Assessing the reliability of textbook data in syntax: Adger's Core Syntax

Journal of Linguistics

Volumn 48, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 609-652

  Sprouse, Jon ^a   Almeida, Diogo ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84868273866     PISSN: 00222267     EISSN: 14697742     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0022226712000011     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. Adger, David. 2003. Core syntax: A Minimalist approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2. Alexopoulou, Theodora & Frank Keller. 2007. Locality, cyclicity and resumption: At the interface between the grammar and the human sentence processor. Language 83, 110-160.
3. Baayen, R. Harald. 2007. Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
4. Baayen, R. Harald, Douglas J. Davidson & Douglas M. Bates. 2008. Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language 59, 390-412.
5. Bader, Marcus & Jana Häussler. 2010. Toward a model of grammaticality judgments. Journal of Linguistics 46, 273-330.
6. Bard, Ellen G., Dan Robertson & Antonella Sorace. 1996. Magnitude estimation of linguistic acceptability. Language 72, 32-68. (Pubitemid 126421022)
7. Chomsky, Noam. 1955/1957. The logical structure of linguistic theory. New York: Plenum Press.
8. Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
9. Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
10. Cohen, Jacob. 1962. The statistical power of abnormal social psychological research: A review. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 65, 145-153.
11. Cohen, Jacob. 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
12. Cohen, Jacob. 1992. Statistical power analysis. Current Directions in Psychological Science 1, 98-101.
13. Cowart, Wayne. 1997. Experimental syntax: Applying objective methods to sentence judgments. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
14. Culbertson, Jennifer & Steven Gross. 2009. Are linguists better subjects? British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 60, 721-736.
15. Culicover, Peter W. & Ray Jackendoff. 2010. Quantitative methods alone are not enough: Response to Gibson & Fedorenko. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 14, 234-235.
16. Dabrowska, Ewa. 2010. Näive v. expert intuitions: An empirical study of acceptability judgments. The Linguistic Review 27, 1-23.
17. den Dikken, Marcel, Judy Bernstein, Christina Tortora & Rafaella Zanuttini. 2007. Data and grammar: Means and individuals. Theoretical Linguistics 33, 335-352.
18. Edelman, Shimon & Morten Christiansen. 2003. How seriously should we take Minimalist syntax? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7, 60-61.
19. Fanselow, Gisbert. 2007. Carrots-perfect as vegetables, but please not as a main dish. Theoretical Linguistics 33, 353-367.
20. Featherston, Sam. 2005a. Magnitude estimation and what it can do for your syntax: Some wh-constraints in German. Lingua 115, 1525-1550.
21. Featherston, Sam. 2005b. Universals and grammaticality: Wh-constraints in German and English. Linguistics 43, 667-711.
22. Featherston, Sam. 2007. Data in generative grammar: The stick and the carrot. Theoretical Linguistics 33, 269-318.
23. Featherston, Sam. 2008. Thermometer judgments as linguistic evidence. In Claudia Maria Riehl & Astrid Rothe (eds.), Was ist linguistische evidenz?, 69-90. Aachen: Shaker Verlag.
24. Featherston, Sam. 2009. Relax, lean back, and be a linguist. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 28, 127-132.
25. Ferreira, Fernanda. 2005. Psycholinguistics, formal grammars, and cognitive science. The Linguistic Review 22, 365-380.
26. Gallistel, Randy. 2009. The importance of proving the null. Psychological Review 116, 439-53.
27. Gibson, Edward. 1991. A computational theory of human linguistic processing: Memory limitations and processing breakdown. Ph.D. dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University.
28. Gibson, Edward & Evelina Fedorenko. 2010. Weak quantitative standards in linguistics research. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 14, 233-234.
29. Gibson, Edward & Evelina Fedorenko. In Press. The need for quantitative methods in syntax and semantics research. Language and Cognitive Processes, doi:10.1080/01690965.2010.515080. Published online by Taylor & Francis, 4 May 2011.
30. Gibson, Edward, Steve Piantadosi & Kristina Fedorenko. 2011. Using Mechanical Turk to obtain and analyze English acceptability judgments. Language and Linguistics Compass 5, 509-524.
31. Grewendorf, Günter. 2007. Empirical evidence and theoretical reasoning in generative grammar. Theoretical Linguistics 33, 369-381.
32. Gross, Steven & Jennifer Culbertson. 2011. Revisited linguistic intuitions. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 62, 639-656.
33. Haider, Hubert. 2007. As a matter of facts-comments on Featherston's sticks and carrots. Theoretical Linguistics 33, 381-395.
34. Hill, Archibald A. 1961. Grammaticality. Word 17, 1-10.
