Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-hqlzj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-20T07:57:19.551Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Syntactic and semantic data: replication results

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2008

Guy Carden
Guy Carden
Affiliation:
Yale University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Substantially all recent work in syntax and semantics is based on the linguist's introspective judgments of meaning and grammaticality. As is well known (cf. Labov 1972: 197ff.), other linguists often disagree with the original judgments; and such disagreements are, if anything, more common on examples of major theoretical importance. These disagreements cast doubt on introspection as a primary method for data collection, which in turn casts doubt on all the recent theoretical work using this methodology. It is therefore a crucial problem to develop an improved methodology to control or replace the use of the linguist's introspection.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Language in Society , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , April 1976 , pp. 99 - 104
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1976

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

References

REFERENCES

Garden, G. (1970). A note on conflicting idiolects, Linguistic Inquiry I. 281–90.Google Scholar
Garden, G. (1973 a). Dialect variation and abstract syntax. In Shuy, R. W. (ed.), Some new directions in linguistics. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Garden, G. (1973 b). English quantifiers: logical structure and linguistic variation. Tokyo: Taishukan.Google Scholar
Garden, G. (1973 c). Disambiguation, favored readings, and variable rules. In Shuy, R. & Bailey, C.-J. (eds.), New ways of analyzing variation in English. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Garden, G. (1975). Questionnaires, interviews, and quantifiers: a case study in methodology. Paper read at the Summer LSA Meeting, Tampa, Florida.Google Scholar
Coleman, L. (1973). Why the only interesting syntactic dialects are the uninteresting ones. Papers from the 9th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Elliott, D., Legum, S. & Thompson, S. A. (1969). Syntactic variation as linguistic data. Papers from the 5th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Greenbaum, S. (1973). Informant elicitation of data on syntactic variation. Lingua 31. 201–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenbaum, S. & Quirk, R. (1970). Elicitation experiments in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Heringer, J. T. (1970). Research on quantifier-negative idiolects. Papers from the 6th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1970). The study of language in its social context. Studium Generale 23. 30–87.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Labov, W., Cohen, P., Robins, C. & Lewis, J. (1968). A Study of the Non-Standard English of Negro and Puerto Rican speakers in New York City. Cooperative Research Project #3288. New York: Columbia University.Google Scholar
Legum, S. (1975). While-Clauses in English. University of Texas Ph.D. Thesis.Google Scholar
Quirk, R. & Svartvik, J. (1966). Investigating linguistic acceptability. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stokes, W. (1974). All of the work on quantifier negation isn't convincing. Papers from the 10th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar