44:
of a linguistic construction is an abstract construct that cannot be accessed directly, this type of tasks is usually not called grammaticality, but acceptability judgment. This can be compared to intelligence. Intelligence is an abstract construct that cannot be measured directly. What can be
49:
consist of several items building a score. Similarly, in acceptability rating studies, grammatical constructions are measured through several items, i.e., sentences to be rated. This is also done to ensure that participants do not rate the meaning of a particular sentence.
73:. Forced choice and yes-no rating tasks are also common. Besides these classical test types, there are other, methods like thermometer judgments or magnitude estimation which have been argued to be more difficult to process for participants, however.
116:
Sprouse, J., Schütze, C. T. & Almeida, D. (2013): A comparison of informal and formal acceptability judgments using a random sample from
Linguistic Inquiry 2001-2010. In:
84:
Acceptability
Ratings in Linguistics: A Practical Guide to Grammaticality Judgments, Data Collection, and Statistical Analysis. Version 1.0. Mimeo.
109:
Sprouse, J. & Almeida, D. (2017): Design sensitivity and statistical power in acceptability judgment experiments. In:
162:
137:
Weskott, T. & Fanselow, G. (2011):On the informativity of different measures of linguistic acceptability. In:
45:
measured are the outcomes of specific test items. The result of one item, however, is not very telling. Instead,
40:
The goal of acceptability rating studies is to gather insights into the mental grammars of participants. As the
53:
The difference between acceptability and grammaticality is linked to the distinction between performance and
167:
69:
Several different types of acceptability rating tasks are used in linguistics. The most common tasks use
157:
54:
46:
8:
104:
The
Empirical Base of Linguistics. Grammaticality Judgments and Linguistic Methodology.
58:
83:
41:
151:
70:
25:
29:
88:
Myers, J. (2009): Syntactic
Judgment Experiments. In:
35:
149:
95:Podesva, R. J. & Sharma, D. (eds.) (2013):
28:to gather information about the internal
111:Glossa. A Journal of General Linguistics
99:. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
150:
13:
76:
24:, is a common method in empirical
14:
179:
90:Language and Linguistics Compass
36:Acceptability and grammaticality
106:Berlin: Language Science Press.
97:Research Methods in Linguistics
131:
1:
124:
7:
32:of speakers of a language.
18:acceptability judgment task
10:
184:
22:acceptability rating task
163:Quantitative linguistics
64:
102:Schütze, C. T. (2016):
168:Linguistic research
82:Bross, F. (2019):
59:generative grammar
158:Psycholinguistics
141:, 87(2), 249-273.
175:
142:
135:
92:, 3(1), 406-423.
183:
182:
178:
177:
176:
174:
173:
172:
148:
147:
146:
145:
136:
132:
127:
120:, 134, 219-248.
79:
77:Further reading
67:
38:
12:
11:
5:
181:
171:
170:
165:
160:
144:
143:
129:
128:
126:
123:
122:
121:
114:
107:
100:
93:
86:
78:
75:
66:
63:
42:grammaticality
37:
34:
20:, also called
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
180:
169:
166:
164:
161:
159:
156:
155:
153:
140:
134:
130:
119:
115:
113:, 2(1), 1-32.
112:
108:
105:
101:
98:
94:
91:
87:
85:
81:
80:
74:
72:
71:Likert scales
62:
60:
56:
51:
48:
43:
33:
31:
27:
23:
19:
138:
133:
117:
110:
103:
96:
89:
68:
52:
39:
21:
17:
15:
26:linguistics
152:Categories
125:References
55:competence
139:Language
47:IQ tests
30:grammar
118:Lingua
65:Types
57:in
16:An
154::
61:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.