Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T10:40:48.537Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Perception, cognition, and linguistic structure: The effect of linguistic modularity and cognitive style on sociolinguistic processing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 September 2015

Erez Levon  and
Isabelle Buchstaller
Erez Levon
Affiliation:
Queen Mary University of London
Isabelle Buchstaller
Affiliation:
Leipzig University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Interface Principle posits that morphosyntactic variation does not elicit the same kinds of perceptual reactions as phonetic variables because “members of the speech community evaluate the surface form of language but not more abstract structural features” (Labov, 1993:4). This article examines the effect of linguistic modularity on listeners' social evaluations. Our point of departure is the sociolinguistic monitor, a hypothesized cognitive mechanism that governs frequency-linked perceptual awareness (Labov, Ash, Ravindranath, Weldon, & Nagy, 2011). Results indicate that “higher level” structural variables are available to the sociolinguistic monitor. Moreover, listeners' reactions are conditioned by independent effects of region of provenance and individual cognitive style. Overall, our findings support the claim that sociolinguistic processing is influenced by a range of social and psychological constraints (Campbell-Kibler, 2011; Preston, 2010; Wagner & Hesson, 2014) while also demonstrating the need for models of sociolinguistic cognition to include patterns of grammatical variation (Meyerhoff & Walker, 2013; Walker, 2010).

Type
Research Article
Information
Language Variation and Change , Volume 27 , Issue 3 , October 2015 , pp. 319 - 348
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armstrong, Neil. (1997). Social and stylistic variation in spoken French. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ashby, William J. (1981). The loss of the negative ‘ne’ in French: A syntactic change in progress. Language 57:674–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnfield, Katie, & Buchstaller, Isabelle. (2010). Intensifiers on Tyneside: Longitudinal developments and new trends. English World-Wide 31(3):252–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baron-Cohen, Simon, Wheelwright, Sally, Skinner, Richard, Martin, Joanne, & Clubley, Emma. (2001). The Autism-Spectrum Quotient (AQ): Evidence from Asperger Syndrome/high-functioning autism, males and females, scientists and mathematicians. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 31:5–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beal, Joan. (2010). Prescriptivism and the suppression of variation. In Hickey, R. (ed.), Eighteenth century English: Ideology and change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 21–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beal, Joan, & Corrigan, Karen. (2005). No, nay, never: Negation in Tyneside English. In Iyeiri, Y. (ed.), Aspects of English negation. Tokyo: John Benjamins. 139–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beal, Joan, & Corrigan, Karen. (2007). Time and Tyne: A corpus-based study of variation and change in relativization strategies in Tyneside English. In Elspass, S., Langer, N., Scharloth, J., & Vandenbussche, W. (eds.), Germanic language histories from below (1700–2000). Berlin: de Gruyter. 99–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beal, Joan, Burbano-Elzondo, Lourdes, & Llamas, Carmen. (2012). Urban North-Eastern English: Tyneside to Teesside. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boberg, Charles. (2004). Real and apparent time in language change: Late adoption of changes in Montreal English. American Speech 79:250–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Rupert, Condor, Susan, Mathews, Audrey, Wade, Gillian, & Williams, Jennifer. (1986). Explaining intergroup differentiation in an industrial organization. Journal of Occuptional Psychology 59(4):273–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchstaller, Isabelle. (2009). The quantitative analysis of morphosyntactic variation: Constructing and quantifying the denominator. Linguistic Compass 3(4):1010–1033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchstaller, Isabelle, & Corrigan, Karen. (forthcoming). Northern English morphosyntax. In Hickey, R. (ed.), Researching Northern English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Buchstaller, Isabelle, Corrigan, Karen, Holmberg, Anders, Honeybone, Patrick, & Maguire, Warren. (2013). T-to-R and the Northern Subject Rule: Questionnaire-based spatial, social and structural linguistics. English Language and Linguistics 17(1):85–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callier, Patrick. (2011). Social meaning in prosodic variability. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 17(1):40–50.Google Scholar
Campbell-Kibler, Kathryn. (2011). The sociolinguistic variant as a carrier of social meaning. Language Variation and Change 22(3):423–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cargile, Aaron Castelan, & Giles, Howard. (1997). Understanding language attitudes: Exploring listener affect and identity. Language and Communication 17(3):195–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cedergren, Henrietta, & Sankoff, David. (1974). Variable rules: Performance as a statistical reflection of competence. Language 50(2):333–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chambers, Jack. (2002). Sociolinguistic theory: Linguistic variation and its social significance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Cheshire, Jenny. (1987). Syntactic variation, the linguistic variable and sociolinguistic theory. Linguistics 25(2):257–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheshire, Jenny. (1996). Syntactic variation and the concept of prominence. In Klemola, J., Kytö, M., & Rissanen, M. (eds.), Speech past and present: Studies in English dialectology in memory of Ossi Ihalainen. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. 1–17.Google Scholar
Cheshire, Jenny. (1998). Taming the vernacular: Some repercussions for the study of syntactic variation and spoken grammar. Te Reo: Journal of the Linguistic Society of New Zealand 41:6–27.Google Scholar
Cheshire, Jenny. (2005). Syntactic variation and spoken language. In Cornips, L. & Corrigan, K. (eds.), Syntax and variation: Reconciling the biological and the social. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 81–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheshire, Jenny, & Milroy, James. (1993). Syntactic variation in non-standard dialects: Background issues. In Milroy, J. & Milroy, L. (eds.), Real English: The grammar of English dialects in the British Isles. London: Longman. 3–33.Google Scholar
Cheshire, Jenny, Kerswill, Paul, & Williams, Ann. (2005). Phonology, grammar and discourse in dialect convergence. In Auer, P., Hinskens, F., & Kerswill, P. (eds.), Dialect change: Convergence and divergence of dialects in contemporary societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 135–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Childs, Claire. (2012). Verbal -s and the Northern Subject Rule: Spatial variation in linguistic and sociolinguistic constraints. In Pérez, X. A. Álvarez, Carrilho, E., & Magro, C. (eds.), Proceedings of the International Symposium on Limits and Areas in Dialectology (LimiAr), Lisbon, 2011. Lisboa: Centro de Linguística da Universidade de Lisboa. 319–344.Google Scholar
Childs, Claire. (2013). Verbal -s and the Northern Subject Rule: Spatial variation in linguistic and sociolinguistic constraints. In Pérez, X. A. Álvarez, Carrilho, E., & Magro, C. (eds.), Current approaches to limits and areas in dialectology. Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Press. 311–344.Google Scholar
Clark, Lynn, & Trousdale, Graeme. (2009). Exploring the role of token frequency in phonological change: Evidence from TH-fronting in east-central Scotland. English Language and Linguistics 13:33–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, Marcelle. (2008). What is the Northern Subject Rule? The resilience of a medieval constraint in Tyneside English. Journal of the Spanish Society for Medieval Language and Literature (SELIM) 15:91–114.Google Scholar
Cornips, Leonie, & Corrigan, Karen. (eds). (2005). Syntax and variation: Reconciling the biological and the social. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coupland, Nikolas, & Bishop, Hywel. (2007). Ideologised values for British accents. Journal of Sociolinguistics 11(1):74–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coveney, Aidan. (1996). Variability in spoken French: A sociolinguistic study of interrogation and negation. Exeter: Elm Bank Publications.Google Scholar
Coveney, Aidan. (2005). Subject doubling in spoken French. French Review, American Association of Teachers of French 79(1):96–111.Google Scholar
de Haas, Nynke. (2011). Morphosyntactic variation in Northern English: The Northern Subject Rule, its origins and early history. PhD dissertation, Radboud Univeristeit Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Detges, Ulrich, & Waltereit, Richard. (2008). Syntactic change from within and from without syntax: A usage-based analysis. In Detges, U. & Waltereit, R. (eds.), The paradox of grammatical change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 13–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele, Kahlas-Tarkka, Leena, & Wischer, Ilse. (2013). Comparative studies in early Germanic languages: With a focus on verbal categories. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Docherty, Gerard, & Foulkes, Paul. (2000). Speaker, speech and knowledge of sounds. In Burton-Roberts, N., Carr, P., & Docherty, G. (eds.), Phonological knowledge: Conceptual and empirical issues. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 105–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dorling, Danny. (2012). Inequality constitutes a particular place. Social and Cultural Geography 13(1):1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Filppula, Marku. (1999). The grammar of Irish English: Language in Hibernian style. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga, Rosenbach, Anette, & Stein, Dieter. (2000). Pathways of change grammaticalization in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frith, Uta. (1989). Autism: Explaining the enigma. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Giles, Howard, & Powesland, Peter Francis. (1975). Speech style and social evaluation. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Godfrey, Elizabeth, & Tagliamonte, Sali. (1999). Another piece for the verbal -s story: Evidence from Devon in southwest England. Language Variation and Change 11(1):87–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, Matthew. (2000). Phonological correlates of ethnic identity: Evidence of divergence? American Speech 75(2):115–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette K., Hedberg, Nancy, & Zacharaski, Ron. (1993). Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions. Language 69(2):274–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henriksen, Nicholas. (2013). Style, prosodic variation, and the social meaning of intonation. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 43(2):153–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henry, Alison. (1995). Belfast English and Standard English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinskens, Frans. (1998). Variation studies in dialectology and three types of sound change. Sociolinguistica 12:155–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffman, Sebastian. (2004). Are low-frequency complex prepositions grammaticalized? On the limits of corpus data—and the importance of intuitions. In Lindquist, H. & Mair, C. (eds.), Corpus approaches to grammaticalization in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 171–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul, & Traugott, Elizabeth. (2003). Grammaticalization. 2nd ed.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, Richard. (1996). Sociolinguistics. 2nd ed.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurley, Robert, Losh, Molly, Parlier, Morgan, Reznick, J. Steven, & Piven, Joseph. (2007). The broad autism phenotype questionnaire. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 37(9):1679–1690.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jensen, Marie Møller. (2014). Salience in language change: A socio-cognitive study of Tyneside English. PhD dissertation, Northumbria University Newcastle.Google Scholar
Johnstone, Barbara, & Kiesling, Scott F. (2008). Indexicality and experience: Exploring the meanings of /aw/-monophthongization in Pittsburgh. Journal of Sociolinguistics 12(1):5–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kallen, Jeffrey L. (1991). Intra-language transfer and plural subject concord in Irish and Appalachian English. Teanga 11:20–34.Google Scholar
Kerswill, Paul. (2003). Dialect levelling and geographical diffusion in British English. In Britain, D. & Cheshire, J. (eds.), Social dialectology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 223–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerswill, Paul, & Williams, Ann. (2002). ‘Salience’ as an explanatory factor in language change: Evidence from dialect levelling in urban England. In Jones, M. C. & Esch, E. (eds.), Language change: The interplay of internal, external and extra-linguistic factors. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 81–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroch, Anthony. (1994). Morphosyntactic variation. In Beals, K., Denton, J., Knippen, R., Melnar, L., Suzuki, H., & Zeinfeld, E. (eds.), Papers from the 30th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society: Parasession on Variation and Linguistic Theory. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society. 180–201.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: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Labov, William. (1978). Where does the linguistic variable stop? A response to Beatriz Lavandera. Working Papers in Sociolinguistics 44. Austin: Southwest Educational Development Lab.Google Scholar
Labov, William. (1993). The unobservability of structure and its linguistic consequences. Paper presented at the 22nd New Ways in Analyzing Variation conference, University of Ottawa, October 22–25.Google Scholar
Labov, William. (2001). Principles of linguistic change. Vol. 2: Social Factors. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Labov, William, Ash, Sharon, Ravindranath, Maya, Weldon, Tracey, & Nagy, Naomi. (2011). Properties of the sociolinguistic monitor. Journal of Sociolinguistics 15(4):431–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levon, Erez, & Fox, Sue. (2014). Salience and the sociolinguistic monitor: A case study of ING and TH-fronting in Britain. Journal of English Linguistics 42(3):185–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCafferty, Kevin. (2003). The Northern Subject Rule in Ulster: How Scots? How English? Language Variation and Change 15(1):105–139.Google Scholar
McCafferty, Kevin. (2004). “[T]hunder storms is very dangese in this countrey they come in less than a minnits notice”: The Northern Subject Rule in Southern Irish English. English World-Wide 25(1):51–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McIntosh, Angus. (1983). Present indicative plural forms in the later Middle English of the North Midlands. In Gray, D. & Stanley, E. G. (eds.), Middle English studies: Presented to Norman Davis in honour of his seventieth birthday. Oxford: Clarendon. 235–254.Google Scholar
Meyerhoff, Miriam. (1997). Be I no gat. Constraints on Null Subjects in Bislama. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Meyerhoff, Miriam. (1999). Towards a typology of linguistic variables. Paper presented at 28th New Ways in Analyzing Variation conference, University of York and University of Toronto, October 14–17.Google Scholar
Meyerhoff, Miriam, & Walker, James. (2013). An existential problem: The sociolinguistic monitor and variation in existential constructions on Bequia (St. Vincent and the Grenadines). Language in Society 42:407–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milroy, Lesley, & Gordon, Matthew. (2003). Sociolinguistics: Method and interpretation. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montgomery, Michael. (1989). Exploring the roots of Appalachian English. English World-Wide 10(2):227–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montgomery, Michael. (1994). The evolution of the verb concord in Scots. In Fenton, A. & McDonald, D. (eds.), Studies in Scots and Gaelic: Proceedings of the Third International Conferences on the Languages of Scotland. Edinburgh: Canongate. 81–95.Google Scholar
