Anchoring Effects in Judging Grammaticality of Sentences

This study was undertaken to examine the anchoring effect in judgments of the grammaticality of sentences. Thirty-three students judged the target sentences involving an intermediate level of judged grammaticality. The first group of 11 subjects judged the sentences paired with the sentences involving high grammaticality (high anchor); the second group of 11 judged them when paired with the sentences involving low grammaticality (low anchor); and the third group of 11 judged them without being given anchor sentences. Analysis shows a clear contrast effect such that the subjects given low-anchor sentences judged the target sentences as more grammatical, while those given high-anchor sentences tended to judge them as less grammatical. Implications of the findings were discussed as they were related to Chomsky's contention about a native speaker's intuition regarding judgments of grammaticality.

[1]  F C VOLKMANN,et al.  Three types of anchoring effects in the absolute judgment of hue. , 1961, Journal of experimental psychology.

[2]  A. Parducci,et al.  Assimilation vs. contrast in the anchoring of perceptual judgements of weight. , 1962, Journal of experimental psychology.

[3]  O. J. Harvey,et al.  Judgments of weight as affected by adaptation range, adaptation duration, magnitude of unlabeled anchor, and judgmental language. , 1963, Journal of experimental psychology.

[4]  H. Helson,et al.  Anchor effects using numerical estimates of simple dot patterns , 1968 .

[5]  Dwight L. Bolinger,et al.  Judgments of grammaticality , 1968 .

[6]  The anchor effects on the judgment of loudness using reaction time as an index of loudness , 1972 .

[7]  N. J. Spencer,et al.  Differences between linguists and nonlinguists in intuitions of grammaticality-acceptability , 1973, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[8]  The Decade of Private Knowledge: Linguistics from the Early 60's to the Early 70's , 1975 .

[9]  C. Snow,et al.  11. On the Secondary Nature of Syntactic Intuitions , 1977 .

[10]  Frederick J. Newmeyer,et al.  Grammatical Theory: Its Limits and Its Possibilities , 1983 .

[11]  YOU SAY WHAT YOU ARE: ACCEPTABILITY AND GENDER-RELATED LANGUAGE , 1986 .

[12]  Arnold L. Glass,et al.  Context and distance-to-disambiguation effects in ambiguity resolution: Evidence from grammaticality judgments of garden path sentences , 1987 .

[13]  Hiroshi Nagata,et al.  The relativity of linguistic intuition: The effect of repetition on grammaticality judgments , 1988 .

[14]  W Cowart,et al.  Notes on the biology of syntactic processing , 1989, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[15]  H. Nagata.  Judgments of Sentence Grammatically with Differentiation and Enrichment Strategies , 1989 .

[16]  JUDGMENTS OF SENTENCE GRAMMATICALITY AND FIELD-DEPENDENCE OF SUBJECTS , 1989 .

[17]  H. Nagata.  Effect of repetition on grammaticality judgments under objective and subjective self-awareness conditions , 1989 .

[18]  H. Nagata.  Repetition Effect in Judgments of Grammaticality of Sentences: Examination with Ungrammatical Sentences , 1989 .

[19]  M. Appelbaum,et al.  Psychometric methods. , 1989, Annual review of psychology.

[20]  Speaker's Sensitivity to Rule Violations in Sentences , 1990 .

[21]  Helen Leuninger,et al.  Language and problems of knowledge , 1992 .