Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T14:20:35.492Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sociolinguistic patterns in grammaticalization: He, they, and those in human indefinite reference

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2008

Mikko Laitinen
Mikko Laitinen
Affiliation:
University of Helsinki
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Sociolinguistic patterns in language change are largely based on generalizations from linguistic variables consisting of lexemes or morphemes. This article takes a diachronic, corpus-based approach to the diffusion of a change in a more extensive morphosemantic function consisting of several linguistic subsystems. It focuses on the pronoun variants he, they, and those used for human indefiniteness in two contexts: (a) epicene anaphoric uses with indefinite pronouns and (b) cataphoric personal references. The quantitative corpus analyses show that the pronoun selection in Early and Late Modern English developed a greater tendency to use one pronoun type over the other in both contexts. The main data come from the Corpus of Early English Correspondence and its Extension. Statistical analyses compare the observed correlations of the pronouns with a set of social, external variables and language-internal factors. This article concludes that it is possible to establish sociolinguistic patterns in larger shifts if we account for the closely related internal developments in the language.

Type
Research Article
Information
Language Variation and Change , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , March 2008 , pp. 155 - 185
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Bailey, Guy, Maynor, Natalie, & Cukor-Avila, Patricia. (1989). Variation in subject-verb concord in Early Modern English. Language Variation and Change 1:258–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baranowski, Maciej. (2002). Current usage of the epicene pronoun in written English. Journal of Sociolinguistics 6 (3):378–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baron, Dennis E.. (1986). Grammar and gender. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan, & Finegan, Edward. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Bodine, Ann. (1990). Androcentrism in prescriptive grammar: Singular “they,” sex-indefinite “he,” and “he or she.” In Cameron, Deborah (ed.), The feminist critique of language: A reader. London: Routledge. 166–186.Google Scholar
Chambers, J. K. (2003). Sociolinguistic theory: Linguistic variation and its social significance. 2nd ed.Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. (1986). Markedness, grammar, people and the world. In Eckman, Fred R., Moravcsik, Edith A., & Wirth, Jessica R. (eds.), Markedness. New York: Plenum Press. 85–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, William. (2003). Typology and universals. 2nd ed.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Curzan, Anne. (2003). Gender shifts in the history of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dekeyser, Xavier. (1975). Number and case relations in 19th century British English. A comparative study of grammar and usage. Antwerp, Belgium: Nederlandsche Boekhandel.Google Scholar
Dekeyser, Xavier. (1984). Relativizers in Early Modern English. In Fisiak, Jacek (ed.), Historical syntax. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 61–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denison, David. (2005). Syntactic surprises in some English letters: The underlying progress of the language. Plenary paper presented at Language History from Below: Linguistic Variation in the Germanic Languages 1700–2000, University of Bristol, April 7, 2005.Google Scholar
Finegan, Edward, & Biber, Douglas. (1994). Register and social dialect variation: An integrated approach. In Biber, Douglas & Finegan, Edward (eds.), Sociolinguistic perspectives in register. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 315–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerner, Jürgen. (2000). Singular and plural anaphors of indefinite personal pronouns in spoken British English. In Kirk, John M. (ed.), Corpora galore. Analyses and techniques in describing English. Papers from the nineteenth International Conference on English Language Research on Computerised Corpora (ICAME 1998). Amsterdam: Rodopi. 93–114.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. (2003). Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7 (5):219–224.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Halliday, M. A. K. (2001). An introduction to functional grammar. 3rd ed. (Revised by Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M.). London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. (2004). Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hernández-Campoy, Juan Manuel, & Conde-Silvestre, Juan Camilo. (2005). Sociolinguistic and geolinguistic approaches to the historical diffusion of linguistic innovations: Incipient standardisation in Late Middle English. International Journal of English Studies 5 (1):101–134.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney, & Pullum, Geoffrey K. (2002). The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janda, Richard D. (2001). Beyond “pathways” and “unidirectionality”: On the discontinuity of language transmission and the counterability of grammaticalization. Language Sciences 23:265–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. (1949). A Modern English grammar on historical principles. Part III: Syntax. Vol. 2. London: George Allen & Unwin; Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Kirby, J.. (1746) A new English grammar. Menston, UK: Scolar Press.Google Scholar
Kytö, Merja. (1996). Manual to the diachronic part of the Helsinki Corpus of English Texts. Coding conventions and the lists of source texts. 3rd ed.Helsinki: University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
Labov, William. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press.Google Scholar
Labov, William. (1994). Principles of linguistic change. Internal factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Labov, William. (2001). Principles of linguistic change. Social factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Laitinen, Mikko. (2002). Singular he and plural they in indefinite anaphora in written present-day English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 7 (2):137–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laitinen, Mikko. (2006). Expressing human indefiniteness in English: Typology and markedness of pronouns. In Nevalainen, Terttu, Klemola, Juhani, & Laitinen, Mikko (eds.), Types of variation: Diachronic, dialectal and typological interfaces. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 203–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laitinen, Mikko. (forthcoming). Epicene he and they and the development of English indefinite expressions during the period 1500–1800. In Kahlas-Tarkka, Leena, McConchie, R. W., & Rissanen, Matti (eds.), The change of meaning and the meaning of change. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Milroy, James. (2005). Variability, language change, and the history of English. International Journal of English Studies 5 (1):1–11.Google Scholar
