Book contents
- Explanations in Sociosyntactic Variation
- Studies in Language Variation and Change
- Explanations in Sociosyntactic Variation
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Series Editor’s Preface
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction: Analysing and Explaining Syntactic Variation
- 1 Comparing Syntactic Variables
- 2 Mapping Syntax and the Sociolinguistic Monitor
- 3 A Columbia School Perspective on Explanation in Morphosyntactic Variation
- 4 On the Inevitability of Social Meaning and Ideology in Accounts of Syntactic Change: Evidence from Pronoun Competition in Netherlandic Dutch
- 5 The Predictability of Social Stratification of Syntactic Variants
- 6 When Variants Lack Semantic Equivalence: Adverbial Subclause Word Order
- Index
- References
3 - A Columbia School Perspective on Explanation in Morphosyntactic Variation
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 January 2022
Book contents
- Explanations in Sociosyntactic Variation
- Studies in Language Variation and Change
- Explanations in Sociosyntactic Variation
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Series Editor’s Preface
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction: Analysing and Explaining Syntactic Variation
- 1 Comparing Syntactic Variables
- 2 Mapping Syntax and the Sociolinguistic Monitor
- 3 A Columbia School Perspective on Explanation in Morphosyntactic Variation
- 4 On the Inevitability of Social Meaning and Ideology in Accounts of Syntactic Change: Evidence from Pronoun Competition in Netherlandic Dutch
- 5 The Predictability of Social Stratification of Syntactic Variants
- 6 When Variants Lack Semantic Equivalence: Adverbial Subclause Word Order
- Index
- References
Summary
Two approaches to developing a theoretical platform for the study of sociosyntax are compared. The first approach adopts a sentence-based theory of syntax and an objectivist theory of semantics, which serves to qualify forms as variants of a sociolinguistic variable. The second approach replaces the sentence with the sign (signaled by grammatical formatives and word-order patterns) as the primary organizing principle of grammar and the basic carrier of meaning. It also replaces objectivist semantics with subjectivist-construal, functional-semiotic semantics under which grammatical meanings offer particular speaker perspectives. In this second approach the alternants of interest to sociolinguists are in almost every case different in their component meanings, yet amenable to conceptualization as variants of a sociolinguistic variable. Variation is seen as resulting from pressures exerted simultaneously by the exigencies of communication and the force of both internal and external sociolinguistic factors. This approach offers considerable advantages for the study of sociosyntax, advantages that pertain to both overall theoretical coherence and clearer paths to the explanation of the effects of predictor variables. We illustrate these advantages with analyses that demonstrate the impact of switch-reference on the presence and absence of Spanish yo, tú, ella, él, etc. ('I, you, she, he').
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Explanations in Sociosyntactic Variation , pp. 90 - 119Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022
References
Alfaraz, Gabriela. 2015. “Variation of Overt and Null Subject Pronouns in the Spanish of Santo Domingo.” In Subject Pronoun Expression in Spanish: A Cross-Dialectal Perspective, edited by Carvalho, Ana M., Orozco, Rafael and Shin, Naomi Lapidus, 3–16. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Amaral, Patricia and Schwenter, Scott. 2005. “Contrast and the (Non) Occurrence of Subject Pronouns.” In Selected Proceedings of the Seventh Hispanic Linguistic Symposium, edited by Eddington, David, 116–27. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Bates, Douglass, Maechler, Martin, Bolker, Ben and Walker, Steve (2015). “Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4.” Journal of Statistical Software 67: 1–48.Google Scholar
Bock, J. Kathryn and Griffin, Zenzi M.. 2000. “The Persistence of Structural Priming: Transient Activation or Implicit Learning.” Journal of Experimental Psychology 129: 177–92.Google ScholarPubMed
Butler, Christopher and Francisco, Gonzálvez-García. 2014. Exploring Functional-Cognitive Space. Amsterdam. John Benjamins Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2010. Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, Richard and Nydia, Flores-Ferrán. 2004. “Perseveration of Subject Expression across Regional Dialects of Spanish.” Spanish in Context 1: 41–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carvalho, Ana and Bessett, Ryan. 2015. “Subject Pronoun Expression in Spanish in Contact with Portuguese.” In Subject Pronoun Expression in Spanish: A Cross-Dialectal Perspective, edited by Carvalho, Ana M., Orozco, Rafael and Shin, Naomi Lapidus, 143–68. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Carvalho, Ana M., Orozco, Rafael and Shin, Naomi Lapidus, eds. 2015. Subject Pronoun Expression in Spanish: A Cross-Dialectal Perspective. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Contini-Morava, Ellen. 1989. Discourse Pragmatics and Semantic Categorization: The Case of Negation and Tense-Aspect with Special Reference to Swahili. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2013. “Radical Construction Grammar.” In The Handbook of Construction Grammar, edited by Trousdale, Graeme and Hoffman, Thomas, 211–32. Oxford. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Davis, Joseph. 2017. The Substance and Value of Italian Si. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Diver, William. 1975 [2012]. “The Nature of Linguistic Meaning.” In Language: Communication and Human Behavior: The Linguistic Essays of William Diver, edited by Huffman, Alan and Davis, Joseph, 47–64. Leiden: Brill Publishers.Google Scholar
Diver, William. 1990 [2012]. “The Elements of a Science of Language.” In Language: Communication and Human Behavior: The Linguistic Essays of William Diver, edited by Huffman, Alan and Davis, Joseph, 47–64. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Diver, William. 1992 [2012]. “The Subjunctive without Syntax.” In Language: Communication and Human Behavior: The Linguistic Essays of William Diver, edited by Huffman, Alan and Davis, Joseph, 183–94. Leiden: Brill Publishers.Google Scholar
Diver, William. 1995 [2012]. “Theory.” In Language: Communication and Human Behavior: The Linguistic Essays of William Diver, edited by Huffman, Alan and Davis, Joseph, 445–522. Leiden: Brill Publishers.Google Scholar
Diver, William, Davis, Joseph and Reid, Wallis. 2012. “Traditional Grammar and Its Legacy in Twentieth-Century Linguistics.” In Language: Communication and Human Behavior: The Linguistic Essays of William Diver, edited by Huffman, Alan and Davis, Joseph, 371–444. Leiden: Brill Publishers.Google Scholar
Elizaincín, Adolfo. 2002. “Diacronía del contacto español-portugués.” In Romania americana: Procesos lingüísticos en situaciones de contacto, edited by Díaz, Norma, Ludwig, Ralph and Pfänder, Stefan, 255–61. Madrid: Iberoamérica.Google Scholar
Erker, Daniel and Guy, Gregory. 2012. “The Role of Lexical Frequency in Syntactic Variability: Variable Subject Pronoun Expression in Spanish.” Language 88: 526–57.Google Scholar
García, Erica C. 1975. The Role of Theory in Linguistic Analysis: The Spanish Pronoun System. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Co.Google Scholar
García, Erica C. 1995. “Frecuencia (relativa) de uso como síntoma de estrategias etnopragmáticas.” In Lenguas en contacto en hispanoamérica: Nuevos enfoques, edited by Zimmermann, Klaus, 51–72. Madrid: Iberoamericana/Vervuet.Google Scholar
