Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T21:32:14.811Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Prestige, accommodation, and the legacy of relative who

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 May 2010

Alexandra D'Arcy  and
Sali A. Tagliamonte
Alexandra D'Arcy
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, University of Victoria, PO Box 3045, Victoria, BC V8W 3P4, [email protected]
Sali A. Tagliamonte
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, University of Toronto, Sidney Smith Hall, 4th floor, 100 St. George Street, Toronto, ON M5S 3G3, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article presents a quantitative variationist analysis of the English restrictive relative pronouns. However, where previous research has largely focused on language-internal explanations for variant choice, the focus here is the social meaning of this erstwhile syntactic variable. We uncover rich sociolinguistic embedding of the relative pronouns in standard, urban speech. The only productive wh- form is who, which continues to pattern as a prestige form centuries after its linguistic specialization as a human subject relative. This legacy of prestige is reflected not only in the social characteristics of those with whom it is associated, but also in the patterns of accommodation that are visible in its use. These findings simultaneously demonstrate the tenacious nature of social meaning and the enduring effects of grammatical ideology, both of which influence pronoun choice in the context of face-to-face interaction. (Restrictive relative pronouns, who, change from above, age-grading, prestige, accommodation)*

Type
Articles
Information
Language in Society , Volume 39 , Issue 3 , June 2010 , pp. 383 - 410
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Adamson, H. D. (1992). Social and processing constraints on relative clauses. American Speech 67:123–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ball, Catherine N. (1994). Relative pronouns in it-clefts: The last seven centuries. Language Variation and Change 6:179–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ball, Catherine N. (1996). A diachronic study of relative markers in spoken and written English. Language Variation and Change 8:227–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beal, Joan, & Corrigan, Karen (2000a). Comparing the present with the past to predict the future for Tyneside (British) English. Newcastle & Durham Working Papers in Linguistic 6:13–30.Google Scholar
Beal, Joan, Corrigan, Karen (2000b). New ways of capturing the “Kodak moment”: Real-time vs. apparent-time analyses of syntactic variation in Tyneside English, 1969–1994. Paper presented at the VIEW conference, University of Essex, September 2000.Google Scholar
Beal, Joan, Corrigan, Karen (2002). Relatives in Tyneside and Northumbrian English. In Poussa (2002), 125–34.Google Scholar
Bell, Allan (1984). Language style as audience design. Language in Society 13:145–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biesenbach-Lucas, Sigrun (1987). The use of relative markers in Modern American English. In Denning, Keith, Inkelas, Sharon, McNair-Knox, Faye C., & Rickford, John (eds.), Variation in language: NWAV-XV at Stanford, 13–21. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.Google Scholar
Bever, Thomas G., & Langendoen, D. Terrence (1971). A dynamic model of evolution of language. Linguistic Inquiry 2:433–65.Google Scholar
Bourhis, Richard Y., & Giles, Howard (1977). The language of intergroup distinctiveness. In Giles, Howard (ed.), Language, ethnicity and intergroup relations, 119–35. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope (1980). How and why are women more polite: Some evidence from a Mayan community. In McConnell-Ginet, Sally, Borker, Ruth, & Furman, Nelly (eds.), Women and language in literature and society, 111–49. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Cameron, Deborah, & Coates, Jennifer (1988). Some problems in the sociolinguistic explanation of sex differences. In Coates, Jennifer & Cameron, Deborah (eds.), Women in their speech communities, 13–26. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Chambers, J. K. (2003). Sociolinguistic theory. 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Chambers, J. K. (to appear). English in Canada. In Hopkins, Tometro (ed.), Varieties of World English. London: Continuum International.Google Scholar
Chambers, J. K, & Trudgill, Peter (1980). Dialectology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cheshire, Jenny (1999). Taming the vernacular: Some repercussions for the study of syntactic variation and spoken grammar. Cuadernos de Filología Inglesa 8:59–80.Google Scholar
Cheshire, Jenny (2005). Age and generation-specific use of language. In Ammon, Ulrich, Dittmar, Norbert, Mattheier, Klaus J., and Trudgill, Peter (ed.) Sociolinguistics: An introductory handbook of the science of language and society, 2nd edn., 1552–63. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coates, Jennifer (1988). Introduction. In Coates, Jennifer & Cameron, Deborah (eds.), Women in their speech communities, 63–73. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Coupland, Nikolas (1980). Style-shifting in a Cardiff work-setting. Language in Society 9:1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coupland, Nikolas (1984). Accommodation at work: Some phonological data and their implications. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 46:49–70.Google Scholar
Cukor-Avila, Patricia (2000). Re-visiting the observer's paradox. American Speech 75:253–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cukor-Avila, Patricia, & Bailey, Guy (2001). The effects of the race of the interviewer on sociolinguistic fieldwork. Journal of Sociolinguistics 5:254–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curme, George O. (1947). English grammar. New York: Barnes & Noble.Google Scholar
Dasinger, Lisa, & Toupin, Cecile (1994). The development of relative clause functions in narrative. In Berman, Ruth & Slobin, Dan (eds.), Relating events in narrative: A cross-linguistic developmental study, 467–514. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Dekeyser, Xavier (1984). Relativi[z]ers in Early Modern English: A dynamic quantitative study. In Fisiak, Jacek (ed.), Historical syntax, 61–87. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dekeyser, Xavier (1986). English contact clauses revisited: A diachronic approach. Folia Linguistica Historica 7:107–20.Google Scholar
Denison, David (1998). Syntax. In Romaine, Suzanne (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language, 1776–present day, vol. 4, 92–329. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Downes, William (1998). Language and society. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckert, Penelope, & McConnell-Ginet, Sally (1992). Think practically and look locally: Language and gender as community-based practice. Annual Review of Anthropology 21:461–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erman, Britt (1992). Female and male usage of pragmatic expressions in same-sex and mixed-sex interaction. Language Variation and Change 4:217–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, Barbara A., & Thompson, Sandra A. (1990). A discourse explanation of the grammar of relative clauses in English conversation. Language 66:297–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geisler, Christer (2002). Relativizers in Ulster English. In Poussa (2002), 135–46. Munich: LINCOM Europa.Google Scholar
Giles, Howard (1973). Accent mobility: A model and some data. Anthropological Linguistics 15:87–105.Google Scholar
Giles, Howard, & Coupland, Nikolas (1991). Language: Contexts and consequences. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
Giles, Howard, & Ogay, Tania (2006). Communication accommodation theory. In Whaley, Bryan B. & Samter, Wendy (eds.), Explaining communication: Contemporary theories and exemplars, 325–44. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Giles, Howard, & Powesland, Peter F. (1975). Speech style and social evaluation. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Guy, Gregory R., & Bayley, Robert (1995). On the choice of relative pronouns in English. American Speech 70:148–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henry, Alison (1995). Belfast English and Standard English: Dialect variation and parameter setting. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffman, Michol F., & Walker, James A. (2010). Ethnolects and the city: Ethnic orientation and linguistic variation in Toronto English. Language Variation and Change 22(1), to appear.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogg, Michael (1985). Masculine and feminine speech in dyads and groups: A study of speech style and gender salience. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 4:99–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney, & Pullum, Geoffrey K. (2002). The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ihalainen, Ossi (1980). Relative clauses in the dialect of Somerset. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 81:187–96.Google Scholar
Jaeger, T. Florian, & Wasow, Thomas (2006). Processing as a source of accessibility effects on variation. In Cover, Rebecca T. & Kim, Yuni (eds.), Proceedings of the 31st annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 169–80. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto (1961). A modern English grammar on historical principles. Part III: Syntax. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Johansson, Christine (2006). Relativizers in nineteenth-century English. In Kytö, Merja, Rydén, Mats, & Smitterberg, Erik (eds.), Nineteenth-century English: Stability and change, 136–82. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, Charles (1972). An introduction to Middle English. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Kikai, Akio; Schleppegrell, Mary; & Tagliamonte, Sali (1987). The influence of syntactic position on relativization strategies. In Denning, Keith, Inkelas, Sharon, McNair-Knox, Faye C., & Rickford, John (eds.), Variation in language: NWAV-XV at Stanford, 266–78. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony, & Small, Cathy (1978). Grammatical ideology and its effect on speech. In Sankoff, David (ed.), Linguistic variation: Models and methods, 45–55. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Labov, William (1989). The child as linguistic historian. Language Variation and Change 1:85–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William (1990). The intersection of sex and social class in the course of linguistic change. Language Variation and Change 2:205–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William (1994). Principles of linguistic change: Internal factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Labov, William (2001). Principles of linguistic change: Social factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lass, Roger (1987). The shape of English: Structure and history. London: Dent.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Hans Martin (2002). Zero subject relative constructions in American and British English. In Peters, Pam (ed.), New frontiers of corpus research, 163–77. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levey, Stephen (2006). Visiting London relatives. English World-Wide 27:45–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macaulay, Ronald (1991). Locating dialect in discourse: The language of honest men and bonnie lasses in Ayr. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Montgomery, Michael (1989). The standardization of English relative clauses. In Trahern, J. B. (ed.), Standardizing English: Essays in the history of language change, 111–38. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.Google Scholar
Mustanoja, Tauno F. (1960). A Middle English syntax. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu, & Raumolin-Brungerg, Helena (2002). The rise of relative who in early Modern English. In Poussa (2002), 109–21.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu, & Trudgill, Peter (2001). Chapters in the social history of East Anglian English: The case of the third-person singular. In Fisiak, Jacek & Trudgill, Peter (eds.), East Anglian English, 187–204. Cambridge: Boydell and Brewer.Google Scholar