Montgomery, Michael, & Fuller, Janet. (1996). What was verbal -s in 19th century African American English In Schneider, E. W. (ed.), Focus on the USA. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 211–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montgomery, Michael, Fuller, Janet, & DeMarse, Sharon. (1993). ‘The Black Men has wives and sweethearts (and third person plural -s) jest like the white men’: Evidence for verbal –s from the written documents on 19th century African American speech. Language Variation and Change 5:335–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, Emma. (2004). Sociolinguistic style: A multidimensional resource for shared identity creation. Canadian Journal of Linguistics / La revue canadienne de linguistique 49(3/4):375–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, Emma, & Snell, Julia. (2011). “Oh, they're top, them”: Right dislocated tags and interactional stance. In Gregersen, F., Parrott, J., & Quist, P. (eds.) Language variation—European perspectives III. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 97–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mossé, Fernand. (1952). A handbook of Middle English. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mottron, Laurent, Burack, Jacob, Iarocci, Grace, Belleville, Sylvie, & Enns, James. (2003). Locally oriented perception with intact global processing among adolescents with high-functioning autism: Evidence from multiple paradigms. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 44(6):904–913.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Murray, James A. H. (1873). The dialect of the southern counties of Scotland: Its pronunciation, grammar, and historical relations. London: Philological Society.Google Scholar
Nadasdi, Terry. (1995). Variation morphosyntaxique et langue minoritaire: Le cas du français ontarien. PhD dissertation, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Naro, Anthony. (1981). The social and structural dimensions of a syntactic change. Language 57(1):63–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu. (2006). Corpora, historical sociolinguistics and the transmission of language change. In Hornero, A. M., Luzón, M. J., & Murillo, S. (eds.), Corpus linguistics: Applications for the study of English. Linguistic Insights 25. Bern: Peter Lang. 23–37.Google Scholar
Niedzielski, Nancy. (1999). The effect of social information on the perception of sociolinguistic variables. Journal of Social Psychology (Special Edition) 18(1):62–85.Google Scholar
Niedzielski, Nancy, & Preston, Dennis R. (2003). Folk linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
O'Brien, Robert M. (2007). A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Quality & Quantity 41:673–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pietsch, Lukas. (2005). ‘Some do and some doesn't’: Verbal concord variation in the north of the British Isles. In Kortmann, B., Herrmann, T., Pietsch, L., & Wagner, S. (eds.), A comparative grammar of British English dialects: Agreement, gender, relative clauses. Berlin: Mouton. 125–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Podesva, Robert. (2011). Salience and the social meaning of declarative contours: Three case studies of gay professionals. Journal of English Linguistics 39(3):233–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poplack, Shana, & Tagliamonte, Sali. (1989). There's no tense like the present: Verbal –s inflection in early Black English. Language Variation and Change 1(1):47–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preston, Dennis. (2010). Variation in language regard. In Zeigler, E., Gilles, P., & Scharloth, J. (eds.), Variatio delectat: Empirische Evidenzen und theoretische Passungen sprachlicher Variation (für Klaus J. Mattheier zum 65. Geburtstag). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. 7–27.Google Scholar
Preston, Dennis. (2011). The power of language regard: Discrimination, classification, comprehension and production. Dialectologia Special issue II:9–33.Google Scholar
R Core Team. (2015). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL: http://www.R-project.org/.Google Scholar
Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena. (2005). The diffusion of subject YOU: A case study in historical sociolinguistics. Language Variation and Change 17(1):55–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena, & Nevalainen, Terttu. (1994). Social conditioning and diachronic language change. In Kastovsky, D. (ed.), Studies in Early Modern English. Topics in English Linguistics 13. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 325–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Nicholas. (2014). A sociolinguistic study of grammatical variation in Martinique French. PhD dissertation, Newcastle University.Google Scholar
Romaine, Suzanne. (1979). The language of Edinburgh schoolchildren: The acquisition of sociolinguistic competence. Scottish Literary Journal 9:55–61.Google Scholar
Romaine, Suzanne. (1984). On the problem of syntactic variation and pragmatic meaning in sociolinguistic theory. Folia Linguistica 18:409–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rupp, Laura. (2006). The scope of the Northern Subject Rule. In Vliegen, M. (ed.), Variation in linguistic theory and language acquisition (Proceedings of the 39th Linguistics Colloquium). Oxford: Peter Lang. 295–304.Google Scholar