García, Erica C. 2009. The Motivated Syntax of Arbitrary Signs: Cognitive Constraints on Spanish Clitic Clustering. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harder, Peter. 1996. Functional Semantics: A Theory of Meaning, Structure, and Tense in English. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hasan, Ruqaiya. 2009 [1989]. “Semantic Variation and Sociolinguistics.” In The Collected Works of Ruqaiya Hasan, vol. 2: Semantic Variation: Meaning in Society and in Sociolinguistics, edited by Webster, Jonathan J., 180–230. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Huffman, Alan. 1997. The Categories of Grammar: French lui and le. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Huffman, Alan. 2001. “The Linguistics of William Diver and the Columbia School.” Word 52: 29–68.Google Scholar
Huffman, Alan. 2002. “Cognitive and Semiotic Modes of Explanation in Functional Grammar.” In Signal, Meaning, and Message: Perspectives on Sign-Based Linguistics, edited by Reid, Wallis, Otheguy, Ricardo and Stern, Nancy, 311–37. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Huffman, Alan. 2012. “Introduction: The Enduring Legacy of William Diver.” In Language: Communication and Human Behavior: The Linguistic Essays of William Diver, edited by Huffman, Alan and Davis, Joseph, 1–22. Leiden: Brill Publishers.Google Scholar
Huffman, Alan and Davis, Joseph, eds. 2012. Language: Communication and Human Behavior: The Linguistic Essays of William Diver. Leiden: Brill Publishers.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 2004. “Form, Meaning, and Behaviour.” In Cognitive and Communicative Approaches to Linguistic Analysis, edited by Contini-Morava, Ellen, Kirsner, Robert and Rodríguez-Bachiller, Betsy, 21–60. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lavandera, Beatriz. 1978. “Where Does the Sociolinguistic Variable Stop?” Language in Society 7: 171–82.Google Scholar
Martínez, Angelita. 2013. “Tendencias internas y externas al cambio lingüístico. ¿El adíós a otra dicotomía?” In Lingüística amerindia. Contribuciones y perspectivas, edited by Garay, Ana Fernández, Censabella, Marisa and Malvestitti, Marisa, 211–24. Buenos Aires: Editorial de la Facultad de Filosofía y Letras Universidad de Buenos Aires.Google Scholar
Nettle, Daniel. 1999. “Functionalism and Its Difficulties in Biology and Linguistics.” In Functionalism and Formalism in Linguistics, vol. 1, edited by Darnell, Michael, Moravcsik, Edith, Newmeyer, Fredrick, Noonan, Michael and Weatley, Kathleen, 445–68. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Orozco, Rafael. 2015. “Pronominal Variation in Colombian Costeño Spanish.” In Subject Pronoun Expression in Spanish: A Cross-Dialectal Perspective, edited by Carvalho, Ana M., Orozco, Rafael and Shin, Naomi Lapidus, 17–38. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Otheguy, Ricardo. 2014. “Remarks on Pronominal Perseveration and Functional Explanation.” In Perspectives in the Study of Spanish Language Variation (Verba: Anexo 72), edited by Enrique-Arias, Andrés, Guitérrez, Manuel, Landa, Alazne and Ocampo, Francisco, 373–96. Universidad de Santiago de Compostela.Google Scholar
Otheguy, Ricardo. 2015. “Variationist Sociolinguistics and Linguistic Theory in the Context of Pronominal Perseveration.” In Linguistic Variation: Confronting Fact and Theory, edited by Cacoullos, Rena Torres, Dion, Nathalie and Lapierre, André, 319–34. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Otheguy, Ricardo and Lapidus, Naomi. 2005. “Matización de la teoría de la simplificación en las lenguas en contacto: El concepto de la adaptación en el español de Nueva York.” In Contactos y contextos lingüísticos: El español en Estados Unidos y en contacto con otras lenguas, edited by Ortiz López, Luis A. and Lacorte, Manel, 143–60. Madrid: Editorial Iberoamericana/Vervuert Verlag.Google Scholar
Otheguy, Ricardo and Stern, Nancy. 2000. “The Acategorial Lexicon and the Pairing Strategies: Grammatical Gender in Spanish.” In Between Lexicon and Grammar, edited by Contini-Morava, Ellen and Tobin, Yishai, 123–57. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishers.Google Scholar
