Acceptability judgement tasks and grammatical theory
This thesis considers various questions about acceptability judgement tasks (AJTs). In Chapter 1, we compare the prevalent informal method of syntactic enquiry, researcher introspection, to formal judgement tasks. We randomly sample 200 sentences from Linguistic Inquiry and then compare the original author judgements to online AJT ratings. Sprouse et al., 2013, provided a similar comparison, but they limited their analysis to the comparison of sentence pairs and to extreme cases. We think a comparison at large, i.e. involving all items, is more sensible. We find only a moderate match between informal author judgements and formal online ratings and argue that the formal judgements are more reliable than the informal judgements. Further, the fact that many syntactic theories rely on questionable informal data calls the adequacy of those theories into question. In Chapter 2, we test whether ratings for constructions from spoken language and constructions from written language differ if presented as speech vs as text and if presented informally vs formally. We analyse the results with an LME model and find that neither mode of presentation nor formality are significant factors. Our results suggest that a speaker's
Juzek, Thomas Stephan
Computational linguistics ; Acceptability (Linguistics) ; Grammar ; Comparative and general--Syntax--Data processing
Acceptability judgement tasks and grammatical theory. This thesis considers various questions about acceptability judgement tasks (AJTs). In Chapter 1, we compare the prevalent informal method of syntactic enquiry, researcher introspection, to formal judgement tasks. We randomly sample 200 sentences from Linguistic Inquiry and then compare the original author judgements to online AJT ratings. Sprouse et al., 2013, provided a similar comparison, but they limited their analysis to the comparison of sentence pairs and to extreme cases. We think a comparison at large, i.e. involving all items, is more sensible. We find only a moderate match between informal author judgements and formal online ratings and argue that the formal judgements are more reliable than the informal judgements. Further, the fact that many syntactic theories rely on questionable informal data calls the adequacy of those theories into question. In Chapter 2, we test whether ratings for constructions from spoken language and constructions from written language differ if presented as speech vs as text and if presented informally vs formally. We analyse the results with an LME model and find that neither mode of presentation nor formality are significant factors. Our results suggest that a speaker's
acceptability_judgement task grammatical theory considers various question acceptability_judgement task compare prevalent informal method syntactic enquiry researcher introspection formal judgement_task randomly sample sentence linguistic inquiry compare original author judgement online rating provide similar comparison limited analysis comparison sentence pair extreme case think comparison large involve item sensible moderate match informal author judgement formal online rating argue formal judgement reliable informal judgement fact many syntactic theory rely questionable informal data call adequacy theory question test_whether rating construction speak_language construction write_language differ present speech text present informally formally analyse model neither mode presentation formality significant_factor suggest speaker