Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T20:52:29.039Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Introspection, Observation, and Experiment: An Example Where Experiment Pays Off

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 March 2022

Guy Carden  and
Thomas G. Dieterich
Guy Carden
Affiliation:
University of British Columbia
Thomas G. Dieterich
Affiliation:
Portland State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

How do we collect data to test theories about syntax and semantics? For most of us, the process is very simple: We have a hypothesis, we construct sample sentences to test it, introspect about their grammaticality or meaning, and move on to modify our hypothesis as necessary. It would be fair to say that the standard method of data collection in syntax and semantics is personal introspection. This personal introspection is not totally uncontrolled, of course: Doubtful cases are checked informally with friends or colleagues; and there is an implicit, check when the referees accept a paper or an audience listens without objecting. What we have, in effect, is the introspection of the professionals, the people who know what the issues are.

This standard method has been enormously successful: Linguists have produced precise and interesting theories about syntax and semantics; and the bulk of the data on which these theories depend is undisputed and, we believe, undisputable.

Type
Part XI. The Problem of Data in Linguistics
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1980 , Issue 2: Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers 1980 , 1980 , pp. 583 - 597
Copyright
Copyright © 1981 by the Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Carden, Guy. (1976). “Syntactic and Semantic Data: Replication Results.” Language In Society 5: 99-104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carden, Guy. (forthcoming). “Backwards Anaphora in Discourse Context.” Journal of LinguisticsGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. (1957). Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, Georgia. (1978). “Remarks on a proposal presented by Thomas Dieterlch and Guy Carden at the NWAVE-VII Colloquium on the Validation of Introspective Judgements.” Paper presented at the 1MAVE-VII Conference, Georgetown University, 4 Nov. 1978.Google Scholar
Greenbaum, S. and Quirk, R. (1970). Elicitation Experiments in English. Coral Gables: University of Miami Press.Google Scholar
Katz, J. and Fodor, J.A. (1963). “The Structure of a Semantic Theory.” Language 39: 170-210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, J and Postal, P.M. (1964). An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Descriptions. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. (1975). “Three Perspectives in the Functional Approach to Syntax.” In Papers from the Parasession on Functionalism. Edited by Grossman, R.E., San, L.J., and Vance, T.J.. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. Pages 276-336.Google Scholar
Labov, William. (1972). Sociolinguistlo Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Labov, William . (1975). What is a Linguistic Fact? Lisse: Peter de Ridder Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George. (1968). “Pronouns and Reference.” Indiana University Linguistics Club mimeo.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. (1969). “On Pronominalization and the Chain of Command.” In Modern Studies in English. Edited by Reibel, D.A. and Schane, S.A.. Englewood Cliffs : Prentice-Hall. Pages 160-186.Google Scholar
Levitt, Andrea G. (1977). The Effects of Clause Structure on Memory for Sentences. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Yale University. Xerox University Microfilms Publication *DDK78-16182.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. (1976). The Syntactic Domain of Anaphora. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya (1980). “Coreference and Bound Anaphora: A Restatement of the Anaphora Questions.” Unpublished paper from Tel-Aviv University.Google Scholar
Ringen, J. (1975). “Linguistic Facts: A Study of the Empirical Scientific Status of Transformational Generative Grammars.” In Testing Linguistic Hypotheses. Edited by Cohen, D. and Wirth, J.R.. New York: Wiley. Pages 1-41.Google Scholar
Ross, J.R., (1967). “On the Cyclic Nature of English Pronominalization.” In To Honor Roman Jakobson. Volume 3. The Hague: Mouton & Co. Pages 1669-1682. (As Reprinted in Modern Studies in English. Edited by Reibel, D.A. and Schane, S.A.. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1969. Pages 187-200.)Google Scholar
Shih, M., Carden, G., and Lane, L., (1977). “Unobtrusive Data Collection: An Evaluation of the Appropriate-Response Methodology.” Linguistic Society of America Annual Meeting, Chicago, 29 December 19Google Scholar