Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T06:39:30.707Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

There's three variants: Agreement variation in existential there constructions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 July 2017

Bonnie Krejci  and
Katherine Hilton
Bonnie Krejci
Affiliation:
Stanford University
Katherine Hilton
Affiliation:
Stanford University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Previous studies of agreement variation in existential there constructions treat the variable as binary, distinguishing between agreeing and nonagreeing variants. Using new data from a corpus of English spoken in California, we argue that this widely studied variable cannot be fully understood without instead making a three-way distinction between agreement (there are/were + plural), nonagreement using a full form of the verb (there is/was + plural), and nonagreement using there's. We motivate this three-way distinction by showing that the two nonagreeing variants differ in their distributions with respect to polarity and determiner type, as well as speaker age and education level. Full form nonagreement is more frequent among speakers with less formal education, while there's is favored by younger speakers. These results suggest that the two nonagreeing variants differ in their longitudinal trajectories, a finding that would be obscured in an analysis that makes only a binary distinction between variants.

Type
Research Article
Information
Language Variation and Change , Volume 29 , Issue 2 , July 2017 , pp. 187 - 204
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

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

Britain, David, & Sudbury, Andrea. (2002). There's sheep and there's penguins: Convergence, “drift”, and “slant” in New Zealand and Falkland Island English. In Jones, M. C. & Esch, E. (eds.), Language change: The interplay of internal, external and extra-linguistic factors. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 209–240.Google Scholar
Cheshire, Jenny. (1999). Spoken Standard English. In Bex, T. & Watts, R. J. (eds.), Standard English: The widening debate. London: Routledge. 129–148.Google Scholar
Cheshire, Jenny, & Fox, Sue. (2009). Was/were variation: A perspective from London. Language Variation and Change 21(1):1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Claes, Jeroen, & Johnson, Daniel Ezra. (2016). Cognitive linguistics and the predictability of effects: Agreement in English and Spanish existentials. Unpublished manuscript, University of Leuven.Google Scholar
Crawford, William J. (2005). Verb agreement and disagreement: A corpus investigation of concord variation in existential there + be constructions. Journal of English Linguistics 33(1):35–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckert, Penelope. (2000). Linguistic variation as social practice. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Feagin, Crawford. (1979). Variation and change in Alabama English: A sociolinguistic study of the white community. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Hay, Jennifer, & Schreier, Daniel. (2004). Reversing the trajectory of language change: Subject-verb agreement with be in New Zealand English. Language Variation and Change 16(3):209–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilton, Katherine. (2016). Nonstandard agreement in Standard English: The social perception of agreement variation under existential there . University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 22(2):article 8.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. (1954). A modern English grammar on historical principles. Part II: Syntax. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. (1976). Toward a universal definition of ‘subject’. In Li, Charles N. (ed.), Subject and topic. New York: Academic Press. 305–333.Google Scholar
Kortmann, Bernd. (2006). Syntactic variation in English: A global perspective. In Aarts, B. & McMahon, A. (eds.), Handbook of English linguistics. Malden: Blackwell. 603–624.Google Scholar
Labov, William. (1990). The intersection of sex and social class in the course of linguistic change. Language Variation and Change 2(2):205–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martínez Insua, Ana E., & Palacios Martínez, Ignacio M. (2003). A corpus-based approach to non-concord in present day English existential there-constructions. English Studies 84(3):262–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meechan, Marjory, & Foley, Michele. (1994). On resolving disagreement: Linguistic theory and variation: There's bridges. Language Variation and Change 6(1):63–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milsark, Gary. (1977). Toward an explanation of certain peculiarities of the existential construction in English. Linguistic Analysis 3:1–29.Google Scholar
Multinominal Logistic Regression. (2014). UCLA: Statistical Consulting Group. Available at: http://stats.idre.ucla.edu/r/dae/multinomial-logistic-regression/. Accessed September 15, 2016.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, & Greenbaum, Sidney. (1973). A concise grammar of contemporary English. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, & Wrenn, Christopher L. (1957). An Old English grammar. London: Metheuen.Google Scholar
Riordan, Brian. (2007). There's two ways to say it: Modeling nonprestige there's . Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 3(2):233–279.Google Scholar
Rupp, Laura. (2005). Constraints on nonstandard -s in expletive there sentences: A generative-variationist perspective. English Language and Linguistics 9(2):255–288.Google Scholar
Shuy, Roger. (1969). Sociolinguistic research at the Center for Applied Linguistics: The correlation of language and sex. Giornata internazionale di sociolinguistica. Rome: Palazzo Badassini. 849–857.Google Scholar
Squires, Lauren. (2011). Sociolinguistic priming and the perception of agreement variation: Testing predictions of exemplar-theoretic grammar. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Squires, Lauren. (2013). It don't go both ways: Limited bidirectionality in sociolinguistic perception. Journal of Sociolinguistics 17(2):200–237.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali. (1998). Was/were variation across the generations: View from the city of York. Language Variation and Change 10(2):153–191.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A., & Baayen, R. Harald. (2012). Models, forests, and trees of York English: Was/were variation as a case study for statistical practice. Language Variation and Change 24:135–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. (1972). Sex, covert prestige and linguistic change in the urban British English of Norwich. Language in Society 1(2):179–195.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. (1999). Standard English: What it isn't. In Bex, T. & Watts, R. J. (eds.), Standard English: The widening debate. London: Routledge. 117–128.Google Scholar
Walker, James A. (2007). There's bears back there: Plural existential and vernacular universals in (Quebec) English. English World Wide 28(2):147–166.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M., & Pullum, Geoffrey K. (1983). Cliticization vs. inflection: English n't. Language 59(3):502–513.Google Scholar