DOCSLIB.ORG

Phonology III: Grammatical Judgments in Phonology and Beyond

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Phonology III: Grammatical judgments in phonology and beyond Shigeto Kawahara 1 Requirements • Participation (20%) • Presentation of two papers (20%) • Presentation of a term project (both interim and final) (10%) • Final paper, ideally with an experimental/corpus-based component (50%) 2 Goals The Generative Enterprise has been primarily using an intuition-based approach for data collection. Theories are usually built based on a grammatical vs. ungrammatical distinction, which itself relies on “native-speakers’ intuition”. In this class, we are going to study a growing body of literature that tries to improve upon this tradition. 3 Format This is a pro-seminor class, and hence is primarily discussion-based rather than lecture-based. It is therefore crucial that you read all the reading assignments before class. 4 Topics 4.1 An overview: Dangers of an intuition-based approach An overview of the problems of an intuition-based approach. Reading for discussion: Ohala (1986); Kawahara (2011a) 4.2 Generalizability On average, how many speakers provide the data for a standard phonology paper? How many items are considered to be sufficient? This part of the discussion is based on your search. You will go find some published papers and answer these questions. Maybe we could compare different journals? 1 • Japanese mimetic palatalization (Mester & Itˆo(1989); Zoll (1997) vs. Alderete & Kochetov (2009)) 4.3 (Non-)productivity Phonologists sometime tend to “overuse” the data, i.e. use highly morphologized, exception-full, non-productive data to build a phonological theory. We will consider several examples of this sort. • Polish raising and opacity (Lubowicz (2003) vs.Sanders (2003)) (You don’t have to read Lubowicz. *Sanders 2003 to be presented by Vandana) • Lyman’s Law (Vance (1980)) • English velar softening (Pierrehumbert (2006)) (to be presented by Jeremy) 4.4 Mixing up phonological and phonetic patterns Some productive cases that phonologists use to build their theories may involve gradient, phonetic patterns. • English stop epenthesis (Fourakis & Port, 1986) (*to be presented by Sara) • English [l] velarization in coda (Sproat & Fujimura, 1993) (*to be presented by a Ryan) • English phrasal nasal assimilation (Gow, 2002; Nolan, 1992) Are there any productive phonological patterns? “I occasionally wondered, ‘Where is the normal phonology that I was trained to study?”’ (Hayes 1995: 68). 4.5 Bias Can theoretically-oriented linguists produce unbiased data? (Dabrowska, 2010; Gibson & Fe- dorenko, 2010)? Student presentation: Spender (1973) and Cordaro & Ison (1963) (Sara) 4.6 Beyond a grammatical/ungrammatical dichotomy Can we really consider some form to be grammatical and some other ungrammatical, and that’s it? Consider the following classic paradigm: brick, blick, bnick. But how about bnick vs nbik? (Coetzee, 2009). Student presentation: Armstrong et al. (1983) (Vandana) 2 4.7 Frequency and Gradiency Maybe our phonological knowledge is stochastic (Frisch et al., 2004; Hayes & Londe, 2006). Also lexical frequencies seem to affect some phonological patterns. How can we model the fre- quency effects? (Coetzee & Kawahara, 2010) 4.8 Overcoming the problems: Judgment studies So what can we do? (Kawahara, 2011b, 2010). Also a rebuttal (Sprouse & Almeida, 2010) (to be presented by Ryan) Also (Goldrick, to appear) (Focus on section 2 and on—to be presented by Jeremy) 4.9 Some practical skills Online experimentation? Stats? 4.10 Student presentation Presentation of their final projects. 5 Quotes for discussion today All quotes below are from Phillips (2009). Generative theories appear to rest on a weak empirical foundation, due to the reliance on informally gathered grammaticality judgments. [...] A set of standards [...] should be established. If these [...] ideas were considered, linguistic developments might once again be relevant to the psycholinguistic enterprise. (Ferreira 2005, p. 365) Judgments are inherently unreliable because of their unavoidable meta- cognitive over- tones, because grammaticality is better described as a graded quantity, and for a host of other reasons. (Edelman & Christianson 2003, p. 60) One might in fact conclude that we have not yet developed a means to evaluate em- pirical bases for hypotheses in generative grammar that is compelling enough to the majority of the practitioners. An evaluation of a given hypothesis thus tends to have an arbitrary aspect to it, influenced by such factors as whether or not the terms and con- cepts utilized are taken from a theory currently in fashion ... (Hoji & Ueyama 2007, p. 2) Unfortunately, the findings of the experimentalists in linguistics very rarely play a role in the work of generative grammarians. Rather, theory development tends to follow its own course, tested only by the unreliable and sometimes