Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-25wd4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T12:04:48.264Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Syntactic variation and dialect divergence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

John Harris
John Harris
Affiliation:
University of Sheffield
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The problem of how to model syntactic variation has received much attention over the last few years. Some of the well-known difficulties stem from attempts to extend to the syntactic level quantitative techniques which were originally developed to handle phonological variation. In particular, the application of the sociolinguistic variable model to the syntactic domain has come in for a good deal of criticism (e.g. Lavandera, 1978; Romaine, 1981). According to the classical Labovian formulation, all variants of a given variable must share ‘sameness of (cognitive) meaning’ (1972a: 271). Considerable doubts have been voiced about whether this requirement can consistently be met at the syntactic level. The problem is thrown into even greater relief when it comes to studying the sort of syntactic variation that occurs in situations of interface between standard and vernacular varieties. It has not generally been noted that assuming direct semantic equivalence between standard and nonstandard syntactic variants presupposes that they are embedded in structurally identical grammars. That is, apparently alternating standard and vernacular forms are simply treated as distinct surface realizations of the same underlying structure. The justification for this approach rests squarely on the belief that it is possible to offer a structural definition of the intuitively available concept of ‘dialects of the same language’. According to what we might call the PANLECTAL IDENTITY HYPOTHESIS, dialects of a single language are considered to share a common grammatical‘core’ and differ only in matters of low-level realization (e.g. Agard, 1971). Variation arising out of interface between dialects that are allegedly related in this way is thus describable in terms of variable rules which operate at low levels of realization.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 20 , Issue 2 , September 1984 , pp. 303 - 327
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1984

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

REFERENCES

Agard, F. B. (1971). Language and dialect: some tentative postulates. Linguistics 65. 5–24.Google Scholar
Bailey, C.-J. N. (1973). Variation and linguistic theory. Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Beal, J. (1984). Modal verbs in Tyneside English. Paper read at ESRC Workshop Varieties of British English syntax, Salford, 8–10 01 1984.Google Scholar
Berdan, R. (1977). Polylectal comprehension and polylectal grammar. In Fasold, R. W., & Shuy, R. W. (eds), Studies in language variation. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. 12–29.Google Scholar
Bickerton, D. (1975). Dynamics of a creole system. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bickerton, D. (1981). Roots of language. Chicago: Karoma.Google Scholar
Bliss, A. J. (1972). Languages in contact: some problems of Hiberno-English. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 72. 63–82.Google Scholar
Bliss, A. J. (1979). Spoken English in Ireland 1600–1740. Dublin: Dolmen.Google Scholar
Brown, G. (1972). Phonological rules and dialect variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cheshire, J. (1982). Variation in a British dialect: a sociolinguistic study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. & Halle, M. (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
De Camp, D. (1971). Towards a generative analysis of a post-creole continuum. In Hymes, D. (ed), Pidginization and creolization of languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 349–370.Google Scholar
Edwards, V. K., Trudgill, P. & Weltens, B. (1983). Grammatical characteristics of regional varieties of English in the British Isles: a survey of research. Report to Social Science Research Council.Google Scholar
Givón, T. (1979). From discourse to syntax: grammar as a processing strategy. In Givón, T. (ed.), Syntax and semantics 12: discourse and syntax. New York: Academic Press. 81–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greene, D. (1979). Perfects and perfectives in modern Irish. Eriu 30. 122–141.Google Scholar
Halle, M. (1962). Phonology in generative grammar. Word 18. 54–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, J. (1983 a). The Hiberno-English ‘I've it eaten’ construction: what is it and where does it come from? Teanga 3. 30–43.Google Scholar
Harris, J. (1983 b). The polylectal grammar stops here. Paper read at New ways of analyzing variation in English 12, Montreal, 27–29 10 1983.Google Scholar
Harris, J. (1983 c). Linguistic change in a nonstandard dialect: phonological studies in the history of English in Ireland. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Harris, M. (1982). The ‘past simple’ and ‘present perfect’ in Romance. in Vincent, N. & Harris, M. (eds), Studies in the Romance verb. London: Croom Helm. 42–70.Google Scholar
Henry, P. L. (1957). An Anglo-Irish dialect of north Roscommon. Zurich: Aschmann & Scheller.Google Scholar
Henry, P. L. (1977) Anglo-Irish and its Irish background. In Muirithe, D. Ó, (ed.), The English language in Ireland. Cork: Mercier. 20–36.Google Scholar
Ihalainen, O. (1976). Periphrastic do in affirmative sentences in the dialect of east Somerset. NphM 77. 608–622.Google Scholar
Joyce, P. W. (1910). English as we speak it in Ireland. London: Longmans, Green & Co. (New ed. 1979. Portmarnock, Co. Dublin: Wolthound.)Google Scholar
King, R. D. (1969). Historical linguistics and generative grammar. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Kirchner, G. (1952). Die zehn Hauptverben des Englischen im Britischen und Amerikanischen. Halle: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1972 a). Sociolinguistic patterns. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1972 b). Language in the inner city. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1973). Where do grammars stop? Georgetown University Monograph Series on Language and Linguistics 25. 43–88.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1978). Where does the linguistic variable stop? A response to Beatriz Lavandera. Working Papers in Sociolinguistics 44. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.Google Scholar
Lavandera, B. R. (1978). Where does the sociolinguistic variable stop? LiS 7. 171–182.Google Scholar
Leech, G. & Svartvik, J. (1975). A communicative grammar of English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Loflin, M. D. (1969). Negro nonstandard and standard English: same or different deep structure? Orbis 18. 74–91.Google Scholar
McCawley, J. D. (1971). Tense and time reference in English. In Filmore, C. J. & Langendoen, D. T. (eds), Studies in linguistic semantics. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. 96–113.Google Scholar
McCoard, R. W. (1978). The English perfect: tense-choice and pragmatic inferences. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Miller, J. & Brown, E. K. (1980). Syntax of Scottish English. Report to Social Science Research Council.Google Scholar
Milroy, L. (1980). Language and social networks. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Milroy, L. (1984). Comprehension and context: successful communication and communicative breakdown. In Trudgill, P. (ed), Applied sociolinguistics London: Academic Press. 7–29.Google Scholar
Newton, B. (1972). The generative interpretation of dialect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ní Ghallchóir, C. (1981). Aspects of bilingualism in northwest Donegal. In Barry, M. V. (ed), Aspects of English dialects in Ireland. Belfast: Institute of Irish Studies, Queen's University. 142–70.Google Scholar
Romaine, S. (1981). On the problem of syntactic variation: a reply to Beatriz Lavandera and William Labov. Sociolinguistic Working Papers 82. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. 1–38.Google Scholar
Sullivan, J. P. (1976). The genesis of Hiberno-English: a socio-historical account. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Yeshiva University, New York.Google Scholar
Todd, L. (1975). Base-form and substratum: two case studies of English in contact. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Leeds.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (1972). A history of English syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Troike, R. C. (1969). Overall pattern and generative phonology. In Allen, H. B. & Underwood, G. N. (eds), Readings in American dialectology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. 324–342.Google Scholar
Trudgill, P. (1978). Sociolinguistics and sociolinguistics. In Trudgill, P. (ed), Sociolinguistic patterns in British English. London: Arnold. 1–18.Google Scholar
Trudgill, P. (1982). On the limits of passive ‘competence’: sociolinguistics and the polylectal grammar controversy. In Crystal, D. (ed.), Linguistic controversies. London: Arnold. 172–191.Google Scholar
van Hamel, A. G. (1912). On Anglo-Irish syntax. Englische Studien 45. 272–292.Google Scholar
Visser, F.Th. (1973). An historical syntax of the English Language, 4 vols. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Wakelin, M. F. (1977). English dialects: an introduction, 2nd ed. London: Athlone.Google Scholar
Weinreich, U. (1954). Is a structural dialectology possible? Word 10. 388–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinreich, U. (1966). Languages in contact. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Wolff, H. (1964). Intelligibility and inter-ethnic attitudes. In Hymes, D. (ed.), Language in culture and society. New York: Harper & Row. 440–445.Google Scholar