Milroy, James. & Milroy, Lesley. (1993). Mechanisms of change in urban dialects: The role of class, social network and gender. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 3 (1):57–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milroy, Lesley. (2004). Off the shelf or under the counter? On the social dynamic of sound changes. Plenary paper presented at Studies in the History of the English Language (SHEL) 3, University of Michigan, May, 7 2004.Google Scholar
Murray, Lindley. (1795). English grammar. In Nelson, Gerald (ed.), Landmarks in English grammar. The eighteenth century. (CD-Rom.) London: University College London.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu. (1987). Change from above: A morphosyntactic comparison of two Early Modern English editions of the Book of common prayer. In Kahlas-Tarkka, Leena (ed.), Neophilologica Fennica. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique. 295–315.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu. (2000a). Gender differences in the evolution of standard English: Evidence from the Corpus of Early English correspondence. Journal of English Linguistics 28 (1):38–59.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu. (2000b). Processes of supralocalization and the rise of standard English in the Early Modern period. In Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo, Denison, David, Hogg, Richard M, & McCully, C. B. (eds.), Generative theory and corpus studies: A dialogue from 10 ICEHL. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 329–372.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu. (2004). Three perspectives on grammaticalization: Lexico-grammar, corpora and historical sociolinguistics. In Lindquist, Hans & Mair, Christian (eds.), Corpus approaches to grammaticalization in English. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 1–31.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu. (2006). Vernacular universals? The case of plural was in Early Modern English. In Nevalainen, Terttu, Klemola, Juhani, & Laitinen, Mikko (eds.), Types of variation: Diachronic, dialectal and typological interfaces. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 351–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu. & Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena. (1996). The corpus of Early English correspondence. In Nevalainen, Terttu & Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena (eds.), Sociolinguistics and language history. Studies based on the Corpus of Early English Correspondence. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 39–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu. (2003). Historical sociolinguistics: Language change in Tudor and Stuart England. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Palander-Collin, Minna. (1999). Grammaticalization and social embedding. I THINK and METHINKS in Middle and Early Modern English. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Paolillo, John C. (2001). Analyzing linguistic variation: Statistical models and methods. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Puttenham, George. (1589). The arte of English poesie. Reprinted 1968. Menston, UK: Scolar Press.Google Scholar
Rand, David, & Sankoff, David. (1990). GoldVarb version 2: A variable rule application for the Macintosh. Montréal: Centre de recherches mathématiques, Université de Montréal.Google Scholar
Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena. (1994). The development of the compound pronouns in -body and -one in Early Modern English. In Kastovsky, Dieter (ed.), Studies in Early Modern English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 301–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena. (2000). Which and the which in Late Middle English: Free variants? In Taavitsainen, Irma, Nevalainen, Terttu, Pahta, Päivi & Rissanen, Matti (eds.), Placing Middle English in context. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 209–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena. (2002). Stable variation and historical linguistics. In Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena, Nevala, Minna, Nurmi, Arja, & Rissanen, Matti (eds.), Variation past and present. VARIENG studies for Terttu Nevalainen. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique. 101–116.Google Scholar
Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena. (2005). The diffusion of subject you: A case study in historical sociolinguistics. Language Variation and Change 17 (1):55–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena, & Kahlas-Tarkka, Leena. (1997). Indefinite pronouns with singular human reference. In Rissanen, Matti, Kytö, Merja, & Heikkonen, Kirsi (eds.), Grammaticalization at work. Studies of long-term developments in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 17–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena, & Nevalainen, Terttu. (2007). Historical sociolinguistics: The Corpus of Early English correspondence. In Beal, J. C., Corrigan, Karen, & Moisl, Hermann (eds.), Creating and digitizing language corpora. Vol. 2: Diachronic databases. Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Rydén, Mats. (1966). Relative constructions in early sixteenth century English. With special reference to Sir Thomas Elyot. Uppsala, Sweden: Almqvist & Wiksells.Google Scholar
Schilling-Estes, Natalie. (2004). Investigating stylistic variation. In Chambers, J. K., Trudgill, Peter, & Schilling-Estes, Natalie (eds.), The handbook of language variation and change. Oxford: Blackwell. 375–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sundby, Bertil, Bjørge, Anne Kari, & Haugland, Kari E. (1991). A dictionary of English normative grammar. 1700–1800. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali. (1998). Was/were variation across the generations: View from the city of York. Language Variation and Change 10:153–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel, Labov, William, & Herzog, Marvin I. (1968). Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. In Lehmann, Winifred P. & Malkiel, Yakov (eds.), Directions for historical linguistics. Austin: University of Texas Press. 95–189.Google Scholar