Abstract
This article aims to provide a concise overview of the most relevant topics concerning the implementation of acceptability judgments in generative research. The first part focuses on theoretical issues, including the reasons underlying the prevalence of acceptability judgments, the skepticism towards the wide use of informal judgments, the arguments for and against the continued use of informal data points and the challenges related to experimental data collection and the gradient nature of judgments. The second part further explores the concept of gradient acceptability and its different sources. We suggest that violations of soft constraints correspond with partial acceptability, unlike violations of hard constraints, which cause strong unacceptability. Based on our investigation of selected partially acceptable syntactic phenomena in Polish, we show that their syntactic accounts can also benefit from the inclusion of non-syntactic factors, which can be more reliably identified via experimental methodology. More specifically, we propose that (i) the lack of subject orientation of pronominal possessives could be attributed to lexical ambiguity, (ii) coreference of possessive cataphora is facilitated by antecedent backgrounding and (iii) WCO is improved by focus marking of the possessive pronoun, (iv) while processing of the last two structures could be ameliorated with more informative fillers.
Funding source: Polish National Science Centre
Award Identifier / Grant number: 2021/41/B/HS2/01028
-
Research funding: The part of research conducted by Paulina Łęska-Bayraktar was funded by the National Science Centre, Poland, grant no 2021/41/B/HS2/01028.
Bibliography
Adger, David. 2003. Core syntax: A minimalist approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199243709.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Alexopoulou, Theodora & Frank Keller. 2007. Locality, cyclicity, and resumption: At the interface between the grammar and the human sentence processor. Language 83(1). 110–160. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2007.0001.Search in Google Scholar
Anderson, John R. 1983. The architecture of cognition. Harvard, MA: Harvard University Press [reprinted in 1996 by Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers, Mahwah, New Jersey].Search in Google Scholar
Aoshima, Sachiko, Masaya Yoshida & Colin Phillips. 2009. Incremental processing of coreference and binding in Japanese. Syntax 12. 93–134. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2009.00123.x.Search in Google Scholar
Ariel, Mira. 2001. Accessibility theory: An overview. In Ted Sanders, Joost Schilperoord & Wilbert Spooren (eds.), Text representation: Linguistic and psycholinguistic aspects, 29–87. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/hcp.8.04ariSearch in Google Scholar
Arnon, Inbal, Neal Snider, Philip Hofmeister, T. Florian Jaeger & Ivan A. Sag. 2006. Processing accounts for gradience in acceptability: The case of multiple wh-questions. In Proceedings of BLS 26. Berkeley: University of California.Search in Google Scholar
Baker, Mark A. 1991. On some subject/object non-asymmetries in Mohawk. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9. 537–576. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00134750.Search in Google Scholar
Belletti, Adriana & Luigi Rizzi. 1988. Psych verbs and Ɵ-theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6. 291–352. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00133902.Search in Google Scholar
Bianchi, Valentina. 2009. A note on backward anaphora. Rivista di Grammatica Generativa 34. 3–34.Search in Google Scholar
Bošković, Željko. 2012. Phases in NPs and DPs. In Ángel J. Gallego (ed.), Phases: Developing the framework, 343–383. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyer.10.1515/9783110264104.343Search in Google Scholar
Bruening, Benjamin. 2001. Syntax at the edge: Cross-clausal phenomena and the syntax of Passamaquoddy. Cambridge, MA: MIT PhD dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Cegłowski, Piotr & Przemysław Tajsner. 2006. Topicalization and object fronting in Polish: A view from a minimalist perspective. In Katarzyna Dziubalska-Kołaczyk (ed.), IFAtuation: A life in IFA; A Festschrift for Jacek Fisiak, 99–131. Poznań: UAM Press.Search in Google Scholar
Citko, Barbara. 2011. Symmetry in syntax: Merge, move and labels. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511794278Search in Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1965/2015. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press.10.21236/AD0616323Search in Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1976. Conditions on rules of grammar. Linguistic Analysis 2. 303–351.Search in Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Search in Google Scholar
