Linguistic evidence and grammatical theory

Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science

Volumn 2, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 206-221

  Schütze, Carson T ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 79961224035     PISSN: 19395078     EISSN: 19395086     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/wcs.102     Document Type: Review

References (101)

1. Chomsky N. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1965.
2. Labov W. When intuitions fail. In: McNair L, Singer K, Dobrin LM, AuCoin MM, eds. CLS 32: Papers from the Parasession on Theory and Data in Linguistics. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society; 1996; 77-106.
3. Chomsky N. Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use. New York: Praeger; 1986.
4. Chomsky N. Universal grammar. New York Rev Books 1991; 38: 82.
5. Luka BJ, Barsalou LW. Structural facilitation: mere exposure effects for grammatical acceptability as evidence for syntactic priming in comprehension. J Mem Lang 2005; 52: 436-459.
6. Schütze CT. The Empirical Base of Linguistics: Grammaticality Judgments and Linguistic Methodology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1996.
7. Kučera H, Francis WN. Computational Analysis of Present-Day American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press; 1967.
8. Baayen RH, Piepenbrock R, Gulikers L. The CELEX Lexical Database (CD-ROM). Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania; 1995.
9. Burnard L. Reference Guide for the British National Corpus (XML Edition), Published for the British National Corpus Consortium by the Research Technologies Service at Oxford University Computing Services; 2007. Available at:. (Accessed 24 June, 2010).
10. Davies M. The 385+ million word Corpus of Contemporary American English (1990-2008+): design, architecture, and linguistic insights. Int J Corpus Linguist 2009; 14: 159-190.
11. Krauss M. Linguistics and biology: threatened linguistic and biological diversity compared. In: McNair L, Singer K, Dobrin LM, AuCoin MM, eds. CLS 32: Papers from the Parasession on Theory and Data in Linguistics. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society; 1996; 69-75.
12. Bresnan J, Nikitina T. The gradience of the dative alternation. In: Uyechi LA, Wee L-H, eds. Reality Exploration and Discovery: Pattern Interaction in Language and Life. Stanford: CSLI Publications; 2010; 161-184.
13. Resnik P, Elkiss A, Lau E, Taylor H. The Web in theoretical linguistics research: two case studies using the Linguist's Search Engine. In: Cover RT, Kim Y, eds. Proceedings of the Thirty-First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society; 2006; 265-276.
14. Schütze CT. Web searches should supplement judgments, not supplant them. Z Sprachwiss 2009; 28: 151-156.
15. Manning CD. Probabilistic syntax. In: Bod R, Hay J, Jannedy S, eds. Probabilistic Linguistics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2003; 289-341.
16. Kilgarriff A, Grefenstette G. Introduction to the special issue on the Web as corpus. Comput Linguist 2003; 29: 333-347.
17. Demonte V, Fernández Soriano O. Features in comp and syntactic variation: the case of '(de)queísmo' in Spanish. Lingua 2005; 115: 1063-1082.
18. Keller F, Lapata M. Using the web to obtain frequencies for unseen bigrams. Comput Linguist 2003; 29: 459-484.
19. Eu J. Testing search engine frequencies: Patterns of inconsistency. Corpus Linguist Linguist Theory 2008; 4: 177-207.
20. Cowart W. Experimental Syntax: Applying Objective Methods to Sentence Judgments. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 1997.
21. Chomsky N. Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton; 1957.
22. Newmeyer FJ. Grammatical Theory, its Limits and its Possibilities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1983.
23. Sampson GR. Grammar without grammaticality. Corpus Linguist Linguist Theory 2007; 3: 1-32.
24. Hill AA. Grammaticality. Word 1961; 7: 1-10.
25. Hakes DT. The Development of Metalinguistic Abilities in Children. New York: Springer; 1980.
26. Crain S, Thornton R. Investigations in Universal Grammar: A Guide to Experiments on the Acquisition of Syntax and Semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1998.
27. Koster J. Why subject sentences don't exist. In: Keyser SJ, ed. Recent Transformational Studies in European Languages. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1978; 53-64.
28. Stowell TA. Origins of phrase structure. PhD dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA; 1981.
29. Delahunty GP. But sentential subjects do exist. Linguist Anal 1983; 12: 379-398.
30. Bever TG. The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In: Hayes JR, ed. Cognition and the Development of Language. New York: Wiley; 1970; 279-362.
31. McKoon G, Ratcliff R. Meaning through syntax: language comprehension and the reduced relative clause construction. Psychol Rev 2003; 110: 490-525.
