Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T20:12:02.207Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

11 - Reconstructing syntactic continuity and change in early Modern English regional dialects

the case of who0

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2011

David Denison
Affiliation:
University of Manchester
Ricardo Bermúdez-Otero
Affiliation:
University of Manchester
Chris McCully
Affiliation:
Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, The Netherlands
Emma Moore
Affiliation:
University of Sheffield
Get access

Summary

Introduction

In recent years, dialect syntax has started to attract more wide-ranging interest among both synchronic and diachronic linguists. This aspect of regional variation used to be a neglected area in traditional dialectology largely because of the methods of data collection and elicitation used (for overviews, see Kortmann 2006; Adger and Trousdale 2007). In variation studies methodological problems have been created by the extension of the notion of the linguistic variable to higher-level grammatical variation (cf. Lavandera 1978; Romaine 1984a). However, comparative dialect studies, such as Tagliamonte (2002, 2008), show that a case can be made not only for tracing regional differences in syntactic changes in progress but also for quantitative differences in factors conditioning these processes across varieties. The role of frequency as a measure of variation is generally acknowledged in work on variety grammars. Using probabilistic models to corpus data, subtle but significant variation can be detected between regional and areal varieties of a given language (Bresnan 2007; Bresnan et al. 2007).

Until recently, regional variation in early Modern English (1500–1700) was considered to fall beyond the reach of empirical research. This narrowing of research scope after the Middle English period, ‘notoriously the time when linguistic variation is fully reflected in the written mode’ (Horobin and Smith 2002: 33), has been attributed to the standardisation of spelling, which made texts largely unlocalisable after 1500 (McIntosh, Samuels and Benskin 1986: 3). This ‘bad data’ problem has been felt particularly acutely in the reconstruction of phonological variation.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×