Grammaticality - Knowledge

1164:

a time as a baseline measure of grammaticality level. In the repetition phase, participants rate each sentence after it has been displayed numerous times continuously, with short pauses between each repetition. They have generally found that repetition of a string significantly decreases participants grammaticality ratings of both grammatical and ungrammatical sentences. Two possible factors have been speculated to cause this affect, the first attributes this phenomenon to satiation, the phenomenon of prolonged repetition leading to illusory changes in perception. The second is that changes in participants’ judgement process occurred as a result of repetitions. Repetition effects have been shown to not be present when sentences are displayed along with a preceding sentence to give the string context.

1057:

processing important structures when not given enough time to process input. This shows that knowledge cannot always be automatically and consistently applied under stressful situations without having processing difficulties. However, these issues are not necessarily independent of each other, as low decoding ability of structure could affect processing speed. Overall, individual differences in L2 working memory and decoding ability are correlated to grammaticality judgment accuracy and latencies. However, there is no correlation between speed of processing measure and grammaticality judgment performance, age of arrival correlates with syntactic mastery, and knowledge of vocabulary probably drives grammaticality performance.

1146:, and (17b-c) violate Subjacency, while (17d) is a grammatical control sentence. It was found that since the violations were structural in nature, participants with familial sinistrality were less sensitive to violations in such as the ones found(17a-c) while (17d) showed no variation between participant groups. In a similar study Bever, Carrithers, & Townsend found evidence that support Cowart's findings, also showing that no judgement differences were found when comparing groups across variables such as age, sex, and verbal 1136:, perform differently than participants with only right handed family members. They suggest that those with familial sinistrality are less sensitive to violations of sentence structure likely due to a correlation between this group and a less localized language module in the brain. Cowart conducted a study specifically testing for the effects of familial sinistrality in grammatical judgement tasks. Using a 4-point scale, the experiment asked participants to judge sentences that followed the following model: 2860: 1103:. Undeniably, the case of second-language judgments involves participants to make judgments concerning their knowledge of a language system that is not necessarily complete compared to the knowledge of their first language. In an experiment, participants may encounter sentences beyond their current knowledge, resulting in guesswork. To minimize guessing, it is up to the linguists and researchers to select sentences that would better reflect a learner's knowledge of L2. 459: 938:. The most productive method however, is real-time grammaticality judgements. A grammaticality judgement is a test which involves showing participants sentences that are either grammatical or ungrammatical. The participant must decide whether or not they find the sentences to be grammatical as quickly as possible. Grammaticality is cross-linguistic, so this method has therefore been used on a wide variety of languages. 951:

subcategorization, or by the languages-learners translating their primary language directly into the language they are learning. The program worked primarily by utilizing a parser which consisted of constraints which, if a first parsing attempt failed, could be selectively relaxed. Thus, for a given parse, the constraints which were relaxed indicated the precise nature and location of ungrammaticality.

963:. In an experiment by Cairns et al., preschool children aged 4–6 were presented sentences such as (14) and (15) orally. (To make sure that the meaning of the sentences was clear to the children, sentences were enacted with toys.) While sentence (14) is well-formed in the adult grammar, sentence (15) is not, as indicated by the asterisk (*). The source of the ill-formedness is that the verb 863:—such as semantic plausibility, working memory limitations, etc.—account for speakers reporting acceptability on a scale. However, there are a few exceptions to this trend, including those who claim that "strength of violation" plays a role in grammaticality judgements. Examples of linguists of this persuasion include Huang's proposal that ECP violations are stronger than 1208:

In the online study, participants did a self-paced reading (SPR) task. The sentence appears on a computer monitor word-by-word. After each word, participants were asked to choose if the sentence is still grammatical so far. Then they would go on to rate the sentence from 1 "perfectly good English" to

1172:

When researchers interpret a yes/no response on grammaticality, they need to take into account of what the participants are responding to. The speaker could be rejecting the sentence for reasons other than its grammaticality, including the context or meaning of the sentence, a particular word choice,

1090:

There is data supporting high-performing late learners well beyond the critical period: in an experiment testing grammaticality by J. L. McDonald, 7 out of 50 L2 English late-learner subjects had scores within range of native speakers. The results are linked to how individual differences in L2 memory

1028:

learning ability with age is not inevitable, and can be explained by factors such as motivation, learning environment, pressure, and time commitment. Although there is evidence that supports the claim that speakers outside the L2 mastery age range are not capable of acquiring native-like mastery of a

568:

Grammaticality judgements are largely based on an individual's linguistic intuition, and it has been pointed out that humans have the ability to understand as well as produce an infinitely large number of new sentences that have never been seen before. This allows us to accurately judge a sentence as

1163:

There have been numerous studies addressing the effect of repetition on grammaticality judgements in experimental contexts. Repetition experiments are conducted by asking participants to give scaled ratings of sentences on their level of grammaticality. In the first phase, sentences are rated one at

1056:

These issues have been tied to grammatical processing performance by testing native speakers of English on the same tasks under stressful conditions: there is shown to be difficulty in grammatical agreement when memory capacity is curtailed, important cues in the language when given noisy input, and

775:

Note that examples (3)-(8) are open to interpretation as judgement is based entirely on intuition, and determination of grammaticality is dependent on one's theory of what the grammar is. Therefore, different individuals may assign the same sentence different degrees of acceptability. Some linguists

912:

defines grammaticality as a matter of explicit consensus. On this view, to consider a string as grammatical, it should conform with a set of norms. These norms are usually based on conventional rules that form a part of a higher or literary register for a given language. For some languages, a group

896:

Within the past twenty years however, there has been a major shift in linguists' understanding of intermediate levels of acceptability. This is due to the increasing use of experimental methods to measure acceptability, making it possible to detect subtle differences along a scale of acceptability.

768:

symbols such as question marks (?) or asterisks (*) to represent the judged acceptability of a linguistic string. During a judgment task, the speaker may report the acceptability of a sentence as acceptable, marginally acceptable, unacceptable, terrible, good, etc. Degrees of acceptability can also

664: 992:

The results of this study show that the earliest age at which children can discriminate well-formed from ill-formed sentences, as well as correct these, is at 6 years. During the critical period between 4 and 6 years old, there is a significant increase in the accuracy of grammaticality judgments,

642:

in (1), which does not occur in any corpus, is not meaningful, and is not statistically probable. However, the form of this sentence is judged to be grammatical by many native speakers of English. Such grammaticality judgements reflect the fact that the structure of sentence (1) obeys the rules of

1224:

could be a factor of grammaticality illusion. English sentences follow the order of subject, verb, object (SVO) while both German and Dutch have the subject, object, verb (SOV) order. Based on the results, German and Dutch participants do not show the effect of the illusion. However, if they were

1001:

ability of the child to access their internalized grammar and to compute whether it can or cannot generate the target sentence. This ability to judge the grammaticality of sentences seems to develop in children well after basic grammar skills have been established, and is related to early reading

760:

Acceptability judgments, on the other hand, fall in a continuous spectrum. Sentences may either be clearly acceptable or clearly unacceptable, but there are also sentences that are partially acceptable. Hence, according to Sprouse, the difference between grammaticality and acceptability is that

