The need for quantitative methods in syntax and semantics research

Language and Cognitive Processes

Volumn 28, Issue 1-2, 2013, Pages 88-124

  Gibson, Edward ^a   Fedorenko, Evelina ^a  

^a MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

Confirmation bias; Semantics; Sentence processing; Syntax

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ARTICLE; COMPREHENSION; DATA COLLECTION METHOD; DECISION MAKING; HUMAN; HYPOTHESIS; INTUITION; LANGUAGE; METHODOLOGY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; SEMANTICS; STANDARD; SYNTAX;

EID: 84873140674     PISSN: 01690965     EISSN: 14640732     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01690965.2010.515080     Document Type: Article

References (80)

1. Allen, V. L. 1965. "Situational factors in conformity". In Advances in experimental social psychology, Edited by: Berkowitz, L. Vol. 2, 133-175. New York: Academic Press.
2. Aoun, J., Hornstein, N., Lightfoot, D. and Weinberg, A. 1987. Two types of locality. Linguistic Inquiry, 18: 537-577.
3. Asch, S. E. 1951. "Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgment". In Groups, leadership and men, Edited by: Guetzkow, H. 177-190. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Press.
4. Baayen, R. H. 2008. Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5. Bard, E. G., Robertson, D. and Sorace, A. 1996. Magnitude estimation of linguistic acceptability. Language, 72: 32-68.
6. Bates, D., Maechler, M., & Dai, B. 2008. lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 0.999375-27. Retrieved fromhttp://www.lme4.r-forge.r-project.org/
7. Bolinger, D. 1978. "Asking more than one thing at a time". In Questions, Edited by: Hiz, H. 107-150. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
8. Bond, R. and Smith, P. 1996. Culture and conformity: A meta-analysis of studies using Asch's (1952b, 1956) line judgment task. Psychological Bulletin, 119: 111-137.
9. Breen, M., Fedorenko, E., Wagner, M. and Gibson, E. 2010. Acoustic correlates of information structure. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25(7/8/9): 1044-1098.
10. Bresnan, J. 2007. A few lessons from typology. Linguistic Typology, 11: 297-306.
11. Bresnan, J. and Nikitina, T. 2009. "The gradience of the dative alternation". In Reality exploration and discovery: Pattern interaction in language and life, Edited by: Uyechi, L. and Wee, L. H. 161-184. Stanford, CA: CSLI.
12. Caramazza, A. 1986. On drawing inferences about the structure of normal cognitive systems from the analysis of patterns of impaired performance: The case for single-patient studies. Brain & Cognition, 5: 41-66.
13. Chomsky, N. 1955/1975. The logical structure of linguistic theory, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
14. Chomsky, N. 1973. "Conditions on transformations". In A festschrift for Morris Halle, Edited by: Anderson, S. and Kiparsky, P. 232-286. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
15. Chomsky, N. 1986. Barriers, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
16. Chomsky, N. and Miller, G. A. 1963. "Introduction to the formal analysis of natural languages". In Handbook of mathematical psychology, Edited by: Luce, R. D, Bush, R. R. and Galanter, E. Vol. 2, 269-321. New York: Wiley.
17. Clifton, C. Jr, Fanselow, G. and Frazier, L. 2006. Amnestying superiority violations: Processing multiple questions. Linguistic Inquiry, 37: 51-68.
18. Cowart, W. 1997. Experimental syntax: Applying objective methods to sentence judgments, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
19. Culicover, P. W. and Jackendoff, R. 2010. Quantitative methods alone are not enough: Response to Gibson and Fedorenko. Trends in Cognitive Science, 14: 234-235.
20. Dabrowska, E. 2010. Naïve v. expert intuitions: An empirical study of acceptability judgments. The Lingusitic Review, 27: 1-23.
21. Edelman, S. and Christiansen, M. 2003. How seriously should we take Minimalist syntax?. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7: 60-61.
22. Evans, J., St, B. T., Barston, J. L. and Pollard, P. 1983. On the conflict between logic and belief in syllogistic reasoning. Memory and Cognition, 11: 295-306.
23. Fanselow, G. 2007. Carrots-perfect as vegetables, but please not as a main dish. Theoretical Linguistics, 33: 353-367.
24. Fanselow, G., Schlesewksy, M., Vogel, R., & Weskott, T. 2010. Animacy effects on crossing wh-movement in German. Manuscript submitted for publication.
