LINGUIST List 17.3133
|
Wed Oct 25 2006
Qs: New and Innovative Methods in Syntactic Inquiry
Editor for this issue: Kevin Burrows
<kevin linguistlist.org>
|
We'd like to remind readers that the responses to queries are usually best posted to the individual asking the question. That individual is then strongly encouraged to post a summary to the list. This policy was
instituted to help control the huge volume of mail on LINGUIST; so we would appreciate your cooperating with it whenever it seems appropriate.
In addition to posting a summary, we'd like to remind people that it is usually a good idea to personally thank those individuals who have taken the trouble to respond to the query.
To post to LINGUIST, use our convenient web form at http://linguistlist.org/LL/posttolinguist.html.
|
Directory
1. Stanley
Dubinsky,
New and Innovative Methods in Syntactic Inquiry
Message 1: New and Innovative Methods in Syntactic Inquiry
|
Date: 25-Oct-2006
From: Stanley Dubinsky <dubinskysc.edu>
Subject: New and Innovative Methods in Syntactic Inquiry
Greetings,
I have been commissioned to write for Blackwell’s “Linguistics and Language
Compass”, an article that surveys the current state of the art regarding
new and innovative methodologies being used for the gathering of syntactic
data. Newer methods of data collection and assessment include (but are not
limited to) experimental collection of acceptability judgments, online
sentence-processing studies, fMRI and other imaging studies, surveys of
corpora, the consideration of language variation and change, etc.
The impetus for this survey is the fact that the traditional method of
using acceptability judgments to support analyses is simply not as useful
today as it was in the past. Reasons for this are several, but among them
is the fact that newer data paradigms are often less obvious data
paradigms. And as the scope of inquiry pries further into the remote
corners of the languages we work on, so the certainty with which the
linguist can intuitively judge these facts fades into the background noise
of non-syntactic performative factors.
The article is intended to benefit the field in that it will seek to make
widely known, some of the methods being used and some of the published
literature that utilizes them. It is thereby hoped that the article will
serve as encouragement to syntacticians to move beyond the traditional
methods of analysis, and also provide a resource for them to do so.
I would therefore appreciate hearing from you if you have information that
would be relevant to such a survey. Some of the desiderata are:
• References to key articles of your own, those of colleagues, and those
that you deem to be particularly important in this regard.
• Comments on the utility (or non-utility) of methods that you have used.
• Comparisons of the efficacy of different methodologies.
• Speculations on the kind of progress that syntacticians are likely to
make by incorporating specific methods into a research program.
I will cite relevant literature to the extent that length limitations
permit, and attribute comments used in the article to those that provide
them, and post responses back to the Linguist List as appropriate.
I look forward to hearing from you,
Stanley Dubinsky
Linguistics Program
U of South Carolina
dubinskysc.edu
Linguistic Field(s):
Syntax
Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
|
|
Please report any bad links or misclassified data
LINGUIST Homepage | Read
LINGUIST | Contact us
While the LINGUIST List makes every effort to ensure the linguistic relevance of sites listed
on its pages, it cannot vouch for their contents.
|
|
