A test of the cognitive assumptions of magnitude estimation: Commutativity does not hold for acceptability judgments

Language

Volumn 87, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 274-289

  Sprouse, Jon ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Acceptability judgments; Commutativity; Experimental syntax; Magnitude estimation; Multiplicativity

Indexed keywords

EID: 80051603526     PISSN: 00978507     EISSN: 15350665     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1353/lan.2011.0028     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. BADER, MARKUS, and JANA HÄUSSLER. 2010. Toward a model of grammaticality judgments. Journal of Linguistics 46.273-330.
2. BARD, ELLEN GURMAN; DAN ROBERTSON; and ANTONELLA SORACE. 1996. Magnitude estimation of linguistic acceptability. Language 72.32-68.
3. COWART, WAYNE. 1997. Experimental syntax: Applying objective methods to sentence judgments. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
4. ELLERMEIER, WOLFGANG, and GÜNTHER FAULHAMMER. 2000. Empirical evaluation of axioms fundamental to Stevens's ratio-scaling approach: I. Loudness production. Perception & Psychophysics 62.1505-11.
5. FEATHERSTON, SAM. 2005a. Magnitude estimation and what it can do for your syntax: Some WH-constraints in German. Lingua 115.1525-50.
6. FEATHERSTON, SAM. 2005b. Universals and grammaticality: WH-constraints in German and English. Linguistics 43.667-711.
7. FEATHERSTON, SAM. 2008. Thermometer judgments as linguistic evidence. Was ist linguistische Evidenz?, ed. by Claudia Maria Riehl and Astrid Rothe, 69-90. Aachen: Shaker.
8. GIBSON, EDWARD, and JAMES THOMAS. 1999. Memory limitations and structural forgetting: The perception of complex ungrammatical sentences as grammatical. Language and Cognitive Processes 14.225-48.
9. KELLER, FRANK. 2000. Gradience in grammar: Experimental and computational aspects of degrees of grammaticality. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh dissertation.
10. KELLER, FRANK. 2003. A psychophysical law for linguistic judgments. Proceedings of the 25th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society, ed. by Richard Alterman and David Kirsh, 652-57. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
11. KING, JONATHAN, and MARCEL A. JUST. 1991. Individual differences in syntactic processing: The role of working memory. Journal of Memory and Language 30.580-602.
12. LUCE, R. DUNCAN. 2002. A psychophysical theory of intensity proportions, joint presentations, and matches. Psychological Review 109.520-32.
13. MERKEL, JULIUS. 1888. Die Abhängigkeit zwischen Reiz und Empfindung. Philosophische Studien 4.541-94.
14. MYERS, JAMES. 2009. The design and analysis of small-scale syntactic judgment experiments. Lingua 119.425-44.
15. NARENS, LOUIS. 1996.Atheory of ratio magnitude estimation. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 40.109-29.
16. ONGHENA, PATRICK, and EUGENE EDGINGTON. 2007. Randomization tests. 4th edn. New York: Chapman and Hall.
17. R DEVELOPMENT CORE TEAM. 2009. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Online: http://www.R-project.org.
18. RICHARDSON, LEWIS F. 1929. Imagery, conation, and cerebral conductance. Journal of General Psychology 2.324-52.
19. SCHÜTZE, CARSON T. 1996. The empirical base of linguistics: Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
20. SPROUSE, JON. 2007. A program for experimental syntax: Finding the relationship between acceptability and grammatical knowledge. College Park: University of Maryland dissertation.
21. SPROUSE, JON. 2011. A validation of Amazon Mechanical Turk for the collection of acceptability judgments in linguistic theory. Behavior Research Methods 43.155-67.
22. SPROUSE, JON; MATT WAGERS; and COLIN PHILLIPS. 2011. A test of the relation between working memory capacity and syntactic island effects. Language, to appear.
23. STEVENS, STANLEY S. 1956. The direct estimation of sensory magnitudes: Loudness. American Journal of Psychology 69.1-25.
24. STEVENS, STANLEY S. 1957. On the psychophysical law. Psychological Review 64.153-81.
25. WAGERS, MATT; ELLEN LAU; and COLIN PHILLIPS. 2009. Agreement attraction in comprehension: Representations and processes. Journal of Memory and Language 61.206-37.
26. WESKOTT, THOMAS, and GISBERT FANSELOW. 2011. On the informativity of different measures of linguistic acceptability. Language 87.249-73.
27. ZIMMER, KARIN. 2005. Examining the validity of numerical ratios in loudness fractionation. Perception & Psychophysics 67.569-79.