Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-swr86 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T10:22:53.912Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

7 - Acceptability (and Other) Experiments for Studying Comparative Syntax

from Part I - General Issues in Acceptability Experiments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2021

By
Dustin A. Chacón
Edited by
Grant Goodall
Grant Goodall
Affiliation:
University of California, San Diego
Get access

Summary

In this chapter, I discuss the relationship between acceptability judgments and other experimental techniques and the broader goals of comparative syntax. Acceptability judgment experiments quantify the impact that a small number of factors exert on acceptability across a sample of participants. By contrast, comparative syntax has typically sought to characterize systematic similarities and differences between grammatical systems, on various scales of abstraction (languages, dialects, individual grammars). In this chapter, I argue that acceptability judgment experiments can contribute to comparative syntax by quantifying subtle judgments within a language as a ”check” on intuitive judgments collected from underresourced languages, by establishing reliable trends across languages, and by exploring individual differences within a population. I emphasize that careful factorial designs, appropriate controls, and previously established, theoretically informed hypotheses are crucial to the success of applying experimental approaches to comparative syntax.

Keywords

experimental syntaxpsycholinguisticscomparative syntaxlanguage variationindividual variationacceptability judgmentscompetence-performance distinction
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Syntax , pp. 181 - 208
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abney, S. P. (1987). The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Ackerman, L., Frazier, M., & Yoshida, M. (2018). Resumptive pronouns can ameliorate illicit island extractions. Linguistic Inquiry, 49(4), 847–859.Google Scholar
Alexopoulou, T. (1999). The syntax of discourse functions in Greek: A non-configurational approach. Doctoral dissertation, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Alexopoulou, T. & Keller, F. (2007). Locality, cyclicity, and resumption: At the interface between the grammar and the human sentence processor. Language, 83(1), 110–160.Google Scholar
Almeida, D. (2014). Subliminal wh-islands in Brazilian Portuguese and the consequences for syntactic theory. Revista da ABRALIN, 13(2), 55–93.Google Scholar
Anand, P., Chung, S., & Wagers, M. W. (2010). Widening the net: challenges for gathering linguistic data in the digital age. http://people.ucsc.edu/schung/anandchungwagers.pdfGoogle Scholar
Baek, J. Y.-K. (1998). Negation and object shift in early child Korean. In Sauerland, U. & Percus, O., eds., The Interpretive Tract. Cambridge, MA: MIT Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, pp. 73–86.Google Scholar
Baker, M. (2001). The Atoms of Language. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Baker, M. (2008). The macroparameter in a microparametric world. In Bieberauer, T., ed., The Limits of Syntactic Variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Barbiers, S., Cornips, L., & van der Kleij, S. (2001). Syntactic Microvariation. Available at: www.meertens.knaw.nl/books/synmic/index.htmlGoogle Scholar
Bayer, J. (1990). Notes on the ECP in English and German. Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanischen Linguistik, 30, 1–55.Google Scholar
Bayer, J. & Cheng, L. L.-S. (2017). In Everaert, M. & van Riemsdijk, H., eds., The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, 1–44.Google Scholar
Beltrama, A. & Xiang, M. (2016). Unacceptable but comprehensible: The facilitation effect of resumptive pronouns. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 1(1), 29. DOI:10.5334/gjgl.24Google Scholar
Bock, K. & Miller, C. A. (1991). Broken agreement. Cognitive Psychology, 23(1), 45–93.Google Scholar
Boeckx, C. (2014). What Principles and Parameters got wrong. In Carmen, M., ed., Linguistic Variation in the Minimalist Framework. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Borer, H. (1984). Parametric Syntax: Case Studies in Semitic and Romance Languages. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Bošković, Ž. (2008). What will you have, NP or DP? In Elfner, E. & Walkow, M., eds., Proceedings of the 37th North East Linguistic Society. Amherst, MA: GLSA, pp. 101–114.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. (1977). Variables in the theory of transformations. In Culicover, P. W., Wasow, T. & Akmajian, A., eds., Formal Syntax. New York: Academic Press, pp. 157–196.Google Scholar
Chao, W. & Sells, P. (1983). On the interpretation of resumptive pronouns. In Sells, P. & Jones, C., eds., Proceedings of the 13th North East Linguistic Society. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Chacón, D. A. (2015). Comparative psychosyntax. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Chacón, D. A. (2019). Minding the gap? Mechanisms underlying resumption in English. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 4(1), 68. DOI:10.5334/gjgl.839Google Scholar
Chacón, D. A., Fetters, M., Kandel, M., Pelz, E., & Phillips, C. (2019). Indirect learning and language variation: Reassessing the that-trace effect. Unpublished manuscript, New York University, Abu Dhabi.Google Scholar
Chacón, D. A., Imtiaz, M., Dasgupta, S., Murshed, S. M., Dan, M., & Phillips, C. (2016). Locality and word order in active dependency formation in Bangla. Frontiers in Psychology, 7(1235). DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01235Google Scholar
Chen, Y. (2019). The acquisition of Japanese relative clauses by L1 Chinese learners. Doctoral dissertation, University of Hawa‘i at Mānoa.Google Scholar
Cheng, L. L.-S. & Sybesma, R. (1999). Bare and not-so-bare nouns and the structure of NP. Lingusitic Inquiry, 30, 509–542.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures in Government and Binding: The Pisa Lectures. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. & Miller, G. A. (1963). Introduction to the formal analysis of natural languages. In Luce, R. D., Bush, R. R., & Galanter, E., eds., Handbook of Mathematical Psychology, vol. 2. New York: Wiley, pp. 419–492.Google Scholar
Clifton, C., Fanselow, G., & Frazier, L. (2006). Amnestying superiority violations: Processing multiple questions. Lingusitic Inquiry, 37(1), 51–68.Google Scholar
Cowart, W. (1997). Experimental Syntax: Applying Objective Methods to Sentence Judgments. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Cowart, W. (2003). Detecting syntactic dialects: The that-trace phenomenon. Talk delivered at the 39th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Crain, S. & Thornton, R. (1998). Investigations in Universal Grammar: A Guide to Experiments on the Acquisition of Syntax and Semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cuetos, F. & Mitchell, D. C. (1988). Cross-linguistic differences in parsing: Restrictions on the use of the Late Closure strategy in Spanish. Cognition, 30(1), 73–105.Google Scholar
Culicover, P. W. (1993). Evidence against ECP accounts of the that-t effect. Linguistic Inquiry, 24, 557–561.Google Scholar
Edelman, S. & Christiansen, M. H. (2003). How seriously should we take Minimalist syntax? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(2), 60–62.Google Scholar
Farby, S., Danon, G., Walters, J., & Ben-Shachar, M. (2010). The acceptability of resumptive pronouns in Hebrew. In Falk, Y., ed., Proceedings of the Israel Association for Theoretical Linguistics 26. Jerusalem: IATL.Google Scholar
Featherston, S. (2005a). That-trace in German. Lingua, 115(9), 1277–1302.Google Scholar
Featherston, S. (2005b). Magnitude estimation and what it can do for your syntax: Some wh-constraints in German. Lingua, 115(11), 1525–1550.Google Scholar
Featherston, S. (2009). Relax, lean back, and be a linguist. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 28(1), 127–132.Google Scholar
Fedorenko, E. & Gibson, E. (2010). Adding a third wh-phrase does not increase the acceptability of object-initial multiple-wh-questions. Syntax, 13(3), 183–195.Google Scholar
Francis, E., Lam, C., Zheng, C. C., Hitz, J., & Matthews, S. (2015). Resumptive pronouns, structural complexity, and the elusive distinction between grammar and performance: Evidence from Cantonese. Lingua, 162, 56–81.Google Scholar
Frazier, L. & Clifton, C. (1989). Successive cyclicity in the grammar and the parser. Language and Cognitive Processes, 4, 93–126.Google Scholar
Gibson, E. & Fedorenko, E. (2010). Weak quantitative standards in linguistics research. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(6), 233–234.Google Scholar
Gibson, E. & Fedorenko, E. (2013). The need for quantitative methods in syntax and semantics research. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(1–2), 88–124.Google Scholar
Gibson, E., Piantadosi, S. T., & Fedorenko, E. (2013). Quantitative methods in syntax/semantics research: A response to Sprouse and Almeida (2013). Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(3), 229–240.Google Scholar
Gibson, E. & Thomas, J. (1999). Memory limitations and structural forgetting: The perception of complex ungrammatical sentences as grammatical. Language and Cognitive Processes, 14(3), 225–248.Google Scholar
Gilligan, G. (1987). A cross-linguistic approach to the pro-drop parameter. Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Goldberg, L. M. (2005). Verb-stranding VP Ellipsis: A cross-linguistic study. Doctoral dissertation, McGill University.Google Scholar
Golden, M. (1995). Interrogative wh-movement in Slovene and English. Acta Analytica, 14, 145–187.Google Scholar
Gribanova, V. (2013). Verb-stranding verb phrase ellipsis and the structure of the Russian verbal complex. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 31, 91–136.Google Scholar
Grillo, N. & Costa, J. (2014). A novel argument for the Universality of Parsing principles. Cognition, 133(1), 156–187.Google Scholar
Hagstrom, P. (2000). Phrasal movement in Korean negation. In Vaselinova, L., Robinson, S., & Antieau, L., eds., Proceedings of the 9th Student Conference in Linguistics (SCIL 9). Cambridge, MA: MIT Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, pp. 127–142.Google Scholar
Haider, H. (1983). Connectedness effects in German. Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanischen Linguistik, 23, 82–119.Google Scholar
Haider, H. (1993). Deutsche Syntax – Generativ. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Hammerly, C. (2018). Intrusive resumption can ameliorate island violations in real-time comprehension. Poster presented at the 31st CUNY Human Sentence Processing Conference.Google Scholar
Han, C.-H. (2013). On the syntax of relative clauses in Korean. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 58(2), 319–347.Google Scholar
Han, C.-H., Lidz, J., & Musolino, J. (2007). V-raising and grammar competition in Korean: Evidence from negation and quantifier scope. Linguistic Inquiry, 38(1), 1–47.Google Scholar
Han, C.-H., Musolino, J., & Lidz, J. (2011). Endogenous sources of variation in language acquisition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(4), 942–947.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (2008). Parametric versus functional explanations of syntactic universals. In Bieberauer, T., ed., The Limits of Syntactic Variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hofmeister, P. & Norcliffe, E. (2013). Does resumption facilitate sentence comprehension? In Hofmeister, P. & Norcliffe, E., eds., The Core and the Periphery: Data-Driven Perspectives on Syntax Inspired by Ivan A. Sag. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 225–246.Google Scholar
Hofmeister, P. & Sag, I. (2010). Cognitive constraints and island effects. Language, 86(2), 366–415.Google Scholar
Hong, S. (1985). A and A’ binding in Korean and English: Government–Binding parameters. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Huang, C.-T. J. (1982). Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Kang, N.-K. (2000). Reflexives and the Linking Theory in Universal Grammar. Doctoral dissertation, University of Oxford.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. (2005). Some notes on comparative syntax, with special reference to English and French. In Cinque, G. & Kayne, R., eds., Handbook of Comparative Syntax. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Keller, F. (1995). Towards an account of extraposition in HPSG. In Abney, S. & Hinrichs, E. W., eds., Proceedings of the 7th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Dublin: Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 301–306.Google Scholar
Keshev, M. & Meltzer-Asscher, A. (2018). Active dependency formation in islands: How grammatical resumption affects sentence processing. Language, 93(3), 549–568.Google Scholar
Keshev, M. & Meltzer-Asscher, A. (2019). A processing-based account of subliminal wh-island effects. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 37(2), 621–657.Google Scholar
Kim, J.-B. (2000). The Grammar of Negation: A Constraint-Based Approach. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Kim, K.-B. & Han, C.-H. (2016). Inter-speaker variation in Korean pronouns. In Grosz, P. & Patel-Grosz, P., eds., The Impact of Pronominal Form on Interpretation. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 347–372.Google Scholar
Kluender, R. (1998). On the distinction between strong and weak islands: A processing perspective. In Culicover, P. & McNally, L., ed., The Limits of Syntax (Syntax and Semantics, 29). San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 241–279.Google Scholar
