     PISSN: 01676318     EISSN: 16133676     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1515/tlir.2010.001     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Bard, Ellen, Dan Robertson & Antonella Sorace. 1996. Magnitude estimation of linguistic acceptability. Language 72. 32-68. (Pubitemid 126421022)
2. Barlow, Michael & Suzanne Kemmer. 2000. Usage-based models of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3. Blaikie, Norman. 2003. Analyzing qualitative data. London: Sage Publications.
4. Borsley, Robert D. 1999. Syntactic theory. A unified approach. London: Arnold.
5. Bradac, James J., Larry W. Martin, Norman D. Elliott, and Charles H. Tardy. 1980. On the neglected side of linguistic science: multivariate studies of sentence judgment. Linguistics 18. 967-995.
6. British National Corpus, The, version 2 (BNC World). 2001. Distributed by Oxford University Computing Services on behalf of the BNC Consortium. URL: http://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/.
7. Bybee, Joan. 2006. From usage to grammar: The mind's response to repetition. Language 82. 529-551.
8. Bybee, Joan & David Eddington. 2006. A usage-based approach to Spanish verbs of becoming. Language 82. 323-354. (Pubitemid 44769344)
9. Carnie, Andrew. 2002. Syntax: A generative introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.
10. Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
11. Chomsky, Noam. 1977. On wh-movement. In Peter W. Culicover, Thomas Wasow and Adrian Akmajian (eds.) Formal syntax, 71-132. New York: Academic Press.
12. Cordaro, Lucian & James R. Ison. 1963. Psychology of the scientist: X. Observer bias in classical conditioning of the planarian. Psychological Reports 13. 787-789.
13. Cowart, Wayne. 1990. Interpreting reflexives in coordinate NPs: English for a non-syntactic analysis of NP coordination. Eastern States Conference on Linguistics (ESCOL) 7. 55-66.
14. Cowart,Wayne. 1997. Experimental syntax: Applying direct object methods to sentence judgments. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
15. Da̧browska, Ewa. 2004. Language, mind and brain. Some psychological and neurological constraints on theories of grammar. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
16. Da̧browska, Ewa. 2008. Questions with 'unbounded' dependencies: A usage-based perspective. Cognitive Linguistics 19. 391-425.
17. Da̧browska, Ewa In preparation. Prototype effects in questions with unbounded dependencies
18. Da̧browska, Ewa. 2010. The mean lean grammar machine meets the human mind: Empirical investigations of the mental status of rules. In Hans-Joerg Schmid, Sandra Handl and Susanne Handl (eds.) Empirical approaches to cognitive linguistics, 151-170. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
19. Da̧browska, Ewa, Caroline Rowland & Anna Theakston. 2009. The acquisition of questions with long-distance dependencies. Cognitive Linguistics 20. 571-597
20. Ellis, Nick C. 2005. At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27. 305-352.
21. Fanselow, Gisbert & Stefan Frisch. 2006. Effects of processing difficulty on judgments of acceptability. In Gisbert Fanselow, Caroline Fery, Matthias Schlesewsky & Ralf Vogel (eds.), Gradience in grammar, 291-316. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
22. Featherston, Sam. 2005. Universals and grammaticality: Wh-constraints in German and English. Linguistics 43. 667-711. (Pubitemid 41053921)
23. Freedman, Sandra E. & Kenneth I. Forster. 1985. The psychological status of overgenerated sentences. Cognition 19. 101-131.
24. Gass, Susan. 2001. Sentence matching: A re-examination. Second Language Research 17. 421-441.
25. Hiramatsu, Kazuko. 1999. What syntactic satiation can tell us about islands. Papers from the Regional Meetings, Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS) 35. 141-151.
26. Jaccard, James & Choi K.Wan. 1996. LISREL approaches to interaction effects in multiple regression. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
27. Jamieson, Susan. 2004. Likert scales: How to (ab)use them. Medical Education 38. 1212-1218.
28. Kandybowicz, Jason. 2006. Comp-trace effects explained away. In Donald Baumer, David Montero and Michael Scanlon (eds.) Proceedings of the 25th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 220-228. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
29. Kim, Jae-On. 1975. Multivariate analysis of ordinal variables. American Journal of Sociology 81. 261-298.
30. Labovitz, Sanford. 1967. Some observations on measurement and statistics. Social Forces 46. 151-160.
31. Langacker, Ronald W. 1988. A usage-based model. In Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn (ed.), Topics in cognitive linguistics, 127-161. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
32. Langacker, Ronald W. 2000. A dynamic usage-based model. In Michael Barlow & Suzanne Kemmer (eds.) Usage-based models of language, 1-63. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
33. Levine, Robert D. & Thomas E. Hukari. 2006. The unity of unbounded dependency constructions. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
34. Newmeyer, Frederick J. 1983. Grammatical theory, its limits and its possibilities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
35. Noseworthy, John H., George C. Ebers,Margaret K. Vandervoort, R. E. Farquhar, Elizabeth Yetisir &R. Roberts. 1994. The impact of blinding on the results of a randomized, placebo-controlled multiple sclerosis clinical trial. Neurology 44. 16-20. (Pubitemid 24029420)
36. Pell, Godfrey. 2005. Use and misuse of Likert scales. Medical Education 39 (9). 970.
37. Radford, Andrew. 2004. Minimalist syntax: Exploring the structure of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Riemer, N. (2009). Grammaticality as evidence and as prediction in a Galilean linguistics. Language Sciences 31. 612-633.
38. Roberts, Ian. 1997. Comparative syntax. London: Edward Arnold.
39. Schütze, C. T. 1996. The empirical base of linguistics: Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
40. Snow, Catherine, and Meijer, Guus. 1977. On the secondary nature of syntactic intuitions. In Sideny Greenbaum (ed.), Acceptability in Language, 163-177. The Hague: Mouton.
41. Snyder, William. 2000. An experimental investigation of syntactic satiation effects. Linguistic Inquiry 31. 575-582.
42. Sorace, Antonella & Frank Keller. 2005. Gradience in linguistic data. Lingua 115. 1497-1524. (Pubitemid 40405141)
43. Spencer, N. J. 1973. Differences between linguists and nonlinguists in intuitions of grammaticalityacceptability. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 2. 83-98.
44. Sprouse, Jon. 2007. A program for experimental syntax: Finding the relationship between acceptability and grammatical Knowledge. College Park, MD: University of Maryland PhD dissertation.
45. Tomasello, Michael. 2003. Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of child language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
46. Tremblay, Annie. 2005. Theoretical and methodological perspectives on the use of grammaticality judgment tasks in linguistic theory. Second Language Studies 24. 129-167.
47. Verhagen, Arie. 2005. Constructions of intersubjectivity: Discourse, syntax and cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
48. Wekker, Herman & Liliane Haegeman. 1985. A modern course in english syntax. London: Routledge.