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
5 - The Predictability of Social Stratification of Syntactic Variants
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
This chapter is an enquiry into whether we can predict whether a particular instance of variation at the syntactic level may reflect social stratification or not (Labov 1966, 1972, 1994). Therefore, a range of syntactic variables in Dutch has been examined that may reveal social correlations in the spontaneous speech of 67 speakers who were born, grew up, and still live in one particular locality. Most of the syntactic variables consist of variants associated with the local dialect and (codified) standard Dutch. The syntactic variables examined differ in frequency of occurrence, synonymy/functional equivalence, abstract properties, and presumably noticeability. The fact that the social stratification of various syntactic variables can be investigated by following the same speakers within one speech style, i.e. the sociolinguistic interview,L12 offers a unique opportunity to carefully discriminate the effects of similar socio-demographic factors on different types of syntactic variables. The overall result is that social stratification of syntactic variation can be predicted where syntax maps onto discourse. The outcome is dependent on the extent of duration of language contact situations, and interactions in which particular linguistic variables have become socially meaningful depending on the individual and the wider societal, political and ideological context.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Explanations in Sociosyntactic Variation , pp. 144 - 170Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022
References
Auer, Peter. 2012. ‘Spatial Indexicalities and Spatial Pragmatics’. In Pragmatizing Understanding: Studies for Jef Verschueren, edited by Meeuwis, Michael and Ostman, Jan-Ola, 53–76. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Benor, Sarah Bunin. 2010. ‘Ethnolinguistic Repertoire: Shifting the Analytic Focus in Language and Ethnicity’. Journal of Sociolinguistics 14 (2): 159–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Besten, Hans Den and Broekhuis, Hans. 1989. ‘Woordvolgorde in de werkwoordelijke eindreeks’. Glot 12: 79–137.Google Scholar
Bidese, Ermenegildo, Cognola, Frederica and Moroni, Manuela. 2016. ‘Introduction: Triggers for Language Variation’. In Theoretical Approaches to Linguistic Variation, edited by Bidese, Ermenegildo, Cognola, Frederica and Moroni, Manuela Caterina, 1–21. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Broekhuis, Hans and Cornips, Leonie. 1994. ‘Undative Constructions’. Linguistics 32 (2):173–89.Google Scholar
Buchstaller, Isabelle and Corrigan, Karen P.. 2011. ‘“Judge Not Lest Ye Be Judged”: Exploring Methods for the Collection of Socio-Syntactic Data’. In Language Variation – European Perspectives III, edited by Gregersen, Frans, Parrott, Jeffrey K. and Quist, Pia, 149–60. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Coetsem, Frans V. 1988. Loan Phonology and the Two Transfer Types in Language Contact. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
Cornips, Leonie. 1996. ‘Social Stratification, Linguistic Constraints and Inherent Variability in Heerlen Dutch: The Use of the Infinitival Complementizers Om/Voor’. In Sociolinguistic Variation: Data, Theory, and Analysis, edited by Arnold, Jennifer, Blake, Renee and Davidson, Brad, 453–68. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Cornips, Leonie. 1998a. ‘Syntactic Variation, Parameters and Their Social Distribution’. Language Variation and Change 10 (1): 1–21.Google Scholar
Cornips, Leonie. 1998b. ‘Habitual Doen in Heerlen Dutch’. In DO in English, Dutch and German: History and Present-Day Variation, edited by Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid, van Der Wal, Marijke and van Leuvensteijn, Arjan, 83–101. Amsterdam: Stichting Neerlandistiek/Nodus Publikationen.Google Scholar
Cornips, Leonie. 2000. ‘Inherente normen binnen de eigen groep. “Hun doen allemaal van die rare woorden, weet je”’. Taal en Tongval 52 (1): 47–60.Google Scholar