35. Hofmeister, Philip, T. Florian Jaeger, Inbal Arnon, Ivan A. Sag & Neal Snider. In Press. The source ambiguity problem: Distinguishing the effects of grammar and processing on acceptability judgments. Language and Cognitive Processes, doi: 10.1080/01690965.2011.572401. Published online by Taylor & Francis, 18 October 2011.
36. Jeffreys, Harold. 1961. Theory of probability. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
37. Kayne, Richard S. 1983. Connectedness. Linguistic Inquiry 14, 223-249.
38. Keller, Frank. 2000. Gradience in grammar: Experimental and computational aspects of degrees of grammaticality. PhD. dissertation, University of Edinburgh.
39. Keller, Frank. 2003. A psychophysical law for linguistic judgments. In Richard Alterman & David Kirsh (eds.), The 25th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 652-657. Boston.
40. Myers, James. 2009. Syntactic judgment experiments. Language and Linguistics Compass 3, 406-423.
41. Newmeyer, Frederick J. 2007. Commentary on Sam Featherston, 'Data in generative grammar: The stick and the carrot'. Theoretical Linguistics 33, 395-399.
42. Nickerson, Raymond. 2000. Null hypothesis significance testing: A review of an old and continuing controversy. Psychological Methods 5, 241-301.
43. Pesetsky, David. 1987. WH-in-situ: Movement and unselective binding. In Eric Reuland & Alice G. B. ter Meulen (eds.), The linguistic representation of (in)definiteness, 98-129. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
44. Phillips, Colin. 2009. Should we impeach armchair linguists? In Shoishi Iwasaki, Hajime Hoji, Patricia Clancy & Sung-Ock Sohn (eds.), Japanese/Korean Linguistics 17. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
45. Phillips, Colin & Howard Lasnik. 2003. Linguistics and empirical evidence: Reply to Edelman and Christiansen. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7, 61-62.
46. Rouder, Jeffrey N., Paul L. Speckman, Dongchu Sun, Richard D. Morey & Geoffrey Iverson. 2009. Bayesian t-tests for accepting and rejecting the null hypothesis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 16, 225-237.
47. Schütze, Carson. 1996. The empirical base of linguistics: Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
48. Schütze, Carson & Jon Sprouse. In Press. Judgment data. In Devyani Sharma & Rob Podesva (eds.), Research methods in linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
49. Sorace, Antonella & Frank Keller. 2005. Gradience in linguistic data. Lingua 115, 1497-1524. (Pubitemid 40405141)
50. Spencer, N. J. 1973. Differences between linguists and nonlinguists in intuitions of grammati-cality-acceptability. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 2, 83-98.
51. Sprouse, Jon. 2007a. A program for experimental syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland.
52. Sprouse, Jon. 2007b. Continuous acceptability, categorical grammaticality, and experimental syntax. Biolinguistics 1, 118-129.
53. Sprouse, Jon. 2008. The differential sensitivity of acceptability to processing effects. Linguistic Inquiry 39, 686-694.
54. Sprouse, Jon. 2009. Revisiting satiation: Evidence for an equalization response strategy. Linguistic Inquiry 40, 329-341.
55. Sprouse, Jon. 2011a. A validation of Amazon Mechanical Turk for the collection of acceptability judgments in linguistic theory. Behavior Research Methods 43, 155-167.
56. Sprouse, Jon. 2011b. A test of the cognitive assumptions of Magnitude Estimation: Commutativity does not hold for acceptability judgments. Language 87, 274-288.
57. Sprouse, Jon & Diogo Almeida. 2012. The role of experimental syntax in an integrated cognitive science of language. In Kleanthes Grohmann & Cedric Boeckx (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of biolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
58. Sprouse, Jon & Diogo Almeida. 2011. Power in acceptability judgment experiments and the reliability of data in syntax. Ms., University of California, Irvine & Michigan State University.
59. Sprouse, Jon, Shin Fukuda, Hajime Ono & Robert Kluender. 2011. Grammatical operations, parsing processes, and the nature of wh-dependencies in English and Japanese. Syntax 14, 179-203.
60. Sprouse, Jon, Carson Schütze & Diogo Almeida. 2011. Assessing the reliability of journal data in syntax: Linguistic Inquiry 2001-2010. Ms., University of California, Irvine; University of California, Los Angeles & Michigan State University.
61. Sprouse, Jon, Matt Wagers & Colin Phillips. 2012. A test of the relation between working memory capacity and island effects. Language 88.1.
62. Stevens, Stanley Smith. 1957. On the psychophysical law. Psychological Review 64, 153-181.
63. Wasow, Thomas & Jennifer Arnold. 2005. Intuitions in linguistic argumentation. Lingua 115, 1481-1496. (Pubitemid 40405140)
64. Weskott, Thomas & Gisbert Fanselow. 2011. On the informativity of different measures of linguistic acceptability. Language 87, 249-273.
65. Wetzels, Ruud, Jeroen G. W. Raaijmakers, Emöke Jakab & Eric-Jan Wagenmakers. 2009. How to quantify support for and against the null hypothesis: A flexible WinBUGS implementation of a default Bayesian t-test. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 16, 752-760.