1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Linguistic Variation
  4. Volume 16, Issue 2
  5. Article
The locus of linguistic variation
  • ISSN 2211-6834
  • E-ISSN: 2211-6842
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

The conventional methodology of variationist linguistics foregrounds the variable as the object of study: each variant is situated in the envelope of variation against the other variants it competes with. This paper argues that it is necessary to look beyond the context of the alternations a variant participates in in order to get a full picture of the factors affecting variation. The multi-functional variant is used as a case study to illustrate the value of a variant-centered analysis: the fact that several distinct variables are all simultaneously changing toward the variant suggests that a variant can be targeted for change across multiple variables, parallelling Campbell-Kibler (2011)’s model of the variant as the carrier of sociolinguistic meaning. It is conjectured that the set of changes toward can be explained as a top-down discursive change targeting as an indicator of vague literality, a function it retains in multiple distinct variable contexts.

© 2016 John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/lv.16.2.03din
2017-01-12
2023-03-23

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/lv.16.2.03din
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aaron, Jessi Elana
    2010 Pushing the envelope: Looking beyond the variable context. Language Variation and Change22. 1–36. doi: 10.1017/S0954394509990226
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394509990226 [Google Scholar]
  2. Andersen, Gisle
    2001 Pragmatic markers and sociolinguistic variation: A relevance-theoretic approach to the language of adolescents. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.84
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.84 [Google Scholar]
  3. Balistreri, Maggie
    2003 The evasion-English dictionary. New York: Melville House.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Blank, Andreas
    2003 Polysemy in the lexicon and in discourse. In Brigitte Nerlich , Zazie Todd , Vimala Herman , & David C. Clarke (eds.), PolysemyPolysemy: Flexible patterns of meaning in mind and language, 267–293. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110895698.267
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110895698.267 [Google Scholar]
  5. Blondeau, Hélène & Naomi Nagy
    2008 Subordinate clause marking in Montreal Anglophone French and English. In Miriam Meyerhoff & Naomi Nagy (eds.), Social lives in language – sociolinguistics and multilingual speech communities: Celebrating the work of Gillian Sankoff, 273–313. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/impact.24.18blo
     https://doi.org/10.1075/impact.24.18blo [Google Scholar]
  6. Boberg, Charles
    2005 The Canadian shift in Montreal. Language Variation and Change17. 133–154. doi: 10.1017/S0954394505050064
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394505050064 [Google Scholar]
  7. Brook, Marisa
    2014 Comparative complementizers in Canadian English: Insights from early fiction. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics20(2). 1–10.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Buchstaller, Isabelle
    2009 The quantitative analysis of morphosyntactic variation: Constructing and quantifying the denominator. Language and Linguistics Compass3(4). 1010–1033. doi: 10.1111/j.1749‑818X.2009.00142.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2009.00142.x [Google Scholar]
  9. 2013 Quotatives: New trends and sociolinguistic implications. Malden, MA: Wiley/Blackwell. doi: 10.1002/9781118584415
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118584415 [Google Scholar]
  10. Buchstaller, Isabelle & Erez Levon
    2014 Perception, cognition and linguistic structure: The effect of linguistic modularity and cognitive style on sociolinguistic processing. Paper presented at NWAV [New Ways of Analyzing Variation] 43, Chicago.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Campbell-Kibler, Kathryn
    2011 The sociolinguistic variant as a carrier of social meaning. Language Variation and Change22. 423–441. doi: 10.1017/S0954394510000177
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394510000177 [Google Scholar]
  12. Chambers, Jack & Peter Trudgill
    1980 Dialectology, 2d edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Cheshire, Jenny , Paul Kerswill , & Ann Williams
    2005 On the non-convergence of phonology, grammar, and discourse. In Peter Auer , Frans Hinskens , & Paul Kerswill (eds.), Dialect change: Convergence and divergence in European languages, 135–167. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Coupland, Nikolas
    2014 Sociolinguistic change, vernacularization, and British broadcast media. In Jannis Androutsopoulos (ed.), Mediatiazation and sociolinguistic change, 67–96. Berlin: De Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Crist, Sean Jacob
    2001 Conspiracy in historical phonology. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Dailey-O’Cain, Jennifer
    2000 The sociolinguistic distribution of and attitudes toward focuser like and quotative like. Journal of Sociolinguistics4(1). 60–80. doi: 10.1111/1467‑9481.00103
     https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9481.00103 [Google Scholar]
  17. D’Arcy, Alexandra Faith
    2005 Like: Syntax and development. Toronto: University of Toronto dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. D’Arcy, Alexandra
    2006 Lexical replacement and the like(s). American Speech81(4). 330–357. doi: 10.1215/00031283‑2006‑024
     https://doi.org/10.1215/00031283-2006-024 [Google Scholar]
  19. 2007 Like and language ideology: Disentangling fact from fiction. American Speech82(4). 386–419. doi: 10.1215/00031283‑2007‑025
     https://doi.org/10.1215/00031283-2007-025 [Google Scholar]
  20. 2008 Canadian English as a window to the rise of like in discourse. Anglistik19(2). 125–140.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. 2012 The diachrony of quotation: Evidence from New Zealand English. Language Variation and Change24. 343–369. doi: 10.1017/S0954394512000166
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394512000166 [Google Scholar]
  22. Diertani, Chaya Eliana Ariel
    2011 Morpheme boundaries and structural change: Affixes running amok. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Dines, Elizabeth R
    1980 Variation in discourse – “and stuff like that”. Language in Society9. 13–31. doi: 10.1017/S0047404500007764
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500007764 [Google Scholar]
  24. Drager, Katie K
    2011 Sociophonetic variation and the lemma. Journal of Phonetics39. 694–707. doi: 10.1016/j.wocn.2011.08.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2011.08.005 [Google Scholar]
  25. Ferrara, Kathleen & Barbara Bell
    1995 Sociolinguistic variation and discourse function of constructed dialogue introducers: The case of be + like. American Speech70(3). 265–290. doi: 10.2307/455900
     https://doi.org/10.2307/455900 [Google Scholar]
  26. Fuller, Janet M
    2003 Use of the discourse marker like in interviews. Journal of Sociolinguistics7(3). 365–377. doi: 10.1111/1467‑9481.00229
     https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9481.00229 [Google Scholar]
  27. Fruehwald, Josef
    2013 The phonological influence on phonetic change. Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Gordon, Matthew J
    2011 Methodological and theoretical issues in the study of chain shifts. Language and Linguistics Compass5(11). 784–794. doi: 10.1111/j.1749‑818X.2011.00310.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2011.00310.x [Google Scholar]
  29. Guy, Gregory R
    1991 Explanation in variable phonology: An exponential model of morphological constraints. Language Variation and Change3. 1–22. doi: 10.1017/S0954394500000429
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394500000429 [Google Scholar]
  30. Herold, Ruth
    1990 Mechanisms of merger: The implementation and distribution of the low back merger in eastern Pennsylvania. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Hock, Hans Heinrich
    1991 Principles of historical linguistics. Berlin: Mouton/de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110219135
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219135 [Google Scholar]
  32. James, Allan R
    1983 Compromisers in English: A cross-disciplinary approach to their interpersonal significance. Journal of Pragmatics7. 191–206. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(83)90052‑8
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(83)90052-8 [Google Scholar]
  33. Jespersen, Otto
    1942 A modern English grammar on historical principles. Part VI: Morphology. London: Allen and Unwin.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Jucker, Andreas H. & Sara W. Smith
    1998 And people just you know like wow: Discourse markersDiscourse markers as negotiation strategies. In Andreas H. Jucker & Yael Ziv (eds.), Discourse markersDiscourse markers: Description and theory, 171–201. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.57.10juc
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.57.10juc [Google Scholar]
  35. Kallen, Jeffrey L
    2013 Irish English, Volume 2: The Republic of Ireland. Berlin: de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9781614511298
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614511298 [Google Scholar]
  36. Kastronic, Laura
    2011 Discourse like in Quebec English. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics17(2). 105–114.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Labov, William
    1966 The linguistic variable as a structural unit. Washington Linguistics Review3. 4–22.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. 1972 Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. 1993 The unobservability of structure and its linguistic consequences. Paper presented atNWAVE [New Ways of Analyzing Variation in English]22, Ottawa.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. 2007 Transmission and diffusion. Language83(2). 344–387. doi: 10.1353/lan.2007.0082
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2007.0082 [Google Scholar]
  41. Labov, William , Sharon Ash , & Charles Boberg
    2006 Atlas of North American English: Phonetics, phonology, and sound change. Berlin: Mouton/de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Lavandera, Beatriz R
    1978 Where does the sociolinguistic variable stop? Language in Society7. 171–182. doi: 10.1017/S0047404500005510
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500005510 [Google Scholar]
  43. López-Couso, María José & Belén Méndez-Naya
    2012 On the use of as if, as though, and like in Present-Day English complementation structures. Journal of English Linguistics40(2). 172–195. doi: 10.1177/0075424211418976
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0075424211418976 [Google Scholar]
  44. 2015 Secondary grammaticalization in clause combining: From adverbial subordination to complementation in English. Language Sciences47B. 188–198. doi: 10.1016/j.langsci.2014.07.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2014.07.003 [Google Scholar]
  45. Macaulay, Ronald
    2001 You’re like “why not?”: The quotative expressions of Glasgow adolescents”. Journal of Sociolinguistics5(1). 3–21. doi: 10.1111/1467‑9481.00135
     https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9481.00135 [Google Scholar]
  46. MacKenzie, Laurel
    2013 Variation in English auxiliary realization: A new take on contraction. Language Variation and Change25. 17–41. doi: 10.1017/S0954394512000257
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394512000257 [Google Scholar]
  47. Maddeaux, Ruth & Aaron Dinkin
    . To appear. Is like like like?: Evaluating the same variant across multiple variables. Linguistics Vanguard.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Maguire, Warren , Lynn Clark , & Kevin Watson
    2013 Introduction: What are mergers and can they be reversed?English Language and Linguistics17(2). 229–239. doi: 10.1017/S1360674313000014
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674313000014 [Google Scholar]
  49. Mali, Taylor
    2002 Totally like whatever, you know?InWhat learning leaves. Newtown, CT: Hanover Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Metcalf, Allan
    2013 What’s not to like? Blog post for Lingua Franca, chronicle.com/blogs/linguafranca/2013/10/30/whats-not-to-like/. (Viewed25 November 2014.)
  51. Meyerhoff, Miriam
    2001 Dynamics of differentiation: On social psychology and cases of language variation. In Nikolas Coupland , Srikant Sarangi , & Christopher N. Candlin (eds.), Sociolinguistics and Social Theory, 61–87. London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Miller, Jim & Regina Weinert
    1995 The function of LIKE in dialogue. Journal of Pragmatics25. 365–393. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(94)00044‑F
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)00044-F [Google Scholar]
  53. Panman, Otto
    1982 Homonymy and polysemy. Lingua58. 105–136. doi: 10.1016/0024‑3841(82)90059‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(82)90059-6 [Google Scholar]
  54. Pichler, Heike
    2010 Methods in discourse variation analysis: Reflections on the way forward. Journal of Sociolinguistics14(5). 581–608. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑9841.2010.00455.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9841.2010.00455.x [Google Scholar]
  55. Poplack, Shana & Danielle Turpin
    1999 Does the Futur have a future in (Canadian) French?Probus11. 133–164. doi: 10.1515/prbs.1999.11.1.133
     https://doi.org/10.1515/prbs.1999.11.1.133 [Google Scholar]
  56. Rickford, John R. , Arnetha Ball , Renee Blake , Raina Jackson , & Nomi Martin
    1991 Rappin on the copula coffin: Theoretical and methodological issues in the analysis of copular variation in African-American Vernacular English. Language Variation and Change3. 103–132. doi: 10.1017/S0954394500000466
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394500000466 [Google Scholar]
  57. Romaine, Suzanne & Deborah Lange
    1991 The use of like as a marker of reported speech and thought: A case of grammaticalization in progress. American Speech66(3). 227–279. doi: 10.2307/455799
     https://doi.org/10.2307/455799 [Google Scholar]
  58. Ryan, Erin Gloria
    2011 My love affair with “like”. jezebel.com/5815628/my-love-affair-with-like. (Viewed2 December 2014.)
  59. Schourup, Lawrence C
    1985 Common discourse particles in English conversation. New York: Garland.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Sharifian, Farzad & Ian Malcolm
    2003 The pragmatic marker “like” in English teen talk: Australian Aboriginal usage.”Pragmatics and Cognition11. 327–344. doi: 10.1075/pc.11.2.07sha
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.11.2.07sha [Google Scholar]
  61. Shepherd, Zabrinah
    2011 “Guest blog: You, like, need to stop using the word “like”. www.rachelsimmons.com/2011/02/guest-blog-you-like-need-to-stop-using-the-word-like/. (Viewed25 November 2014.)
  62. Siegel, Muffy
    2002 Like: The discourse particle and semantics. Journal of Semantics19. 35–71. doi: 10.1093/jos/19.1.35
     https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/19.1.35 [Google Scholar]
  63. Tagliamonte, Sali A. & Alexandra D’Arcy
    2007 Frequency and variation in the community grammar: Tracking a new change through the generations. Language Variation and Change19. 199–217. doi: 10.1017/S095439450707007X
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S095439450707007X [Google Scholar]
  64. Tamminga, Meredith
    2014a Persistence in the production of linguistic variation. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. 2014b Sound change without frequency effects: Ramifications for phonological theory. In Robert E. Santana-LaBarge (ed.), Proceedings of the 31st West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 457–465. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Tracy, Marc
    2013 Linguist says you can use “like” more. He’s, like, wrong. www.newrepublic.com/article/115440/linguist-says-you-can-use-more-hes-wrong. (Viewed25 November 2014.)
  67. Underhill, Robert
    1988 Like is, like, focus. American Speech63(3). 234–246. doi: 10.2307/454820
     https://doi.org/10.2307/454820 [Google Scholar]
  68. Wallenberg, Joel C
    2013 A unified theory of stable variation, syntactic optionality, and syntactic change. Paper presented at DiGS [Diachronic Generative Syntax] 15, Ottawa.
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Wasko, Brian
    2011 Why we, like, say “like” all the time. blog.writeathome.com/index.php/2011/12/why-we-like-say-like-all-the-time. (Viewed26 November 2014.)
  70. Wolfram, Walt
    1991 The linguistic variable: Fact and fantasy. American Speech66(1). 22–32. doi: 10.2307/455432
     https://doi.org/10.2307/455432 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/lv.16.2.03din
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): conspiracy; discursive practice; envelope of variation; like; locus of linguistic variation; sociolinguistic change; variationist theory

Most Cited

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