• Nenhum resultado encontrado

6.2 The non-generative majority view

6.2.1 The etiology debate

In this subsection, I present the results of the analysis of the answers to the seven questions related to the etiology debate. In section 6.1.2, we saw that the majority view among the generative linguists was not VoC, but it also did not match entirely with the Modest Explanation or with the Critics’ Views. In this section, we will see that the majority view on the etiology question among the non-generative participants in this study is closer to the Modest Explanation than to the two other views.

In short, on the majority non-generative view, the study of grammar is ul- timately about the abstract patterns in language data rather than about the underlying mental linguistic capacity, the intuitive judgements we should use as evidence in linguistics are acceptability judgements, and intuitive judgements express speakers’ reflections about language rather than their linguistic compe- tence. On a further three questions, there was no significant majority for any of the options, but the way the answers pattern, along with the comments that participants provided, still allows us to say something about the group’s view on these issues.

In the following, I take a look at each of the questions in turn and then sum up the view on the etiology question that emerges as the majority view among the non-generative participants.

6.2.1.1 Origin – experience or competence Question 2: Origin (repeated)

When syntactic intuitions are reliable as evidence, this is mainly because ...

1. ... they are speakers’reflectionsabout language use, and speak- ers are to some degree reliable judges about this.

2. ... they express speaker’scompetence in their native language.

3. [Supply other answer]

The answer reflections was significantly more frequent than the two other options. See the distribution of participants’ answers in table 6.35.

Answer Reflections Competence Other Frequency 40 (66%) 14 (23%) 7 (11%)

Table 6.35: Origin (Q2), distribution of answers, non-generative group The answers were not equally distributed, χ2(2, n= 61) = 29.74, p < .001, V =.49. The post-hoc pairwise comparisons showed that thereflectionsanswer was significantly more frequent than both competence (V = .48) and other (V =.70).

In other words, the non-generative participants in this study think that linguistic intuitive judgements make good evidence because they are based on speakers’ reflections on language. This result is consistent with the Modest Explanation and in conflict with both VoC and the Critics’ Views. It also contrasts with the majority view on this issue within the generative group, where the answercompetencewas significantly more frequent that the two other options.

6.2.1.2 Acceptability or grammaticality

Question 3: Acceptability/grammaticality (repeated) To the extent syntactic intuitions can serve as evidence for theories of grammar, only those syntactic intuitions can serve as evidence that are ...

1. ... acceptability intuitions.

2. ... grammaticality intuitions.

3. [Supply other answer]

Acceptability was significantly more frequent than the other two options.

The distribution of the answers is presented in table 6.36.

Answer Acceptability Grammaticality Other

Frequency 36 (59%) 9 (15%) 16 (26%)

Table 6.36: Acceptability/grammaticality (Q3), distribution of answers, non- generative group

The answers were not equally distributed, χ2(2, n= 61) = 19.31, p < .001, V = .40. The post-hoc comparison between acceptability and grammaticality had a large effect size ofV =.60, and the comparison betweenacceptability and other had a medium effect size ofV =.38. This result is consistent with VoC

and the Critics’ Views and in contrast to the Modest Explanation. Within the generative group, there was no significant majority for any of the options.

6.2.1.3 The role of the mental grammar

Question 4: The role of the mental grammar (repeated) Syntactic intuitions are sometimes said to be “deduced from the speaker’s mental grammar”.

1. This is probably a poor description of how intuitions are formed.

2. This is a good way to talk about how intuitions are formed but should probably not be taken too literally.

3. This is likely to be the actual process of how syntactic intuitions are formed in the mind.

4. [Supply other answer]

No one answer was significantly more frequent than all others. See the distribution of answers in table 6.37.

Answer Poor description Not literal Actual process Other

Frequency 28 (46%) 29 (48%) 1 (2%) 3 (5%)

Table 6.37: Deduced (Q4), distribution of answers, non-generative group The initial chi-square GOF test showed that the answers were not equally distributed, χ2(3, n = 61) = 46.21, p < .001, V = .50. However, the post- hoc comparisons showed no one answer was significantly more frequent than all other answers.

When looking at the distribution of answers, one sees that the answerpoor descriptionandnot literalare almost equally frequent with 28 and 29 responses respectively. The answer actual process, on the other hand, was only given by one participant. Even though there is no clear majority for any one answer, this pattern of answers is consistent with both the Modest Explanation and with the Critics’ Views, though it is in contrast to VoC (on which intuitive judgements are hypothesised to be more or less directly deduced from the rules of the speaker’s mental grammar). The pattern is also different from the one we saw among the generative participants where there was a significant majority for the optionnot literal.

Three participants provided different answers than the provided ones. See those comments in table 6.38.

Theme Example No. % Poor description It’s a poor description of how acceptability

judgements are formed, but a good descrip- tion of how intuitions about such things as what a sentence means are formed.

1 33%

Other for me the constructionist approach seems more likely - when I reflect on my usage of L2 and L3, it looks like there really exist some chunks

1 33%

Uncategorised This is a confused way of putting it 1 33%

Total 3 100%

Table 6.38: Deduced (Q4), other answers, non-generative group There were five optional comments on this question. See the overview in table 6.39.

Theme Example No. %

Not deduced We might be able to deduce mental gram- mar from intuitions, but we cannot de- duce intuitions from mental grammar, as we have access only to intuitions.

2 40%

Other I would say that intuitions are due to the interiorization of a social rule

1 20%

Uncategorised This should be true of authors of grammar books

1 20%

Comment on question

Don’t think this question (or the options) are very clear. [...]

1 20%

Total 5 100%

Table 6.39: Deduced (Q4), optional comments, non-generative group While there are too few comments to glean a pattern from, it is interesting that in both theother comments and in the optional comments, one comment suggests a very different etiology story for intuitive judgements than the one considered in the debate in generative linguistics. One comment suggests a constructionist approach, and another suggests that intuitive judgements are made based on internalised social rules. This is in line with the difference between the generative group and the non-generative group on this issue. In the generative group there was a significant majority for the option that deduction

talk may be a helpful way to talk about intuitive judgements although it should not be taken too literally. In the non-generative group, on the other hand, a sizeable number of participants thought deduction talk is just plainly a poor description of how intuitive judgements are formed.

6.2.1.4 Fallibility of linguistic intuitive judgements Question 5: Fallibility (repeated)

Imagine you could abstract away all performance factors that might influence a speaker’s syntactic intuitions. In that case, it would be possible for the resulting syntactic intuitions to be mistaken about the grammatical properties of the sentence.

1. Strongly agree 2. Somewhat agree

3. Neither agree nor disagree 4. Somewhat disagree 5. Strongly disagree

For this question, no one answer was significantly more frequent than the two others. See the distribution of answers in table 6.40.

Answer Agree Neither Disagree Frequency 29 (48%) 22 (36%) 10 (16%)

Table 6.40: Fallibility (Q5), distribution of answers, non-generative group The chi-square GOF test showed that the answers were not equally dis- tributed, χ2(2, n = 61) = 9.08, p = .01, with a small effect size of V = .27.

However, on the basis of the pairwise post-hoc comparisons we cannot reject the null-hypothesis that the two closest competitors, agree andneither are equally frequent.16

This result contrasts with the result from the generative group, in which disagree was significantly more frequent than both other options. It is also in contrast with VoC, on which the preferred option would be disagree. On the Modest Explanation, the preferred option would beagree, so the pattern found in the non-generative group on this issue is partially in agreement with that view. It is unclear what the Critics’ Views on this issue is.

Let us see if the comments can shed any further light on this situation. 18 participants supplied optional comments to this question. 4 participants (22%)

16As mentioned for the Acceptability/grammaticality question in section 6.1.2.2 above, this lack of a significant result could potentially be due to a problem with the power of the test for the current set-up.

commented that performance factors are central to intuitive judgements. 3 par- ticipants (17%) used their comment to say that filtering out all performance factors is not possible. Both of these views could underlie the (relatively, com- pared to the generative group) low number of participants who chosedisagree.

Another 3 participants (17%) commented on an assumption of the question, and a further 3 participants (17%) made other comments on the question. 2 participants (11%) expressed the opinion that the distinction between compe- tence and performance is questionable, and one participant (6%) wrote that the answer to the question depends on whether one is responding to clear cases or not. See the full overview in table 6.41.

Theme Example No. %

Performance central

[...] Performance factors are part of the grammar.

4 22%

Not possible I don’t think it is ever possible to strip away performance factors

3 17%

Comment on question

Strangely formulated statement 3 17%

Assumption of question

This statement assumes that ‘the’ gram- matical properties of the sentence exist completely separate from (and invariant among different) speakers

3 17%

Distinction The distinction between ‘competence’ and

‘performance’ is a false distinction.

2 11%

Depends If we are dealing with clear cases, I would say, ‘I disagree’. If we are dealing with less-than-clear cases (by far the majority), I would say that I agree.

