article_index stringlengths 21 77 | experiment_number int64 1 8 | author stringlengths 7 98 | year float64 2k 2.02k | title stringlengths 13 177 | journal stringclasses 12
values | url stringlengths 31 48 | searchterms stringlengths 12 444 | N_participants_recruited stringlengths 1 50 ⌀ | N_participants_after_filtering stringlengths 1 23 ⌀ | N_participants_per_item stringclasses 80
values | part_profile stringclasses 6
values | part_recruitment stringclasses 7
values | compensation stringclasses 6
values | demographics_reported stringclasses 76
values | language stringclasses 56
values | N_experiments stringclasses 14
values | experiment_num_orig stringclasses 35
values | N_conditions stringclasses 55
values | N_conditions_reported stringclasses 2
values | N_items_per_condition stringclasses 54
values | design_type stringclasses 4
values | between_subj_condition stringclasses 32
values | balanced_items stringclasses 2
values | exp_blocking stringclasses 3
values | randomization stringclasses 4
values | N_trials_per_participant stringlengths 1 36 ⌀ | N_pre-test stringclasses 21
values | N_post-test stringclasses 8
values | multiple_tasks stringclasses 2
values | confidence_design stringclasses 4
values | N_target_items stringlengths 1 129 ⌀ | N_target_items_per_participant stringclasses 68
values | N_fillers stringclasses 70
values | N_items_reported stringclasses 2
values | linguistic_phenomenon stringclasses 24
values | item_construction stringclasses 4
values | item_balance stringclasses 17
values | item_plausibility stringclasses 2
values | contextualization stringclasses 3
values | confidence_stimuli stringclasses 4
values | instructions stringlengths 7 1.15k ⌀ | rating_terminology stringclasses 21
values | response_scale stringclasses 5
values | response_levels stringclasses 19
values | response_comparison stringclasses 5
values | presentation_modality stringclasses 4
values | task_review stringclasses 3
values | task_timing stringclasses 3
values | delivery_format stringclasses 4
values | task_duration stringclasses 2
values | task_supervision stringclasses 3
values | pilot_testing stringclasses 2
values | confidence stringclasses 2
values | breaks stringclasses 3
values | comprehension stringclasses 2
values | confidence_task stringclasses 4
values | stat_scale stringclasses 5
values | preprocessing stringclasses 5
values | software stringclasses 4
values | statistical_test stringclasses 9
values | bayesian stringclasses 2
values | random_effects stringclasses 9
values | effect_sizes stringclasses 2
values | sig_threshold stringclasses 4
values | mult_comp_correction stringclasses 2
values | power_analysis stringclasses 2
values | autocorr stringclasses 1
value | propensity stringclasses 2
values | other_instr stringclasses 2
values | other_instr_type stringclasses 33
values | confidence_analysis stringclasses 4
values | item_avail stringclasses 5
values | item_repository stringclasses 30
values | data_avail stringclasses 5
values | data_repository stringclasses 27
values | preregistration stringclasses 2
values | prereg_repository stringclasses 2
values | corresp_author stringlengths 11 70 ⌀ | coder_comments stringlengths 5 513 ⌀ | coder_id stringclasses 5
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Frisch, Zawaydeh_2001_the_psychological_reality | 1 | Stefan A. Frisch; Bushra Adnan Zawaydeh | 2,001 | The Psychological Reality of OCP-Place in Arabic | Language | https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2001.0014 | acceptability rating; grammaticality rating | 30 | null | null | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Age; Region; Education; Language background | Jordanian Arabic | 1 | 1 | 6 + 2 + 3 = 11? | No | Mixed | Within-subjects | null | Yes | Intermixed | Fixed | 254 | 0 | 0 | Not Reported | Slightly confident | 254 | 254 | Not Reported | Yes | Phonology | Fully Constructed | Frequency | Not Reported | Not Reported | Fairly confident | The first page of the questionnaire provided instructions to judge each ‘made up verb’ using a
1–7 scale based on how much the verb sounded like a possible verb of Arabic. | naturalness | Ordinal (Likert) | 7 | Isolation | Written | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Yes | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Fairly confident | Continuous | Not Reported | Not Reported | ANOVA | No | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | null | Fairly confident | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | null | sfrisch@umich.edu | The design is odd, in that it is testing three different questions, each with it's own set of conditions) in one survey. The number of items per condition thus varied. Also the reported number of items in Stimulus set I (160) does not match the description of 20 verbs for each of six conditions (120). | JG |
Shimojo_1997_the_role_of | 1 | Mitsuaki Shimojo | 1,997 | The role of the general category in the maintenance of numeral-classifier systems: the case of tsu and ko in Japanese | Linguistics | https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1997.35.4.705 | acceptability judgment; acceptability rating; grammaticality judgment; grammaticality rating; naturalness judgment; naturalness rating; sentence judgment; syntactic judgment | 102 | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Language background | Japanese | 2 | 1 | 10? | No | Not Reported | Within-subjects | null | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | 0 | 0 | Not Reported | Fairly confident | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | No | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Fairly confident | Not Reported | acceptability | Ordinal (Likert) | 5 | Isolation | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Fairly confident | Continuous | Not Reported | Not Reported | Descriptive only | No | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | null | Fairly confident | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | null | null | null | JG |
Albright_2002_islands_of_reliability | 1 | Adam Albright | 2,002 | Islands of Reliability for Regular Morphology: Evidence from Italian | Language | https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2003.0002 | acceptability rating; linguistic intuition rating | 27 | 27 | 27 | Not Reported | Not Reported | Paid directly | Region; Education | Not Reported | 1 | 1 | 4 | Yes | 44 | Within-subjects | null | Yes | Intermixed | Fixed | 54*5 = 270 | 0 | 0 | Not Reported | Slightly confident | 44*5 = 220 | 220 | 10*5 = 50 | Yes | Phonology | Fully Constructed | Frequency | Not Reported | Not Reported | Slightly confident | Not Reported | acceptability | Ordinal (Likert) | 7 | Other baseline | Mixed | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | null | Continuous | Not Reported | Not Reported | Other | No | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | null | Fairly confident | Published in article | null | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | null | albright@ling.ucsc.edu | Calculating the number of trials is hard; The task uses a baseline but is not a magnitude estimation task per se | JG |
Dąbrowska_1997_the_lad_goes | 1 | Ewa Dąbrowska | 1,997 | The LAD goes to school: a cautionary tale for nativists | Linguistics | https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1997.35.4.735 | acceptability judgement; acceptability judgment; acceptability rating; grammaticality judgement; grammaticality judgment; grammaticality rating; linguistic intuition judgement; linguistic intuition judgment; linguistic intuition rating; magnitude estimation; sentence judgement; sentence judgment; syntactic judgement; s... | 50 | 50 | 50 | Mixed | University affiliation | Not Reported | Education; Region | English | 1 | 1 | 4 | Yes | 4 | Within-subjects | null | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | 20 | 0 | 0 | Not Reported | Fairly confident | 20 | 20 | 4 | Yes | Syntax | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Fairly confident | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | null | Isolation | Mixed | Yes | Self-paced | Not Reported | Not Reported | Yes | Yes | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | null | null | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | No | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | null | null | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | null | null | Exclude; Not an AJ task | JG |
Bader, Frazier_2005_interpretation_of_leftwardmoved | 1 | Markus Bader; Lyn Frazier | 2,005 | Interpretation of Leftward-Moved Constituents: Processing Topicalizations in German | Linguistics | https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2005.43.1.49 | acceptability judgment; acceptability rating; grammaticality judgment; grammaticality rating; intuitive judgment; linguistic intuition judgment; linguistic intuition rating; naturalness judgment; naturalness rating; naïve rating; sentence judgment; syntactic judgment | 32 | 32 | (32 participants * 16 trials)/64 items = 8? | Not Reported | University affiliation | Not Reported | Not Reported | German | 5 | 1 | 4 | Yes | 16 | Within-subjects | null | Yes | Intermixed | Semi-random | 60 | 0 | 0 | Not Reported | Fairly confident | 64 | 16 | 44 | No | Syntax | Fully Constructed | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Fairly confident | Participants’ task was to read each sentence and rate its difficulty by circling one of the
possible numbers. | difficulty | Ordinal (Likert) | 5 | Isolation | Written | Not Reported | Not Reported | Paper | Not Reported | Yes | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Fairly confident | Continuous | Not Reported | Not Reported | ANOVA | No | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | null | Fairly confident | Published in article | null | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | null | bader@em.uni-frankfurt.de | Instructions unclear; used difficulty rating | JG |
Bader, Frazier_2005_interpretation_of_leftwardmoved | 2 | Markus Bader; Lyn Frazier | 2,005 | Interpretation of Leftward-Moved Constituents: Processing Topicalizations in German | Linguistics | https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2005.43.1.49 | acceptability judgment; acceptability rating; grammaticality judgment; grammaticality rating; intuitive judgment; linguistic intuition judgment; linguistic intuition rating; naturalness judgment; naturalness rating; naïve rating; sentence judgment; syntactic judgment | 32 | 32 | (24 participants * 24 trials)/144 items = 4? | Not Reported | University affiliation | Not Reported | Not Reported | German | 5 | 2 | 6 | Yes | 24 | Within-subjects | null | Yes | Intermixed | Semi-random | 72 | 0 | 0 | Not Reported | Fairly confident | 144 | 24 | 48 | No | Syntax | Fully Constructed | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Fairly confident | Participants’ task was to read each sentence and rate its difficulty by circling one of the
possible numbers. | difficulty | Ordinal (Likert) | 5 | Isolation | Written | Not Reported | Not Reported | Paper | Not Reported | Yes | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Fairly confident | Continuous | Not Reported | Not Reported | ANOVA | No | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | null | Fairly confident | Published in article | null | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | null | bader@em.uni-frankfurt.de | Instructions unclear; used difficulty rating | JG |
Bader, Frazier_2005_interpretation_of_leftwardmoved | 3 | Markus Bader; Lyn Frazier | 2,005 | Interpretation of Leftward-Moved Constituents: Processing Topicalizations in German | Linguistics | https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2005.43.1.49 | acceptability judgment; acceptability rating; grammaticality judgment; grammaticality rating; intuitive judgment; linguistic intuition judgment; linguistic intuition rating; naturalness judgment; naturalness rating; naïve rating; sentence judgment; syntactic judgment | 32 | 32 | Not Reported | Not Reported | University affiliation | Not Reported | Not Reported | German | 5 | 3 | 3 | Yes | 12 | Within-subjects | null | Yes | Intermixed | Semi-random | 60 | 0 | 0 | Not Reported | Slightly confident | 36 | 12 | 48 | No | Syntax | Fully Constructed | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Fairly confident | Participants’ task was to read each sentence and rate its difficulty by circling one of the