1070:

and L2 are on phonological and grammatical level. For example, Chinese/English bilinguals at 7 years old perform just as well as Spanish/English bilinguals at 16 years old. This is due to the fact that a grammatical construction on an L2 that has a parallel structure in an L1 would impose less

1037:

General processing problems, rather than a deficit in some syntax specific process or module, offer a viable explanation for populations that exhibit poor grammatical performance. Performance on L2 grammaticality judgments might be partially due to variable accessibility to and use of relevant

858:

The prevailing models on grammaticality since Chomsky postulated that the acceptability of sentences is a scale, with clearly acceptable on one side, clearly unacceptable on the other, and all manner of ranges of partial acceptability in between. To explain the scale of partial acceptability,

1014:

Grammaticality judgment tasks can also be used to assess the competence of language learners. Late learners of L2 perform worse on grammaticality judgment tasks or tests than native speakers or early acquirers, in that L2 learners are more likely to accept a sentence that is ungrammatical as

772:(3) *** The Sally hugged him the Thomas (4) ** The Sally hugged him Thomas (5) * The Sally hugged Thomas (6) ??? Which the friend Thomas has painted a picture of? (7) ?? Which friend Thomas had painted a picture of? (8) ? Which friend has Thomas painted the picture of? 950:

which was designed to perform automatic error diagnosis and correction of ungrammaticalities produced by second-language learners. The program classified errors made by language-learners in their sentences as being due to errors in phrase structure, transformations, morphology, verb

1065:

Age for decrease of L2 grammaticality performance varies from early childhood to late adolescence, depending on the combinations of the speaker's first and second language. The age of acquisition at which L2 learners are worse than native speakers depends on how dissimilar the

671:

Thus, for Chomsky a grammatical string is not necessarily a meaningful one. However, speakers can understand nonsensical strings by means of natural intonation. In addition, non-meaningful but grammatical sentences are often recalled more easily than ungrammatical sentences.

660:, because the pragmatics of the verb 'sleep' cannot be expressed as an action carried out in a furious manner. Hence, a native speaker would rate this sentence as odd, or unacceptable, because the meaning does not make sense according to the English lexicon. 769:

be represented by symbols such as ?, ??, *, **, or on a scale of 0-?-*-**, with 0 being acceptable and ** being unacceptable. On a seven-point scale, speakers can rate sentences from 1 (least acceptable) to 7 (most acceptable).

740:

In experiments, grammaticality and acceptability are often confused, but speakers may be asked to give their 'grammatical judgments' instead of 'acceptability judgments'. The general assumption is that a native speaker's grammar produces

1023:

competence, which is reflected by the ability to assess the well-formedness of a sentence, is controversial. On one view, biological or language-specific mechanisms become nonfunctional after a certain age. On another view, decreased

1179:

A participant, whether an adult or a child, may reject this sentence because elephants do not jump. To avoid this misinterpretation, researchers need to clarify with the participants regarding the meaning of yes and no responses.

1139:(17) a. What did the scientist criticize Max's proof of? b. What did the scientist criticize a proof of? c. What did the scientist criticize the proof of? d. Why did the scientist criticize Max's proof of the theorem? 1074:

There is evidence for late L2 learners generally having issues with plurals and past tense, and not so many issues with Subject-Verb-Object testing, in which they show native-like results; there is better performance on

784:

Acceptability is about the actual use of a speaker's language in concrete situations. Since it is speaker-oriented, it is possible to find instances of sentences that are assumed to be acceptable but ungrammatical.

1253:

Studies of grammaticality illusion in other languages such as Dutch and German suggest that different language structures prevent participants from making incorrect judgments. For example, a three-verb sequence in

690:

For linguists such as Hopper, who stress the role of social learning in contrast to innate knowledge of language, there has been a gradual abandonment of talk about grammaticality in favour of acceptability.

1019:, age of acquisition is no longer supposed to have an effect, and native-like performance is no longer supposed to be achievable. However, the idea that there is a critical period for the acquisition of 686:

When Chomsky introduced the concept of grammaticality, he also introduced the concept of acceptability. Chomsky has emphasized that "the notion of 'acceptable' is not to be confused with 'grammatical.'"

1486:

Hopper, Paul (1987): Emergent grammar. In: Aske, Jon et al. (ed.) (1987): General session and parasession on grammar and cognition. Proceedings of the thirteenth annual meeting. Berkeley: BLS: 139–155.

1188:

Studies have shown that when native speakers judge ungrammatical sentences to be more acceptable than their grammatical counterpart, grammaticality illusion has occurred. Consider Frazier's example:

1191:(18) The apartment that the maid who the service had sent over was cleaning every week was well decorated. (19) *The apartment that the maid who the service had sent over was well decorated. 1246:

overload causes native speakers to prefer the ungrammatical sentence. The shorter, ungrammatical sentences were easier to process and made more sense. The grammatical sentence with several

1258:

is more common in German or Dutch than in English. As a result, German or Dutch participants are well able to correctly rule out the ungrammatical sentences with the missing verb phrase.

776:

believe that the informal use of these symbols is problematic because the exact meaning of the symbols have never been properly defined, and their usage is riddled with inconsistencies.

2121:

Johnson, J. S.; Newport, E. L. (1989). "Critical period effects in second language learning: The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language".

757:

The traditional categorical interpretation of grammaticality is that a sentence is either grammatical or ungrammatical. Many modern linguists, including Sprouse, support this idea.

2423:

Vasishth, Shravan; Suckow, Katja; Lewis, Richard L.; Kern, Sabine (2010). "Short-term forgetting in sentence comprehension: Crosslinguistic evidence from verb-final structures".

1231:(20) Der Anwalt, den der Zeuge, den der Spion betrachtete, schnitt, überzeugte den Richter. (21) *Der Anwalt, den der Zeuge, den der Spion betrachtete, überzeugte den Richter. 1201:

In several studies, participants carried out offline and online tasks. In the offline task, the participants rated their comprehension of sentences on a five-point scale in a

1586: 2062:

McDonald, Janet L. (2006). "Beyond the critical period: Processing-based explanations for poor grammaticality judgment performance by late second language learners".

534:—is based on whether the sentence is interpreted in accordance with the rules and constraints of the relevant grammar. If the rules and constraints of the particular 538:

are followed, then the sentence is judged to be grammatical. In contrast, an ungrammatical sentence is one that violates the rules of the given language variety.

967:

is a transitive verb and so must have a direct object, namely something or someone who receives the action of the verb. Sentence (15) is missing the receiver of

885:

Subjacency says that you cannot relate two positions across two bounding nodes. In (12), we see that the movement of the wh-expression 'what' was moved past a

643:

English grammar. This can be seen by comparing sentence (1) with sentence (2). Both sentences have the same structure, and both are grammatically well-formed.

2541: 1988: 2711:

Cairns, H.; Schlisselberg, G.; Waltzman, D.; McDaniel, D. (2006). "Development of a metalinguistic skill: judging the grammaticality of sentences".

620:

In his study of grammaticality in the 1950s, Chomsky identified three criteria which cannot be used to determine whether a sentence is grammatical:

594:, which is the knowledge that they have of their language, allows them to easily judge whether a sentence is grammatical or ungrammatical based on 2608:

Gibson, E.; Thomas, J. (1999). "Memory Limitations and Structural Forgetting: The Perception of Complex Ungrammatical Sentences as Grammatical".

1217:

To find out if grammaticality illusion also occurs in other languages, linguists have carried out similar experiments with different languages.

839:

Although (10c) is acceptable due to a frequency affect, sentences with preposition copying are judged to be ungrammatical, as shown in (11c).

825:

structure in (10b). Sentences (9) and (11c) are ungrammatical but acceptable because of the frequency with which people hear the structure.

1194:

The English grammar allows structures such as sentence (18), while sentence (19) is not allowed. Notice that sentence (19) is missing the

2277:

Bever, Thomas G.; Carrithers, Caroline; Townsend, David J. (1987). "A tale of two brains, or the sinistral quasimodularity of language".

1250:, such as "was cleaning every week", may require high-memory load, making it difficult for the participants to comprehend the sentence. 2810:

Schütze, C. T. (2016). The empirical base of linguistics: Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology. Language Science Press.

2691:, 46(2), 273-330*Nagata, H. (1988). The relativity of linguistic intuition: The effect of repetition on grammaticality judgments". 2297:

Nagata, Hiroshi (1989). "Repetition Effect in Judgments of Grammaticality of Sentences: Examination with Ungrammatical Sentences".

2022:

McDonald, Janet L. (2000). "Grammaticality judgments in a second language: Influences of age of acquisition and native language".

2485:"Cross-Linguistic Differences in Processing Double-Embedded Relative Clauses: Working-Memory Constraints or Language Statistics?" 1934: 1132:

of grammaticality judgements, and have found that those with left-handed immediate family members, also referred to as familial

1091:

capacity, decoding, or processing speed affect processing resources to automatically apply the relevant grammatical knowledge.

2705:

Acceptability Ratings in Linguistics: A Practical Guide to Grammaticality Judgments, Data Collection, and Statistical Analysis

1356: 639: 486: 959:

There have been experiments conducted in order to test how early speakers gain the ability to judge grammaticality in their

1282: 376: 1209:

7 "really bad English." The result showed that ungrammatical sentences were rated to be better than the grammatical ones.

1267: 947: 523:, grammatical sentences. These rules of grammaticality also provide explanations of ill-formed, ungrammatical sentences. 1542:

Bard, Ellen Gurman; Robertson, Dan; Sorace, Antonella (March 1996). "Magnitude Estimation of Linguistic Acceptability".

1205:. The result revealed that the ungrammatical sentences were rated as good as or even better than grammatical sentences. 2648:

Christiansen, Morten H.; MacDonald, Maryellen C. (2009). "A Usage-Based Approach to Recursion in Sentence Processing".

1823: 1029:

language, there is also evidence supporting the opposite, as well as evidence for young learners not mastering an L2.

2740: 2561: 2403: 2202: 2106: 1713: 1684: 1329: 1395:

Nagata, H (1988). "The relativity of linguistic intuition: The effect of repetition on grammaticality judgments".

817:

is copied. The rules of English prepositions only allow sentences such as (10a) and (10b), which show preposition

2882: 2813:

Sportiche. D., Koopman. H., Stabler. E. (2014) An introduction to Syntactic Analysis and Theory. Wiley Balckwell.

2774:

Kail, M.; Lemaire, P.; Lecacheur, M. (2012). "Online grammaticality judgments in french young and older adults".

1890:

Kail, M.; Lemaire, P.; Lecacheur, M. (2012). "Online grammaticality judgments in french young and older adults".

336: 1312:

McArthur, Tom; Lam-McArthur, Jacqueline; Fontaine, Lise (2018). "The Oxford Companion to the English Language".

1002:

acquisition—acquisitionists generally believe that the ability to make grammaticality judgments is a measure of

2164:

Birdsong, D.; Molis, M. (2001). "On the evidence for maturational constraints in second-language acquisition".

396: 341: 114: 1779: 1071:

processing demand than one that does not have a parallel, causing a poorer performance on language structure.

371: 62: 2892: 2818: 1502: 316: 182: 946:

Catt and Catt & Hirst created a model of grammaticality based around a computer program developed for

1143: 1100: 1025: 909: 681: 542: 436: 142: 17: 565:

of speakers. Therefore, generative linguists attempt to predict grammaticality judgements exhaustively.

1016: 2768:

General session and parasession on grammar and cognition. Proceedings of the thirteenth annual meeting

1099:

The matter of reliability of L2 grammaticality judgments is an ongoing issue in the research field of

1272: 479: 426: 326: 152: 2622: 2589: 2437: 1292: 331: 274: 89: 1129: 905: 890: 527: 431: 269: 246: 1955:

Catt, Mark; Hirst, Graeme (1990). "An intelligent CALI system for grammatical error diagnosis".

2617: 2432: 705: 607: 595: 381: 348: 301: 217: 197: 177: 79: 57: 52: 2864: 1668: 1659: 1475: 1452: 1875: 860: 822: 728: 657: 562: 558: 535: 512: 157: 2750: 1430: 1321: 935: 867:

violations, Chomsky's proposal that each barrier crossed leads to lower acceptability, and

472: 401: 311: 192: 137: 34: 1851: 1730: 8: 1853:

Gradience in Grammar: Experimental and Computational Aspects of Degrees of Grammaticality

1277: 1076: 927: 242: 172: 147: 119: 2840: 2799: 2728: 2577: 2458: 2365: 2340:

CARROLL, JOHN M. (1979). "Complex compounds: phrasal embedding in lexical structures".

2322: 2254: 2146: 2039: 2004: 1915: 1761: 1676: 1639: 1567: 1524: 1412: 1080: 625: 546: 516: 462: 441: 411: 366: 321: 289: 279: 167: 162: 1706:

The empirical base of linguistics: Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology

2791: 2732: 2704: 2665: 2661: 2557: 2522: 2514: 2450: 2399: 2369: 2357: 2326: 2314: 2246: 2238: 2198: 2138: 2134: 2102: 2043: 2008: 1935:"Intelligent diagnosis of ungrammaticality in computer-assisted language instruction" 1907: 1829: 1819: 1780:"Continuous Acceptability, Categorical Grammaticality, and Experimental Syntax", 2007 1765: 1753: 1709: 1680: 1643: 1619: 1598: 1559: 1416: 1352: 1325: 1287: 1084: 998: 868: 458: 306: 284: 227: 2844: 2462: 2258: 2150: 1528: 698:

A sentence that is consciously considered acceptable by both the speaker and hearer,

2887: 2830: 2803: 2783: 2720: 2657: 2627: 2549: 2504: 2496: 2442: 2391: 2349: 2306: 2230: 2173: 2130: 2094: 2089:

Mackey, Alison; Abbuhl, Rebekha; Gass, Susan M. (2009), "Interactionist approach",

2071: 2031: 1996: 1964: 1919: 1899: 1857: 1796: 1745: 1672: 1631: 1594: 1551: 1514: 1404: 1317: 1247: 554: 406: 237: 232: 207: 202: 187: 2353: 2787: 2757: 2724: 2553: 2192: 2000: 1903: 1346: 994: 530:, a speaker's judgement on the well-formedness of a linguistic 'string'—called a 520: 1989:"Development of a Metalinguistic Skill: Judging the Grammaticality of Sentences" 2819:"Continuous acceptability, categorical grammaticality, and experimental syntax" 2763: 1503:"Continuous acceptability, categorical grammaticality, and experimental syntax" 1243: 1067: 960: 886: 550: 251: 2446: 2310: 2098: 2075: 2035: 1749: 1635: 1470: 1468: 1466: 1464: 1462: 1460: 2876: 2687:

Bader, M.; Haussler, J. (2010). "Toward a model of grammaticality judgments.

2669: 2518: 2454: 2388:

Research Methods in Language AcquisitionPrinciples, Procedures, and Practices

2361: 2318: 2242: 1968: 1757: 1563: 1202: 1121:

Studies have been conducted which explored the degree to which left or right

761:

grammatical knowledge is categorical, but acceptability is a gradient scale.

2631: 2484: 1833: 2795: 2746: 2526: 2386:

Lust, Barbara; Blume, Maria (2016), "8. The Grammaticality Judgment Task",

2177: 1911: 1457: 1133: 931: 583: 294: 84: 2250: 2142: 1242:

Gibson and Thomas concludes from their offline acceptability ratings that

2835: 1519: 1195: 818: 710:, and based on how a language would actually be used in a real situation, 569:

grammatical or ungrammatical, even if it is a completely novel sentence.

500: 446: 421: 42: 2859: 1800: 667:

Tree structure of the sentence "Colourless green ideas sleep furiously."

2509: 2500: 2234: 1453:"Grammaticality, acceptability, possible words and large corpora", 2014 1408: 1221: 1122: 864: 842:(11) a. This table I put the book ... b. This table I put the book 765: 416: 99: 2395: 2221:

Cowart, Wayne (1989). "Notes on the biology of syntactic processing".

1571: 1234:

Sentence (20) is grammatical, whereas sentence (21) is ungrammatical.

1861: 1587:"Acceptability Judgments - Linguistics - Oxford Bibliographies - obo" 1173:

or other factors. For example, consider this ungrammatical sentence:

1039: 913:

of experts are appointed to define and regularly update these rules.

598:

introspection. For this reason, such judgements are sometimes called

391: 386: 222: 212: 104: 94: 745:

strings and that the speaker can also judge whether the strings are

507:

is determined by the conformity to language usage as derived by the

2710: 2279:

Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Cognitive Science Society Meetings.

1555: 1126: 1106: 736:

Defined by the possible outputs a particular grammar can generate.

713:

Speaker-oriented, depending on what speakers consider appropriate.

663: 701:

A natural, appropriate, and meaningful sentence within a context,

508: 2483:

Frank, Stefan L.; Trompenaars, Thijs; Vasishth, Shravan (2016).

1665:

Individual Differences in Language Ability and Language Behavior

874:(12) Subjacency *]]? (Sportiche 2014: 287) (13) Barrier *Herself 615: 586:, a speaker's grammaticality judgement is based on two factors: 2758:

Recontextualizing context: Grammaticality meets appropriateness

1729:

RADFORD, ANDREW; FELSER, CLAUDIA; BOXELL, OLIVER (2012-10-22).

1663:. In Fillmore, Charles; Kempler, Daniel; Wang, William (eds.). 1476:"Key Ideas in Linguistics and the Philosophy of Language", 2009 1255: 1228:

Examples of grammatical and ungrammatical sentences in German:

1142:

Examples (17a-c) are structural violations, (17a) violates the

1020: 1003: 109: 2766:(1987): Emergent grammar. In: Aske, Jon et al. (ed.) (1987): 1225:

shown the sentences in English, they also show the illusion.

1094: 997:

skill is in critical development; the judgment relies on the

853: 1311: 1009: 515:. The notion of grammaticality rose alongside the theory of 1716: 954: 724:

A grammatical utterance that is not necessarily meaningful,

921: 1147: 941: 828:(10) a. This world we live ... b. This world we live 577: 2482: 1795:(Thesis thesis). Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 1731:"Preposition copying and pruning in present-day English" 1351:. New York: Continuum International Group. p. 119. 926:

There are several methods that successfully investigate

721:

A linguistic ‘string’ that follows a set of given rules,

2741:

Key ideas in Linguistics and the Philosophy of Language

2422: 2276: 1982: 1980: 1978: 2739:

Champman, Siobhan, and Routledge, Christoper. (2009).

1793:

Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar

813:

Example (9) is ungrammatical, because the preposition

675: 519:, the goal of which is to formulate rules that define 2647: 2091:

The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition

545:

to investigate the syntactic structure of sentences.

2773: 1975: 1889: 1856:(Ph.D. thesis). Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh. 2194:

Research methodology in second-language acquisition

1728: 1541: 1038:grammatical knowledge. Difficulties in basic level 893:position of CP, thus this phrase is ungrammatical. 1658: 916: 889:Phrase (CP) and a Tense Phrase (TP) to get to the 779: 2191:Tarone, E. E.; Cohen, A. D.; Gass, S. M. (2013). 2874: 2088: 1107:Confounding factors in grammaticality judgements 2190: 1212: 634:Whether the sentence is statistically probable. 2760:. Philadelphia; Amsterdam: John Benjamins Pub. 2120: 1474:Chapman, Siobhan, and Routledge, Christopher, 1032: 859:linguists have said that phenomena other than 2743:. Edinburgh, GBR: Edinburgh University Press. 2686: 2163: 2057: 2055: 2053: 1877:A psychophysical law for linguistic judgments 1617: 752: 616:Criteria that do not determine grammaticality 480: 2607: 1620:"Toward a model of grammaticality judgments" 557:, grammaticality is a matter of linguistic 2050: 1183: 1111: 1095:Reliability of L2 grammaticality judgments 854:Other factors that determine acceptability 638:To illustrate this point, Chomsky created 487: 473: 2834: 2621: 2508: 2436: 2385: 1954: 1880:. eScholarship, University of California. 1518: 1379:. Massachusetts: Cambridge: M.I.T. Press. 1010:Assessing second language (L2) competence 2197:. Taylor and Francis. pp. 303–320. 2061: 2021: 955:Assessing first language (L1) competence 900: 662: 2816: 2539: 2339: 1772: 1584: 1500: 1447: 1445: 1443: 1441: 1439: 1374: 1153: 934:, self-paced listening and reading, or 922:Research methods of sentence processing 648:Colorless green ideas sleep furiously. 600:introspective grammaticality judgements 14: 2875: 2296: 2292: 2290: 2288: 2220: 1986: 1849: 1845: 1843: 1394: 1344: 1060: 948:computer-assisted language instruction 942:Computer-assisted language instruction 717:On the other hand, grammaticality is: 652:Harmless young children sleep quietly. 624:Whether the sentence is included in a 578:Criteria that determine grammaticality 2643: 2641: 2603: 2601: 2599: 2478: 2476: 2474: 2472: 2418: 2416: 2414: 2381: 2379: 2272: 2270: 2268: 2216: 2214: 1813: 1790: 1700: 1698: 1696: 1667:. New York: Academic Press. pp. 1390: 1388: 1386: 1220:Vasishth hypothesized that different 764:Linguists may use words, numbers, or 2693:Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 2223:Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 1932: 1656: 1496: 1494: 1492: 1436: 1397:Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 1370: 1368: 1322:10.1093/acref/9780199661282.001.0001 1283:List of linguistic example sentences 846:... c. *This table I put the book 549:are largely of the opinion that for 377:Conservative and innovative language 2285: 1957:Computer Assisted Language Learning 1840: 1268:Common English usage misconceptions 1167: 676:Grammaticality versus acceptability 631:Whether the sentence is meaningful, 27:Conformity of language to a grammar 24: 2680: 2638: 2596: 2469: 2411: 2376: 2265: 2211: 1693: 1677:10.1016/B978-0-12-255950-1.50014-7 1383: 1237: 611:in which the sentence was uttered. 25: 2904: 2852: 2713:Communication Disorders Quarterly 1993:Communication Disorders Quarterly 1489: 1365: 1348:A critical introduction to syntax 2858: 2662:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00538.x 2610:Language and Cognitive Processes 2425:Language and Cognitive Processes 1738:English Language and Linguistics 1618:Bader, M.; Haussler, J. (2010). 791:But if this ever-changing world 656:Sentence (1) is grammatical yet 457: 2533: 2333: 2184: 2157: 2114: 2082: 2015: 1948: 1926: 1883: 1868: 1864:– via Rutgers University. 1818:. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 1807: 1791:Huang, Cheng-Teh James (1982). 1784: 1722: 1650: 1611: 1578: 1535: 1377:Aspects of the theory of syntax 1176:(16) The elephant are jumping. 917:Use of grammaticality judgments 780:Frequency affects acceptability 2166:Journal of Memory and Language 2064:Journal of Memory and Language 1599:10.1093/obo/9780199772810-0097 1480: 1423: 1338: 1305: 13: 1: 2863:The dictionary definition of 2354:10.1515/ling.1979.17.9-10.863 1298: 1158: 1116: 832:... c. *This world we live 572: 2788:10.1080/0361073x.2012.660031 2725:10.1177/15257401060270040401 2554:10.1017/cbo9780511597855.005 2135:10.1016/0010-0285(89)90003-0 2001:10.1177/15257401060270040401 1987:Cairns; et al. (2006). 1904:10.1080/0361073x.2012.660031 1591:www.oxfordbibliographies.com 1213:Cross-linguistic differences 910:controlled natural languages 727:Based on a native speaker's 317:Functional discourse grammar 183:Ethnography of communication 7: 2776:Experimental Aging Research 2299:Perceptual and Motor Skills 1892:Experimental Aging Research 1261: 1198:"was cleaning every week." 1144:Specified Subject Condition 1101:second language acquisition 1033:Performance-related factors 733:or knowledge of a language, 682:Acceptability judgment task 437:Second-language acquisition 10: 2909: 1708:. Language Science Press. 1657:Ross, John Robert (1979). 753:Gradience in acceptability 679: 561:, and reflects the innate 115:Syntax–semantics interface 2770:. Berkeley: BLS: 139–155. 2753:", The Hague/Paris:Mouton 2447:10.1080/01690960903310587 2311:10.2466/pms.1989.68.1.275 2099:10.4324/9780203808184.ch1 2076:10.1016/j.jml.2006.06.006 2036:10.1017/s0142716400003064 2024:Applied Psycholinguistics 1942:Technical Report CSRI-218 1750:10.1017/s1360674312000172 1636:10.1017/s0022226709990260 1433:", The Hague/Paris:Mouton 1273:Constituent (linguistics) 543:grammaticality judgements 427:Philosophy of linguistics 327:Interactional linguistics 2546:Natural language parsing 1969:10.1080/0958822900030102 1704:Schütze, C. T., (2016). 