本文有助于在语言变异的背景下定义生产和评级实验结果之间的关系。我们解决了以下研究问题:如何将单个说话者可用的语法选项分布在生产和感知这两个领域?我们认为,以前的研究比较可接受性判断和发生频率受到重大限制。我们通过采用不同于先前研究中使用的实验设计来接近生产和感知数据的对应关系:(i)而不是使用语料库,我们使用从后来被要求做出判断的受访者通过实验获得的生产数据,(ii)我们检查语言变异而不是成对现象,(iii)使用生产实验的条件和材料正式收集判决,(iv)我们分析了每个参与者在生产和可接受性判断实验中的行为。特别是,我们研究了俄语中的三种变异现象:名词化的案例变异,性别不匹配,以及少量结构中的案例变化。我们的结果表明,可接受性等级和发生频率之间存在相当大的一致性。然而,频率和可接受性分数的分布并不总是相关的。演讲者在两种类型的实验中选择单个变体时并不一致。重要的是,它们显示的不一致类型不同,这意味着可以从这个角度来表征变化。我们得出的结论是,两个实验的连贯程度反映了随时间变化演变的影响。另一个结果是,引发的生产和可接受性判断在如何揭示语言变化方面有所不同。在变体发展或消失的情况下,生产比判断更早表明这一点,并且评级任务具有限制受访者可用选择的效果。然而,因此,生产方法不应被认为更敏感。我们认为,只有结合生产和判断数据,才有可能估计变异性变化的方向性,并看到不同变体的完整分布。
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.