possible numbers. | difficulty | Ordinal (Likert) | 5 | Isolation | Written | Not Reported | Not Reported | Paper | Not Reported | Yes | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Fairly confident | Continuous | Not Reported | Not Reported | ANOVA | No | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | null | Fairly confident | Published in article | null | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | null | bader@em.uni-frankfurt.de | Instructions unclear; Items were included as fillers for Exp 1; Participants per item calculation does not give an even number: (32 participants * 12 trials)/36 items = 10.66 | JG |
Mattiello, Dressler_2022_dualism_and_superposition | 1 | Elisa Mattiello; Wolfgang U. Dressler | 2,022 | Dualism and superposition in the analysis of English synthetic compounds ending in -er | Linguistics | https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2021-0235 | acceptability rating | 52 | 52 | 26 | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Region | English | 1 | 1 | 2 | Yes | 24 | Between-subjects | compound vs. derivation | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | 0 | 0 | Not Reported | Fairly confident | 48 | 24 | Not Reported | No | Morphology | Not Reported | Not Reported | Yes | Not Reported | Fairly confident | Each group was submitted a series of SCs along with a definition which presupposed either a derivational or a compositional analysis. | Not Reported | Ordinal (Likert) | 4 | Isolation | Written | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Fairly confident | Continuous | Not Reported | Not Reported | Descriptive only | No | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | null | Very confident | Not Reported | null | Public Repository | https://zenodo.org/records/4606729 | Not Reported | null | elisa.mattiello@unipi.it | Not strictly an acceptability study; No. of fillers not given | jg |
Bîlbîie, Fuente, Abeillé_2023_factivity_and_complementizer | 1 | Gabriela Bîlbîie; Israel De La Fuente; Anne Abeillé | 2,023 | Factivity and complementizer omission in English embedded gapping | JoLinguistics | https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226722000445 | Likert scale; acceptability judgement; acceptability judgment; grammaticality judgement; grammaticality judgment; grammaticality rating; intuitive judgement; intuitive judgment; linguistic intuition judgement; linguistic intuition judgment; linguistic intuition rating; naïve rating; sentence judgement; sentence judgmen... | 51 | 50 | 51 | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Gender / Sex; Age | English | 3 | 1 | 4 | Yes | 20 | Within-subjects | null | Yes | Blocks | Not Reported | 100 | Unspecified | 0 | Not Reported | Fairly confident | 80 | 80 | 20 | No | Syntax | Fully Constructed | Frequency | Not Reported | Not Reported | Fairly confident | They were instructed to read the sentences carefully and to judge their acceptability by using a Likert scale, from 1 (completely unacceptable) to 7 (completely acceptable). | acceptability | Ordinal (Likert) | 7 | Isolation | Written | No | Not Reported | Computer-based | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Yes | Fairly confident | Continuous | Not Reported | R | Mixed-Effects Regression | No | Items; Participant | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | null | Fairly confident | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | null | gabriela.bilbiie@lls.unibuc.ro | null | JG |
Bîlbîie, Fuente, Abeillé_2023_factivity_and_complementizer | 2 | Gabriela Bîlbîie; Israel De La Fuente; Anne Abeillé | 2,023 | Factivity and complementizer omission in English embedded gapping | JoLinguistics | https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226722000445 | Likert scale; acceptability judgement; acceptability judgment; grammaticality judgement; grammaticality judgment; grammaticality rating; intuitive judgement; intuitive judgment; linguistic intuition judgement; linguistic intuition judgment; linguistic intuition rating; naïve rating; sentence judgement; sentence judgmen... | 47 | 47 | 47 | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Gender / Sex; Age | Not Reported | 3 | 2 | 4 | Yes | 20 | Within-subjects | null | Yes | Blocks | Not Reported | 108 | Unspecified | 0 | Not Reported | Fairly confident | 80 | 80 | 28 | No | Syntax | Fully Constructed | Frequency | Not Reported | Not Reported | Fairly confident | They were instructed to read the sentences carefully and to judge their acceptability by using a Likert scale, from 1 (completely unacceptable) to 7 (completely acceptable). | acceptability | Ordinal (Likert) | 7 | Isolation | Written | No | Not Reported | Computer-based | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Yes | Fairly confident | Continuous | Not Reported | R | Mixed-Effects Regression | No | Items; Participant | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | null | Fairly confident | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | null | gabriela.bilbiie@lls.unibuc.ro | null | JG |
Bîlbîie, Fuente, Abeillé_2023_factivity_and_complementizer | 3 | Gabriela Bîlbîie; Israel De La Fuente; Anne Abeillé | 2,023 | Factivity and complementizer omission in English embedded gapping | JoLinguistics | https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226722000445 | Likert scale; acceptability judgement; acceptability judgment; grammaticality judgement; grammaticality judgment; grammaticality rating; intuitive judgement; intuitive judgment; linguistic intuition judgement; linguistic intuition judgment; linguistic intuition rating; naïve rating; sentence judgement; sentence judgmen... | 50 | 50 | 50 | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Gender / Sex; Age | Not Reported | 3 | 3 | 4 | Yes | 20 | Within-subjects | null | Yes | Blocks | Not Reported | 108 | Unspecified | 0 | Not Reported | Fairly confident | 80 | 80 | 28 | No | Syntax | Fully Constructed | Frequency | Not Reported | Not Reported | Fairly confident | They were instructed to read the sentences carefully and to judge their acceptability by using a Likert scale, from 1 (completely unacceptable) to 7 (completely acceptable). | acceptability | Ordinal (Likert) | 7 | Isolation | Written | No | Not Reported | Computer-based | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Yes | Fairly confident | Continuous | Not Reported | R | Mixed-Effects Regression | No | Items; Participant | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | null | Fairly confident | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | null | gabriela.bilbiie@lls.unibuc.ro | null | JG |
Sobin_2002_the_comptrace_effect | 1 | Nicholas Sobin | 2,002 | The Comp-Trace Effect, the Adverb Effect and Minimal CP | JoLinguistics | http://www.jstor.org/stable/4176763 | acceptability judgment; intuitive judgment; naturalness judgment; sentence judgment; syntactic judgment | 11 | 11 | 11 | Students (unspecified) | University affiliation | Not Reported | Region | English | 2 | 1 | 4 | No | mixed | Within-subjects | null | Not Reported | Not Reported | Random | 36 | Unspecified | 0 | Yes | Fairly confident | 36 | 36 | 0 | No | Syntax | Fully Constructed | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Fairly confident | They all were told (in preliminary written instructions which were read with them out loud) that they would judge sentences which might be classed as 'good' -a sentence that the subject might say in the right situation; 'maybe' -a sentence that the subject might not say but might expect to hear someone else say who was... | other; plausibility | Ordinal (Likert) | 3 | Isolation | Written | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Yes | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Fairly confident | Ordinal | Not Reported | Not Reported | Descriptive only | No | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | null | Very confident | Published in article | null | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | null | njsobin@utep.edu | null | JG |
Sobin_2002_the_comptrace_effect | 2 | Nicholas Sobin | 2,002 | The Comp-Trace Effect, the Adverb Effect and Minimal CP | JoLinguistics | http://www.jstor.org/stable/4176763 | acceptability judgment; intuitive judgment; naturalness judgment; sentence judgment; syntactic judgment | 12 | 12 | 12 | Students (unspecified) | University affiliation | Not Reported | Region | English | 2 | 1 | 4 | No | mixed | Within-subjects | null | Not Reported | Not Reported | Random | 36 | Unspecified | 0 | Yes | Fairly confident | 36 | 36 | 0 | No | Syntax | Fully Constructed | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Fairly confident | A second subgroup, of 12 subjects, gave naturalness judgments on a more discriminating o-5 scale, with o as 'impossible' and 5 as 'good'/perfectly natural | naturalness | Ordinal (Likert) | 6 | Isolation | Written | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Yes | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Fairly confident | Ordinal | Not Reported | Not Reported | Descriptive only | No | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | null | Very confident | Published in article | null | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | null | njsobin@utep.edu | null | JG |
Jarrah_2023_passive_vs_unaccusative | 1 | Marwan Jarrah | 2,023 | Passive vs. unaccusative predicates: A phase-based account | NL & LT | https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-023-09568-3 | acceptability judgement; grammaticality judgement; sentence judgement; syntactic judgement | 50 | 50 | 50 | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Gender / Sex | Not Reported | 1 | 1 | 0 | No | 0 | Within-subjects | null | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | "all sentences used in this article" | 0 | 0 | Not Reported | Very confident | 44 sentences are listed in the study but unclear whether those in "background" etc were shown too and some have multiple options | unclear - unclear number of initial items and unclear how many were presented again (second time with larger context) | Not Reported | No | Syntax | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Yes | Fairly confident | They were asked to provide acceptabiliry judgments | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Very confident | Other | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | No | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | null | Very confident | Published in article | null | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | null | m.jarrah@ju.edu.jo | The data were not analysed at all! | DD |
Mucha, Renans, Romoli_2022_sequence_of_tense | 1 | Anne Mucha; Agata Renans; Jacopo Romoli | 2,022 | Sequence of tense and cessation implicatures: evidence from Polish | NL & LT | https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-022-09545-2 | acceptability judgment; ordinal ratings; sentence judgment; syntactic judgment | 66 | 63 | null | Not Reported | Online platform | Paid directly | Gender / Sex; Age; Education; Language background | English | 3 | 1 and 2 | 4 | Yes | 24 | Within-subjects | null | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | 60 | 0 | 0 | Not Reported | Fairly confident | 96 | 24 | 36 | Yes | Syntax | Fully Constructed | Not Reported | Not Reported | Yes | Fairly confident | The participants’ task was to judge the accuracy of Ben’s report on a scale from 1 to 7: 7 means that his report is fully accurate and 1 means that his report is totally inaccurate. | other | Ordinal (Likert) | 7 | Isolation | Written | Not Reported | Not Reported | Computer-based | Yes | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Fairly confident | Ordinal | Not Reported | R | Mixed-Effects Regression | No | Participant; Items | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | null | Fairly confident | Published in supplement | null | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | null | annemucha@googlemail.com | In principle I should report the English and Polish experiment (1 & 2) separately but the excluded participants are reported for the two studies together and the data is analysed together so I have let the studies here as one) | DD |
