1887
Volume 8, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1879-9264
  • E-ISSN: 1879-9272
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

This article argues that 2-alternative forced choice tasks and Thurstone’s law of comparative judgments ( Thurstone, 1927 ) are well suited to investigate code-switching competence by means of acceptability judgments. We compare this method with commonly used Likert scale judgments and find that the 2-alternative forced choice task provides granular details that remain invisible in a Likert scale experiment. In order to compare and contrast both methods, we examined the syntactic phenomenon usually referred to as the (AC) (apud Stowell, 1981 ), which imposes a condition of adjacency between verb and object. Our interest in the AC comes from the fact that it is a subtle feature of English grammar which is absent in Spanish, and this provides an excellent springboard to create minimal code-switched pairs that allow us to formulate a clear research question that can be tested using both methods.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/lab.16030.sta
2017-09-18
2019-10-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Anderson, T.
    (2006) Spanish-English bilinguals’ attitudes toward code-switching: proficiency, grammaticality, and familiarity. Doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University, State College, Pennsylvania.
  2. Bader, M. , & Häussler, J.
    (2010) Toward a model of grammaticality judgments. Journal of Linguistics, 46, 273–330. doi: 10.1017/S0022226709990260
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226709990260 [Google Scholar]
  3. Badiola, L. , Delgado, R. , Sande, A. , & Stefanich, S.
    (2017) Code-switching attitudes and their effects on acceptability judgment tasks. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 8(1). doi: 10.1075/lab.16006.bad
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.16006.bad [Google Scholar]
  4. Bard, E. G. , Robertson, D. & Sorace, A.
    (1996) Magnitude estimation of linguistic acceptability. Language, 72, 32–68. doi: 10.2307/416793
    https://doi.org/10.2307/416793 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bialystok, E.
    (1979) Explicit and implicit judgements of L2 grammaticality. Language Learning, 29, 81–103. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑1770.1979.tb01053.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1979.tb01053.x [Google Scholar]
  6. Bock, R. D. , & Jones, L. V.
    (1968) The measurement and prediction of judgment and choice. San Francisco, CA: Holden-Day.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bošković, Ž.
    (1997) The Syntax of Nonfinite Complementation: An Economy Approach. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Brown, T. C. , & Peterson, G. L.
    (2009) An enquiry into the method of paired comparison: reliability, scaling, and Thurstone’s Law of Comparative Judgment. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Brysbaert, M. , New, B. , & Keuleers, E.
    (2012) Adding Part of Speech information to the SUBTLEXUS word frequencies. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 991–997. doi: 10.3758/s13428‑012‑0190‑4
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0190-4 [Google Scholar]
  10. Bullock, B. E. & Toribio, A. J.
    (2012) The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Code-switching. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Caroll, J. M. , Bever, T. G. , & Pollack, C. R.
    (1981) The non-uniqueness of linguistic intuitions. Language, 57, 368–383. doi: 10.2307/413695
    https://doi.org/10.2307/413695 [Google Scholar]
  12. Cattelan, M.
    (2012) Models for paired comparison data: a review with emphasis on dependent data, Statistical Science, 27, 412–433 doi: 10.1214/12‑STS396
    https://doi.org/10.1214/12-STS396 [Google Scholar]
  13. Chomsky, N.
    (1957) Syntactic Structures. The Hague, the Netherlands: Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. (1986) Knowledge of Language: Its nature, origin and use. New York: Praeger.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. (1995) The Minimalist Program, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. (2000) Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework. In R. Martin , D. Michaels & J. Uriagereka (Eds.), Step by Step: Essays in Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Cowart, W.
    (1996) Experimental Syntax: Applying Objective Methods to Sentence Judgments. California: Sage Publications Inc.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. David, H. A.
    (1988) The method of paired comparisons (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Duchon, A. , Perea, M. , Sebastián-Gallés, N. , Martí, A. , & Carreiras, M.
    (2013) EsPal: One-stop shopping for Spanish word properties, Behavior Research Methods, 45, 1246–1258 doi: 10.3758/s13428‑013‑0326‑1
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0326-1 [Google Scholar]
  20. Ebert, S. & Koronkiewicz, B.
    (2017). Monolingual stimuli as a foundation for analyzing code-switching data, Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 8(1).
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Edwards, L.
    (1957) Techniques of Attitude Scale Construction. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. doi: 10.1037/14423‑000
    https://doi.org/10.1037/14423-000 [Google Scholar]
  22. Engen, T.
    (1971) Psychophysics, Vol. II: Scaling methods. In J. Kling & L. Riggs (Eds.), Woodworth and Schlosberg’s experimental psychology, 89–91. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Featherston, S.
    (2005a) Magnitude estimation and what it can do for your syntax: Some WH-constructions in German. Lingua, 115, 1525–50. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2004.07.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2004.07.003 [Google Scholar]
  24. (2005b) Universals and grammaticality: wh-constraints in German and English. Linguistics, 43, 667–711. doi: 10.1515/ling.2005.43.4.667
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2005.43.4.667 [Google Scholar]
  25. Featherson, S.
    (2008) Thermometer judgments as linguistic evidence. In C. M. Riehl & A. Rothe , (Eds.), Was ist linguistische Evidenz?Aachen: Shaker Verlag, 69–89.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Giancaspro, D.
    (2013) L2 Learners’ and Heritage Speakers’ Judgments of Code-Switching at the Auxiliary-VP Boundary. Selected Proceedings of the 16th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, J. Cabrelli Amaro et al. (Eds.), 56–69. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Gibson, E. , Piantadosi, S. , & Fedorenko, K.
    (2011) Using Mechanical Turk to Obtain and Analyze English Acceptability Judgments. Language and Linguistics Compass5, 509–524. doi: 10.1111/j.1749‑818X.2011.00295.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2011.00295.x [Google Scholar]
  28. Gigerenzer, G. , & Richter, H.
    (1990) Context effects and their interaction with development: Area judgments. Cognitive Development, 5, 235–264. doi: 10.1016/0885‑2014(90)90017‑N
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0885-2014(90)90017-N [Google Scholar]
  29. Gigerenzer, G. , Krauss, S. & Vitouch, O.
    (2004) The null ritual: What you always wanted to know about significance testing but were afraid to ask. In D. Kaplan (Ed.), The Sage handbook of quantitative methodology for the social sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi: 10.4135/9781412986311.n21
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412986311.n21 [Google Scholar]
  30. Green, D. M. & Swets, J. A.
    (1966) Signal Detection Theory and Psychophysics, Wiley, New York.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Haegeman, L.
    (1991) Introduction to government and binding theory. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Johnson, K.
    (1991) Object Positions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 9, 577–637. doi: 10.1007/BF00134751
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00134751 [Google Scholar]
  33. Jones, L. V. , & Thissen, D. A.
    (2007) A History and Overview of Psychometrics. In C. R. Rao & S. Sinharay (Eds.), Handbook of Statistics, volume 26: Psychometrics, 1–27. New York, NY: Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Kratzer, A.
    (1996) Severing the External Argument from its Verb, in J. Rooryck & L. Zaring (Eds.), Phrase Structure and the Lexicon. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑015‑8617‑7_5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8617-7_5 [Google Scholar]
  35. Labov, W.
    (1972) Some principles of linguistic methodology, Language in Society1, 97–120. doi: 10.1017/S0047404500006576
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500006576 [Google Scholar]
  36. (1975) What is a linguistic fact?Lisse: Peter de Ridder.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. López, L.
    (2012) Indefinite objects: scrambling, choice functions and differential marking. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Luce, R. D.
    (2002) A psychophysical theory of intensity proportions, joint presentations, and matches. Psychological Review, 109. 520–532. doi: 10.1037/0033‑295X.109.3.520
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.109.3.520 [Google Scholar]
  39. MacSwan, J.
    (1999) A minimalist approach to intrasentential code switching: Spanish-Nahuatl bilingualism in Central Mexico. New York: Garland.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Montag, E. D.
    (2006) Empirical formula for creating error bars for the method of paired comparisons. Journal of Electronic Imaging, 15, 222–230. doi: 10.1117/1.2181547
    https://doi.org/10.1117/1.2181547 [Google Scholar]
  41. Mohan, B. A.
    (1977) Acceptability testing and fuzzy grammar. In S. Greenbaum (Ed.), Acceptability in language, 133–148. The Hague: Mouton
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Muysken, P.
    (2000) Bilingual Speech: A typology of code-mixing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Munarriz, A. & Parafita Couto, M. C.
    (2014) ¿Cómo estudiar el cambio de código ? Incorporación de diferentes metodologías en el caso de varias comunidades bilingües. Lapurdum, 18, 43–73 doi: 10.4000/lapurdum.2494
    https://doi.org/10.4000/lapurdum.2494 [Google Scholar]
  44. Nagata, H.
    (1988) The relativity of linguistic intuition: The effect of repetition on grammaticality judgments. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 171, 1–17. doi: 10.1007/BF01067178
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01067178 [Google Scholar]
  45. Narens, L.
    (1996) A theory of ratio magnitude estimation. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 40, 109–129 doi: 10.1006/jmps.1996.0011
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmps.1996.0011 [Google Scholar]
  46. Nunnally, J. C.
    (1967) Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw Hill.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Onar Valk, P.
    (2014) Convergent developments in Dutch Tukish word order – A comparative study using ‘elicited production’ and ‘judgment’ data: Converging evidence?, Applied Linguistics Review, 5, 353–374. doi: 10.1515/applirev‑2014‑0016
    https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2014-0016 [Google Scholar]
  48. Oxford University Language Centre
    Oxford University Language Centre. “Placement Tests.” lang.ox.ac.uk. www.lang.ox.ac.uk/tests/index.html (accessedJuly 1st, 2015)
  49. Parafita Couto, M. C. , Deuchar, M. , & Fusser, M.
    (2015) How do Welsh-English bilinguals deal with conflict? Adjective-noun order resolution. In: G. Stell , K. Yakpo (Eds.), Code-switching at the crossroads between structural and sociolinguistic perspectives, 65–84. Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Parafita Couto, M. C. , Munarriz, A. , Epelde, I. , Deuchar, M. , & Oyharçabal, B.
    (2015) Gender conflict resolution in Spanish-Basque mixed DPs. Bilingualism, Language and Cognition, 18, 304–323. doi: 10.1017/S136672891400011X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S136672891400011X [Google Scholar]
  51. Parraga, C. A.
    (2015) Perceptual Psychophysics. In G. Cristobal , M. Keil , & L. Perrinet (Eds.), Biologically-Inspired Computer Vision: Fundamentals and Applications, 81–108. New York, NY: Wiley. doi: 10.1002/9783527680863.ch5
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9783527680863.ch5 [Google Scholar]
  52. Peer, E. , Vosgerau, J. , & Acquisti, A.
    (2014) Reputation as a sufficient condition for data quality on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Behavior Research Methods, 46, 1023–1031 doi: 10.3758/s13428‑013‑0434‑y
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0434-y [Google Scholar]
  53. Pollock, J. Y.
    (1989) Verb Movement, Universal Grammar, and the Structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry, 20, 365–424
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Reber, A.
    (1995) The Penguin dictionary of psychology. New York: Penguin Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Ross, J. R.
    (1979) Where’s English?In C. J. Fillmore , D. Kemper , & W. S. Wang (Eds.), Individual differences in language ability and language behavior, 127–163. New York: Academic Press. doi: 10.1016/B978‑0‑12‑255950‑1.50014‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-255950-1.50014-7 [Google Scholar]
  56. Serratrice, L. , Sorace, A. , Filiaci, F. , & Baldo, M.
    (2009) Bilingual children’s sensitivity to specificity and genericity: Evidence from metalinguistic awareness. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12, 239–257. doi: 10.1017/S1366728909004027
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728909004027 [Google Scholar]
  57. Schütze, C. T.
    (2016) The empirical base of linguistics. Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press. doi: 10.26530/OAPEN_603356
    https://doi.org/10.26530/OAPEN_603356 [Google Scholar]
  58. Schütze, C. T. , & Sprouse, J.
    (2013) Judgment Data. In R. J. Podesva and D. Sharma (Eds.), Research Methods in Linguistics, pp.27–50. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Shin, F. , Goodall, G. , Michel, D. & Beecher, H.
    (2012) Is Magnitude Estimation worth the trouble?In J. Choi , E. Alan Hogue , J. Punske , D. Tat , J. Schertz & A. Truman (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL29). 328–336. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Snow, C. , & Meijer, G.
    (1977) On the secondary nature of syntactic intuitions. In S. Greenbaum (Ed.), Acceptability in language, 163–177. The Hague, the Netherlands: Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Sorace, A.
    (1996) The use of acceptability judgments in second language acquisition research. In W. C. Ritchie and T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition, pp.375–409. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. (2010) Magnitude estimation in language acquisition research. In S. Unsworth & E. Blom (Eds.), Experimental Methods in Language Acquisition, pp.57–72. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/lllt.27.05sor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.27.05sor [Google Scholar]
  63. Sorace, A. , & Keller, F.
    (2004) Gradience in linguistic data. Lingua, 115, 1497–1524. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2004.07.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2004.07.002 [Google Scholar]
  64. Sorace, A. , Serratrice, L. , Filiaci, F. , & Baldo, M.
    (2009) Discourse conditions on subject pronoun realization: Testing the linguistic intuitions of older bilingual children. Lingua, 119, 460–477. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2008.09.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2008.09.008 [Google Scholar]
  65. Sprouse, J.
    (2007) Continuous acceptability, categorical grammaticality, and experimental syntax. Biolinguistics, 1, 118–129.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. (2011) A Test of the Cognitive Assumptions of Magnitude Estimation: Commutativity does not Hold for Acceptability Judgments. Language, 87, 274–288. doi: 10.1353/lan.2011.0028
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2011.0028 [Google Scholar]
  67. Sprouse, J. & Almeida, D.
    (2011) Power in acceptability judgment experiments and the reliability of data in syntax. Ms., University of California, Irvine & Michigan State University.
  68. (2012) The empirical status of data in syntax: A reply to Gibson and Fedorenko. Language and Cognitive Processes. iFirst. 1–7.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. 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. Lingua, 134, 219–248. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2013.07.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2013.07.002 [Google Scholar]
  70. Stevens, S. S.
    (1946) On the Theory of Scales of Measurement. Science, 103, 677–680. doi: 10.1126/science.103.2684.677
    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.103.2684.677 [Google Scholar]
  71. (1956) The direct estimation of sensory magnitudes: loudness. The American journal of psychology, 69, 1–25 doi: 10.2307/1418112
    https://doi.org/10.2307/1418112 [Google Scholar]
  72. Stowell, T.
    (1981) Origins of phrase structure. PhD dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
  73. Stokes, W.
    (1974) All of the work on quantifier-negation isn’t convincing. In M. W. La Galy , R. A. Fox , & A. Bruck (Eds.), Papers from the tenth regional meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, 692–700. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Thurstone, L.
    (1927) A Law of Comparative Judgment. Psychological Review, 34, 273–286. doi: 10.1037/h0070288
    https://doi.org/10.1037/h0070288 [Google Scholar]
  75. Tikofsky, R. S. , & Reiff, D. G.
    (1970) Structural apperception in the absence of syntactic constraints, Language and Speech, 13, 240–253. doi: 10.1177/002383097001300403
    https://doi.org/10.1177/002383097001300403 [Google Scholar]
  76. Tsukida, K. & Gupta, M. R.
    (2011) How to Analyze Paired Comparison Data (UWEE Technical Report Number UWEETR-2011–0004) Seattle, University of Washington.
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Torgerson, W. S.
    (1958) Theory and methods of scaling. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Toribio, A. J.
    (2001) On the emergence of bilingual code-switching competence. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4, 203–231. doi: 10.1017/S1366728901000414
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728901000414 [Google Scholar]
  79. Weskott, T. & Fanselow, G.
    (2008) Variance and informativity in different measures of linguistic acceptability. Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL), 27, 431–439.
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Weskott, T. , & Fanselow, G.
    (2011) On the Informativity of Different Measures of Linguistic Acceptability. Language, 87, 249–273 doi: 10.1353/lan.2011.0041
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2011.0041 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/lab.16030.sta
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/lab.16030.sta
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error