Hostname: page-component-7f64f4797f-d7bbv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-11-03T12:54:52.575Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Independence claims in linguistics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2011

John C. Paolillo
John C. Paolillo
Affiliation:
Indiana University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Empirical work in linguistics often puts forward claims about the independence of two phenomena as substantive hypotheses. But, independence is always an assumption in the framework of empirical hypothesis testing, meaning independence claims are not empirically verifiable. Hence, they need to be regarded differently from truly empirical hypotheses within the substantive theories of which they are part. In this paper, a number of independence claims are illustrated, alongside their problematic consequences for empirically guided theorizing. Recommendations are made regarding the use of independence that should facilitate the empirical testing of substantive linguistic hypotheses.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language Variation and Change , Volume 23 , Issue 2 , July 2011 , pp. 257 - 274
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Aissen, Judith. (1997). On the syntax of obviation. Language 73(4):705–750.Google Scholar
Aissen, Judith. (2003). Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21:435–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aissen, Judith, & Bresnan, Joan. (2002a). Optimality and functionality: Objections and refutations. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20:81–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aissen, Judith, & Bresnan, Joan. (2002b). Harmonic alignment in morphosyntax: Subject selection. Course handout from Special Joint Summer School (Linguistic Society of America/Deutsche Gesellschaft für Sprachwissenschaft), Düsseldorf, Germany. 2002. Available at: http://www.phil-fak.uni-duesseldorf.de/summerschool2002/LNAissen1.pdf.Google Scholar
Anttila, Arto. (1997). Deriving variation from grammar. In Hinskens, F., van Hout, R., & Wetzels, L. (eds.), Variation, change and phonological theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 35–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, Dingare, Shipra, & Manning, Christopher D. (2001). Soft constraints mirror hard constraints: Voice and person in English and Lummi. In Butt, M. & T. King, H. (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG 01 Conference, 13–32. Stanford: CSLI Publications. http://csli-publications.stanford.edu/LFG/6/lfg01.htmlGoogle Scholar
Chung, Sandra. (1998). The design of agreement: Evidence from Chamorro. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Ellegård, Alvar. (1953). The Auxiliary do: The establishment and regulation of its use in English. In Behre, F. (ed.), Gothenburg studies in English. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.Google Scholar
Fasold, Ralph. (1991). The quiet demise of variable rules. American Speech 66(1):3–21.Google Scholar
Fong, Vivian, & Anttila, Arto. (2010). Variation and ambiguity. In Uyechi, L. & Wee, L.-H. (eds.), Reality exploration and discovery: Pattern interaction in language and life. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. 345–358.Google Scholar
Guy, Gregory. (1980). Variation in the group and in the individual. In Labov, W. (ed.), Language variation in space and time. New York: Academic Press. 1–36.Google Scholar
Jelinek, Eloise, & Demers, Richard A.. (1983). The agent hierarchy and voice in some Coast Salish languages. International Journal of American Linguistics 49:167–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kallel, Amel. (2007). The loss of negative concord in Standard English: Internal factors. Language Variation and Change 19(1):27–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroch, Anthony. (1989). Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change. Language Variation and Change 1(3):199–244.Google Scholar
Labov, William. (1994). Principles of linguistic change. Vol. 1. Internal factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
McCullagh, Peter, & Nelder, John A. (1989). Generalized linear models. 2nd ed.Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC.Google Scholar
Paolillo, John. (2002). Analyzing linguistic variation: Statistical models and methods. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Paolillo, John. (2010). Optimality theory as a probabilistic model. In Uyechi, L. & Wee, L.-H. (eds.), Reality exploration and discovery: Pattern interaction in language and life. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. 105–124.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan, & Smolensky, Paul. (1993). Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Center for Cognitive Science.Google Scholar
Rousseau, Pascale. (1989). A versatile program for the analysis of sociolinguistic data. In Fasold, R. & Schiffrin, D. (eds.), Language change and variation. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 395–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rousseau, Pascale, & Sankoff, David. (1978a). Advances in variable rule methodology. In Sankoff, D. (ed.), Linguistic variation: Models and methods. New York: Academic Press. 57–69.Google Scholar
Rousseau, Pascale, & Sankoff, David. (1978b). Singularities in the analysis of binomial data. Biometrika 65(3):603–608.Google Scholar
Sankoff, David, & Rousseau, Pascale. (1974). A method for assessing variable rule and implicational scale analyses of linguistic variation. In Mitchell, J. (ed.), Computers in the humanities. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 3–15.Google Scholar
Sankoff, David, & Rousseau, Pascale. (1980). Categorical contexts and variable rules. In Jacobson, S. (ed.), Papers from the Symposium on Scandanavian Syntactic Variation. Stockholm: Almkvist and Wiskell International. 7–22.Google Scholar
Sankoff, David, & Rousseau, Pascale. (1981). Echelles et regles. In Sankoff, D. & Cedergren, H. (eds.), Variation omnibus. Carbondale, IL: Linguistic Research, Inc. 257–269.Google Scholar
Sigley, Robert. (2003). The importance of interaction effects. Language Variation and Change 15:227–253.Google Scholar
Swets, John A. (1998). Separating discrimination and decision in detection, recognition and matters of life and death. In Scarborough, D. & Sternberg, S. (eds.), An invitation to cognitive science. Vol. 4. Methods, models and conceptual issues, 2nd ed.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 635–702.Google Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel, Labov, William, & Herzog, Martin. (1968). Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. In Lehman, W. & Malkiel, Y. (eds.), Directions for historical linguistics., 95-188. Austin: University of Texas Press. 95–188.Google Scholar