malleable intuitions of the theorists themselves. The theories are consequently of questionable relevance to the facts of language. (Wasow & Arnold 2005, p. 495) 3 Studies of usage as well as intuitive judgments have shown that linguistic intuitions of grammaticality are deeply flawed, because (1) they seriously underestimate the space of grammatical possibility by ignoring the effects of multiple conflicting for- mal, semantic, and contextual constraints, and (2) they may reflect probability instead of grammaticality. (Bresnan 2007, p. 75) References Alderete, John & Alexei Kochetov (2009) Japanese mimetic palatalization revisited: Implications for conflicting directionality. Phonology 26(3): 369–388. Armstrong, Sharon Lee, Lila Gleitman, & Henry Gleason (1983) What some concepts might not be. Cognition 13: 263–308. Coetzee, Andries W. (2009) Grammar is both categorical and gradient. In Phonological Argumen- tation: Essays on Evidence and Motivation, Steve Parker, ed., London: Equinox, 9–42. Coetzee, Andries W. & Shigeto Kawahara (2010) Frequency and other biases in phonological variation. Ms. Michigan University and Rutgers University (submitted for publication in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory). Cordaro, Lucian & James Ison (1963) Psychology of the scientist: X Observer bias in classical conditioning of the planarian. Psychological Reports 13: 787–789. Dabrowska, Ewa (2010) Naive vs. expert intuitions: An empirical study of acceptability judg- ments. The Linguistic Review 27(1): 1–23. Fourakis, M. & R. Port (1986) Stop epenthesis in English. Journal of Phonetics 14: 197–221. Frisch, Stephan, Janet Pierrehumbert, & Michael Broe (2004) Similarity avoidance and the OCP. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22: 179–228. Gibson, Edward & Evelina Fedorenko (2010) Weak quantitative standards in linguistics research. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 14(6): 233–234. Goldrick, Matthew (to appear) Utilizing psychological realism to advance phonological theory. In The handbook of phonological theory II, John A. Goldsmith, Jason Riggle, & Alan Yu, eds., Oxford: Blackwell-Wiley. Gow, David (2002) Does English coronal place assimilation create lexical ambiguity? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance 28: 163–179. Hayes, Bruce (1995) On what to teach the Undergraduates: Some Changing Orthodoxies in Phono- logical Theory. Linguistics in the Morning Calm 3: 59–77. Hayes, Bruce & Zsuzsa Londe (2006) Stochastic phonological knowledge: The case of Hungarian vowel harmony. Phonology 23: 59–104. Kawahara, Shigeto (2010) Aspects of Japanese loanword devoicing. Ms. Rutgers University (sub- mitted for publication in Journal of East Asian Linguistics). Kawahara, Shigeto (2011a) Experimental approaches in theoretical phonology. In The Blackwell companion to phonology, Marc van Oostendorp, Colin J. Ewen, Elizabeth Hume, & Keren Rice, eds., Oxford: Blackwell-Wiley. Kawahara, Shigeto (2011b) Japanese loanword devoicing revisited: A wellformedness judgment study. Natural language and Linguistic Theory . Lubowicz, Anna (2003) Contrast Preservation in Phonological Mappings. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. 4 Mester, Armin & Junko Itˆo(1989) Feature predictability and underspecification: Palatal prosody in Japanese mimetics. Language 65: 258–93. Nolan, Francis (1992) The descriptive role of segments: Evidence from assimilation. In Papers in Laboratory Phonology II: Gesture, Segment, Prosody, G. R. Docherty & D. R. Ladd, eds., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 261–280. Ohala, John J. (1986) Consumer’s guide to evidence in phonology. Phonology 3: 3–26. Phillips, Colin (2009) Should we impeach armchair linguists? In Japanese/Korean Linguistics 17, Shoichii Iwasaki, ed., Stanford: CSLI. Pierrehumbert, Janet B. (2006) The statistical basis of an unnatural alternation. In Laboratory Phonology VIII, Louis Goldstein, Douglas H. Whalen, & Catherine Best, eds., Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 81–107. Sanders, Nathan (2003) Opacity and Sound Change in the Polish Lexicon. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz. Spender, N.J. (1973) Differences between linguists and nonlinguists in intuitions of grammaticality-acceptability. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 2(2): 83–93. Sproat, Robert & Osamu Fujimura (1993) Allophonic variation in English /l/ and its implications for phonetic implementation. Journal of Phonetics 21: 291–311. Sprouse, Jon & Diogo Almeida (2010) A quantitative defense of linguistic methodology. Ms. Uni- versity of California, Irvine. Vance, Timothy J. (1980) The psychological status of a constraint on Japanese consonant alterna- tion. Linguistics 18: 245–267. Zoll, Cheryl (1997) Conflicting directionality. Phonology 14: 263–286. 5.
Recommended publications
  • The Empirical Base of Linguistics: Grammaticality Judgments and Linguistic Methodology

    The Empirical Base of Linguistics: Grammaticality Judgments and Linguistic Methodology

    UCLA UCLA Previously Published Works Title The empirical base of linguistics: Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/05b2s4wg ISBN 978-3946234043 Author Schütze, Carson T Publication Date 2016-02-01 DOI 10.17169/langsci.b89.101 Data Availability The data associated with this publication are managed by: Language Science Press, Berlin Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California The empirical base of linguistics Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology Carson T. Schütze language Classics in Linguistics 2 science press Classics in Linguistics Chief Editors: Martin Haspelmath, Stefan Müller In this series: 1. Lehmann, Christian. Thoughts on grammaticalization 2. Schütze, Carson T. The empirical base of linguistics: Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology 3. Bickerton, Derek. Roots of language ISSN: 2366-374X The empirical base of linguistics Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology Carson T. Schütze language science press Carson T. Schütze. 2019. The empirical base of linguistics: Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology (Classics in Linguistics 2). Berlin: Language Science Press. This title can be downloaded at: http://langsci-press.org/catalog/book/89 © 2019, Carson T. Schütze Published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Licence (CC BY 4.0): http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ISBN: 978-3-946234-02-9 (Digital) 978-3-946234-03-6 (Hardcover) 978-3-946234-04-3 (Softcover) 978-1-523743-32-2
  • GRAMMATICALITY and UNGRAMMATICALITY of TRANSFORMATIVE GENERATIVE GRAMMAR : a STUDY of SYNTAX Oleh Nuryadi Dosen Program Studi Sa

    GRAMMATICALITY and UNGRAMMATICALITY of TRANSFORMATIVE GENERATIVE GRAMMAR : a STUDY of SYNTAX Oleh Nuryadi Dosen Program Studi Sa

