Language use and identification

• Centralization of vowels in Martha’s Vineyard

Language use and identification

• Centralization of vowels in Martha’s Vineyard [] [] and [] []– while, pie, night

– out, house, trout

Language use and identification

• Centralization of vowels in Martha’s Vineyard [] [] and [] []

Age ay aw

75- 25 22

61-75 35 37

46-60 62 44

31-45 81 88

14-30 37 46

Geographical distribution of centralization

ay aw

Down-island 35 33

Up-island 61 66

Degree of centralization and orientation towards Martha’s

Vineyard

Persons Orientation ay aw

40 Positive 63 62

19 Neutral 32 42

6 Negative 09 08

Register variation

• Complexity of the speaker’s competence– T’as pas vu le flic ?– N’avez-vous vu le policier ?

• Lexical choices (policier / flic)• Syntactic choices

– subject pronoun / verb inversion– omission of ne

• Phonological choices: Tu as vs. T’as• Social deixis: tu vs. vous

Register variation

• Complexity of the speaker’s competence– You seen the cop?– Have you seen the policeman?

• Lexical choices (policeman / cop)

• Syntactic choices– omission of perfect aux have

• Phonological choices– you : [j] vs [ju:]

Register variation

• Complexity of the speaker’s competence– Have you seen the policeman?– Might you perhaps have seen the policeman

• Addition of modal elements might, perhaps

Register variation

• Complexity of the speaker’s competence– She don’t talk to them boys no more.– She doesn’t talk to those boys any more.

• Morphological choices– don’t vs doesn’t (as 3rd pers sg auxiliary)– them vs those (as plural demonstrative)

• Syntactic choices– double negation

Diachronic variation: English

Fæder ure þu þe eart on heofonum; Si þin nama gehalgod to becume þin rice gewurþe ðin willa on eorðan swa swa on heofonum. urne gedæghwamlican hlaf syle us todæg and forgyf us ure gyltas swa swa we forgyfað urum gyltendum and ne gelæd þu us on costnunge ac alys us of yfele soþlice

Fæder ure þu þe eart on heofonum; Father our thou that art in heavensSi þin nama gehalgod be thy name hallowedto becume þin rice come thy kingdomgewurþe ðin willa be-done thy willon eorðan swa swa on heofonum. on earth as in heavensurne gedæghwamlican hlaf syle us todæg our daily bread give us todayand forgyf us ure gyltas and forgive us our sinsswa swa we forgyfað urum gyltendum as we forgive those-who-have-sinned-against-usand ne gelæd þu us on costnunge and not lead thou us into temptationac alys us of yfele soþlice but deliver us from evil. truly

This version of the Lord's Prayer is from Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 140 [WSCp], a translation of the Gospels written in Bath in the first half of the 11th century; edited by Liuzza (1994). Read by Cathy Ball (Department of Linguistics, Georgetown University) for Edward Vanetten's Sunday School class.

http://www.georgetown.edu/faculty/ballc/oe/paternoster-oe.html

Diachronic variation: English

Fæder ure þu þe eart on heofonum, si þin nama gehalgod. To becume þin rice.

Old English, circa 1000 (West Saxon Gospels)

Oure fadir that art in heuenes halewid be thi name, thi kyngdoom come to,

Middle English, circa 1400 (Wyclif Bible)

Our father which art in heaven, hallowed be thy Name. Thy kingdom come.

Early Modern English, circa 1600 (King James Bible)

Our Father, who is in heaven, may your name be kept holy. May your kingdom come into being.

Contemporary English

Diachronic variation: English

Fæder ure þu þe eart on heofonum

Our Father, who is in heaven

• Syntactic changes– Position of genitive pronoun ure (=our)

• Morphological changes– Conjugation of be– Case: heofonum is the dative plural of heofon– Second person pronoun þu (þ = th)

Diachronic variation: English

• Semantic change– on > in

• Phonetic change– Fæder [fædr]– ure [ur]

• Spelling system– æ þ ð

Diachronic variation: French

Carles li reis, nostre emper[er]e magnesSet anz tuz pleins ad estet en Espaigne: Tresqu'en la mer cunquist la tere altaigne. N'i ad castel ki devant lui remaigne;

(Chanson de Roland, environ 1090)

Phonological change: Carles/Charles, castel/château ; reis / roi ; nostre / notre, altaigne/hautaine

Pronunciation of final s

Diachronic variation: French

Carles li reis, nostre emper[er]e magnes

Set anz tuz pleins ad estet en Espaigne:

Tresqu'en la mer cunquist la tere altaigne. N'i ad castel ki devant lui remaigne;

(Chanson de Roland, environ 1090)

Morphological change:

Carles, reis, magnes : -s = subject case

Diachronic variation: French

Carles li reis, nostre emper[er]e magnesSet anz tuz pleins ad estet en Espaigne: Tresqu'en la mer cunquist la tere altaigne. N'i ad castel ki devant lui remaigne;

(Chanson de Roland, environ 1090)

Syntactic change:*Charles sept ans a été en Espagne*Jusqu’à la mer (il) conquit la terre haute

Diachronic variation: French

Carles li reis, nostre emper[er]e magnes

Set anz tuz pleins ad estet en Espaigne:

Tresqu'en la mer cunquist la tere altaigne. N'i ad castel ki devant lui remaigne;

(Chanson de Roland, environ 1090)

Lexical change (word replacement):

magne > grand; tresque > jusque; remanoir > rester

Diachronic variation: French

Carles li reis, nostre emper[er]e magnes

Set anz tuz pleins ad estet en Espaigne:

Tresqu'en la mer cunquist la tere altaigne. N'i ad castel ki devant lui remaigne;

(Chanson de Roland, environ 1090)

Lexical semantic change:

altaigne = hautain, only the metaphorical sense remains

Phonological change

Latin Français Italien

• cantum > chant canto

• campum > champ campo

• carrum > char carro

• carum > cher caro

• caballum > cheval cavallo

Phonological change

• casus > cas (emprunt médiéval au latin)

• campania > campagne (emprunt au provençal ou au picard ou aux deux)

Phonological change

Latin Français Italien

• tēlam toile tela

• tēctum toit tetto

• sēram soir sera

• rēgem roi re

Morphological change: analogy

Latin Old Fr (1200) French

• amo aim j’aime

• amas aimes tu aimes

• amat aimet il aime

• amamus aimons nous aimons

• amatis aimez vous aimez

• amant aiment ils aiment

Conclusion

• Why the interest in variation?– Not all variation is possible. Possible variation

tells us about the structure of linguistic knowledge

– Avoid simplistic analyses: • double negation is illogical• meaning and syntax of modal auxiliaries in English• confusion of diachronic and synchronic

explanations

Conclusion

• Central object of linguistic inquiry: the individual speaker’s competence

• But– Complexity of that competence (multiple

systems for one speaker)– Inter-speaker variation