Hostname: page-component-77c78cf97d-4gwwn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-03T17:02:21.975Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Acceptability judgments still matter: Deafness and documentation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 November 2017

Matthew L. Hall
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06269-1145. matthall.research@gmail.com http://matthallresearch.com
Rachel I. Mayberry
Affiliation:
Linguistics Department, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92037. rmayberry@ucsd.edu http://mayberrylab.ucsd.edu/
Victor S. Ferreira
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92037. vferreira@ucsd.edu http://lpl.ucsd.edu/

Abstract

The target article's call to end reliance on acceptability judgments is premature. First, it restricts syntactic inquiry to cases were a semantically equivalent alternative is available. Second, priming studies require groups of participants who are linguistically homogenous and whose grammar is known to the researcher. These requirements would eliminate two major research areas: syntactic competence in d/Deaf individuals, and language documentation. (We follow the convention of using deaf to describe hearing levels, Deaf to describe cultural identity, and d/Deaf to include both. Our own work has focused on Deaf signers, but the same concerns could apply to other deaf populations.)

Information

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. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable