Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-sjtt6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-05T08:36:41.707Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

I was sat there talking all night: a corpus-based study on factors governing intra-dialectal variation in British English1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 October 2016

ULRIKE STANGE
ULRIKE STANGE*
Affiliation:
Department of English and Linguistics, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität, Ulrike Stange, Jakob Welder-Weg 18, 55099 Mainz, Germanystangeu@uni-mainz.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

When it comes to intra-dialectal variation, the factors governing the choice between functionally equivalent variants still require an exhaustive analysis. The construction be sat/be stood with progressive meaning alternates with the standard form be sitting/be standing in a number of British English dialects. The present article investigates to what extent the Complexity Principle (see Rohdenburg 1996) and horror aequi (see Rohdenburg 2003) influence the choice between so-called pseudo-passive and progressive constructions. Empirical analyses of spoken data in the British National Corpus reveal that this variation phenomenon is common in dialects of Northern and Southwest England, and to a lesser degree in the Midlands and in London. Moreover, we find considerable differences in the distribution of these pseudo-passives regarding their relative frequency and the number of dialects that make use of them. Drawing on a total of 106 occurrences for the construction be stood vs be standing and 366 for be sat vs be sitting, the article evaluates how far the principles above can be considered as statistically significant determinants of intra-dialectal variation. To this end, it will be essential to test for other factors potentially influencing the choice of dialectal variants, such as age and gender.

Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 20 , Special Issue 3: Support strategies in language variation and change , November 2016 , pp. 511 - 531
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

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.)

Footnotes

1

I would like to thank Peter Trudgill for giving me permission to use the map indicating the dialect areas in Britain and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions and constructive comments.

References

Bates, Elizabeth & MacWhinney, Brian. 1987. Competition, variation, and language learning. In MacWhinney, Brian (ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition, 157–93. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bock, J. Kathryn. 1986. Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology 18, 355–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
British National Corpus , version 3 (BNC XML Edition). 2007. Distributed by Oxford University Computing Services on behalf of the BNC Consortium. www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk Google Scholar
Cheshire, Jenny. 2003. Social dimensions of syntactic variation: The case of when clauses. In Britain, David & Cheshire, Jenny (eds.), Social dialectology, 245–61. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheshire, Jenny, Edwards, Viv & White, Pamela. 1989. Urban British dialect grammar: The question of dialect develling. English World-Wide 10 (2), 185–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheshire, Jenny, Edwards, Viv & White, Pamela. 1993. Non-standard English and dialect levelling. In Milroy, James & Milroy, Lesley (eds.). Real English: The grammar of English dialects in the British Isles, 53–96. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Ellis, Stanley. 1981. Weak syllables in dialectal usage. Leeds Studies in English, n.s., 12, 291–8.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 2004. Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, Richard A. 1996. Sociolinguistics, 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klemola, Juhani. 1999. Still sat in your car? Pseudo-passives with sat and stood and the history of non-standard varieties of English English. Sociolinguistica 13, 129–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klemola, Juhani. 2002. Continuity and change in dialect morphosyntax. In Kastovsky, Dieter, Kaltenböck, Gunther & Reichl, Susanne (eds.), Anglistentag 2001 Wien, 17–56. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag.Google Scholar
Kortmann, Bernd & Lunkenheimer, Kerstin (eds.). 2013. The electronic world atlas of varieties of English [eWAVE]. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. www.ewave-atlas.org (25 November 2014).Google Scholar
Kortmann, Bernd & Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2004. Global synopsis – morphological and syntactic variation in English. In Kortmann, Bernd, Burridge, Kate, Mesthrie, Rajend & Schneider, Edgar (eds.), A handbook of varieties of English, vol. 2: Morphology and syntax, 1142–202. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kortmann, Bernd & Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2009. World Englishes between simplification and complexification. In Siebers, Lucia & Hoffmann, Thomas (eds.), World Englishes – problems, properties and prospects: Selected papers from the 13th IAWE conference, 265–85. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kortmann, Bernd & Wagner, Susanne. 2007. A fresh look at Late Modern English dialect syntax. In Pérez-Guerra, Javier et al. (eds.), ‘Of varying language and opposing creed’: New insights into Late Modern English, 279–00. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 2001. Principles of language change: Social factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Mondorf, Britta. 2009. More support for more-support: The role of processing constraints on the choice between synthetic and analytic comparative forms. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter. 1996. Cognitive complexity and increased grammatical explicitness in English. Cognitive Linguistics 7 (2), 149–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter. 2000. The complexity principle as a factor determining grammatical variation in English. In Plag, Ingo & Schneider, Klaus P. (eds.), Language use, language acquisition and language history: (Mostly) empirical studies in honour of Rüdiger Zimmermann, 25–44. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag.Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter. 2003. Cognitive complexity and horror aequi as factors determining the use of interrogative clause linkers in English. In Rohdenburg & Mondorf (eds.), 205–49.Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter & Mondorf, Britta (eds.). 2003. Determinants of grammatical variation in English (Topics in English Linguistics 43). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter & Schlüter, Julia. 2009. New departures. In Rohdenburg, Günter & Schlüter, Julia (eds.), One language, two grammars, 364–423. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenbach, Anette. 2003. Iconicity and economy in the choice between the ’s-genitive and the of-genitive in English. In Rohdenburg & Mondorf (eds.), 379–411.Google Scholar
Rydén, Mats. 1991. The be/have variation with intransitives in its crucial phases. In Kastovsky, Dieter (ed.), Historical English syntax, 343–54. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Scherre, Maria M. P. S. & Naro, Anthony J.. 1992. The serial effect on internal and external variables. Language Variation and Change (4), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2006. Morphosyntactic persistence in spoken English: A corpus study at the intersection of variationist sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, and discourse analysis (Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2006. Analysing sociolinguistic variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 1990. The dialects of England. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Winford, Donald. 1996. The problem of syntactic variation. In Arnold, Jennifer, Blake, Renee, Davidson, Brad, Schwentner, Scott & Solomon, Julie (eds.), Sociolinguistic variation: Data, theory and analysis, 177–92. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Wood, Frederick T. 1962 [1981]. Current English usage. Hamburg: PMV.Google Scholar
Wurzel, Wolfgang U. 1987. System-dependent morphological naturalness in inflection. In Dressler, Wolfgang U. (ed.), Leitmotifs in natural morphology, 59–96. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar