Volume 41, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0172-8865
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9730
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



Using comparative sociolinguistic methods, we probe the underlying mechanisms governing the variation between possessive determiners, , and the definite article, , in possessive contexts in two mainstream English varieties (Canadian and British English,  = 6,217). Results indicate is stable and pervasive, occurring approximately 30 percent of the time with personal domain possessed nouns. For some nouns, e.g. and occurs over 75 percent of the time. The records possessive as chiefly British, while Quirk et al. (1985: 271–272) observe that only low-status men use it; however, we find no difference between the UK and Canada, nor a significant gender or education effect in either dataset. When we model the variation between forms according to conceptions of ownership, we find an underlying system for encoding communal possession that transcends social categories and dialect: the more that possession is communal, the more is used.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Tagliamonte, Sali A.
    2000–2001Vernacular Roots: A Database of British Dialects. Research Grant. Arts & Humanities Research Board of the United Kingdom (AHRB) Research Grant. #041R00383.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. 2003–2006Linguistic changes in Canada Entering the 21st Century. Research Grant. Social Sciences & Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC). #410-2003-0005.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Abate, Frank
    ed. 1999The Oxford American Dictionary of Current English (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Alexander, Louis G.
    1988Longman English Grammar. Harlow: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Algeo, John
    2006British or American English? A Handbook of Word and Grammar Patterns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511607240
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511607240 [Google Scholar]
  6. Anthony, Laurence
    2005 “AntConc: Design and Development of a Freeware Corpus Analysis Toolkit for the Tenchinal Writing Classroom”. Proceedings of the International Professional Communication Conference (IPCC), 729–737.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 2006AntConc (Version 3.2.0). Tokyo: Waseda University https://www.laurenceanthony.net/software/antconc/.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Ayto, John
    1998The Oxford Dictionary of Slang. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Balley, Charles
    1926 “L’expression des idées de sphère personnelle et de solidarité dans les langues indoeuropéenes”. InFranz Frankhauser, and Jakob Jud, eds.Festschrift Louis Gauchat. Aarau: Sauerländer, 68–78.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Barber, Katerine
    ed. 2004The Canadian Oxford Dictionary (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Bates, Douglas M., Martin Maechler, Ben Bolker, and Steve Walker
    2015 “Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4”. Journal of Statistical Software67: 1–48. 10.18637/jss.v067.i01
    https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 [Google Scholar]
  12. Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad, and Edward Finegan
    1999The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Bright, James W.
    1917An Anglo-Saxon Reader (4th ed.). New York: Henry Holt & Company.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Chappell, Hilary and William McGregory
    1996 “Prolegomena to a Theory of Inalienability and Nominal Classification”. InHilary Chappell, and William McGregory, eds.The Grammar of Inalienability: A Typological Perspective on Body Part Terms and the Part-Whole Relation. Berlin: De Gruyter, 3–30. 10.1515/9783110822137.3
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110822137.3 [Google Scholar]
  15. D’Arcy, Alexandra and Sali A. Tagliamonte
    2015 “Not Always Variable: Probing the Vernacular Grammar”. Language Variation and Change27: 255–285. 10.1017/S0954394515000101
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394515000101 [Google Scholar]
  16. Dahl, Östen and Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm
    2001 “Kinship in Grammar”. InIrène Baron, Michael Herslund, and Finn Sørensen, eds.Dimensions of Possession. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 201–226. 10.1075/tsl.47.12dah
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.47.12dah [Google Scholar]
  17. Delport, Mary-France
    1996 “Alternation Between the Possessive and the Article in Spanish”. Cahiers de praxematique27: 35–56.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Deverson, Tony and Graeme Kennedy
    2005The New Zealand Oxford Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acref/9780195584516.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acref/9780195584516.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  19. Eastwood, John
    2002The Oxford Guide to English Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Filppula, Markku
    2002The Grammar of Irish English: Language in Hibernian Style. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203029381
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203029381 [Google Scholar]
  21. Fowler, Henry W.
    1998The New Fowler’s Modern Usage: Revised Edition (3rd ed.). Edited byRobert W. Burchfield. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Fruehwald, Josef and Joel C. Wallenberg
    2013 “Optionality Is Stable Variation is Competing Grammars”. Paper presented at25th Scandinavian Conference in Linguistics, University of Iceland.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Gardiner, Shayna and Naomi Nagy
    2017 “Stable Variation vs. Language Change and the Factors that Constrain Them”. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics: Selected Papers from New Ways of Analyzing Variation (NWAV 45)23: Article 10.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Grafmiller, Jason
    2014 “Variation in English Genitives across Modality and Genres”. English Language and Linguistics18: 471–496. 10.1017/S1360674314000136
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674314000136 [Google Scholar]
  25. Grannis, Oliver C.
    1972 “The Definite Article Conspiracy in English”. Language Learning22: 275–289. 10.1111/j.1467‑1770.1972.tb00088.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1972.tb00088.x [Google Scholar]
  26. Green, Jonathon
    2010Green’s Dictionary of Slang. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Haiman, John
    1985Natural Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Haspelmath, Martin
    1999 “External Possession in a European Areal Perspective”. InImmanuel Barshi, and Doris Payne, eds.External Possession. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 109–135. 10.1075/tsl.39.09has
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.39.09has [Google Scholar]
  29. Haspelmath, Martin, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher, and Wolfgang Raible
    eds. 2001Language Typology and Language Universals: An International Handbook. Vol.1. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110171549.2
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110171549.2 [Google Scholar]
  30. Hickey, Raymond
    2007Irish English: History and Present-Day Forms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511551048
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511551048 [Google Scholar]
  31. Hothorn, Torsten, Frank Bretz, and Peter Westfall
    2008 “Simultaneous Inference in General Parametric Models”. Biometrical Journal50: 346–363. 10.1002/bimj.200810425
    https://doi.org/10.1002/bimj.200810425 [Google Scholar]
  32. Hudson, Kenneth
    1977Dictionary of Diseased English. London: Macmillan. 10.1007/978‑1‑349‑04387‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-04387-3 [Google Scholar]
  33. Kellner, Leon
    1892Historical Outlines of English Syntax. London: Macmillan.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. König, Ekkehard and Martin Haspelmath
    1997 “Les constructions à possesseur externe dans les languages d’Europe”. InJack Feuillet, ed.Actance et valence dans les languages de l’Europe. Berlin: De Gruyter, 525–606.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Labov, William
    1966The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Washington: Center for Applied Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. 1990 “The Intersection of Sex and Social Class in the Course of Linguistic Change”. Language Variation and Change2: 205–254. 10.1017/S0954394500000338
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394500000338 [Google Scholar]
  37. 2001Principles of Linguistic Change. Vol 2: Social Factors. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. McColl Miller, Robert
    2007Northern and Insular Scots. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 10.3366/edinburgh/9780748623167.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.3366/edinburgh/9780748623167.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  39. McWhorter, John H.
    2002 “What Happened to English?”. Diachronica19: 217–272. 10.1075/dia.19.2.02wha
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.19.2.02wha [Google Scholar]
  40. Merriam-Webster Online
    Merriam-Webster Online. https://www.merriam-webster.com/ (accessed26 November, 2018).
  41. Moore, Bruce
    2004Australian Oxford Dictionary (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Nichols, Johanna
    1988 “On Alienable and Inalienable Possession”. InWilliam Shipley, ed.In Honor of Mary Haas: From the Haas Festival Conference on Native American Linguistics. Berlin: De Gruyter, 475–521. 10.1515/9783110852387.557
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110852387.557 [Google Scholar]
  43. 1992Linguistic Diversity in Space and Time. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226580593.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226580593.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  44. Procter, Paul
    ed. 2014Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English: For Advanced Learners (6th ed.). Harlow: Pearson Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Purves, David
    2002A Scots Grammar: Scots Grammar & Usage. Revised and extended edition. Edinburgh: Bell & Bain.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Quirk, Randolf and Charles L. Wren
    1957An Old English Grammar (2nd ed.). London: Methuen.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Quirk, Randolf, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartik
    1985A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. R Core Team
    R Core Team 2018R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing https://www.R-project.org.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Rosenbach, Anette
    2002Genitive Variation in English: Conceptual Factors in Synchronic and Diachronic Studies. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110899818
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110899818 [Google Scholar]
  50. Rupp, Laura and Sali A. Tagliamonte
    2019 ““They Used to Follow Ø River”: The Zero Article in York English”. Journal of English Linguistics47: 279–300. 10.1177/0075424219865933
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0075424219865933 [Google Scholar]
  51. Seiler, Hansjakob
    1983Possession as an Operational Dimension of Language. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Seržant, Ilja A.
