The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Using Mechanical Turk to Obtain and Analyze English Acceptability Judgments
Open accessAbstract
The prevalent method in theoretical syntax and semantics research involves obtaining a judgment of the acceptability of a sentence/meaning pair, typically by just the author of the paper, sometimes with feedback from colleagues. The weakness of the traditional non‐quantitative single‐sentence/single‐participant methodology, along with the existence of cognitive and social biases, has the unwanted effect that claims in the syntax and semantics literature cannot be trusted. Even if most of the judgments in an arbitrary syntax/semantics paper can be substantiated with rigorous quantitative experiments, the existence of a small set of judgments that do not conform to the authors’ intuitions can have a large effect on the potential theories. Whereas it is clearly desirable to quantitatively evaluate all syntactic and semantic hypotheses, it has been time‐consuming in the past to find a large pool of naïve experimental participants for behavioral experiments. The advent of Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk now makes this process very simple. Mechanical Turk is a marketplace interface that can be used for collecting behavioral data over the internet quickly and inexpensively. The cost of using an interface like Mechanical Turk is minimal, and the time that it takes for the results to be returned is very short. Many linguistic surveys can be completed within a day, at a cost of less than $50. In this paper, we provide detailed instructions for how to use our freely available software in order to (a) post‐linguistic acceptability surveys to Mechanical Turk; and (b) extract and analyze the resulting data.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Analyzing Linguistic Data: A Practical Introduction to Statistics using R
Baayen, R. H. (2008) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511801686 · Cited by 3,253
Cited by
Zipf’s word frequency law in natural language: A critical review and future directions
Piantadosi, S. T. (2014) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-014-0585-6 · Cited by 889
Self-citationKeuleers, E., Stevens, M., Mandera, P., & Brysbaert, M. (2015) · Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1080/17470218.2015.1022560 · Cited by 260
Metadata
- Authors
- Gibson, E., Piantadosi, S., & Fedorenko, K.
- Venue
- Language and Linguistics Compass
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2011-08
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 509-524
- ISSN
- 1749-818X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2127452865
- Cited by
- 206
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 146.30
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Using Mechanical Turk to Obtain and Analyze English Acceptability Judgments. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1749-818x.2011.00295.x
- The paper
- Gibson, E., Piantadosi, S., & Fedorenko, K. (2011). Using Mechanical Turk to Obtain and Analyze English Acceptability Judgments. Language and Linguistics Compass. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818x.2011.00295.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.