Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-559fc8cf4f-8sgpw Total loading time: 0.774 Render date: 2021-02-25T17:54:06.494Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

Setting the empirical record straight: Acceptability judgments appear to be reliable, robust, and replicable

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 November 2017

Jon Sprouse
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06269-1145. jon.sprouse@uconn.edu www.sprouse.uconn.edu
Diogo Almeida
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, New York University Abu Dhabi, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. diogo@nyu.edu http://nyuad.nyu.edu/en/academics/faculty/diogo-almeida.html
Corresponding

Abstract

Branigan & Pickering (B&P) advocate the use of syntactic priming to investigate linguistic representations and argue that it overcomes several purported deficiencies of acceptability judgments. While we recognize the merit of drawing attention to a potentially underexplored experimental methodology in language science, we do not believe that the empirical evidence supports B&P's claims about acceptability judgments. We present the relevant evidence.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Adger, D. (2003) Core syntax: A minimalist approach, vol. 33. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cowart, W. (1997) Experimental syntax: Applying objective methods to sentence judgments. Sage.Google Scholar
Culbertson, J. & Gross, S. (2009) Are linguists better subjects? The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 60(4):721–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. (2010) Naive v. Expert intuitions: An empirical study of acceptability judgments. Linguistic Review 27(1):123. doi:10.1515/tlir.2010.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Featherston, S. (2009) Relax, lean back, and be a linguist. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 28(1):127–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelman, A. & Carlin, J. (2014) Beyond power calculations assessing type S (sign) and type M (magnitude) errors. Perspectives on Psychological Science 9(6):641–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Häussler, J., Juzek, T. & Wasow, T. (2016) To be grammatical or not to be grammatical – is that the question? Poster presented at the Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Washington, DC, January 7-10.Google Scholar
Hofmeister, P. & Sag, I. A. (2010) Cognitive constraints and island effects. Language 86(2):366.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kluender, R. & Kutas, M. (1993) Subjacency as a processing phenomenon. Language and Cognitive Processes 8(4):573633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahowald, K., Graff, P., Hartman, J. & Gibson, E. (2016a) SNAP judgments: A small N acceptability paradigm (SNAP) for linguistic acceptability judgments. Language 92(3):619–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, C. (2006) The real-time status of island phenomena. Language 82(4):795823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, C. (2009) Should we impeach armchair linguists? In: Japanese/Korean Linguistics, vol 17, ed. Iwasaki, S., Hoji, H., Clancy, P. M. & Sohn, S.-O., pp. 4964. CSLI Publications, University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J. (2008) The differential sensitivity of acceptability judgments to processing effects. Linguistic Inquiry 39(4):686–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sprouse, J. & Almeida, D. (2012) Assessing the reliability of textbook data in syntax: Adger's core syntax. Journal of Linguistics 48(03):609–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sprouse, J., Schütze, C. T. & Almeida, D. (2013) A comparison of informal and formal acceptability judgments using a random sample from linguistic inquiry 2001–2010. Lingua 134: 219–48. doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2013.07.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sprouse, J., Wagers, M. & Phillips, C. (2012) A test of the relation between working-memory capacity and syntactic island effects. Language 88(1):82123. doi:10.1353/lan.2012.0004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yoshida, M., Kazanina, N., Pablos, L. & Sturt, P. (2014) On the origin of islands. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 29(7):761–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 84
Total number of PDF views: 31 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 10th November 2017 - 25th February 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Setting the empirical record straight: Acceptability judgments appear to be reliable, robust, and replicable
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Setting the empirical record straight: Acceptability judgments appear to be reliable, robust, and replicable
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Setting the empirical record straight: Acceptability judgments appear to be reliable, robust, and replicable
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *