Abstract In this paper, I discuss differences between representational change (i. e. in formal features and structures involved in grammatical competence) and change in quantitative patterns (i. e. in the quantitative properties of the language system in use), as relevant to my approach to incrementation. My approach differs from the standard variationist sociolinguistic approach because I argue that representational Language processing differences between children and adults could also contribute, but I set these aside here. Note that Biberaurer (this volume) also considers these relevant factors to the role of children in change. input-divergence Input-divergence (Cournane 2017) is used very broadly, as a way to capture any child language properties that deviate from the input model the child learns from. This includes what we standardly call child “errors”, without using that term, which assumes that there is a fixed target when learning a language and interim analyses are wrong. Rather “errors” are only such in comparison to the input/intake grammars, so I opt to call these “input-divergent” properties. along the child learning path contributes to quantitative differences between children and older speakers, most importantly the input speakers. In this way, the Inverted U Model (IUM) for incrementation offers an initial sketch of a linking theory between (a) child developmental findings for competence-related changes over acquisitional time in the individual, and (b) the change-in-progress phenomenon of incrementation which describes how usage rates for innovative variants advance relative to conservative variants in speakers in the community over generational time. Maximize Minimal Means (MMM), this volume similarly attributes a principled, creative role in change to the child-learner, offering a linking theory between (a), and (c), discrete changes in representations between grammars in historical time, grounded in Minimalism. I’ll also respond to Westergaard’s (this volume) argument that the IUM’s reliance on child overgeneralization conflicts with a set of linguistic phenomena for which directional, child-driven changes have been proposed, namely syntactic changes characterized by economy or simplification. In syntax, relative to common language change pathways (e. g. biclausal>monoclausal reanalyses), children typically acquire the (potentially) innovative grammatical structure earlier than the conservative one as they develop complexity (e. g. they develop from monoclausal>biclausal). It is indeed not clear how these child interim syntactic structures relate to overgeneralization, if at all. Rather, syntactic innovations are typically attributed to economy principles, and syntactic learning is sometimes characterized as conservative, also not obviously related to overgeneralization. I’ll show that neither economy in change nor child conservativity in syntactic development directly undermine the proposed model, as both are concerned with representational changes in grammars, not differences in quantitative patterns and changes-in-progress (the purview of incrementation and the IUM). Finally I will say a few words on the case study on Norwegian gender-system changes laid-out in Westergaard (this volume). These elicited production data are a valuable contribution to the roles of children in changes-in-progress, and while the data patterns conflict with some aspects of the IUM as proposed, the overall approach of Rodina and Westergaard is in line with a child-learning-centered contribution to the directionality and shape of changes-in-progress.

中文翻译：

---

变革理论中的语法表示与生产模式

摘要在本文中，我讨论了表征变化（即语法能力所涉及的形式特征和结构）与定量模式变化（即所用语言系统的定量特性）之间的差异，这与我的增量方法有关。我的方法与标准的变异主义社会语言学方法不同，因为我认为儿童和成人之间在代表性语言处理上的差异也可能有所贡献，但我将这些放在了一边。请注意，Biberaurer（本卷）还考虑了与儿童在变革中的角色有关的这些相关因素。输入差异输入差异（Cournane，2017年）非常广泛地用作一种捕获与孩子学习的输入模型不同的任何子语言属性的方法。这包括我们通常所说的儿童“错误”，而没有使用该术语，它假设学习语言时存在固定的目标，并且临时分析是错误的。相反，“错误”仅是与输入/输入语法相比，因此，我选择将其称为“输入差异”属性。沿儿童学习路径发展的行为会导致儿童与年龄较大的说话者（最重要的是输入说话者）之间的数量差异。通过这种方式，用于递增的反向U模型（IUM）提供了以下联系理论的初步概图：（a）儿童发育发现与个体获得能力中与能力相关的变化有关，（b）渐进式的变化现象，描述了随着社区的发展，创新型变体的使用率相对于社区言语中的保守变体如何提高。最大化最小均值（MMM），本卷同样将原则性的创新角色归因于儿童学习者，提供了（a）和（c）之间的联系理论，即历史上语法之间表示形式的离散变化，扎根于极简主义。我还要回应Westergaard（本卷）的论点，即IUM对儿童过度概括的依赖与一系列语言现象发生了冲突，针对这些现象提出了定向的，儿童驱动的变化，即以经济或简化为特征的句法变化。在语法上，相对于通用语言的更改途径（例如biclausal> 单子句重新分析），儿童通常会在发展复杂性时（例如，从单子句>双月经发展而来）比保守的语法结构更早地获得（潜在的）创新语法结构。确实尚不清楚这些儿童临时句法结构与过度概括的关系，如果有的话。而是，句法创新通常归因于经济原理，而句法学习有时被描述为保守的，也显然与过度概括并不相关。我将表明，改变的经济性和句法发展中的儿童保守性都不会直接破坏所提议的模型，因为两者都关注语法的代表性变化，而不是数量模式和进行中的变化之间的差异（增量和IUM的作用） ）。最后，我将对韦斯特尔加德（Westergaard）布局的挪威性别系统变化的案例研究说几句话（本卷）。这些获得的生产数据对儿童在进行中的变化中的作用做出了宝贵的贡献，尽管数据模式与提议的IUM的某些方面相冲突，但Rodina和Westergaard的总体方法与儿童学习相一致对变化的方向性和变化形式的集中贡献。