32. Frazier L. Syntactic complexity. In: Dowty DD, Karttunen L, Zwicky AM, eds. Natural Language Processing: Psychological, Computational, and Theoretical Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1985; 129-189.
33. Chomsky N, Miller GA. Introduction to the formal analysis of natural languages. In: Luce RD, Bush RR, Galanter E, eds. Handbook of Mathematical Psychology. Vol. 2. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1963; 269-321.
34. Gibson E, Thomas J. Memory limitations and structural forgetting: the perception of complex ungrammatical sentences as grammatical. Lang Cogn Process 1999; 14: 225-248.
35. Montalbetti M. After binding: on the interpretation of pronouns. PhD dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA; 1984.
36. Townsend DJ, Bever TG. Sentence Comprehension: The Integration of Habits and Rules. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2001.
37. Gordon PC, Hendrick R. Intuitive knowledge of linguistic co-reference. Cognition 1997; 62: 325-370.
38. Da̧browska E. Naive v. expert intuitions: an empirical study of acceptability judgments. Linguist Rev. 2010; 27: 1-23.
39. Spencer NJ. Differences between linguists and nonlinguists in intuitions of grammaticality-acceptability. J Psycholinguist Res 1973; 2: 83-98.
40. Valian V. Psycholinguistic experiment and linguistic intuition. In: Simon TW, Scholes RJ, eds. Language, Mind, and Brain. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1982; 179-188.
41. Bard EG, Robertson D, Sorace A. Magnitude estimation of linguistic acceptability. Language 1996; 72: 32-68.
42. Keller F. Gradience in grammar: experimental and computational aspects of degrees of grammaticality. PhD dissertation, University of Edinburgh; 2000.
43. Featherston S. Data in generative grammar: the stick and the carrot. Theor Linguist 2007; 33: 269-318.
44. Sprouse J. A program for experimental syntax: finding the relationship between acceptability and grammatical knowledge. PhD dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park; 2007.
45. Myers J. The design and analysis of small-scale syntactic judgment experiments. Lingua 2009; 119: 425-444.
46. Phillips C, Lasnik H. Linguistics and empirical evidence: reply to Edelman and Christiansen. Trends Cogn Sci 2003; 7: 61-62.
47. Phillips C, Wagers M. Relating structure and time in linguistics and psycholinguistics. In: Gaskell MG, ed. Oxford Handbook of Psycholinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007; 739-756.
48. Likert R. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch Psychol 1932; 140: 1-55.
49. Stevens SS. On the psychophysical law. Psychol Rev 1957; 64: 153-181.
50. Featherston S. Magnitude estimation and what it can do for your syntax: some wh-constraints in German. Lingua 2005; 115: 1525-1550.
51. Sprouse J, Cunningham H. Evaluating the assumptions of magnitude estimation of linguistic acceptability. Ms., University of California at Irvine; 2010.
52. Weskott T, Fanselow G. Scaling issues in the measurement of linguistic acceptability. In: Featherston S, Winkler S, eds. The Fruits of Empirical Linguistics I: Process. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter; 2009; 229-246.
53. Murphy B, Vogel C. An empirical comparison of measurement scales for judgements of acceptability. Poster presented at the International Conference on Linguistic Evidence, University of Tübingen, February; 2008.
54. Featherston S. A scale for measuring well-formedness: why syntax needs boiling and freezing points. In: Featherston S, Winkler S, eds. The Fruits of Empirical Linguistics I: Process. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter; 2009; 47-74.
55. Sorace A, Keller F. Gradience in linguistic data. Lingua 2005; 115: 1497-1524.
56. Featherston S. The decathlon model: design features for an empirical syntax. In: Kepser S, Reis M, eds. Linguistic Evidence: Empirical, Theoretical, and Computational Perspectives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter; 2005; 187-208.
57. Newmeyer FJ. Grammar is grammar and usage is usage. Language 2003; 79: 682-707.
58. Armstrong SL, Gleitman LR, Gleitman H. What some concepts might not be. Cognition 1983; 13: 263-308.
59. Barsalou LW. The instability of graded structure: implications for the nature of concepts. In: Neisser U, ed. Concepts and Conceptual Development: Ecological and Intellectual Factors in Categorization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1987; 101-140.
60. Featherston S. Universals and grammaticality: wh-constraints in German and English. Linguistics 2005; 43: 667-711.
61. Haider H. Deutsche Syntax-Generativ. Tübingen: Narr; 1993.
62. Chomsky N. Conditions on transformations. In: Anderson SR, Kiparsky P, eds. A Festschrift for Morris Halle. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston; 1973; 232-286.
63. Kluender R, Kutas M. Subjacency as a processing phenomenon. Lang Cogn Process 1993; 8: 573-633.
64. Crain S, Fodor JD. How can grammars help parsers? In: Dowty D, Karttunen L, Zwicky A, eds. Natural Language Parsing: Psychological, Computational, and Theoretical Approaches. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1985; 94-128.
