Linguistics and Philosophy

, Volume 35, Issue 5, pp 443–460 | Cite as

Linguistic intuition and calibration

Research Article

Abstract

Linguists, particularly in the generative tradition, commonly rely upon intuitions about sentences as a key source of evidence for their theories. While widespread, this methodology has also been controversial. In this paper, I develop a positive account of linguistic intuition, and defend its role in linguistic inquiry. Intuitions qualify as evidence as form of linguistic behavior, which, since it is partially caused by linguistic competence (the object of investigation), can be used to study this competence. I defend this view by meeting two challenges. First, that intuitions are collected through methodologically unsound practices, and second, that intuition cannot distinguish between the contributions of competence and performance systems.

Keywords

Philosophy of linguistics Linguistic intuition Linguistic methodology 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Asudeh, A., & Keller, F. (2001). Experimental evidence for a prediction-based binding theory. In M. Andronis, C. Ball, H. Elston, & S. Neuvel (Eds.), Papers from the 37th annual meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (Vol. 1). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
  2. Badecker, W., & Straub, K. (2002). The processing role of structural constraints on the interpretation of pronouns and anaphors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 748–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bogen, J., & Woodward, J. (1988). Saving the phenomena. Philosophical Review, 97(3), 303–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., & Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, M. (2007). The wolf in sheep’s clothing: Against a new judgment-driven imperialism. Theoretical Linguistics, 33(3), 319–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Büring, D. (2005). Binding theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language: It’s nature, origin and use. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  8. Cowart, W. (1997). Experimental syntax. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. Culbertson, J., & Gross, S. (2009). Are linguists better subjects? British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 60, 721–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cummins, R. (1998). Reflection on reflective equilibrium. In M. R. DePaul & W. Ramsey (Eds.), Rethinking intuition: The psychology of intuition and its role in philosophical inquiry. Lanham, MD: Rowan & Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
  11. Dabrowska, E. (2010). Naive v. expert intuitions: An empirical study of acceptability judgments. The Linguistic Review, 27, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. den Dikken, M., Bernstein, J. B., Tortora, C., & Zanuttini, R. (2007). Data and grammar: Means and individuals. Theoretical Linguistics, 33, 335–352.Google Scholar
  13. Devitt, M. (2006a). Ignorance of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Devitt, M. (2006b). Intuitions in linguistics. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 57, 481–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Devitt, M. (2010). Linguistic intuitions revisited. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 61(4), 833–865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Evans, V. (2012). Cognitive linguistics. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 3(2), 129–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Featherston, S. (2007). Data in generative grammar: The stick and the carrot. Theoretical Linguistics, 33, 269–318.Google Scholar
  18. Ferreira, F. (2005). Psycholinguistics, formal grammars and cognitive science. The Linguistic Review, 22, 365–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fitzgerald, G. (2009). Linguistic intuitions. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 61(1), 123–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Keller, F., & Asudeh, A. (2001). Constraints on linguistic coreference: Structural vs pragmatic factors. In J. D. Moore & K. Stenning (Eds.), Proceedings of the 23rd annual conference of the cognitive science society. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  21. Labov, W. (1975). What is a linguistic fact?. Lisse: Peter de Ridder Press.Google Scholar
  22. Labov, W. (1996). When intuitions fail. In L. McNair, K. Singer, L. Dolbrin, & M. Aucon (Eds.), Papers from the parasession on theory and data in linguistics. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
  23. Ludlow, P. (2011). The philosophy of generative linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lycan, W. (1988). Judgment and justification. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Maynes, J., & Gross, S. (Manuscript). Linguistic intuitions.Google Scholar
  26. Nicol, J., & Swinney, D. (1989). The role of structure in coreference assignment during sentence comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18(1), 5–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Phillips, C. (2009). Should we impeach armchair linguists? In S. Iwasaki (Ed.), Japanese/Korean linguistics. Chicago: CLSI Publications.Google Scholar
  28. Phillips, C., Wagers, M., & Lau, E. (2011). Grammatical illusions and selective fallibility in real time language comprehension. In J. Runner (Ed.), Experiments at the interfaces, Vol. 37 of Syntax & semantics. Bingley: Emerald Publications.Google Scholar
  29. Riemer, N. (2009). Grammaticality as evidence and as prediction in a Galilean linguistics. Language Sciences, 31, 612–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Runner, J. T., Sussman, R. S., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2006). Processing reflexives and pronouns in picture noun phrases. Cognitive Science, 30, 193–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schütze, C. T. (1996). The empirical base of linguistics: Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  32. Segall, M., Campbell, D., & Herskovits, M. J. (1966). The influence of culture on visual perception. Indianapolis, IN: The Bobbs-Merrill Company.Google Scholar
  33. Sprouse, J. (2007). A program for experimental syntax: Finding the relationship between acceptability and grammatical knowledge. Dissertation, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
  34. Sprouse, J. (2011). A test of the cognitive assumptions of magnitude estimation: Commutativity does not hold for acceptability judgments. Language, 87(2), 274–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sprouse, J., & Almeida, D. (2012). Assessing the reliability of textbook data in syntax: Adger’s Core Syntax. Journal of Linguistics, 48, 609–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tanenhaus, M. K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., Eberhard, K. M., & Sedivy, J. C. (1995). Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science, 268(5217), 1632–1634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Textor, M. (2009). Devitt on the epistemic authority of linguistic intuitions. Erkenntnis, 71, 395–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wasow, T., & Arnold, J. (2005). Intuitions in linguistic argumentation. Lingua, 115, 1481–1496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Weinberg, J. M., Crowley, S., Gonnerman, C., Vanderwalker, I., & Swain, S. (2012). Intuition & calibration. Essays in Philosophy, 13(1), 256–283.Google Scholar
  40. Weiskrantz, L. (1990). Blindsight: A case study and its implications. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Weskott, T., & Fanselow, G. (2011). On the informativity of different measures of linguistic acceptability. Language, 87(2), 249–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Xiang, M., Dillon, B., & Phillips, C. (2009). Illusory licensing effects across dependency types: ERP evidence. Brain & Language, 108, 40–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophySt. Lawrence UniversityCantonUSA

Personalised recommendations