Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vfjqv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T11:32:01.377Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

5 - Obtaining introspective acceptability judgements

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2014

Thomas Hoffmann
Affiliation:
Department of English and American Studies, University of Osnabrück, Germany
Manfred Krug
Affiliation:
Otto-Friedrich-Universität Bamberg, Germany
Julia Schlüter
Affiliation:
Otto-Friedrich-Universität Bamberg, Germany
Get access

Summary

Introduction

[T]he speaker-hearer’s linguistic intuition is the ultimate standard that determines the accuracy of any proposed grammar, linguistic theory, or operational test.

(Chomsky 1965: 21)

We do not need to use intuition in justifying our grammars, and as scientists, we must not use intuition in this way.

(Sampson 2001: 135)

The above quotes from Chomsky and Sampson exemplify the controversial status of speakers’ intuitions, i.e. introspection data, in modern linguistics: while speakers’ intuitions form the prime data source for Chomskyan generative linguists, researchers like Sampson deny that introspection can yield any scientific data. As Schütze (1996) has shown, many points of criticism with respect to introspection data are in fact warranted (such as, e.g., that linguists often produce theory and data at the same time). However, he also pointed out that the vast majority of these problems have to do with the fact that this data type is often elicited in an unscientific way. If collected in carefully constructed experimental settings, on the other hand, introspection can yield data that meets the standard criteria for scientific data (Schütze 1996; Cowart 1997). In particular, Magnitude Estimation, an experimental paradigm originally employed in psychophysics (Stevens 1975), has been argued to offer a way to gather and interpret introspection data in a valid, reliable and objective way (cf. Bard, Robertson and Sorace 1996; Keller 2000; Sorace and Keller 2005).

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2013

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.)

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
×