30.2105, Review: Linguistic Theories; Syntax: Lignos, MacKenzie, Tamminga (2018)

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-30-2105. Fri May 17 2019. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 30.2105, Review: Linguistic Theories; Syntax: Lignos, MacKenzie, Tamminga (2018)

Moderator: Malgorzata E. Cavar (linguist at linguistlist.org)
Student Moderator: Jeremy Coburn
Managing Editor: Becca Morris
Team: Helen Aristar-Dry, Everett Green, Sarah Robinson, Peace Han, Nils Hjortnaes, Yiwen Zhang, Julian Dietrich
Jobs: jobs at linguistlist.org | Conferences: callconf at linguistlist.org | Pubs: pubs at linguistlist.org

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
           https://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

Editor for this issue: Jeremy Coburn <jecoburn at linguistlist.org>
================================================================


Date: Fri, 17 May 2019 17:44:06
From: Ulrike Stange [stangeu at uni-mainz.de]
Subject: The Locus of Linguistic Variation

 
Discuss this message:
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/get-review.cfm?subid=36485037


Book announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/29/29-4012.html

EDITOR: Constantine  Lignos
EDITOR: Laurel  MacKenzie
EDITOR: Meredith  Tamminga
TITLE: The Locus of Linguistic Variation
SERIES TITLE: Benjamins Current Topics 97
PUBLISHER: John Benjamins
YEAR: 2018

REVIEWER: Ulrike Stange, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz

SUMMARY

This book is a collection of six papers by different authors, prefaced by an
introduction written by the editors. As the title suggests, the common
denominator of all contributions is that they focus on linguistic variation.
More specifically, all of the papers are concerned with the question of “how
the patterning of surface variation can shed light on the grammatical
representation of variable phenomena” (vii). Both intra- and inter-dialectal
variation are of interest, as are lesser-studied varieties of Canadian French
or Northwest British Englishes. The data used stems from corpora (natural
speech) or judgment studies. The contributions to this volume reconcile
generative grammar with variation in language use, and, without exception,
present new angles in both theory and research from which further studies on
language variation and change (LVC) could benefit. The individual papers are
briefly summarised below. 

1. “Locating variation in the dative alternation” by Alison Biggs (pp. 1-32)

The first paper addresses the phenomenon of dative alternation in Mancunian
and Scouse, two Northwest British English dialects. The author focuses on
theme passivisation (e.g., “It was sent him.”) and argues that the two
dialects derive it from different underlying structures: in Liverpool English,
theme passives (e.g., “It was sent him”) derive from a prepositional dative
with a null preposition (“XY sent it (to) him” → “It was sent him.”), but from
double object constructions in Manchester English (“XY sent him it” → “It was
sent him.”). These different underlying structures can account for differences
pertaining to the range of admissible structures in the two dialects under
scrutiny. “The book was given the teacher”, for instance, is acceptable in
Scouse but not in Mancunian or other English dialects. Section 2 presents the
data used in the study. They were collected from a quality judgment
questionnaire (‘acceptable’, ‘marginally acceptable’, ‘marginally
unacceptable’, ‘unacceptable’, ‘don’t know’), and speakers from different
areas in the Northwest and the South filled in the questionnaire (different
educational levels, speakers aged 20-30 and 60+). Before presenting the
results, Biggs provides a detailed theoretical background on dative
alternation in Northwest English varieties. She concludes that Scouse has the
same range of dative alternation patterns as other “standard” (10) varieties
of English, with the sole difference that it has a null preposition. Section 4
is very formal and addresses the differences between Scouse and Mancunian from
a generative perspective (keywords: preposition-drop, the syntax and structure
of to-NULL), using speaker judgments to illustrate acceptable dative
alternation patterns, while Section 5 explores theme passivisation in
Manchester English (again, very formal and with the use of speaker ratings).
Section 6 discusses the implications of placing variation at the level of
functional heads and suggests that “variation in the mental grammar […]
give[s] rise to micro-variation in the forms available in closely related
linguistics varieties […]” (28). A summary listing the main structural
properties causing differences in the availability of the theme passivisation
in Scouse and Mancunian concludes this paper. 

