Russian Linguistics

, Volume 39, Issue 3, pp 283–308 | Cite as

Morphological variation and sensitivity to frequency of forms among native speakers of Czech



This article looks at inter-speaker variation in two environments: the genitive and locative singular cases of masculine ‘hard inanimate’ nouns in Czech, using a large-scale survey of native speakers that used two tasks to test their preferences for certain forms (acceptability) and their choices (gap filling). Our hypothesis that such variation exists was upheld, but only within limited parameters. Most biographical data (age, gender, education) played no role in respondents’ choices or preferences. Their region of origin played a small but significant role, although not the one expected. Relating the two types of tasks to each other, we found that respondents’ use of the ratings scale did not correlate to their choice of forms, but their overall strength of preference for one form over another did correlate with their choices. Inter-speaker variation does thus go some way to explaining the persistent diversity in this paradigm and arguably may contribute to its maintenance.


Absolute Frequency Judgement Task Czech Population Acceptability Judgement Genitive Case 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Морфологическая вариация и чувствительность к частотности форм у носителей чешского языка


Настоящая статья рассматривает вариацию между говорящими в двух средах: в родительном и предложном падежах единственного числа ‘твердых неодушевленных’ существительных мужского рода в чешском языке. Материалом исследования стал широкий опрос носителей чешского языка с целью проверки предпочтений и выбора используемых форм двумя тестами: оценками на шкале и выполнением пропусков. Наша гипотеза, заключающаяся в том, что такая вариация существует, была до некоторой степени подтверждена. Большинство биографических данных носителей (возраст, пол, образование) не играло роли в предпочтениях и выборе наших респондентов. Место происхождения, однако, играло небольшую, но существенную роль, хотя иную, чем мы ожидали. Соотнеся эти два типа задач между собой, мы пришли к выводу, что способ использования шкалы предпочтений не соответствовал выбору форм, зато общая тенденция в предпочтениях той или иной формы соответствовала выбору окончаний участниками анкеты. Таким образом, причины устойчивого разнообразия в этой парадигме частично объясняет вариативность в языке носителей, и есть основания полагать, что она является условием сохранения этого разнообразия.


  1. Baayen, R. H., Endresen, A., Janda, L. A., Makarova, A., & Nesset, T. (2013). Making choices in Russian: pros and cons of statistical methods for rival forms. Russian Linguistics, 37(3), 253–291. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bermel, N., & Knittl, L. (2012a). Morphosyntactic variation and syntactic constructions in Czech nominal declension: corpus frequency and native-speaker judgments. Russian Linguistics, 36(1), 91–119. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bermel, N., & Knittl, L. (2012b). Corpus frequency and acceptability judgments: a study of morphosyntactic variants in Czech. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 8(2), 241–275. doi: 10.1515/cllt-2012-0010. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bermel, N., Knittl, L., & Russell, J. (2014). Absolutní a proporcionální frekvence v ČNK ve světle výzkumu morfosyntaktické variace v češtině. Naše řeč, 97(4–5), 216–227. Google Scholar
  5. Borschev, V., & Partee, B. H. (2002). The Russian genitive of negation: theme-rheme structure or perspective structure? In J. E. Lavine & G. R. Greenberg (Eds.), A special volume in honour of Leonard H. Babby [Special issue]. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 10(1–2), 105–144. Google Scholar
  6. Brown, D. (2007). Peripheral functions and overdifferentiation: the Russian second locative. Russian Linguistics, 31(1), 61–76. doi: 10.1007/s11185-006-0715-5. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bybee, J. (2002). Word frequency and context of use in the lexical diffusion of phonetically conditioned sound change. Language Variation and Change, 14, 261–290. doi: 10.1017/S0954394502143018. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bybee, J. (2006). From usage to grammar: the mind’s response to repetition. Language, 82(4), 711–713. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Čermák, F. et al. (2005). SYN2005: a genre-balanced corpus of written Czech. Czech National Corpus Institute, Faculty of Arts, Charles University. Prague. Available at
  10. Český statistický úřad (2011). Zaostřeno na ženy a muže – 2011. Retrieved from (16 December 2014).
  11. Český statistický úřad (2013). Stav a pohyb obyvatelstva v ČR – v roce 2012 (předběžné výsledky). Retrieved from (16 December 2014).
  12. Český statistický úřad (2014). Souhrnná data o České republice (Obyvatelstvo podle dosaženého vzdělání). Retrieved from (16 December 2014).
  13. Cvrček, V. et al. (2010). Mluvnice současné češtiny. Praha. Google Scholar
  14. Dąbrowska, E. (2008). The effects of frequency and neighbourhood density on adult speakers’ productivity with Polish case inflections: an empirical test of usage-based approaches to morphology. Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 931–951. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2007.11.005. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dąbrowska, E. (2010). Naive v. expert intuitions: an empirical study of acceptability judgments. Linguistic Review, 27, 1–23. doi: 10.1515/tlir.2010.001. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Grepl, M. et al. (1996). Příruční mluvnice češtiny. Praha. Google Scholar
  17. Janda, L. A. (1996). Back from the brink. A study of how relic forms in languages serve as source material for analogical extension (LINCOM Studies in Slavic Linguistics, 1). Munich, Newcastle. Google Scholar
  18. Labov, W., Karen, M., & Miller, C. (1991). Near-mergers and the suspension of phonemic contrast. Language Variation and Change, 3, 33–74. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Matthews, W. K. (1967). Russian historical grammar (reprinted with corrections). London. Google Scholar
  20. Meillet, A. (1965). Le slave commun. Paris. Google Scholar
  21. Pierrehumbert, J. (1994). Knowledge of variation. In K. Beals et al. (Eds.), Papers from the 30th regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Volume 2: The parasession on variation in linguistic theory (pp. 232–256). Chicago. Google Scholar
  22. Rácz, P., Beckner, C., Hay, J. B., & Pierrehumbert, J. B. (2014). Rules, analogy, and social factors codetermine past-tense formation patterns in English. In Proceedings of the 2014 Joint Meeting of SIGMORPHON and SIGFSM, 27 June 2014. Baltimore, Maryland. Retrieved from (14 January 2014). Google Scholar
  23. Theakston, A. L. (2004). The role of entrenchment in children’s and adults’ performance on grammaticality judgment tasks. Cognitive Development, 19, 15–34. doi: 10.1016/j.cogdev.2003.08.001. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Vaillant, A. (1964). Manuel de vieux slave. Tome I: Grammaire. Paris. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The University of SheffieldSheffieldUK

Personalised recommendations