When We Don't Speak Good

Reviews the book, Investigating Linguistic Acceptability by Randolph Quirk and Jan Svartvik (1966). This monograph is a report of several experiments which were performed to study the notion "acceptability of a sentence" and relate this to how people perform various operations on strange o...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Contemporary psychology 1968-05, Vol.13 (5), p.244-244
1. Verfasser: STOLZ, WALTER S.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 244
container_issue 5
container_start_page 244
container_title Contemporary psychology
container_volume 13
creator STOLZ, WALTER S.
description Reviews the book, Investigating Linguistic Acceptability by Randolph Quirk and Jan Svartvik (1966). This monograph is a report of several experiments which were performed to study the notion "acceptability of a sentence" and relate this to how people perform various operations on strange or semi-grammatical sentences. Author's subjects rated the acceptability of a sentence on a three-point scale labeled "wholly natural and normal," "marginal or dubious," and "wholly natural and abnormal." The authors found that the acceptability of a sentence was correlated with success in performing operations on it; the less acceptable the sentence, the smaller was the number of subjects who would write out a properly transformed version of it in the twenty second time interval. The most serious criticism of the book that this reviewer has is that there is not enough rationale presented to justify the choice of specific materials and procedures. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)
doi_str_mv 10.1037/008656
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_614211637</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>614211637</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c587-eaae2bebc53cc4e628f77104a7f761ce6819db588bd78dfa7016b10bc8e665e13</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNotjzFPwzAQRj2ARGlhZowYYEq5i2OfO6JSClIlBip1tGznIigQB7sd-PcEhelbnt6nJ8QlwhxB0h2A0UqfiAkAQkmqXpyJ85z3AKArIyfiavfGXbHj4iF2t4fitWf3UaxjbGbitHWfmS_-dyq2j6vt8qncvKyfl_ebMihDJTvHlWcflAyh5sHZEiHUjlrSGFgbXDReGeMbMk3rCFB7BB8Ma60Y5VRcj9o-xe8j54Pdx2Pqhkersa4QtaQBuhmhkGLOiVvbp_cvl34sgv3rtGOn_AWdnENX</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>614211637</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>When We Don't Speak Good</title><source>Portico (Triggered Content) Journals</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>STOLZ, WALTER S.</creator><creatorcontrib>STOLZ, WALTER S.</creatorcontrib><description>Reviews the book, Investigating Linguistic Acceptability by Randolph Quirk and Jan Svartvik (1966). This monograph is a report of several experiments which were performed to study the notion "acceptability of a sentence" and relate this to how people perform various operations on strange or semi-grammatical sentences. Author's subjects rated the acceptability of a sentence on a three-point scale labeled "wholly natural and normal," "marginal or dubious," and "wholly natural and abnormal." The authors found that the acceptability of a sentence was correlated with success in performing operations on it; the less acceptable the sentence, the smaller was the number of subjects who would write out a properly transformed version of it in the twenty second time interval. The most serious criticism of the book that this reviewer has is that there is not enough rationale presented to justify the choice of specific materials and procedures. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)</description><identifier>ISSN: 0010-7549</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1037/008656</identifier><language>eng</language><subject>Criticism ; Grammar ; Human ; Linguistics ; Sentences</subject><ispartof>Contemporary psychology, 1968-05, Vol.13 (5), p.244-244</ispartof><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>STOLZ, WALTER S.</creatorcontrib><title>When We Don't Speak Good</title><title>Contemporary psychology</title><description>Reviews the book, Investigating Linguistic Acceptability by Randolph Quirk and Jan Svartvik (1966). This monograph is a report of several experiments which were performed to study the notion "acceptability of a sentence" and relate this to how people perform various operations on strange or semi-grammatical sentences. Author's subjects rated the acceptability of a sentence on a three-point scale labeled "wholly natural and normal," "marginal or dubious," and "wholly natural and abnormal." The authors found that the acceptability of a sentence was correlated with success in performing operations on it; the less acceptable the sentence, the smaller was the number of subjects who would write out a properly transformed version of it in the twenty second time interval. The most serious criticism of the book that this reviewer has is that there is not enough rationale presented to justify the choice of specific materials and procedures. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)</description><subject>Criticism</subject><subject>Grammar</subject><subject>Human</subject><subject>Linguistics</subject><subject>Sentences</subject><issn>0010-7549</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1968</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNotjzFPwzAQRj2ARGlhZowYYEq5i2OfO6JSClIlBip1tGznIigQB7sd-PcEhelbnt6nJ8QlwhxB0h2A0UqfiAkAQkmqXpyJ85z3AKArIyfiavfGXbHj4iF2t4fitWf3UaxjbGbitHWfmS_-dyq2j6vt8qncvKyfl_ebMihDJTvHlWcflAyh5sHZEiHUjlrSGFgbXDReGeMbMk3rCFB7BB8Ma60Y5VRcj9o-xe8j54Pdx2Pqhkersa4QtaQBuhmhkGLOiVvbp_cvl34sgv3rtGOn_AWdnENX</recordid><startdate>196805</startdate><enddate>196805</enddate><creator>STOLZ, WALTER S.</creator><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope></search><sort><creationdate>196805</creationdate><title>When We Don't Speak Good</title><author>STOLZ, WALTER S.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c587-eaae2bebc53cc4e628f77104a7f761ce6819db588bd78dfa7016b10bc8e665e13</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1968</creationdate><topic>Criticism</topic><topic>Grammar</topic><topic>Human</topic><topic>Linguistics</topic><topic>Sentences</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>STOLZ, WALTER S.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>Contemporary psychology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>STOLZ, WALTER S.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>When We Don't Speak Good</atitle><jtitle>Contemporary psychology</jtitle><date>1968-05</date><risdate>1968</risdate><volume>13</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>244</spage><epage>244</epage><pages>244-244</pages><issn>0010-7549</issn><abstract>Reviews the book, Investigating Linguistic Acceptability by Randolph Quirk and Jan Svartvik (1966). This monograph is a report of several experiments which were performed to study the notion "acceptability of a sentence" and relate this to how people perform various operations on strange or semi-grammatical sentences. Author's subjects rated the acceptability of a sentence on a three-point scale labeled "wholly natural and normal," "marginal or dubious," and "wholly natural and abnormal." The authors found that the acceptability of a sentence was correlated with success in performing operations on it; the less acceptable the sentence, the smaller was the number of subjects who would write out a properly transformed version of it in the twenty second time interval. The most serious criticism of the book that this reviewer has is that there is not enough rationale presented to justify the choice of specific materials and procedures. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)</abstract><doi>10.1037/008656</doi><tpages>1</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0010-7549
ispartof Contemporary psychology, 1968-05, Vol.13 (5), p.244-244
issn 0010-7549
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_614211637
source Portico (Triggered Content) Journals; Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Criticism
Grammar
Human
Linguistics
Sentences
title When We Don't Speak Good
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-07T23%3A04%3A15IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=When%20We%20Don't%20Speak%20Good&rft.jtitle=Contemporary%20psychology&rft.au=STOLZ,%20WALTER%20S.&rft.date=1968-05&rft.volume=13&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=244&rft.epage=244&rft.pages=244-244&rft.issn=0010-7549&rft_id=info:doi/10.1037/008656&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E614211637%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=614211637&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true