2. “An extension of the comparative sociolinguistics approach for sociosyntax:
Comparing a single linguistics constraint across multiple sociolinguistic
variables” by Philip Comeau (pp. 33-70)

The second paper is concerned with negation in combination with the expression
of future temporal reference (synthetic and analytic) and closed questions in
Acadian and in Laurentian French. Comeau uses a methodological approach that
combines generative theory and comparative sociolinguistics to account for
structural differences between the two varieties of Canadian French. The
author sketches the theoretical framework in which his study can be placed and
outlines very briefly the history of Acadian and Laurentian French. The first
of two studies is concerned with negation in yes/no questions. After
introducing the types of variation in existence, the author focuses on those
available in the varieties of French under scrutiny. He also explores
potential conditioning factors (grammatical person, syllable length,
sentential polarity) and offers a statistical analysis of the corpus data,
which is complemented by a formal account of the observed patterns. The second
study focuses on negation in expressions of future temporal reference and
again, it first presents the variants and potential conditioning factors
(temporal distance, certainty/imminence, adverbial specification, sentential
polarity). The results show that the two varieties behave significantly
differently from one another, especially with respect to polarity constraints.
These findings are also presented in a formal analysis, and Comeau provides
sound explanations for why and how negation affects the two structures
investigated in the study differently in Acadian and Laurentian French. In
essence, part of the observed variation between Acadian and Laurentian French
can be explained by their having different negative structures. The conclusion
highlights the benefits of the extended comparative sociolinguistics approach
employed in the study to shed light on structural differences between related
varieties. 

3. “Variant-centered variation and the like conspiracy” by Aaron J. Dinkin
(pp. 71-96)

The third paper explores the advantages of a variant-centered approach to
studying variation (as opposed to the established variable-centered one).
Drawing on the multi-functional variant like, Dinkin shows that related
on-going changes can be accounted for by a general discursive change towards
vagueness. The first section introduces the concepts of variables and variants
in variationist history and prepares the ground for the variant-centered study
to follow. Section 2 lists the many functions of like and sketches recent
changes in its use. Dinkin then reports on Aaron’s (2010) study of the verb ir
(‘go’), which highlights the importance of “looking at the function of the […]
variant outside [the] variable context” (82). The author also refers to the
notion of the phonological conspiracy (Hock 1991) and Optimality Theory (OT)
to make sense of what is happening to like. Section 4 discusses like as a
change in discursive practice, towards more vagueness across a number of
functions like has. Arguably, the same change targets different functions of
like, so that the “like is just like” myth where different variants of like
are treated as being one and the same is actually a reflection of
sociolinguistic reality. The conclusion stresses the necessity of
complementing variable-centered studies with variant-centered ones to fully
understand LVC.

4. “Constant effects and the independence of variants in controlled judgment
data” by Bill Haddican, Daniel Ezra Johnson & Nanna Haug Hilton (pp. 97-116)

The fourth paper puts forward a new methodological approach by using
controlled judgment data to measure constancy in contextual effects in
synchronic variation, thus extending the Constant Rate Hypothesis (Kroch
1989). It presents a study investigating the effect of object weight on word
order in particle verb constructions (Verb, Particle, Object; turn on the
light – VPO vs. turn the light on – VOP) across different varieties of
English. The results suggest a “slow shift” (105) towards VOP, regardless of
variety and object weight. The second study examines object ordering in
Norwegian and Danish. The judgment data from both studies show that there are
three patterns of contextual effects: 1) one variant increases at the expense
of another (inverse relationship), 2) one variant increases more than the
other decreases (partial inverse relationship), and 3) only one variant
changes.  

5. “Variation as a testing ground for grammatical theory: Variable negative
concord in Montréal French” by Heather Burnett (pp. 117-149)

The fifth paper demonstrates the importance of LVC studies in the
construction, elaboration and testing of formal and syntactic theories. Within
the Bidirectional Optimality Theory (OT) framework, it studies negative
concord in Montréal French. Stochastic OT (StOT) is then used to explain
variation by means of ranking constraints on a scale (selection points).
Variation in the evaluation of constraints (i.e., which one is deemed more
important) thus explains why negative concord in Montréal French admits
structures that are not acceptable in other varieties of French. In this
particular case, Montréal French rates NEGATION FIRST (‘provide negator as
early as possible in the sentence’) higher than NEGATION (‘there should only
be one element negating the utterance because of double negation’). The study
combines findings from corpus data (sociolinguistic interviews conducted in
1984 with 72 speakers) with Bidirectional OT and St OT to account for the
observed variation. The framework developed and tested is quite complex, and
the author guides the reader through the process of writing up definitions,
testing them, altering them to fit linguistic reality, and altering some more
to reflect the observed variation.  

6. “The dynamics of variation in individuals” by Meredith Tamminga, Laurel
MacKenzie & David Embick (pp. 151-187)

The last paper explores what factors determine intra-speaker variation and
present evidence that the individual does indeed “exist as a unit of
linguistic analysis” (in contrast to Labov 2014), and that studying
individual-level variation helps explain what is going in variation on a
higher level (speech community). The authors present a concept which accounts
for variation in the individual speaker based on three types of conditioning:
i-conditioning (internal linguistic), s-conditioning (socio-stylistic), and
p-conditioning (psycho-physiological). Of course, the three types of
conditioning may interact with one another and it is not always possible to
clearly attribute a particular variant to a particular type of conditioning.
Two main points are put forward: 1) sequences of variants produced in real
time exhibit systematic quantitative patterns, and 2) p-conditioning and
i-conditioning are “distinct in their mental implementations” (151). The first
point is further developed drawing on the notions of physical p-conditioning
(coarticulation) and cognitive p-conditioning (in particular planning,
priming, imitation and working memory), both of which are shown to affect the
order and timing of variants in real time speech production. Two dimensions of
individual-level variation are introduced that allow tracing and analysing
variation in longer sequences of speech: degree of dynamism (two speakers can
have the same mean for a given variable but show different patterns in their
variant distribution over time) and microvariation (co-occurrence patterns of
variant tokens across different variables). In making their second point, the
authors argue that extra-grammatical p-conditioning is universal and automatic
(e.g., processes in connected speech), while grammar internal i-conditioning
is potentially arbitrary and thus learned (e.g., the actual deletion rate of
alveolar plosives in past tense affixes in a given variety).  In this vein,
p-conditioning can be placed in the realm of language use (performance), while
i-conditioning reflects variability in a given grammar (competence). In
conclusion, the authors “believe that looking seriously at language use in
individuals will yield many more insights into why community-level variation
is structured as it is” (181). 

EVALUATION

This edited volume is an exceptional book that offers some very interesting
and rather stimulating food for thought – in particular with respect to
reconciling generative grammar with sociolinguistics. 

In the introduction, the editors do not talk explicitly about specific goals
concerning this edited volume. Rather, they describe how the papers fit
together and what kind of contributions they offer to advancing the study of
language variation and change.  The volume coheres in that all papers address
linguistic variation. They differ, however, in their accessibility and in
their affiliation to generative grammar and socio- or corpus linguistic
methods.  The mix of papers is good, and all of them present novel ideas that
are worth pursuing in further research, both empirically and theoretically. It
evidently makes perfect sense to include data on real language use when
describing a grammar of language. The authors did an excellent job in
explaining variation, although the theoretical accounts seem quite abstract
(and sometimes a bit far-fetched) in places. This edited volume is a
challenging read – not only with respect to the contents as such, but also
with respect to how these are represented. You need to concentrate fully to
follow and understand the lines of argumentation laid out in the individual
papers, and the reader is often expected to be familiar with (especially
generative) concepts, theories and formulae that they have not necessarily
encountered before. Having said this, references are usually given that help
remedy any issues in grasping the contents. In conclusion, the papers are more
adequate to read and discuss at postgraduate (or PhD) level. 

I would strongly recommend this book because it shows very convincingly paper
for paper how theory and data can inform one another and what enormous
explanatory power can be revealed by considering both sides of the (language)
coin.

REFERENCES

Aaron, Jessi Elena. 2010. Pushing the envelope: Looking beyond the variable
context. Language Variation and Change 22 (1): 1-36.

Kroch, Anthony. 1989. Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change.
Language Variation and Change 1 (3): 199-244.

Labov, William. 2014. The sociophonetic orientation of the language learner.
In Chiara Celata & Silvia Calamai (eds.), Advances in Sociophonetics, 17-29.
Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.


ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Ulrike Stange is a research assistant at the JGU in Mainz, Germany, where she
instructs prospective teachers of English as a foreign language in the
intricacies of English. Her research interests are sparked by encounters with
“oddities” in the English language, such as the use of pseudo-passives in
British English and innovative uses of the intensifier so. She is the author
of Emotive Interjections in British English (Benjamins, 2016) and holds a
Ph.D. in English Linguistics from the Johannes Gutenberg-Universität in Mainz,
Germany.





------------------------------------------------------------------------------

***************************    LINGUIST List Support    ***************************
 The 2019 Fund Drive is under way! Please visit https://funddrive.linguistlist.org
  to find out how to donate and check how your university, country or discipline
     ranks in the fund drive challenges. Or go directly to the donation site:
               https://iufoundation.fundly.com/the-linguist-list-2019

                        Let's make this a short fund drive!
                Please feel free to share the link to our campaign:
                    https://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/
 


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-30-2105	
----------------------------------------------------------