1293:Transformational grammar 1052:slow L2 processing speed 1049:poor L2 decoding ability 930:, some of which include 821:structure in (10a), and 640:the nonsensical sentence 532:grammaticality judgement 2632:10.1080/016909699386293 1814:Noam., Chomsky (1986). 1184:Grammaticality illusion 1112:Subject-related factors 1015:grammatical. After the 704:Related to a speaker's 650:(Chomsky 1957: 17) (2) 528:theoretical linguistics 2883:Generative linguistics 2689:Journal of Linguistics 2542:"Syntactic complexity" 2178:10.1006/jmla.2000.2750 1850:Keller, Frank (2000). 1624:Journal of Linguistics 1375:Chomsky, Noam (1965). 1046:low L2 memory capacity 811: 668: 264:Theoretical frameworks 218:Philosophy of language 198:History of linguistics 2707:. Version 1.0. Mimeo. 2540:Frazier, Lyn (1985). 2390:, De Gruyter Mouton, 1585:Sprouse, Jon (2013). 901:Norm-based evaluation 861:grammatical knowledge 823:preposition stranding 787: 666: 592:linguistic competence 563:linguistic competence 158:Conversation analysis 2836:10.5964/bioling.8597 2751:Syntactic Structures 2548:. pp. 129–189. 2123:Cognitive Psychology 1520:10.5964/bioling.8597 1431:Syntactic Structures 1345:Millar, Jim (2011). 1154:Task-related factors 1040:cognitive processing 906:Prescriptive grammar 547:Generative linguists 402:Internet linguistics 312:Construction grammar 2893:Philosophy of logic 2817:Sprouse, J (2007). 2756:Fetzer, A. (2004). 1933:Catt, Mark (1988). 1874:Keller, F. (2003). 1501:Sprouse, J (2007). 1278:Error (linguistics) 1256:subordinate clauses 1061:Age-related factors 936:cross-modal priming 928:sentence processing 749:in their language. 590:A native speaker's 337:Systemic functional 132:Applied linguistics 74:General linguistics 2703:Bross, F. (2019): 2501:10.1111/cogs.12247 2235:10.1007/bf01069049 1660:"Where's English?" 1429:Chomsky, (1957): " 1409:10.1007/bf01067178 1083:questions than on 694:Acceptability is: 669: 517:generative grammar 442:Theory of language 412:Origin of language 367:Autonomy of syntax 322:Grammaticalization 168:Discourse analysis 163:Corpus linguistics 2650:Language Learning 2489:Cognitive Science 2396:10.1037/15968-009 1358:978-0-8264-9703-1 1288:Universal grammar 869:Optimality Theory 555:natural languages 497: 496: 285:Distributionalism 228:Psycholinguistics 16:(Redirected from 2900: 2862: 2848: 2838: 2807: 2736: 2700: 2674: 2673: 2645: 2636: 2635: 2625: 2605: 2594: 2593: 2587: 2583: 2581: 2573: 2571: 2570: 2537: 2531: 2530: 2512: 2480: 2467: 2466: 2440: 2420: 2409: 2408: 2383: 2374: 2373: 2337: 2331: 2330: 2294: 2283: 2282: 2274: 2263: 2262: 2218: 2209: 2208: 2188: 2182: 2181: 2161: 2155: 2154: 2118: 2112: 2111: 2086: 2080: 2079: 2059: 2048: 2047: 2019: 2013: 2012: 1984: 1973: 1972: 1952: 1946: 1945: 1939: 1930: 1924: 1923: 1887: 1881: 1872: 1866: 1865: 1862:10.7282/T3GQ6WMS 1847: 1838: 1837: 1811: 1805: 1804: 1788: 1782: 1776: 1770: 1769: 1735: 1726: 1720: 1719: 945783708. 1702: 1691: 1690: 1662: 1654: 1648: 1647: 1615: 1609: 1608: 1606: 1605: 1582: 1576: 1575: 1539: 1533: 1532: 1522: 1498: 1487: 1484: 1478: 1472: 1455: 1449: 1434: 1427: 1421: 1420: 1392: 1381: 1380: 1372: 1363: 1362: 1342: 1336: 1335: 1314:Oxford Reference 1309: 1248:embedded clauses 1168:Yes/no responses 1125:plays a role in 1087:and past tense. 999:psycholinguistic 809: 806:Live and Let Die 804:Paul McCartney, 511:of a particular 489: 482: 475: 461: 407:LGBT linguistics 397:Internationalism 372:Compositionality 233:Sociolinguistics 208:Neurolinguistics 203:Interlinguistics 188:Ethnomethodology 30: 29: 21: 2908: 2907: 2903: 2902: 2901: 2899: 2898: 2897: 2873: 2872: 2855: 2683: 2681:Further reading 2678: 2677: 2656:(s1): 126–161. 2646: 2639: 2623:10.1.1.486.7065 2606: 2597: 2585: 2584: 2575: 2574: 2568: 2566: 2564: 2538: 2534: 2481: 2470: 2438:10.1.1.492.8407 2421: 2412: 2406: 2384: 2377: 2338: 2334: 2295: 2286: 2275: 2266: 2219: 2212: 2205: 2189: 2185: 2162: 2158: 2119: 2115: 2109: 2087: 2083: 2060: 2051: 2020: 2016: 1985: 1976: 1953: 1949: 1937: 1931: 1927: 1888: 1884: 1873: 1869: 1848: 1841: 1826: 1812: 1808: 1789: 1785: 1777: 1773: 1733: 1727: 1723: 1703: 1694: 1687: 1655: 1651: 1616: 1612: 1603: 1601: 1583: 1579: 1540: 1536: 1499: 1490: 1485: 1481: 1473: 1458: 1450: 1437: 1428: 1424: 1393: 1384: 1373: 1366: 1359: 1343: 1339: 1332: 1310: 1306: 1301: 1264: 1240: 1238:Possible causes 1232: 1215: 1192: 1186: 1177: 1170: 1161: 1156: 1140: 1119: 1114: 1109: 1097: 1063: 1035: 1017:critical period 1012: 990: 961:native language 957: 944: 924: 919: 903: 883: 881: 877: 871:(esp. Keller). 856: 851: 837: 810: 803: 782: 773: 755: 684: 678: 654: 618: 580: 575: 551:native speakers 493: 452: 451: 362: 354: 353: 265: 257: 256: 252:Writing systems 143:Anthropological 133: 125: 124: 75: 67: 28: 23: 22: 15: 12: 11: 5: 2906: 2896: 2895: 2890: 2885: 2871: 2870: 2866:grammaticality 2854: 2853:External links 2851: 2850: 2849: 2823:Biolinguistics 2814: 2811: 2808: 2782:(2): 186–207. 2771: 2761: 2754: 2744: 2737: 2719:(4): 213–220. 2708: 2701: 2682: 2679: 2676: 2675: 2637: 2616:(3): 225–248. 2595: 2586:|website= 2562: 2532: 2495:(3): 554–578. 2468: 2431:(4): 533–567. 2410: 2404: 2375: 2332: 2305:(1): 275–282. 2284: 2264: 2210: 2203: 2183: 2172:(2): 235–249. 2156: 2113: 2107: 2081: 2070:(3): 381–401. 2049: 2030:(3): 395–423. 2014: 1974: 1947: 1925: 1898:(2): 186–207. 1882: 1867: 1839: 1825:978-0262530675 1824: 1806: 1783: 1771: 1744:(3): 403–426. 1721: 1692: 1685: 1649: 1630:(2): 273–330. 