Mucha, Renans, Romoli_2022_sequence_of_tense | 3 | Anne Mucha; Agata Renans; Jacopo Romoli | 2,022 | Sequence of tense and cessation implicatures: evidence from Polish | NL & LT | https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-022-09545-2 | acceptability judgment; ordinal ratings; sentence judgment; syntactic judgment | 52 | 37 | null | Not Reported | Online platform | Paid directly | Gender / Sex; Age; Education; Language background | Polish | 3 | 3 | 4 | Yes | 24 | Within-subjects | null | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | 60 | 3 | 0 | Not Reported | Fairly confident | 96 | 24 | 36 | Yes | Syntax | Fully Constructed | Not Reported | Not Reported | Yes | Fairly confident | Their task was to judge to which extent one can deduce the latter from the former on a scale from 1 (“one cannot deduce at all”) – 7 (“with whole certainty one can deduce”). | other | Ordinal (Likert) | 7 | Other baseline | Written | Not Reported | Not Reported | Computer-based | Yes | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Fairly confident | Ordinal | Not Reported | R | Mixed-Effects Regression | No | Participant; Items | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | null | Fairly confident | Published in supplement | null | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | null | annemucha@googlemail.com | null | DD |
Hartmann, Heycock_2022_person_effects_in | 1 | Jutta M. Hartmann; Caroline Heycock | 2,022 | Person effects in agreement with Icelandic low nominatives: An experimental investigation | NL & LT | https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-022-09564-z | acceptability judgment; acceptability rating; grammaticality judgment; grammaticality rating; magnitude estimation; naturalness judgment; naturalness rating; sentence judgment; syntactic judgment; thermometer rating(s) | 60 | 59 | null | Not Reported | Personal network | Other incentive | Language background | Icelandic | 2 | 1 | 6 | Yes | 18 | Between-subjects | null | Not Reported | Blocks | Random | 64 | 0 | 0 | Yes | Fairly confident | 54 (18*3) | 18 | 46 | Yes | Syntax; Morphology | Fully Constructed | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Fairly confident | Participants were asked to rate the naturalness of individual examples by providing numerical scores for individual sentences. | naturalness | Continuous | null | Magnitude Estimation | Written | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Fairly confident | Continuous | Z-score | R | Mixed-Effects Regression | No | Participant; Items | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | null | Fairly confident | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | null | caroline.heycock@ed.ac.uk | The reference sentences are included but not the targets/fillers? All I can find is a list with target verbs. | DD |
Hartmann, Heycock_2022_person_effects_in | 2 | Jutta M. Hartmann; Caroline Heycock | 2,022 | Person effects in agreement with Icelandic low nominatives: An experimental investigation | NL & LT | https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-022-09564-z | acceptability judgment; acceptability rating; grammaticality judgment; grammaticality rating; magnitude estimation; naturalness judgment; naturalness rating; sentence judgment; syntactic judgment; thermometer rating(s) | 60 | 59 | null | Not Reported | Personal network | Other incentive | Language background | Icelandic | 2 | 1 | 6 | Yes | 18 | Between-subjects | null | Not Reported | Blocks | Random | 64 | 0 | 0 | Yes | Fairly confident | 54 (18*3) | 18 | 46 | Yes | Syntax; Morphology | Fully Constructed | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Fairly confident | Participants were asked to rate the naturalness of individual examples by providing numerical scores for individual sentences. | naturalness | Continuous | null | Magnitude Estimation | Written | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Fairly confident | Continuous | Z-score | R | Mixed-Effects Regression | No | Participant; Items | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | null | Fairly confident | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | null | caroline.heycock@ed.ac.uk | The reference sentences are included but not the targets/fillers? All I can find is a list with target verbs.
Note that the filler sentences here are the test sentences for experiment 1, and vice versa. Participants in both experiments are the same, as are details of the task. | DD |
Sobin_1997_agreement_default_rules | 1 | Nicholas Sobin | 1,997 | Agreement, Default Rules, and Grammatical Viruses | Linguistic Inquiry | http://www.jstor.org/stable/4178979 | acceptability rating; grammaticality rating; naturalness rating | 12 | 12 | 12 | Linguists (students or otherwise) | University affiliation | Not Reported | Language background | English | 1 | 1 | 36 | No | 3 | Within-subjects | null | Not Reported | Intermixed | Random | 108 | Some, but not reported how many | 0 | Not Reported | Not confident at all | 108 | 108 | Not Reported | No | Syntax | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not confident at all | "The informants were first asked to judge the naturalness (not the "correctness") of sample pretest items, to acquaint them with the experimental task and to allow them to ask questions about it. They were then asked to make the same naturalness judgments about the items making up the main body of the questionnaire." | naturalness | Ordinal (Likert) | 6 | Isolation | Written | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Yes | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Slightly confident | Ordinal | Not Reported | Not Reported | Non-parametric test | No | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | null | Not confident at all | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | null | njsobin@ualr.edu | A sample of the items in available in an Appendix in the article. | LR |
Matsuo_1999_reciprocity_and_binding | 1 | Ayumi Matsuo | 1,999 | Reciprocity and Binding in Early Child Grammar | Linguistic Inquiry | http://www.jstor.org/stable/4179064 | sentence judgment; syntactic judgment | 27 | 27 | Not reported | Other non-students | Mixed | Not Reported | Age | English | 3 | 1 | 2 | No | Not reported | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not reported | 0 | 0 | Not Reported | Slightly confident | Not reported | Not reported | Not Reported | No | Syntax | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Slightly confident | "In my experiments children reward the puppet, a dog, with his favorite food (a hot dog) if he says the right thing, but they punish him by giving him an onion if he says the wrong thing." | other | Dichotomous (Binary) | 2 | Isolation | Audio | Not Reported | Not Reported | Spoken/Signed | Not Reported | Yes | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Slightly confident | Dichotomous | Not Reported | Not Reported | ANOVA | No | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | null | Slightly confident | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | null | null | null | LR |
Matsuo_1999_reciprocity_and_binding | 2 | Ayumi Matsuo | 1,999 | Reciprocity and Binding in Early Child Grammar | Linguistic Inquiry | http://www.jstor.org/stable/4179064 | sentence judgment; syntactic judgment | 27 | 27 | Not reported | Other non-students | Mixed | Not Reported | Age | English | 3 | 2 | 2 | No | Not reported | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not reported | 0 | 0 | Not Reported | Slightly confident | Not reported | Not reported | Not Reported | No | Syntax | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Slightly confident | "In my experiments children reward the puppet, a dog, with his favorite food (a hot dog) if he says the right thing, but they punish him by giving him an onion if he says the wrong thing." | other | Dichotomous (Binary) | 2 | Isolation | Audio | Not Reported | Not Reported | Spoken/Signed | Not Reported | Yes | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Slightly confident | Dichotomous | Not Reported | Not Reported | ANOVA | No | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | null | Slightly confident | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | null | null | null | LR |
Matsuo_1999_reciprocity_and_binding | 3 | Ayumi Matsuo | 1,999 | Reciprocity and Binding in Early Child Grammar | Linguistic Inquiry | http://www.jstor.org/stable/4179064 | sentence judgment; syntactic judgment | 27 | 27 | Not reported | Other non-students | Mixed | Not Reported | Age | English | 3 | 3 | ? | No | Not reported | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not reported | 0 | 0 | Not Reported | Slightly confident | Not reported | Not reported | Not Reported | No | Syntax | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Slightly confident | "In my experiments children reward the puppet, a dog, with his favorite food (a hot dog) if he says the right thing, but they punish him by giving him an onion if he says the wrong thing." | other | Dichotomous (Binary) | 2 | Isolation | Audio | Not Reported | Not Reported | Spoken/Signed | Not Reported | Yes | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Slightly confident | Dichotomous | Not Reported | Not Reported | ANOVA | No | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | null | Slightly confident | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | null | null | null | LR |
Radford, Iwasaki_2015_on_swiping_in | 1 | Andrew Radford; Eiichi Iwasaki | 2,015 | On Swiping in English | NL & LT | http://www.jstor.org/stable/43697782 | acceptability judgment; acceptability rating; grammaticality judgment; grammaticality rating; naturalness judgment; naturalness rating; sentence judgment; syntactic judgment | 20 | 20 | 20 | Linguists (students or otherwise) | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | English | 1 | 1 | 1 | No | 5 | Within-subjects | null | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | 5 | 0 | 0 | Not Reported | Very confident | 5 | 5 | Not Reported | No | Syntax | Fully Constructed | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Very confident | Experienced linguists were asked to rate sentences on a 5-point scale consisting of OK, ?, ??, ?* or * | Not Reported | Ordinal (Likert) | 5 | Isolation | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Very confident | Other | Not Reported | Not Reported | Other | No | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | null | Very confident | Published in article | null | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | null | null | They calculated percentages of (20) respondents who rated a sentence as ok or ?, which they consider "relatively acceptable".
A colleague of theirs included the same sentences in a 7-point Mechanical Turk task and the results appear to be different but are not looked into further in the paper. | DD |
Cat_2007_french_dislocation_without | 1 | Cécile De Cat | 2,007 | French Dislocation without Movement | NL & LT | http://www.jstor.org/stable/20532990 | acceptability judgement; acceptability rating; naturalness judgement; naturalness rating; sentence judgement; syntactic judgement | 32 | 32 | 32 | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Region | French as spoken in France, Canada, Belgium and Switzerland | 1 | 1 | Not reported | No | Not reported | Within-subjects | null | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not reported | 0 | 0 | Not Reported | Very confident | Not reported | Not reported | Not Reported | No | Syntax | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Very confident | Participants were invited to choose a judgment from a pull-down menu with 4 options. They were told there was no correct answer and the study aimed to survey the way people really speak.
I could say that sentence
I could say that sentence but in another context
I could never say a sentence like that, but I know that ... | acceptability | Ordinal (Likert) | 4 | Other baseline | Audio | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Fairly confident | Continuous | Not Reported | Not Reported | Other | No | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | null | Very confident | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | null | C.DeCat@leeds.ac.uk | The analysis consisted of calculating percentages. | DD |
Tsiakmakis, Borràs-Comes, Espinal_2022_greek_nonnegative_min | 1 | Evripidis Tsiakmakis; Joan Borràs-Comes; M. Teresa Espinal | 2,022 | Greek non-negative min, epistemic modality, and positive bias | NL & LT | https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-022-09565-y | acceptability judgement; acceptability rating; linguistic intuition judgement; linguistic intuition rating; naturalness judgement; naturalness rating; sentence judgement; syntactic judgement | 63 | 63 | 63 | Not Reported | Advertisement / Word of mouth | Not Reported | Gender / Sex; Age; Other | Greek | 3 | 1 | 4 | Yes | 4 | Within-subjects | control items | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | 48 | 0 | 0 | Not Reported | Fairly confident | 16 | 16 | 16 | Yes | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Fairly confident | In what follows you will be presented with a set of sentences. Every sentence is followed by a scale from 0 to 100. We ask you to use this scale to show how natural, in your opinion, each of these sentences is (0 = totally unnatural, 100 = absolutely natural) | naturalness | Continuous | 100 | Isolation | Written | Not Reported | Not Reported | Computer-based | Yes | No | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Fairly confident | Continuous | Not Reported | Not Reported | Mixed-Effects Regression | No | Items; Other | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | null | Fairly confident | Published in supplement | null | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | null | evripidis.tsiakmakis@uab.cat | They used mixed effects beta regression
The third experiment is a forced choice task so I have not coded that data. | DD |
Tsiakmakis, Borràs-Comes, Espinal_2022_greek_nonnegative_min | 2 | Evripidis Tsiakmakis; Joan Borràs-Comes; M. Teresa Espinal | 2,022 | Greek non-negative min, epistemic modality, and positive bias | NL & LT | https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-022-09565-y | acceptability judgement; acceptability rating; linguistic intuition judgement; linguistic intuition rating; naturalness judgement; naturalness rating; sentence judgement; syntactic judgement | 65 | 65 | 65 | Not Reported | Advertisement / Word of mouth | Not Reported | Gender / Sex; Age; Other | Greek | 3 | 2 | 4 | Yes | 5 | Within-subjects | control items | Not Reported | Not Reported | Random | 40 | 0 | 0 | Not Reported | Fairly confident | 20 | 20 | 20 | Yes | Semantics | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Fairly confident | In what follows a set of sentences will be presented to you. Every sentence is followed by a scale from 0 to 100. We ask you to use that scale to show how certain the speaker seems to be with respect to the content of each sentence (0 = not certain at all, 100 = absolutely certain). | other | Continuous | 100 | Isolation | Written | Not Reported | Not Reported | Computer-based | Yes | No | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Fairly confident | Continuous | Not Reported | Not Reported | Mixed-Effects Regression | No | Items; Other | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | null | Fairly confident | Published in supplement | null | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | null | evripidis.tsiakmakis@uab.cat | They used mixed effects beta regression.
I think they may have compared the critical items to the control items, but its a little hazy; same for experiment 1 of the 3. | DD |
Bernstein, Cowart, Mcdaniel_1999_bare_singular_effects | 1 | Judy B. Bernstein; Wayne Cowart; Dana Mcdaniel | 1,999 | Bare Singular Effects in Genitive Constructions | Linguistic Inquiry | http://www.jstor.org/stable/4179075 | acceptability rating; grammaticality rating; linguistic intuition rating | 94 | 94 | ? | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | 6 (but all reported in one section with no information on what the distinction between the experiments was) | 1 | ? | No | ? | Not Reported | ? | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | ? | 0 | 0 | Not Reported | Not confident at all | ? | ? | Not Reported | No | Syntax | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not confident at all | Not reported, but the introduction talks about "unacceptability". | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not confident at all | Not Reported | Z-score | Not Reported | Not Reported | No | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | null | Not confident at all | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | null | Not reported | The squib notes that six experiments were conducted, but given that there is hardly any information about what exactly was done and that it is unclear whether this was actually a set of six experiments or rather six between-subjects conditions, I'm only recording one experiment that summarized the little information I ... | LR |
Snyder_2000_an_experimental_investigation | 1 | William Snyder | 2,000 | An Experimental Investigation of Syntactic Satiation Effects | Linguistic Inquiry | http://www.jstor.org/stable/4179121 | acceptability judgment; acceptability rating; grammaticality judgment; grammaticality rating; sentence judgment; syntactic judgment | 22 | 22 | 22 | Students (non-linguists) | Not Reported | Paid directly | Not Reported | English | 1 | 1 | 7 | No | 1 | Within-subjects | null | Yes | Blocks | Semi-random | 50 | 4 | 4 | Not Reported | Slightly confident | 50 | 50 | Not Reported | Yes | Syntax | Not Reported | Other | Not Reported | Yes | Slightly confident | judgement whether item is grammatical: yes or no? | grammaticality | Dichotomous (Binary) | 2 | Isolation | Written | No | Not Reported | Paper | Not Reported | Not Reported | Yes | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Fairly confident | Dichotomous | Other | Not Reported | ANOVA | No | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | null | Fairly confident | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | null | Not reported | ANOVA was used in addition to a non-parametric test (sign test) and t-tests. | LR |
Gries_1999_particle_movement_a | 1 | Stefan T. Gries | 1,999 | Particle movement: A cognitive and functional approach | Cognitive Linguistics | https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1999.005 | acceptability judgement; grammaticality judgement; intuitive judgement; naturalness judgement; sentence judgement; syntactic judgement | 16 | 16 | 16 | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Region | English | 1 | 1 | Not Reported | No | Not Reported | Within-subjects | null | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | 784/16 = 49? | 0 | 0 | Not Reported | Slightly confident | Not Reported | Unclear | Not Reported | No | Syntax | Fully Constructed | Length | Not Reported | Not Reported | Slightly confident | a survey was devised in which 16 native speakers of British English were asked to judge several sentences according to their acceptability. | acceptability | Ordinal (Likert) | 3 | Isolation | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Fairly confident | Continuous | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | No | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | null | Fairly confident | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | null | stgries@linguistics.ucsb.edu | null | JG |
Barðdal_2006_constructionspecific_properties_of | 1 | Jóhanna Barðdal | 2,006 | Construction-specific properties of syntactic subjects in Icelandic and German | Cognitive Linguistics | https://doi.org/10.1515/COG.2006.002 | acceptability judgment; acceptability rating; grammaticality judgment; grammaticality rating ; intuitive judgment; ordinal ratings; sentence judgment; syntactic judgment | 130 | Unclear | 130 | Students (unspecified) | University affiliation | Not Reported | Region | German | 1 | 1 | 12? | No | 12? | Within-subjects | null | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | 12 | 0 | 0 | Yes | Fairly confident | 12 | 12 | Not Reported | Yes | Syntax | Fully Constructed | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Fairly confident | The participants were asked to read the text and state: (i) whether the text represents idiomatic German, (ii) how they felt about the particular infinitive in question, and (iii) whether the non-finite verb is a dative-assigning verb in their language or not | other | Not Reported | 3 | Not Reported | Written | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Fairly confident | Ordinal | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | No | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | null | Fairly confident | Published in article | null | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | null | johanna.barddal@ugent.be | inferential tests were conducted, but it's not clear what kind of test was used. | JG |
Barking, Backus, Mos_2022_individual_corpus_data | 1 | Marie Barking; Ad Backus; Maria Mos | 2,022 | Individual corpus data predict variation in judgments: testing the usage-based nature of mental representations in a language transfer setting | Cognitive Linguistics | https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2021-0105 | acceptability judgement; acceptability judgment; acceptability rating; grammaticality judgement; grammaticality judgment; grammaticality rating ; sentence judgement; sentence judgment; syntactic judgement ; syntactic judgment | 21 | 21 | 14? | Other non-students | Personal network | Not Reported | Gender / Sex; Age; Language background; Region; Education | German | 1 | 1 | 4 | Yes | 20 | Within-subjects | null | Yes | Not Reported | Not Reported | 80 | up to 20 | 0 | Not Reported | Fairly confident | 80 | 80 | Not Reported | Yes | Syntax | Fully Authentic | Other | Not Reported | Not Reported | Fairly confident | They first read instructions, informing them that they were going to be presented with written German sentences and that their task was to judge whether these sentences were correct German sentences by pressing one of two buttons. | correctness | Dichotomous (Binary) | 2 | Not Reported | Written | Not Reported | Not Reported | Computer-based | Yes | No | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Fairly confident | Dichotomous | Not Reported | Not Reported | Mixed-Effects Regression | No | Participant | Yes | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Yes | Corpus data from participants themselves | Fairly confident | Public Repository | https://doi.org/10.34894/CQZAAT | Public Repository | https://doi.org/10.34894/CQZAAT | Not Reported | null | M.Barking@tilburguniversity.edu | Items were individualized to 8 test participants based on their own corpus examples; 13 control participants also rated items | JG |
Francis, Matthews_2006_categoriality_and_object | 1 | Elaine J. Francis; Stephen Matthews | 2,006 | Categoriality and Object Extraction in Cantonese Serial Verb Constructions | NL & LT | http://www.jstor.org/stable/27642839 | acceptability judgment; acceptability rating; grammaticality judgment; grammaticality rating; intuitive judgment; linguistic intuition judgment; linguistic intuition rating; naturalness judgment; naturalness rating; ordianl ratings; sentence judgment; syntactic judgment | 40 | 40 | 20 | Students (non-linguists) | University affiliation | Paid directly | Gender / Sex; Age; Education; Region; Language background | Cantonese | 1 | 1 | 48 | No | 1 | Mixed | Aspect | Not Reported | Intermixed | Random | 56 | 8 | 0 | Not Reported | Fairly confident | 48 | 24 | 32 | Yes | Syntax; Semantics | Fully Constructed | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Fairly confident | This is a survey about your intuitions regarding the acceptability of certain sentences in Cantonese. There are no right or wrong answers; we are only interested in your own opinions. In a moment, you will hear a series of 8 Cantonese sentences, fol lowed by another series of 56 sentences. You will be asked to rate ea... | acceptability | Ordinal (Likert) | 4 | Isolation | Audio | Not Reported | Self-paced | Computer-based | Yes | Yes | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Fairly confident | Continuous | Not Reported | Not Reported | Non-parametric test | No | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | null | Fairly confident | Published in article | null | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | null | ejfranci@purdue.edu | null | MJ |