Peet, William (1974). Omission of subject relative pronouns in Hawaiian English restrictive relative clauses. In Shuy, Roger W. & Bailey, Charles-James N. (eds.), Towards tomorrow's linguistics, 253–66. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Peitsara, Kirsti (2002). Relativizers in the Suffolk dialect. In Poussa (2002), 167–80.Google Scholar
Peters, H. (1996). Early modern English who: Discourse function and standardization. North-Western European Language Evolution 27:67–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poussa, Patricia (1985). Historical implications of the distribution of the zero-pronoun relative clause in Modern English dialects: Looking backwards towards OE from Map S5 of the linguistic atlas of English. In Jacobson, Sven (ed.), Papers from the third Scandinavian symposium on syntactic variation, 99–117. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Poussa, Patricia (ed.) (2002). Relativisation on the North Sea Littoral. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Poutsma, Hendrik (1904/1926). A grammar of Late Modern English. Groningen: Noordhoff.Google Scholar
Prideaux, Gary D., & Baker, William J. (1986). Strategies and structure: The processing of relative clauses. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph (1957). Relative clauses in educated spoken English. English Studies 38:97–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph; Greenbaum, Sidney; Leech, Geoffey; & Svartvik, Jan (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Rickford, John R., & McNair-Knox, Faye (1994). Addressee and topic-influenced style shift: A quantitative sociolinguistic perspective. In Biber, Douglas & Finegan, Edward (eds.), Sociolinguistic perspectives on register, 235–76. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rissanen, Matti (1984). The choice of relative pronouns in 17th century American English. In Fisiak, Jacek (ed.), Historical syntax, 417–35. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romaine, Suzanne (1980). The relative clause marker in Scots English: Diffusion, complexity and style as dimensions of syntactic change. Language in Society 9:221–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romaine, Suzanne (1982). Socio-historical linguistics: Its status and methodology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rydén, Mats (1983). The emergence of who as a relativizer. Studia Linguistica 37:126–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sankoff, David; Tagliamonte, Sali A.; & Smith, Eric (2005). Goldvarb X: A multivariate analysis application. Department of Linguistics, University of Toronto. Online: http://individual.utoronto.ca/tagliamonte/Goldvarb/GV_index.htm.Google Scholar
Swan, Michael (1995). Practical English usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. (2002). Variation and change in the British relative marker system. In Poussa, Patricia (ed.), Relativisation on the North Sea Littoral, 147–65. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. (2003–2005). Linguistic changes in Canada entering the 21st century. Research grant no. 410-2003-2005. Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. (2006). “So cool, right?” Canadian English entering the 21st century. Special issue of the Canadian Journal of Linguistics 51:309–31.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A.; D'Arcy, Alexandra; & Jankowski, Bridget (2010). Social work and linguistic systems: Marking possession in Canadian English. Language Variation and Change.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A.; Molfenter, Sonja; & King, Matthew (2004). Taking it to the streets! A sociolinguistic survey of old-line Toronto. Poster presented at NWAV 33, University of Michigan. Online: http://individual.utoronto.ca/tagliamonte/.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A.; Smith, Jennifer; & Lawrence, Helen (2005). No taming the vernacular! Insights from the relatives in northern Britain. Language Variation and Change 17:75–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Takano, Shoji (1998). A quantitative study of gender differences in the ellipsis of the Japanese post-positional particles -wa and -ga: Gender composition as a constraint on variability. Language Variation and Change 10:289–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Temperley, David (2003). Ambiguity avoidance in English relative clauses. Language 79:464–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tottie, Gunnel (1995). The man ø I love: An analysis of factors favouring zero relatives in written British and American English. In Melchers, Gunnel & Warren, Beatrice (eds.), Studies in Anglistics, 201–15. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.Google Scholar
Tottie, Gunnel (1997). Relatively speaking: Relative marker usage in the British National Corpus. In Rissanen, Matti, Nevalainen, Terttu, & Kahlas-Tarkka, Leena (eds.), To explain the present: Studies in the changing English language in honour of Matti Rissanen, 465–81. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Tottie, Gunnel, & Harvie, Dawn (2000). It's all relative: Relativization strategies in early African American English. In Poplack, Shana (ed.), The English history of African American English, 198–230. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tottie, Gunnel, & Rey, Michel (1997). Relativization strategies in Earlier African American Vernacular English. Language Variation and Change 9:219–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (1972). A history of English syntax: A transformational approach to the history of English sentence structure. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter (1974). The social differentiation of English in Norwich. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Van den Eynden Morpeth, Nadine (2002). Relativisers in the Southwest of England. In Poussa (2002), 181–94.Google Scholar
Visser, F. Th (1963–1973). An historical syntax of the English language. Leiden: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar
Wolfram, Walt (1996). Dialect in society. In Coulmas, Florian (ed.), Handbook on sociolinguistics, 107–26. Cambridge: Blackwell.Google Scholar