Book contents
- Explanations in Sociosyntactic Variation
- Studies in Language Variation and Change
- Explanations in Sociosyntactic Variation
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Series Editor’s Preface
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction: Analysing and Explaining Syntactic Variation
- 1 Comparing Syntactic Variables
- 2 Mapping Syntax and the Sociolinguistic Monitor
- 3 A Columbia School Perspective on Explanation in Morphosyntactic Variation
- 4 On the Inevitability of Social Meaning and Ideology in Accounts of Syntactic Change: Evidence from Pronoun Competition in Netherlandic Dutch
- 5 The Predictability of Social Stratification of Syntactic Variants
- 6 When Variants Lack Semantic Equivalence: Adverbial Subclause Word Order
- Index
- References
2 - Mapping Syntax and the Sociolinguistic Monitor
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 January 2022
Book contents
- Explanations in Sociosyntactic Variation
- Studies in Language Variation and Change
- Explanations in Sociosyntactic Variation
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Series Editor’s Preface
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction: Analysing and Explaining Syntactic Variation
- 1 Comparing Syntactic Variables
- 2 Mapping Syntax and the Sociolinguistic Monitor
- 3 A Columbia School Perspective on Explanation in Morphosyntactic Variation
- 4 On the Inevitability of Social Meaning and Ideology in Accounts of Syntactic Change: Evidence from Pronoun Competition in Netherlandic Dutch
- 5 The Predictability of Social Stratification of Syntactic Variants
- 6 When Variants Lack Semantic Equivalence: Adverbial Subclause Word Order
- Index
- References
Summary
Sociolinguistic research demonstrates that speakers are ‘aware’ of some variables in their speech patterns, but not others, as evidenced by, for example, style shifting. In explaining this bifurcation, Labov (1993, 2008) suggests that speakers have a sociolinguistic monitor where ‘members of the speech community evaluate the surface forms of language but not more abstract structural features’. However, determining which linguistic variables are ‘surface’ and which are more ‘abstract’ is far from clear. In this chapter we test the sociolinguistic monitor by comparing the use of two variables which are considered to be abstract structural features - negative concord and use of never for didn't. We compare the use of these forms across two datasets: one where community members are in conversation with a community insider and another with a community outsider. We find that there is style shifting according to interlocutor with negative concord but not with never for didn’t, suggesting that only the former is ‘monitored’ in the speech of this community. These findings suggest that social pressures override similarities across linguistic structure in the operation of the sociolinguistic monitor.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Explanations in Sociosyntactic Variation , pp. 58 - 89Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022
References
Adger, David and Smith, Jennifer. 2005. ‘Variation and the Minimalist Program’. In Syntax and Variation: Reconciling the Biological with the Social, edited by Cornips, Leonie and Corrigan, Karen P., 149–78. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Adger, David and Smith, Jennifer. 2010. ‘Variation in Agreement: A Lexical Feature-Based Approach’. Lingua 120 (5): 1109–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderwald, Liselotte 2005. ‘Negative Concord in British English Dialects’. In Aspects of English Negation, edited by Iyeiri, Yoko, 113–17. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ashby, William J. 1981. ‘The Loss of the Negative Particle ne in French: A Syntactic Change in Progress’. Language 57 (3): 674–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austin, Frances. 1984. ‘Double Negatives and the Eighteenth Century’. In English Historical Linguistics: Studies in Development, edited by Blake, Norman and Jones, Charles, 138–49. Sheffield: Centre for English Cultural Tradition and Language, University of Sheffield.Google Scholar
Barbiers, Sjef. 2009. ‘Locus and Limits of Syntactic Microvariation’. Lingua 119 (11): 1607–23.Google Scholar
Beal, Joan C. 1993. ‘The Grammar of Tyneside and Northumbrian English’. In Real English: The Grammar of English Dialects in the British Isles, edited by Milroy, James and Milroy, Lesley, 187–213. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Beal, Joan C. and Corrigan, Karen P.. 2005. ‘No, Nay, Never: Negation in Tyneside English’. In Aspects of English Negation, edited by Iyeiri, Yoko, 139–57. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bell, Allan. 1984. ‘Language Style as Audience Design’. In Sociolinguistics: A Reader and Coursebook, edited by Coupland, Nikolas and Jaworski, Adam, 240–50. New York: St Martin’s Press Inc.Google Scholar
Boudahmane, Karim, Manta, Mathieu, Antoine, Fabien, Galliano, Sylvain and Barras, Claude. 2008. ‘Transcriber: A Tool for Segmenting Labeling and Transcribing Speech’. http://trans.sourceforge.netGoogle Scholar
Campbell-Kibler, Kathryn. 2016. ‘Towards a Cognitively Realistic Model of Meaningful Sociolinguistic Variation’. In Awareness and Control in Sociolinguistic Research, edited by Babel, Anna M., 123–51. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chambers, Jack K. 1995. Sociolinguistic Theory: Linguistic Variation and Its Social Significance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Chambers, Jack K. 1998. ‘Social Embedding of Changes in Progress’. Journal of English Linguistics 26 (1): 5–36.Google Scholar
Cheshire, Jenny. 1982. Variation in an English Dialect: A Sociolinguistic Study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cheshire, Jenny. 1985. ‘English Never and the Problem of Where Grammars Stop’. Polyglot 6, Fiche 1.Google Scholar
Cheshire, Jenny. 1997. ‘Involvement in “Standard” and “Non-Standard” English’. In Taming the Vernacular: From Dialect to Written Standard Language, edited by Cheshire, Jenny and Stein, Dieter, 68–83. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Cheshire, Jenny. 1998. ‘English Negation from an Interactional Perspective’. In Negation in the History of English, edited by Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid, Tottie, Gunnel and van der Wurff, Wim, 29–53. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cheshire, Jenny, Kerswill, Paul and Williams, Ann. 2005. ‘Phonology, Grammar, and Discourse in Dialect Convergence’. In Dialect Change: Convergence and Divergence in European Languages, edited by Auer, Peter, Hinskens, Frans and Kerswill, Paul, 135–67. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Childs, Claire. 2017. ‘Integrating Syntactic Theory and Variationist Analysis: The Structure of Negative Indefinites in Regional Dialects of British English’. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 2 (1): 106.Google Scholar
Douglas-Cowie, Ellen. 1978. ‘Linguistic Code-Switching in a Northern Irish Village’. In Sociolinguistic Patterns in British English, edited by Trudgill, Peter, 37–51. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope. 2008. ‘Variation and the Indexical Field’. Journal of Sociolinguistics 12: 453–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, Viv. 1993. ‘The Grammar of Southern British English’. In Real English: The Grammar of English Dialects in the British Isles, edited by Milroy, James and Milroy, Lesley, 214–42. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Feagin, Crawford. 1979. Variation and Change in Alabama English: A Sociolinguistic Study of the White Community. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga. 1992. ‘Syntax’. In The Cambridge History of the English Language, vol 2: 1066–1476, edited by Blake, Norman, 207–408. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giannakidou, Anastasia. 2000. ‘Negative … Concord?’ Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18: 457–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giles, Howard. 1979. Language: Contexts and Consequences. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Godfrey, Elizabeth and Tagliamonte, Sali. 1999. ‘Another Piece for the Verbal-S Story: Evidence from Devon in Southwest England’. Language Variation and Change 11: 87–121.Google Scholar
Gould, Edward S. 1867. Good English; Or, Popular Errors in Language. New York: Armstrong and Son.Google Scholar
Greenwood, James. 1711. An Essay towards a Practical English Grammar. London: R. Tookey. (Reprint: Menston: Scolar Press, 1968).Google Scholar
Holmes-Elliott, Sophie. 2016. ‘Ladies First? Adolescent Peaks in a Male-Led Change: TH-Fronting in Southeast England’. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 22 (2), article 10.Google Scholar
Howe, Darin M. 1995. ‘Negation in Early African American English’. Master’s Thesis, University of Ottawa.Google Scholar