1 6%

Agree, elaborate

[...] Since patterns are found across sen- tences, not within one sentence, a speaker have lots of wrong intuitions about an iso- lated sentence.

1 6%

Uncategorised Some people are not competent users of any language.

1 6%

Total 18 100%

Table 6.41: Fallibility (Q5), optional comments, non-generative group The comments that performance factors are central to intuitive judgements is in contrast to the views put forward in the generative group (though recall that

there were some reservations about that result). It supports the general picture from the quantitative analysis that non-generative participants responded differ- ently to this question than generative participants did. Significantly more par- ticipants in the non-generative group choseagree thandisagree. Together with the comments, this signals that, on the non-generative view, intuitive judge- ments do not give us direct access to a mental grammar which can, at least in principle, be separated from performance factors.

6.2.1.5 The subject matter of grammatical research Question 6: Subject matter (repeated)

When I study grammatical phenomena, I ultimately seek to under- stand ...

1. ... the systematic patterns found in linguistic behaviour.

2. ... the linguistic capacity of the mind.

3. [Supply other answer]

The distribution of answers can be found in table 6.42. The answerpatterns was significantly more frequent than both other options.

Answer Patterns Capacity Other Frequency 42 (69%) 10 (16%) 9 (15%)

Table 6.42: Subject matter (Q6), distribution of answers, non-generative group The answers were not equally distributed, χ2(2, n= 61) = 34.66, p < .001, V = .53. The answer patterns was significantly more frequent than both ca- pacity (V =.62) and other (V =.65). This view is in line with the Modest Explanation, but in contrast to both VoC and the Critics’ Views. It also con- trasts with the majority view within the generative group, where there was no significant majority for any of the options.

In sum, there was a clear majority among the non-generative participants for the view that we are ultimately interested in studying the patterns in linguistic data rather than the mental underpinnings of those patterns.

6.2.1.6 Structure rules and mental rules Question 7: Rules (repeated)

The structure rules that linguists describe are sometimes said to be

“implemented in the minds of speakers”.

1. It is a good hypothesis that structure rules are actually imple- mented in the minds of speakers.

2. From the structure rules we observe, we can only infer that the mind worksas if it was following those rules.

3. From the structure rules we observe, we cannot infer anything about how the mind processes language.

4. [Supply other answer]

No answer to this question was significantly more frequent than the three other options. The distribution of the answers is presented in table 6.43.

Answer Good hypothesis As if Nothing Other Frequency 5 (8%) 34 (56%) 17 (28%) 5 (8%) Table 6.43: Rules (Q7), distribution of answers, non-generative group The answers were not equally distributed, χ2(3, n= 61) = 37.03, p < .001, V = .45. The post-hoc pairwise comparisons, however, showed that no one answer was significantly more frequent than each of the three other options.

More specifically, the option as if was not significantly more frequent than the optionnothing, its closest competitor.17

Although this result does not give us a clear majority view on this issue, it can still help us understand something about what is not the non-generative majority view on this issue. It is clearly not the case that the majority thinks that intuitive judgements are “deduced” from speakers’ mental grammars (the good hypothesis answer). In this sense, this result is in contrast to VoC. On the Modest Explanation, the processing rules of the mind must respect the structure rules that we observe (theas if option), and while the result does not show that this option is significantly more frequent than all other options, it is significantly more frequent than thegood hypothesis option, which is arguably the most interesting competitor (as if is also significantly more frequent than theother option). In the generative group,as if was significantly more frequent than all other options, includingnothing. This suggests that while a section of the two groups agree on the as if option, there is a difference between the two groups in that a larger proportion of the non-generative linguists chose the option that structure rules tell us nothing about how the mind processes language (in section 6.3.2.2, we see that there is in fact a significant association between participants’ theoretical orientation and their answers to this question).

The 5 alternative answers (other) are along the same lines as the quantitative results. Of those 5 participants, 2 indicated that claims such as the ones made

17As mentioned for the Acceptability/grammaticality question in section 6.1.2.2 above, this lack of a significant result could potentially be due to a problem with the power of the test for the current set-up.

in the options should only be viewed as hypotheses. One participant answered that, although we can only infer that the mind works as if the structure rules are implemented, it is nonetheless a good hypothesis that they are implemented.18 Another participant commented that it might altogether be wrong to talk about

“rules” in this context, and the final participant expressed the view that structure rules result from observing language use. See an overview of the comments in table 6.44.

Theme Example No. %

Just hypothesis [...] In principle, this hypothesis is accept- able as such, but to test it, psycholinguistic and brain research would be needed.

2 40%

Both Both A and B. We can only infer that the mind works ‘as if’ it was following those rules — but it is nonetheless a good work- ing hypothesis that the rules are in fact implemented in the minds of speakers.

1 20%

Not rules Rules may not be the best conceptualisa- tion of the process

1 20%

Other I’d say structure rules result from ob- serving language; they can help monitor- ing language production when the speaker needs help

1 20%

Total 5 100%

Table 6.44: Rules (Q7), other answers, non-generative group

11 participants provided optional comments to this question. 4 of these comments were elaborations on the answer nothing. 2 were comments on the question, and 2 were uncategorised. 1 participant elaborated on the good hy- pothesis answer, 1 participant expressed the opinion that claims such as the ones in the options are just hypotheses, and one participant noted that the an- swer depends on what is meant by “how the mind processes language”. See an overview of the optional comments in table 6.45 (page 141).

The comments show a similar pattern to the quantitative results. Several comments stress how this is a hypothesis that should be tested, which shows a degree of reservation towards the good hypothesis answer. Another chunk of comments focus on how the underlying cognitive reality might be very different from the structure rules that we can observe. As with the distribution of the

18Re-coding this answer asas if rather thanotherdoes not lead to a significant result.

Theme Example No. % Nothing,

elaborate

[...] Correlating rules that linguists arrive at with cognitive reality is haphazardous.

4 36%

Comment on question

Poorly worded question. [...] 2 18%

Uncategorised If forced to choose between the three op- tions, that is the one I would choose.

2 18%

Good hyp., elaborate

Of course, a good hypothesis can still be falsified

1 9%

Just hypoth- esis

From the rules alone we can only infer the

‘as if’. Based on that, we hypothesize an implementation. [...]

1 9%

Depends The answer also depends on the definition of ‘how the mind processes language’.[...]

1 9%

Total 11 100%

Table 6.45: Rules (Q7), optional comments, non-generative group

quantitative answers, this suggests that the non-generative group of participants tend more towards the as if and nothing answers than towards immediately accepting that it is a good hypothesis that structure rules are implemented in the minds of speakers.

6.2.1.7 The form of the implementation of mental rules Question 8: Implementation (repeated)

There must be something in the mind that gives rise to what we call

“rules of grammar”.

1. The rules of grammar are probably explicitly represented in the mind. If one could look into subjects’ minds, one could find explicit rules.

2. The rules of grammar are implemented in the mind, but they are probably not explicitly represented.

3. The rules of grammar are probably not implemented in the mind.

4. [Supply other answer]

As mentioned in section 6.1.2.7, the answernot implemented was included, partly as a safety hatch if one of the other answers from the previous ques- tion was not compatible with the other options of this question (not forcing participants to be inconsistent in their answers) and partly to illustrate that this was not part of the intended reading of thenot represented answer. As no participants in this group chose this option, it was excluded from the analysis.

10 participants from the non-generative group answered this question (see section 6.1.2.7). See the distribution of answers in table 6.46.

Answer Represented Not represented Not implemented Other

Frequency 2 (20%) 4 (40%) 0 (0%) 4 (40%)

Table 6.46: Implementation (Q8), distribution of answers, non-generative group There was no one significantly most frequent answer to this question. The chi-square GOF test showed that we cannot reject the null-hypothesis of equal distribution,χ2(2, n= 10) = 0.8, p= 0.67.

Out of the 10 participants who answered this question, 4 participants chose to supply their own answer, and they each had different perspectives. One participant commented that it might not be right to talk of “rules” in this case. Another participant commented that the connection between the mind and observable patterns might not be transparent. One participant commented that the rules of grammar may be implemented in the mind (my emphasis).

Finally, the last participant commented on the question itself. See all four comments in table 6.47.

Theme Example No. %

Not rules Rules may not be the best conceptualisa- tion of this process.

1 25%

Not trans- parent

There must be an interface between what- ever is in the mind andobservable patterns of grammar. But that doesn’t mean the mind operates on what we observe. [...]

1 25%

Other The rules of grammar may be implemented in the mind.

1 25%

Comment on question

Is the mind the same as the brain? 1 25%

Total 4 100%

Table 6.47: Implementation (Q8), other answers, non-generative group 3 participants provided optional comments on this question. Of these, 2 were elaborations on thenot represented answer and one was an elaboration on therepresented answer. See the comments in table 6.48.