Sentence Acceptability Experiments: What, How, and Why

doi:10.1017/9781108569620.002

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

Grant Goodall

Edited by

Grant Goodall

Show author details

Grant Goodall: Affiliation:
University of California, San Diego

Book contents

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 experiments factorial design counterbalancing fillers response method dependency length frequency cross-linguistic syntax

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Syntax , pp. 7 - 38
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108569620.002 [Opens in a new window]
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.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

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.24 Google 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.CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Dehaene, S., Bossini, S., & Giraux, P. (1993). The mental representation of parity and number magnitude. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122(3), 371.CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google 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.268 Google 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.CrossRef Google 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/8255v8sc Google 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.749 Google 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.CrossRef Google 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.2016.00134 CrossRef Google 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.396 Google 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.CrossRef Google 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/lnc3.12377CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google 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.236 Google 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

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this chapter is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.