Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-9b74x Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-29T09:24:29.284Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Unhappiness about not unhappy people

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Jean Aitchison  and
Guy Bailey
Jean Aitchison
Affiliation:
London School of Economics andUniversity of Tennessee
Guy Bailey
Affiliation:
London School of Economics andUniversity of Tennessee
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Most linguists agree that there is a mismatch between the notions of grammaticality and acceptability. A widely held view is that there are several types of sentence which are technically well-formed, and consequently grammatical, but which are unacceptable to the ‘typical’ speaker. A more recent, and less widely held view is that the reverse situation is also possible: there exists a class of sentences which are ungrammatical, yet acceptable. In other words, it is claimed by some that the notions of grammaticality and acceptability cross-classify, since we get sentences which are:

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 15 , Issue 2 , September 1979 , pp. 245 - 266
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1979

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Allerton, D. J. (1978). Generating indirect objects in English. JL 14. 21–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bever, T. G. (1970). The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In Hayes, J. R. (ed.) Cognition and the development of language. New York: Wiley. 279–362.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1970). Remarks on nominalization. In Jacobs, R. A. & Rosenbaum, P. S. (eds), Readings in English transformational grammar. Waltham, Mass.: Ginn. 184–221.Google Scholar
Greenbaum, S. & Quirk, R. (1970). Elicitation experiments in English: linguistic studies in use and attitudes. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Hankamer, J. (1977). Multiple analyses. In Li, C. N. (ed.), Mechanisms of syntactic change. Austin: University of Texas Press. 583–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kimball, J. (1973). Seven principles of surface structure parsing in natural language. Cognition 2. 15–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, W. (1975). What is a linguistic fact? New York: Hamilton Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langendoen, D. T. & Bever, T. G. (1973). Can a not unhappy person be called a not sad one? In Anderson, S. & Kiparsky, P. (eds), A Festschrift for Morris Halle. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. 392–409.Google Scholar
Langendoen, D. T., Kalish-Landon, N. & Dore, J.(1974). Dative questions: a study in the relation of acceptability to grammaticality of an English sentence type. Cognition 2. 451–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, L. W., Bradac, J. J. & Elliott, N. D. (1977). On the empirical basis of linguistics: a multivariate analysis of sentence judgements. PCLS 13. 357–371.Google Scholar
Otero, C. (1972). Acceptable ungrammatical sentences in Spanish. LIn, 3. 233–242.Google Scholar
Quirk, R. (1968). Essays on the English language: medieval and modern. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Ringen, J. D. (1977). On evaluating data concerning linguistic intuitions. In Eckman, F. R. (ed), Current themes in linguistics: bilingualism, experimental linguistics and language typologies. Washington, D.C.: Hemisphere Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Smith, N. V. & Wilson, D. (1979). Modern linguistics: the results of Chomsky's revolution. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Vennemann, T. (1972). Rule inversion. Lingua 29. 209–242.Google Scholar