학술저널
This squib addresses the theoretical and empirical premise of comparisons between informal and formal acceptability judgments in defense of necessities and implications of our own work on experimental syntax. Since the early days of experimental syntax, some linguists have expressed concerns about comparing the results of informal and formal methods. Contrary to this stance, we have found ample evidence that comparing these two types of judgments is not only justified but also a fruitful method for delving into syntactic constraints.
1. Introduction
2. Competence vs. Performance
3. Theory vs. Experiment
4. Linguists vs. Naïve Speakers
5. Syntactic vs. Non-Syntactic
6. Categorical vs. Gradient
7. Concluding Remarks
References
(0)
(0)