    2016 “External Possession and Constructions: That May Have It”. STUF – Language Typology and Universals69: 131–169.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Stevenson, Angus
    ed. 2010Oxford Dictionary of English (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Stevenson, Angus, and Christine A. Lindberg
    eds. 2010New Oxford American Dictionary (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acref/9780195392883.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acref/9780195392883.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  55. Strobl, Carolin, James Malley, and Gerhard Tutz
    2009 “An Introduction to Recursive Partitioning: Rationale, Application, and Characteristics of Classification and Regression Trees, Bagging, and Random Forests”. Psychological Methods14: 323–348. 10.1037/a0016973
    https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016973 [Google Scholar]
  56. Strobl, Carolin, Annle-Laure Boulesteix, Achim Zeileis, and Torsten Hothorn
    2007 “Bias in Random Forest Variable Importance Measures: Illustrations, Sources, and a Solution”. BMC Bioinformatics8: Article 25. 10.1186/1471‑2105‑8‑25
    https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-8-25 [Google Scholar]
  57. Swan, Michael
    1996Practical English Usage: International Student’s Edition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Tagliamonte, Sali A.
    2012Variationist Sociolinguistics: Change, Observation, Interpretation. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Tagliamonte, Sali A. and R. Harald Baayen
    2012 “Models, Forests, and Trees of York English: Was/Were Variation as a Case Study for Statistical Practice”. Language Variation and Change24: 135–178. 10.1017/S0954394512000129
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394512000129 [Google Scholar]
  60. Tagliamonte, Sali A. and Rebecca Roeder
    2009 “Variation in the English Definite Article: Socio-Historical Linguistics in t’Speech Community”. Journal of Sociolinguistics13: 435–471. 10.1111/j.1467‑9841.2009.00418.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9841.2009.00418.x [Google Scholar]
  61. Todd, Loreto and Ian Hancock
    1986International English Usage. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Tomaschek, Fabian, Peter Hendrix, and R. Harald Baayen
    2018 “Strategies for Addressing Collinearity in Multivariate Linguistic Data”. Journal of Phonetics71: 249–267. 10.1016/j.wocn.2018.09.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2018.09.004 [Google Scholar]
  63. Traugott, Elizabeth C.
    1999 “Syntax”. InSuzanne Romaine, ed.The Cambridge History of the English Language. Vol.4: 1776–1997. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 168–289.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Trudgill, Peter
    1974The Social Differentiation of English in Norwich. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Uhlenbeck, Christianus Cornelius
    1917 “Het Identificeerend Karakter der Possessieve Flexie in Talen van Noord-Amerika”. Verslagen en Mededeelingen der Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen, Afdeeling Letterkunde5: 345–376.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Van Valin, Robert D., Jr. and Randy J. LaPolla
    1997Syntax: Structure, Meaning and Function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139166799
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139166799 [Google Scholar]
  67. Wallenberg, Joel C.
    2013 “A Unified Theory of Stable Variation, Syntactic Optionality, and Syntactic Change”. Paper presented at the15th Diachronic Generative Syntax Conference, University of Ottawa.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Wolk, Christoph, Joan Bresnan, Anette Rosenbach, and Benedikt Szmrecsanyi
    2013 “Dative and Genitive Variability in Late Modern English: Exploring Cross-Constructional Variation and Change”. Diachronica30: 382–419. 10.1075/dia.30.3.04wol
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.30.3.04wol [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error