Are Linguists Better Subjects?

Abstract

Who are the best subjects for judgment tasks intended to test grammatical hypotheses? Michael Devitt ([2006a], [2006b]) argues, on the basis of a hypothesis concerning the psychology of such judgments, that linguists themselves are. We present empirical evidence suggesting that the relevant divide is not between linguists and non-linguists, but between subjects with and without minimally sufficient task-specific knowledge. In particular, we show that subjects with at least some minimal exposure to or knowledge of such tasks tend to perform consistently with one another-greater knowledge of linguistics makes no further difference-while at the same time exhibiting markedly greater ingroup consistency than those who have no previous exposure to or knowledge of such tasks and their goals.

A comparison of informal and formal acceptability judgments using a random sample from Linguistic Inquiry 2001–2010

“…This development means that there are two methods for collecting acceptability judgments currently in widespread use in the field of syntax: the relatively informal traditional methods that have largely established the foundation of the field for the past 60 years (henceforth informal methods), and the more formal experimental methods that have been gaining popularity over the past 15 years (henceforth formal methods). This methodological dichotomy has led a number of researchers to ask which method is empirically superior (e.g., Bard et al, 1996;Keller, 2000;Edelman and Christiansen, 2003;Phillips and Lasnik, 2003;Featherston, 2005aFeatherston, , 2005bFeatherston, , 2007Featherston, , 2008Featherston, , 2009Ferreira, 2005;Sorace and Keller, 2005;Wasow and Arnold, 2005;den Dikken et al, 2007;Alexopoulou and Keller, 2007;Bornkessel-Schlesewsky and Schlesewsky, 2007;Fanselow, 2007;Grewendorf, 2007;Haider, 2007;Newmeyer, 2007;Sprouse, 2007;Culbertson and Gross, 2009;Myers, 2009aMyers, , 2009bPhillips, 2010;Bader and Häussler, 2010;Dąbrowska, 2010;Gibson and Fedorenko, 2010;Culicover and Jackendoff, 2010;Gross and Culberton, 2011;Sprouse, 2011b;Weskott and Fanselow, 2011;Gibson et al, 2011;Almeida, 2012, 2013;Gibson and Fedorenko, 2013). Our goal in this paper is to substantially increase the empirical basis of this line of research by comparing the results of informal and formal methods for a very large and random s...…”

Linguistic Intuitions and Cognitive Penetrability

“…8 Culbertson and Gross (2009) casts some doubt on the effect of education on intuitions; see Devitt (2010b) and Gross & Culbertson (2011) for further discussion.…”

What “Intuitions” are Linguistic Evidence?

“…However, Chomskians commonly make a great deal of it, even claiming that speakers lack intuitions about grammaticality altogether: ''Acceptability and interpretability as data sources are to be distinguished from the theoretical notion of grammaticality, and what is generated by a grammar. Speakers have no intuitions about what a grammar mandates, in the theoretical sense of a grammar that concerns linguists''(Fitzgerald 2010, p. 130; see alsoCollins 2008a, p. 31;Culbertson and Gross 2009). I argue that this is largely mistaken (2010, sec.…”

“…So this is not the obviously false claim that these intuitive judgments are theoretical (cf.Miščević 2006, p. 539; Devitt 2006c, p. 595).5 Culbertson and Gross (2009) challenge this. I have responded (2010: part III).6 Textor attributes to me the view that ''typists don't have typing intuitions'' (p. 398).…”