Cornips, Leonie. 2014a. ‘Socio-Syntax and Variation in Acquisition: Problematizing Bidialectal and Bilingual Acquisition’. Linguistic Variation 14 (1): 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornips, Leonie. 2014b. ‘Language Contact, Linguistic Variability and the Construction of Local Identities’. In The Sociolinguistics of Grammar, edited by Åfarlí, Tor A. and Mæhlum, Brit, 67–90. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornips, Leonie. 2015. ‘The No Man’s Land between Syntax and Variationist Sociolinguistics: The Case of Idiolectal Variability’. In Variation in Language: System- and Usage-Based Approaches, edited by Adli, Aria, García García, Marco and Kaufmann, Göz, 147–72. London: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cornips, Leonie. 2018. ‘Child Acquisition of Sociolinguistic Variation: Adults, Children and (Regional) Standard Dutch Two-Verb Clusters in One Community’. In Acquiring Sociolinguistic Variation, edited by Gunther, de Vogelaer and Katerbow, Matthias, 91–116. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Cornips, Leonie and Corrigan, Karen P.. 2005a. ‘Convergence and Divergence in Grammar’. In The Convergence and Divergence of Dialects in Contemporary Societies, edited by Auer, Peter, Hinskens, Frans and Kerswill, Paul, 96–134. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornips, Leonie and Corrigan, Karen P., eds. 2005b. Syntax and Variation: Reconciling the Biological with the Social (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Cornips, Leonie and Corrigan, Karen P.. 2005c. ‘Toward an Integrated Approach to Syntactic Variation: A Retrospective and Prospective Synopsis’. In Syntax and Variation: Reconciling the Biological with the Social (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory), edited by Cornips, Leonie and Corrigan, Karen, 1–27. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornips, Leonie and Gregersen, Frans. 2016. ‘The Impact of Labov’s Contribution to General Linguistic Theory’. Journal of Sociolinguistics 20 (4): 498–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornips, Leonie and Hulk, Aafke. 1999. ‘Affected Objects in Heerlen Dutch and Romance’. Languages in Contrast 1 (2): 191–210.Google Scholar
De Sutter, Gert, Speelman, Dirk and Geeraerts, Dirk. 2005. ‘Regionale en stilistische effecten op woordvolgorde in werkwoordelijke eindgroepen’. Nederlandse Taalkunde 10: 97–128.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope. 2008. ‘Variation and the Indexical Field’. Journal of Sociolinguistics 12 (4): 453–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckert, Penelope. 2012. ‘Three Ways of Variation Study: The Emergence of Meaning in the Study of Sociolinguistic Variation’. Annual Review of Anthropology 41: 87–100.Google Scholar
Haeseryn, Walter, Romijn, Kirsten, Geerts, Guido, de Rooij, Jaap and van den Toorn, Maarten. 1997. Algemene Nederlandse spraakkunst [General grammar of Dutch.] Groningen/Deurne: Martinus Nijhoff/Wolters Plantyn.Google Scholar
Harris, John. 1984. ‘Syntactic Variation and Dialect Divergence’. Journal of Linguistics 20: 303–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hulk, Aafke. 2017. ‘Note on Cross-Linguistic Influence: Back to “MULK”’. In Cross-Linguistic Influence in Bilingualism: Festschrift for Aafke Hulk, edited by Blom, Elma, Cornips, Leonie and Schaeffer, Jeannette, 15–24. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Irvine, Judith T. 2001. ‘“Style” as Distinctiveness: The Culture and Ideology of Linguistic Differentiation’. In Style and Sociolinguistic Variation, edited by Eckert, Penelope and Rickford, John R., 21–43. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jansen, Mathilde. 2010. Language Change on the Dutch Frisian Island of Ameland. Dissertation, Free University Amsterdam. Utrecht: LOT. www.lotpublications.nl/Documents/240_fulltext.pdf.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1966. The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1972. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia, PA: University of Philadelphia Press.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1993. ‘The Unobservability of Structure and Its Linguistic Consequences’. Paper presented at NWAV (New Ways of Analyzing Variation) 22, University of Ottawa, 16 October 1993.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1994. Principles of Linguistic Change, vol. 1: Internal Factors (Language in Society, 20). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 2010. Principles of Linguistic Change, vol. 3: Cognitive and Cultural Factors. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William, Ash, Sharon, Ravindranath, Maya, Weldon, Tracey, Baranowski, Maciej and Nagy, Naomi. 2011. ‘Properties of the Sociolinguistic Monitor’. Journal of Sociolinguistics 15 (4): 431–63.Google Scholar
