Cover not available
Part of
Studies in Lexicogrammar: Theory and applications
Edited by Grzegorz Drożdż
[Human Cognitive Processing 54] 2016
► pp. 55–74

Looking into introspection

Introspective judgments are often used in linguistics to obtain information about speakers’ mental representations of language. This chapter addresses two questions, namely: what shapes speakers’ judgments, and what such judgments provide information about. I argue that speakers’ judgments are influenced by their theories of language, which in turn are partly shaped by our experience with written language. The fundamental units that linguists use in their analyses – phonemes, words, and sentences – are largely products of a particular written tradition; and grammaticality judgments about isolated sentences are, to a considerable extent, judgments about what is acceptable in written language. Thus, linguistic intuitions are not direct reflections of mental representations of linguistic knowledge, but of speakers’ sensitivity to socially constituted norms.

Keywords: folk and expert theories, intuitions, linguistic judgments, phonemes, sentences, words
Published online: 4 August 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.54.03dab
References
Aarts, J
1991 Intuition-based and observation-based grammars. In K. Aijmen & B. Altenberg (Eds.), English corpus linguistics: Studies in honour of Jan Svartvik (44–62). London: Longman.Google Scholar
Adrián, J.A., Alegria, J., & Morais, J
1995 Metaphonological abilities of Spanish illiterate adults. International Journal of Psychology, 30, 329–353. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Allen, S
2007 The future of Inuktitut in the face of majority languages: Bilingualism or language shift? Applied Psycholinguistics, 28, 515–536. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergen, B.K
2012 Louder than words: The new science of how the mind makes meaning. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Bürki, A., Spinelli, E., & Gareth, G.M
2012 A written word is worth a thousand spoken words: The influence of spelling on spoken-word production. Journal of Memory and Language, 67, 449–467. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chafe, W
1985 Linguistic differences produced by differences between speaking and writing. In D.R. Olson, N. Torrance, & A. Hildyard (Eds.), Literacy, language and learning: The nature and consequences of reading and writing (105–123). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chipere, N
2001 Native speaker variations in syntactic competence: Implications for first language teaching. Language Awareness, 10, 107–124. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003 Understanding complex sentences: Native speaker variations in syntactic competence. Basingstoke: Palgrave. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cordaro, L., & Ison, J.R
1963 Psychology of the scientist: X. Observer bias in classical conditioning of the planarian. Psychological Reports, 13, 787–789. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cordeiro, Patricia
1988 Children’s punctuation: An analysis of errors in period placement. Research in the Teaching of English, 22, 62–74.Google Scholar
Cowart, W
1997 Experimental syntax: Applying objective methods to sentence judgments. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Crystal, D
1980 Neglected grammatical factors in conversational English. In S. Greenbaum, G. Leech, & J. Svartvik (Eds.), Studies in English linguistics (153–166). London: Longman.Google Scholar
Cumming, S
1984 The sentence in Chinese. Studies in Language, 8, 365–395. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dąbrowska, E
1997 The LAD goes to school: A cautionary tale for nativists. Linguistics, 35, 735–766. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008 The effects of frequency and neighbourhood density on adult speakers’ productivity with Polish case inflections: An empirical test of usage-based approaches to morphology. Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 931–951. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010 Naive v. expert competence: An empirical study of speaker intuitions. The Linguistic Review, 27, 1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012 Different speakers, different grammars: Individual differences in native language attainment. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 2, 219–253. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dąbrowska, E., & Street, J
2006 Individual differences in language attainment: Comprehension of passive sentences by native and non-native English speakers. Language Sciences, 28, 604–615. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ehri, L.C
1985 Effects of printed language acquisition on speech. In D.R. Olson, N. Torrance, & A. Hildyard (Eds.), Literacy, language and learning: The nature and consequences of reading and writing (333–367). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ehri, L.C., Nunes, S.R., Willows, D.M., Valeska Schuster, B., Yaghoub-Zadeh, Z., & Shanahan, T
2001 Phonemic awareness instruction helps children learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s meta-analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 250–278. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R
2006 Introspection and cognitive linguistics: Should we trust our own intuitions? Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 135–151. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halford, B.K
1990 The complexity of oral syntax. In B.K. Halford & H. Pilch (Eds.), Syntax gesprochener Sprachen (33–43). Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K
1989 Spoken and written language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Harris, R
1981 The language myth. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
Hoffer, B.L
1994 The last stages of the acquisition of syntax: The interaction of reading and syntactic development. In V.B. Makkai (Ed.), The twentieth LACUS forum 1993 (654–663). Chapel Hill, NC: Linguistic Association of Canada and the United States.Google Scholar
Holden, M.H., & MacGinitie, W.H
1972 Children’s conceptions of word boundaries in speech and print. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 551–557. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hunt, K.W
1977 Early blooming and late blooming syntactic structures. In C.L. Cooper & L. Odell (Eds.), Evaluating writing (91–104). Buffalo: State University of Buffalo.Google Scholar
Hussain, R
1992 Psychological reality of the word in Chinese. Advances in Psychology, 90, 113–130.Google Scholar
Jakimik, J., Cole, R.A., & Rudnicky, A.I
1985 Sound and spelling in spoken word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 165–178. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Juffermans, K., & Veldhuis, D
2012 Comparing spelling and segmentation practices in three versions of a Mandinka text. In J. Blommaert, P. Varis, S. Lehtonen, & M. Spotti (Eds.), Papers in culture studies 34 (1–28). Tilburg: Tilburg University.Google Scholar
Karanth, P., Kudva, A., & Vijayan, A
1995 Literacy and linguistic awareness. In B. de Gelder & J. Morais (Eds.), Speech and reading: A comparative approach (303–316). Hove Erlbaum (UK): Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Karmiloff-Smith, A., Grant, J., Sims, K., Jones, M.-C., & Cuckle, P
