Linguistic Variation

Confronting Fact and Theory

Rena Torres Cacoullos, Nathalie Dion, André Lapierre

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2014
• ISBN:
  9781317688174
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Langues et linguistique
• Subtopic: Linguistique

Linguistic Variation: Confronting Fact and Theory honors Shana Poplack in bringing together contributions from leading scholars in language variation and change. The book demonstrates how variationist methodology can be applied to the study of linguistic structures and processes. It introduces readers to variation theory, while also providing an overview of current debates on the linguistic, cognitive and sociocultural factors involved in linguistic patterning. With its coverage of a diverse range of language varieties and linguistic problems, this book offers new quantitative analyses of actual language production and processing from both top experts and emerging scholars, and presents students and practitioners with theoretical frameworks to meaningfully engage in accountable research practice.

Part B
Identifying and Tracking Language Change

5
The Continuing Story of Verbal –s

Revisiting the Northern Subject Rule as a Diagnostic of Historical Relationship

Sandra Clarke

MEMORIAL UNIVERSITY OF NEWFOUNDLAND

1. Introduction

Within the quantitative sociohistorical linguistic paradigm, the feature of English non-standard (NonSt) present-tense verbal – s (use of the – s affix with persons other than the 3sg) has received considerable attention. Out of this, a dominant narrative has emerged relative to the historical trajectory of this suffix from Middle and Early Modern English to the present, and from its origins in the British Isles to its diffusion to North America and the Caribbean (see, e.g., Montgomery 1997; Poplack & Tagliamonte 1989, 1991, 2001; Tagliamonte 2012: chapter 8). This account offers a unified and elegant approach to verbal – s, using parallels in constraint strength and hierarchy to draw historical connections across English varieties separated in time and space.

According to this account, NonSt verbal – s is generally subject to a grammatically conditioned pattern usually referred to as the Northern Subject Rule (NSR; see McCafferty 2004: 52 for other terms), given its origins in Northern British English (NBE) and Scots English. Since Montgomery (1994), the NSR has been represented as consisting of two syntactic components: a subject-type constraint (STC, opposing personal pronoun and full NP subjects) and a subject-verb proximity constraint (opposing SV adjacency and non-adjacency). In its classic manifestation (see Montgomery 1994 for 14th- to 17th-century Scots), a zero suffix occurs categorically with adjacent personal pronoun (APP) subjects, other than 2sg (thou) and 3sg; all other SV configurations (adjacent NPs, all non-adjacent subjects) very strongly favor verbal – s. Over the course of its spatial and temporal diffusion to Southern British English (SBE) and diaspora varieties, the NSR experienced change relative to both of its components. The proximity constraint has undergone weakening, even in core NBE (e.g., Pietsch 2005a, 2005b).¹ As to the STC, conservative regional SBE varieties display variable cooccurrence of verbal – s and APP subjects. Nonetheless, in their analysis of Devon SBE, Godfrey and Tagliamonte (1999) conclude that the underlying constraint hierarchy remains unaltered: full NPs significantly favor verbal – s, while APP subjects do not.

Given the parallels between their Devon corpus and African American varieties analyzed in Poplack and Tagliamonte (1989 inter alia), Godfrey and Tagliamonte (1999: 109) conclude that “type-of-subject constraint must have been part of the grammatical system of the varieties of English that were transported to North America” and speculate that “locales where the type-of-subject constraint does not apply may reflect subsequent linguistic change rather than an original absence.” Tagliamonte (2012: 216) expands on this by suggesting that such cases result from “varying founder populations … a break in transmission, or … local conditions.” Other researchers have come to similar conclusions. Wolfram, Thomas, and Green (2000: 338–339), for example, suggest that high rates of verbal – s with 3pl APP subjects by elderly speakers of African American English (AAE)—as opposed to virtually categorical zero suffixing in this environment among their European American counterparts—result from (over)generalization, or “significant reconfigurations … of the earlier European pattern,” rather than historical inheritance.

