Browse by author
Lookup NU author(s):
Full text for this publication is not currently held within this repository. Alternative links are provided below where available.
Language variation and change are inherently related: linguistic variation is the state at which two (or more) expressions in language are used as “alternate ways of saying the same thing” (Labov 1978:2). Linguistic change arises through variation when one option is favoured over another and propagated through (segments of) the speech community. Hence, variability is the “stuff out of which (...) changes emerge” (Ohala 1989a: 176). Variationist sociolinguistics conceives of these “ways of saying the same thing” as variants of an underlying unit, the linguistic variable, all other things being equal. While this heuristic construct has been fairly uncontroversial and straightforward as far as phonology is concerned, it has proven less straightforward with higher levels of linguistic structure. Indeed, the literature contains an impressive amount of disagreement and discussion about the extension of the sociolinguistic variable to levels “above and beyond” (Sankoff 1972) phonology (see Cheshire 1987; Romaine 1984; Wilford 1984, etc…). Recently, Croft (2010) proposed that new variation in morpho-syntax is as pervasive as it is in phonology, extending Ohala’s (1989a,b) argument that phonetic change originates in natural variation to morpho-syntax. His proposal, which defines variants as “verbalisation of the same experience” (2010:1) stretches the notion of the linguistic variable even further. In this short squib we will argue that it is important to pause on the theoretical repercussions of this proposal.
Author(s): Buchstaller I, Waltereit R
Publication type: Article
Publication status: Unpublished
Journal: Linguistics
Year: 2012
Pages: 10
ISSN (print): 0024-3949
ISSN (electronic): 1613-396X
Publisher: Mouton de Gruyter