Lavandera, Beatriz L. 1978. ‘Where Does the Sociolinguistic Variable Stop?’ Language in Society 7 (2): 171–82.Google Scholar
Levon, Erez and Buchstaller, Isabelle. 2015. ‘Perception, Cognition, and Linguistic Structure: The Effect of Linguistic Modularity and Cognitive Style on Sociolinguistic Processing’. Language Variation and Change 27 (3): 319–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyerhoff, Miriam and Walker, James. 2013. ‘An Existential Problem: The Sociolinguistic Monitor and Variation in Existential Constructions on Bequia XE “Bequia” (St. Vincent and the Grenadines)’. Language in Society 42 (4): 407–28.Google Scholar
Muysken, Pieter. 2005. ‘A Modular Approach to Sociolinguistic Variation in Syntax: The Gerund in Ecuadorian Spanish’. In Syntax and Variation: Reconciling the Biological with the Social (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory), edited by Cornips, Leonie and Corrigan, Karen, 31–53. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Muysken, Pieter. 2006. ‘Two Linguistic Systems in Contact: Grammar, Phonology and Lexicon’. In The Handbook of Bilingualism, edited by Bhatia, Tej K. and Ritchie, William C., 147–68. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Preston, Dennis R. 2011. ‘The Power of Language Regard – Discrimination, Classification, Comprehension, and Production’. Dialectologia, Special Issue II: 9–33.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 1985. ‘Language and the Culture of Gender’. In Semiotic Mediation, edited by Mertz, Elizabeth and Parmentier, Richard J., 219–59. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Sorace, Antonella. 2005. ‘Selective Optionality in Language Development’. In Syntax and Variation: Reconciling the Biological with the Social (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory), edited by Cornips, Leonie and Corrigan, Karen, 55–80. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorace, Antonella and Serratrice, Ludovice. 2009. ‘Internal and External Interfaces in Bilingual Language Development: Beyond Structural Overlap’. International Journal of Bilingualism 13 (2): 195–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tenny, Carol Lee. 1987. Grammaticalizing Aspect and Affectedness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
van Bergen, Geertje, Stoop, Wessel, Vogels, Jorrig and Helen, de Hoop. 2011. ‘Leve hun! Waarom hun nog steeds hun zeggen’. Nederlandse Taalkunde 16: 2–29.Google Scholar
Vergnaud, Jean-Roger and Zubizarreta, Maria Louisa. 1992. ‘The Definite Determiner and the Inalienable Constructions in French and English’. Linguistic Inquiry 23: 592–652.Google Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel, Labov, William and Herzog, Marvin. 1968. ‘Empirical Foundations for a Theory of Language Change’. In Directions for Historical Linguistics, edited by Lehmann, W. P. and Malkiel, Yakov, 95–195. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, John and Henry, Alison. 1998. ‘Parameter Setting within a Socially Realistic Linguistics’. Language in Society 27 (1): 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wurmbrand, Susi. 2006. ‘Verb Clusters, Verb Raising and Restructuring’. In The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, vol. 5, edited by Everaert, Martin and Henk, van Riemsdijk, 227–341. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Zwart, C. Jan-Wouter. 1996. ‘Verb Clusters in Continental West Germanic Dialects’. In Microparametric Syntax and Dialect Variation, edited by Black, James and Motapayane, Virginia, 229–58. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
- 1
- Cited by