Recent years have seen a heightened interest in the interface between language use and cognition in language learners. In this study, we investigate this interface further by conducting a rating task experiment on the intuitions of 25 native speakers and 101 low–intermediate to advanced learners of English as a Foreign Language regarding the acceptability of the genitive variants (the beauty of nature/nature’s beauty) in different contexts. These ratings were then compared against existing corpus-based statistical models that predict which variant is most likely in spoken language use with two mixed-effects linear regression models. The first model focused on the animacy of the possessor in particular, which has been found to have a different effect on native speakers and EFL learners in language use, whereas the second model tested how the ratings relate to the predictions as a whole. Results show that there is a larger discrepancy between language use and intuitions of low-proficiency learners compared to native speakers, which is partially because animate, collective, and inanimate possessors affect the intuitions and the language use of learners differently.

It is widely accepted that internal constraints on variation are not modulated by social and stylistic factors (e.g., Labov, 2010:265). Is this also true for register differences as a special type of sociostylistic factor? To address this question, we investigate future temporal reference (FTR) variation in English (It'll be fun versus It's gonna be fun) via a variationist corpus study (n = 2,600 tokens) and a supplementary rating experiment (n = 114 participants) across four broad registers: conversations, parliamentary debates, blogs, and newspaper prose. Multivariate analysis of the corpus dataset indicates that register modulates the effect of five out of nine internal constraints, suggesting that variable grammars vary considerably across registers. The experiment confirms that language users are indeed sensitive to, and aware of, the register-specificity of how variation is conditioned. We conclude by discussing the implications of our findings for variationist sociolinguistics and for variational linguistics in general.