Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T20:34:31.018Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the logic of variable rules1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2008

Paul Kay  and
Chad K. McDaniel
Paul Kay
Affiliation:
University of California, Berkeley
Chad K. McDaniel
Affiliation:
University of California, Berkeley
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the introduction we stated two frequently encountered a priori arguments against the variable rule methodology and attempted to refute them. The first rejects the variable rule methodology – and by implication any study of comparable data – on the grounds that variable rules govern token frequencies while generative grammar does not countenance token frequencies. We agree that variable rules are not generative rules of a new sort but an entirely different kind of logical object and that generative grammar indeed does not countenance token frequencies. But we are convinced by empirical work conducted within the variable rule paradigm that token frequencies often display clear patterns and that moreover some knowledge of these patterns forms part of the linguistic abilities of speakers. We conclude that, whatever the drawbacks of the variable rule formalism, studies employing variable rules have shown regularities in linguistic behavior that point to a serious lack in the generative paradigm, narrowly defined.

A second line of argument against variable rules which we rejected was based on assumptions about human psychology and about probability theory. The assumption that human beings cannot assess probabilities and behave in accord with them in a natural and unconscious manner appears to be supported by no empirical evidence and does not seem to us plausible a priori. Moreover, experimental evidence to the contrary exists. The argument to probability theory was that a speaker would have to have an internal counting device to keep track of the relative frequencies of linguistic variants that he had heard from his own or other lips in order to behave in accordance with variable rules. But this would require a kind of probability theory that would differ in remarkable and unspecified ways from ordinary probability theory, since the paradigmatic empirical examples of the familiar theory, such as coins, dice, decks of cards, and so on, are not possessed of memories.

Type
Articles
Information
Language in Society , Volume 8 , Issue 2-3 , August 1979 , pp. 151 - 187
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1979

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Anshen, F. (1975). Various objections to varied variable rules. In Fasold, R. & Shuy, R. (eds),. Analyzing variation in language. Georgetown: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Bailey, C.-J. (1973). Variation and linguistic theory. Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Bchrend, E. R. & Bitterman, M. E. (1961). Probability-matching in the fish. American Journal of Psychology, 74. 542–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickerton, D. (1971). Inherent variability and variable rules. Foundations of Language, 7. 457–92.Google Scholar
Bush, R. R. & Wilson, T. R. (1956). Two-choice behavior of paradise fish. Journal Experimental Psychology, 51. 315–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chomsky, N. (1961). On the notion ‘rule of grammar’. In Structure of language and mathematical aspects. Providence, Rhode Island: American Mathematical Society.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Cedergren, H. (1973). On the nature of variable constraints. In Bailey, C.-J. & Shuy, R. (eds) New ways of analyzing variation in English. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. 13–27.Google Scholar
Cedergren, H. & Sankoff, D. (1974). Variable rules: Performance as a statistical reflection of competence. Language, 50. 333–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeCamp, D. (1971). Toward a generative analysis of a post-creole continuum. In Hymes, D. (ed.), Pidginization and creolization of language. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Edwards, W. (1956). Reward probability, amount, and information as determiners sequential two-alternative decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 52. 177–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Edwards, W. (1961). Probability learning in 1000 trials. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62. 385–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Estes, W. K. (1962). Learning theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 13. 107–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fasold, R. (1972). Tense marking in black English: A linguistic and social analysis. Arlington, Virginia: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Fasold, R. (1975). The Bailey wave model: A dynamic quantitative paradigm. In Fasold, R. & Shuy, R. (eds), Analyzing variation in language. Georgetown: Georgetown University Press. 27–58.Google Scholar
Feldman, J. & Newell, A. (1961). A note on a class of probability matching models. Psychometrika, 26. 333–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garner, W. R. (1962). On certainty and structure as psychological concepts. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Green, G. (1977). Review of I. Robinson's The new grammarians' funeral. Language, 53. 406–10.Google Scholar
Grout, D. A., Hake, H. W. & Hornseth, U. P. (1951). Acquisition and extinction of verbal conditional response with differing percentages of reinforcement. Journal Experimental Psychology, 42. 1–5.Google Scholar
Guy, G. (1975). Variation in the group and the individual: The case of final stop deletion. Pennsylvania Working Papers on Linguistic Change and Variation, 1 (4).Google Scholar
Kay, P. (1978). Variable rules, community grammar and linguistic change. In Sankoff, D. (ed.) Linguistic variation: Models and methods. New York: Academic Press. 71–83.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1966). The social stratification of English in New York City. Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1969). Contraction, deletion, and inherent variability of the English copula. Language, 45. 715–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, W. (1972a). Where do grammars stop? In Shuy, R. (ed.), Proceedings of the 23rd annual round table on languages and linguistics. Georgetown: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1972b). On the mechanism of linguistic change. In Gumperz, J. & Hymes, D. (eds), Directions in sociolinguistics. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1972c). On the use of the present to explain the past. In Heilmann, L. (ed), Proceedings of the eleventh international congress of linguists. Bologna, Italy: Società editrice il Mulino Bologna.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1972d). The social stratification of (r) in New York City department stores. In Labov, W. (ed.), Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
McDaniel, C. (1975). A method for assessing ‘A method for assessing variable rule and implicational scale analysis.’ Typescript.Google Scholar
Restle, F. (1961). Psychology of judgement and choice. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Rousseau, P. & Sankoff, D. (1976). Advances in variable rule methodology. Ms.Google Scholar
Sankoff, D. (ed.) (1978). Linguistic variation: Models and methods. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Sankoff, D. & Cedergren, H. (1976). The dimensionality of grammatical variation. Language, 52. 163–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sankoff, D. & Rousseau, P. (1974). A method for assessing variable rule and implicational scale analyses of linguistic variation. In Mitchell, J. L. (ed.), Cotnputers in the humanities. Edinburgh University Press. 3–15.Google Scholar
Sankoff, G. (1974). A quantitative paradigm for the study of communicative competence. In Bauman, R. & Sherzer, J. (eds), Explorations in the ethuography of speaking. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. 18–49.Google Scholar
Sankoff, C. & Cedergren, H. (1971). Some results of a sociolinguistic study of Montreal French. In Darnell, R. (ed.), Linguistic diversity in Canadian society. Edmonton: Linguistic Research Inc. 61–87.Google Scholar
Sternberg, Saul (1963). Stochastic learning theory. In Luce, R., Bush, R. & Galanter, E., (eds), Handbook of mathematical psychology, 11. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Wolfram, Walt (1974). Sociolinguistic aspects of assimilation: Puerto Rican English in New York City. Arlington, Virginia: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar