Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T18:34:36.322Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

In search of grammaticalization in synchronic dialect data: general extenders in northeast England1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 October 2011

HEIKE PICHLER  and
STEPHEN LEVEY
HEIKE PICHLER
Affiliation:
School of Humanities, Languages & Social Sciences, University of Salford, Maxwell Building, Salford M5 4WT, [email protected]
STEPHEN LEVEY
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, University of Ottawa, 70 Laurier Avenue East, Ottawa K1N 6N5, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this article, we draw on a socially stratified corpus of dialect data collected in northeast England to test recent proposals that grammaticalization processes are implicated in the synchronic variability of general extenders (GEs), i.e. phrase- or clause-final constructions such as and that and or something. Combining theoretical insights from the framework of grammaticalization with the empirical methods of variationist sociolinguistics, we operationalize key diagnostics of grammaticalization (syntagmatic length, decategorialization, semantic-pragmatic change) as independent factor groups in the quantitative analysis of GE variability. While multivariate analyses reveal rapid changes in apparent time to the social conditioning of some GE variants in our data, they do not reveal any evidence of systematic changes in the linguistic conditioning of variants in apparent time that would confirm an interpretation of ongoing grammaticalization. These results lead us to question Cheshire's (2007) recent hypothesis that GEs are grammaticalizing in contemporary varieties of British English. They additionally raise caveats with regard to the assumption that the linguistic conditioning of GE variability in contemporary data sets is the product of change.

Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 15 , Issue 3 , November 2011 , pp. 441 - 471
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

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

Aijmer, Karin. 2002. English discourse particles: Evidence from a corpus (Studies in Corpus Linguistics 10). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre & Boltanski, Luc. 1975. Le fétichisme de la langue. Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales 4, 2–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brems, Lieselotte. 2007. The grammaticalization of small size nouns: Reconsidering frequency and analogy. Journal of English Linguistics 35 (4), 293–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 1996. Pragmatic markers in English: Grammaticalization and discourse function (Topics in English Linguistics 19). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Britain, David. 1992. Things and that in Porirua: An analysis of set marking tags. Notes from departmental seminar. Wellington Linguistics Seminar Series.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan & Cacoullos, Rena Torres. 2009. The role of prefabs in grammaticization: How the particular and the general interact in language change. In Corrigan, Roberta, Moravcsik, Edith A., Ouali, Hamid & Wheatley, Kathleen M. (eds.), Formulaic language, vol. 1: Distribution and historical change (Typological Studies in Language 82), 187–218. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, Richard & Flores-Ferrán, Nydia. 2004. Perseveration of subject expression across regional dialects of Spanish. Spanish in Context 1 (1), 41–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, Ruth. 2008. Historical English phraseology and the extender tag. Selim 15, 7–37.Google Scholar
Cheshire, Jenny. 2007. Discourse variation, grammaticalisation and stuff like that. Journal of Sociolinguistics 11 (2), 155–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Company, Concepción Company. 2006. Zero in syntax, ten in pragmatics: Subjectification as syntactic cancellation. In Athanasiadou, Angeliki, Canakis, Costas & Cornillie, Bert (eds.), Subjectification: Various paths to subjectivity (Cognitive Linguistics Research 31), 375–97. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, William. 1990. Typology and universals (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
D'Arcy, Alexandra. 2005. Like: Syntax and development. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Denis, Derek. MS. Grammaticalization of general extenders in York English. Unpublished manuscript, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Dines, Elizabeth R. 1980. Variation in discourse – ‘and stuff like that’. Language in Society 9 (1), 13–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downes, William. 1998. Language and society (Cambridge Approaches to Linguistics). 2nd edn.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dubois, Sylvie. 1992. Extension particles, etc. Language Variation and Change 4 (2), 179–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erman, Britt. 1995. Grammaticalization in progress: The case of or something. In Moen, Inger, Simonsen, Hanne Gram & Lødrup, Helga (eds.), Papers from the fifteenth Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics, Oslo, 13–15 January 1995, 136–47. Oslo: Department of Linguistics, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1990. Syntax, vol. 2: A functional typological introduction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 2002. On the role of context in grammaticalization. In Wischer, Ilse & Diewald, Gabriele (eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization (Typological Studies in Language 49), 83–101. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 2003. Grammaticalization. In Joseph & Janda (eds.), 575–601.Google Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2004. Lexicalization and grammaticization: Opposite or orthogonal? In Bisang, Walter, Himmelmann, Nikolaus & Wiemer, Björn (eds.), What makes grammaticalization? A look from its fringes and components (Trends in Linguistics 158), 21–42. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, Sebastian. 2005. Grammaticalization and English complex prepositions: A corpus-based study (Routledge Advances in Corpus Linguistics). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2003. Grammaticalization (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joseph, Brian D. 2004. Rescuing traditional (historical) linguistics from grammaticalization theory. In Fischer, Olga, Norde, Muriel & Perridon, Harry (eds.), Up and down the cline: The nature of grammaticalization (Typological Studies in Language 59), 45–71. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joseph, Brian D. & Janda, Richard D. (eds.). 2003. The handbook of historical linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. 1972. Sociolinguistic patterns. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1982. Building on empirical foundations. In Lehmann, Winfred P. & Malkiel, Yakov (eds.), Perspectives on historical linguistics, 17–92. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levey, Stephen. MS. General extenders and grammaticalization: Insights from London preadolescents. Submitted to Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Lichtenberk, Frantisek. 1991. On the gradualness of grammaticalization. In Traugott & Heine (eds.), 41–80.Google Scholar
Llamas, Carmen. 2007. A new methodology: Data elicitation for regional and social language variation studies. York Papers in Linguistics 8, 138–63.Google Scholar
Macaulay, Ronald. 1985. The narrative skills of a Scottish coal miner. In Görlach, Manfred (ed.), Focus on Scotland (Varieties of English around the World G5), 101–24. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macaulay, Ronald. 1991. Locating dialect in discourse: The language of honest men and bonnie lasses in Ayr. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Norrby, Catrin & Winter, Joanne. 2002. Affiliation in adolescents’ use of discourse extenders. Proceedings of the 2001 conference of the Australian Linguistic Society. www.arts.uaw.edu.au/LingWWW/als01/proceedings.html (accessed 18 December 2010).Google Scholar
O'Keeffe, Anne. 2004. ‘Like the wise virgins and all that jazz’: Using a corpus to examine vague categorization and shared knowledge. Language and Computers 52 (1), 1–26.Google Scholar
Overstreet, Maryann. 1999. Whales, candlelight, and stuff like that: General extenders in English discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Overstreet, Maryann. 2005. And stuff und so: Investigating pragmatic expressions in English and German. Journal of Pragmatics 37 (11), 1845–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Overstreet, Maryann & Yule, George. 1997. On being inexplicit and stuff in contemporary American English. Journal of English Linguistics 25 (3), 250–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Overstreet, Maryann & Yule, George. 2002. The metapragmatics of and everything. Journal of Pragmatics 34 (6), 785–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pichler, Heike. 2010. Methods in discourse variation analysis: Reflections on the way forward. Journal of Sociolinguistics 14 (5), 581–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pichler, Heike & Levey, Stephen. 2010. Variability in the co-occurrence of discourse features. Language Studies Working Papers 2, 17–27.Google Scholar
Poplack, Shana. 2011. A variationist perspective on grammaticalization. In Narrog, Heiko & Heine, Bernd (eds.), Handbook of grammaticalization, 209–24. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Poplack, Shana & Levey, Stephen. 2010. Contact-induced grammatical change. In Auer, Peter & Schmidt, Jürgen Erich (eds.), Language and space: An international handbook of linguistic variation, vol. 1: Theories and methods, 391–418. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Poplack, Shana & Tagliamonte, Sali A.. 1996. Nothing in context: Variation, grammaticalization and past time marking in Nigerian Pidgin English. In Baker, Peter (ed.), Changing meanings, changing functions: Papers relating to grammaticalization in contact languages, 71–94. London: University of Westminster Press.Google Scholar
Poplack, Shana & Tagliamonte, Sali A.. 1999. The grammaticization of ‘going to’ in (African American) English. Language Variation and Change 11 (3), 315–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poplack, Shana & Tagliamonte, Sali A.. 2001. African American English in the diaspora: Tense and aspect (Language in Society 30). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Romaine, Suzanne. 1985. The sociolinguistic history of t/d deletion. Folia Linguistica Historica 2, 25–59.Google Scholar
Sankoff, David, Tagliamonte, Sali A. & Smith, Eric. 2005. Goldvarb X. A multivariate analysis application. Department of Linguistics, University of Toronto, Canada. http://indivdiual.utoronto.ca/tagliamonte/Goldvarb/GV_index.htm (accessed 18 December 2010).Google Scholar
Sankoff, Gillian & Brown, Penelope.1976. The origins of syntax in discourse: A case study of Tok Pisin relatives. Language 52 (3), 631–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwenter, Scott & Cacoullos, Rena Torres. 2008. Defaults and indeterminacy in temporal grammaticalization: The ‘perfect’ road to perfectives. Language Variation and Change 20 (1), 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stenström, Anna-Brita, Andersen, Gisle & Hasund, Ingrid Kristine. 2002. Trends in teenage talk (Studies in Corpus Linguistics 8). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stubbe, Maria & Holmes, Janet. 1995. You know, eh and other exasperating expressions: An analysis of social and stylistic variation in the use of pragmatic particles in a sample of New Zealand English. Language and Communication 15 (1), 63–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2008. So different and pretty cool! Recycling intensifiers in Toronto, Canada. English Language and Linguistics 12 (2), 361–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. & D'Arcy, Alexandra. 2007. Frequency and variation in the community grammar: Tracking a new change through the generations. Language Variation and Change 19 (2), 199–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. & Denis, Derek. 2010. The stuff of change: General extenders in Toronto, Canada. Journal of English Linguistics 38 (4), 335–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. & Hudson, Rachel. 1999. Be like et al. beyond America: The quotative system in British and Canadian youth. Journal of Sociolinguistics 3 (2), 147–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. & Smith, Jennifer. 2006. Layering, competition and a twist of fate: Deontic modality in dialects of English. Diachronica 23 (2), 341–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torres Cacoullos, Rena. 2011. Variation and grammaticalization. In Diaz-Campos, Maria (ed.), The handbook of Hispanic sociolinguistics, 148–67. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1995. The role of the development of discourse markers in a theory of grammaticalization. Paper presented at ICHL XII, Manchester.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2003. Constructions in grammaticalization. In Joseph & Janda (eds.), 624–47.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Dasher, Richard B.. 2002. Regularity in semantic change (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 17). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Heine, Bernd. 1991. Introduction. In Traugott & Heine (eds.), 1–14.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Heine, Bernd (eds.). 1991. Approaches to grammaticalization, vol. 2: Focus on types of grammatical markers (Typological Studies in Language 19). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Trousdale, Graeme. 2010. Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization. How do they intersect? In Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Trousdale, Graeme (eds.), Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization (Typological Studies in Language 90), 19–44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vincent, Diane & Sankoff, David. 1992. Punctors: A pragmatic variable. Language Variation and Change 4 (2), 206–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel, Labov, William & Herzog, Marvin. 1968. Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. In Lehmann, Winfred & Malkiel, Yakov (eds.), Directions for historical linguistics, 95–188. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar