Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T08:48:14.610Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

1 - Comparing Syntactic Variables

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 January 2022

By
Sali A. Tagliamonte
Edited by
Tanya Karoli Christensen  and
Torben Juel Jensen
Tanya Karoli Christensen
Affiliation:
University of Copenhagen
Torben Juel Jensen
Affiliation:
University of Copenhagen
Get access

Summary

This chapter deconstructs and compares two English syntactic variables as case studies to explore the linguistic/social interface in variation. The two variables are: (1) complementizer alternation (that/Ø) and (2) subject relative pronoun alternation (who/that/Ø). While both are internally and externally conditioned, the nature and strength of the predictors (also known as factors) differ significantly. I argue that the results from quantitative linguistic analysis, statistical modelling and a comparative perspective grounded in social and historical context provide unique insight into the synergy of social, cognitive, stylistic and linguistic factors. In the case of complementizers, the overwhelming influence of verb is the linguistic footprint that a particular collocation (e.g. I think) has grammaticalized into an epistemic parenthetical away from the original matrix plus complement construction. In the case of relative pronouns, the preponderance of who for subject, animate antecedents aligns with a well-known typological pattern (i.e. human animates contrast with non-humans), which is overlain with social evaluation originating from its prestigious origins that endures in current usage in the speech community. In sum, interpreting the varying roles played by multiplex influences on linguistics features is key to understanding variation.

Keywords

sociosyntactic variationcomplementizer alternationrelative pronoun alternationlinguistic conditioningsocial conditioningsociohistorical contextEnglishmultivariate analysis
Type
Chapter
Information
Explanations in Sociosyntactic Variation , pp. 30 - 57
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

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

Ball, Catherine. 1996. ‘A Diachronic Study of Relative Markers in Spoken and Written English’. Language Variation and Change 8 (2): 227–58.Google Scholar
Beal, Joan C. and Corrigan, Karen P.. 2002. ‘Relatives in Tyneside and Northumbrian English’. In Relativization on the North Sea Littoral (LINCOM Studies in Language Typology), edited by Poussa, Patricia, 125–34. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Bell, Allan. 1984. ‘Language Style as Audience Design’. Language in Society 13 (2): 145–204.Google Scholar
Bell, Allan. 2002. ‘Back in Style: Reworking Audience Design’. In Style and Sociolinguistic Variation, edited by Eckert, Penny and Rickford, John R., 139–69. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas and Finegan, Edward. 1994. Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Register. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas and Finegan, Edward. 1997. ‘Diachronic Relations among Speech-Based and Written Registers in English’. In To Explain the Present: Studies in the Changing English Language in Honour of Matti Rissanen, edited by Rissanen, Matti, Nevalainen, Terttu and Kahlas-Tarkka, Leena, 253–75. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Brittain, Lewis. 1778. Rudiments of English Grammar. Louvain.Google Scholar
Cheshire, Jenny. 1996. ‘That Jacksprat: An Interactional Perspective on English That’. Journal of Pragmatics 25: 369–93.Google Scholar
Cheshire, Jenny, Adger, David and Fox, Sue. 2013. ‘Relative Who and the Actuation Problem’. Lingua 126 (1): 51–77.Google Scholar
Curme, George O. 1947. English Grammar. New York: Barnes and Noble.Google Scholar
D’Arcy, Alexandra and Tagliamonte, Sali A.. 2010. ‘Prestige, Accommodation and the Legacy of Relative who’. Language in Society 39 (3): 383–410.Google Scholar
D’Arcy, Alexandra and Tagliamonte, Sali A.. 2015. ‘Not Always Variable: Probing beneath the Vernacular Grammar’. Language Variation and Change 27 (3): 255–85.Google Scholar
Dekeyser, Xavier. 1986. ‘English Contact Clauses Revisited: A Diachronic Approach’. Folia Linguistica Historica 7: 107–20.Google Scholar
Denis, Derek. 2015. ‘The Development of Pragmatic Markers in Canadian English’. PhD Dissertation, Department of Linguistics, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Denison, David. 1998. ‘Syntax’. In The Cambridge History of the English Language, 1776–Present Day, edited by Romaine, Suzanne, 92–329. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Elsness, Johan. 1984. ‘That or Zero? A Look at the Choice of Object Clause Connective in a Corpus of American English’. English Studies 65: 519–33.Google Scholar
Gadanidis, Timothy, Nicole Hildebrand-Edgar, Angelika Kiss, Lex Konnelly, Pabst, Katharina, Schlegl, Lisa, Umbal, Pocholo and Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2021. ‘Integrating Qualitative and Quantitative Analyses of Stance: A Case Study of English That/Zero Variation’. Language in Society: 1–24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404521000671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grondelaers, Stefan and Speelman, Dirk. 2007. ‘A Variationist Account of Constituent Ordering in Presentative Sentences in Belgian Dutch’. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 3: 161–93.Google Scholar
Grondelaers, Stefan, Speelman, Dirk, Drieghe, Denis, Brysbaert, Marc and Geeraerts, Dirk. 2009. ‘Introducing a New Entity into Discourse; Comprehension and Production Evidence for the Status of Dutch Er “There” as a Higher-Level Expectancy Monitor’. Acta Psychologica 130: 153–60.Google Scholar
Guy, Gregory R. 1993. ‘The Quantitative Analysis of Linguistic Variation’. In American Dialect Research, edited by Preston, Dennis, 223–49. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Guy, Gregory R. and Bayley, Robert. 1995. ‘On the Choice of Relative Pronouns in English’. American Speech 70: 148–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinrichs, Lars, Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt and Bohmann, Axel. 2014. ‘Which-Hunting and the Standard English Relative Clause’. International Society for the Linguistics of English 3 [ISLE], Zurich, 24–7 August 2014.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney and Pullum, Geoffrey. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaeger, Florian. 2005. ‘Optional That Indicates Production Difficulty: Evidence from Disfluencies’. In Proceedings of DiSS’05, Disfluency in Spontaneous Speech Workshop. 10–12 September 2005, 103–8. Aix-en-Provencé: DELIC, Universite do Provencé.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto H. 1954. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. Part VI: Morphology. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Joseph, Brian. 2004. ‘Rescuing Traditional (Historical) Linguistics from Grammaticalization Theory’. In Up and Down the Cline: The Nature of Grammaticalization, edited by Fischer, Olga, Norde, Muriel and Perridon, Harry, 45–69. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kiesling, Scott F. 2009. ‘Style as Stance: Can Stance Be the Primary Explanation for Patterns of Sociolinguistic Variation?’ In Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Stance, edited by Jae, Alexandra, 171–94. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1963. ‘The Social Motivation of a Sound Change’. Word 19: 273–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. 1966. The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1969. ‘Contraction, Deletion, and Inherent Variability of the English Copula’. Language 45 (4): 715–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. 1972. ‘The Study of Language in Its Social Context’. In Sociolinguistic Patterns, edited by Labov, William, 183–259. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1994a. Principles of Linguistic Change, vol. 1: Internal Factors. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1994b. ‘The Study of Change in Progress: Observations in Apparent Time’. In Principles of Linguistic Change: Social Factors, edited by Labov, William, 43–72. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 2007. ‘Transmission and Diffusion’. Language 83 (2): 344–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey N. and Svartvik, Jan. 1975. A Communicative Grammar of English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Montgomery, Michael B. 1989. ‘The Standardization of English Relative Clauses’. In Standardizing English: Essays in the History of Language Change, in Honor of John Hurt Fisher, edited by Trahern, Joseph B., 111–38. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu and Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena. 2002. ‘The Rise of Relative Who in Early Modern English’. In Relativisation on the North Sea Littoral (LINCOM Studies in Language Typology), edited by Poussa, Patricia, 109–21. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu and Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena. 2003. Historical Sociolinguistics: Language Change in Tudor and Stuart England. London: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1982. ‘Complementizer-Trace Phenomena and the Nominative Island Constraint’. Linguistic Review 1: 297–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poplack, Shana and Tagliamonte, Sali A.. 2001. African American English in the Diaspora: Tense and Aspect. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph. 1957. ‘Relative Clauses in Educated Spoken English’. English Studies 38: 97–109.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey and Svartvik, Jan. 1972. A Grammar of Contemporary English. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffry and Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