    GRAMMATICALITY AND UNGRAMMATICALITY OF TRANSFORMATIVE GENERATIVE GRAMMAR : A STUDY OF SYNTAX Oleh Nuryadi Dosen Program Studi Sastra Inggris Fakultas Komunikasi, Sastra dan Bahasa Universitas Islam “45” Bekasi Abstrak Tulisan ini membahas gramatika dan kaidah-kaidah yang menentukan struktur kalimat menurut tatabahasa transformasi generatif. Linguis transformasi generatif menggunakan istilah gramatika dalam pengertian yang lebih luas. Pada periode sebelumnya, gramatika dibagi menjadi morfologi dan sintaksis yang terpisah dari fonologi. Namun linguis transformasi generatif menggunakan pengertian gramatika yang mencakup fonologi. Kalimat atau ujaran yang memenuhi kaidah-kaidah gramatika disebut gramatikal, sedangkan yang berhubungan dengan gramatikal disebut kegramatikalan. Kegramatikalan adalah gambaran susunan kata-kata yang tersusun apik (well-formed) sesuai dengan kaidah sintaksis. Kalimat atau ujaran yang tidak tersusun secara well-formed disebut camping atau ill-formed. Gramatika mendeskripsikan dan menganalisis penggalan-penggalan ujaran serta mengelompokkan dan mengklasifikasikan elemen-elemen dari penggalan-penggalan tersebut. Dari pengelompokan tersebut dapat dijelaskan kalimat yang ambigu, dan diperoleh pengelompokkan kata atau frase yang disebut kategori sintaksis. Kegramatikalan tidak tergantung pada apakah kalimat atau ujaran itu pernah didengar atau dibaca sebelumnya. Kegramatikalan juga tidak tergantung apakah kalimat itu benar atau tidak. Yang terakhir kegramatikalan juga tidak tergantung pada apakah kalimat itu penuh arti
  • Experimental Methods in Studying Child Language Acquisition Ben Ambridge∗ and Caroline F

    Experimental Methods in Studying Child Language Acquisition Ben Ambridge∗ and Caroline F

    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by MPG.PuRe Advanced Review Experimental methods in studying child language acquisition Ben Ambridge∗ and Caroline F. Rowland This article reviews the some of the most widely used methods used for studying children’s language acquisition including (1) spontaneous/naturalistic, diary, parental report data, (2) production methods (elicited production, repeti- tion/elicited imitation, syntactic priming/weird word order), (3) comprehension methods (act-out, pointing, intermodal preferential looking, looking while lis- tening, conditioned head turn preference procedure, functional neuroimaging) and (4) judgment methods (grammaticality/acceptability judgments, yes-no/truth- value judgments). The review outlines the types of studies and age-groups to which each method is most suited, as well as the advantage and disadvantages of each. We conclude by summarising the particular methodological considerations that apply to each paradigm and to experimental design more generally. These include (1) choosing an age-appropriate task that makes communicative sense (2) motivating children to co-operate, (3) choosing a between-/within-subjects design, (4) the use of novel items (e.g., novel verbs), (5) fillers, (6) blocked, coun- terbalanced and random presentation, (7) the appropriate number of trials and participants, (8) drop-out rates (9) the importance of control conditions, (10) choos- ing a sensitive dependent measure (11) classification of responses, and (12) using an appropriate statistical test. © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. How to cite this article: WIREs Cogn Sci 2013, 4:149–168. doi: 10.1002/wcs.1215 INTRODUCTION them to select those that are most useful for studying particular phenomena.
  • Syntax Corrected

    Syntax Corrected

    01:615:201 Introduction to Linguistic Theory Adam Szczegielniak Syntax: The Sentence Patterns of Language Copyright in part: Cengage learning Learning Goals • Hierarchical sentence structure • Word categories • X-bar • Ambiguity • Recursion • Transformaons Syntax • Any speaker of any human language can produce and understand an infinite number of possible sentences • Thus, we can’ t possibly have a mental dictionary of all the possible sentences • Rather, we have the rules for forming sentences stored in our brains – Syntax is the part of grammar that pertains to a speaker’ s knowledge of sentences and their structures What the Syntax Rules Do • The rules of syntax combine words into phrases and phrases into sentences • They specify the correct word order for a language – For example, English is a Subject-Verb-Object (SVO) language • The President nominated a new Supreme Court justice • *President the new Supreme justice Court a nominated • They also describe the relationship between the meaning of a group of words and the arrangement of the words – I mean what I say vs. I say what I mean What the Syntax Rules Do • The rules of syntax also specify the grammatical relations of a sentence, such as the subject and the direct object – Your dog chased my cat vs. My cat chased your dog • Syntax rules specify constraints on sentences based on the verb of the sentence *The boy found *Disa slept the baby *The boy found in the house Disa slept The boy found the ball Disa slept soundly Zack believes Robert to be a gentleman *Zack believes to be a gentleman Zack tries to be a gentleman *Zack tries Robert to be a gentleman What the Syntax Rules Do • Syntax rules also tell us how words form groups and are hierarchically ordered in a sentence “ The captain ordered the old men and women of the ship” • This sentence has two possible meanings: – 1.
  • Multiple Admissibility: Judging Grammaticality Using Unlabeled Data in Language Learning

