Article
Licensed
Unlicensed
Requires Authentication
Real bad grammar: Realistic grammatical description with grammaticality
-
Jennifer Foster
Published/Copyright:
August 20, 2007
Abstract
1. Introduction
Sampson (this issue) argues for a concept of “realistic grammatical description” in which the distinction between grammatical and ungrammatical sentences is irrelevant. In this article I also argue for a concept of “realistic grammatical description” but one in which a binary distinction between grammatical and ungrammatical sentences is maintained. In distinguishing between the grammatical and ungrammatical, this kind of grammar differs from that proposed by Sampson, but it does share the important property that invented sentences have no role to play, either as positive or negative evidence.
Published Online: 2007-08-20
Published in Print: 2007-04-19
© Walter de Gruyter
You are currently not able to access this content.
You are currently not able to access this content.
Articles in the same Issue
- Grammar without grammaticality
- Ungrammaticality, rarity, and corpus use
- Advancing linguistics between the extremes: Some thoughts on Geoffrey R. Sampson's “Grammar without grammaticality”
- Linguistics beyond grammaticality
- Real bad grammar: Realistic grammatical description with grammaticality
- “Good is good and bad is bad”: but how do we know which one we had?
- Take empiricism seriously! In support of methodological diversity in linguistics
- Reply
Articles in the same Issue
- Grammar without grammaticality
- Ungrammaticality, rarity, and corpus use
- Advancing linguistics between the extremes: Some thoughts on Geoffrey R. Sampson's “Grammar without grammaticality”
- Linguistics beyond grammaticality
- Real bad grammar: Realistic grammatical description with grammaticality
- “Good is good and bad is bad”: but how do we know which one we had?
- Take empiricism seriously! In support of methodological diversity in linguistics
- Reply
