No open-access location is known for this record yet.
No open-access location is known for this record yet.
Sprouse and Almeida (S&A) present quantitative results that suggest that intuitive judgments utilised in syntax research are generally correct in two-condition comparisons: the sentence type that is presented as “good/grammatical” is usually rated better than the sentence type that is presented as “bad/ungrammatical” in controlled experiments. Although these evaluations of intuitive relative judgments are valuable, they do not justify the use of nonquantitative linguistic methods. We argue that objectivity is a universal value in science that should be adopted by linguistics. In addition, the reliability measures that S&A report are not sufficient for developing sophisticated linguistic theories. Furthermore, quantitative methods yield two additional benefits: consistency of judgments across many pairs of judgments; and an understanding of the relative effect sizes across sets of judgments. We illustrate these points with an experiment that demonstrates five clear levels of acceptability. Finally, we observe that S&A's experiments—where only two authors evaluated 10 years' worth of journal articles and one standard textbook within a few months—further emphasise one of our critical original points: conducting behavioural experiments is in many respects easy and fast with the advent of online research tools like Amazon's Mechanical Turk. Given the current ease of performing quantitative experiments (using a platform like Mechanical Turk) and the clear limitations of not doing so, linguistic hypotheses should be evaluated quantitatively whenever it is feasible.
Loading…
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 73 citations exist upstream.
Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.