Comorovski, Ileana. 1989. Discourse-linking and the wh-island constraint. North East Linguistics Society 19(1). 7.Search in Google Scholar
Cowart, Wayne. 1997. Experimental syntax: Applying objective methods to sentence judgments. London & New Delhi: SAGE Publications.Search in Google Scholar
Crain, Stephen & Cecile McKee. 1985. The acquisition of structural restrictions on anaphora. In Stephen Berman, Jae-Woong Choe & Joyce McDonough (eds.), Proceedings of NELS, vol. 16, 94–110. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Search in Google Scholar
Culicover, Peter W. & Ray Jackendoff. 2010. Quantitative methods alone are not enough: Response to Gibson and Fedorenko. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 14(6). 234–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2010.03.012.Search in Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, Ewa. 2010. Naive vs. expert intuitions: An empirical study of acceptability judgments. The Linguistic Review 27. 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.2010.001.Search in Google Scholar
Den Dikken, Marcel, Judy B. Bernstein, Christina Tortora & Raffaella Zanuttini. 2007. Data and grammar: Means and individuals. Theoretical Linguistics 33(3). 335–352. https://doi.org/10.1515/TL.2007.022.Search in Google Scholar
Despić, Miloje. 2013. Binding and the structure of NP in Serbo-Croatian. Linguistic Inquiry 44(2). 239–270. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00126.Search in Google Scholar
Drummer, Janna-D. & Claudia Felser. 2018. Cataphoric pronoun resolution in native and non-native sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 101. 97–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2018.04.001.Search in Google Scholar
Featherston, Sam. 2007. Data in generative grammar: The stick and the carrot. Theoretical Linguistics 33(3). 269–318.10.1515/TL.2007.020Search in Google Scholar
Featherston, Sam. 2009. Why linguistics needs boiling and freezing points. In Sam Featherston & Susanne Winkler (eds.), The fruits of empirical linguistics, vol. 1: Process, 47–74. Berlin: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110216141.47Search in Google Scholar
Featherston, Sam. 2020. Can we build a grammar on the basis of judgments? In Samuel Schindler, Anna Drożdżewicz & Karen Brøcker (eds.), Linguistic intuitions, 165–188. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198840558.003.0010Search in Google Scholar
Featherston, Sam. 2021. Response methods in acceptability experiments. In Goodall Grant (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of experimental syntax, 39–61. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108569620.003Search in Google Scholar
Fedorenko, Evelina & Edward Gibson. 2006. Syntactic parallelism as an account of cross-linguistic superiority effects. Unpublished ms, MIT.Search in Google Scholar
Filik, Ruth & Anthony J. Sanford. 2008. When is cataphoric reference recognised? Cognition 107(3). 1112–1121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.11.001.Search in Google Scholar
Francis, Elaine J. 2022. Gradient acceptability and linguistic theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780192898944.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Franks, Steven. 2019. Binding and phasehood in South Slavic revisited. Studies in Polish Linguistics 14(2). 61–80. https://doi.org/10.4467/23005920spl.19.014.11079.Search in Google Scholar
Gerbrich, Hannah, Vivian Schreier & Sam Featherston. 2019. Standard items for English judgement studies: Syntax and semantics. In Sam Featherston, Robin Hörnig, Sophie von Wietersheim & Susanne Winkler (eds.), Experiments in focus: Information structure and processing, 305–328. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110623093-012Search in Google Scholar
Gernsbacher, Morton. 1989. Mechanisms that improve referential access. Cognition 32. 99–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(89)90001-2.Search in Google Scholar
Gibson, Edward & Evelina Fedorenko. 2010. Weak quantitative standards in linguistic research. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 14(6). 233–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2010.03.005.Search in Google Scholar
Giskes, Anna & Dave Kush. 2021. Processing cataphors: Active antecedent search is persistent. Memory & Cognition 49(7). 1370–1386. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-021-01176-z.Search in Google Scholar
Goodall, Grant (ed.). 2021a. The Cambridge handbook of experimental syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108569620Search in Google Scholar