Kluender, R. & Kutas, M. (1993). Subjacency as a processing phenomenon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8(4), 573–633.Google Scholar
Koak, H. (2008). A morpho-syntactic approach to pronominal binding. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 14(1), 227–240.Google Scholar
Kush, D. W., Lohndal, T., & Sprouse, J. (2018). Investigating variation in island effects: A case study of Norwegian extraction. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 36(3), 743–779.Google Scholar
Lago, S., Sloggett, S., Schlueter, Z., Chow, W.Y., Williams, A., Lau, E., & Phillips, C. (2017). Coreference and antecedent representation across languages. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43(5), 795–817.Google Scholar
Landau, I. (2018). Missing objects in Hebrew: Argument ellipsis, not VP ellipsis. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 3(1), 76. DOI:10.5334/gjgl.560Google Scholar
Lasnik, H. & Saito, M. (1984). On the nature of proper government. Linguistic Inquiry, 15, 235–289.Google Scholar
Linzen, T. & Oseki, Y. (2018). The reliability of acceptability judgments across languages. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 3(1), 100. DOI:10.5334/gjgl.528Google Scholar
Lu, J., Thompson, C. K., & Yoshida, M. (2020). Chinese wh-in-situ and islands: A formal judgment study. Linguistic Inquiry, 51(3), 611–623.Google Scholar
Maling, J. & Zaenen, A. (1982). A phrase structure account of Scandinavian extraction phenomena. In Jacobson, P. & Pullum, G. K., eds., The Nature of Syntactic Representation. Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 229–282.Google Scholar
Marantz, A. (2005). Generative linguistics within the cognitive neuroscience of language. Linguistic Review 22(2–4), 429–445.Google Scholar
Merchant, J. & Sipson, A. (2012). Sluicing: Cross-Linguistic Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mioto, C. & Kato, M.A. (2005). As interrogativas-Q do português europeau e do português brasileiro atuais. Revista da ABRALIN, 4(1–2), 171–196.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, F. J. (2004). Against a parameter-setting approach to typological variation. Linguistic Variation Yearbook, 4(1), 181–234.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, F. J. (2005). Possible and Probable Languages: A Generativist Perspective on Linguistic Typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nishigauchi, T. (1990). Quantification in the Theory of Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Otani, K. & Whitman, J. (1991). V-raising and VP-ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry, 22, 345–358.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D. (1971). Deep and Surface Structure Constraints in Syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. (2017). Complementizer-trace effects. In Everaert, M. & van Riemsdijk, H. C., eds., The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Phillips, C. (2009). Should we impeach armchair linguists? In Iwasaki, S., ed., Japanese/Korean Linguistics, vol. 17. Stanford: CSLI Publications, pp. 1–16.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. (1981). A second COMP position. In Belletti, A., Brandi, L. & Rizzi, L., eds., Theory of Markedness in Generative Grammar. Pisa: Scuole Normale Superiore, pp. 517–557.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1982). Issues in Italian syntax. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. & Holmberg, A. (2005). On the role of parameters in Universal Grammar: A reply to Newmeyer. In Broekhuis, H., Corver, N., Huybregts, R., Kleinhanz, U., & Koster, J., eds., Organizing Grammar: Linguistic Studies in honor of Henk van Riemsdijk. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Rudin, C. (1988). On multiple questions and multiple WH fronting. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 6(4), 445–501.Google Scholar
Sakai, H. (1994). Complex NP constraint and case conversion in Japanese. In Nakamura, M., ed., Current Topics in English and Japanese. Tokyo: Hitsuji Shobo, pp. 179–200.Google Scholar
Schütze, C. (1996). The Emprical Base of Linguistics. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Shlonsky, U. (1992). Resumptive pronouns as a last resort. Linguistic Inquiry, 23(3), 443–468.Google Scholar
Simpson, A., Choudhury, A., & Menon, M. (2013). Argument ellipsis and the licensing of covert nominals in Bangla, Hindi, and Malayalam. Lingua, 134, 103–128.Google Scholar