Howe, Darin M. 1997. ‘Negation and the History of African American English’. Language Variation and Change 9: 267–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howe, Darin M. and Walker, James A.. 2000. ‘Negation in Early African American English: A Creole Diagnostic?’ In The English History of African American English, edited by Poplack, Shana, 109–40. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hughes, Arthur and Trudgill, Peter. 1979. English Accents and Dialects: An Introduction to Social and Regional Varieties of British English. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Hundt, Marianne. 1998. New Zealand English Grammar – Fact or Fiction? A Corpus-Based Study in Morphosyntactic Variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Iyeiri, Yoko. 1999. ‘Multiple Negation in Middle English Verse’. In Negation in the History of English, edited by Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid, Tottie, Gunnel and van der Wurff, Wim, 121–46. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Jack, George. B. 1978. ‘Negation in Later Middle English Prose’. Archivum Linguisticum 9: 58–72.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1917. Negation in English and Other Languages. Copenhagen: Andre Høst and Sons.Google Scholar
Johnson, Daniel E. 2009. ‘Getting off the Goldvarb XE “Goldvarb” Standard: Introducing Rbrul for Mixed Effects Variable Rule Analysis’. Language and Linguistics Compass 3 (1): 359–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kortmann, Bernd. 2008. ‘Synopsis: Morphological and Syntactic Variation in the British Isles’. In Varieties of English, vol. 1: The British Isles, edited by Kortmann, Bernd and Upton, Clive, 478–95. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kortmann, Bernd and Lunkenheimer, Kerstin, eds. 2013. The Mouton World Atlas of Variation in English. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony S. 1989. ‘Function and Grammar in the History of English: Periphrastic Do’. In Language Change and Variation, edited by Fasold, Ralph and Schiffrin, Deborah, 133–72. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1972a. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1972b. ‘Negative Attraction and Negative Concord in English Grammar’. Language 48: 773–818.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1972c. Language in the Inner City: Studies in the Black English Vernacular. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1984. ‘Field Methods of the Project on Linguistic Change and Variation’. In Language in Use: Readings in Sociolinguistics, edited by Baugh, John and Sherzer, Joel, 28–54. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1993. ‘The Unobservability of Structure and Its Linguistic Consequences’. Paper presented at NWAV (New Ways of Analyzing Variation) 22, University of Ottawa, 16 October 1993.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1994. Principles of Linguistic Change, vol. 1: Internal Factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 2001. Principles of Linguistic Change, vol. 2: Social Factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 2008. ‘Is a Structural Dialectology Practical? Re-deploying Weinreich’s Approach to Diasystems’. In Evidence of Yiddish Documented in European Societies: The Language and Culture Atlas of Ashkenazi Jewry, edited by Herzog, Marvin, Kiefer, Ulrike, Neumann, Robert, Putschke, Wolfgang and Sunshine, Andrew, 217–30. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar
Labov, William, Ash, Sharon, Ravindranath, Maya, Weldon, Tracey, Baranowski, Maciej and Nagy, Naomi. 2011. ‘Properties of the Sociolinguistic Monitor’. Journal of Sociolinguistics 15 (4): 431–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levon, Eerez and Buchstaller, Isabelle. 2015. ‘Perception, Cognition, and Linguistic Structure: The Effect of Linguistic Modularity and Cognitive Style on Sociolinguistic Processing’. Language Variation and Change 27 (3): 319–48.Google Scholar
Lucas, Christopher and Willis, David. 2012. ‘Never Again: The Multiple Grammaticalization of Never as a Marker of Negation in English’. English Language and Linguistics 16: 459–85.Google Scholar
Macaulay, Ronald K. S. 1991. Locating Dialect in Discourse: The Language of Honest Men and Bonnie Lasses in Ayr. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mencken, Henry Louis. 1921. The American Language: An Inquiry into the Development of English in the United States, 2nd ed. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
