a b st r a c t While theories on predictive processing posit that predictions are based on one's prior experiences, experimental work has effectively ignored the fact that people differ from each other in their linguistic experiences and, consequently, in the predictions they generate. We examine usagebased variation by means of three groups of participants (recruiters, job-seekers, and people not (yet) looking for a job), two stimuli sets (word sequences characteristic of either job ads or news reports), and two experiments (a Completion task and a Voice Onset Time task). We show that differences in experiences with a particular register result in different expectations regarding word sequences characteristic of that register, thus pointing to differences in mental representations v e r h a g e n e t a l . 330of language. Subsequently, we investigate to what extent different operationalizations of word predictability are accurate predictors of voice onset times. A measure of a participant's own expectations proves to be a significant predictor of processing speed over and above word predictability measures based on amalgamated data. These findings point to actual individual differences and highlight the merits of going beyond amalgamated data. We thus demonstrate that is it feasible to empirically assess the variation implied in usage-based theories, and we advocate exploiting this opportunity.k e y w o r d s : individual differences, surprisal, cloze probabilities, completion task, voice onset times.
Judgments are often used in linguistic research. Not much is known, however, about the variation of such judgments within and between participants. From a usage-based perspective, variation might be expected: with judgments based in representations, and representations resulting from input and use, both inter- and intra-individual variation are likely. This study investigates the reliability of metalinguistic judgments, more specifically familiarity judgments, for Dutch prepositional phrases (e. g., op de bank, ‘on the couch’). Familiarity judgments for 44 PPs offered in isolation and in a sentential context were given by 86 participants in two identical test sessions, using Magnitude Estimation. Aggregated scores (averaged over participants) are remarkably consistent (Pearson’s r=.97), and in part predicted by corpus frequencies. At the same time, there is considerable variation between and within participants. Context does not reduce this variation. We interpret both the stability and instability to be real reflections of language: a relatively stable system in a speech community consisting of speakers who are variable and forever changing. The results suggest that judgment data are informative at different levels of granularity. They call for more attention to individual variation and its underlying dynamics.
In a usage-based framework, variation is part and parcel of our linguistic experiences, and therefore also of our mental representations of language. In this article, we bring attention to variation as a source of information. Instead of discarding variation as mere noise, we examine what it can reveal about the representation and use of linguistic knowledge. By means of metalinguistic judgment data, we demonstrate how to quantify and interpret four types of variation: variation across items, participants, time, and methods. The data concern familiarity ratings assigned by 91 native speakers of Dutch to 79 Dutch prepositional phrases such as in de tuin ‘in the garden’ and rond de ingang ‘around the entrance’. Participants performed the judgment task twice within a period of one to two weeks, using either a 7-point Likert scale or a Magnitude Estimation scale. We explicate the principles according to which the different types of variation can be considered information about mental representation, and we show how they can be used to test hypotheses regarding linguistic representations.
While for a long time words and grammatical rules were regarded as the basic units in language, it has become increasingly clear that we have a much more varied set of units at our disposal, including multiword chunks. How such chunks are represented, which factors contribute to their entrenchment as units and to what extent this differs from person to person are questions that require investigation. In this paper we report on the results of a magnitude estimation task investigating variation in entrenchment, both between units and across individuals. Interesting discrepancies were found between corpus frequencies and the participants' assessments of unit status, as well as substantial differences between individuals. These results are important with respect to usage-based theories of language, as they contribute to a more precise account of basic assumptions regarding the relative importance of the factor frequency in shaping linguistic representations and in giving rise to variation across speakers.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.