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-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-31T23:49:45.723Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 7 - Social Constraints on Syntactic Variation

The Role of Gender in Jamaican English Ditransitive Constructions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 December 2020

By
Melanie Röthlisberger
Edited by
Tobias Bernaisch
Tobias Bernaisch
Affiliation:
Justus-Liebig-Universität Giessen, Germany
Get access

Summary

The present study explores the effect of speakers’ gender in the well-known dative alternation (e.g. Mary gives John an apple vs. Mary gives an apple to John) and weighs the impact of this language-external factor against language-internal factors such as length of the constituents or semantics of the verb. Following up on previous research that explored the dative alternation across nine varieties of English, the focus of the present work will be on Jamaican English, a variety where male and female speakers seem to use the two variants differently. 615 variable dative tokens of acrolectal Jamaican English speech were annotated for eleven language-internal and three language-external factors and subjected to conditional random forest and mixed-effects logistic regression analyses. The results of these analyses indicate that the predictor gender plays only a marginal role vis-à-vis other language-external and -internal constraints. At the same time, if only the two most important language-internal predictors are considered, gender turns out to significantly affect dative choice with male speakers preferring the prepositional variant more than female speakers. These results not only highlight the potential of syntactic alternations to serve as sociolinguistic variables but also point to possibly different social dynamics between male and female speakers in Jamaica.

Keywords

Jamaican Englishdative alternationconditional random forestmixed-effects logistic regressionsocial roleslanguage contactWorld Englishesgendercorpus linguisticsmultifactorial statistics
Type
Chapter
Information
Gender in World Englishes , pp. 147 - 175
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

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

Baayen, R. Harald. 2008. Analyzing Linguistic Data: A Practical Introduction to Statistics Using R. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barth, Danielle and Kapatsinski, Vsevolod. 2014. ‘A multimodel inference approach to categorical variant choice: construction, priming and frequency effects on the choice between full and contracted forms of am, are and is’, Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 13(2): 203–260.Google Scholar
Bates, Douglas, Mächler, Martin, Bolker, Benjamin M. and Walker, Steve. 2015. ‘Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4’, Journal of Statistical Software 67(1): 1–48.Google Scholar
Belsley, David A., Kuh, Edwin and Welsch, Roy E. 1980. Regression Diagnostics: Identifying Influential Data and Sources of Collinearity. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Bernaisch, Tobias, Gries, Stefan Th. and Mukherjee, Joybrato. 2014. ‘The dative alternation in South Asian English(es): modelling predictors and predicting prototypes’, English World-Wide 35(1): 7–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Branigan, Holly P., Pickering, Martin J. and Cleland, Alexandra. 2000. ‘Syntactic co-ordination in dialogue’, Cognition 75(2): B13–B25.Google Scholar
Breiman, Leo. 2001. ‘Random forests’, Machine Learning 45: 5–32.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan and Ford, Marilyn. 2010. ‘Predicting syntax: processing dative constructions in American and Australian varieties of English’, Language 86(1): 168–213.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan and Hay, Jennifer. 2008. ‘Gradient grammar: an effect of animacy on the syntax of give in New Zealand and American English’, Lingua 118(2): 245–59.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, Cueni, Anna, Nikitina, Tatiana and Baayen, R. Harald. 2007. ‘Predicting the dative alternation’. In Boume, Gerlof, Kraemer, Irene and Zwarts, Joost, eds. Cognitive Foundations of Interpretation. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science, 69–94.Google Scholar
Bruyn, Adrienne, Muysken, Pieter and Verrips, Maaike. 1999. ‘Double-object constructions in the creole languages: development and acquisition’. In DeGraff, Michel, ed. Language Creation and Language Change: Creolization, Diachrony and Development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 329–73.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2010. Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cheshire, Jenny. 2003. ‘Social dimensions of syntactic variation: the case of when clauses’. In Britain, David and Cheshire, Jenny, eds. IMPACT: Studies in Language and Society, Vol. 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 245–61.Google Scholar
Cheshire, Jenny, Chambers, Jack K., Trudgill, Peter and Schilling-Estes, Natalie. 2002. ‘Sex and gender in variationist research’. In Chambers, Jack K. and Schilling-Estes, Natalie, eds. The Handbook of Language Variation and Change. Malden: Blackwell, 423–43Google Scholar
De Cuypere, Ludovic and Verbeke, Saartje. 2013. ‘Dative alternation in Indian English: a corpus-based analysis’, World Englishes 32(2): 169–84.Google Scholar
DeCamp, David. 1961. ‘Social and geographical factors in Jamaican dialects’. In Le Page, Robert B., ed. Creole Language Studies, Vol. 2. London: Macmillan, 61–84.Google Scholar
DeCamp, David. 1971. ‘Toward a generative analysis of a post-creole speech continuum’. In Hymes, Dell, ed. Pidginization and Creolization of Languages. Cambridge University Press, 349–70.Google Scholar
Deshors, Sandra C. (ed.). 2018. Modeling World Englishes: Assessing the Interplay of Emancipation and Globalization of ESL Varieties. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Deuber, Dagmar. 2009. ‘“The English we speaking”: morphological and syntactic variation in educated Jamaican speech’, Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 24(1): 1–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deuber, Dagmar. 2014. English in the Caribbean: Variation, Style and Standards in Jamaica and Trinidad. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Farquharson, Joseph T. 2013. ‘Jamaican structure dataset’. In Michaelis, Susanne Maria, Maurer, Philippe, Haspelmath, Martin and Huber, Magnus, eds. Atlas of Pidgin and Creole Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Retrieved from http://apics-online.info/contributions/8.Google Scholar
Ferguson, Charles A. 1959. ‘Diglossia’, WORD 15(2): 325–40.Google Scholar
Fox, John. 2003. ‘Effect displays in R for generalised linear models’, Journal of Statistical Software 8(15): 1–27.Google Scholar
Garretson, Gregory, O’Connor, M. Catherine, Skarabela, Barbora and Hogan, Marjorie. 2004. ‘Coding practices used in the project “Optimality Typology of Determiner Phrases”’ (Manuscript). Retrieved from http://npcorpus.edu/documentation/index.html.Google Scholar
Grafmiller, Jason. 2014. ‘Variation in English genitives across modality and genres’, English Language and Linguistics 18(3): 471–96.Google Scholar
