Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-p566r Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-28T18:12:28.139Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

25 - Social Conditioning

from Part V - Explanations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2017

Adam Ledgeway
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
Ian Roberts
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
Get access

Summary

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2017

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

Adger, D. and Trousdale, G. 2007. ‘Variation in English syntax: Theoretical implications’, English Language and Linguistics 11: 261–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adli, A. 2013. ‘Syntactic variation in French Wh-questions: A quantitative study from the angle of Bourdieu’s sociocultural theory’, Linguistics 51(3): 473515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ball, R. 2000. Colloquial French grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bayley, R. 2013. Variationist sociolinguistics, in Bayley, R., Cameron, R. and Lucas, C. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of sociolinguistics. Oxford University Press, pp. 1130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bayley, R., Greer, K. and Holland, G. 2013. ‘Lexical frequency and syntactic variation: A test of a linguistic hypothesis’, University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 19(2): 2130.Google Scholar
Bergs, A. 2005. Social networks and historical linguistics: Studies in morphosyntactic variation in the Paston letters (1421–1503). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D. 2003. ‘Compressed noun-phrase structure in newspaper discourse: The competing demands of popularization vs. economy’, in Aitchison, J. and Lewis, D. (eds.), New media language. London and New York: Longman, pp. 169–81.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Johannsson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. and Finegan, E. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Biberauer, T. and Roberts, I. 2005. ‘Changing EPP parameters in the history of English: Accounting for variation and change’, English Language and Linguistics 91: 546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biberauer, T. and Roberts, I. 2009. ‘The return of the subset principle’, in Crisma, P. and Longobardi, G. (eds.), Historical syntax and linguistic theory. Oxford University Press, pp. 5874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, D. 1968. ‘Entailment and the meaning of structures’, Glossa 2(2): 119–27.Google Scholar
Cornips, L. and Corrigan, K. P. 2005a. ‘Toward an integrated approach to syntactic variation: A retrospective and prospective synopsis’, in Cornips, and Corrigan, (eds.), pp. 127.Google Scholar
Cornips, L. and Corrigan, K. P. (eds.) 2005b. Syntax and variation: Reconciling the biological and the social. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coveney, A. B. 2002. Variability in spoken French: A sociolinguistic study of interrogation and negation. Bristol and Portland: Elm Bank.Google Scholar
Druetta, R. 2002. ‘Qu’est-ce tu fais? État d’avancement de la grammaticalisation de est-ce que. Première partie’, Linguae etc. 2: 6788.Google Scholar
Druetta, R. 2003. ‘Qu’est-ce tu fais? État d’avancement de la grammticalisation de est-ce que. Deuxième partie’, Linguae etc. 1: 2135.Google Scholar
Ebert, R. P. 1981. ‘Social and stylistic variation in the order of auxiliary and non-finite verb in dependent clauses in Early New High German’, Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 103: 204–37.Google Scholar
Ebert, R. P. 1998. Verbstellungswandel bei Jugendlichen, Frauen und Männern im 16. Jahrhundert. Tübingen: Niemayer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edmont, E. and Gilliéron, J. 1902–10. Atlas Linguistique de la France. Paris: H. Champion.Google Scholar
Elsig, M. 2009. Grammatical variation across space and time – the French interrogative system. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flores-Ferrán, N. 2007. ‘A bend in the road: Subject personal pronoun expression in Spanish after 30 years of sociolinguistic research’, Language and Linguistics Compass 1(6): 624–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gadet, F. 1989. Le français ordinaire. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
Gadet, F. 2007. La variation sociale en français, 2nd edn. Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar
Ginzburg, J. and Sag, I. A. 2000. Interrogative investigations: The form, meaning and use of English interrogatives. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Grafmiller, J. 2014. ‘Variation in English genitives across modality and genre’, English Language and Linguistics 18: 471–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th. 2013. ‘Sources of variability relevant to the cognitive sociolinguist, and corpus- as well as psycholinguistic methods and notions to handle them’, Journal of Pragmatics 52: 516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henry, A. 2002. ‘Variation and syntactic theory’, in Chambers, J.K., Trudgill, P. and Schilling-Estes, N. (eds.), The handbook of language variation and change. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 267–82.Google Scholar
Hinrichs, L. and Szmrecsanyi, B. 2007. ‘Recent changes in the function and frequency of standard English genitive constructions: A multivariate analysis of tagged corpora’, English Language and Linguistics 11(3): 437–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollmann, W. B. 2013. ‘Constructions in cognitive sociolinguistics’, in Hoffmann, T. and Trousdale, G. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar. Oxford University Press, pp. 491509.Google Scholar
Holmberg, A. and Roberts, I. 2010. ‘Introduction: Parameters in minimalist theory’, in Biberauer, T., Holmberg, A., Roberts, I. and Sheehan, M. (eds.), Parametric variation: Null subjects in minimalist theory. Cambridge University Press, pp. 157.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. 1909–49. A modern English grammar on historical principles. 7 vols. London: George Allen and Unwin; Copenhagen: Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Johnson, D. E. 2009. ‘Getting off the GoldVarb standard: introducing Rbrul for mixed-effects variable rule analysis’, Language and Linguistics Compass 3(1): 359–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M. 2002. ‘Adnominal possession in the European languages: form and function’, Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 55: 141–72.Google Scholar
Kroch, A. 2000. ‘Syntactic change’, in Baltin, M. and Collins, C. (eds.), Handbook of syntax. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 629–39.Google Scholar
Kytö, M. and Romaine, S. 2005. ‘“We had like to have been killed by thunder & lightening”: The semantic and pragmatic history of a construction that like to disappeared’, Journal of Historical Pragmatics 6(1): 135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, W. 1994. Principles of linguistic change, vol. 1: Internal factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Labov, W. 2001. Principles of linguistic change, vol. 2: Social factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lass, R. 1999. ‘Introduction’, in Lass, R. (ed.), Cambridge history of the English language, vol. III: 1476–1776. Cambridge University Press, pp. 112.Google Scholar
Leech, G., Hundt, M., Mair, C. and Smith, N. 2009. Change in contemporary English. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lightfoot, D. W. 1999. The development of language: Acquisition, change and evolution. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Meillet, A. 1921. Linguistique historique et linguistique générale. Paris: La Société Linguistique de Paris.Google Scholar
Muysken, P. 2005. ‘A modular approach to sociolinguistic variation in syntax: The gerund in Ecuadorian Spanish’, in Cornips, and Corrigan, (eds.), pp. 3153.Google Scholar
Myers, S. 2011. ‘Innovation in a conservative region: The Kentish Sermons genitive system’, English Language and Linguistics 15: 417–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevalainen, T. and Raumolin-Brunberg, H. 2003. Historical sociolinguistics: Language change in Tudor and Stuart England. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Nagy, N. G., Aghdasi, N., Denis, D. and Motut, A. 2011. ‘Null subjects in heritage languages: Contact effects in a cross-linguistic context’, University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 17(2): 135–44.Google Scholar
Otheguy, R., Zentella, A.C. and Livert, D. 2007. ‘Language and dialect contact in Spanish in New York: Toward the formation of a speech community’, Language 83(4): 770802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potter, S. 1969. Changing English. London: Deutsch.Google Scholar
Reifsnyder, K. L. 2003. Vernacular versus emerging standard: An examination of dialect usage in early modern Augsburg (1500–1650). Madison: University of Wisconsin.Google Scholar
Romaine, S. 1982. Socio-historical linguistics: Its status and methodology. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romaine, S. 1984. ‘On the problem of syntactic variation and pragmatic meaning in sociolinguistic theory’, Folia Linguistica 18: 409–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romaine, S. 1996. ‘Internal vs. external factors in socio-historical explanations of change: A fruitless dichotomy?’, in Proceedings of the Twenty-First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley: Department of Linguistics, University of California, pp. 478–90.Google Scholar
Rosenbach, A. 2007. ‘Emerging variation: determiner genitives and noun modifiers in English’, English Language and Linguistics 11(1): 143–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowlett, P. 2007. The syntax of French. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowlett, P. 2011. Syntactic variation and diglossia in French’, Salford Working Papers in Linguistics and Applied Linguistics 1: 1326.Google Scholar
Sapp, C. D. 2011. The verbal complex in subordinate clauses from medieval to modern German. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sells, P., Rickford, J. R. and Wasow, T. 1996. ‘Variation in negative inversion in AAVE: An optimality theoretic approach’, in Arnold, J., Blake, R., Davidson, B., Schwenter, S. and Solomon, J. (eds.), Sociolinguistic variation: Data, theory, and analysis. Stanford, CA: CSLI, pp. 161–6.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A. 2003. ‘Constructional semantics as a limit to grammatical alternation: The two genitives of English’, in Rohdenburg, G. and Mondorf, B. (eds.), Determinants of grammatical variation in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 413–41.Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, B. and Hinrichs, L. 2008. ‘Probabilistic determinants of genitive variation in spoken and written English: A multivariate comparison across time, space, and genres’, in Nevalainen, T., Taavitsainen, I., Pahta, P. and Korhonen, M. (eds.), The dynamics of linguistic variation: Corpus evidence on English past and present. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 291309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, B., Rosenbach, A., Bresnan, J. and Wolk, C. 2013. ‘Culturally conditioned language change? A multi-variate analysis of genitive constructions in ARCHER’, in Hundt, M. (ed.), Late Modern English syntax. Cambridge University Press, pp. 133–52.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, S. A. 2006. ‘Historical change in synchronic perspective: The legacy of British dialects’, in van Kemenade, A. and Los, B. (eds.), The handbook of the history of English. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 447506.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, S. A. 2011. Variationist sociolinguistics. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tailleur, S. 2013. ‘The French wh interrogative system: Est-ce que, clefting?’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Toronto.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsimpli, I., Sorace, A., Heycock, C. and Filiaci, F. 2004. ‘First language attrition and syntactic subjects: A study of Greek and Italian near-native speakers of English’, International Journal of Bilingualism 8(3): 257–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiner, J. and Labov, W. 1983. ‘Constraints on the agentless passive’, Journal of Linguistics 19: 2958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinreich, U., Labov, W. and Herzog, M. 1968. ‘Empirical foundations for a theory of language change’, in Lehmann, W. P. and Malkiel, Y. (eds.), Directions for historical linguistics. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, pp. 95189.Google Scholar
Winford, D. 1996. ‘The problem of syntactic variation’, in Arnold, J., Blake, R., Davidson, B., Schwenter, S. and Solomon, J. (eds.), Sociolinguistic variation: Data, theory, and analysis. Stanford, CA: CSLI, pp. 177–92.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×