    Multiple Admissibility: Judging Grammaticality Using Unlabeled Data in Language Learning

    Multiple Admissibility in Language Learning: Judging Grammaticality Using Unlabeled Data Anisia Katinskaia, Sardana Ivanova, Roman Yangarber University of Helsinki, Department of Computer Science, Finland [email protected] Abstract because negative feedback for an acceptable an- swer misleads and discourages the learner. We present our work on the problem of detec- tion Multiple Admissibility (MA) in language We examine MA in the context of our language learning. Multiple Admissibility occurs when learning system, Revita (Katinskaia et al., 2018). more than one grammatical form of a word fits Revita is available online2 for second language syntactically and semantically in a given con- (L2) learning beyond the beginner level. It is in text. In second-language education—in partic- use in official university-level curricula at several ular, in intelligent tutoring systems/computer- major universities. It covers several languages, aided language learning (ITS/CALL), systems many of which are highly inflectional, with rich generate exercises automatically. MA implies that multiple alternative answers are possi- morphology. Revita creates a variety of exercises ble. We treat the problem as a grammatical- based on input text materials, which are selected ity judgement task. We train a neural network by the users. It generates exercises and assesses with an objective to label sentences as gram- the users’ answers automatically. matical or ungrammatical, using a “simulated For example, consider the sentence in Finnish: learner corpus”: a dataset with correct text “Ilmoitus vaaleista tulee kotiin postissa .” and with artificial errors, generated automat- (“Notice about elections comes to the house in the ically. While MA occurs commonly in many mail.”) languages, this paper focuses on learning Rus- sian.
  • Grammaticality and Language Modelling

    Grammaticality and Language Modelling

    Grammaticality and Language Modelling Jingcheng Niu and Gerald Penn Department of Computer Science University of Toronto Toronto, Canada fniu,[email protected] Abstract With the PBC in mind, we will first reappraise some recent work in syntactically targeted lin- Ever since Pereira(2000) provided evidence guistic evaluations (Hu et al., 2020), arguing against Chomsky’s (1957) conjecture that sta- that while their experimental design sets a new tistical language modelling is incommensu- high watermark for this topic, their results may rable with the aims of grammaticality predic- not prove what they have claimed. We then tion as a research enterprise, a new area of re- turn to the task-independent assessment of search has emerged that regards statistical lan- language models as grammaticality classifiers. guage models as “psycholinguistic subjects” Prior to the introduction of the GLUE leader- and probes their ability to acquire syntactic board, the vast majority of this assessment was knowledge. The advent of The Corpus of Lin- essentially anecdotal, and we find the use of guistic Acceptability (CoLA) (Warstadt et al., the MCC in this regard to be problematic. We 2019) has earned a spot on the leaderboard conduct several studies with PBCs to compare for acceptability judgements, and the polemic several popular language models. We also between Lau et al.(2017) and Sprouse et al. study the effects of several variables such as (2018) has raised fundamental questions about normalization and data homogeneity on PBC. the nature of grammaticality and how accept- ability judgements should be elicited. All the 1 Background while, we are told that neural language models continue to improve.
  • Theoretical and Methodological Perspectives on the Use of Grammaticality Judgment Tasks in Linguistic Theory

    Theoretical and Methodological Perspectives on the Use of Grammaticality Judgment Tasks in Linguistic Theory

    THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES ON THE USE OF GRAMMATICALITY JUDGMENT TASKS IN LINGUISTIC THEORY ANNIE TREMBLAY University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa The aims of present paper are: (a) to examine the theoretical and methodological issues pertaining to the use of grammaticality judgment tasks in linguistic theory; (b) to design and administer a grammaticality judgment task that is not characterized by the problems commonly associated with such tasks; (c) to introduce FACETS as a novel way to analyze grammaticality judgments in order to determine (i) which participants should be excluded from the analyses, (ii) which test items should be revised, and (iii) whether the grammaticality judgments are internally consistent. First, the paper discusses the concept of grammaticality and addresses validity issues pertaining to the use of grammaticality judgment tasks in linguistic theory. Second, it tackles methodological issues concerning the creation of test items, the specification of procedures, and the analysis and interpretation of the results. A grammaticality judgment task is then administered to 20 native speakers of American English, and FACETS is introduced as a means to analyze the judgments and assess their internal consistency. The results reveal a general tendency on the part of the participants to judge both grammatical and ungrammatical items as grammatical. The FACETS analysis indicates that the grammaticality judgments of (at least) two participants are not internally consistent. It also shows that two of the test items received from six to eight unexpected judgments. Despite these results, the analysis also indicates that overall, the grammaticality judgments obtained on each sentence type and on grammatical versus ungrammatical items were internally consistent.
  • Judgements of Grammaticality in Aphasia: the Special Case of Chinese

    Judgements of Grammaticality in Aphasia: the Special Case of Chinese

    APHASIOLOGY, 2000, VOL. 15, NO. 10, 1021±1054 Judgements of grammaticality in aphasia: The special case of Chinese C H I N G - C H I N G L U1, E L I Z A B E T H B A T E S2, P I N G L I3, O V I D T Z E N G4, D A I S Y H U N G4, C H I H - H A O T S A I4, S H U-E R L E E5, and Y U-M E I C H U N G5 1 National Hsinchu Teachers College, Taiwan 2 University of California, San Diego, USA 3 University of Richmond, USA 4 National Yang Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan 5 Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan (Received 9 July 1999; accepted 18 January 2000) Abstract Theories of agrammatism have been challenged by the discovery that agrammatic patients can make above-chance judgements of grammaticality. Chinese poses an interesting test of this phenomenon, because its grammar is so austere, with few obligatory features. An on-line grammaticality judgement task was conducted with normal and aphasic speakers of Chinese, using the small set of constructions that do permit judgements of grammaticality in this language. Broca’s and Wernicke’s aphasics showed similar patterns, with above-chance discrimination between grammatical and ungrammatical forms, suggesting once again that Broca’s aphasics are not unique in the degree of sparing or impairment that they show in receptive grammar. However, even for young normals, false-negative rates were high. We conclude that there is some sensitivity to grammatical well-formedness in Chinese aphasics, but the effect is fragile for aphasics and probabilistic for normals, reflecting the peculiar status of grammaticality in this language.
  • Roots of Language

    Roots of Language

    Roots of language Derek Bickerton language Classics in Linguistics 3 science press Classics in Linguistics Chief Editors: Martin Haspelmath, Stefan Müller In this series: 1. Lehmann, Christian. Thoughts on grammaticalization 2. Schütze, Carson T. The empirical base of linguistics: Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology 3. Bickerton, Derek. Roots of language ISSN: 2366-374X Roots of language Derek Bickerton language science press Derek Bickerton. 2016. Roots of language (Classics in Linguistics 3). Berlin: Language Science Press. This title can be downloaded at: http://langsci-press.org/catalog/book/91 © 2016, Derek Bickerton Published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Licence (CC BY 4.0): http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ISBN: 978-3-946234-08-1 (Digital) 978-3-946234-09-8 (Hardcover) 978-3-946234-10-4 (Softcover) 978-1-523647-15-6 (Softcover US) ISSN: 2366-374X DOI:10.17169/langsci.b91.109 Cover and concept of design: Ulrike Harbort Typesetting: Felix Kopecky, Sebastian Nordhoff Proofreading: Jonathan Brindle, Andreea Calude, Joseph P. DeVeaugh-Geiss, Joseph T. Farquharson, Stefan Hartmann, Marijana Janjic, Georgy Krasovitskiy, Pedro Tiago Martins, Stephanie Natolo, Conor Pyle, Alec Shaw Fonts: Linux Libertine, Arimo, DejaVu Sans Mono Typesetting software:Ǝ X LATEX Language Science Press Habelschwerdter Allee 45 14195 Berlin, Germany langsci-press.org Storage and cataloguing done by FU Berlin Language Science Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for external or third-party
  • Grammaticality Judgements of Children with and Without Language Delay

