What do you mean by contrast in syntax?
0
조회
0
다운로드
10
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The present work proposes a non-binary evaluation of contrast in syntax and elaborates the benefits of considering gradience and degree in syntactic study. Contrast is one of the most important notions in contemporary linguistics, but the field lacks consensus about its definition and its role. Syntactic contrast has long been used in the field as a binary means of distinguishing grammatical from ungrammatical sentences via introspective judgments. Given that not all (un)grammatical sentences sound equally good or bad, contrasts should also be posited as gradient, thereby being measurable on a continuum of acceptability. The present study argues that a gradient view of syntactic contrasts is often more informative, revealing a greater variety of syntactic underpinnings in human language. To substantiate the merits of the gradient view of contrast over the dichotomous view, the present study presents results from a series of experiments conducted on Korean. The test items consist of 287 sentence pairs randomly extracted from Studies of Generative Grammar 1991-2014. The experimental tasks include a two-alternative forced choice task, a binary yes/no task, and a 5-point Likert scale task. The analysis is four-pronged covering direction, position, distance, and intensity of contrast. First, the direction of syntactic contrasts is examined with respect to whether linguists’ judgments and naïve speakers’ judgments converge with each other. Second, the position of contrasts on acceptability continuum examines absolute goodness of sentences on the assumption that the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ sentence must absolutely sound good and bad to the vast majority of speakers. Third, the distance of contrasts pertains to strength of grammatical constraints. This indicates the magnitude of difference in acceptability between two pairwise sentences. Finally, the intensity of contrasts relates to judgment variation across speakers. This examines whether most naïve speakers agree with the acceptability of a particular sentence and if not, it estimates how much their judgments are scattered in terms of the gradience of acceptability.
Abstract
The present work proposes a non-binary evaluation of contrast in syntax and elaborates the benefits of considering gradience and degree in syntactic study. Contrast is one of the most important notions in contemporary linguistics, but the field lacks consensus about its definition and its role. Syntactic contrast has long been used in the field as a binary means of distinguishing grammatical from ungrammatical sentences via introspective judgments. Given that not all (un)grammatical sentences sound equally good or bad, contrasts should also be posited as gradient, thereby being measurable on a continuum of acceptability. The present study argues that a gradient view of syntactic contrasts is often more informative, revealing a greater variety of syntactic underpinnings in human language. To substantiate the merits of the gradient view of contrast over the dichotomous view, the present study presents results from a series of experiments conducted on Korean. The test items consist of 287 sentence pairs randomly extracted from Studies of Generative Grammar 1991-2014. The experimental tasks include a two-alternative forced choice task, a binary yes/no task, and a 5-point Likert scale task. The analysis is four-pronged covering direction, position, distance, and intensity of contrast. First, the direction of syntactic contrasts is examined with respect to whether linguists’ judgments and naïve speakers’ judgments converge with each other. Second, the position of contrasts on acceptability continuum examines absolute goodness of sentences on the assumption that the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ sentence must absolutely sound good and bad to the vast majority of speakers. Third, the distance of contrasts pertains to strength of grammatical constraints. This indicates the magnitude of difference in acceptability between two pairwise sentences. Finally, the intensity of contrasts relates to judgment variation across speakers. This examines whether most naïve speakers agree with the acceptability of a particular sentence and if not, it estimates how much their judgments are scattered in terms of the gradience of acceptability.
참고문헌 (58)
- Bard, Ellen G., "Magnitude Estimation of Linguistic Acceptability", Language, 72(1), pp.32~68 (1996)
- Bauer, Laurie, "Contrast in Language and Linguistics", Journal of English Linguistics, 36(1), pp.93~98 (2008)
- Benjamini, Yoav, "Controlling the False Discovery Rate : a Practical and Powerful Approach to Multiple Testing", Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B, 57, pp.289~300 (1995)
- Bod, Rens, "Probabilistic Linguistics" (2003), The MIT Press
- Bresnan, Joan, "Gradient Grammar: An Effect of Animacy on the Syntax of give in New Zealand and American English", Lingua, 118(2), pp.245~259 (2008)
- Bresnan, Joan, "Cognitive Foundations of Interpretation", pp.69~94 (2007), Royal Netherlands Academy of Science
- Cable, Seth, "University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics: Processing Linguistic Structure, Vol. 38", pp.1~22 (2011), GLSA Publications
- Chomsky, Noam, "The Structure of Language: Readings in the Philosophy of Language", pp.384~389 (1964), Prentice-Hall
- Chomsky, Noam, "Aspects of the Theory of Syntax" (1965), MIT Press
- Chomsky, Noam, "Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use" (1986), Praeger
- Clifton Jr, Charles, "Amnestying Superiority Violations: Processing Multiple Questions", Linguistic Inquiry, 37(1), pp.51~68 (2006)
- Cowart, Wayne, "Experimental Syntax: Applying Objective Methods to Sentence Judgments" (1997), Sage publications
- Culbertson, Jennifer, "Are Linguists Better Subjects?", The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 60(4), pp.721~736 (2009)
- Culicover, Peter W., "Quantitative Methods Alone are Not Enough: Response to Gibson and Fedorenko", Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(6), pp.234~235 (2010)
- Devitt, Michael, "Intuitions in Linguistics", The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 57(3), pp.481~513 (2006)
- Devitt, Michael, "Linguistic Intuitions Revisited", The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 61(4), pp.833~865 (2010)
- Dresher, B. Elan, "The Contrastive Hierarchy in Phonology" (2009), Cambridge University Press
- Edelman, Shimon, "How Seriously Should We Take Minimalist Syntax?", Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(2), pp.60~61 (2003)
- Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka, "A Streamlined Approach to Online Linguistic Surveys", Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 34(2), pp.481~495 (2016)
- Fanselow, Gisbert, "Gradience in Grammar: Generative Perspectives", pp.1~23 (2006), University Press
- Featherston, Sam, "Magnitude Estimation and What It Can Do for Your Syntax: Some wh-constraints in German", Lingua, 115(11), pp.1525~1550 (2005)
- Featherston, Sam, "That-trace in German", Lingua, 115(9), pp.1277~1302 (2005)
- Flemming, Edward, "Phonetically Based Phonology", pp.232~276 (2004), Cambridge University Press
- Fukuda, Shin, "Magnitude Estimation Worth the Trouble?", Proceedings of the 29th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, pp.328~336 (2012), Cascadilla Proceedings Project
- Gibson, Edward, "Weak Quantitative Standards in Linguistics Research", Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(6), pp.233~234 (2010)
- Gries, Stefan Th., "More (Old and New) Misunderstandings of Collostructional Analysis: On Schmid and Küchenhoff (2013)", Cognitive Linguistics, 26(3), pp.505~536 (2015)
- Gross, Steven, "Revisited Linguistic Intuitions", The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 62(3), pp.639~656 (2011)
- Hall, Daniel Currie, "Phonological Contrast and Its Phonetic Enhancement : Dispersedness without Dispersion", Phonology, 28(1), pp.1~54 (2011)
- Han, Chung-hye, "V-Raising and Grammar Competition in Korean: Evidence from Negation and Quantifier Scope", Linguistic Inquiry, 38(1), pp.1~47 (2007)
- Han, Chung-hye, "Endogenous Sources of Variability in Language Acquisition", Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113(4), pp.942~947 (2016)
- Honeybone, Patrick, "Analysing Variation in English" (2011), Cambridge University Press
- Keller, Frank, "Gradience in Grammar: Experimental and Computational Aspects of Degrees of Grammaticality", Ph.D., pp.2000
- Keller, Frank, "Gradience in Grammar: Generative Perspectives", pp.270~287 (2006), Oxford University Press
- Lakoff, Robin, "Acceptability in Language", pp.73~86 (1977), Mouton Publishers
- Linzen, Tal, "The Reliability of Acceptability Judgments across Languages", Unpublished Manuscript, ~ (2015)
- Łubowicz, Anna, "The Phonology of Contrast" (2012), Equinox Publishing Ltd
- Mathôt, Sebastiaan, "OpenSesame : An Open-Source, Graphical Experiment Builder for the Social Sciences", Behavior Research Methods, 44(2), pp.314~324 (2012)
- Myers, James, "Syntactic Judgment Experiments", Language and Linguistics Compass, 3(1), pp.406~423 (2009)
- Myers, James, "The Design and Analysis of Small-scale Syntactic Judgment Experiments", Lingua, 119(3), pp.425~444 (2009)
- Myers, James, "Markedness and Lexical Typicality in Mandarin Acceptability Judgments", Language and Linguistics, 16(6), pp.791~818 (2015)
- Newmeyer, Frederick J., "Grammatical Theory: Its Limits and its Possibilities" (1983), University of Chicago Press
- Newmeyer, Frederick J., "Grammar is Grammar and Usage is Usage", Language, 79(4), pp.682~707 (2003)
- Peirce, Jonathan W., "PsychoPy – Psychophysics Software in Python", Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 162(1), pp.8~13 (2007)
- Phillips, Colin, "Linguistics and Empirical Evidence : Reply to Edelman and Christiansen", Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(2), pp.61~62 (2003)
- Korean Linguistics, Vol. 17, "Japanese", pp.2009, Phillips, Colin
- R Core Team, "R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing", R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ~ (2017)
- Sampson, Geoffrey R., "Grammar without Grammaticality", Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 3(1), pp.1~32 (2007)
- Schütze, Carson T., "The Empirical Base of Linguistics: Grammaticality Judgments and Linguistic Methodology" (1996), University of Chicago Press
- 송상헌, "Measuring the Degree of Convergence between Informal and Formal Acceptability Judgments for Korean", 언어, 42(4), pp.761~804 (2017), 한국언어학회
- Sorace, Antonella, "Gradience in Linguistic Data", Lingua, 115(11), pp.1497~1524 (2005)
- Sprouse, Jon, "Assessing the Reliability of Textbook Data in Syntax : Adger’s Core Syntax", Journal of Linguistics, 48(3), pp.609~652 (2012)
- Sprouse, Jon, "A Comparison of Informal and Formal Acceptability Judgments Using a Random Sample from Linguistic Inquiry 2001–2010", Lingua, 134, pp.219~248 (2013)
- Sprouse, Jon, "Continuous Acceptability, Categorical Grammaticality, and Experimental Syntax", Biolinguistics, 1, pp.123~134 (2007)
- Sprouse, Jon, "Magnitude Estimation and the Non-Linearity of Acceptability Judgments", Proceedings of the 27th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, pp.397~403 (2008), Cascadilla Proceedings Project
- Traugott, Elizabeth Closs, "Gradience, Gradualness and Grammaticalization" (2010), John Benjamins Publishing
- Valian, Virginia, "Language, Mind, and Brain", pp.179~188 (1982), Lawrence Erlbaum
- Wasow, Thomas, "Intuitions in Linguistic Argumentation", Lingua, 115(11), pp.1481~1496 (2005)
- Weskott, Thomas, "On the Informativity of Different Measures of Linguistic Acceptability", Language, 87(2), pp.249~273 (2011)