Using the variationist comparative method, the status of ambiguous lone Spanish-origin nouns in Catalan discourse is determined by analyzing their distribution and conditioning and by comparing them to their counterparts in unmixed Spanish or in multiple-word code-switches. Some areas of the nominal grammar have been selected for contrastive purposes (determination, complementation, gender, number) because they represent sites of coincidence as well as conflict between the two languages in contact, Spanish and Catalan. The main conclusion of this research is that Spanish-origin nouns in an otherwise Catalan context present grammatical variability similar to that of Catalan nouns, and that they behave differently from Spanish nouns in a monolingual context. In short, the grammar of these nouns is Catalan, and their categorial status is that of loanwords and not that of code-switches.

This article demonstrates the importance of investigating language variation and change both within and across ethnic groups, especially those that have been relatively insular historically. The focus is on the variable patterning of /ay/ in the variety of English spoken by the Lumbee Indians in tri-ethnic Robeson County, North Carolina. (The Lumbee refer to themselves as “Indians” rather than “Native Americans”; I use their term when referring to their tribe.) The analysis reveals that the Lumbee have been surprisingly innovative and heterogeneous. Explanations are both linguistic and extralinguistic. Insular groups do not face linguistic pressure to level intra- and inter-community differences or to curb internal innovations. In addition, insular groups are often more concerned with intra- than inter-group relations and hence with intra-group social and linguistic distinctions. The study also shows a lessening of inter- and intra-group dialect differences with increased inter-group contact. However, the Lumbee still preserve a degree of dialectal distinctiveness, indicating that the need to preserve cultural uniqueness may outweigh linguistic pressure to level out differences.

Previous studies have shown that speakers have difficulty interpreting the sounds of another dialect when they are heard in isolation or reduced context, and that this difficulty is greater in areas of dialect contact where exposure to mergers or near-mergers is experienced (Labov & Ash, 1997; Labov, Karen, & Miller, 1991). A cross-dialectal comprehension test was conducted at Ohio University and three of its branch campuses. Responses were elicited to seven words digitally excerpted at three levels of reduced context from a story read by a third-generation resident of southern Ohio. Results indicated that vowel changes occurring in southern Ohio were generally interpreted by the respondents in terms of their own vowel systems, and that limited exposure to the local dialect by outsiders led to recognition only of the more salient or stereotyped sounds. Moreover, students from southern Ohio had difficulty with the same words that outsiders did, presumably reflecting semantic confusion caused by their increased exposure to other dialects. A new boundary for the South Midland dialect area is proposed on the basis of these findings.

A corpus of conversational Bislama (a Melanesian creole spoken in Vanuatu, related to Tok Pisin and Solomon Islands Pijin) suggests that during the 20th century the creole has developed a set of regular inflectional morphemes on the verb that agree in person and number with the subject of the finite clause. It is shown that, where the agreement paradigm is referentially richest, the language is also beginning to grammaticize a tendency towards phonetically null subjects (pro-drop). Three possible analyses of the Bislama verb phrase are evaluated; consistent support for only one is found in the spoken Bislama corpus. The resulting paradigm of subject–verb agreement (i, oli, and Ø) is analyzed in terms of the historical development of Bislama. It is argued that the synchronic agreement marking reflects properties derived from (i) the lexifier (English), (ii) the substrate languages, and (iii) universal grammar. No one component fully accounts for the patterns of agreement marking observed. Instead, a synthesis of all three is required, as previously observed by, for example, G. Sankoff (1984) and Mufwene (1996). Substrate languages provide a model for subject agreement prefixing on the verb; the person features associated with the lexifier ‘he’ continue to be reflected in the distribution of Bislama i; and phonetically null subjects are emerging as the norm where the agreement paradigm best serves to identify the subject referent. This is consonant with generative accounts of null subject systems. Parallels with other languages (e.g., Italian, Franco-Provençal, Hebrew, Finnish) are examined.