Härtl, Bürger_2021_‘well_that’s_just | 1 | Holden Härtl; Tatjana Bürger | 2,021 | ‘well, That’s Just Great!’: An Empirically Based Analysis Of Non-literal And Attitudinal Content Of Ironic Utterances | Folia Linguistica | https://doi.org/10.1515/flin-2021-2020 | acceptability rating; likert scale; meta-linguistic rating | 89 | 62 | 62 | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not compensated | Age; Gender / Sex; Language background | German | 1 | 1 | 4 | Yes | 10 | Within-subjects | null | Not Reported | Intermixed | Random | 40 | 1 | 0 | Not Reported | Fairly confident | 40 | 40 | 0 | Yes | Semantics; Other | Fully Constructed | Other | Yes | Yes | Fairly confident | Participants were asked to decide which rejection they perceived as more appropriate. To do
this, they rated the rejections on a 5-point Likert scale, with value 1 representing
the at-issue rejection on the left side of the scale and indicating a clear preference
for the direct rejection, and value 5 representing the n... | other | Ordinal (Likert) | 5 | Isolation | Written | Not Reported | Self-paced | Computer-based | Yes | No | Not Reported | Not Reported | Participant-controlled | Not Reported | Fairly confident | Continuous | Not Reported | Other | ANOVA | No | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | null | Fairly confident | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | null | holden.haertl@uni-kassel.de / https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0670-9227 | null | MJ |
Clifton, Jr., Fanselow et al._2006_amnestying_superiority_violations | 1 | Charles Clifton; Jr.; Gisbert Fanselow; Lyn Frazier | 2,006 | Amnestying Superiority Violations: Processing Multiple Questions | Linguistic Inquiry | http://www.jstor.org/stable/4179350 | acceptability judgment; acceptability rating; grammaticality judgment; grammaticality rating; intuitive judgment; linguistic intuition judgment; linguistic intuition rating; sentence judgment; syntactic judgment | 48 | 48 | 12 | Students (unspecified) | Not Reported | University credit | Not Reported | English | 2 | 1 | 4 | Yes | 16 | Mixed | null | Yes | Intermixed | Random | 16 | 0 | 0 | Yes | Fairly confident | 64 | 16 | 120 | No | Syntax | Fully Constructed | Not Reported | Yes | Not Reported | Slightly confident | "Participants were told that they should classify a sentence or discourse as "acceptable" if it was an "ordinary, well-formed, acceptable sentence or pair of sentences in English." They were further told that anything that violated the normal rules of everyday English should be rejected, but that a sentence did not hav... | acceptability | Dichotomous (Binary) | 2 | Isolation | Written | Not Reported | Self-paced | Computer-based | Not Reported | Yes | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Fairly confident | Other | Not Reported | Not Reported | ANOVA | No | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Yes | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Yes | Reaction time to make the judgement | Fairly confident | Published in supplement | null | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | null | cec@psych.umass.edu | In addition to binary acceptability judgements, the authors also collected reaction times for that judgement.
T tests were used in addition to the ANOVA. | LR |
Clifton, Jr., Fanselow et al._2006_amnestying_superiority_violations | 2 | Charles Clifton; Jr.; Gisbert Fanselow; Lyn Frazier | 2,006 | Amnestying Superiority Violations: Processing Multiple Questions | Linguistic Inquiry | http://www.jstor.org/stable/4179350 | acceptability judgment; acceptability rating; grammaticality judgment; grammaticality rating; intuitive judgment; linguistic intuition judgment; linguistic intuition rating; sentence judgment; syntactic judgment | 48? | 48? | ? | Students (unspecified) | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | English | 2 | 2 | 6 | No | 16 | Mixed | null | Not Reported | Intermixed | Random | 16 | 0 | 0 | Not Reported | Slightly confident | 96 | 16 | 40 | No | Syntax | Fully Constructed | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Slightly confident | "The second questionnaire contained a total of 56 sentences, each to be rated on a 5-point scale from 1 (= unacceptable) to 5 (= acceptable)." | acceptability | Ordinal (Likert) | 5 | Isolation | Written | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Fairly confident | Continuous | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | No | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | null | Fairly confident | Published in supplement | null | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | null | cec@psych.umass.edu | I can't make sense of the participant number for the second experiment. The paper reports N = 48 participants, but then also says that six participants completed each form of the questionnaire and there were six different forms of the questionnaire. That would mean 6x6 = 36 participants.
In addition to the analysis wit... | LR |
Han, Lidz, Musolino_2007_vraising_and_grammar | 1 | Chung-Hye Han; Jeffrey Lidz; Julien Musolino | 2,007 | V-Raising and Grammar Competition in Korean: Evidence from Negation and Quantifier Scope | Linguistic Inquiry | http://www.jstor.org/stable/4179396 | grammaticality judgment; sentence judgment; syntactic judgment | 160 | 160 | 20 | Students (unspecified) | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Korean | 2 | 1 | 8 | Yes | 4 | Between-subjects | negation type x scope x QP position | Not Reported | Intermixed | Semi-random | 4 | 2 | 0 | Not Reported | Fairly confident | 32 (16 sentences paired with one of two storylines acted out with toys) | 4 | 4 | No | Syntax | Fully Constructed | Not Reported | Not Reported | Yes | Fairly confident | truth-value judgment task (TVJT): They were given a score sheet and were instructed to indicate, for each story, whether Mickey Mouse spoke truthfully. They were asked to provide a brief justification for their answers. | other | Dichotomous (Binary) | 2 | Isolation | Mixed | Not Reported | Not Reported | Paper | Not Reported | Yes | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Yes | Fairly confident | Other | Not Reported | Not Reported | ANOVA | No | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | null | Fairly confident | Published in supplement | null | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | null | chunghye@sfu.ca | The comprehension questions take the form of filler items. | LR |
Rocafiguera, Bel_2021_on_the_impact | 1 | Núria De Rocafiguera; Aurora Bel | 2,021 | On The Impact Of Clause Order On Pronoun Resolution: Evidence From Spanish | Folia Linguistica | https://doi.org/10.1515/flin-2021-2002 | acceptability judgment; acceptability rating; grammaticality judgment; grammaticality rating; intuitive judgment; likert scale; naturalness judgment; naturalness rating; sentence judgment; syntactic judgment; naïve rating; ordinal rating | 49 | 49 | 25 | Students (unspecified) | Not Reported | Not compensated | Age; Language background; Region | Spanish | 1 | 1 | 8 | No | 8 | Between-subjects | half of the participants completed the version with potential subject antecedents and the other half, the version with object antecedents. | Not Reported | Intermixed | Random | 32 | 0 | 0 | Not Reported | Fairly confident | 64 | 32 | 80 | Yes | Syntax | Fully Constructed | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Very confident | Participants had to read the sentences and judge the acceptability of the pronoun’s interpretation in the continuation sentence using a four-value Likert scale (1 = totally unacceptable, 4 = perfectly acceptable)." | acceptability | Ordinal (Likert) | 4 | Isolation | Written | Not Reported | Self-paced | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Very confident | Continuous | Not Reported | R | Mixed-Effects Regression | No | Items; Participant | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | null | Very confident | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | null | nuria.rocafiguera@upf.edu | The only thing mentioned about the region is that it is a central monolingual region in Spain
Also, it says half the participants saw one version and the other half saw another, but there are 49 participants and there is no mention about excluding anyone. I put 25 above, but I'm not sure if this was actually the case. | MJ |
Klavan, Divjak_2016_the_cognitive_plausibility | 1 | Jane Klavan; Dagmar Divjak | 2,016 | The Cognitive Plausibility Of Statistical Classification Models: Comparing Textual And Behavioral Evidence | Folia Linguistica | https://doi.org/10.1515/flin-2016-0014 | acceptability judgment; acceptability rating; meta-linguistic judgment; meta-linguistic rating; naturalness judgment; naturalness rating; sentence judgment; syntactic judgment | null | null | null | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | 1 | 1 | null | null | null | Within-subjects | null | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | null | 0 | 0 | Not Reported | null | null | null | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | null | Isolation | Written | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | null | null | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | No | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | null | null | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | null | null | No judgments collected: This study compares 4 corpora and does not have acceptability judgment tasks | MJ |
Dubenion-Smith_2013_a_questionnaire_study | 1 | Shannon A. Dubenion-Smith | 2,013 | A Questionnaire Study Of Two-verb Clusters In West Central German | Folia Linguistica | https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.2013.002 | acceptability judgment; grammaticality judgment; meta-linguistic judgment; sentence judgment; syntactic judgment | null | null | null | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | 1 | 1 | null | null | null | Within-subjects | null | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | null | 0 | 0 | Not Reported | null | null | null | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | null | null | Not Reported | Not Reported | null | Isolation | Written | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | null | null | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | No | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | null | null | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | null | null | No judgments collected: the study consisted of a sentence completion task and a shuffling word-order task | MJ |
Zanuttini, Wood, Zentz et al._2018_the_yale_grammatical | 1 | Raffaella Zanuttini; Jim Wood; Jason Zentz; Laurence Horn | 2,018 | The Yale Grammatical Diversity Project: Morphosyntactic variation in North American English | Linguistics Vanguard | https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2016-0070 | Likert scale; acceptability judgment; acceptability rating; grammaticality judgment; grammaticality rating; sentence judgment; syntactic judgment | Unclear | Unclear - see comments | Unclear | Not Reported | Online platform | Paid directly | Age; Education; Region; Gender / Sex; Language background; Other | North American English | 1 | 1 | Unclear | No | Unclear | Not Reported | null | Yes | Blocks | Semi-random | 45 | 0 | 0 | Not Reported | Fairly confident | 15 | 45 | 30 | Yes | Syntax | Not Reported | Other | Not Reported | Yes | Slightly confident | Purpose: We are conducting a research study to examine dialect variation in American English.