Sobin, N. (1987). The variable status of COMP-trace phenomena. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 5, 33–60.Google Scholar
Sobin, N. (2002). The Comp-trace effect, the adverb effect and minimal CP. Journal of Linguistics, 38(3), 527–560.Google Scholar
Sobin, N. (2009). Prestige case forms and the comp-trace effect. Syntax, 12(1), 32–59.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J. & Almeida, D. (2012). Assessing the reliability of textbook data in syntax: Adger’s “Core Syntax.” Journal of Linguistics, 48(3), 609–652.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J., Caponigro, I., Greco, C., & Cecchetto, C. (2016). Experiental syntax and the variation of island effects in English and Italian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 34(1), 307–344.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J., Fukuda, S., Ono, H., & Kluender, R. (2011). Reverse island effects and the backward search for a licensor in multiple wh-questions. Syntax, 14(2), 179–203.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J., Schütze, C., & Almeida, D. (2013). A comparison of informal and formal acceptability judgments using a random sample from Linguistic Inquiry 2001–2010. Lingua, 134, 219–248.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J., Wagers, M. W., & Phillips, C. (2012). A test of the relation between working-memory capacity and syntactic island effects. Language, 88(1), 82–123.Google Scholar
Stepanov, A., Mušič, M., & Stateva, P. (2018). Two (non-) islands in Slovenian: A study in Experimental Syntax. Linguistics, 56(3), 435–476.Google Scholar
Suh, J.-H. (1989). Scope interaction in negation. In Kuno, S. et al., eds., Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics III. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Suh, J.-H. (1990). Scope phenomena and aspects of Korean syntax. Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Tanaka, N. & Schwartz, B. (2018). Investigating relative clause island effects in native and nonnative adult speakers of Japanese. In Bertolini, A. B. & Kaplan, M. J., eds., Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 750–763.Google Scholar
Torrego, E. (1984). On inversion in Spanish and some of its effects. Linguistic Inquiry, 15(1), 103–129.Google Scholar
Tsimpli, I. M. (1999). Null operators, clitics, and identification: A comparison between Greek and English. In Alexiadou, A., Horrocks, G., & Stavrou, M., eds., Studies in Greek Syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 241–262.Google Scholar
Tucker, M., Idrissi, A., Sprouse, J., & Almeida, D. (2019). Resumption ameliorates different islands differently: Acceptability data from Modern Standard Arabic. In Khalfaoui, A. & Tucker, M. A., eds., Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics, 30: Papers from the Annual Symposia on Arabic Linguistics, Stony Brook, New York, 2016 and Norman, Oklahoma, 2017. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 159–193.Google Scholar
Uriagereka, J. (2007). Clarifying the notion “Parameter.” Biolinguistics, 1, 99–113.Google Scholar
Vasishth, S., Brussow, S., Lewis, R., & Drenhaus, H. (2008). Processing polarity: How the ungrammatical intrudes on the grammatical. Cognitive Science, 32(4), 685–712.Google Scholar
Vasishth, S., Suckow, K., Lewis, R. L., & Kern, S. (2010). Language and Cognitive Processes, 25(4), 533–567.Google Scholar
Wagers, M., Lau, E., & Phillips, C. (2009). Agreement attraction in comprehension: Representations and processes. Journal of Memory and Language, 61(2), 206–237.Google Scholar
Wasow, T. & Arnold, J. (2005). Intuitions in linguistic argumentation. Lingua, 115, 1481–1496.Google Scholar
Wellwood, A., Pancheva, R., Hacquard, H., & Phillips, C. (2018). The anatomy of a comparative illusion. Journal of Semantics, 35(3), 543–583.Google Scholar
Wood, J. (2019). Quantifying geographical variation in acceptability judgments in regional American English dialect syntax. Linguistics, 57(6), 1367–1402.Google Scholar
Xiang, M., Dillon, B., Wagers, M. W., Liu, F. Q., & Guo, T. M. (2014). Processing covert dependencis: An SAT study on Mandarin wh-in-situ questions. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 23(2), 207–232.Google Scholar
Xiang, M., Wang, S. P., & Cui, Y. L. (2015). Constructing covert dependencies: The case of wh-in-situ processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 84, 139–166.Google Scholar
Zanuttini, R., Wood, J., Zentz, J., & Horn, L. (2018). The Yale Grammatical Diversity Project: Morphosyntactic variation in North American English. Linguistics Vanguard, 4(1), 20160070.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×