1610: 1577: 1556:10.2307/416793 1534: 1507:Biolinguistics 1488: 1479: 1456: 1435: 1422: 1382: 1364: 1357: 1337: 1330: 1303: 1302: 1300: 1297: 1296: 1295: 1290: 1285: 1280: 1275: 1270: 1263: 1260: 1244:working-memory 1239: 1236: 1230: 1214: 1211: 1190: 1185: 1182: 1175: 1169: 1166: 1160: 1157: 1155: 1152: 1138: 1118: 1115: 1113: 1110: 1108: 1105: 1096: 1093: 1062: 1059: 1054: 1053: 1050: 1047: 1034: 1031: 1011: 1008: 995:metalinguistic 973: 956: 953: 943: 940: 923: 920: 918: 915: 902: 899: 887:Complementizer 879: 875: 873: 855: 852: 841: 827: 801: 795:which we live 781: 778: 771: 754: 751: 738: 737: 734: 725: 722: 715: 714: 711: 702: 699: 677: 674: 645: 636: 635: 632: 629: 617: 614: 613: 612: 603: 579: 576: 574: 571: 541:Linguists use 513:speech variety 505:grammaticality 495: 494: 492: 491: 484: 477: 469: 466: 465: 454: 453: 450: 449: 444: 439: 434: 432:Prescriptivism 429: 424: 419: 414: 409: 404: 399: 394: 389: 384: 379: 374: 369: 363: 360: 359: 356: 355: 352: 351: 346: 345: 344: 339: 334: 329: 324: 319: 314: 309: 299: 298: 297: 292: 287: 282: 277: 266: 263: 262: 259: 258: 255: 254: 249: 240: 235: 230: 225: 220: 215: 210: 205: 200: 195: 190: 185: 180: 175: 170: 165: 160: 155: 150: 145: 140: 134: 131: 130: 127: 126: 123: 122: 117: 112: 107: 102: 97: 92: 87: 82: 76: 73: 72: 69: 68: 66: 65: 60: 55: 49: 46: 45: 39: 38: 26: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2905: 2894: 2891: 2889: 2886: 2884: 2881: 2880: 2878: 2869:at Wiktionary 2868: 2867: 2861: 2857: 2856: 2846: 2842: 2837: 2832: 2828: 2824: 2820: 2815: 2812: 2809: 2805: 2801: 2797: 2793: 2789: 2785: 2781: 2777: 2772: 2769: 2765: 2762: 2759: 2755: 2752: 2748: 2745: 2742: 2738: 2734: 2730: 2726: 2722: 2718: 2714: 2709: 2706: 2702: 2698: 2694: 2690: 2685: 2684: 2671: 2667: 2663: 2659: 2655: 2651: 2644: 2642: 2633: 2629: 2624: 2619: 2615: 2611: 2604: 2602: 2600: 2591: 2579: 2565: 2563:9780511597855 2559: 2555: 2551: 2547: 2543: 2536: 2528: 2524: 2520: 2516: 2511: 2506: 2502: 2498: 2494: 2490: 2486: 2479: 2477: 2475: 2473: 2464: 2460: 2456: 2452: 2448: 2444: 2439: 2434: 2430: 2426: 2419: 2417: 2415: 2407: 2405:9783110415339 2401: 2397: 2393: 2389: 2382: 2380: 2371: 2367: 2363: 2359: 2355: 2351: 2347: 2343: 2336: 2328: 2324: 2320: 2316: 2312: 2308: 2304: 2300: 2293: 2291: 2289: 2280: 2273: 2271: 2269: 2260: 2256: 2252: 2248: 2244: 2240: 2236: 2232: 2229:(1): 89–103. 2228: 2224: 2217: 2215: 2206: 2204:9781135445348 2200: 2196: 2195: 2187: 2179: 2175: 2171: 2167: 2160: 2152: 2148: 2144: 2140: 2136: 2132: 2128: 2124: 2117: 2110: 2108:9780203808184 2104: 2100: 2096: 2093:, Routledge, 2092: 2085: 2077: 2073: 2069: 2065: 2058: 2056: 2054: 2045: 2041: 2037: 2033: 2029: 2025: 2018: 2010: 2006: 2002: 1998: 1994: 1990: 1983: 1981: 1979: 1970: 1966: 1962: 1958: 1951: 1943: 1936: 1929: 1921: 1917: 1913: 1909: 1905: 1901: 1897: 1893: 1886: 1879: 1878: 1871: 1863: 1859: 1855: 1854: 1846: 1844: 1835: 1831: 1827: 1821: 1817: 1810: 1802: 1798: 1794: 1787: 1781: 1775: 1767: 1763: 1759: 1755: 1751: 1747: 1743: 1739: 1732: 1725: 1718: 1715: 1714:9783946234036 1711: 1707: 1701: 1699: 1697: 1688: 1686:9780122559501 1682: 1678: 1674: 1670: 1666: 1661: 1653: 1645: 1641: 1637: 1633: 1629: 1625: 1621: 1614: 1600: 1596: 1592: 1588: 1581: 1573: 1569: 1565: 1561: 1557: 1553: 1549: 1545: 1538: 1530: 1526: 1521: 1516: 1512: 1508: 1504: 1497: 1495: 1493: 1483: 1477: 1471: 1469: 1467: 1465: 1463: 1461: 1454: 1448: 1446: 1444: 1442: 1440: 1432: 1426: 1418: 1414: 1410: 1406: 1402: 1398: 1391: 1389: 1387: 1378: 1371: 1369: 1360: 1354: 1350: 1349: 1341: 1333: 1331:9780199661282 1327: 1323: 1319: 1315: 1308: 1304: 1294: 1291: 1289: 1286: 1284: 1281: 1279: 1276: 1274: 1271: 1269: 1266: 1265: 1259: 1257: 1251: 1249: 1245: 1235: 1229: 1226: 1223: 1218: 1210: 1206: 1204: 1203:questionnaire 1199: 1197: 1189: 1181: 1174: 1165: 1151: 1149: 1145: 1137: 1135: 1131: 1128: 1124: 1104: 1102: 1092: 1088: 1086: 1082: 1078: 1072: 1069: 1058: 1051: 1048: 1045: 1044: 1043: 1041: 1030: 1027: 1022: 1018: 1007: 1005: 1000: 996: 989: 987: 981: 979: 972: 970: 966: 962: 952: 949: 939: 937: 933: 929: 914: 911: 907: 898: 894: 892: 888: 872: 870: 866: 862: 849: 845: 840: 835: 831: 826: 824: 820: 816: 807: 800: 799: 798: 794: 786: 777: 770: 767: 766:typographical 762: 758: 750: 748: 744: 735: 732: 731: 726: 723: 720: 719: 718: 712: 709: 708: 703: 700: 697: 696: 695: 692: 688: 683: 673: 665: 661: 659: 653: 649: 644: 641: 633: 630: 627: 623: 622: 621: 610: 609: 604: 601: 597: 593: 589: 588: 587: 585: 582:According to 570: 566: 564: 560: 556: 552: 548: 544: 539: 537: 533: 529: 524: 522: 518: 514: 510: 506: 502: 490: 485: 483: 478: 476: 471: 470: 468: 467: 464: 460: 456: 455: 448: 445: 443: 440: 438: 435: 433: 430: 428: 425: 423: 420: 418: 415: 413: 410: 408: 405: 403: 400: 398: 395: 393: 390: 388: 385: 383: 382:Descriptivism 380: 378: 375: 373: 370: 368: 365: 364: 358: 357: 350: 349:Structuralism 347: 343: 340: 338: 335: 333: 332:Prague circle 330: 328: 325: 323: 320: 318: 315: 313: 310: 308: 305: 304: 303: 300: 296: 293: 291: 288: 286: 283: 281: 278: 276: 273: 272: 271: 268: 267: 261: 260: 253: 250: 248: 244: 241: 239: 236: 234: 231: 229: 226: 224: 221: 219: 216: 214: 211: 209: 206: 204: 201: 199: 196: 194: 191: 189: 186: 184: 181: 179: 178:Documentation 176: 174: 171: 169: 166: 164: 161: 159: 156: 154: 153:Computational 151: 149: 146: 144: 141: 139: 136: 135: 129: 128: 121: 118: 116: 113: 111: 108: 106: 103: 101: 98: 96: 93: 91: 88: 86: 83: 81: 78: 77: 71: 70: 64: 61: 59: 56: 54: 51: 50: 48: 47: 44: 41: 40: 36: 32: 31: 19: 2865: 2826: 2822: 2779: 2775: 2767: 2764:Hopper, Paul 2716: 2712: 2696: 2692: 2688: 2653: 2649: 2613: 2609: 2567:. Retrieved 2545: 2535: 2492: 2488: 2428: 2424: 2387: 2345: 2341: 2335: 2302: 2298: 2278: 2226: 2222: 2193: 2186: 2169: 2165: 2159: 2129:(1): 60–99. 