1969
DOI: 10.1177/002383096901200401
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Some Experiments with Queer Sentences

Abstract: Eight sorts of sentences—true, false, contradictory, analytic, anagram, and three sorts of semi-grammatical sentences were used as experimental materials in three experiments; a rating task, a short-term memory task, and a free-recall task. Predictions of the relative degrees of " cognitive impairment " of the sentence types were derived, chiefly from a generative grammar. In general, the predictions were confirmed, with the results of the three tasks being generally similar. This similarity is interpreted as … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

1971
1971
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Grammaticalness can also be studied by holding syntax constant birt varying semantic features and subcategorization rules. Davidson (1966) and Stolz (1969) found learning correlated with grammaticality as expected; Downey and Hakes (1968) did not. Apparently the critical factor is the method of measuring learning.…”
Section: Lezotte and Byers (1968) Foun0 A Perturbation In This Relatimentioning
confidence: 76%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Grammaticalness can also be studied by holding syntax constant birt varying semantic features and subcategorization rules. Davidson (1966) and Stolz (1969) found learning correlated with grammaticality as expected; Downey and Hakes (1968) did not. Apparently the critical factor is the method of measuring learning.…”
Section: Lezotte and Byers (1968) Foun0 A Perturbation In This Relatimentioning
confidence: 76%
“…Artificial materials can be constructed with various degrees of conformity with presumed grammatical and semantic rules of the language. There is generally a high degree of agreement as to how "grammatical" a sentence is (Coleman, 1965b;Danks, 19698., 1969b;Danks and Lewis, 1970;Downey and Hakes, 1968;Stolz, 1969;Tikofsky, Reiff, Tikofsky, Oakes, Glazer, and Mclnish, 1967), but under certain circumstances this is not necessarily the case (Maclay and Sleator, 1960;Quirk and Svartvik, 1966 (1965a, 1965b), Epstein (1961Epstein ( , 1962, Johnson (1968a), Marks and Miller (1964), Martin, Davidson, and Williams (1965), and Wang (1910).…”
Section: Syntactic Factors In Text Difficultymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Coleman (1965) and Danks and Glucksberg (1970) defined a scale of grammaticality in the light of the four different levels of structural hierarchy of phrases. In other studies (Downey & Hakes, 1968;Stolz, 1969;Danks & Glucksberg, 1970;Moore, 1972), the levels of grammaticality were defined in terms of the violation of Chomsky's (1965) syntactic rules regarding, for instance, lexical category, strict subcategorization and selectional restriction. The word strings employed in the above studies appear to deviate more radically from grammaticality than those employed in this study.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, the recall scores showed a reversal of this pattern, with sentences containing selectional violations being harder to remember correctly than those with subcategorization errors. 9 Stolz (1969) performed a replication of this study, adding finer distinctions from Chomsky's hierarchy of selectional features, e.g., that the difference between mass nouns and count nouns is greater than that between human nouns and nonhuman nouns, although problems with materials made the possible effect of this difference inconclusive. Stolz also used a 4-point response scale, and told subjects that their responses should be based on any kind of deviance, including anomalous meanings as well as form.…”
Section: The Nature Of Graded Judgmentsmentioning
confidence: 99%