Otheguy, Ricardo and Zentella, Ana Celia. 2012. Spanish in New York: Language Contact, Dialectal Leveling and Structural Continuity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Core Team. 2020. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. www.r-project.org.Google Scholar
RAE-AALE (Real Academia Española/Asociación de Academias de La Lengua Española). 2009. Nueva gramática de la lengua española. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe.Google Scholar
Reid, Wallis. 1991. Verb and Noun Number in English: A Functional Explanation. London: Longman Publishers.Google Scholar
Reid, Wallis. 2004. “Monosemy, Homonymy and Polysemy.” In Cognitive and Communicative Approaches to Linguistic Analysis, edited by Contini-Morava, Ellen, Kirsner, Robert S. and Rodríguez-Bachiller, Betsy, 93–129. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reid, Wallis. 2011. “The Communicative Function of English Verb Number.” In Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29: 1087–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reid, Wallis. 2018. “The Justification of Grammatical Categories.” In Questioning Theoretical Primitives in Linguistic Inquiry (Papers in Honor of Ricardo Otheguy), edited by Shin, Naomi and Erker, Daniel, 91–132. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, G. 1998. “Clausal Complementation and Cognitive Complexity in English.” In Anglistentag Erfurt, edited by Neumann, F.-W. and Schülting, S., 101–12. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag.Google Scholar
Sabar, Nadav. 2018. Lexical Meaning as Testable Hypothesis: The Case of English Look, See, Seem, and Appear. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1916[1986]. Course in General Linguistics, trans. Roy Harris. La Salle, IL: Open Court Classics. (First published 1916: Cours de linguistique générale. Paris: Edition Payot.)Google Scholar
Shin, Naomi Lapidus and Erker, Daniel. 2015. “The Emergence of Structural Variability in Morphosyntax: Childhood Acquisition of Spanish Subject Pronouns.” In Subject Pronoun Expression in Spanish: A Cross-Dialectal Perspective, edited by Carvalho, Ana M., Orozco, Rafael and Shin, Naomi Lapidus, 169–90. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Shin, Naomi Lapidus and Otheguy, Ricardo. 2009. “Diminishing Sensitivity to Continuity of Reference.” In Español en Estados Unidos y otros contextos de contacto: Sociolingüística, ideología y pedagogía, edited by Lacorte, Manel and Leeman, Jennifer, 111–36. Madrid: Iberoamericana/Vervuert.Google Scholar
Shin, Naomi Lapidus and Otheguy, Ricardo. 2013. “Social Class and Gender Impacting Change in Bilingual Settings: Spanish Subject Pronoun Use in New York.” Language in Society 42: 429–52.Google Scholar
Silva-Corvalán, Carmen. 1997. “Variación sintáctica en el discurso oral: Problemas metodológicos.” In Trabajos de sociolingüística hispánica, edited by Moreno-Fernández, Francisco, 115–35. Alcalá de Henares: Universidad de Alcalá.Google Scholar
Stern, Nancy. 2019. “Introduction: Columbia School Linguistics in the Functional-Cognitive Space of the 21st Century.” In Columbia School Linguistics in the 21st Century, edited by Stern, Nancy, Otheguy, Ricardo, Reid, Wallis and Sackler, Jaseleen, 1–32. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali. 2015. “A Comparative Sociolinguistic Analysis of the Dative Alternation.” In Linguistic Variation: Confronting Fact and Theory, edited by Cacoullos, Rena Torres, Dion, Nathalie and Lapierre, André, 297–318. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali and Smith, Jennifer. 2005. “No Momentary Fancy! The ‘Zero’ Complementizer in English Dialects.” English Language and Linguistics 9: 289–309.Google Scholar
Terkourafi, Marina. 2011. “The Pragmatic Variable: Toward a Procedural Interpretation.” Language in Society 40: 343–72.Google Scholar
Torres Cacoullos, Rena and Travis, Catherine. 2018. Bilingualism in the Community: Code Switching and Grammars in Contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Weiner, E. Judith and Labov, William. 1983. “Constraints on the Agentless Passive.” Journal of Linguistics 19: 29–58.Google Scholar