Abstract

This paper contributes to the task of defining the relationship between the results of production and rating experiments in the context of language variation. We address the following research question: how may the grammatical options available to a single speaker be distributed in the two domains of production and perception? We argue that previous studies comparing acceptability judgments and frequencies of occurrence suffer from significant limitations. We approach the correspondence of production and perception data by adopting an experimental design different from those used in previous research: (i) instead of using a corpus we use production data obtained experimentally from respondents who are later asked to make judgments, (ii) instead of pairwise phenomena we examine language variation, (iii) judgments are collected formally using the conditions and materials from the production experiment, (iv) we analyze the behavior of each participant across the production and acceptability judgment experiments. In particular, we examine three phenomena of variation in Russian: case variation in nominalizations, gender mismatch, and case variation in paucal constructions. Our results show that there is substantial alignment between acceptability ratings and frequency of occurrence. However, the distribution of frequencies and acceptability scores do not always correlate. Speakers are not consistent in choosing a single variant across the two types of experiment. Importantly, the types of inconsistency they display differ, which means that the variation can be characterized from this point of view. We conclude that the degree of coherence of the two experiments reflects the effects of the evolution of variation over time. Another result is that elicited production and acceptability judgments vary with respect to how they reveal variation in language. In the case of the development or disappearance of variants, production indicates this earlier than judgments, and the rating task has the effect of restricting the choices available to respondents. However, the production method should not thereby be considered more sensitive. We argue that only a combination of production and judgment data makes it possible to estimate the directionality of changes in variability and to see the full distribution of different variants.

Highlights

  • The idea that multiple sources of linguistic evidence provide complementary data is not novel

  • In the nominalization experiment there was a significant effect of STEM TYPE (p < 0.001) on acceptability ratings and interaction between STEM TYPE and CASE (p < 0.001); in the gender mismatch experiment, we found a significant effect of PATTERN (p < 0.001) on acceptability ratings; in the paucal construction experiment we observed significant effects of CONTEXT (p < 0.001), PATTERN (p < 0.001), and CASE (p < 0.001), and a significant CONTEXTCASE interaction (p < 0.001)

  • In the nominalization production experiment, both genitive case (GEN) and instrumental case (INSTR) were available as case marking strategies for transitive stems with lexical government

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The idea that multiple sources of linguistic evidence provide complementary data is not novel. It still remains undetermined how different corpus and behavioral measures relate to each other. Gradience may result from factors other than grammar that affect language processing and decisions about acceptability, e.g., parser limitations and high working memory costs. Another option is that grammatical knowledge is itself gradient: combinations of different grammatical constraints lead to a range of grammaticality levels

Objectives
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

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 call