Procedure: Participation in this study will involve judging the acceptability of a series of sentences in your own informal speech. We anticipate that your involvement will require less than an hour.
Informal, casual language... | acceptability | Ordinal (Likert) | 5 | Isolation | Written | Not Reported | Self-paced | Computer-based | Not Reported | No | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Very confident | Continuous | Other | Not Reported | ANOVA | No | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | null | Fairly confident | Published in supplement | https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2016- 0070 | Published in supplement | https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2016- 0070 | Not Reported | null | raffaella.zanuttini@yale.edu | [3] They said they only kept 50% of the responses, but unclear how many
[31] The authors balance the acceptable and unacceptable sentences within each block
| MJ |
Jung, Goodall_2023_filler–gap_dependencies_and | 1 | Duk-Ho Jung; Grant Goodall | 2,023 | Filler–gap dependencies and the remnant–correlate dependency in backward sprouting: Sensitivity to distance and islands | JoLinguistics | https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226722000366 | Likert scale | 89 | 80 | unclear | Students (non-linguists) | University affiliation | University credit | Age | Not Reported | 1 | 1 | 8 | Yes | 32? | Within-subjects | null | Not Reported | Intermixed | Semi-random | 102 | 0 | 0 | Not Reported | Fairly confident | 32x8 = 256? | 32 | 70 | No | Syntax | Fully Constructed | Other | Not Reported | Not Reported | Fairly confident | Participants were instructed to rate each sentence on a scale from 1 ‘very bad’ to 7 ‘very good’, based on how it sounded to them as a native speaker of English. | other | Ordinal (Likert) | 7 | Isolation | Written | Not Reported | Not Reported | Computer-based | Not Reported | Yes | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Fairly confident | Continuous | Z-score | R | Mixed-Effects Regression | No | Participant; Items | Yes | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | null | Very confident | Public Repository | https://osf.io/jw3ds | Published in article | https://osf.io/jw3ds | Not Reported | null | dujung@ucsd.edu | Unclear exactly how many total target items were created | JG |
Hofmeister_2010_a_linearization_account | 1 | Philip Hofmeister | 2,010 | A linearization account of either ... or constructions | NL & LT | http://www.jstor.org/stable/40856166 | acceptability judgment; grammaticality judgment; linguistic intuition judgment; naturalness judgment; sentence judgment; syntactic judgment | 24 | 24 | null | Students (unspecified) | University affiliation | Paid directly | Education | English | 1 | 1 | 4 | Yes | 20 | Between-subjects | null | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | 20 | 0 | 0 | Not Reported | Slightly confident | 80 | 20 | 96 | No | Syntax | Fully Authentic | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Slightly confident | They were instructed to rate examples for naturalness on a scale of 1-7 with 7 being the most natural. | naturalness | Ordinal (Likert) | 7 | Isolation | Written | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Fairly confident | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | No | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | null | Fairly confident | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | null | p.hofmeister@ucsd.edu | I am unsure whether 20 stimuli were constructed for each type, or for the 4 types together. I assume the former ... | DD |
Zuraw_2010_a_model_of | 1 | Kie Zuraw | 2,010 | A model of lexical variation and the grammar with application to Tagalog nasal substitution | NL & LT | http://www.jstor.org/stable/40856170 | acceptability judgment; acceptability rating; naturalness judgment; naturalness rating; sentence judgment | 9 | 9 | null | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Age; Language background | Not Reported | 1 | 1 | 2 | No | 25 | Within-subjects | null | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | 50 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Slightly confident | 50 | 50 | Not Reported | No | Phonology | Fully Constructed | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Slightly confident | Participants stated their eating on a scale from 1 (bad) to 10 (good). | Not Reported | Ordinal (Likert) | 10 | Isolation | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Fairly confident | Not Reported | Not Reported | R | Mixed-Effects Regression | No | Participant | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | null | Fairly confident | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | null | kie@ucla.edu | Acceptability data is from Zuraw 2000 - I did NOT look this study up separately to get more details
There's another data collection referenced in the paper but I'm not entirely sure it's an acceptability ratings task as she asks to rate two options on a scale but that data seems to have been used to "assess" binary ch... | DD |
Blanchette, Nadeu_2018_prosody_and_the | 1 | Frances Blanchette; Marianna Nadeu | 2,018 | Prosody and the meanings of English negative indefinites | JoPragmatics | https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.03.020 | JoPragmatics-likert scale1-ScienceDirect.bib; acceptability judgment; grammaticality judgment; naturalness rating | 47 | 45 | 45 | Linguists (students or otherwise) | University affiliation | University credit | Gender / Sex; Age; Education; Region; Language background | American English | 1 | 1 | 3 | Yes | 16 | Within-subjects | null | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | 48 | 0 | 0 | Not Reported | Fairly confident | 20 | 20 | 28 | Yes | Syntax | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Yes | Fairly confident | Participants were asked to rate the naturalness of the target word on a scale of 1–5 | naturalness | Ordinal (Likert) | 5 | Isolation | Written | Not Reported | Self-paced | Computer-based | Yes | No | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Fairly confident | Continuous | Z-score | R | Mixed-Effects Regression | Yes | Items; Participant | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Yes | sentence completion | Fairly confident | On Request | null | On Request | null | Not Reported | null | fkb1@psu.edu | The naturalness rating task was not the main task in this study | MJ |
Destruel_2017_the_pragmatics_of | 1 | Emilie Destruel | 2,017 | The pragmatics of French (non-)prototypical clefts: Influence of the type of question on naturalness and interpretation | JoPragmatics | https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.08.014 | JoPragmatics-likert scale1-ScienceDirect.bib; grammaticality judgment; naturalness rating | 24 | 24 | 24 | Students (unspecified) | University affiliation | Not Reported | Language background; Age; Education | French | 2 | 1 | 4 | Yes | 4 | Within-subjects | null | Not Reported | Not Reported | Semi-random | 32 | 0 | 0 | Yes | Fairly confident | 16 | 16 | 16 | Yes | Syntax | Edited Authentic | Semantics | Not Reported | Yes | Fairly confident | Participants were instructed to choose the continuation they judged the most natural given the Q–A pair | naturalness | Ordinal (Likert) | 3 | Isolation | Written | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Fairly confident | Continuous | Not Reported | R | Mixed-Effects Regression | No | Participant; Items | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | null | Fairly confident | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | null | e-destruel-johnson@uiowa.edu | null | MJ |
Destruel_2017_the_pragmatics_of | 2 | Emilie Destruel | 2,017 | The pragmatics of French (non-)prototypical clefts: Influence of the type of question on naturalness and interpretation | JoPragmatics | https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.08.014 | JoPragmatics-likert scale1-ScienceDirect.bib; grammaticality judgment; naturalness rating | 32 | 32 | 32 | Students (unspecified) | University affiliation | Not Reported | Language background; Age; Education | French | 2 | 2 | 4 | Yes | 7 | Within-subjects | null | Not Reported | null | null | 32 | 0 | 0 | Yes | Fairly confident | 16 | 16 | 16 | Yes | Syntax | Edited Authentic | Semantics | Not Reported | Yes | Fairly confident | Participants were instructed to choose the continuation they judged the most natural given the Q–A pair | naturalness | Ordinal (Likert) | 3 | Isolation | Written | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Fairly confident | Continuous | Not Reported | R | Mixed-Effects Regression | No | Participant; Items | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | null | Fairly confident | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | null | e-destruel-johnson@uiowa.edu | null | MJ |
Kamoen, Holleman, Nouwen et al._2011_absolutely_relative_or | 1 | Naomi Kamoen; Bregje Holleman; Rick Nouwen; Ted Sanders; Huub {Van Den Bergh} | 2,011 | Absolutely relative or relatively absolute? The linguistic behavior of gradable adjectives and degree modifiers | JoPragmatics | https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.05.017 | acceptability judgment; acceptability rating; grammaticality judgment | 173 | 173 | 173 | Mixed | University affiliation | Mixed | Gender / Sex; Education; Language background | Dutch | 1 | 1 | 4 | No | 40 | Mixed | Degree modifiers (fully, almsot), and antonyms (positive, negative) comparing language experts and non-experts. | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | 40 | No reported | 0 | Not Reported | Slightly confident | 40 | 40 | Not Reported | Yes | Semantics | Edited Authentic | Not Reported | Not Reported | Yes | Fairly confident | ‘‘Please indicate whether the following sentences are acceptable Dutch in your opinion. A sentence is acceptable
if it sounds natural and you would not be surprised to encounter it in daily language. A sentence is unacceptable if it
sounds strange or is incorrect in a grammatical sense. You can express your opinion on ... | acceptability | Ordinal (Likert) | 5 | Isolation | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Yes | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Fairly confident | Continuous | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | No | Not Reported | Yes | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | null | Not confident at all | Public Repository | http://www.mijnwoordenboek.nl/antoniwm.php. | Published in article | null | Not Reported | null | N.Kamoen@uu.nl | [12] I'm not confident about the number of conditions
[21] only language experts performed the pretest task
[33] Only one part of the task provided contexts
[66] another part of the data was included in the appendix
Note: they report that they used a multi-level model for the analysis and they provide the equation th... | MJ |
Holliday, Tano_2021_“it’s_a_whole | 1 | Nicole Holliday; Marie Tano | 2,021 | “It’s a Whole Vibe”: testing evaluations of grammatical and ungrammatical AAE on Twitter | Linguistics Vanguard | https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2020-0095 | Likert scale; acceptability judgement; acceptability judgment; acceptability rating; grammaticality judgement; grammaticality judgment; grammaticality rating; naïve rating | 115 | 115 | 115 | Students (unspecified) | Personal network | Not compensated | Age; Education; Region; Language background; Other | English | 1 | 1 | 6 | Yes | 18 | Mixed | Comparing two racial groups: White and Black | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | 115 | 0 | 0 | Not Reported | Slightly confident | 18 | 18 | Not Reported | Yes | Morphology; Syntax | Fully Constructed | Not Reported | Not Reported | Yes | Fairly confident | After being presented with a set of three tweets from each of the six avatars, participants were asked to rate the grammaticality of each avatar’s tweets in a binary fashion (grammatical vs. ungrammatical). Subsequently, they were asked to rate the avatars on personal traits, using a 10-point Likert scale (1 being “not... | grammaticality | Dichotomous (Binary) | 2 | Isolation | Written | Not Reported | Self-paced | Computer-based | Yes | No | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Fairly confident | Continuous | Not Reported | R | ANOVA | No | Items; Participant | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Yes | Personality trait ratings | Fairly confident | Published in article | null | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | null | nholl@sas.upenn.edu | [54] linear regression models for each characteristic followed by ANOVAs for pairwise comparisons | MJ |
Han, Lidz, Musolino_2007_vraising_and_grammar | 2 | Chung-Hye Han; Jeffrey Lidz; Julien Musolino | 2,007 | V-Raising and Grammar Competition in Korean: Evidence from Negation and Quantifier Scope | Linguistic Inquiry | http://www.jstor.org/stable/4179396 | grammaticality judgment; sentence judgment; syntactic judgment | 60 | 60 | 15 | Other non-students | Not Reported | Not Reported | Age | Korean | 2 | 2 | 4 | Yes | 4 | Between-subjects | negation type x scope | Not Reported | Intermixed | Semi-random | 8 | 2 | 8 (after each trial participants were asked to say why they responded the way they did) | Not Reported | Fairly confident | 16 | 4 | 4 (seen per participant), 12 created in total | No | Syntax | Fully Constructed | Not Reported | Not Reported | Yes | Fairly confident | truth-value judgment task (TVJT): They were given a score sheet and were instructed to indicate, for each story, whether Mickey Mouse spoke truthfully. They were asked to provide a brief justification for their answers. | other | Dichotomous (Binary) | 2 | Isolation | Mixed | Not Reported | Not Reported | Spoken/Signed | Not Reported | Yes | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Yes | Fairly confident | Other | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | No | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | null | Fairly confident | Published in supplement | null | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | null | chunghye@sfu.ca | The comprehension questions take the form of filler items. | LR |
Sprouse_2009_revisiting_satiation_evidence | 1 | Jon Sprouse | 2,009 | Revisiting Satiation: Evidence for an Equalization Response Strategy | Linguistic Inquiry | http://www.jstor.org/stable/40284316 | acceptability judgment; acceptability rating; grammaticality judgment; grammaticality rating; magnitude estimation; naturalness judgment; naturalness rating; naïve rating; sentence judgment; syntactic judgment | 20 | 20 | 20 | Students (non-linguists) | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | English | 9 | 1 | 1 | No | 14 | Within-subjects | null | Yes | Blocks | Not Reported | 42 | 0 | 0 | Not Reported | Slightly confident | 14 | 14 | 28 | No | Syntax | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | No | Fairly confident | For example, as in figure 1,the acceptability of a reference sentence might be assigned an integer rating of 100. Participants would then be
asked to rate the acceptability of the target item using the reference as a unit of measure. A participant who felt the target sentence was only half as acceptable as the referenc... | acceptability | Continuous | infinite | Magnitude Estimation | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Fairly confident | Continuous | Log Transform | Not Reported | Other | No | Participant | Not Reported | 0.05 | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | null | Fairly confident | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | null | jsprouse@uci.edu | statistical technique = repeated measures regression | LR |
Sprouse_2009_revisiting_satiation_evidence | 2 | Jon Sprouse | 2,009 | Revisiting Satiation: Evidence for an Equalization Response Strategy | Linguistic Inquiry | http://www.jstor.org/stable/40284316 | acceptability judgment; acceptability rating; grammaticality judgment; grammaticality rating; magnitude estimation; naturalness judgment; naturalness rating; naïve rating; sentence judgment; syntactic judgment | 24 | 24 | 24 | Students (non-linguists) | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | English | 9 | 2 | 1 | No | 14 | Within-subjects | null | Yes | Blocks | Not Reported | 42 | 0 | 0 | Not Reported | Slightly confident | 7 | 7 | 14 | No | Syntax | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | No | Fairly confident | For example, as in figure 1,the acceptability of a reference sentence might be assigned an integer rating of 100. Participants would then be
asked to rate the acceptability of the target item using the reference as a unit of measure. A participant who felt the target sentence was only half as acceptable as the referenc... | acceptability | Continuous | infinite | Magnitude Estimation | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Fairly confident | Continuous | Log Transform | Not Reported | Other | No | Participant | Not Reported | 0.05 | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | null | Fairly confident | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | null | jsprouse@uci.edu | statistical technique = repeated measures regression | LR |
Sprouse_2009_revisiting_satiation_evidence | 3 | Jon Sprouse | 2,009 | Revisiting Satiation: Evidence for an Equalization Response Strategy | Linguistic Inquiry | http://www.jstor.org/stable/40284316 | acceptability judgment; acceptability rating; grammaticality judgment; grammaticality rating; magnitude estimation; naturalness judgment; naturalness rating; naïve rating; sentence judgment; syntactic judgment | 20 | 20 | 20 | Students (non-linguists) | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | English | 9 | 3 | 1 | No | 10 | Within-subjects | null | Yes | Blocks | Not Reported | 30 | 0 | 0 | Not Reported | Slightly confident | 10 | 10 | 20 | No | Syntax | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | No | Fairly confident | For example, as in figure 1,the acceptability of a reference sentence might be assigned an integer rating of 100. Participants would then be
asked to rate the acceptability of the target item using the reference as a unit of measure. A participant who felt the target sentence was only half as acceptable as the referenc... | acceptability | Continuous | infinite | Magnitude Estimation | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Fairly confident | Continuous | Log Transform | Not Reported | Other | No | Participant | Not Reported | 0.05 | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | null | Fairly confident | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | null | jsprouse@uci.edu | statistical technique = repeated measures regression | LR |
Sprouse_2009_revisiting_satiation_evidence | 4 | Jon Sprouse | 2,009 | Revisiting Satiation: Evidence for an Equalization Response Strategy | Linguistic Inquiry | http://www.jstor.org/stable/40284316 | acceptability judgment; acceptability rating; grammaticality judgment; grammaticality rating; magnitude estimation; naturalness judgment; naturalness rating; naïve rating; sentence judgment; syntactic judgment | 17 | 17 | 17 | Students (non-linguists) | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | English | 9 | 4 | 1 | No | 10 | Within-subjects | null | Yes | Blocks | Not Reported | 30 | 0 | 0 | Not Reported | Slightly confident | 10 | 10 | 20 | No | Syntax | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | No | Fairly confident | For example, as in figure 1,the acceptability of a reference sentence might be assigned an integer rating of 100. Participants would then be
asked to rate the acceptability of the target item using the reference as a unit of measure. A participant who felt the target sentence was only half as acceptable as the referenc... | acceptability | Continuous | infinite | Magnitude Estimation | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Fairly confident | Continuous | Log Transform | Not Reported | Other | No | Participant | Not Reported | 0.05 | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | null | Fairly confident | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | null | jsprouse@uci.edu | statistical technique = repeated measures regression | LR |
Sprouse_2009_revisiting_satiation_evidence | 5 | Jon Sprouse | 2,009 | Revisiting Satiation: Evidence for an Equalization Response Strategy | Linguistic Inquiry | http://www.jstor.org/stable/40284316 | acceptability judgment; acceptability rating; grammaticality judgment; grammaticality rating; magnitude estimation; naturalness judgment; naturalness rating; naïve rating; sentence judgment; syntactic judgment | 20 | 20 | 20 | Students (non-linguists) | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | English | 9 | 5 | 1 | No | 10 | Within-subjects | null | Yes | Blocks | Not Reported | 30 | 0 | 0 | Not Reported | Slightly confident | 10 | 10 | 20 | No | Syntax | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Yes | Fairly confident | For example, as in figure 1,the acceptability of a reference sentence might be assigned an integer rating of 100. Participants would then be
asked to rate the acceptability of the target item using the reference as a unit of measure. A participant who felt the target sentence was only half as acceptable as the referenc... | acceptability | Continuous | infinite | Magnitude Estimation | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Fairly confident | Continuous | Log Transform | Not Reported | Other | No | Participant | Not Reported | 0.05 | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | null | Fairly confident | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | null | jsprouse@uci.edu | statistical technique = repeated measures regression | LR |
Sprouse_2009_revisiting_satiation_evidence | 6 | Jon Sprouse | 2,009 | Revisiting Satiation: Evidence for an Equalization Response Strategy | Linguistic Inquiry | http://www.jstor.org/stable/40284316 | acceptability judgment; acceptability rating; grammaticality judgment; grammaticality rating; magnitude estimation; naturalness judgment; naturalness rating; naïve rating; sentence judgment; syntactic judgment | not reported | not reported | not reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | English | 9 | 6 | 1 | No | 40 | Within-subjects | null | Yes | Blocks | Not Reported | 50 | 0 | 0 | Not Reported | Slightly confident | 40 | 40 | 10 | No | Syntax | Not Reported | Length | Not Reported | Not Reported | Fairly confident | The task was a yes/no task. | Not Reported | Dichotomous (Binary) | 2 | Isolation | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Fairly confident | Dichotomous | Not Reported | Not Reported | Non-parametric test | No | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | null | Fairly confident | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | null | jsprouse@uci.edu | statistical technique = sign test + Fisher's exact test (to compare results from experiment 6 and 7) | LR |
Sprouse_2009_revisiting_satiation_evidence | 7 | Jon Sprouse | 2,009 | Revisiting Satiation: Evidence for an Equalization Response Strategy | Linguistic Inquiry | http://www.jstor.org/stable/40284316 | acceptability judgment; acceptability rating; grammaticality judgment; grammaticality rating; magnitude estimation; naturalness judgment; naturalness rating; naïve rating; sentence judgment; syntactic judgment | not reported | not reported | not reported | Students (non-linguists) | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | English | 9 | 7 | 1 | No | 20 | Within-subjects | null | Yes | Blocks | Not Reported | 50 | 0 | 0 | Not Reported | Slightly confident | 20 | 20 | 30 | No | Syntax | Not Reported | Length | Not Reported | No | Fairly confident | The task was a yes/no task. | Not Reported | Dichotomous (Binary) | 2 | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Fairly confident | Dichotomous | Not Reported | Not Reported | Non-parametric test | No | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | null | Fairly confident | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | null | jsprouse@uci.edu | statistical technique = sign test | LR |
