This study examined the relation between anchoring effects, as demonstrated in 1992 by Nagata, and grammar-based effects in judgments of sentence acceptability. 35 subjects judged the acceptability of target sentences representing six different syntactic types. There were highly robust differences among these sentence types arising from differences in sentence structure. For one group of subjects the target sentences were mingled with a long list of highly acceptable sentences (High Anchor Set). A second group saw the same target sentences with an Anchor Set in which one-third of the sentences were of very low acceptability (Mixed Anchor Set). Target sentences seen in the context of the Mixed Anchor Set were judged more acceptable (an anchoring effect); however, the effect of Anchor Set did not interact with other factors. The relative acceptability of the six target types was unchanged in the two anchor conditions. Implications for the psychological theory of sentence judgments are considered. In particular, it is argued that anchoring effects do not arise in the cognitive mechanisms that evaluate sentence structure.
References
1.
BeverT. G. (1970) The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In HayesJ. R. (Ed.), Cognition and the development of language. New York: Wiley. Pp. 279–362.
2.
BolingerD. L. (1968) Judgments of grammaticality. Lingua, 21, 34–40.
3.
CardenG. (1973) Dialect variation in abstract syntax. In ShuyR. W. (Ed.), Some new directions in linguistics. Washington, DC: Georgetown Univer. Press. Pp. 1–34.
4.
ChomskyN. (1975) The logical structure of linguistic theory (1955–56). New York: Plenum.
5.
ChomskyN. (1981) Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Foris.
6.
ChomskyN. (1986) Knowledge of language: its nature, origin and use. New York: Praeger.
7.
CowartW. (1989) Notes on the biology of syntactic processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18, 89–103.
8.
CowartW. (1991) Interpreting reflexives in coordinate NPs: evidence for a non-syntactic analysis of NP coordination. ESCOL ′90: Proceedings of the Eastern States Conference on Linguistics, 7, 55–66.
9.
CowartW.CairnsH. S. (1987) Evidence for an anaphoric mechanism within syntactic processing: some reference relations defy semantic and pragmatic constraints. Memory & Cognition, 15, 318–331.
10.
FodorJ. A. (1983) The modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
11.
FodorJ. D. (1990) Thematic roles and modularity: comments on chapters by Frazier and Tanenhaus, et al. In AltmannG. T. M. (Ed.), Cognitive models of speech processing: psycholinguistic and computational perspectives. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Pp. 434–456.
12.
FrazierL. (1990) Exploring the architecture of the language-processing system. In AltmannG. T. M. (Ed.), Cognitive models of speech processing: psycholinguistic and computational perspectives. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Pp. 409–433.
13.
GescheiderG. A. (1976) Psychophysics: method and theory. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
14.
GreenbaumS. (1976) Contextual influence on acceptability judgments. Linguistics, 187, 5–11.
15.
HeringerJ. T. (1970) Research on quantifier-negative ideolects. In CampbellM. A.LindhohmJ.DavidsonA.FisherW.FurbeeL.LovinsJ.MaxwellE.ReighardJ.StraightS. (Eds.), Papers from the sixth regional meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society. Pp. 287–295.
16.
HillA. A. (1961) Grammaticality. Word, 17, 61–73.
17.
LakoffR. (1977) You are what you say: acceptability and gender-related language. In GreenbaumS. (Ed.), Acceptability in language. The Hague: Mouton. Pp. 73–86.
18.
LeveltW. J. M. (1974) Formal grammars in linguistics and psycholinguistics. Vol. III. Psychological explanations. The Hague: Mouton.
19.
3A major contributor to the anchoring effects reported in Nagata (1992) and in the present paper is probably the category-scale technique used to collect data from subjects. There is a recognized tendency for subjects to try to use all of the scale categories roughly equally (Gescheider, 1976, pp. 107–111). Thus, by increasing the number of low-acceptability anchor sentences, subjects are subtly encouraged to assign higher values to the target sentences. Recent research in this laboratory (Cowart, in preparation) has shown that anchoring effects are greatly diminished when the category-scale technique is replaced by a magnitude-estimation procedure (Stevens, 1975). These results reinforce the conclusion that anchoring effects do not alter the pattern of relative judged acceptability among the target sentences.
20.
NagataH. (1988) The relativity of linguistic intuition: the effect of repetition on grammaticality judgments. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 17, 1–17.
21.
NagataH. (1989a) Effect of repetition on grammaticality judgments under objective and subjective self-awareness conditions. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18, 255–269.
22.
NagataH. (1989b) Judgments of sentence grammaticality and field-dependence of subjects. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 69, 739–747.
23.
NagataH. (1989c) Repetition effect in judgments of grammaticality of sentences: examination with ungrammatical sentences. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 68, 275–282.
24.
NagataH. (1992) Anchoring effects in judging grammaticality of sentences. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 75, 159–164.
25.
NewmeyerF. J. (1983) Grammatical theory. Chicago, IL: Univer. of Chicago Press.
26.
NeyJ. W. (1975) The decade of private knowledge. Historiographia Linguistica, 2, 143–156.
27.
RossJ. R. (1979) Where's English? In FillmoreC. J.KemperD.WangW. S-Y. (Eds.), Individual differences in language ability and language behavior. New York: Academic Press. Pp. 127–163.
28.
SnowC. E. (1975) Linguists as behavioral scientists: towards a methodology for testing linguistic intuitions. In KraakA. (Ed.), Linguistics in The Netherlands 1972–1973. Assen, The Netherlands: Van Gorcum. Pp. 271–275.
29.
SnowC. E.MeijerG. (1977) On the secondary nature of syntactic intuitions. In GreenbaumS. (Ed.), Acceptability in language. The Hague: Mouton. Pp. 163–177.
30.
SpenserN. J. (1973) Differences berween linguists and nonlinguists in intuitions of grammaticality-acceptability. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 2, 83–98.
31.
StevensS. S. (1975) Psychophysics. New York: Wiley.
32.
WarnerJ.GlassA. L. (1987) Context and distance-to-disambiguation effects in ambiguity resolution: evidence from grammaticality judgments of garden path sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 26, 714–738.