    Grammaticality Judgements of Children with and Without Language Delay

    Grammaticality Judgements of Children with and without Language Delay Matthew Saxton, Julie Dockrell, Eleri Bevan and Jo van Herwegen Institute of Education, University of London Abstract We examined the grammatical intuitions of children both with and without language delay, assessed via a task presented on computer. We targeted three grammatical structures often reported as compromised in children with language impairments (copula, articles and auxiliaries). 26 children (8 girls) with language delay were recruited (mean age 4;10, range 3;8–6;0). These children met the standard criteria for Specific Language Impairment and underwent an intervention focusing on the three targets. The intervention supplied negative evidence for target omissions, according to the precepts of the Direct Contrast hypothesis (Saxton, 1997). Each child received 20-minute therapeutic sessions daily over a six week period. Children with language delay were tested at four points: pre-intervention, mid-intervention, immediately post- intervention and again six months later. To provide a basis for comparison, we also recruited a group of 116 typically developing children (62 girls) (mean age 5;9, range 3;1-7;9). The grammaticality judgement task yielded two measures: (1) judgement of correctness; and (2) reaction time. Although clear differences were found between typical and atypical children, it was clear that even among the oldest typical children, none performed at ceiling. We also found significant improvements in the performance of language delayed children after the intervention. 1 Introduction Surprisingly little research has been conducted on children’s knowledge of grammar in the school years (for a notable exception, see Nippold, 2007).
  • Grammaticality, Paraphrase and Imagery

    Grammaticality, Paraphrase and Imagery

    W. J. M. LEVELT / J. A. W. M. VAN GENT 7 A. F. J. HAANS / A. J. A. MEIJERS Grammaticality, Paraphrase and Imagery 1. INTRODUCTION The concept of grammaticality is a crucial one in generative linguistics since Chomsky (1957) chose it to be the very basis for defining a natural language. The fundamental aim of linguistic analysis was said to be to separate the grammatical sequences from the ungrammatical ones and to study the structure of the grammatical ones. It is, therefore, not surprising to see that this central linguistic notion became the subject of much study and controversy. A major part of the discussions centered around the following points: (a) semigrammaticality, (b) reliability and validity of grammaticality judgments, (c) the psychological status of linguistic (e.g., grammaticality) intuitions. (a) Though the principal distinction is that between grammatical and ungrammatical, there may be different degrees of ungrammaticality. Various authors have developed theories on degrees of ungrammaticali­ ty (Chomsky 1964; Katz 1964; Ziff 1964; Lakoff 1971). They are all based on the consideration that given a grammar, ungrammaticality can be varied as a function of the seriousness and number of rule violations. These theories are based on the principle that absolute grammaticality exists and that only strings outside the language show degrees of (un-) grammaticality. It should be noted that other linguists never used a notion of absolute grammaticality. Harris' transformation theory, especially his operator grammar (1970), is based on the principle that transformations preserve the order of grammaticality; e.g., if two passives have a certain order of grammaticality, this order should be preserved for the corresponding actives.
  • The History of the Concept of Grammaticalisation

    The History of the Concept of Grammaticalisation

    THE HISTORY OF THE CONCEPT OF GRAMMATICALISATION VOLUME I by Therese Åsa Margaretha Lindström Submitted for the degree of PhD Department of English Language and Linguistics, University of Sheffield June 2004 TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ..........................................................................................................i VOLUME I .................................................................................................. V Acknowledgements .....................................................................................................vi List of Abbreviations ............................................................................................... viii Part 1: Introduction..................................................................................9 1. Introduction............................................................................................................10 1.0.1 Grammaticalisation Defined? .....................................................................13 1.0.2 The History of the Concept of Grammaticalisation....................................14 1.1 Aims and Objectives...........................................................................................14 1.2 Methodology ......................................................................................................18 1.2.1 A General Methodology of the Historiography of Linguistics...................19 1.2.1.1 Metalanguage.......................................................................................22