In this chapter, I explore an alternative account of NonSt verbal – s. I argue that, both within SBE and its diaspora varieties, the historical saga associated with this suffix was not simply characterized by diffusion of an NSR-like pattern; rather, it was complex and multi-stranded. In the next sections, I present a brief historical overview of non-3sg verbal – s, with a focus on regional SBE and its transatlantic descendants. This is followed by quantitative analysis of this suffix in Newfoundland English, a highly conservative SBE-based variety that presents no evidence of the STC. In an attempt to untangle general tendencies in the history of English from evidence often offered in support of the historical continuity of the NSR, I then examine two corpora, one representing Early Modern English (EME), the other consisting of agreement ‘errors’ drawn from contemporary standard English (StdEng). I conclude by exploring alternative explanations for the presence of NSR-like patterns across English varieties.

2. Verbal – s in Britain: From Old English to Contemporary Regional Varieties

With ultimate roots in Old English (OE) (de Haas 2011: 68 ff.), the NSR represents a relatively early development in the history of English. The OE paradigm provided in (1) characterizes all present-tense indicative regular verbs, including those with APP subjects:

• (1) 1sg -e; 2sg -(e)st; 3sg -(e)þ; 1/2/3pl -aþ

By the 10th century, a new variant – es/ – as had emerged in the north of England for both the 3sg and all persons of the plural; during the Middle English (ME) period, – es became the northern norm. The -es suffix also spread to the north midlands, where it competed with inherited ME – eth as well as a new regional present indicative plural variant – en. By late ME, (e)s had infiltrated more southerly varieties as well—presumably via diffusion from the north (e.g., Nevalainen & Raumolin-Brunberg 2000; Schendl 1996)—and over the next several centuries became the EME norm. Conservative regional varieties, however, were considerably more resistant. In the midlands, plural -n remained alongside – s until well into the 20th century (Shorrocks 1999), as did 3sg and 1/2/3pl – (e)th (plus 2sg – (e)st) in the (south)west (e.g., Orton, Barry, Halliday, Tilling & Wakelin 1962–1971; Wright 1968[1905]). These retentions stand in marked contrast to the trajectory of development found in the vernacular speech of East Anglia, where a reduced zero suffix (see the following paragraph) underwent 16th-century generalization to all subjects, including 3sg (e.g., Trudgill 1997).²

The OE suffixes listed in (1), however, were not invariant even within regional dialects. In both north and south, OE 1&2pl – aþ occasionally displayed an innovative reduced variant – e (later zero), especially when the (pronoun) subject occurred postverbally (de Haas 2011: 177 ff.). Thus, as early as OE, reduced suffixes showed a tendency to co-occur with APP rather than full NP subjects. In early ME, this association became more firmly established in northern England and Scotland, in the form of the NSR (e.g., de Haas 2011; McIntosh 1983; Montgomery 1994). There, – e /zero became the norm with all APP subjects, other than 2sg and 3sg; in all other environments, the full northern – (e)s inflection was retained. (In the [non-northern] midlands and in the south, however, the reduced suffix remained a minority ME variant, occurring with all subject types.) Historically then, as Pietsch (2005a: 173–174) reminds us,

the verbal – s forms in those environments where they do not match modern Standard English are not an innovation…. Rather (for most verbs, at least) these – s forms are a conservative retention…. The main innovation thus lies not in a spread of the suffix but the spread of the suffixless forms, in the environments with adjacent pronoun subjects.

3. Verbal – s in SBE and Its Diaspora Varieties

Over the past century and a half, dialect commentators have suggested that the NSR pattern of NBE was distinct from the inflectional system that prevailed in the south of England. Thus Wright (1968[1905]: 296) distinguished a northern and a southern British dialect type, the former broadly characterized by the NSR. The southern/south midlands type, however, Wright described as displaying an – s/ – z/əz inflection with all subjects, including APP. Likewise, Ihalainen (1994: 222) notes that both older – (e)th suffixes and their – (e)s replacements “did not have any restrictions” with respect to subject co-occurrence in Southwestern British English, and “we find forms like I go’th, He go’th, They go’th, and so on.”

The handful of reasonably reliable contemporaneous descriptions that we possess of late 19th- and early 20th-century regional Southwestern British English lends credence to Wright’s statement. Strikingly, there is no suggestion of any tendency towa...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• CONTENTS
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction: Toward a Science of Grammar and a Critical Sociolinguistics
• PART A The Variationist Comparative Method: Gauging Grammatical Relationships
• PART B Identifying and Tracking Language Change
• PART C Language Ideology, Prescription, and Community Norms
• PART D Evaluating the Effects of Language Contact on the Ground
• PART E Fresh Perspectives on Classic Problems
• Contributor Biographies
• Index