Comparative Variationist work & creolistics

A central motivation for the development of variationist sociolinguistics has been to “present a model of language which could accommodate the paradoxes of linguistic change” Tagliamonte 2006:4). So far I have discussed the concept of linguistic change in terms of the processes of second language acquisition (i.e. changes in the L2 over time) and involving comparisons between sets of learner and native-speaker data. Another strand of research applies the same fundamental variationist principles to change over time at a community level, in its exploration of the genesis and relatedness of contact languages. Following the pioneering work of Labov (1966) demonstrating that

synchronic variation may be the engine of diachronic change, contact languages have become somewhat of a “proving ground” (Long & Sato 1984: 265) for the variationist

framework given the linguistic heterogeneity, multilingualism and fast rate of change so characteristic of these contexts. This research has had two main applications: in

discerning the relatedness of (contemporary or historical) contact varieties, and for determining substrate effects on contact language grammar. I will now discuss each in turn.

Under the research agenda termed ‘comparative sociolinguistics’, historic relatedness between language varieties is examined through the prism of shared variable patterning of variable features (as described in the previous two sections). When applied to a comparison between a variable linguistic feature in Language A and its putative source Language B, shared patterning is grounds for confirmation of this proposed

relationship. This methodology has been applied to the question of the historical roots of contemporary African American Vernacular English by comparing variable features in that variety with American English, various world Englishes, West African languages and a number of intermediary examples of Black Englishes from slave recordings, among other sources. Although a number of different linguistic features have been investigated in this now significant body of research, I will focus on studies of

tense/aspect features as they will have the most thematic relevance to the present study. In particular, Poplack & Tagliamonte’s (1996; 2001) studies of past temporal reference and Walker’s (2000; 2010) studies of present temporal reference have served as

templates for the chapter addressing tense/aspect morphology.

These studies are function-form (rather than form-function) in that they section off a functional space for investigation e.g. ‘present/past temporal reference’ conceived of as clauses referring to events in the past/present. Then, the formal means of expressing this temporal frame are identified; these are the variants of past/present temporal reference. For example, Walker (2000) identified 5 forms/constructions involved in present clauses: V, -s, be V-ing, do and will24 _{in corpora of historical English varieties.}

This approach to the variable selection accords with the trend in variationist linguistics away from a very “strict definition” of variables and their variants:

24 _{e.g. V: “You know where that hill is out there, don’t you?”; V-s: “I pays all my bill up just like that”; be V-ing: “Cause}

a variable had to have, at a minimum, two variants – or ways of saying the same thing. But subsequent extension of the approach to features above phonology have wrestled with the applicability of such a definition to morphological, syntactic, and discourse variables. (Tagliamonte 2006: 70-6)

It is now acceptable that “the most we will be able to say is that the proposed variants can serve one, or more generally, similar discourse functions.” (Sankoff & Thibault 1981: 208).

Walker’s study also differs from the studies discussed in the prior sections, in which the variables each had only two variants examined (respectively, past marked or not; velar or alveolar ING). As with the previously discussed studies, the patterning of each form is then modelled through the same binomial multivariate procedure, however this is done by selecting a ‘focus’ variant and comparing against a linguistically meaningful combination of other variants. For example, when beV-ing is the variant in focus, it can be analysed against the data for all the other variants (i.e. V, -s, do and will) combined, if the choice being modelled is be V-ing against any other present temporal reference form. When this is repeated for multiple language corpora, the patterning of be V-ing in different language varieties can be compared and assessed. An example of the type of results this yields is presented in Table 3-3. Adapted from the results in Walker (2000), this shows that be V-ing patterns very similarly in the present temporal reference clauses of Samaná English (SAM), African Nova Scotian English (ANSE), and recordings of ex- slaves from the southern United States (ESR). In each data set the overall rate of be V- ing use is very low (around 0.5-1%), as indicated by the ‘input’ probability, and Lexical Aspect and Sentential Aspect are common constraints to all three varieties. The same ordering of constraints is present in these factor groups as well.

Table 3-3: A comparison of three independent variable rule analysis of factors contributing to the occurrence of V-ing in Early African American English. Adapted from Walker (2000:140)

variety

Total N SAM 2819 ANSE 3149 ESR 411 input .045 .079 .104 Lexical Aspect Nonstative .82 .84 .69 Stative .17 .19 .32 Range 65 65 37 Sentential Aspect Punctual .83 .82 .82 Durative .73 .65 .50 Habitual .26 .20 .42

Range 57 62 40 Grammatical Person 3rd _{sg. [.56] .65 [.53]} 3rd _{pl. [.47] .66 [.63]} non-3rd [.49] .41 [.45] Range 25

The specific findings regarding the historical relatedness of these varieties are not relevant here. But there are a number of methodological innovations that are important. First, multiple variants have been handled by collapsing all but one of the variants (the ‘application’ variant) into a single ‘non-application’ group. This gives the pattern of variation of a particular variant with respect to all other variants. Second, Tagliamonte (2012:166) and Wolfram (e.g. 2000:47) raise the issue that in order to do this kind of historical comparative work, the fundamental challenge is finding the right variable or ‘diagnostic’:

A “diagnostic” is a feature that can establish correspondences between varieties because it reveals the underlying mechanism of the grammar. An ideal

diagnostic is one that functions in a nontrivial way in one variety while simultaneously functioning in a different nontrivial way in another variety. (Tagliamonte 2012:166)

From the speaker’s perspective, the variable must be similar enough in each variety that they can make “interlingual identifications” (Weinreich 1953:7) between elements in the respective grammars so that transfer between superficially similar structures can occur (Torres Cacoullos & Travis to appear; Heine & Kuteva 2005). From the researcher’s perspective variables which are analytically useful are those which retain some

differences between the two varieties: these kind of differences have been called ‘conflict sites’ (Poplack & Meechan 1998: 132). Further, in order to pinpoint shared historical relationships as the most probable cause of shared patterning, variability that is alternatively or additionally attributable to universal processes of contact-induced change (such as patterns common across the formation of creoles, for example) needs to be ruled out as a diagnostic, or at least ruled secondary. Additionally, variable features that are common throughout multiple possible source languages are not good

return to throughout this thesis, in terms of choice of variables and the possible interpretations of the resulting analyses of their variable use.

A further methodological advancement comes from the extension of the basic ‘three levels of evidence’ (Poplack & Tagliamonte 2001: 92) that are common to the different applications of variationist comparative work so far discussed: (i) statistical significance (same factors selected as part of the model), (ii) relative strength (factors groups are ordered in the same way, indicated by the range & order they are put into the model in the statistical procedure), and (iii) shared constraint hierarchies (order of factors within the factor groups, indicated by the probability weights). Meyerhoff (2009a: 303) offers interpretations for each of these three lines of evidence when applied to language contact:

(i) Where the same factor groups are significant constraints on a variable in the model and in the replica varieties, let us call this weak transfer or replication; (ii) Where the same factor groups are significant in both model and replica, and the ordering of these factor groups is the same in both model and replica, let us call this (strong) transfer;

(iii) Where the same factor groups are significant in both model and replica, and the ordering of these factor groups is the same in both model and replica, and the factors within groups have the same ranking in model and replica, let us call this calquing.

In reverse order, scenario (iii) describes the wholesale adoption of a source language variable into the new variety. Scenarios (i) and (ii) offer two different degrees of what Meyerhoff terms ‘transformation under transfer’.

While, these criteria offer a systematic basis for assessing the contribution of different source languages in traditional post-colonial contact situations, they have also been discussed in the context of dialect contact/global diffusion of quotative be like in English varieties (Buchstaller 2014), in dialect convergence scenarios (e.g. in Faroese & Danish, Knooihuizen 2016), and in the acquisition of sociolinguistic variables discussed above, among others (e.g. Davydova & Buchstaller 2015). In these studies, the tendency for

patterns (i) or (ii), but not (iii) to prevail echoes the transformative tendency noted by Meyerhoff (2009a).

A final methodological point: Meyerhoff illustrates the application of these criteria with a comparison of variable subject expression in Bislama, a contact language of Vanuatu, and one of its possible source languages, Tamambo. Interestingly, this does not involve a comparison of shared morphemes (in similar functional roles), but rather an

alternation between overt subjects (encompassing both NP and full-form pronouns) and either zero subjects (for Bislama) or pronominal clitics (for Tamambo). As the variationist approach has been applied to features beyond the phonological, particularly morphosyntactic and discourse features, variables occupying the same “ecological niche” (Meyerhoff 2009a: 306) have become acceptable objects for comparison (Sankoff & Thibault 1981; Tagliamonte 2006: 74-6).