Abstract
Linguists, particularly in the generative tradition, commonly rely upon intuitions about sentences as a key source of evidence for their theories. While widespread, this methodology has also been controversial. In this paper, I develop a positive account of linguistic intuition, and defend its role in linguistic inquiry. Intuitions qualify as evidence as form of linguistic behavior, which, since it is partially caused by linguistic competence (the object of investigation), can be used to study this competence. I defend this view by meeting two challenges. First, that intuitions are collected through methodologically unsound practices, and second, that intuition cannot distinguish between the contributions of competence and performance systems.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Asudeh, A., & Keller, F. (2001). Experimental evidence for a prediction-based binding theory. In M. Andronis, C. Ball, H. Elston, & S. Neuvel (Eds.), Papers from the 37th annual meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (Vol. 1). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Badecker, W., & Straub, K. (2002). The processing role of structural constraints on the interpretation of pronouns and anaphors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 748–769.
Bogen, J., & Woodward, J. (1988). Saving the phenomena. Philosophical Review, 97(3), 303–352.
Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., & Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, M. (2007). The wolf in sheep’s clothing: Against a new judgment-driven imperialism. Theoretical Linguistics, 33(3), 319–333.
Büring, D. (2005). Binding theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language: It’s nature, origin and use. New York: Praeger.
Cowart, W. (1997). Experimental syntax. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Culbertson, J., & Gross, S. (2009). Are linguists better subjects? British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 60, 721–736.
Cummins, R. (1998). Reflection on reflective equilibrium. In M. R. DePaul & W. Ramsey (Eds.), Rethinking intuition: The psychology of intuition and its role in philosophical inquiry. Lanham, MD: Rowan & Littlefield Publishers.
Dabrowska, E. (2010). Naive v. expert intuitions: An empirical study of acceptability judgments. The Linguistic Review, 27, 1–23.
den Dikken, M., Bernstein, J. B., Tortora, C., & Zanuttini, R. (2007). Data and grammar: Means and individuals. Theoretical Linguistics, 33, 335–352.
Devitt, M. (2006a). Ignorance of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Devitt, M. (2006b). Intuitions in linguistics. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 57, 481–513.
Devitt, M. (2010). Linguistic intuitions revisited. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 61(4), 833–865.
Evans, V. (2012). Cognitive linguistics. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 3(2), 129–141.
Featherston, S. (2007). Data in generative grammar: The stick and the carrot. Theoretical Linguistics, 33, 269–318.
Ferreira, F. (2005). Psycholinguistics, formal grammars and cognitive science. The Linguistic Review, 22, 365–380.
Fitzgerald, G. (2009). Linguistic intuitions. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 61(1), 123–160.
Keller, F., & Asudeh, A. (2001). Constraints on linguistic coreference: Structural vs pragmatic factors. In J. D. Moore & K. Stenning (Eds.), Proceedings of the 23rd annual conference of the cognitive science society. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Labov, W. (1975). What is a linguistic fact?. Lisse: Peter de Ridder Press.
Labov, W. (1996). When intuitions fail. In L. McNair, K. Singer, L. Dolbrin, & M. Aucon (Eds.), Papers from the parasession on theory and data in linguistics. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Ludlow, P. (2011). The philosophy of generative linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lycan, W. (1988). Judgment and justification. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Maynes, J., & Gross, S. (Manuscript). Linguistic intuitions.
Nicol, J., & Swinney, D. (1989). The role of structure in coreference assignment during sentence comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18(1), 5–19.
Phillips, C. (2009). Should we impeach armchair linguists? In S. Iwasaki (Ed.), Japanese/Korean linguistics. Chicago: CLSI Publications.
Phillips, C., Wagers, M., & Lau, E. (2011). Grammatical illusions and selective fallibility in real time language comprehension. In J. Runner (Ed.), Experiments at the interfaces, Vol. 37 of Syntax & semantics. Bingley: Emerald Publications.
Riemer, N. (2009). Grammaticality as evidence and as prediction in a Galilean linguistics. Language Sciences, 31, 612–633.
Runner, J. T., Sussman, R. S., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2006). Processing reflexives and pronouns in picture noun phrases. Cognitive Science, 30, 193–241.
Schütze, C. T. (1996). The empirical base of linguistics: Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Segall, M., Campbell, D., & Herskovits, M. J. (1966). The influence of culture on visual perception. Indianapolis, IN: The Bobbs-Merrill Company.
Sprouse, J. (2007). A program for experimental syntax: Finding the relationship between acceptability and grammatical knowledge. Dissertation, University of Maryland.
Sprouse, J. (2011). A test of the cognitive assumptions of magnitude estimation: Commutativity does not hold for acceptability judgments. Language, 87(2), 274–288.
Sprouse, J., & Almeida, D. (2012). Assessing the reliability of textbook data in syntax: Adger’s Core Syntax. Journal of Linguistics, 48, 609–652.
Tanenhaus, M. K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., Eberhard, K. M., & Sedivy, J. C. (1995). Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science, 268(5217), 1632–1634.
Textor, M. (2009). Devitt on the epistemic authority of linguistic intuitions. Erkenntnis, 71, 395–405.
Wasow, T., & Arnold, J. (2005). Intuitions in linguistic argumentation. Lingua, 115, 1481–1496.
Weinberg, J. M., Crowley, S., Gonnerman, C., Vanderwalker, I., & Swain, S. (2012). Intuition & calibration. Essays in Philosophy, 13(1), 256–283.
Weiskrantz, L. (1990). Blindsight: A case study and its implications. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Weskott, T., & Fanselow, G. (2011). On the informativity of different measures of linguistic acceptability. Language, 87(2), 249–273.
Xiang, M., Dillon, B., & Phillips, C. (2009). Illusory licensing effects across dependency types: ERP evidence. Brain & Language, 108, 40–55.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Maynes, J. Linguistic intuition and calibration. Linguist and Philos 35, 443–460 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-012-9122-0
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-012-9122-0