Cover not available
Part of
Questioning Theoretical Primitives in Linguistic Inquiry: Papers in honor of Ricardo Otheguy
Edited by Naomi Shin and Daniel Erker
[Studies in Functional and Structural Linguistics 76] 2018
► pp. 45–66

Variable grammars

Competence as a statistical abstraction from performance. Constructing theories from data

| New York University
Linguists generally postulate a mental grammar which children infer from the speech they encounter, and then use to generate their own speech productions. This grammar is often assumed to be invariant and categorical. Language in use, however, is massively variable: the child encounters diversity at the level of dialect, sociolect, and idiolect. Furthermore, all units of language have multiple realizations and fuzzy boundaries. This raises a fundamental question: if the data is variable, even continuous, how does the child arrive at a grammar that is categorical and discrete? I argue that the system that a learner infers is not invariant and discrete, but rather one that recognizes, incorporates, manipulates, and generates variability.
Keywords: child language acquisition, variable grammar, variable rules, variationist sociolinguistics, linguistic variation
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Variation in linguistic theory
  • 3.Probabilistic competence
  • 4.The fuzzy lexicon
    • 4.1Lexical frequency
    • 4.2Lexical exceptions
  • 5.Acquisition
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 6 December 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sfsl.76.04guy
References (41)
References
Anttila, A. (1997). Variation in Finnish phonology and morphology (Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University).Google Scholar
Boersma, P., & Hayes, B. (2001). Empirical tests of the gradual learning algorithm. Linguistic Inquiry, 32, 45–86.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Braga, M. L. (1977). A concordância de número no sintagma nominal no triângulo mineiro (Master’s thesis). Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J., Cueni, A., Nikitina, T., & Baayen, H. (2005). Predicting the dative alternation. In G. Bouma, I. Krämer, & J. Zwarts (Eds.), Cognitive foundations of interpretation (pp. 69–94). Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J., & Ford, M. (2010). Predicting syntax: processing dative constructions in American and Australian varieties of English. Language, 86, 168–213.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. (2001). Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cedergren, H., & Sankoff, D. (1974). Variable rules: performance as a statistical reflection of competence. Language, 50, 333–355.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Coelho, I. L. (2000). A ordem V DP em construções monoargumentais: uma restrição sintático-semântica (Doctoral dissertation, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Brazil).Google Scholar
Fruehwald, J. (2012). Redevelopment of a morphological class. Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 18(1), 77–86.Google Scholar
Erker, D., & Guy, G. R. (2012). The role of lexical frequency in syntactic variability: Variable subject personal pronoun expression in Spanish. Language, 88, 526–557.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Estes, W. K. (1950). Toward a statistical theory of learning. Psychological Review, 57(2), 94.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gallistel, C. R., Krishan, M., Liu, Y., & Miller, R. (2014). The perception of probability. Psychological Review, 121(1), 96–123.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guy, G. R. (1980). Variation in the group and the individual: The case of final stop deletion. In W. Labov (Ed.), Locating language in time and space (pp. 1–36). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
(1981). Linguistic variation in Brazilian Portuguese: Aspects of the phonology, syntax, and language history (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania). Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International.Google Scholar
(1991). Explanation in variable phonology: An exponential model of morphological constraints. Language Variation and Change, 3, 1–22.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1996). Form and function in linguistic variation. In G. Guy, C. Feagin, J. Baugh, & D. Schiffrin (Eds.), Towards a social science of language: Papers in honour of William Labov (Vol. 1, pp. 221–252). Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guy, G. R., & Boberg, C. (1997). Inherent variability and the obligatory contour principle. Language Variation and Change, 9, 149–164.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guy, G. R., & Boyd, S. (1990). The development of a morphological class. Language Variation and Change, 2, 1–18.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guy, G. R., Hay, J., & Walker, A. (2008). Phonological, lexical, and frequency factors in coronal stop deletion in Early New Zealand English. Paper presented at LabPhon 11, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington.Google Scholar
Hoffman, M. (2004). Sounding Salvadorean, phonological variables in the Spanish of Salvadorean youth in Toronto (Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto).Google Scholar
Jankowsky, K. (1972). The neogrammarians: A re-evaluation of their place in the development of linguistic science. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Kroch, A. (1989). Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change. Language Variation and Change, 1, 199–244.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1994). Morphosyntactic variation. In K. Beals, J. Denton, R. Knippen, L. Melnar, H. Suzuki, & E. Zeinfeld (Eds), Papers from the 30th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society: Parasession on Variation and Linguistic Theory. (Vol. 2, pp. 180–201).Google Scholar
Laturnus, R., de Vilchez, N., Chaves, R., & Guy, G. R. (2016). Dialect, priming, and frequency effects on (-ING) variation in English. Paper presented at 45th Annual Conference on New Ways of Analyzing Variation (NWAV-45), Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, Canada.Google Scholar
Leben, W. (1973). Suprasegmental phonology (Doctoral dissertation, MIT).Google Scholar
Myers, J. & Guy, G. R. (1997). Frequency effects in variable lexical phonology. In C. Boberg, M. Meyerhoff, & S. Strassel (Eds.), A Selection of Papers from NWAV 25 (University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 4:1), pp. 215–228.Google Scholar
Otheguy, R. (2008). Affirming differences, valuing variation, and dismissing dialects in modern linguistics. Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics, 1, 223–233.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oushiro, L. (2014). Identidade na pluralidade: Avaliação, produção e percepção linguística na cidade de São Paulo. Doctoral dissertation. Universidade de São Paulo, Departamento de Linguística..Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1999). Words and rules. New York, NY: Harper Perennial.Google Scholar
Roberts, J. (1994). Acquisition of variable rules: (-t, d) deletion and (ing) production in preschool children (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania).Google Scholar
Santa Ana, O. (1992). Chicano English evidence for the exponential hypothesis: A variable rule pervades lexical phonology. Language Variation and Change, 4, 275–288.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scherre, M. M. P. (1988). Reanálise da concordância nominal em português (Doctoral dissertation, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro).Google Scholar
Smith, J., Durham, M., & Fortune, L. (2007). “Mam, my trousers is fa’in doon!”: Community, caregiver and child in the acquisition of a Scottish dialect. Language Variation and Change, 19, 63–99.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009). Universal and dialect-specific pathways of acquisition: Caregivers, children, and t/d deletion.. Language Variation and Change, 21, 69–95.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verner, K. A. (1877). Eine Ausnahme der ersten Lautverschiebung. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiete der Indogermanischen Sprachen, 23, 97–130.Google Scholar
Weinreich, U., Labov, W. & Herzog, M. (1968). Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. In W. P. Lehmann, & Y. Malkiel (eds.), Directions for Historical Linguistics (pp. 95–195). Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Woods, L. (2008). Monopthongization of /ay/ in Southern American English (Doctoral dissertation, New York University).Google Scholar
Yang, C. (2016). The price of linguistic productivity; How children learn to break the rules of language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Yip, M. (1988). The obligatory contour principle and phonological rules: A loss of identity. Linguistic Inquiry, 19, 65–100.Google Scholar
Zuraw, K., & Hayes, B. (2017). Intersecting constraint families: An argument for harmonic grammar. Language, 93, 497–548.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Shin, Naomi & Karen Lynn Miller
2024. Children’s Acquisition of Morphosyntactic Variation: A Reply to Commentaries. Language Learning and Development 20:1 ► pp. 83 ff. DOI logo
Shin, Naomi
2022. Structured variation in child heritage speakers' grammars. Language and Linguistics Compass 16:12 DOI logo
Shin, Naomi & Karen Miller
2022. Children’s Acquisition of Morphosyntactic Variation. Language Learning and Development 18:2 ► pp. 125 ff. DOI logo
Cohn, Abigail C. & Margaret E. L. Renwick
2021. Embracing multidimensionality in phonological analysis. The Linguistic Review 38:1 ► pp. 101 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 23 september 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.