R Core Team. 2007. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. www.r-project.org.Google Scholar
Rissanen, Matti. 1984. ‘The Choice of Relative Pronouns in 17th Century American English’. In Historical Syntax (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs, 23), edited by Fisiak, Jacek, 417–35. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Rissanen, Matti. 1991. ‘On the History of That/Zero as Object Clause Links in English’. In English Corpus Linguistics: Studies in Honour of Jan Svartvik, edited by Aijmer, Karin and Altenberg, Bengt, 272–89. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, Gunter. 1998. ‘Clausal Complementation and Cognitive Complexity in English’. In Anglistentag Erfurt, edited by Neumann, Fritz-Wilhelm and Schülting, Sabine, 101–12. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag.Google Scholar
Romaine, Suzanne. 1982. Socio-Historical Linguistics: Its Status and Methodology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sankoff, David, Tagliamonte, Sali A. and Smith, Eric. 2005. ‘Goldvarb X’. http://individual.utoronto.ca/tagliamonte/goldvarb.html.Google Scholar
Sankoff, Gillian, ed. 1980. The Social Life of Language. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Schilling, Natalie. 2013. Sociolinguistic Fieldwork. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Shnukal, Anna. 1981. ‘There’s a Lot Mightn’t Believe This …. Variable Subject Relative Pronoun Absence in Australian English’. In Variation Omnibus, edited by Sankoff, David and Cedergren, Henrietta R., 321–8. Edmonton, Alberta: Linguistic Research, Inc.Google Scholar
Sigley, Robert. 1997. ‘The Influence of Formality and Informality on Relative Pronoun Choice in New Zealand English’. English Language and Linguistics 1: 207–32.Google Scholar
Storms, G. 1966. ‘That-Clauses in Modern English’. English Studies 47: 249–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strobl, Carolin, Malley, James and Tutz, Gerhard. 2009. ‘An Introduction to Recursive Partitioning: Rationale, Application, and Characteristics of Classification and Regression Trees, Bagging, and Random Forests’. Psychological Methods 14 (4): 323–48.Google Scholar
Swan, Michael. 1995. Practical English Usage, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. 1998. ‘Was/Were Variation across the Generations: View from the City of York’. Language Variation and Change 10 (2): 153–91.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2002a. ‘Comparative Sociolinguistics’. In Handbook of Language Variation and Change, edited by Chambers, Jack K., Trudgill, Peter and Schilling-Estes, Natalie, 729–63. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2002b. ‘Variation and Change in the British Relative Marker System’. In Relativisation on the North Sea Littoral (LINCOM Studies in Language Typology), edited by Poussa, Patricia, 147–65. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2003–6. Linguistic Changes in Canada Entering the 21st Century. Research Grant. Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC). #410–2003–0005. http://individual.utoronto.ca/tagliamonte/research.html.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2006. Analysing Sociolinguistic Variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2012. Variationist Sociolinguistics: Change, Observation, Interpretation (Language in Society, 40). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2013. Roots of English: Exploring the History of Dialects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. and Baayen, R. Harald. 2012. ‘Models, Forests and Trees of York English: Was/Were Variation as a Case Study for Statistical Practice’. Language Variation and Change 24 (2): 135–78.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. and Smith, Jennifer. 2005. ‘No Momentary Fancy! The Zero ‘Complementizer’ in English Dialects’. English Language and Linguistics 9 (2): 1–21.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A., Smith, Jennifer and Lawrence, Helen. 2005. ‘No Taming the Vernacular! Insights from the Relatives in Northern Britain’. Language Variation and Change 17 (2): 75–112.Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra and Mulac, Anthony. 1991a. ‘The Discourse Conditions for the Use of the Complementizer That in Conversational English’. Journal of Pragmatics 15: 237–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra and Mulac, Anthony. 1991b. ‘A Quantitative Perspective on the Grammaticization of Epistemic Parentheticals in English’. In Approaches to Grammaticalization, edited by Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Heine, Bernd, 313–29. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Torres Cacoullos, Rena and Walker, James A.. 2009. ‘On the Persistence of Grammar in Discourse Formulas: A Variationist Study of That’. Linguistics 47 (1): 1–43.Google Scholar
Tottie, Gunnel. 1995. ‘The Man Ø I Love: An Analysis of Factors Favouring Zero Relatives in Written British and American English’. In Studies in Anglistics (Stockholm Studies in English), edited by Melchers, Gunnel and Warren, Beatrice, 201–15. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.Google Scholar
Tottie, Gunnel and Harvie, Dawn. 2000. ‘It’s All Relative: Relativization Strategies in Early African American English’. In The English History of African American English, edited by Poplack, Shana, 198–230. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Warner, Anthony. 1982. Complementation in Middle English and the Methodology of Historical Syntax. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel, Labov, William and Herzog, Marvin. 1968. ‘Empirical Foundations for a Theory of Language Change’. In Directions for Historical Linguistics, edited by Lehmann, Winfred P. and Malkiel, Yakov, 95–188. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Wolfram, Walt. 1993. ‘Identifying and Interpreting Variables’. In American Dialect Research, edited by Preston, Dennis, 193–221. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×