1996 Rethinking metalinguistic awareness: Representing and accessing knowledge about what counts as a word . Cognition, 58, 197–219. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, J.-H., Montrul, S., & Yoon, J
2010 Dominant language influence in acquisition and attrition of binding: Interpretation of the Korean reflexive caki . Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13, 73–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kurvers, J., & Uri, H
2006 Metalexical awareness: Development, methodology or written language? A cross-linguistic comparison. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 35(4), 353–367. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kurvers, J., Vallen, T., & van Hout, R
2006 Discovering features of language: Metalinguistic awareness of adult illiterates. In I. van de Craats, J. Kurvers, & M. Young-Scholten (Eds.), Low-educated second language and literacy acquisition: Proceedings of the inaugural symposium Tilburg 2005 (69–88). Utrecht: LOT.
Labov, W
1975 What is a linguistic fact? Lisse: Peter de Ridder Press.Google Scholar
1996 When intuitions fail. In Papers from the parasession on theory and data in linguistics , Chicago Linguistic Society 32, 76–106.
Li, W
2004 Topic chains in Chinese discourse. Discourse Processes, 37, 25–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Linell, P
2005 The written language bias in linguistics: Its nature, origins and transformations. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miller, J., & Weinert, R
1998 Spontaneous spoken language: Syntax and discourse. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Montrul, S
2008 Incomplete acquisition in bilingualism: Re-Examining the age factor. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morais, J., Alegria, J., & Content, A
1986 Literacy training and speech segmentation. Cognition, 24, 45–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morais, J., Cary, L., Alegria, J., & Bertelson, P
1979 Does awareness of speech as a sequence of phones arise spontaneously? Cognition, 7, 415–438. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Myers, D.G
2002 Intuition: Its powers and perils. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Myers, J
2009 Syntactic judgment experiments. Language & Linguistics Compass, 3, 406–423. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nagy, W.E., & Anderson, R.C
1995 Metalinguistic awareness and literacy acquisition in different languages. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: Centre for the Study of Reading.Google Scholar
Nippold, M.A
1998 Later language development: The school-age and adolescent years. Austin, TX: Pro-ed.Google Scholar
Nisbett, R.E., & Wilson, T.D
1977 Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231–259. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pattamadilok, C., Morais, J., Ventura, P., & Kolinsky, R
2007 The locus of the orthographic consistency effect in auditory word recognition: Further evidence from French. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22, 700–726. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pawley, A., & Syder, F.H
1983 Natural selection in syntax: Notes on adaptive variation and change in vernacular and literary grammar. Journal of Pragmatics, 7, 551–579. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perera, K
1984 Children’s writing and reading. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
1986 Language acquisition and writing. In P. Fletcher & M. Garman (Eds.), Language acquisition: Studies in first language development (494–618). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perfetti, C.A., & McCutchen, D
1987 Schooled language competence: linguistic abilities in reading and writing. In S. Rosenberg (Ed.), Advances in applied psycholinguistics. Vol 2: Reading, writing, and language learning (105–141). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Perre, L., Pattamadilok, C., Montant, M., & Ziegler, J.C
2009 Orthographic effects in spoken language: On-line activation or phonological restructuring? Brain Research, 1275, 73–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartnik, J
1985 A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Ramachandra, V., & Karanth, P
2007 The role of literacy in the conceptualization of words: Data from Kannada-speaking children and non-literate adults. Reading and Writing, 20, 173–199. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Read, C.A., Zhang, Y.-F., Nie, H.-Y., & Ding, B.-Q
1986 The ability to manipulate speech sounds depends on knowing alphabetic writing. Cognition, 24, 31–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rong, L., & Hongjun, W
2012 What are the basic units of Mandarin Chinese discourse? International Journal of Knowledge and Language Processing, 3, 1–17.Google Scholar
Saenger, P
2000 Space between words: The origins of silent reading. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Scholes, R.J., & Willis, B.J
1987 Literacy and language. Journal of Literary Semantics, 16(1), 3–11.Google Scholar
Schütze, C.T
1996 The empirical base of linguistics: Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Seidenberg, M.S., & Tanenhaus, M.K
1979 Orthographic effect on rhyme monitoring. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 5, 546–554. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shen, J., & Gu, Y
1997 Conversation and sentence-hood. Text, 17, 477–489.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J
1991 Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Song, M., O’Grady, W., Cho, S., & Lee, M
1997 The learning and teaching of Korean in community schools. In Y.-H. Kim (Ed.), Korean language in America 2 (111–127). Seattle: American Associations of Teachers of Korean.Google Scholar
Street, J., & Dąbrowska, E
2010 More individual differences in language attainment: How much do adult native speakers of English know about passives and quantifiers? Lingua, 120, 2080–2094. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014 Lexically specific knowledge and individual differences in adult native speakers’ processing of the English passive. Applied Psycholinguistics, 35(01), 97–118. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weinert, R
2004 Relative clauses in spoken English and German – Their structure and function. Linguistische Berichte, 197, 3–51.Google Scholar
Ziegler, J.C., Petrova, A., & Fernand, L
2008 Feedback consistency effects in visual and auditory word recognition: Where do we stand after more than a decade? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 34, 643–661. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 3 other publications

Winter, Bodo & Marcus Perlman
2021. Iconicity ratings really do measure iconicity, and they open a new window onto the nature of language. Linguistics Vanguard 7:1 DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2019. Sensory Linguistics [Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research, 20], DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2019. Chapter 18. Conclusion. In Sensory Linguistics [Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research, 20], ► pp. 235 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 13 may 2023. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.