Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T17:02:29.788Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

1 - Sentence Acceptability Experiments: What, How, and Why

from Part I - General Issues in Acceptability Experiments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2021

By
Grant Goodall
Edited by
Grant Goodall
Grant Goodall
Affiliation:
University of California, San Diego
Get access

Summary

The notion of acceptability has played a crucial role in linguistics. Formal sentence acceptability experiments are relatively recent, but standardly make use of a factorial design, multiple lexicalizations of the stimuli, full counterbalancing of the stimuli, well-designed filler items, and an appropriate response method. Such experiments are sensitive to grammaticality, of course, but also to the presence of a dependency, the length of the dependency, and the frequency of the lexical items and structures. These experiments are useful for testing claims of (un)acceptability, but also for making cross-linguistic comparisons and comparing populations of speakers. Formal acceptability experiments are similar to traditional methods of collecting acceptability judgments, but each can do things that the other cannot and both have important roles to play in syntactic research.

Keywords

acceptability experimentsfactorial designcounterbalancingfillersresponse methoddependency lengthfrequencycross-linguistic syntax
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Syntax , pp. 7 - 38
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

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.)

References

Alexopoulou, T. & Keller, F. (2007). Locality, cyclicity, and resumption: At the interface between the grammar and the human sentence processor. Language, 83(1), 110–160.Google Scholar
Beltrama, A. & Xiang, M. (2016). Unacceptable but comprehensible: The facilitation effect of resumptive pronouns. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 1(1), 29. DOI:10.5334/gjgl.24Google Scholar
Bermel, N. & Knittl, L. (2012). Corpus frequency and acceptability judgments: A study of morphosyntactic variants in Czech. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 8(2), 241–275.Google Scholar
Bever, T. G., Carrithers, C., Cowart, W., & Townsend, D. J. (1989). Language processing and familial handedness. In Galaburda, A. M., ed., From Reading to Neurons. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 331–360.Google Scholar
Bolinger, D. (1978). Asking more than one thing at a time. In Hiz, H., ed., Questions. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. & Ford, M. (2010). Predicting syntax: Processing dative constructions in American and Australian varieties of English. Language, 86(1), 168–213.Google Scholar
Carlsson, A. M. (1983). Assessment of chronic pain. I. Aspects of the reliability and validity of the visual analogue scale. Pain, 16(1), 87–101.Google Scholar
Chacón, D. A. (2015). Comparative psychosyntax. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1977). On Wh-movement. In Culicover, P., Akmajian, A., & Wasow, T., eds., Formal Syntax. New York: Academic Press, pp. 71–132.Google Scholar
Cole, P. & Hermon, G. (1998). The typology of wh‐movement and wh‐questions in Malay. Syntax, 1(3), 221–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, P. & Hermon, G. (2000). Partial Wh-Movement: Evidence from Malay. In Lutz, U., Müller, G., & Von Stechow, A., eds., Wh-scope Marking. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 101–130.Google Scholar
Cowart, W. (1997). Experimental Syntax. New York: Sage.Google Scholar
Culicover, P. W. & Jackendoff, R. (2010). Quantitative methods alone are not enough: Response to Gibson and Fedorenko. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(6), 234–235.Google Scholar
Davidson, R. J. (1992). Anterior cerebral asymmetry and the nature of emotion. Brain and Cognition, 20, 125–151.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dehaene, S., Bossini, S., & Giraux, P. (1993). The mental representation of parity and number magnitude. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122(3), 371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dworkin, R. H., Turk, D. C., Wyrwich, K. W., Beaton, D., Cleeland, C. S., Farrar, J. T., & Brandenburg, N. (2008). Interpreting the clinical importance of treatment outcomes in chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Journal of Pain, 9(2), 105–121.Google Scholar
Fanselow, G. (2017). Partial wh‐movement. In Everaert, M. & Van Riemsdijk, H. C., eds., The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, 2nd edn. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Featherston, S. (2005). Universals and grammaticality: Wh-constraints in German and English. Linguistics, 43(4), 667–711.Google Scholar
Fedorenko, E. & Gibson, E. (2010). Adding a third wh‐phrase does not increase the acceptability of object‐initial multiple‐wh‐questions. Syntax, 13(3), 183–195.Google Scholar
Fiengo, R. & Higginbotham, J. (1981). Opacity in NP. Linguistic Analysis, 7, 347–373.Google Scholar
Fisher, R. A. (1935). The logic of inductive inference. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 98(1), 39–82.Google Scholar