65. Stowe LA. Parsing WH-constructions: Evidence for on-line gap location. Lang Cogn Process 1986; 1: 227-245.
66. Sprouse J. The differential sensitivity of acceptability to processing effects. Linguist Inq 2008; 39: 686-694.
67. Fodor JD, Inoue A. The diagnosis and cure of garden paths. J Psycholinguist Res 1994; 23: 407-434.
68. Edelman S, Christiansen MH. How seriously should we take Minimalist syntax? Trends Cogn Sci 2003; 7: 60-61.
69. Dresher E. There's no reality like psychological reality. Glot Int 1995; 1: 7.
70. Bresnan J. Is syntactic knowledge probabilistic? Experiments with the English dative alternation. In: Featherston S, Sternefeld W, eds. Roots: Linguistics in Search of its Evidential Base. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter; 2007; 77-96.
71. Labov W. Empirical foundations of linguistic theory. In: Austerlitz R, ed. The Scope of American Linguistics. Lisse, The Netherlands: Peter de Ridder; 1975; 77-133.
72. Fodor JA, Bever TG. The psychological reality of linguistic segments. J Verbal Learn Verbal Behav 1965; 4: 414-420.
73. Miller GA, Chomsky N. Finitary models of language users. In: Luce RD, Bush RR, Galanter E, eds. Handbook of Mathematical Psychology. Vol. 2. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1963; 419-491.
74. Fodor JA, Bever TG, Garrett MF. The Psychology of Language: An Introduction to Psycholinguistics and Generative Grammar. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1974.
75. Phillips C. Order and structure. PhD dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA: 1996.
76. Chomsky N. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris; 1981.
77. Featherston S. Empty Categories in Sentence Processing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins; 2001.
78. Nicol J, Swinney D, Love T, Hald L. The on-line study of sentence comprehension: an examination of dual task paradigms. J Psycholinguist Res 2006; 35: 215-231.
79. Neville H, Nicol JL, Barss A, Forster KI, Garrett MF. Syntactically-based sentence processing classes: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. J Cogn Neurosci 1991; 3: 151-165.
80. Brennan J, Pylkkänen L. Processing events: behavioral and neuromagnetic correlates of Aspectual Coercion. Brain Lang 2008; 106: 132-143.
81. Pylkkänen L, McElree B. An MEG study of silent meaning. J Cogn Neurosci 2007; 19: 1905-1921.
82. Pylkkänen L, Martin AE, McElree B, Smart A. The anterior midline field: coercion or decision making? Brain Lang 2009; 108: 184-190.
83. Pylkkänen L. Mismatching meanings in brain and behavior. Lang Linguist Compass 2008; 2: 712-738.
84. Berwick RC, Weinberg AS. The Grammatical Basis of Linguistic Performance: Language Use and Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1984.
85. Birdsong D. Metalinguistic Performance and Interlinguistic Competence. New York: Springer; 1989.
86. Borsley RD. Data in theoretical linguistics. Special issue. Lingua 2005; 115: 1475-1665.
87. Botha RP. The Conduct of Linguistic Inquiry: A Systematic Introduction to the Methodology of Generative Grammar. The Hague: Mouton; 1981.
88. Carr P. Linguistic Realities: An Autonomist Metatheory for the Generative Enterprise. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1990.
89. Chomsky N. Some methodological remarks on generative grammar. Word 1961; 17: 219-239.
90. Featherston S, Sternefeld W, eds. Roots: Linguistics in Search of its Evidential Base. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter; 2007.
91. Fillmore CJ, Kempler D, Wang WS, eds. Individual Differences in Language Ability and Language Behavior. New York: Academic Press; 1979.
92. Gerken L, Bever TG. Linguistic intuitions are the result of interactions between perceptual processes and linguistic universals. Cogn Sci 1986; 10: 457-476.
93. Greenbaum S. Good English and the Grammarian. London: Longman; 1988.
94. Kilgarriff A, Grefenstette G. The Web as corpus. Special issue. Comput Linguist 2003; 29: 333-502.
95. Levelt WJM. Formal Grammars in Linguistics and Psycholinguistics. 3 Vols. The Hague: Mouton; 1974.
96. Linebarger MC, Schwartz MF, Saffran EM. Sensitivity to grammatical structure in so-called agrammatic aphasics. Cognition 1983; 13: 361-392.
97. McNair L, Singer K, Dobrin LM, AuCoin MM, eds. CLS 32: Papers from the Parasession on Theory and Data in Linguistics. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society; 1996.
98. Penke M, Rosenbach A. What counts as evidence in linguistics? The case of innateness. Special issue. Stud Lang 2004; 28: 477-747.
99. Perry TA, ed. Evidence and Argumentation in Linguistics. Berlin: de Gruyter; 1979.
100. Sampson GR. Empirical Linguistics. London/New York: Continuum; 2001.
101. Schütze CT. Thinking about what we are asking speakers to do. In: Kepser S, Reis M, eds. Linguistic Evidence: Empirical, Theoretical, and Computational Perspectives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter; 2005; 457-484.