25. Featherston, S. 2005. Magnitude estimation and what it can do for your syntax: Some wh-constraints in German. Lingua, 115(11): 1525-1550.
26. Featherston, S. 2007. Data in generative grammar: The stick and the carrot. Theoretical Linguistics, 33: 269-318.
27. Fedorenko, E., & Gibson, E. (in press). Adding a third wh-phrase does not increase the acceptability of object-initial multiple-wh-questions. Syntax.
28. Fedorenko, E., & Gibson, E. 2010a. Syntactic parallelism as an account of superiority effects: Empirical investigations in English and Russian. Manuscript submitted for publication.
29. Fedorenko, E., & Gibson, E. 2010b. Wh-phrase order effects in multiple-wh-questions are contingent on the interpretation. Manuscript submitted for publication.
30. Ferreira, F. 2005. Psycholinguistics, formal grammars, and cognitive science. The Linguistic Review, 22: 365-380.
31. Frank, M. C., & Gibson, E. (in press). Resource dependence of artificial rule learning. Language Learning and Development.
32. Frank, M. C., Tily, H., Arnon, I., & Goldwater, S. 2010. Beyond transitional probabilities: Human learners impose a parsimony bias in statistical word segmentation. In: S. Ohlsson & R. Catrambone Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 760-765), Portland, OR, August 11-14, 2010.
33. Fukuda, S., Michel, D., Beecher, H., & Goodall, G. 2010. Comparing three methods for sentence judgment experiments. LSA Annual Meeting, Baltimore, MD, January 8, 2010.
34. Gibson, E. 1991. A computational theory of human linguistic processing: Memory limitations and processing breakdown. Doctoral dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.
35. Gibson, E. 1998. Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68: 1-76.
36. Gibson, E. 2000. The dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. In Y. Miyashita, A. Marantz, & W. O'Neil Image, language, brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
37. Gibson, E., Desmet, T., Grodner, D., Watson, D. and Ko, K. 2005. Reading relative clauses in English. Cognitive Linguistics, 16: 313-354.
38. Gibson, E. and Fedorenko, E. 2010a. Weak quantitative standards in linguistics research. Trends in Cognitive Science, 14: 233-234.
39. Gibson, E., & Fedorenko, E. 2010b. Control structures in syntax research: A response to Culicover and Jackendoff. Manuscript submitted for publication.
40. Gibson, E., Fedorenko, E., Ichinco, D., Piantadosi, S., Twarog, N., & Troyer, M. 2009. Quantitative investigations of syntactic representations and processes. Talk presented at the workshop on formal vs. processing explanations of syntactic phenomena, University of York, UK, April 28, 2009.
41. Gibson, E. and Pearlmutter, N. 1998. Constraints on sentence comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Society, 2: 262-268.
42. Gibson, E. and Thomas, J. 1996. "The processing complexity of English center-embedded and self-embedded structures". In Proceedings of the NELS 26 sentence processing workshop, MIT occasional papers in linguistics 9, Edited by: Schütze, C. 45-71. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
43. Gibson, E., & Thomas, J. 1997. Processing load judgments in English: Evidence for the Syntactic Prediction Locality Theory of syntactic complexity. Unpublished manuscript, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
44. Gordon, P. C., Hendrick, R. and Johnson, M. 2001. Memory interference during language processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27(6): 1411-1423.
45. Grewendorf, G. 2007. Empirical evidence and theoretical reasoning in generative grammar. Theoretical Linguistics, 33: 369-380.
46. Grodner, D. and Gibson, E. 2005. Consequences of the serial nature of linguistic input. Cognitive Science, 29(2): 261-290.
47. Hakes, B., Evans, J. and Brannon, L. 1976. Understanding sentences with relative clauses. Memory and Cognition, 4: 283-296.
48. Holmes, V. 1973. Order of main and subordinate clauses in sentence perception. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12: 285-293.
49. Kayne, R. 1983. Connectedness. Linguistic Inquiry, 14: 223-249.
50. Keller, F. 2000. Gradience in grammar: Experimental and computational aspects of degrees of grammaticality. Doctoral dissertation, University of Edinburgh, UK.
51. Krifka, M. 2001. Lexical representations and the nature of the dative alternation. Talk presented at the University of Amsterdam, November 11, 2001.
