Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T11:17:51.520Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Social work and linguistic systems: Marking possession in Canadian English

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 May 2010

Sali A. Tagliamonte ,
Alexandra D'Arcy  and
Bridget Jankowski
Sali A. Tagliamonte
Affiliation:
University of Toronto
Alexandra D'Arcy
Affiliation:
University of Victoria
Bridget Jankowski
Affiliation:
University of Toronto
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The system of stative possession has been subject to variation and change since at least the Early Modern period, with have got rising in frequency in British and Antipodean varieties of English. In Canadian English, as represented by data from the largest city, Toronto, have predominates. Nonetheless, the full set of constraints previously reported for this variable are operative, corroborating the longitudinal maintenance of linguistic factors across time and space (Kroch, 1989). At the same time, variation among possessive forms is conditioned by robust sociolinguistic patterns. Have is correlated with education and with female speakers, whereas less-educated men favor have got and got. Such findings demonstrate that the domination of one form or another in a variable system can be the result of historical accident, in this case a founder effect at a particular point in history, and that the social value of forms is a product of local circumstances at the time of change.

Type
Research Article
Information
Language Variation and Change , Volume 22 , Issue 1 , March 2010 , pp. 149 - 173
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

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

Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan, & Finegan, Edward. (1999). The Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, Morton. (1975 [1948]). Canadian English and its relation to eighteenth century American speech. In Chambers, J. K. (ed.), Canadian English: Origins and structures. Toronto: Methuen. 3–11. Reprinted from Journal of English and Germanic Philology 47:59–66.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J., & Fee, Margery. (2001). Canadian English. In Algeo, J. (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language, volume VI: English in North America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 422–440.Google Scholar
Chambers, J. K. (1991). Canada. In Cheshire, J. (ed.) English around the world: Sociolinguistic perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 89–107.Google Scholar
Chambers, J. K. (1998). Social embedding of changes in progress. Journal of English Linguistics 26:5–36.Google Scholar
Chambers, J. K. (2004). “Canadian Dainty”: The rise and decline of Briticisms in Canada. In Hickey, R. (ed.), The legacy of colonial English: Studies in transported dialects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 224–241.Google Scholar
Chambers, J. K. (forthcoming). English in Canada. In Todd, L. (ed.), Varieties of World English. London: Continuum International.Google Scholar
Cheshire, Jenny. (1982). Variation in an English dialect: A sociolinguistic study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Crowell, Thomas L. (1959). “Have got,” a pattern preserver. American Speech 34:280–286.Google Scholar
Denison, David. (1998). Syntax. In Romaine, S. (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language, volume IV: 1776–1997. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 92–329.Google Scholar
Dollinger, Stefan. (2008). New-dialect formation in Canada: Evidence from the English modal auxiliary system. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellegård, Alvar. (1953). The auxiliary ‘do’: The establishment and regulation of its use in English. Gothenburg Studies in English, Volume II. Göteborg: Stockhom, Almqvist, Wiksell.Google Scholar
Feagin, Crawford. (1979). Variation and change in Alabama English: A sociolinguistic study of the white community. Washington DC: Georgetown Press.Google Scholar
Fowler, Henry Watson. (1927). A dictionary of modern English usage. Oxford: The Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Fowler, Henry Watson & Francis George, Fowler. (1931). The King's English. Oxford: The Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Horn, Lawrence R. (2001). A natural history of negation. CSLI Publications. [Revised and updated version from 1989].Google Scholar
Jankowski, Bridget L. (2005). “We've got our own little ways of doing things here”: Cross-variety variation, change and divergence in the English stative possessive. Paper presented at the Twelfth International Conference on Methods in Dialectology, Moncton, New Brunswick, August 1–5, 2005.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. (1961). A Modern English grammar on historical principles: Part IV syntax. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Keller, Rudi. (1989). Invisible-hand theory and language evolution. Lingua 77(2):113–127.Google Scholar
Keller, Rudi. (1994). On language change: The invisible hand in language. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony. (1989). Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change. Language Variation and Change 1:199–244.Google Scholar
Labov, William. (1982). Building on empirical foundations. In Lehmann, W. P. & Malkiel, Y. (eds.), Perspectives on historical linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamin. 17–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. (1990). The intersection of sex and social class in the course of linguistic change. Language Variation and Change 2:205–254.Google Scholar
Labov, William. (2001). Principles of linguistic change: Volume 2: Social factors. Malden and Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Labov, William. (2002). Driving forces in linguistic change. Paper presented at the 2002 International Conference on Korean Linguistics. Seoul National University, Seoul, South Korea, August 2, 2002.Google Scholar
Lee, Jackie F. K., & Collins, Peter. (2004). On the usage of have, dare, need, ought, and used to in Australian English and Hong Kong English. World Englishes 23:501–513.Google Scholar
LeSourd, Philip. (1976). Got insertion. Linguistic Inquiry 7:509–516.Google Scholar
Mufwene, Salikoko S. (1996). The founder principle in creole genesis. Diachronica 13:83–134.Google Scholar
Nelson, Gerald. (2004). The negation of lexical have in conversational English. World Englishes 23:299–308.Google Scholar
Noble, Shawn. (1985). To have and have got. Paper presented at NWAV-14, Georgetown University.Google Scholar
Quinn, Heidi. (2009). Downward reanalysis and the rise of stative HAVE got. In Crisma, P. & Longobardi, G. (eds.), Historical syntax and linguistic theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 212–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quinn, Heidi. (forthcoming). Alienability and stative HAVE in New Zealand English. In Hendery, R. & Hendriks, J. (eds.), Grammatical change: Theory and description. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, The Australian National University.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey, & Svartvik, Jan. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Rice, Wallace. (1932). “Get and got.” American Speech 7:280–296.Google Scholar
Sankoff, David, Tagliamonte, Sali A., & Smith, Eric. (2005). Goldvarb X: A Variable Rule Application for Mac and Windows. Toronto: University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Strevens, P. (1972). British and American English. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. (2003). “Every place has a different toll”: Determinants of grammatical variation in cross-variety perspective. In Rohdenburg, G. & Mondorf, B. (eds.), Determinants of grammatical variation in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 531–554.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. (2008). English has (got) it: Grammaticalizing change in comparative perspective. ISLE (International Society for the Linguistics of English). Freiburg, Germany, October 8–11, 2008.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. (forthcoming). Roots of English: Exploring the history of dialects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A., & D'Arcy, Alexandra. (2009). Peaks beyond phonology: Adolescence, incrementation and language change. Language 85:58–108.Google Scholar
Takizawa, Naohiro. (2004). Some remarks on the “haven't NP” in American English. Paper presented at ICAME-25, Verona, Italy, May 19–23, 2004.Google Scholar
Tottie, Gunnel. (1991). Negation in English Speech and Writing: A Study in Variation. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. (1972). Sex, covert prestige, and linguistic change in urban British English. Language in Society 1(2):179–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trudgill, Peter, Nevalainen, Terttu, & Wischer, Ilse. (2002). Dynamic have in North American and British Isles English. English Language and Linguistics 6:1–15.Google Scholar
Visser, Fredricus T. (1963–1973). An historical syntax of the English language. Leiden: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar
Weldon, Tracy. (1994). Variability in negation in African American Vernacular English. Language Variation and Change 6:359–397.Google Scholar
Wolfram, Walt. (1996). Dialect in society. In Coulmas, F. (ed.), Handbook on sociolinguistics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. 107–126.Google Scholar