2126: 2122: 2116: 2090: 2084: 2067: 2063: 2027: 2023: 2017: 1992: 1960: 1956: 1950: 1941: 1928: 1895: 1891: 1885: 1876: 1870: 1852: 1815: 1809: 1801:1721.1/15215 1792: 1786: 1774: 1741: 1737: 1724: 1705: 1664: 1652: 1627: 1623: 1613: 1602:. Retrieved 1590: 1580: 1547: 1543: 1537: 1510: 1506: 1482: 1425: 1400: 1396: 1376: 1347: 1340: 1313: 1307: 1252: 1241: 1233: 1227: 1219: 1216: 1207: 1200: 1193: 1187: 1178: 1171: 1162: 1141: 1134:sinistrality 1120: 1098: 1089: 1073: 1064: 1055: 1042:are due to: 1036: 1013: 991: 985: 983: 977: 975: 968: 964: 958: 945: 932:eye tracking 925: 904: 895: 884: 857: 847: 843: 838: 833: 829: 814: 812: 805: 796: 792: 790: 788: 783: 774: 763: 759: 756: 746: 742: 739: 729: 716: 706: 693: 689: 685: 670: 658:infelicitous 655: 651: 647: 637: 619: 606: 599: 591: 581: 567: 540: 531: 525: 504: 498: 295:Glossematics 275:Constituency 247:interpreting 85:Lexicography 2829:: 123–134. 2749:, (1957): " 2510:2066/149288 2342:Linguistics 1513:: 123–134. 1403:(1): 1–17. 1196:verb phrase 1079:as well as 1006:awareness. 976:The kitten 819:pied-piping 743:grammatical 707:performance 521:well-formed 501:linguistics 447:Terminology 422:Orthography 342:Usage-based 243:Translating 138:Acquisition 43:Linguistics 18:Grammatical 2877:Categories 2699:(1): 1–17. 2569:2018-12-16 2281:: 764–773. 1604:2018-12-11 1299:References 1222:word order 1159:Repetition 1127:idiolectal 1123:handedness 1117:Handedness 984:The zebra 882:'s mother 878:likes Mary 865:Subjacency 747:acceptable 730:competence 680:See also: 573:Background 417:Orismology 302:Functional 290:Generative 280:Dependency 100:Pragmatics 90:Morphology 80:Diachronic 2733:146193377 2670:1467-9922 2618:CiteSeerX 2588:ignored ( 2578:cite book 2519:1551-6709 2455:0169-0965 2433:CiteSeerX 2370:145789336 2362:0024-3949 2327:144626702 2319:0031-5125 2243:0090-6905 2044:144005853 2009:146193377 1778:Sprouse, 1766:120241363 1758:1360-6743 1644:145312924 1564:0097-8507 1550:(1): 32. 1417:143737753 1130:variation 1021:syntactic 1004:syntactic 891:specifier 596:intuitive 559:intuition 392:Iconicity 387:Etymology 307:Cognitive 270:Formalist 223:Phonetics 213:Philology 105:Semantics 95:Phonology 2845:13058743 2796:22404540 2527:25943302 2463:17553104 2348:(9–10). 2259:20011906 2151:15842890 1963:: 3–26. 1912:22404540 1834:12969567 1816:Barriers 1544:Language 1529:13058743 1262:See also 1085:articles 980:the pig. 802:— 193:Forensic 173:Distance 120:Typology 35:a series 33:Part of 2888:Grammar 2804:8675735 2747:Chomsky 2251:2647963 2143:2920538 1995:: 213. 1920:8675735 1669:127–163 1451:Bauer, 1150:score. 608:context 584:Chomsky 509:grammar 148:Applied 58:History 53:Outline 2843: 2802: 2794: 2731: 2668: 2620: 2560: 2525: 2517: 2461: 2453: 2435: 2402: 2368: 2360: 2325: 2317: 2257: 2249: 2241: 2201: 2149: 2141: 2105: 2042: 2007: 1918: 1910: 1832: 1822: 1764: 1756: 1712: 1683: 1642: 1572:416793 1570: 1562: 1527: 1415: 1355: 1328: 1077:Yes/No 993:since 986:hugged 982:(15) * 978:hugged 808:, 1973 626:corpus 463:Portal 361:Topics 110:Syntax 2841:S2CID 2800:S2CID 2729:S2CID 2459:S2CID 2366:S2CID 2323:S2CID 2255:S2CID 2147:S2CID 2040:S2CID 2005:S2CID 1938:(PDF) 1916:S2CID 1762:S2CID 1734:(PDF) 1640:S2CID 1568:JSTOR 1525:S2CID 1413:S2CID 974:(14) 63:Index 2792:PMID 2666:ISSN 2590:help 2558:ISBN 2523:PMID 2515:ISSN 2451:ISSN 2400:ISBN 2358:ISSN 2315:ISSN 2247:PMID 2239:ISSN 2199:ISBN 2139:PMID 2103:ISBN 1908:PMID 1830:OCLC 1820:ISBN 1754:ISSN 1717:OCLC 1710:ISBN 1681:ISBN 1560:ISSN 1353:ISBN 1326:ISBN 850:... 836:... 789:(9) 646:(1) 605:The 536:lect 245:and 238:Text 2831:doi 2784:doi 2721:doi 2658:doi 2628:doi 2550:doi 2505:hdl 2497:doi 2443:doi 2392:doi 2350:doi 2307:doi 2231:doi 2174:doi 2131:doi 2095:doi 2072:doi 2032:doi 1997:doi 1965:doi 1900:doi 1858:doi 1797:hdl 1746:doi 1673:doi 1632:doi 1595:doi 1552:doi 1515:doi 1405:doi 1318:doi 1148:SAT 1081:Wh- 969:hug 965:hug 908:of 553:of 526:In 499:In 2879:: 2839:. 2825:. 2821:. 2798:. 2790:. 2780:38 2778:. 2727:. 2717:27 2715:. 2697:17 2695:. 2664:. 2654:59 2652:. 2640:^ 2626:. 2614:14 2612:. 2598:^ 2582:: 2580:}} 2576:{{ 2556:. 2544:. 2521:. 2513:. 2503:. 2493:40 2491:. 2487:. 2471:^ 2457:. 2449:. 2441:. 2429:25 2427:. 2413:^ 2398:, 2378:^ 2364:. 2356:. 2346:17 2344:. 2321:. 2313:. 2303:68 2301:. 2287:^ 2267:^ 2253:. 2245:. 2237:. 2227:18 2225:. 2213:^ 2170:44 2168:. 2145:. 2137:. 2127:21 2125:. 2101:, 2068:55 2066:. 2052:^ 2038:. 2028:21 2026:. 2003:. 1991:. 1977:^ 1959:. 1940:. 1914:. 1906:. 1896:38 1894:. 1842:^ 1828:. 1760:. 1752:. 1742:16 1740:. 1736:. 1695:^ 1679:. 1671:. 1638:. 1628:46 1626:. 1622:. 1593:. 1589:. 1566:. 1558:. 1548:72 1546:. 1523:. 1509:. 1505:. 1491:^ 1459:^ 1438:^ 1411:. 1401:17 1399:. 1385:^ 1367:^ 1324:. 1316:. 1068:L1 1026:L2 971:. 848:on 844:on 834:in 830:in 815:in 797:in 793:in 503:, 37:on 2847:. 2833:: 2827:1 2806:. 2786:: 2735:. 2723:: 2672:. 2660:: 2634:. 2630:: 2592:) 2572:. 2552:: 2529:. 2507:: 2499:: 2465:. 2445:: 2394:: 2372:. 2352:: 2329:. 2309:: 2261:. 2233:: 2207:. 2180:. 2176:: 2153:. 2133:: 2097:: 2078:. 2074:: 2046:. 2034:: 2011:. 1999:: 1971:. 1967:: 1961:3 1944:. 1922:. 1902:: 1860:: 1836:. 1803:. 1799:: 1768:. 1748:: 1689:. 1675:: 1646:. 1634:: 1607:. 1597:: 1574:. 1554:: 1531:. 1517:: 1511:1 1419:. 1407:: 1361:. 1334:. 1320:: 988:. 880:j 876:j 628:, 602:. 488:e 481:t 474:v 20:)

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.