Explore the vast range of titles available.

The paper surveys overlap between corpus linguistics and variationist sociolinguistics. Corpus linguistics is customarily defined as a methodology that bases claims about language on usage patterns in collections of naturalistic, authentic speech or text. Because this is what is typically done in variationist sociolinguistics work, I argue that variationist sociolinguists are by definition corpus linguists, though of course the reverse is not true: the variationist method entails more than merely analyzing usage data, and not all corpus analysts are interested in variation. But that being said, a considerable and arguably increasing number of corpus linguists not formally trained in variationist sociolinguistics are explicitly concerned with variation and engage in what I call corpus-based variationist linguistics (CVL). I first discuss what unites or divides work in CVL and in variationist sociolinguistics. In a plea to cross subdisciplinary boundaries, I subsequently identify three research areas where variationist sociolinguists may draw inspiration from work in CVL: conducting multi-variable research, paying more attention to probabilistic grammars, and taking more seriously the register-sensitivity of variation patterns. Cet article explore le chevauchement entre la linguistique de corpus et la sociolinguistique variationniste. La linguistique de corpus est typiquement définie comme une méthodologie qui fonde ses affirmations linguistiques sur les régularités de l'usage émergeant des collectes de données orales ou textuelles naturalistes et authentiques. Puisque c'est ce qui se fait généralement en sociolinguistique variationniste, je soutiens que les sociolinguistes variationnistes sont par définition des linguistes de corpus, bien que l'inverse ne soit pas vrai: la méthode variationniste implique davantage que le seul fait d'analyser les données de l'usage, et tous les analystes de corpus ne s'intéressent pas à la variation. Ceci étant dit, un nombre grandissant de linguistes de corpus n'ayant pas été formellement formés en sociolinguistique variationniste s'intéressent explicitement à la variation et s'investissent dans ce que j'appelle la linguistique variationniste basée sur les corpus (en anglais, corpus-based variationist linguistics ou CVL). Je discute d'abord ce qui unit et ce qui divise la linguistique variationniste basée sur les corpus et la sociolinguistique variationniste. Dans un appel visant à franchir les frontières des sous-disciplines, j'identifie ensuite trois domaines de recherche où les sociolinguistes variationnistes peuvent s'inspirer des travaux en linguistique variationniste basée sur les corpus: effectuer des recherches multi-variables, accorder plus d'attention aux grammaires probabilistes et prendre plus au sérieux la sensibilité au registre des modèles de variation.

The present study uses variationist sociolinguistic methods to examine the intensifier system in Oslo Norwegian. Results indicate that both linguistic and social factors influence intensifier use. Predicative adjectives were intensified more frequently than attributive adjectives, women used intensifiers more frequently than men, and younger speakers had higher intensification rates than older speakers. Apparent time analyses also reveal a change in progress toward the use of skikkelig ‘proper’, a change led predominantly by young women. Although veldig ‘very’ was the most frequently used intensifier, its use decreases in apparent time, whereas skikkelig increases in frequency among younger speakers. The development of the intensifier skikkelig appears to follow a common pathway of change from adjective to manner adjunct to degree adverb, as well as from appropriateness to intensification. Comparisons with work on English, German, and Norwegian reveal several crosslinguistic tendencies about the linguistic and social conditioning of intensifiers. This study provides the first variationist sociolinguistic analysis of intensifiers in Oslo Norwegian; it provides support for several crosslinguistic claims about intensifier use; and it contributes to the visibility of variationist sociolinguistic work in the study of Norwegian variation and change.

This paper shows (a) how the concept of the linguistic market can be operationalized as an index to enable its inclusion as a factor in variationist analysis and (b) how this index helps to explain sociolinguistic variation in a diglossic situation. To do this, sociolinguistic interviews were conducted in Swiss Standard German among 16 L1-dialect-speakers aged between 19 and 40 from Biel/Bienne in western Switzerland. Drawing from participants’ self-assessments of the importance of Standard German in their professional life, a linguistic market index (LMI) was created and cross-validated with external assessments. Our variationist analysis considered four phonetic-phonological variables—/k/, /ç/, /aː/, /ɛ-ɛː/—for which typical Swiss variants (i.e., sociolinguistic stereotypes) exist. Findings show that the LMI is crucial for explaining variation in all the variables tested. Other social (i.e., gender and formality of the language production task) and linguistic factors (e.g., phonetic environment) show partial effects as well.

The adverb anymore is standardly a negative polarity item (NPI), which must be licensed by triggers of non-positive polarity. Some Englishes also allow anymore in positive-polarity clauses. Linguists have posited that this non-polarity anymore (NPAM) carries a feature of negative affect. However, this claim is based on elicited judgments, and linguists have argued that respondents cannot reliably evaluate NPAM via conscious judgment. To solve this problem, we employ sentiment analysis to examine the relationship between NPAM and negative affect in a Twitter corpus. Using two complementary sentiment analytic frameworks, we demonstrate that words occurring with NPAM have lower valence, higher arousal, and lower dominance than words occurring with NPI-anymore. Broadly, this confirms NPAM’s association with negative affect in natural-language productions. We additionally identify inter- and intra-regional differences in affective dimensions, as well as variability across different types of NPI trigger, showing that the relationship between negative affect and NPAM is not monolithic dialectally, syntactically, or semantically. The project demonstrates the utility of sentiment analysis for examining emotional characteristics of low-frequency variables, providing a new tool for dialectology, micro-syntax, and variationist sociolinguistics.

In this study, we investigate first-person-singular subject expression in Louisiana French. This variety is undergoing language death and features extreme variation, with twelve first-person-singular subject forms identified within our corpus. We demonstrate that variationist methods are robust for examining such variation in obsolescing languages, and we provide a model for undertaking such analyses. Examining different aspects of our data, we fit two mixed-effects models, one that analyzes the four most frequent phonological variants of the atonic pronoun je ‘I’ and the other that focuses on the tonic pronoun mon ‘me.’ Several linguistic and social factors predict the use of these subject forms, supporting the claim that variability in declining languages is systematic, just as variation in healthy languages is. We argue that variationist methodologies have contributions to make to research on obsolescing languages and that variationist examinations of endangered and minority languages can provide methodological and theoretical contributions to the study of language variation and change more broadly.

This study investigates alternative variants of progressive aspect in Jordanian Arabic (JA). The study explores to what extent the progressive aspect variants: [qaʕid] ‘to sit’, [3’am], ‘to do’, and [3mmal] ‘to be’, are constrained by the social factors of gender, age, region, and education. Drawing on Labov’s (1972) variationist sociolinguistics paradigm, a quantitative analysis of the said variants in the speech of 48 native speakers of JA was undertaken. To this effect, audio-recorded interviews of 30 hours of speech samples were analyzed by using GoldVarb X. Data analysis worked along three dimensions: the overall distribution of identified, targeted variants is presented, cross-tabulation of social factors is used to quantitatively analyze the relationship between multiple variables, and multivariate analysis is conducted to find correlations between several variables simultaneously. The study revealed that region, age, and education level significantly restrict the selection of [qaʕid] variant, while gender does not. The findings also suggest that some speakers view this variant as a marker of their identity. Moreover, the study revealed a kind of prestige associated with urban dialects, with [3’am] and [3mmal] variants being mainly used by urban speakers rather than rural ones. Finally, the findings highlight the significant impact of regional factors on language variation, with urban-rural differences obviously shaping linguistic patterns.

Following the Labovian paradigm, the present study uses variationist quantitative methods to examine the linguistic and social factors influencing adjective choices in German. By focusing on adjectives of positive evaluation (such as cool ‘cool’, toll/geil ‘great’), an analysis of over 3,000 tokens reveals that the choice of using one adjective over a competing counterpart is structured systematically. This choice is heavily constrained by the social factor age, with gender also influencing variation to varying degrees. The syntactic position of the adjective also conditions use, with some adjectives favoring predicative position and others favoring attributive or stand-alone position. Comparisons across apparent time, as well as with previous research, indicate that the semantic field of positive evaluation is a perpetually changing locus of variation. By applying variationist methods to German data, the present study illustrates how German lexis can index social meaning, paving the way for future research on German lexical variation. More broadly speaking, this study also contributes to ongoing variationist sociolinguistic research on German language variation and change.*

Heritage language variation and change provides an opportunity to examine the interplay of contact-induced and language-internal effects while extending the variationist framework beyond monolingual speakers and majority languages. Using data from the Heritage Language Variation and Change in Toronto Project, we illustrate this with a case study of Tagalog (r), which varies between tap, trill, and approximant variants. Nearly 3000 tokens of (r)-containing words were extracted from a corpus of spontaneous speech of 23 heritage speakers in Toronto and 9 homeland speakers in Manila. Intergenerational and intergroup analyses were conducted using mixed-effects modeling. Results showed greater use of the approximant among second-generation (GEN2) heritage speakers and those that self-report using English more. In addition, the distributional patterns remain robust and the approximant appears in more contexts. We argue that these patterns reflect an interplay between internal and external processes of change. We situate these findings within a framework for distinguishing sources of variation in heritage languages: internal change, identity marking and transfer from the dominant language.

This paper develops a formal model of the subtle meaning differences that exist between grammatical alternatives in socially conditioned variation (called variants) and how these variants can be used by speakers as resources for constructing personal linguistic styles. More specifically, this paper introduces a new formal system, called social meaning games (SMGs), which allows for the unification of variationist sociolinguistics and game-theoretic pragmatics, two fields that have had very little interaction in the past. Although remarks have been made concerning the possible usefulness of game-theoretic tools in the analysis of certain kinds of socially conditioned linguistic phenomena (Goffman in Encounters: Two studies in the sociology of interaction, Bobbs-Merrill, Indianapolis, 1961; in Interaction ritual: Essays on faceto-face interaction, Aldine, Oxford, 1967; in Strategic interaction, vol 1, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, 1970; Bourdieu in Soc Sci Inf 16(6):645-668, 1977; Dror et al. in Lang Linguist Compass 7(11):561-579, 2013; in Lang Linguist Compass 8(6):230-242, 2014; Clark in Meaningful games: Exploring language with game theory, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2014, among others), a general framework uniting game-theoretic pragmatics and quantitative sociolinguistics has yet to be developed. This paper constructs such a framework through giving a formalization of the Third Wave approach to the meaning of variation (see Eckert in Ann Rev Anthropol 41:87-100, 2012, for an overview) using signalling games (Lewis in Convention, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1969) and a probabilistic approach to speaker/listener beliefs of the kind commonly used in the Bayesian game-theoretic pragmatics framework (see Goodman and Lassiter in Probabilistic semantics and pragmatics: Uncertainty in language and thought. Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, Wiley, Hoboken, 2014; Franke and Jäger in Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 35(1):3-44, 2016, for recent overviews).

Previous work has shown that stance—the way speakers position themselves with respect to what they are talking about and who they are talking to—provides powerful insights into why speakers choose certain linguistic variants, beyond correlations with macro-social categories such as gender, ethnicity, and social class. However, as stancetaking moves are highly context-dependent, they have rarely been explored quantitatively, making the observed variable patterns difficult to generalize. This article seeks to contribute to this methodological gap by proposing a formal guide to coding stance and demonstrating how it can be operationalized quantitatively. Drawing on a corpus of eight individuals, self-recorded in three situations with varying levels of social distance, we apply this method to variation between English complementizers that and zero (i.e. no overt complementizer), providing a replicable and theoretically grounded protocol that incorporates both quantitative and qualitative analyses in a variationist sociolinguistic study. (Stance, complementizers, that, English)*