Grafmiller, Jason and Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2018. ‘Mapping out particle placement in varieties of English: a study in comparative sociolinguistic analysis’, Language Variation and Change 30(3): 385–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grafmiller, Jason, Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt, Röthlisberger, Melanie and Heller, Benedikt. 2018. ‘General introduction: a comparative perspective on probabilistic variation in grammar’, Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 3(1): 1–10.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. and Wulff, Stefanie. 2005. ‘Do foreign language learners also have constructions? Evidence from priming, sorting, and corpora’, Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 3: 182–200.Google Scholar
Heller, Benedikt, Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt and Grafmiller, Jason. 2017. ‘Stability and fluidity in syntactic variation world-wide: the genitive alternation across varieties of English’, Journal of English Linguistics 45(1): 3–27.Google Scholar
Hinrichs, Lars and Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2007. ‘Recent changes in the function and frequency of Standard English genitive constructions: a multivariate analysis of tagged corpora’, English Language and Linguistics 11(3): 437–74.Google Scholar
Hinrichs, Lars and White-Sustaíta, Jessica. 2011. ‘Global Englishes and the sociolinguistics of spelling: a study of Jamaican blog and email writing’, English World-Wide 32(1): 46–73.Google Scholar
Hinrichs, Lars, Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt and Bohmann, Axel. 2015. ‘Which-hunting and the Standard English relative clause’, Language 91(4): 806–36.Google Scholar
Hothorn, Torsten, Buehlmann, Peter, Dudoit, Sandrine, Molinaro, Annette and Van Der Laan, Mark. 2006. ‘Survival ensembles’, Biostatistics 7(3): 355–73.Google Scholar
Irvine, G. Alison. 2004. ‘A good command of the English language: phonological variation in the Jamaican acrolect’, Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 19(1): 41–76.Google Scholar
Irvine, G. Alison. 2008. ‘Contrast and convergence in Standard Jamaican English: the phonological architecture of the standard in an ideologically bidialectal community’, World Englishes 27(1): 9–25.Google Scholar
Irvine-Sobers, G. Alison. 2018. The Acrolect in Jamaica: The Architecture of Phonological Variation. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Janitza, Silke, Strobl, Carolin and Boulesteix, Anne-Laure. 2013. ‘An AUC-based permutation variable importance measure for random forests’, BMC Bioinformatics 14(119): 1–11.Google Scholar
Jankowski, Bridget L. and Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2014. ‘On the genitive’s trail: data and method from a sociolinguistic perspective’, English Language and Linguistics 18(2): 305–29.Google Scholar
Jantos, Susanne. 2010. ‘Agreement in educated Jamaican English: a corpus-based study of spoken usage in ICE-Jamaica’. In Dorgeloh, Heidrun and Wanner, Anja, eds. Syntactic Variation and Genre, Vol. 70. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 305–32.Google Scholar
Jenset, Gard B., McGillivray, Barbara and Rundell, Michael. 2018. ‘The dative alternation revisited: fresh insights from contemporary British spoken data’. In Brezina, Vaclav, Love, Robbie and Aijmer, Karin, eds. Corpus Approaches to Contemporary British Speech: Sociolinguistic Studies of the Spoken BNC2014. New York: Routledge, 185–208.Google Scholar
Koch, Peter and Oesterreicher, Wulf. 1985. ‘Sprache der Nähe – Sprache der Distanz: Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit im Spannungsfeld von Sprachtheorie und Sprachgeschichte’. In Deutschmann, Olaf, Flasche, Hans, König, Bernhard, Kruse, Margot, Pabst, Walter and Stempel, Wolf-Dieter, eds. Romanistisches Jahrbuch, Vol. 36. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 15–43.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Max. 2016. caret: Classification and Regression Training [Software].Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1966. The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1972. Sociolinguistic Patterns. University of Philadelphia Press.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 2001. Principles of Linguistic Change, Vol. 2: Social Factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lavandera, Beatriz. 1978. ‘Where does the sociolinguistic variable stop?’, Language in Society 7(2): 171–83.Google Scholar
Lawton, David. 1980. ‘Language attitude, discreteness, and code-shifting in Jamaican Creole’, English World-Wide 1(2): 211–26.Google Scholar
Levshina, Natalia. 2015. How to Do Linguistics with R: Data Exploration and Statistical Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, Brian. 1997. ‘Second language acquisition and the Competition Model’. In De Groot, Anette M. B. and Kroll, Judith F., eds. Tutorials in Bilingualism: Psycholinguistic Perspectives. Mahawa, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 113–42.Google Scholar
Mair, Christian. 2002. ‘Creolisms in an emergent standard: written English in Jamaica’, English World-Wide 23(1): 31–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mair, Christian. 2013. ‘The world system of Englishes: accounting for the transnational importance of mobile and mediated vernaculars’, English World-Wide 34(3): 253–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Faye. 1987. Acrolectal Jamaican English: Some Aspects of Phonological and Morpho-Syntactic Variation (Unpublished MPhil thesis). The University of the West Indies, Mona, Jamaica.Google Scholar
Patrick, Peter L. 1999. Urban Jamaican Creole: Variation in the Mesolect. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
R Core Team. 2017. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
Röthlisberger, Melanie. 2018. Regional Variation in Probabilistic Grammars: A Multifactorial Study of the English Dative Alternation (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.Google Scholar
Röthlisberger, Melanie, Grafmiller, Jason and Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2017. ‘Cognitive indigenization effects in the English dative alternation’, Cognitive Linguistics 28(4): 673–710.Google Scholar
Rosenfelder, Ingrid. 2009. Sociophonetic Variation in Educated Jamaican English: An Analysis of the Spoken Component of ICE-Jamaica (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.Google Scholar
Rosenfelder, Ingrid, Jantos, Susanne, Höhn, Nicole and Mair, Christian. 2009. Manual for the Jamaican Component (ICE-JA). University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.Google Scholar
Sand, Andrea. 1999. Linguistic Variation in Jamaica: A Corpus-Based Study of Radio and Newspaper Usage. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Sand, Andrea. 2005. Angloversals? Shared Morpho-Syntactic Features in Contact Varieties of English (Unpublished habilitation thesis). University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.Google Scholar
Sankoff, Gillian. 1973. ‘Above and beyond phonology in variable rules’. In Bailey, Charles-James N. and Shuy, Roger W., eds. New Ways of Analyzing Variation in English. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 44–62.Google Scholar
Schneider, Edgar W. 2007. Postcolonial English: Varieties around the World. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seoane, Elena. 2009. ‘Syntactic complexity, discourse status and animacy as determinants of grammatical variation in Modern English’, English Language and Linguistics 13(3): 365–84.Google Scholar
Shields, Kathryn. 1989. ‘Standard English in Jamaica: a case of competing models’, English World-Wide 10(1): 41–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strobl, Carolin, Boulesteix, Anne-Laure, Kneib, Thomas, Augustin, Thomas and Zeileis, Achim. 2008. ‘Conditional variable importance for random forests’, BMC Bioinformatics 9(307). Retrieved from www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2105/9/307.Google Scholar
Strobl, Carolin, Hothorn, Torsten and Zeileis, Achim. 2009. Party on! A New, Conditional Variable Importance Measure for Random Forests Available in the Party Package (Technical report). University of Munich, Munich, Germany.Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2006. Morphosyntactic Persistence in Spoken English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt, Grafmiller, Jason, Heller, Benedikt and Röthlisberger, Melanie. 2016. ‘Around the world in three alternations: modeling syntactic variation in varieties of English’, English World-Wide 37(2): 109–37.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2012. Variationist Sociolinguistics: Change, Observation, Interpretation. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2014. ‘A comparative sociolinguistic analysis of the dative alternation’. In Torres-Cacoullos, Rena, Dion, Nathalie and Lapierre, André, eds. Linguistic Variation: Confronting Fact and Theory. London: Routledge, 297–318.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. and Smith, Jennifer. 2005. ‘No momentary fancy! The zero in English dialects’, English Language and Linguistics 9(2): 289–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A., Durham, Mercedes and Smith, Jennifer. 2014. ‘Grammaticalization at an early stage: future be going to in conservative British dialects’, English Language and Linguistics 18(1): 75–108.Google Scholar
Tamaredo, Iván. 2018. ‘Pronoun omission in high-contact varieties of English: complexity versus efficiency’, English World-Wide 39(1): 85–110.Google Scholar
The Jamaican Language Unit. 2005. The Language Attitude Survey of Jamaica: Data Analysis. The University of the West Indies, Mona, Jamaica.Google Scholar
The Jamaican Language Unit. 2007. The Language Competence Survey of Jamaica: Data Analysis. The University of the West Indies, Mona, Jamaica.Google Scholar
Theijssen, Daphne, Bresnan, Joan, Ford, Marilyn and Boves, Lou. 2011. In a Land Far Far Away… A Probabilistic Account of the Dative Alternation in British, American, and Australian English (Manuscript).Google Scholar
Weiner, Judith and Labov, William. 1983. ‘Constraints on the agentless passive’, Journal of Linguistics 19(1): 29–58.Google Scholar
Winford, Donald. 1991. ‘The Caribbean’. In Cheshire, Jenny, ed. English around the World: Sociolinguistic Perspectives. Cambridge University Press, 565–84.Google Scholar
Winford, Donald. 1997. ‘Re‐examining Caribbean English Creole Continua’, World Englishes 16(2): 233–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolk, Christoph, Bresnan, Joan, Rosenbach, Anette and Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2013. ‘Dative and genitive variability in Late Modern English: exploring cross-constructional variation and change’, Diachronica 30(3): 382–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zuur, Alain F., Ieno, Elena N., Walker, Neil J., Saveliev, Anatoly A. and Smith, Graham M. 2009. Mixed Effects Models and Extensions in Ecology with R. New York: Springer.Google 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
×