Rydén, Mats. (1991). The be/have variation with intransitives in its crucial phases. In Kastovsky, D. (ed.), Historical English syntax. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 343–354.Google Scholar
Sankoff, Gillian. (1972). Above and beyond phonology in variable rules. In Bailey, C. J. & Shuy, R. (eds.), New ways in analyzing variation in English. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. 42–62.Google Scholar
Schleef, Erik, & Ramsammy, Michael. (2013). Labio-dental fronting of /θ/ in London and Edinburgh: A cross-dialectal study. Journal of English Linguistics 17(1):25–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. (1981). The limits of awareness. Sociolinguistic Working Paper 84. Austin: Southwestern Educational Laboratory.Google Scholar
Smith, Jennifer, Durham, Mercedes, & Fortune, Liane. (2007). “Mam, my trousers is fa'indoon!”: Community, caregiver, and child in the acquisition of variation in a Scottish dialect. Language Variation and Change 19(1):63–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stuart-Smith, Jane, & Timmins, Claire. (2006). “Tell her to shut her moof”: The role of the lexicon in TH-fronting in Glaswegian. In Caie, G., Hough, C., & Wotherspoon, I. (eds.), The power of words: Essays in lexicography, lexicology and semantics. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 171–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali, & Hudson, Rachel. (1999). Be like et al. beyond America: The quotative system in British and Canadian youth. Journal of Sociolinguistics 3(2):147–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomlin, Russel S. (1995). Focal attention, voice, and word order: An experimental, cross-linguistic study. In Noonan, M. & Downing, P. (eds.), Word order in discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 517–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomlin, Russel S. (1997). Mapping conceptual representations into linguistic representations: The role of attention in grammar. In Nyuts, J. & Pederson, E. (eds.), Language and conceptualization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 162–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tortora, Christina, & den Dikken, Marcel. (2010). Subject agreement variation: Support for the configurational approach. Lingua 120:1089–1108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth. (1982). From propositional to textual and expressive meanings: Some semantic-pragmatic aspects of grammaticalization. In Lehmann, W. P. & Malkiel, Y. (eds.), Perspectives on historical linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 245–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth. (2010). Revisiting subjectification and intersubjectification. In Davidse, K., Vandelanotte, L., & Cuyckens, H. (eds.), Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 29–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. (1974). The social differentiation of English in Norwich. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. (1986). Dialects in contact. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wagner, Suzanne Evans, & Hesson, Ashley. (2014). Individual sensitivity to the frequency of socially meaningful linguistic cues affects language attitudes. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 33(6):651–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wales, Katie. (2006). Northern English: A social and cultural history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, James. (2010). Variation in linguistic systems. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Watt, Dominic, & Milroy, Lesley. (1999). Variation in three Tyneside vowels: Is this dialect levelling In Foulkes, P. & Docherty, G. J. (eds.), Urban voices: Accent studies in the British Isles. London: Arnold. 25–46.Google Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel, Labov, William, & Herzog, Marvin I. (1968). Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. In Lehmann, W. & Malkiel, Y. (eds.), Directions for historical linguistics: A symposium. Austin: University of Texas Press. 95–188.Google Scholar
Williams, Ann, & Kerswill, Paul. (1999). Dialect levelling: Change and continuity in Milton Keynes, Reading and Hull. In Foulkes, P. & Docherty, G. (eds.), Urban voices: Accent studies in the British Isles. London: Arnold. 141–162.Google Scholar
Winford, Donald. (1984). The linguistic variable and syntactic variation in Creole Continua. Lingua 62:267–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfram, Walt. (1969). Linguistic correlates of social differences in the Negro Community. In Alatis, J. (ed.), Georgetown monograph series on languages and linguistics no. 22. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. 249–257.Google Scholar
Wolfram, Walt, & Christian, Donna. (1976). Appalachian speech. Arlington: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Yu, Alan. (2010). Perceptual compensation is correlated with individuals’ “autistic” traits: Implications for models of sound change. PLoS One 5(8): e11950.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yu, Alan, Abrego-Collier, Carissa, & Sonderegger, Morgan. (2013). Phonetic imitation from an individual-difference perspective: Subjective attitude, personality, and ‘autistic’ traits. PLoS One 8(9):e74746.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zanuttini, Raffaella, & Bernstein, Judy. (2011). Micro-comparative syntax in English verbal agreement. In Lima, S., Mullin, K., & Smith, B. (eds.), Proceedings of NELS 39. Vol. 2. Amherst: University of Massachusetts GLSA Publications. 839–854.Google Scholar