Meyerhoff, Miriam and Walker, James A.. 2013. ‘An Existential Problem: The Sociolinguistic Monitor and Variation in Existential Constructions on Bequia XE “Bequia” (St. Vincent and the Grenadines)’. Language in Society 42: 407–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Jim and Brown, Keith. 1982. ‘Aspects of Scottish Syntax’. English World-Wide 3 (1): 3–17.Google Scholar
Milroy, James and Milroy, Lesley. 1993. Real English: The Grammar of English Dialects in the British Isles. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Muysken, Pieter. 2006. ‘Two Linguistic Systems in Contact: Grammar, Phonology and Lexicon’. In The Handbook of Bilingualism, edited by Bhatia, Tej K. and Ritchie, William C., 147–68. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu. 1998. ‘Social Mobility and the Decline of Multiple Negation in Early Modern English’. In Advances in English Historical Linguistics, edited by Fisiak, Jacek and Krygier, Marcin, 263–91. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey and Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Rickford, John and Mcnair-Knox, Faye. 1994. ‘Addressee- and Topic-Influenced Style Shift: A Quantitative Sociolinguistic Study’. In Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Register, edited by Biber, Douglas and Finegan, Edward, 235–76. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, Nicholas S. 2012. ‘Future Temporal Reference in Hexagonal French’. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 18 (2), article 12.Google Scholar
Schneider, Edgar W. 1989. American Earlier Black English: Morphological and Syntactic Variables. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Jennifer. 2001. ‘You Ø Na Hear O’ That Kind O’ Things: Negative Do in Buckie Scots’. English World Wide 21 (2): 231–59.Google Scholar
Smith, Jennifer. 2004. ‘Accounting for Vernacular Features in a Scottish Dialect: Relic, Innovation, Analogy and Drift’. In New Perspectives on English Historical Linguistics: Selected Papers from 12 ICEHL, Glasgow, 21–26 August 2002. Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science 1, edited by Kay, Christian, Horobin, Simon and Smith, Jeremy J., 177–93. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Smith, Jennifer. 2013–16. One Speaker, Two Dialects: Bidialectalism across the Generations in a Scottish Community. Swindon: Economic and Social Research Council.Google Scholar
Smith, Jennifer, Durham, Mercedes and Fortune, Liane. 2007. ‘“Mam, Ma Troosers Is Fa’in Doon!” Community, Caregiver and Child in the Acquisition of Variation in Scottish Dialect’. Language Variation and Change 19 (1): 63–99.Google Scholar
Smith, Jennifer, Durham, Mercedes and Richards, Hazel. 2013. ‘The Social and Linguistic in the Acquisition of Sociolinguistic Variation’. Linguistics 51 (2): 258–324.Google Scholar
Squires, Lauren (2016). ‘Processing Grammatical Differences: Perceiving versus Noticing’. In Awareness and Control in Sociolinguistic Research, edited by Babel, Anna, 80–103. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2011. Variationist Sociolinguistics: Change, Observation, Interpretation. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Thomas, Alan R. 1985. ‘Welsh English: A Grammatical Conspectus’. In Focus on England and Wales, edited by Viereck, Wolfgang, 213–21. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. 1972. A History of English Syntax: A Transformational Approach to the History of English Sentence Structures. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Viereck, Wolfgang. 1997. ‘On Negation in Dialectal English’. In Language History and Linguistic Modelling: A Festschrift for Jacek Fisiak on His 60th Birthday, edited by Hickey, Raymond and Puppel, Stanislav, 759–67. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Wagner, Suzanne E. and Sankoff, Gillian. 2011. ‘Age Grading in the Montréal French Inflected Future’. Language Variation and Change 23 (3): 275–313.Google Scholar
Weldon, Tracey. 1995. ‘Variability in Negation in African American Vernacular English’. Language Variation and Change 6: 359–97.Google Scholar
Wolfram, Walter. 1969. A Sociolinguistic Description of Detroit Negro Speech. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Wolfram, Walter and Christian, Donna. 1976. Appalachian Speech. Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar