Cover not available
Part of
Normativity in Language and Linguistics
Edited by Aleksi Mäkilähde, Ville Leppänen and Esa Itkonen
[Studies in Language Companion Series 209] 2019
► pp. 213–234

Intuition and beyond

A hierarchy of descriptive methods

From the methodological point of view, linguistics is not a monolith. Nor is it an arbitrary conglomerate of unrelated methods. Rather, the methods most commonly used in linguistic description constitute a definite hierarchy that is motivated both logically and temporally, namely: intuition-based research > corpus research > experimentation. The last stage is in turn divided into loose (i.e. questionnaire method) and strict (e.g. eye movement research). It is the purpose of the present article to justify this thesis in some detail.
Keywords: hierarchy of linguistic methods, intuition-based research, corpus research, experimentation, norms, normativity
Article outline
  • 1.Preliminary remarks
  • 2.The primacy of intuition
    • 2.1Intuition-based linguistics
    • 2.2Normative filters involved in corpus linguistics
  • 3.Beyond intuition
    • 3.1Recourse to corpus
    • 3.2Recourse to questionnaire (plus corpus)
      • 3.2.1Knowledge of semantic networks
      • 3.2.2Knowledge of derivations
      • 3.2.3Knowledge of rare words
  • 4.Strict experimentation
    • 4.1An example
    • 4.2The hierarchy of the methods involved in experimentation
  • Note
  • References
Published online: 4 December 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.209.08paj
References (33)
References
Aronoff, Mark & Lindsay, Mark. 2014. Productivity, blocking, and lexicalization. In The Oxford Handbook of Derivational Morphology, Rochelle Lieber & Pavol Štekauer (eds), 67–83. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Bach, Emmon. 1974. Syntactic Theory. New York NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
. 1975 [1955]. The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory. New York NY: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Coppieters, René. 1987. Competence differences between native and near-native speakers. Language 63: 544–573. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dąbrowska, Eva. 2012. Different speakers, different grammars: Individual differences in native language attainment. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 2(3): 219–253. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Droste, Flip G. & Joseph, John E. (eds). 1991. Linguistic Theory and Grammatical Description [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 75]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gonzalez-Marquez, Monica, Mittelberg, Irene, Coulson, Seana & Spivey, Michael J. (eds). 2007. Methods in Cognitive Linguistics [Human Cognitive Processing 18]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haiman, John. 1985. Natural Syntax. Iconicity and Erosion. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli & Karlsson, Fred. 1979. Nykysuomen lauseoppia (Modern Finnish Syntax). Helsinki: SKS.Google Scholar
Itkonen, Esa. 1980. Qualitative vs. quantitative analysis in linguistics. In Evidence and Argumentation in Linguistics, Thomas A. Perry (ed.), 334–366. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1991. Universal History of Linguistics. India, China, Arabia, Europe [Studies in the History of the Language Sciences 65]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000. Tolkaappiyam: The basic work of the ancient Tamil language and culture. SKY Journal of Linguistics 10: 75–99.Google Scholar
. 2001. The relation of non-Western approaches to linguistic typology. In Language Typology and Language Universals, Vol. 1, Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher & Wolfgang Raible (eds), 275–279. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2003. What is Language? A Study in the Philosophy of Linguistics. Turku: University of Turku.Google Scholar
Itkonen, Esa & Pajunen, Anneli. 2010. Empiirisen kielitieteen metodologia (Methodology of Empirical Linguistics). Helsinki: SKS.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1922. Language. Its Nature, Origin, and Development. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Keuleers, Emmanuel, Stevens, Michaël, Mandera, Paweł & Brysbaert, Marc. 2015. Word knowledge in the crowd: Measuring vocabulary size and word prevalence in a massive online experiment. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 68(8): 1665–1692. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koivisto, Vesa. 2013. Suomen sanojen rakenne (The Structure of Finnish Words). Helsinki: SKS.Google Scholar
Koskenniemi, Kimmo. 1995–2017. FinTwol: Finnish Morphological Analyser. Helsinki: Lingsoft.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1972. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Pajunen, Anneli. 2001. Argumenttirakenne (Argument structure of Finnish Verbs). Helsinki: SKS.Google Scholar
. 2002. HS2000, Helsingin Sanomat 2000–2001. A newspaper corpus with 31 million word forms, analyzed with Functional Dependency Grammar-analyser (Voutilainen 1995, Connexor). Copyright © Sanoma Oy.Google Scholar
. 2006. Verbisanaston uudistuminen (The renewal of the verb lexicon). Puhe ja kieli 26(4): 205–219.Google Scholar
Pajunen, Anneli, Itkonen, Esa & Vainio, Seppo. 2015. Sanamerkityksen hallinta nuorilla aikuisilla (Variation in lexical-semantic network knowledge: Young Finnish Adults). Virittäjä 119(2): 160–187.Google Scholar
Ravid, D. & Avidor, A. 1998. Acquisition of derived nominals in Hebrew: Developmental and linguistic principles. Journal of Child Language 25: 229–236. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schoonen, R. & Verhallen, M. 2008. The assessment of deep word knowledge in young first and second language learners. Language Testing 25(2): 211–236. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, Norbert, Wun Ching Ng, Janice & Garras, John. 2011. The word association format: Validation evidence. Language Testing 28(1): 105–126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vainio, Seppo, Hyönä, Jukka & Pajunen, Anneli. 2003. A facilitatory and inhibitory effects of grammatical agreement: Evidence from readers’ eye fixation patterns. Brain and language 85: 197–202. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Processing modifier-head agreement in reading: Evidence for a delayed effect of agreement. Memory & Cognition 36: 329–340. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vainio, Seppo, Pajunen, Anneli & Häikiö, Tuomo. 2019. Acquisition of Finnish derivational morphology: School-age children and young adults. First Language 39(2): 139–157. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Virtanen, Patrik & Pajunen, Anneli. 2002. ContextMill: The Easy to Use Concordancer. Turku: Aurit Software.Google Scholar
Voutilainen, Atro. 1995. Functional Dependency Grammar: Morphological Description. Helsinki: Connexor.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Foolen, Ad
2023. Linguistic Feeling in Real Life and in Linguistics. In Emotions, Metacognition, and the Intuition of Language Normativity, ► pp. 267 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 june 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.