Research Repository

How do individual cognitive differences relate to acceptability judgments?: A reply to Sprouse, Wagers, and Phillips

Hofmeister, Philip and Staum Casasanto, Laura and Sag, Ivan A (2012) 'How do individual cognitive differences relate to acceptability judgments?: A reply to Sprouse, Wagers, and Phillips.' Language, 88 (2). pp. 390-400. ISSN 1535-0665

[img]
Preview
Text
sprouse_response_lsa.pdf

Download (186kB) | Preview

Abstract

Sprouse, Wagers, and Phillips (2012) carried out two experiments in which they measured individual differences in memory to test processing accounts of island effects. They found that these individual differences failed to predict the magnitude of island effects, and they construe these findings as counterevidence to processing-based accounts of island effects. Here, we take up several problems with their methods, their findings, and their conclusions. First, the arguments against processing accounts are based on null results using tasks that may be ineffective or inappropriate measures of working memory (the n-back and serial-recall tasks). The authors provide no evidence that these two measures predict judgments for other constructions that are difficult to process and yet are clearly grammatical. They assume that other measures of working memory would have yielded the same result, but provide no justification that they should. We further show that whether a working-memory measure relates to judgments of grammatical, hard-to-process sentences depends on how difficult the sentences are. In this light, the stimuli used by the authors present processing difficulties other than the island violations under investigation and may have been particularly hard to process. Second, the Sprouse et al. results are statistically in line with the hypothesis that island sensitivity varies with working memory. Three out of the four island types in their experiment 1 show a significant relation between memory scores and island sensitivity, but the authors discount these findings on the grounds that the variance accounted for is too small to have much import. This interpretation, however, runs counter to standard practices in linguistics, psycholinguistics, and psychology.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: acceptability judgments; individual differences; working memory; processing difficulty; island effects; grammar
Subjects: P Language and Literature > P Philology. Linguistics
Divisions: Faculty of Social Sciences > Language and Linguistics, Department of
Depositing User: Jim Jamieson
Date Deposited: 13 Nov 2012 15:40
Last Modified: 13 Nov 2012 15:40
URI: http://repository.essex.ac.uk/id/eprint/4242

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item