The empirical base of linguistics
The empirical base of linguistics
复制标题
语言学的实证基础
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2016
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Carson T. Schütze
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Carson T. Schütze
纵观语言学的大部分历史，语法判断——对句子结构良好的直觉——构成了检验理论假设的大部分经验基础。尽管此类判断往往依赖于微妙的直觉，但没有系统的方法来得出它们，而且它们明显的不稳定性和不可靠性导致许多人得出结论，应放弃将它们作为数据来源。
卡森·T·舒茨 (Carson T. Schutze) 在此对有关语法判断和其他语言直觉的性质和效用以及它们在语言研究中使用的方式的大量文献进行了详细的批判性概述。他展示了判断过程的变化是如何因受试者之间的生物、认知和社会差异、所使用的特定启发方法以及被判断材料的无关特征等因素而产生的。然后，他评估判断的状态，将其作为说话者语法的可靠指标。
结合实质性和方法论的发现，舒茨提出了一个模型，其中语法判断是语言能力与一般认知过程相互作用的结果。他认为，这个模型为经验论证提供了基础，表明一旦排除了语法外的差异，普遍语法就会屈服于比判断数据最初引导我们期望的更简单、更优雅的分析。最后，舒茨就如何收集更好、更有用的数据提供了许多实用的建议。其结果是一部至关重要的著作，语言学家、认知心理学家和语言哲学家都需要阅读它。
“母语人士对语言实例可接受性的判断一直构成语言学数据的主要部分，但语言学家通常要么以随意的方式获取这些数据并不加批判地接受结果，要么完全且同样不加批判地拒绝可接受性判断。舒茨的书是一个值得欢迎的解脱，因为语言学家未能负责任地处理最丰富或最误导性的语言信息来源。” ——詹姆斯·D·麦考利，芝加哥大学
“舒茨写了一本非常有用和及时的书。在书中，他对生成句法方法论的过去研究进行了清晰易读的回顾。但这不仅仅是一项调查：它还呼吁在句法方面采取更仔细和客观的科学方法，包括为句法学家提供一套实用的方法论建议。如果得到重视，它们将极大地加强语言理论的经验基础。” ——汤姆·瓦索，斯坦福大学
Throughout much of the history of linguistics, grammaticality judgments – intuitions about the well-formedness of sentences – have constituted most of the empirical base against which theoretical hypothesis have been tested. Although such judgments often rest on subtle intuitions, there is no systematic methodology for eliciting them, and their apparent instability and unreliability have led many to conclude that they should be abandoned as a source of data.
Carson T. Schutze presents here a detailed critical overview of the vast literature on the nature and utility of grammaticality judgments and other linguistic intuitions, and the ways they have been used in linguistic research. He shows how variation in the judgment process can arise from factors such as biological, cognitive, and social differences among subjects, the particular elicitation method used, and extraneous features of the materials being judged. He then assesses the status of judgments as reliable indicators of a speaker's grammar.
Integrating substantive and methodological findings, Schutze proposes a model in which grammaticality judgments result from interaction of linguistic competence with general cognitive processes. He argues that this model provides the underpinning for empirical arguments to show that once extragrammatical variance is factored out, universal grammar succumbs to a simpler, more elegant analysis than judgment data initially lead us to expect. Finally, Schutze offers numerous practical suggestions on how to collect better and more useful data. The result is a work of vital importance that will be required reading for linguists, cognitive psychologists, and philosophers of language alike.
"Native speakers' judgments of the acceptability of linguistic examples have always formed a major part of the data of linguistics, but linguists generally either have elicited such data in a haphazard fashion and accepted the results uncritically or have rejected acceptability judgments altogether and equally uncritically. Schutze's book is a welcome relief from the failure of linguists to deal responsibly with what can be either the most fertile or the most misleading source of information about languages." —James D. McCawley, University of Chicago
"Schutze has written an extraordinarily useful and timely book. In it, he provides a clear and readable review of past studies of the methodology of generative syntax. But this is not merely a survey: it is also a call for more careful and objective scientific methods in syntax, including a set of practical methodological suggestions for working syntacticians. If heeded, they will greatly strengthen the empirical base of linguistic theory." —Tom Wasow, Stanford University
DOI：
10.1037/0278-7393.20.4.786
发表时间：
1994-07-01
影响因子：
2.6
作者：
OSTERHOUT, L;HOLCOMB, PJ;SWINNEY, DA
通讯作者：
SWINNEY, DA
DOI：
--
发表时间：
1989-03
期刊：
--
影响因子：
--
作者：
U. Neisser
通讯作者：
U. Neisser