Forouzanfar, T., Weber, W. E., Kemler, M., & van Kleef, M. (2003). What is a meaningful pain reduction in patients with complex regional pain syndrome type 1? Clinical Journal of Pain, 19(5), 281–285.Google Scholar
Fukuda, S. (2012). Aspectual verbs as functional heads: evidence from Japanese aspectual verbs. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 30(4), 965–1026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fukuda, S. (2017). Split intransitivity in Japanese is syntactic: Evidence for the Unaccusative Hypothesis from sentence acceptability and truth value judgment experiments. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 2(1), 28. DOI:10.5334/gjgl.268Google Scholar
Gallego, Á. (2009). On freezing effects. Iberia: An International Journal of Theoretical Linguistics, 1(1), 33–51.Google Scholar
Garrod, S. (2006). Psycholinguistic research methods. In Brown, K., ed., Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 251–257.Google Scholar
Gibson, E. & Fedorenko, E. (2010). Weak quantitative standards in linguistics research. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(6), 233.Google Scholar
Gibson, E. & Fedorenko, E. (2013). The need for quantitative methods in syntax and semantics research. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(1–2), 88–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, E., Piantadosi, S. T., & Fedorenko, E. (2013). Quantitative methods in syntax/semantics research: A response to Sprouse and Almeida (2013). Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(3), 229–240.Google Scholar
Goodall, G. (2015). The D-linking effect on extraction from islands and non-islands. Frontiers in Psychology: Language Sciences, 5, 1493. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01493Google Scholar
Goodall, G. (2017). Referentiality and resumption in wh-dependencies. In Ostrove, J., Kramer, R., & Sabbagh, J., eds., Asking the Right Questions: Essays in Honor of Sandra Chun, pp. 65–80. eScholarship, University of California. http://escholarship.org/uc/item/8255v8scGoogle Scholar
Grewendorf, G. (1988). Aspekte der deutschen Syntax. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Guajardo, G. & Goodall, G. (2019). On the status of Concordantia Temporum in Spanish: An experimental approach. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 4(1), 116. DOI:10.5334/gjgl.749Google Scholar
Harvey, B. M., Klein, B. P., Petridou, N., & Dumoulin, S. O. (2013) Topographic representation of numerosity in the human parietal cortex. Science, 341(6150), 1123–1126.Google Scholar
Hofmeister, P., Culicover, P., & Winkler, S. (2015). Effects of processing on the acceptability of “frozen” extraposed constituents. Syntax, 18(4), 464–483.Google Scholar
Hofmeister, P., Staum Casasanto, L., & Sag, I. A. (2014). Processing effects in linguistic judgment data: (Super-)additivity and reading span scores. Language and Cognition, 6(1), 111–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Householder, F. W. (1973). On arguments from asterisks. Foundations of Language, l0(3), 365–376.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. (1983). Connectedness. Linguistic Inquiry, 14, 223–249.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. S. (1984). Connectedness and Binary Branching. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Keffala, B. (2011). Resumption and gaps in English relative clauses: Relative acceptability creates an illusion of “saving.” In Cathcart, C. et al., eds., Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp. 140–154.Google Scholar
Keffala, B. & Goodall, G. (2011). Do resumptive pronouns ever rescue illicit gaps in English? Poster presented at the 24th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, Stanford, California.Google Scholar
Keffala, B. & Goodall, G. (2013). On processing difficulty and the acceptability of resumptive pronouns. Paper presented at Linguistic Evidence – Berlin Special, Humboldt-Universität, Berlin.Google Scholar
Kim, B. & Goodall, G. (2016). Islands and non-islands in native and heritage Korean. Frontiers in Psychology: Language Sciences, 7. DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, D. & Goodall, G. (2018). Complexity effects in A- and A’-dependencies. Poster presented at 31st CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, UC Davis.Google Scholar
Langsford, S., Perfors, A., Hendrickson, A. T., Kennedy, L. A., & Navarro, D. J. (2018). Quantifying sentence acceptability measures: Reliability, bias, and variability. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 3(1), 37. DOI: 10.5334/gjgl.396Google Scholar
Lasnik, H. & Saito, M. (1992). Move Alpha: Conditions on Its Application and Output. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, S. & Phillips, C. (2015). Aligning grammatical theories and language processing models. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 44(1), 27–46.Google Scholar
Mahowald, K., Graff, P., Hartman, J., & Gibson, E. (2016). SNAP judgments: A small N acceptability paradigm (SNAP) for linguistic acceptability judgments. Language, 92(3), 619–635.Google Scholar
