Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T12:05:34.516Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A closer look at the constraint hierarchy: Order, contrast, and geographical scale

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 November 2003

Barbara M. Horvath  and
Ronald J. Horvath
Barbara M. Horvath
Affiliation:
University of Sydney
Ronald J. Horvath
Affiliation:
University of Sydney
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Close examination of five constraint hierarchies involved in the vocalization of /l/ in Australian and New Zealand English across five geolinguistic scales (individual, local, regional, national, and supranational) reveals patterns of variation that allow us to distinguish linguistic processes that are universal from those that are particular. Based on 42 goldvarb analyses, we use probability weights to measure the variation in the order and contrast within and across constraint hierarchies. Geolinguistic scale analysis shows that some constraints are scale independent (i.e., they do not vary in order or contrast with changes in geolinguistic scale), whereas others are clearly scale dependent and do vary systematically with changes in geolinguistic scale. We propose a universality continuum in which constraint hierarchies that exhibit near invariance across all geolinguistic scales are at one end of the continuum and constraint hierarchies that vary with geolinguistic scale are at the other end. Scale dependency in constraint hierarchies identifies where social processes can intervene in universal linguistic processes.We would like to thank Sali Tagliamonte for engaging with us in a discussion of the problems associated with comparing goldvarb analyses. We would also like to thank Meriam Meyerhoff for suggesting that we look at the individual scale. In addition, a thoughtful reviewer carefully laid out the potential statistical problems associated with our approach to the comparison of goldvarb analyses. We have attempted to defend the approach taken, but recognize that the discussion of comparative goldvarb analysis warrants further consideration.

Type
Research Article
Information
Language Variation and Change , Volume 15 , Issue 2 , July 2003 , pp. 143 - 170
Copyright
© 2003 Cambridge University Press

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

Borowsky, T. (2001). The vocalization of dark l in Australian English. In P. Collins & D. Blair (eds.), English in Australia. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Borowsky, T., & Horvath, B. M. (1997). L-vocalization in Australian English. In F. Hinskens, R. van Hout, & W. L. Wetzels (eds.), Variation, change and phonological theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 101–123.
Chambers, J. K., & Trudgill, P. (1999). Dialectology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Comrie, B. (1981). Language universals and linguistic typology. Oxford: Blackwell.
Cukor-Avila, Patricia. (2001). Co-existing grammars: The relationship between the evolution of African American and White Vernacular English in the South. In Sonja L. Lanehart (ed.), Sociocultural and historical contexts of African American English. Philadelphia: Benjamins. 93–127.
Dubois, S., & Horvath, B. (2003). Verbal morphology in Cajun Vernacular English: A comparison with other varieties of Southern English. Journal of English Linguistics. pp. 34–59.
Dubois, S., & Melancon, M. (1997). Cajun is dead—long live Cajun: Shifting from a linguistic to a cultural community. Journal of Sociolinguistics 1:63–93.Google Scholar
Eckert, P. (1989). Jocks and burnouts. New York: Teachers College Press.
Eckert, P. (1997). Age as a sociolinguistic variable. In F. Coulmas (ed.), The handbook of sociolinguistics. Oxford: Blackwell. 151–167.
Eckert, P. (2000). Linguistic variation as social practice. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Eckert, P., & McConnell-Genet, S. (1992). Think practically and look locally: Language and gender as community based practice. Annual Review of Anthropology 21:461–490.Google Scholar
Godfrey, E., & Tagliamonte, S. (1999). Another piece for the verbal -s story: Evidence from Devon in southwest England. Language Variation and Change 11:87–121.Google Scholar
Gordon, E., & Sudbury, A. (2002). The history of southern hemisphere Englishes. In R. Watts & P. Trudgill (eds.), Alternative histories of English. London: Routledge. 67–86.
Guy, G. R. (1980). Variation in the group and the individual: The case of final stop deletion. In W. Labov (ed.), Locating language in time and space. New York: Academic. 1–36.
Horvath, B. M., & Horvath, R. J. (2001). A multilocality study of a sound change in progress: The case of /l/ vocalization in New Zealand and Australian English. Language Variation and Change 13:37–57.Google Scholar
Horvath, B. M., & Horvath, R. J. (2002). The geolinguistics of /l/ vocalization in Australia and New Zealand. Journal of Sociolinguistics 6:319–346.Google Scholar
Johnston, R. J. (2000a). Ecological fallacy. In R. J. Johnston et al. (eds.), The dictionary of human geography ( 4th ed.). Oxford: Blackwell. 190–191.
Johnston, R. J. (2000b). Modifiable areal unit problem. In R. J. Johnston et al. (eds.), The dictionary of human geography ( 4th ed.). Oxford: Blackwell. 518–519.
Kretschmar Jr., W. A. (1996). Quantitative areal analysis of dialect features. Language Variation and Change 8:13–39.Google Scholar
Labov, W., Boberg, C., & Ash, S. (forthcoming). The atlas of North American English. The Hague: Mouton/DeGruyter.
Massey, D. (1997). A global sense of place. In T. Barnes & D. Gregory (eds.), Reading human geography. London: Arnold. 315–323.
Massey, D. (2002). The legitimate language: Giving a history to English. In R. Watts & P. Trudgill (eds.), Alternative histories of English. London: Routledge. 7–25.
Milroy, J., & Milroy, L. (1985). Linguistic change, social network, and speaker innovation. Journal of Linguistics 21:339–384.Google Scholar
Milroy, J. (1980). Language and social networks. Oxford: Blackwell.
Paolillo, J. C. (2002). Analyzing linguistic variation: Statistical models and methods. Stanford: CSLI.
Poplack, S., & Tagliamonte, S. (1991). African American English in the diaspora: Evidence from old-line Nova Scotians. Language Variation and Change 3:301–339.Google Scholar
Poplack, S., & Tagliamonte, S. (2001). African American English in the diaspora. Oxford: Blackwell.
Rand, D., & Sankoff, D. (1990). Goldvarb. Montreal: Centre de recherches mathematiques, University of Montreal.
Sproat, R., & Fujimura, O. (1993). Allophonic variation in English /l/ and its implications for phonetic implementation. Journal of Phonetics 21:291–311.Google Scholar
Sudbury, A. (2000). Dialect contact and koineisation in the Falkland Islands: The development of a Southern Hemisphere English. Doctoral dissertation, University of Essex.
Tagliamonte, S. A. (2002). Comparative sociolinguistics. In J. Chambers, P. Trudgill, & N. Schilling-Estes (eds.), The handbook of language variation and change. Oxford: Blackwell. 729–763.
Tagliamonte, S., & Smith, J. (2000). Old was, new ecology: Viewing English through the sociolinguistic filter. In S. Poplack (ed.), The English history of African American English. Oxford: Blackwell. 141–171.
Weinreich, U., Labov, W., & Herzog, M. (1968). Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. In W. P. Lehmann & Y. Malkiel (eds.), Directions for historical linguistics. Austin: University of Texas. 95–188.
Wells, J. C. (1982). Accents of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.