Abstract
In a recent airing of methodological concerns in the analysis of spontaneous speech samples, Lakshmanan and Selinker (2001) suggest that Lardiere (1998a) should have carried out analyses of lexical aspect and discourse grounding in determining obligatory contexts for past tense marking. Failure to do so, they argue, renders the work in question susceptible to the comparative fallacy (Bley-Vroman, 1983). In this reply I would like to briefly address some of the problems with that argument, while showing that such analyses could themselves introduce a comparative fallacy problem.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
