Different Ways to Test Acceptability Judgments
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | 송상헌 | - |
dc.contributor.author | 이상근 | - |
dc.contributor.author | 최재웅 | - |
dc.contributor.author | 오은정 | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-09-04T21:51:51Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2021-09-04T21:51:51Z | - |
dc.date.created | 2021-06-17 | - |
dc.date.issued | 2015 | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 1225-6048 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | https://scholar.korea.ac.kr/handle/2021.sw.korea/95295 | - |
dc.description.abstract | The testing of acceptability judgments has recently attracted some attention in the study of syntax. This is because many linguists have come to realize that the extensive measuring the correlations between native speakers' intuitions provides a reliable way to investigate the genuine nature of human language. The growing research interest notwithstanding, the methodology of acceptability judgment experiments has not been completely validated. Since experimental syntax is an empirical science, it is important to develop a strong research methodology for a large-scale and in-depth quantitative analysis. In this context, the research question this paper raises is whether or not different methodologies of acceptability judgment testing yield different conclusions. The present study conducts two experiments that share exactly the same test items but are controlled and analyzed in different ways. Looking into the convergence rate using different methods of experimental control and statistical analysis, the present study provides four findings which can lead to a better methodology for observing native speakers’ intuitions: First, randomization is a mandatory process in acceptability judgment testing. Second, the mean in itself does not provide good statistical power in acceptability judgment testing. Third, sociological variables can affect acceptability judgments. Fourth, the size of sample in acceptability judgment testing should be more than 40 in order to yield a trustworthy conclusion. | - |
dc.language | English | - |
dc.language.iso | en | - |
dc.publisher | 한국생성문법학회 | - |
dc.title | Different Ways to Test Acceptability Judgments | - |
dc.title.alternative | Different Ways to Test Acceptability Judgments | - |
dc.type | Article | - |
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthor | 이상근 | - |
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthor | 최재웅 | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.15860/sigg.25.2.201505.447 | - |
dc.identifier.bibliographicCitation | 생성문법연구, v.25, no.2, pp.447 - 471 | - |
dc.relation.isPartOf | 생성문법연구 | - |
dc.citation.title | 생성문법연구 | - |
dc.citation.volume | 25 | - |
dc.citation.number | 2 | - |
dc.citation.startPage | 447 | - |
dc.citation.endPage | 471 | - |
dc.type.rims | ART | - |
dc.identifier.kciid | ART001994658 | - |
dc.description.journalClass | 2 | - |
dc.description.journalRegisteredClass | kci | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | experimental syntax | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | acceptability judgment testing | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | methodology | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | experimental control | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | statistics | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | R | - |
Items in ScholarWorks are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.
(02841) 서울특별시 성북구 안암로 14502-3290-1114
COPYRIGHT © 2021 Korea University. All Rights Reserved.
Certain data included herein are derived from the © Web of Science of Clarivate Analytics. All rights reserved.
You may not copy or re-distribute this material in whole or in part without the prior written consent of Clarivate Analytics.