1887
The locus of linguistic variation
  • ISSN 2211-6834
  • E-ISSN: 2211-6842
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

This article proposes that Kroch’s (1989) Constant Rate Hypothesis – the generalization that contextual effects tend to be stable in processes of diachronic variation in production data – be extended to synchronic variation in controlled judgment data. Two recent, large-sample judgment experiments are discussed suggesting that shared contextual effects across speakers in acceptability judgments can be used to infer a single abstract source for patterns of variation across superficially different contexts. At the same time, the results suggest that not all sets of variants – or “ways of saying the same thing” (Labov 1972: 271) – are linguistic variables of this formally defined type.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/lv.16.2.04had
2017-01-12
2019-08-24
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Anagnostopoulou, Elena
    2003The syntax of ditransitives: Evidence from clitics. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. 2005 Holmberg’s generalization and cyclic linearization. Remarks on Fox and Pesetsky. Theoretical Linguistics31(1–2). 95–110. doi: 10.1515/thli.2005.31.1‑2.95
    https://doi.org/10.1515/thli.2005.31.1-2.95 [Google Scholar]
  3. Ball, Catherine N
    1994 Relative pronouns in it-clefts: The last seven centuries. Language Variation and Change6(02). 179–200. doi: 10.1017/S0954394500001630
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394500001630 [Google Scholar]
  4. Barr, Dale J. , Roger Levy , Christoph Scheepers & Harry J. Tily
    2013 Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language68(3). 255–278. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bates, Douglas , Martin Mächler , Ben Bolker & Steve Walker
    2015 Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Science67(1). 1–48.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bolinger, Dwight Le Merton
    1971The phrasal verb in English. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bresnan, Joan & Marilyn Ford
    2010 Predicting syntax: Processing dative constructions in American and Australian varieties of English. Language86(1). 168–213. doi: 10.1353/lan.0.0189
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.0.0189 [Google Scholar]
  8. Campbell-Kibler, Kathryn
    2011 The sociolinguistic variant as a carrier of social meaning. Language Variation and Change22(3). 423–441. doi: 10.1017/S0954394510000177
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394510000177 [Google Scholar]
  9. Cukor-Avila, Patricia
    2002 She say, she go, she be like: Verbs of quotation over time in African American Vernacular English. American Speech77(1). 3–31. doi: 10.1215/00031283‑77‑1‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1215/00031283-77-1-3 [Google Scholar]
  10. Dehé, Nicole
    2002Particle verbs in English: Syntax, information structure and intonation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/la.59
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.59 [Google Scholar]
  11. Den Dikken, Marcel
    1995Particles. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 2010 On the functional structure of locative and directional PPs. In Guglielmo Cinque & Luigi Rizzi (eds.), Mapping spatial PPs, 74–126. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195393675.003.0003
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195393675.003.0003 [Google Scholar]
  13. Drummond, Alex
    2013 Ibex Farm, spellout.net/ibexfarm.
  14. Durham, Mercedes , Bill Haddican , Eytan Zweig , Daniel Ezra Johnson , Zipporah Baker , David Cockeram , Esther Danks & Louise Tyler
    2011 Constant linguistic effects in the diffusion of be like. Journal of English Linguistics40(4). 316–337. doi: 10.1177/0075424211431266
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0075424211431266 [Google Scholar]
  15. Elenbaas, Maatje Barbara
    2007The synchronic and diachronic syntax of the English verb-particle combination, vol. 149. LOT.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Engels, Eva & Sten Vikner
    2013 Object shift and remnant VP-topicalisation: Danish and Swedish verb particles and let-causatives. Nordic Journal of Linguistics36(2). 219–244. doi: 10.1017/S0332586513000243
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0332586513000243 [Google Scholar]
  17. Fox, Danny & David Pesetsky
    2005 Cyclic linearization of syntactic structure. Theoretical Linguistics31(1–2). 1–45. doi: 10.1515/thli.2005.31.1‑2.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/thli.2005.31.1-2.1 [Google Scholar]
  18. Fruehwald, Josef , Jonathan Gress-Wright & Joel Wallenberg
    2009 Phonological rule change: The constant rate effect. In Proceedings ofNELS, vol. 40.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Gries, Stefan T
    2001 A multifactorial analysis of syntactic variation: Particle movement revisited. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics8(1). 33–50. doi: 10.1076/jqul.8.1.33.4092
    https://doi.org/10.1076/jqul.8.1.33.4092 [Google Scholar]
  20. Guy, Gregory
    1980 Variation in the group and the individual: The case of final stop deletion. In William Labov (ed.), Locating language in time and space, 1–36. New York, NY: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 2007The scope of generalization in phonology. Talk given at Workshp on Variation, Gradience and Frequency in Phonology, Stanford University.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Haddican, Bill & Anders Holmberg
    2012 Object movement symmetries in British English dialects: Experimental evidence for a mixed case/locality approach. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics15(3). 1–24. doi: 10.1007/s10828‑012‑9051‑x
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10828-012-9051-x [Google Scholar]
  23. 2014 Four kinds of object symmetry. In Ludmila Veselovská & Markéta Janebová (eds.), Complex visibles out there. Proceedings of the olomouc linguistics colloquium 2014. Language use and linguistic structure, Palacký University.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Haddican, Bill & Daniel Ezra Johnson
    2012 Effects on the particle verb alternation across English dialects. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics18(2). 5.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 2014 Focus effects on particle placement in English and the left periphery of PP. Proceedings of NELS43 (2).
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Hawkins, John A
    2004Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199252695.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199252695.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  27. Holmberg, Anders
    1986Word order and syntactic features. Stockholm University dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Holmberg, Anders & Christer Platzack
    1995The role of inflection in Scandinavian syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Hughes, Arthur , Peter Trudgill & Dominic Watt
    2005English accents and dialects: An introduction to social and regional varieties of English in the British Isles. London: Hodder Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Johnson, Kyle
    1991 Object positions. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory9(4). 577–636. doi: 10.1007/BF00134751
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00134751 [Google Scholar]
  31. Kallel, Amel
    2007 The loss of negative concord in Standard English: Internal factors. Language Variation and Change19(1). 27–49. doi: 10.1017/S0954394507070019
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394507070019 [Google Scholar]
  32. Kayne, Richard
    1985 Principles of particle constructions. In Jacqueline. Guéron , Hans-Georg Obenauer , & Jean-Yves Pollock (eds.), Grammatical representation, 101–140. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Foris.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Kayne, Richard S
    1998 Overt vs. covert movements. Syntax1(2). 128–191. doi: 10.1111/1467‑9612.00006
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9612.00006 [Google Scholar]
  34. Kroch, Anthony
    1989 Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change. Language Variation and Change1(3). 199–244. doi: 10.1017/S0954394500000168
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394500000168 [Google Scholar]
  35. 1994 Morphosyntactic variation. In Katharine Beals (ed.), Papers from the 30th regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society: Parasession on variation and linguistic theory. 180–201. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Kroch, Anthony & Cathy Small
    1978 Grammatical ideology and its effect on speech. In David Sankoff (ed.), Linguistic variation: Models and methods, 45–55. New York, NY: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Labov, William
    1972Sociolinguistic patterns. University of Pennsylvania Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Lohse, Barbara , John A Hawkins & Thomas Wasow
    2004 Domain minimization in the English verb-particle constructions. Language80(2). 238–261. doi: 10.1353/lan.2004.0089
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2004.0089 [Google Scholar]
  39. Melnick, Robin , T. Florian Jaeger & Thomas Wasow
    2011Speakers employ fine-grained probabilistic knowledge. Talk given at LSA Annual Meeting, Pittsburgh, PA.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Pintzuk, Susan
    1999Phrase structures in competition: Variation and change in Old English word order. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Richards, Marc
    2004Object shift and scrambling in North and West Germanic: A case study in symmetrical syntax. University of Cambridge dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Richards, Norvin
    1997What moves where when in which language?MIT dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Santorini, Beatrice
    1993 The rate of phrase structure change in the history of Yiddish. Language Variation and Change5(3). 257–283. doi: 10.1017/S0954394500001502
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394500001502 [Google Scholar]
  44. Sells, Peter
    2001Structure, alignment and optimality in Swedish. CSLI.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Svenonius, Peter
    1996 The optionality of particle shift. Working papers in Scandinavian syntax57. 47–75.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. 2010 Spatial P in English. In Guglielmo Cinque & Luigi Rizzi (eds.), Mapping spatial PPs, 127–160. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195393675.003.0004
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195393675.003.0004 [Google Scholar]
  47. Tortora, Christina & Marcel den Dikken
    2010 Subject agreement variation: Support for the configurational approach. Lingua120(5). 1089–1108. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2009.04.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2009.04.004 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/lv.16.2.04had
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): change , competing grammar , constant rate hypothesis , ditransitive , particle verb , syntax , variable and variant
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