Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

The Linguistic Review

Editor-in-Chief: van der Hulst, Harry


IMPACT FACTOR 2017: 0.558
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.813

CiteScore 2017: 0.56

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.403
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.876

Online
ISSN
1613-3676
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 27, Issue 1

Issues

Naive v. expert intuitions: An empirical study of acceptability judgments

Ewa Dąbrowska
Published Online: 2010-04-21 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.2010.001

Abstract

Judgments about the grammaticality/acceptability of sentences are the most widely used data source in the syntactic literature. Typically, syntacticians rely on their own judgments, or those of a small number of colleagues. Although a number of researchers have argued that this is problematic, there is little research which systematically compares professional linguists' intuitions with those of linguistically naive speakers.

This article examines linguists' and nonlinguists' judgments about one particular structure: questions with long distance dependencies. Linguists' judgments are shown to diverge from those of nonlinguists. These differences could be due to theoretical commitments (the conviction that linguistic processes apply ‘across the board’, and hence all sentences with the same syntactic structure should be equally grammatical) or to differences in exposure (the constructed examples of this structure found in the syntactic literature are very unrepresentative of ordinary usage). Whichever of these explanations turns out to be correct, it is clear that linguists' judgments are not representative of the population as a whole, and hence syntacticians should not rely on their own intuitions when testing their theories.

About the article

Published Online: 2010-04-21

Published in Print: 2010-04-01


Citation Information: The Linguistic Review, Volume 27, Issue 1, Pages 1–23, ISSN (Online) 1613-3676, ISSN (Print) 0167-6318, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.2010.001.

Export Citation

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[1]
[2]
Jordan Zlatev
Cognitive Linguistics, 2016, Volume 27, Number 4, Page 559
[3]
Steven Langsford, Amy Perfors, Andrew T. Hendrickson, Lauren A. Kennedy, and Danielle J. Navarro
Glossa: a journal of general linguistics, 2018, Volume 3, Number 1, Page 37
[5]
Przemysław Tajsner
Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 2017, Volume 53, Number 4
[7]
Neil Bermel, Luděk Knittl, and Jean Russell
Russian Linguistics, 2015, Volume 39, Number 3, Page 283
[9]
Tania Ionin and Eve Zyzik
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 2014, Volume 34, Page 37
[11]
Anna Endresen, Laura A. Janda, Julia Kuznetsova, Olga Lyashevskaya, Anastasia Makarova, Tore Nesset, and Svetlana Sokolova
Scando-Slavica, 2012, Volume 58, Number 2, Page 231
[12]
R. Harald Baayen, Anna Endresen, Laura A. Janda, Anastasia Makarova, and Tore Nesset
Russian Linguistics, 2013, Volume 37, Number 3, Page 253
[14]
Jeffrey Maynes and Steven Gross
Philosophy Compass, 2013, Volume 8, Number 8, Page 714
[15]
Jeffrey Maynes
Linguistics and Philosophy, 2012, Volume 35, Number 5, Page 443
[16]
Klaas Willems
Language Sciences, 2012, Volume 34, Number 6, Page 665
[17]
S. Gross and J. Culbertson
The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 2011, Volume 62, Number 3, Page 639
[18]
Stephen C. Levinson and Nicholas Evans
Lingua, 2010, Volume 120, Number 12, Page 2733
[19]
Edward Gibson and Evelina Fedorenko
Language and Cognitive Processes, 2013, Volume 28, Number 1-2, Page 88
[20]
Shigeto Kawahara
Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 2011, Volume 29, Number 3, Page 705
[21]
Carson T. Schütze
Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 2011, Volume 2, Number 2, Page 206
[22]
Shigeto Kawahara
Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 2011, Volume 20, Number 2, Page 169
[23]
N. J. Enfield
Science, 2010, Volume 329, Number 5999, Page 1600

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in