Michel, D. (2014). Individual cognitive measures and working memory accounts of syntactic island phenomena. Doctoral dissertation, University of Calfiornia, San Diego.Google Scholar
Müller, G. (2010). On deriving CED effects from the PIC. Linguistic Inquiry, 41(1), 35–82.Google Scholar
Myers, J. (2009). Syntactic judgment experiments. Language & Linguistics Compass, 3(1), 406–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myers, J. (2017). Acceptability judgments. In Aronoff, M., ed., Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.333Google Scholar
Namboodiripad, S. (2017). An experimental approach to variation and variability in constituent order. Doctoral dissertation, University of Calfiornia, San Diego.Google Scholar
Natale, M., Gur, R. E., & Gur, R. C. (1983). Hemispheric asymmetries in processing emotional expressions. Neuropsychologia, 19, 609–613.Google Scholar
Omaki, A., Fukuda, S., Nakao, C., & Polinsky, M. (2020). Subextraction in Japanese and subject–object symmetry. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 38, 627–669.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David M. (1971). Deep and Surface Structure Constraints in Syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. (2017). Complementizer‐trace effects. In Everaert, M. & Van Riemsdijk, H. C., eds., The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Phillips, C. (2009). Should we impeach armchair linguists? Japanese/Korean Linguistics, 17, 49–64.Google Scholar
Phillips, C. & Wagers, M. (2007). Relating structure and time in linguistics and psycholinguistics. In Levelt, P. & Caramazza, A., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Psycholinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 739–756.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M., Clemens, L. E., Morgan, A. M., Xiang, M., & Heestand, D. (2013). Resumption in English. In Sprouse, J. & Hornstein, N., eds., Experimental Syntax and Island Effects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ritchart, A., Goodall, G., & Garellek, M. (2016). Prosody and the that-trace effect: An experimental study. In Kim, K. et al., eds., Proceedings of the 33rd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 320–328.Google Scholar
Saddy, D. (1991). Wh-scope mechanisms in Bahasa Indonesia. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 15, 183–218.Google Scholar
Sag, I., Hofmeister, P., & Snider, N. (2007). Processing complexity in subjacency violations: the complex noun phrase constraint. In Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 215–229.Google Scholar
Schütze, C. T. (2016). The Empirical Base of Linguistics: Grammaticality Judgments and Linguistic Methodology. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Schütze, C. & Sprouse, J. (2014). Judgment data. In Podesva, R. & Sharma, D., eds., Research Methods in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 27–51.Google Scholar
Sedarous, Y. & Namboodiripad, S. (2020). Using audio stimuli in acceptability judgment experiments. Language and Linguistics Compass, 14:e12377. DOI: 10.1111/lnc3.12377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sprouse, J. & Almeida, D. (2012). Assessing the reliability of textbook data in syntax: Adger’s Core Syntax. Journal of Linguistics, 48(3), 609–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sprouse, J. & Almeida, D. (2017). Design sensitivity and statistical power in acceptability judgment experiments. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 2(1). DOI:10.5334/gjgl.236Google 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, 219–248.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J., Wagers, M., & Phillips, C. (2012). A test of the relation between working-memory capacity and syntactic island effects. Language, 88(1), 82–123.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J., Caponigro, I., Greco, C., & Cecchetto, C. (2016). Experimental syntax and the variation of island effects in English and Italian. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 34(1), 307–344.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J., Fukuda, S., Ono, H., & Kluender, R. (2011). Reverse island effects and the backward search for a licensor in multiple wh-questions. Syntax, 14(2), 179–203.Google Scholar
Stevens, S. S. (1946). On the Theory of Scales of Measurement. Science, 103(2684), 677–680.Google Scholar
Torrego, E. (1985). On empty categories in nominals. Unpublished manuscript, University of Massachusetts, Boston.Google Scholar
Zorzi, M., Priftis, K., & Umiltà, C. (2002). Brain damage: Neglect disrupts the mental number line. Nature, 417(6885), 138–139.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book 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 saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved 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.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please 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 account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please 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 account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×