Goodall, Grant. 2021b. Sentence acceptability experiments: What, how and why. In Grant Goodall (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of experimental syntax, 7–38. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108569620.002Search in Google Scholar
Häussler, Jana & Tom S. Juzek. 2020. Linguistic intuitions and the puzzle of gradience. In Samuel Schindler, Anna Drożdżewicz & Karen Brøcker (eds.), Linguistic intuitions, 233–254. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198840558.003.0013Search in Google Scholar
Hestvik, Arild. 1992. LF movement of pronouns and anti-subject orientation. Linguistic Inquiry 23. 557–594.Search in Google Scholar
Hoeksema, Jack & Frans Zwarts. 1991. Some remarks on focus adverbs. Journal of Semantics 8(1–2). 51–70. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/8.1-2.51.Search in Google Scholar
Hofmeister, Philip. 2007. Representational complexity and memory retrieval in language comprehension. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Stanford University.Search in Google Scholar
Hofmeister, Philip. 2011. Representational complexity and memory retrieval in language comprehension. Language and Cognitive Processes 26(3). 376–405. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2010.492642.Search in Google Scholar
Hofmeister, Philip, Florian T. Jaeger, Ivan A. Sag, Inbal Arnon & Neal Snider. 2007. Locality and accessibility in wh-questions. In Sam Featherston & Wolfgang Sternefeld (eds.), Roots: Linguistics in search of its evidential base, 185–206. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110198621.185Search in Google Scholar
Hofmeister, Philip & Ivan Sag. 2010. Cognitive constraints and island effects. Language 86. 366–415. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.0.0223.Search in Google Scholar
Hofmeister, Philip, Laura Staum Casasanto & Ivan A. Sag. 2013. Islands in the grammar? Standards of evidence. In Jon Sprouse & Norbert Hornstein (eds.), Experimental syntax and island effects, 42–63. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139035309.004Search in Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray S. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Jelinek, Eloise. 1984. Empty categories, case, and configurationality. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 2. 39–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00233713.Search in Google Scholar
Kazanina, Nina & Colin Phillips. 2001. Coreference in child Russian: Distinguishing syntactic and discourse constraints. In Anna H.-J. Do, Laura Domínguez & Aimee Johansen (eds.), Proceedings of the 25th annual Boston University conference on language development, 413–424. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Press.Search in Google Scholar
Kazanina, Nina & Colin Phillips. 2010. Differential effects of constraints in the processing of Russian cataphora. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 63(2). 371–400. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210902974120.Search in Google Scholar
Kazanina, Nina, Ellen F. Lau, Moti Lieberman, Masaya Yoshida & Colin Phillips. 2007. The effect of syntactic constraints on the processing of backwards anaphora. Journal of Memory and Language 56. 384–409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.09.003.Search in Google Scholar
Keller, Frank. 2000. Gradience in grammar: Experimental and computational aspects of degrees of grammaticality. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh PhD thesis.Search in Google Scholar
Kucerova, Ivona. 2007. The syntax of givenness. Cambridge, MA: MIT PhD dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
LaTerza, Ivana. 2016. Binding in English and South Slavic and the parameterized DP hypothesis. Linguistic Inquiry 47(4). 741–753. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00230.Search in Google Scholar
Linzen, Tal & Yohei Oseki. 2018. The reliability of acceptability judgments across languages. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 3(1). 1–25. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.528.Search in Google Scholar
Mahowald, Kyle, Peter Graff, Jeremy Hartman & Edward Gibson. 2016. SNAP judgments: A small N acceptability paradigm (SNAP) for linguistic acceptability judgments. Language 92. 619–635. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2016.0052.Search in Google Scholar
Maling, Joan & Annie Zaenen. 1982. A phrase structure account of Scandinavian extraction phenomena. In Pauline Jacobson & Geoffrey Pullum (eds.), The nature of syntactic representation, 229–282. Dordrecht: Reidel.10.1007/978-94-009-7707-5_7Search in Google Scholar
Moulton, Keir, Quennie Chan, Tanie Cheng, Chung-hye Han, Kyeong-min Kim & Sophie Nickel-Thompson. 2018. Focus on cataphora: Experiments in context. Linguistic Inquiry 49(1). 151–168. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00269.Search in Google Scholar
