Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T09:11:40.887Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Inherent variability and Minimalism: Comments on Adger's ‘Combinatorial variability’

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 October 2007

RICHARD HUDSON
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Adger (2006) claims that the Minimalist Program provides a suitable theoretical framework for analysing at least one example of inherent variability: the variation between was and were after you and we in the Scottish town of Buckie. Drawing on the feature analysis of pronouns and the assumption that lexical items normally have equal probabilities, his analysis provides two ‘routes’ to we/you was, but only one to we/you were, thereby explaining why the former is on average twice as common as the latter. This comment points out four serious flaws in his argument: it ignores important interactions among sex, age and subject pronoun; hardly any social groups actually show the predicted average 2:1 ratio; there is no general tendency for lexical items to have equal probability of being used; the effects of the subject may be better stated in terms of the lexemes you and we rather than as semantic features. The conclusion is that inherent variability supports a usage-based theory rather than Minimalism.

Type
Notes And Discussion
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 43 , Issue 3 , November 2007 , pp. 683 - 694
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

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

Adger, David. 2006. Combinatorial variability. Journal of Linguistics 42, 503–530.Google Scholar
Adger, David & Jennifer, Smith. 2005. Variation and the Minimalist Programme. In Cornips, & Corrigan, (eds.) 149–178.Google Scholar
Barlow, Michael & Suzanne, Kemmer. 2000. Usage based models of language. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Bender, Emily. 2000. Syntactic variation and linguistic competence: The case of AAVE copula absence. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Carter, Ronald & Michael, McCarthy. 2006. Cambridge grammar of English: A comprehensive guide. Spoken and written English grammar and usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chambers, Jack, Peter, Trudgill & Natalie, Schilling-Estes. 2001. The handbook of language variation and change. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Cornips, Leonie & Karen, Corrigan. 2000. Convergence and divergence in grammar. In Peter, AuerFrans, Hinskens & Paul, Kerswill (eds.) Dialect change: Convergence and divergence in European languages, 96–134. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cornips, Leonie & Karen, Corrigan. 2005. Syntax and variation: Reconciling the biological and the social. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Coupland, Nikolas & Adam, Jaworski. 1997. Sociolinguistics. A reader and coursebook. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Culy, Christopher. 1996. Null objects in English recipes. Language Variation and Change 8, 91–124.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Henry, Alison. 2005. Idiolectal variation and syntactic theory. In Cornips, & Corrigan, (eds.) 109–122.Google Scholar
Hudson, Richard. 1980. Sociolinguistics, 1st edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hudson, Richard. 1986. Sociolinguistics and the theory of grammar. Linguistics 24, 1053–1078.Google Scholar
Hudson, Richard. 1995. Syntax and sociolinguistics. In Joachim, JacobsArnim von, StechowWolfgang, Sternefeld & Theo, Venneman (eds.) Syntax: An international handbook, vol. 2, 1514–1528. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hudson, Richard. 1996. Sociolinguistics, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hudson, Richard. 1997. Inherent variability and linguistic theory. Cognitive Linguistics 8, 73–108.Google Scholar
Hudson, Richard. 2007a. English dialect syntax in Word Grammar. English Language and Linguistics 11, 383–405.Google Scholar
Hudson, Richard. 2007b. Language Networks: The new Word Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1969. Contraction, deletion and inherent variability of the English copula. Language 45, 715–762.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 2003. Grammar is grammar and usage is usage. Language 79, 682–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 2006. On Gahl and Garnsey on grammar and usage. Language 82, 399–404.Google Scholar
Parrott, Jeffrey. 2007. Distributed morphological mechanisms of Labovian variation in morphosyntax. Ph.D. dissertation, Georgetown University.Google Scholar
Smith, Jennifer. 2000. Synchrony and diachrony in the evolution of English: Evidence from Scotland. Ph.D. dissertation, University of York.Google Scholar
Smith, Neil. 1989. The twitter machine: Reflections on language. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 1974. The social differentiation of English in Norwich. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 2000. Sociolinguistics: An introduction to language and society, 4th edn. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
van Gelderen, Elly. 2007. Principles and parameters in change. In Cornips, & Corrigan, (eds.) 179–198.Google Scholar
Wardhaugh, Ronald. 2005. An introduction to sociolinguistics, 5th edn. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wilson, John & Alison, Henry. 2007. Parameter setting within a socially realistic linguistics. Language in Society 27, 1–21.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold. 1999. The grammar and the user's manual. Unpublished. http://www-csli.stanford.edu/~zwicky/forum.pdf (27 April 2007).Google Scholar