Mersea Island is a small island off the coast of north-east Essex, UK, which has a rich history of contact, ranging from Viking and Roman settlements to more modern influxes of evacuees and military personnel during both World Wars. The island itself also has a history of isolation, due to its only access road being cut off regularly by lunar tides. However, this isolation has been challenged over more recent years by various building projects, resulting in a large influx of non-islanders moving and settling on the island. This overview will present a range of phonological features across both the consonantal and vocalic systems of Mersea Island English as evidence from both older and younger Islanders to highlight traditional features and the direction of change within the community as a whole. A selection of morphosyntactic features which highlight more salient structures of Mersea Island English is then presented before a discussion of how we may wish to evaluate paths of change moving forward in relation to both socio-cultural and linguistic factors.

This chapter begins by surveying the linguistic history of Ireland. Although it is situated on the periphery of the British Isles, there is evidence of contact between the island, other regions of Britain and indeed other countries in western Europe for centuries. It explores early and later contacts between the indigenised Celts and more recent colonisers and immigrants, including the Normans, the English, the Scots and twentieth-century settlers from the European Union prior to Brexit. These contacts have created a set of contemporary Irish English varieties that are not only distinctive with respect to other world Englishes but are also differentiated diatopically, ethnically and socially. Two main topics are addressed. The degree to which Irish English from different time frames is structurally similar to other dialects spoken elsewhere is considered alongside evaluating the extent to which contemporary Irish Englishes vary internally and externally with respect to their lexis, phonology, morphosyntax and discourse pragmatics. Some space is also devoted to examining how the study of Irish English has developed and what directions research might take in the twenty-first century in response to new approaches to modelling linguistic contact as well as the availability of larger and more diverse digital datasets.

This chapter presents on overview of present-day Welsh English(es) with a focus on regional variation and diachronic developments over the past fifty years. The Anglicisation of Wales has progressed in several phases over the centuries, which is why the accents and dialects of English in Wales are regionally distinctive, the Welsh language and neighbouring English English dialects impacting them to different degrees. The chapter takes the Survey of Anglo-Welsh dialects (Parry 1999) as a starting point and uses corpus and survey data compiled in the twenty-first century as well as recent research publications, thereby examining the main trends of development in the different domains of English. Phonological variation and change are described across a broad North–South continuum, whereas in morphosyntax the greatest differences can be found between the predominantly English-speaking Southeast and the bilingual, historically Welsh-dominant North and West Wales. In regional lexicon, sociolinguistically and nationally salient items are relatively few, originating from both Welsh and English. Finally, the chapter draws attention to recent research, and highlights some caveats and future directions for the study of English in Wales.

Copyeditors and proofreaders are some of the heaviest users of dictionaries, consulting them regularly in the course of their work, though little has been written on the influence of dictionaries on editors or of editors on dictionaries. Editors consult dictionaries on matters of spelling, capitalization, compounding, meaning, end-of-line hyphenation, and more. They may also disallow new forms or senses not found in a dictionary. Further, style manuals typically dictate not only which dictionary to use but how to use it, particularly on matters of spelling variants. Dictionaries thus become prescriptive tools in the hands of editors, despite lexicographers’ descriptive approach. There may also be something of a feedback loop between editors and lexicographers: because editors are gatekeepers of publishing, they have an outsized influence on what appears in print and thus what is recorded in dictionaries and therefore regarded as correct. Through dictionaries, copyeditors may therefore play an underappreciated and largely unexplored role in shaping standard English.

Historical critiques of Schubert’s methods of development hold that he substitutes ‘genuine’ development with sequences of variation, blurring the boundary between musical progression (development via fragmentation) and additive expansion (repetition via sequence and variation; Adorno 1928, Salzer 1928). Recent appraisals of Schubert’s expansive developmental strategies suggest, alternatively, that the distinction between the two techniques is not as unambiguous as might be assumed (Burstein 1997, Hyland 2013, Martinkus 2018), and have begun to problematise this binary opposition. Building thereon, this chapter brings the continuity drafts and autograph scores for the Piano Sonatas D958, D959 and D960 into focus by paying particular attention to the changes made by Schubert in the final versions, which employ variation or varied repetition as part of an ongoing developmental process. It assesses the impact on formal function and syntax caused by the introduction of varied repeats at different levels of structure, from the individual bar to the full phrase, underlining the resulting amalgamation of sonata (discursive) and variation (recursive) techniques that these works articulate (Ivanovitch 2010). Ultimately, through close examination of Schubert’s compositional revisions, this chapter presents a fuller understanding of what constitutes development in a Schubertian context and the vital role of variation therein.

The HLVC project applies consistent methods of data collection, analysis, and interpretation to a range of languages and dependent variables. This is meant to mitigate the pattern of diverse findings from diverse studies that may partially result from diverse methods. This chapter therefore describes how the corpus is constructed, focusing on the cross-linguistic, cross-generational, and multi-method design, and gives details about recruiting, recording, and transcription of the sociolinguistic interview, the ethnic orientation questionnaire, the picture description task, and the consent procedure. It then describes the workflow for data processing and metadata construction, describing both how the corpus is organized (to be useful to additional researchers) and how we have analyzed variation of a number of variables to date. These include prodrop, case-marking, VOT, and (r) across multiple languages, apocope and differential object marking in Italian, and tone mergers, classifiers, motion-even marking, denasalization (an element of so-called lazy pronunciation, 懶音 laan5 jam1), and vowel space in Cantonese. It details the methods of analyzing ethnic orientation and several proxies for fluency (speech rate, vocabulary size, language-switching measures). Finally, it describes the methods used for constructing and comparing mixed-effects models for cross-variety comparisons in order to distinguish contact-induced change, internal change, and identity-marking variation.

This chapter responds to the questions raised in Chapter 1. It reiterates the need for variationist sociolinguistic analysis of heritage languages to increase our understanding of linguistic structures, variation, and change in multilingual contexts. Each variable is considered through the lens of the profiles corresponding to different sources of change. This allows us to consider whether certain profiles are more common for certain types of variables and of language (types), and whether covariation is more prevalent among any subset of variables. We reiterate how these analyses, based on spontaneous speech in an ecologically valid environment, give a picture of heritage language speakers that contrasts with what we have learned from experimental/psycholinguistic studies, highlighting their stability and consistency with homeland varieties in most cases. Suggestions are made for how this approach can be extended to other under-documented, endangered, and smaller languages, along with discussion of benefits of the HLVC methodology to community members, educators and students, and the field of linguistics. The chapter concludes by reporting on students’ positive responses to engagement with the project.

The variables examined in Chapters 5 and 6 show little evidence of being used for identity work. That is, they do not show (consistent) effects of ethnic orientation measures or speaker sex. This chapter explicitly contrasts variables that reflect indexicality (correlation to social factors) in homeland varieties to non-indexical variables. We begin by considering three indexical variables in Italian: (VOT) in unstressed-syllable contexts, (APOCOPE), and (R), illustrating the extent to which indexicality is maintained in the heritage variety. We find increasing use of the more standard variant only in (VOT). Furthermore, we find that younger speakers (both in homeland and heritage) favour the non-standard variant. We then compare the variable (R), the contrast between trill (or tap) and approximant variants, in Italian and Tagalog, where it has indexical value in the homeland varieties, to Russian and Ukrainian, where it does not. Finally, we consider two additional indexical variables: Cantonese denasalization and Korean VOT. We conclude by contrasting the behavior of homeland-indexicals in heritage varieties. The presence of indexical value in homeland varieties does not consistently influence outcomes in the heritage varieties.

This chapter defines heritage languages and motivates their study to understand linguistic diversity, language acquisition and variationist sociolinguistics. It outlines the goals of Heritage Language Variation and Change in Toronto (HLVC), the first project investigating variation in many heritage languages, unifying methods to describe the languages and push variationist sociolinguistic research beyond its monolingually oriented core and majority-language focus. It shows how this promotes heritage language vitality through research, training, and dissemination. It lays out overarching research questions that motivate the project:

• Do variation and change operate the same way in heritage and majority languages?

• How do we distinguish contact-induced variation, identity-related variation, and internal change?

• Do heritage varieties continue to evolve? Do they evolve in parallel with their homeland variety?

• When does a heritage variety acquire its own name?

• What features and structures are malleable?

• How consistent are patterns across languages?

• Are some speakers more innovative?

• Can attitudes affect ethnolinguistic vitality?

• How can we compare language usage rates among communities and among speakers?

This chapter draws cross-linguistic comparisons among the patterns reported in Chapter 5 for three linguistic variables that occur in at least three languages in the project: (VOT), (CASE), and (PRODROP). Conditioning factors, both linguistic and social, are discussed. Collapsing across rate and constraint hierarchy for each variable, we note any indication of change in either. Half the context we examine exhibit stability. Of the eight that indicate difference, half of these can be attributed to English (including both convergence and divergence). With few differences between homeland and heritage speakers to work with, we find few generalizations about what parts of the language, or which languages, change. We do see more change in one morphosyntactic variable, (CASE), than in the phonetic variable (VOT), but less in the other morphosyntactic variable (PRODROP).

This chapter discusses linguistic variation in Slavic languages by presenting an overview of the relationship between human communication in the society and the corresponding linguistic features. In this chapter we focus on the parameters of variation according to the language user, such as age or dialects, and according to the language use, such as communicative functions or communication styles, e.g. politeness. We cite both qualitative and quantitative methods for studying aspects of sociolinguistic variation. Examples are drawn from large corpora of two Slavic languages, Russian and Serbo-Croatian, with a particular focus on academic writing, news reporting, and reporting personal experience in social media, as well as from dictionaries and field studies.

This chapter reviews the study of variation in gesture and its theoretical underpinnings in the field of gesture studies. It questions the use of culture, language, or nationality as the default unit of analysis in studies of gesture variation. Drawing on theoretical developments in sociolinguistics and recent anthropologial analyses of gesture, it argues for the possibility that social factors and divisions other than linguistic/cultural boundaries may provide a more robust and comprehensive theoretical account for variation in gesture.

The chapter briefly introduces the variation and change that has existed in the intensifier area throughout the history of English. It highlights the relevance of the historical courtroom for the study of intensifiers. Finally, it gives an overview of the contents of the book.

This chapter focuses on literacy and linguistic diversity in India as the second most populous nation in the world. India is home to different types of writing systems and linguistic situations; however, literacy acquisition in the region is often defined using alphasyllabic akshara orthographies and multilingualism. Both these characteristics have significant implications for the theory, practice, and policy of literacy acquisition in India. In India, only 44 percent of students in government schools can read Grade-2-level texts in Grade 5 fluently. Within India, there is, however, wide variation, with literacy rates being significantly higher in private schools and in urban areas. We begin with a brief description of the historical and contemporary state of multilingual education policy and practice in India. In addition, the psycholinguistic underpinnings of learning to read in akshara orthographies and of biliteracy acquisition with at least one akshara orthography will be uncovered. Finally, future directions related to literacy development research and practice among diverse populations in India are discussed.