Nadathur, Prerna. 2016. Focus improvements to weak crossover. Unpublished ms.Search in Google Scholar
Neeleman, Ad, Titov Elena, van de Koot, Hans & Vermeulen Reiko. 2009. A syntactic typology of topic, focus and contrast. In Jeroen van Craenenbroeck (ed.), Alternatives to cartography, 15–51. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110217124.15Search in Google Scholar
Nikolaeva, Liudmila. 2014. The secret life of pronouns. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Doctoral dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Patterson, Clare & Claudia Felser. 2019. Delayed application of binding Condition C during cataphoric pronoun resolution. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 48(2). 453–475. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-018-9613-4.Search in Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 2000. Phrasal movement and its Kin. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/5365.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Phillips, Colin. 2009. Should we impeach armchair linguists? Japanese/Korean Linguistics 17. 49–64.Search in Google Scholar
Phillips, Colin. 2013. Some arguments and nonarguments for reductionist accounts of syntactic phenomena. Language and Cognitive Processes 28(1–2). 156–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2010.530960.Search in Google Scholar
Pollard, Carl & Ivan A. Sag. 1994. Head-driven phrase structure grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
Postal, Paul. 1993. Remarks on weak crossover effects. Linguistic Inquiry 24. 539–556.Search in Google Scholar
Roberts, Craige. 1996/2012. Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. Semantics and Pragmatics 5. 1–69. https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.5.6.Search in Google Scholar
Rooth, Mats. 1996. Focus. In Shalom Lappin (ed.), The handbook of contemporary semantic theory, 271–297. London: Blackwell.10.1111/b.9780631207498.1997.00013.xSearch in Google Scholar
Ross, John Robert. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, M.I.T.Search in Google Scholar
Safir, Ken. 2017. Weak crossover. In Martin Everaert & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.), The Wiley Blackwell companion to syntax, 1–40. Hoboken: Wiley Online Library.10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom090Search in Google Scholar
Schlenker, Philippe. 2005. Minimize restrictors! (notes on definite descriptions, condition C and epithets). In Emar Maier, Corien Bary & Janneke Huitink (eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung, vol. 9, 385–416. Nijmegen: The Nijmegen Centre of Semantics (NCS).Search in Google Scholar
Schütze, Carson T. 1996. The empirical base of linguistics: Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
Schütze, Carson T. 2020. Acceptability judgments cannot be taken at face value. In Samuel Schindler, Anna Drożdżewicz & Karen Brøcker (eds.), Linguistic intuitions, 189–214. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198840558.003.0011Search in Google Scholar
Snyder, William. 2000. An experimental investigation of syntactic satiation effects. Linguistic Inquiry 31(3). 575–582. https://doi.org/10.1162/002438900554479.Search in Google Scholar
Snyder, William. 2021. Satiation. In Grant, Goodall (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of experimental syntax, 154–180. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108569620.007Search in Google Scholar
Sorace, Antonella & Frank Keller. 2005. Gradience in linguistic data. Lingua 115. 1497–1524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2004.07.002.Search in Google Scholar
Speas, Margaret. 1990. Phrase structure in natural language. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.10.1007/978-94-009-2045-3Search in Google Scholar
Sprouse, Jon. 2007. Continuous acceptability, categorical grammaticality, and experimental syntax. Biolinguistics 1. 118–129. https://doi.org/10.5964/bioling.8597.Search in Google Scholar
Sprouse, Jon. 2020. A user’s view of the validity of acceptability judgments as evidence for syntactic theories. In Samuel Schindler, Anna Drożdżewicz & Karen Brøcker (eds.), Linguistic intuitions, 215–232. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198840558.003.0012Search in Google Scholar
Sprouse, Jon & Diogo Almeida. 2012. Assessing the reliability of textbook data in syntax: Adger’s Core Syntax. Journal of Linguistics 48(3). 609–652. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022226712000011.Search in Google Scholar
Sprouse, Jon & Diogo Almeida. 2017. Design sensitivity and statistical power in acceptability judgment experiments. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 2(1). 1–32. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.236.Search in Google Scholar
Sprouse, Jon, Carson T. Schütze & Diogo Almeida. 2013. A comparison of informal and formal acceptability judgments using a random sample from Linguistic Inquiry 2001–2010. Lingua 134. 219–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2013.07.002.Search in Google Scholar
Szczegielniak, Adam. 2001. Polish optional movement. In Galia Alexandrova & Olga Arnaudova (eds.), The minimalist parameter. Current issues in linguistic theory series, 125–148. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.192.11szcSearch in Google Scholar
Tajsner, Przemysław. 2008. Aspects of the grammar of focus: A minimalist perspective. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Search in Google Scholar
Tajsner, Przemysław. 2017. In defense of linguists’ introspections. A view from a generativist’s perspective. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 53(4). 593–647. https://doi.org/10.1515/psicl-2017-0022.Search in Google Scholar
van Gompel, Roger P. G. & Simon P. Liversedge. 2003. The influence of morphological information on cataphoric pronoun assignment. Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition 29(1). 128–139. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.29.1.128.Search in Google Scholar
von Stechow, Arnim. 1991. Focusing and backgrounding operators. Discourse particles, 37–84. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.12.04steSearch in Google Scholar
Wasow, Thomas. 1972. Anaphoric relations in English. Cambridge, MA: MIT PhD thesis.Search in Google Scholar
Wasow, Thomas & Jennifer Arnold. 2005. Intuitions in linguistic argumentation. Lingua 115. 1481–1496.10.1016/j.lingua.2004.07.001Search in Google Scholar
Wasow, Thomas & David Clausen. 2011. Weak crossover and informativity, slides. Stanford: Stanford University.Search in Google Scholar
Weskott, Thomas & Gisbert Fanselow. 2011. On the informativity of different measures of linguistic acceptability. Language 87(2). 249–273. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2011.0041.Search in Google Scholar
Wiland, Bartosz. 2009. Aspects of order preservation in Polish and English. Poznań: Adam Mickiewicz University PhD dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Wiland, Bartosz. 2016. Le charme discret of remnant movement: Crossing and nesting dependencies in Polish OVS sentences. Studies in Polish Linguistics 11(3). 133–165.Search in Google Scholar
Willim, Ewa. 1989. On word order: A government and binding study of English and Polish. Kraków: Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego.Search in Google Scholar
Witkoś, Jacek. 2003. Movement and reconstruction: Questions and principle C effects in English and Polish. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Search in Google Scholar
Witkoś, Jacek. 2007. Polish and A-type scrambling. In Peter Kosta & Lilia Schürcks (eds.), Linguistic investigations into formal description of Slavic languages, 165–180. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Search in Google Scholar
Witkoś, Jacek. 2008. On the correlation between A-type scrambling and lack of Weak Crossover effects. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 44. 297–328.Search in Google Scholar
Witkoś, Jacek. 2021. Possessive pronouns, condition C and anti-cataphora effects. Lingua 259. 103109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2021.103109.Search in Google Scholar
Witkoś, Jacek & Anna Dziemianko. 2006. On the syntax of idioms and the idiomatic constituency Axiom. In Katarzyna Dziubalska-Kołaczyk (ed.), IFAtuation: A Festschrift for professor Jacek Fisiak, 773–794. Poznań: UAM Press.Search in Google Scholar
Witkoś, Jacek & Dominika Dziubała-Szrejbrowska. 2015. A note on the genitive of quantification in Polish and derivational phases. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 51(3). 433–462. https://doi.org/10.1515/psicl-2015-0017.Search in Google Scholar
Yoshida, Masaya, Nina Kazanina, Leticia Pablos & Patrick Sturt. 2014. On the origin of islands. Language Cognition and Neuroscience 29(7). 761–770. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2013.788196.Search in Google Scholar
Żychliński, Sylwiusz. 2021. A critical look at partial acceptability in English and Polish. Yearbook of Poznań Linguistic Meeting 7. 129–150. https://doi.org/10.14746/yplm.2021.7.5.Search in Google Scholar
Żychliński, Sylwiusz & Jacek Witkoś. 2022. Possessives as reflexives and pronouns: On noncomplementary distribution. Paper presented at Poznań Linguistic Meeting, University of Adam Mickiewicz, 8-10 September.Search in Google Scholar
© 2023 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
