Acceptability Judgments in Sign Linguistics

2021 ◽  
pp. 561-584
Author(s):  
Vadim Kimmelman
2017 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 73-113
Author(s):  
Sanghoun Song ◽  
Duk-Ho Jung ◽  
Eunjeong Oh

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julian Jara-Ettinger ◽  
Paula Rubio-Fernandez

A foundational assumption of human communication is that speakers ought to say as much as necessary, but no more. How speakers determine what is necessary in a given context, however, is unclear. In studies of referential communication, this expectation is often formalized as the idea that speakers should construct reference by selecting the shortest, sufficiently informative, description. Here we propose that reference production is, instead, a process whereby speakers adopt listeners’ perspectives to facilitate their visual search, without concern for utterance length. We show that a computational model of our proposal predicts graded acceptability judgments with quantitative accuracy, systematically outperforming brevity models. Our model also explains crosslinguistic differences in speakers’ propensity to over-specify in different visual contexts. Our findings suggest that reference production is best understood as driven by a cooperative goal to help the listener understand the intended message, rather than by an egocentric effort to minimize utterance length.


Author(s):  
Bent Jacobsen

<p>In the present paper a distinction is drawn between <strong>acceptability</strong> and <strong>grammaticality</strong>. These two concepts have often been confounded in the literature. Thus linguists have been prone to say that 'the native speaker makes grammaticality judgments'. Nothing could be more mistaken. He makes acceptability judgments, and that is something entirely different. In this article, I shall make use of the sentence-schema which has been current since Chomsky (1986a) - a logical extension of X-bar syntax. Readers who are not familiar with the basic modules of modern TG-theory are referred to my articles in <em>Hermes</em>, 1 and <em>Hermes</em>, 2 (see references). In these two articles I adhered to the S-bar/S-schema of sentence structure. This is now obsolete. I shall adopt a relatively conservative view of bounding nodes (subjacency); i.e. I make no attempt to introduce the sophisticated theory of barrierhood developed in Chomsky (1986a). This is immaterial to the argument conducted in this paper.</p>


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven Langsford ◽  
Andrew T Hendrickson ◽  
Amy Perfors ◽  
Lauren Kennedy ◽  
Danielle Navarro

Understanding and measuring sentence acceptability is of fundamental importance for linguists, but although many measures for doing so have been developed, relatively little is known about some of their psychometric properties. In this paper we evaluate within- and between-participant test-retest reliability on a wide range of measures of sentence acceptability. Doing so allows us to estimate how much of the variability within each measure is due to factors including participant-level individual differences, sample size, response styles, and item effects. The measures examined include Likert scales, two versions of forced-choice judgments, magnitude estimation, and a novel measure based on Thurstonian approaches in psychophysics. We reproduce previous findings of high between-participant reliability within and across measures, and extend these results to a generally high reliability within individual items and individual people. Our results indicate that Likert scales and the Thurstonian approach produce the most stable and reliable acceptability measures and do so with smaller sample sizes than the other measures. Moreover, their agreement with each other suggests that the limitation of a discrete Likert scale does not impose a significant degree of structure on the resulting acceptability judgments.


2020 ◽  
pp. 189-214
Author(s):  
Carson T. Schütze

This chapter addresses how linguists’ empirical (syntactic) claims should be tested with non-linguists. Recent experimental work attempts to measure rates of convergence between data presented in journal articles and the results of large surveys. Three follow-up experiments to one such study are presented. It is argued that the original method may underestimate the true rate of convergence because it leaves considerable room for naïve subjects to give ratings that do not reflect their true acceptability judgments of the relevant structures. To understand what can go wrong, the experiments were conducted in two parts. The first part had visually presented sentences rated on a computer, replicating previous work. The second part was an interview where the experimenter asked the participants about the ratings they gave to particular items, in order to determine what interpretation or parse they had assigned, whether they had missed any critical words, and so on.


2020 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Arabella Kyprianides ◽  
Julia A. Yesberg ◽  
Jenna Milani ◽  
Ben Bradford ◽  
Paul Quinton ◽  
...  

PurposeThe range of tactical force options available to police is increasing, while public debate about police use of force is never far from the headlines. This paper aims to examine what factors shape how people accept police use of force.Design/methodology/approachThe authors use two online experiments to test whether different force options affected judgments about the acceptability of police action and to explore the role of trust and legitimacy in people's judgments.FindingsThe authors found across both studies that respondents judged scenarios involving a weapon (baton, CS spray, Taser) as less acceptable compared to scenarios that did not (talking down, handcuffs), but they did not draw much distinction between the specific weapon used. In study 1, exposure to different police tactics had no effect on trust and legitimacy. In study 2, prior perceptions of trust were strong predictors of acceptability judgments.Originality/valueThere is a comparative paucity of British-based empirical research examining public attitudes toward different use of force resolutions by police. In this paper, the authors explore how use of force affects people's views of police at a time in which the nature and scope of force applications, how these are understood and indeed the basic enterprise of policing itself is being reconsidered and renegotiated.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document