Khalaf_2021_furthest_conjunct_agreement | 1 | Eman Al Khalaf | 2,021 | Furthest conjunct agreement in Jordanian Arabic | NL & LT | https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-021-09515-0 | Likert scale; acceptability judgment; acceptability rating; sentence judgment; syntactic judgment | 165 | 155 | 155 | Mixed | Not Reported | University credit | Age; Language background; Gender / Sex | Jordanian Arabic | 4 | 4 | 6 | Yes | 4 | Within-subjects | null | Yes | Intermixed | Random | 24 | 0 | 0 | Not Reported | Fairly confident | 24 | 24 | 24 | Yes | Syntax | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Very confident | Not Reported | grammaticality | Ordinal (Likert) | 7 | Isolation | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Computer-based | Not Reported | No | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Very confident | Continuous | Other | R | Other | No | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | null | Fairly confident | Published in article | null | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | null | e.alkhalaf@ju.edu.jo | She used a generalised linear model | MJ |
Khalaf_2021_furthest_conjunct_agreement | 2 | Eman Al Khalaf | 2,021 | Furthest conjunct agreement in Jordanian Arabic | NL & LT | https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-021-09515-0 | Likert scale; acceptability judgment; acceptability rating; sentence judgment; syntactic judgment | 120 | 112 | 112 | Mixed | Not Reported | University credit | Age; Language background; Gender / Sex | Jordanian Arabic | 4 | 2 | 18 | Yes | 4 | Within-subjects | null | Not Reported | Intermixed | Random | 72 | 0 | 0 | Not Reported | Fairly confident | 72 | 72 | 50 | Yes | Syntax | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Very confident | Not Reported | grammaticality | Ordinal (Likert) | 7 | Isolation | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Computer-based | Not Reported | No | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Very confident | Continuous | Other | R | Other | No | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | null | Fairly confident | Published in article | null | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | null | e.alkhalaf@ju.edu.jo | She used a generalised linear model | MJ |
Khalaf_2021_furthest_conjunct_agreement | 3 | Eman Al Khalaf | 2,021 | Furthest conjunct agreement in Jordanian Arabic | NL & LT | https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-021-09515-0 | Likert scale; acceptability judgment; acceptability rating; sentence judgment; syntactic judgment | 157 | 140 | 140 | Mixed | Not Reported | University credit | Age; Language background; Gender / Sex | Jordanian Arabic | 4 | 3 | 6 | Yes | 4 | Within-subjects | null | Not Reported | Intermixed | Random | 24 | 0 | 0 | Not Reported | Fairly confident | 24 | 24 | 24 | Yes | Syntax | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Very confident | Not Reported | grammaticality | Ordinal (Likert) | 7 | Isolation | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Computer-based | Not Reported | No | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Very confident | Continuous | Other | R | Other | No | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | null | Fairly confident | Published in article | null | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | null | e.alkhalaf@ju.edu.jo | She used a generalised linear model
In the article, she states that Experiment 3 had 157 participants, but she excluded 18, leaving her with 139. It might be a typo... | MJ |
Kretzschmar, Brilmayer_2020_zooming_in_on | 1 | Franziska Kretzschmar; Ingmar Brilmayer | 2,020 | Zooming in on agentivity: Experimental studies of DO-clefts in German | Linguistics Vanguard | https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2019-0069 | Likert scale; acceptability judgement; acceptability rating; linguistic intuition judgement; linguistic intuition rating; naturalness judgement; naturalness rating; ordinal ratings; sentence judgement; syntactic judgement | 59 | 58 | 58 | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not compensated | Language background; Age; Gender / Sex | German | 2 | 1 | 4 | Yes | 18 | Within-subjects | null | Not Reported | Intermixed | Semi-random | 24 | 0 | 0 | Not Reported | Fairly confident | 24 | 24 | 6 | Yes | Semantics | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Yes | Fairly confident | "[we] asked them to rate each paragraph as a whole for acceptability, using a 6-point Likert scale ranging from very acceptable to very unacceptable." | acceptability | Ordinal (Likert) | 6 | Isolation | Written | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Yes | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Fairly confident | null | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | No | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | null | null | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | null | null | null | MJ |
Clifton, Jr., Frazier_2010_when_are_downwardentailing | 1 | Charles Clifton; Jr.; Lyn Frazier | 2,010 | When Are Downward-Entailing Contexts Identified? The Case of the Domain Widener Ever | Linguistic Inquiry | http://www.jstor.org/stable/40926400 | acceptability judgment; acceptability rating; sentence judgment; syntactic judgment | 96 | 96 | 48? | Students (unspecified) | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | English | 2 | 1 | 8 | No | 4 | Mixed | number of head noun | Not Reported | Intermixed | Random | 96 | 6 | 0 | Not Reported | Fairly confident | 24 | 12 | 84 | Yes | Syntax | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Fairly confident | "They were given instructions, including the instruction that they were to rate some sentences for acceptability, which was explained to them as how much ‘‘the sentence sounds like a sentence that a native speaker of English could say or understand without noticing anything peculiar or ungrammatical or odd or confusing... | acceptability | Ordinal (Likert) | 5 | Isolation | Written | Not Reported | Not Reported | Computer-based | Yes | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Fairly confident | Continuous | Not Reported | R | Mixed-Effects Regression | No | Items; Participant | Yes | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | null | Fairly confident | On Request | null | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | null | cec@psych.umass.edu | null | LR |
Clifton, Jr., Frazier_2010_when_are_downwardentailing | 2 | Charles Clifton; Jr.; Lyn Frazier | 2,010 | When Are Downward-Entailing Contexts Identified? The Case of the Domain Widener Ever | Linguistic Inquiry | http://www.jstor.org/stable/40926400 | acceptability judgment; acceptability rating; sentence judgment; syntactic judgment | 48 | 48 | 48 | Students (unspecified) | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | English | 2 | 2 | 4 | No | 4 | Within-subjects | null | Not Reported | Intermixed | Random | 104 | not reported | 0 | Not Reported | Fairly confident | 24? | 24 | 80 | Yes | Syntax | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not confident at all | "They were given instructions, including the instruction that they were to rate some sentences for acceptability, which was explained to them as how much ‘‘the sentence sounds like a sentence that a native speaker of English could say or understand without noticing anything peculiar or ungrammatical or odd or confusing... | acceptability | Ordinal (Likert) | 5 | Isolation | Written | Not Reported | Not Reported | Computer-based | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Fairly confident | Continuous | Not Reported | R | Mixed-Effects Regression | No | Items; Participant | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | null | Fairly confident | On Request | null | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | null | cec@psych.umass.edu | null | LR |
Morgan, Wagers_2018_english_resumptive_pronouns | 1 | Adam Milton Morgan; Matthew W. Wagers | 2,018 | English Resumptive Pronouns Are More Common Where Gaps Are Less Acceptable | Linguistic Inquiry | https://www.jstor.org/stable/26858269 | Likert scale; acceptability judgment; acceptability rating; grammaticality judgment; grammaticality rating; linguistic intuition judgment; linguistic intuition rating; sentence judgment; syntactic judgment | 63 | 63 | 63 | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | English | 1 | 1 | 36 | Yes | Not Reported | Within-subjects | null | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | 114 | 0 | 0 | Not Reported | Fairly confident | 36 | 36 | 72 | Yes | Syntax | Fully Constructed | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Slightly confident | "we asked 63 participants to judge the target sentences from Experiment 1 (see exam-
ple (4) and online supplementary material" | acceptability | Ordinal (Likert) | 7 | Isolation | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Very confident | Continuous | Z-score | R | Simple Regression | No | Not Reported | Not Reported | 0.05 | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Not Reported | Yes | null | Not confident at all | Published in supplement | http://www.mitpressjour nals.org/doi/suppl/10.1162/ling_a_00293 | Not Reported | null | Not Reported | null | Could not find in the article | [14] The text says "Thirty-six item sets were constructed from 36 items from the production study", but it does not say how many items per condition. We can presume that it's one per condition, but this was not explicitly stated in the article. | MJ |
End of preview. Expand in Data Studio
Dataset Card for Systematic Review of Acceptability Judgments data
A curated dataset of research articles used in a systematic review of judgment tasks in linguistics. Each entry records article-level metadata and experiment-level methodological features, supporting structured comparison and analysis across studies.
Dataset Description
This annotation dataset comprises systematically coded observations from a corpus of published studies employing judgment tasks in linguistics. Each observation corresponds to an individual experiment within an article and encodes a range of study characteristics, including task design, administration conditions, and reporting practices. The dataset enables quantitative synthesis of methodological variation and facilitates meta-analytic investigation of factors related to the reliability and replicability of experimental outcomes.
- Curated by: Jason Grafmiller
- Funded by: British Academy Small Grant
- License: cc-by-nc-4.0
Dataset Structure
[TBD]
Source
Research articles published between 1993-2023 from the following journals: [More Information Needed]
Data Collection and Processing
[TBD]
Annotators
- Jason Grafmiller (University of Birmingham)
- Dagmar Divjak (University of Birmingham)
- Laura Rosseel (Vrije Universiteit Brussel)
- Marah Jaraisi (University of Birmingham)
- Fei Xie (University of Birmingham)
Personal and Sensitive Information
Dataset contains only personal information published in the articles themselves, including author names and contact information provided by the corresponding author of each article.
Citation
BibTeX:
@dataset{grafmiller_2026_annotation_dataset,
author = {Grafmiller, Jason},
title = {Annotation Dataset for Judgment Task Studies in Linguistics},
year = {2026},
version = {1.0},
publisher = {Hugging Face},
url = {https://huggingface.co/datasets/jasongraf1/annotation_app_data},
note = {Dataset}
}
Universal Stylesheet for Linguistics:
Grafmiller, Jason. 2026. Annotation dataset for judgment task studies in linguistics (Version 1.0) [Dataset]. Hugging Face. https://huggingface.co/datasets/jasongraf1/annotation_app_data
APA:
Grafmiller, J. (2026). Annotation dataset for judgment task studies in linguistics (Version 1.0) [Dataset]. Hugging Face. https://huggingface.co/datasets/jasongraf1/annotation_app_data
Dataset Card Contact
Dr Jason Grafmiller j.grafmiller@bham.ac.uk
- Downloads last month
- 202