Revisited Linguistic Intuitions

Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
Michael Devitt ([2006a], [2006b]) argues that, insofar as linguists possess better theories about language than non-linguists, their linguistic intuitions are more reliable. (Culbertson and Gross [2009]) presented empirical evidence contrary to this claim. Devitt ([2010]) replies that, in part because we overemphasize the distinction between acceptability and grammaticality, we misunderstand linguists' claims, fall into inconsistency, and fail to see how our empirical results can be squared with his position. We reply in this note. Inter alia we argue that Devitt's focus on grammaticality intuitions, rather than acceptability intuitions, distances his discussion from actual linguistic practice. We close by questioning a demand that drives his discussion—viz., that, for linguistic intuitions to supply evidence for linguistic theorizing, a better account of why they are evidence is required
PhilPapers/Archive ID
CULRLI
Revision history
Archival date: 2011-01-20
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
Aspects of the Theory of Syntax.Ferebee, Ann S. & Chomsky, Noam
Saving the Phenomena.Bogen, James & Woodward, James

View all 11 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
If Folk Intuitions Vary, Then What?Machery, Edouard; Mallon, Ron; Nichols, Shaun & Stich, Stephen P.
Linguistic Intuitions.Maynes, Jeffrey & Gross, Steven

View all 9 citations / Add more citations

Added to PP index
2011-01-21

Total views
1,081 ( #1,662 of 40,678 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
30 ( #19,219 of 40,678 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.