21 |
The empirical base of linguistics: Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology
|
|
|
|
In: Language Science Press; (2016)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
22 |
The empirical base of linguistics: Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology
|
|
|
|
In: Language Science Press; (2016)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
23 |
The empirical base of linguistics: Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology
|
|
|
|
In: Language Science Press; (2016)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
24 |
The empirical base of linguistics: Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology
|
|
|
|
In: Language Science Press; (2016)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
25 |
The empirical base of linguistics: Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology
|
|
|
|
In: Language Science Press; (2016)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
26 |
The Empirical Base of Linguistics: Grammaticality Judgments and Linguistic Methodology
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
29 |
A comparison of informal and formal acceptability judgments using a random sample from Linguistic Inquiry 2001-2010
|
|
|
|
In: LINGUA, vol 134 (2013)
|
|
Abstract:
The goal of the present study is to provide a direct comparison of the results of informal judgment collection methods with the results of formal judgment collection methods, as a first step in understanding the relative merits of each family of methods. Although previous studies have compared small samples of informal and formal results, this article presents the first large-scale comparison based on a random sample of phenomena from a leading theoretical journal (Linguistic Inquiry). We tested 296 data points from the approximately 1743 English data points that were published in Linguistic Inquiry between 2001 and 2010. We tested this sample with 936 naïve participants using three formal judgment tasks (magnitude estimation, 7-point Likert scale, and two-alternative forced-choice) and report five statistical analyses. The results suggest a convergence rate of 95% between informal and formal methods, with a margin of error of 5.3-5.8%. We discuss the implications of this convergence rate for the ongoing conversation about judgment collection methods, and lay out a set of questions for future research into syntactic methodology. © 2013 Elsevier B.V.
|
|
Keyword:
Acceptability judgments; Anthropology; Clinical Research; Cognitive Sciences; Experimental syntax; Grammaticality judgments; Languages & Linguistics; Linguistics; Mental Health; Methodology
|
|
URL: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/88x529wr
|
|
BASE
|
|
Hide details
|
|
38 |
The state of the art in speech error research : proceedings of the LSA Institute workshop ; [held on 30 and 31 July 2005 as part of the Linguistic Society of America's Summer Institute in Cambridge, Massachusetts]
|
|
Schütze, Carson T. (Hrsg.). - Cambridge, Mass. : Dep. of Linguistics, Massachusetts Inst. of Technology, 2007
|
|
UB Frankfurt Linguistik
|
|
Show details
|
|
40 |
Case Particle Errors in Japanese: Is the Nominative ga a Default Case Marker in Sentence Production?
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
|