• The Conference
  • Home
  • Programme
  • Venue & directions
  • Organizing Committee
  • Scientific Committee
  • Exhibitors & sponsors
  • Satellite events
  • Conference Party
• Past & future
  • Previous symposia
  • Finland 2014
  • Spain 2016
• About FU Berlin
  • University homepage
  • Humanities at FU

Programme: accepted abstracts

Search for abstracts --- authors title abstract

---

Abstract ID: 718

Part of General Paper Session (Other abstracts in this session)

How to define a variable? Decisions and their consequences in diachronic sociolinguistic analysis

Authors: Buchstaller, Isabelle
Submitted by: Buchstaller, Isabelle (University of Leipzig, Germany)

The role of variable definition and operationalization in our models of linguistic variation and change has been problematized in the sociolinguistic literature (Hall-Lew and Fix 2010, Kendall 2008, Rickford et al. 1999). In this paper, I will investigate the extent to which different strategies of variable definition can impact on the outcome of our investigation. More specifically, I investigate the effect that more or less encompassing definitions of quotation - in particular choices about the inclusion of internal states and repeated action sequences - can have on the empirical results reported. The analysis is based on a newly created longitudinal dataset that spans 5 decades of recordings of Tyneside English (1960s – 2000s).  

First, I tackle the issue of direct repetition, which is highly skewed across the three sub-corpora investigated; it is conditioned by a type of talk that can be defined as belonging to a certain genre as well as topic. Changes in collection methodology across time impact heavily on the occurrence of the types of talk that foster the occurrence of direct repetition. Notably, different variable definitions as regards the treatment of direct repetition have important consequences on  the outcome of our investigation.

The second issue is the question of how to deal with the reporting of mental activity. The literature reports that the quotative system has been shifting towards higher rates of internal monologue, which has been attributed to encroaching like but also to increasing frequencies of think (D’Arcy 2009, Tagliamonte and D’Arcy 2007). However, most variationist studies have been rather silent regarding the question of how to define internal monologue. Indeed, different decisions a propos the treatment of stance marking constructions lead to vastly different results. I compare the results gleaned from analyses that rely on different degrees of inclusiveness a propos the reporting of inner states. I will argue that an analysis that pairs variationist methods with an investigation into the ways in which speakers report stance, point of view and attitudes (Jones and Schieffelin 2007, Buchstaller 2004) can provide us with a more encompassing picture of the longitudinal development of linguistic practise.

References:

Buchstaller, Isabelle. 2004. The Sociolinguistic Constraints on the Quotative System - British English and US English compared. University of Edinburgh PhD dissertation

D’Arcy, Alexandra. 2009. Constructing dialogue in time (and space). Plenary lecture given at UKLVC7, Newcastle University, September 1-3.

Hall-Lew, Lauren and Sonya Fix. 2010. Multiple Measures of L-Vocalization. NWAV39. San Antonio, TX

Kendall, Tyler. 2008. On the history and future of sociolinguistic data. Linguistic Compass 2(2): 332-351.

Jones, Graham and Bambi Schieffelin. 2009. Enquoting voices, accomplishing talk: Uses of be + like in Instant Messaging. Language & Communication 29(1): 77-113.

Tagliamonte, Sali and Alexandra D’Arcy. 2007. Frequency and variation in the community grammar. Tracking a new change through the generations. Language Variation and Change 19: 199-217.

Rickford, John, Arnetha Bell, Renée Blake, Raina Jackson and Nomi Martin. 1999. Rappin’ on the copula coffin. In John Rickford (ed.), African American Vernacular English, 34-60. Malden, MA: Blackwell.