52. Kuno, S. and Robinson, J. 1972. Multuple wh-questions. Linguistic Inquiry, 3: 463-487.
53. Labov, W. 1975. "Empirical foundations of linguistic theory". In The scope of American linguistics, Edited by: Austerlitz, R. 77-134. Lisse: Peter de Ridder Press.
54. Labov, W. 1996. When intuitions fail. Chicago Linguistic Society, 32(2): 77-106.
55. Lasnik, H. and Saito, M. 1984. On the nature of proper government. Linguistic Inquiry, 15: 235-289.
56. Levin, B. 1993. English verb classes and alternations. A preliminary investigation, Cambridge, MA: MIT.
57. Lewis, R. L. and Vasishth, S. 2005. An activation-based model of sentence processing as skilled memory retrieval. Cognitive Science, 29: 375-419.
58. Lewis, R., Vasishth, S. and Van Dyke, J. 2006. Computational principles of working memory in sentence comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(10): 447-454.
59. Marantz, A. 2005. Generative linguistics within the cognitive neuroscience of language. The Linguistic Review, 22: 429-445.
60. Milgram, S. 1963. Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67: 371-378.
61. Munro, R., Bethard, S., Kuperman, V., Lai, V. T., Melnick, R., Potts, C., Tily, H. 2010. Crowdsourcing and language studies: The new generation of linguistic data. Proceedings of Workshop at NAACL 2010 'Creating Speech and Text Language Data with Amazon's Mechanical Turk, June 6, 2010.
62. Myers, J. 2009. Syntactic judgment experiments. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3: 406-423.
63. Nickerson, R. S. 1998. Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2: 175-220.
64. Patel, P., Grosz, P., Fedorenko, E., & Gibson, E. 2009. Experimental evidence against a strict version of the formal link condition on E-Type pronouns. Poster presented at the 22nd CUNY conference on sentence processing, University of California, Davis, March 26, 2009.
65. Pesetsky, D. 1987. "Wh-in-situ: Movement and unselective binding". In The representation of (In)definiteness, Edited by: Reuland, E. and ter Meulen, A. 98-129. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
66. Pesetsky, D. 2000. Phrasal movement and its kin, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
67. Phillips, C. 2009. "Should we impeach armchair linguists?". In Japanese-Korean Linguistics, Edited by: Iwasaki, S., Hoji, H., Clancy, P. and Sohn, S.-O. Vol. 17, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
68. Pinker, S. 1989. Learnability and cognition. The acquisition of argument structure, Cambridge, MA: MIT.
69. R Core Development Team. 2008. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available from http://www.R-project.org
70. Richards, N. 2001. Movement in language, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
71. Roberts, I. G. 2008. The mystery of the overlooked discipline: Modern syntactic theory and cognitive science. Unpublished manuscript, University of Cambridge.
72. Schütze, C. 1996. The empirical base of linguistics: Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
73. Scontras, G., & Gibson, E. 2010. A quantitative investigation of the imperative-and-declarative construction in English. Manuscript submitted for publication.
74. Sorace, A. and Keller, F. 2005. Gradience in linguistic data. Lingua, 115: 1497-1524.
75. Warren, T. and Gibson, E. 2002. The influence of referential processing on sentence complexity. Cognition, 85: 79-112.
76. Wason, P. C. 1960. On the failure to eliminate hypotheses in a conceptual task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 12: 129-140.
77. Wasow, T. and Arnold, J. 2005. Intuitions in linguistic argumentation. Lingua, 115: 1481-1496.
78. Weskott, T. and Fanselow, G. 2008. "Variance and informativity in different measures of linguistic acceptability". In Proceedings of the 27th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL), Edited by: Abner, N. and Bishop, J. 431-439. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
79. Weskott, T. and Fanselow, G. 2009. "Scaling issues in the measurement of linguistic acceptability". In The fruits of empirical linguistics. Vol. 1: Process, Edited by: Featherston, S. and Winkler, S. 229-245. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
80. Yngve, V. H. 1960. A model and an hypothesis for language structure. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 104: 444-466.