Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-c8zdz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T10:50:53.463Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Toward more accountability: Modeling ternary genitive variation in Late Modern English

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 February 2016

Benedikt Szmrecsanyi ,
Douglas Biber ,
Jesse Egbert  and
Karlien Franco
Benedikt Szmrecsanyi
Affiliation:
KU Leuven
Douglas Biber
Affiliation:
Northern Arizona University
Jesse Egbert
Affiliation:
Brigham Young University
Karlien Franco
Affiliation:
KU Leuven
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Whereas the alternation between the s-genitive (the New Year's message) and the of-genitive (the message of the New Year) is well documented, our study offers a more accountable analysis of genitive variation by including noun-noun (NN)-genitives (the New Year message). We consider four different variable contexts (s versus of, NN versus of, NN versus s, and NN versus s versus of ), which we analyze using regression analysis. The dataset consists of 10,054 variable genitives drawn from the Representative Corpus of Historical English Registers. The material covers the period between 1650 and 2000, thus enabling us to track the evolution of variable genitive grammar in real time. We report that there is an overall drift toward the NN-genitive, which is preferred over other variants when constituent noun phrases are short, possessor constituents are inanimate, and possessum constituents are thematic. In addition to these substantive contributions, we showcase methods of dealing with a complex dataset covering nonbinary grammatical variation.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language Variation and Change , Volume 28 , Issue 1 , March 2016 , pp. 1 - 29
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Baayen, R. Harald. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bates, Douglas, Maechler, Martin, & Bolker, Ben. (2012). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. Available at: http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/lme4/index.html. Accessed December 10, 2015.Google Scholar
Baugh, John. (1980). A re-examination of the Black English Copula. In Labov, W. (ed.), Locating language in time and space. New York: Academic Press. 83–106.Google Scholar
Behaghel, Otto. (1909). Beziehungen zwischen Umfang und Reihenfolge von Satzgliedern. Indogermanische Forschungen 25:110–142.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Finegan, Edward, & Atkinson, Dwight. (1994). ARCHER and its challenges: Compiling and exploring A Representative Corpus of Historical English Registers. In Fries, G., Tottie, U., & Schneider, P. (eds.), Creating and using English language corpora: Papers from the Fourteenth International Conference on English Language Research and Computerized Corpora. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 1–13.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, & Gray, Bethany. (2011). Grammatical change in the noun phrase: The influence of written language use. English Language and Linguistics 15(2):223–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, & Gray, Bethany. (2013). Being specific about historical change: The influence of sub-register. Journal of English Linguistics 41(2):104–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, & Gray, Bethany. (2016). Grammatical complexity in academic English: Linguistic change in writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan, & Finegan, Edward. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Burnham, Kenneth P., & Anderson, David Raymond. (2002). Model selection and multimodel inference a practical information-theoretic approach. 2nd ed.New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Ehret, Katharina, Wolk, Christoph, & Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. (2014). Quirky quadratures: On rhythm and weight as constraints on genitive variation in an unconventional data set. English Language and Linguistics 18(2):263–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feist, Jim. (2012). What controls the “genitive variation” in Present-Day English? Studies in Language 36(2):261–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelman, Andrew, & Hill, Jennifer. (2007). Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. Analytical Methods for Social Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Grafmiller, Jason. (2014). Variation in English genitives across modality and genres. English Language and Linguistics 18(3):471–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. (2005). Syntactic priming: A corpus-based approach. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 34(4):365–399.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gries, Stefan Th. (2013). Statistics for linguistics with R: A practical introduction. 2nd rev. ed.Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinrichs, Lars, & Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. (2007). Recent changes in the function and frequency of Standard English genitive constructions: A multivariate analysis of tagged corpora. English Language and Linguistics 11(3):437–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hosmer, David W., & Lemeshow, Stanley. (2000). Applied logistic regression. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jankowski, Bridget L., & Tagliamonte, Sali A. (2014). On the genitive's trail: Data and method from a sociolinguistic perspective. English Language and Linguistics 18(2):305–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. (1969). Contraction, deletion and inherent variability of the English copula. Language 45(4):715–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press.Google Scholar
Labov, William. (1982). Building on empirical foundations. In Lehmann, W. & Malkiel, Y. (eds.), Perspectives on historical linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 17–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacDonald, Maryellen C. (2013). How language production shapes language form and comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology 4:226.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meyerhoff, Miriam, & Walker, James A. (2007). The persistence of variation in individual grammars: Copula absence in “urban soujourners” and their stay-at-home peers, Bequia (St Vincent and the Grenadines). Journal of Sociolinguistics 11(3):346–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osselton, Noel. (1988). Thematic genitives. In Nixon, G. & Honey, J. (eds.), An historic tongue: Studies in English linguistics in memory of Barbara Strang. London: Routledge. 138–144.Google Scholar
Pinheiro, José C., & Bates, Douglas M. (2000). Mixed-effects models in S and S-PLUS. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poplack, Shana, & Sankoff, David. (1987). The Philadelphia story in the Spanish Caribbean. American Speech 62(4):291–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena. (2005). The diffusion of subject you: A case study in historical sociolinguistics. Language Variation and Change 17:55–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Development Core Team. (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria. Available at: http://www.R-project.org/. Accessed December 10, 2015.Google Scholar
Rickford, John R., Ball, Arnetha, Blake, Renee, Jackson, Raina, & Martin, Nomi. (1991). Rappin on the copula coffin: Theoretical and methodological issues in the analysis of copula variation in African-American Vernacular English. Language Variation and Change 3:103–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter. (1996). Cognitive complexity and increased grammatical explicitness in English. Cognitive Linguistics 7(2):149–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenbach, Anette. (2005). Animacy versus weight as determinants of grammatical variation in English. Language 81(3):613–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenbach, Anette. (2006). Descriptive genitives in English: A case study on constructional gradience. English Language and Linguistics 10(1):77–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenbach, Anette. (2007a). Exploring constructions on the web: A case study. In Hundt, M., Nesselhauf, N., & Biewer, C. (eds.), Corpus linguistics and the Web. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 167–190.Google Scholar
Rosenbach, Anette. (2007b). Emerging variation: Determiner genitives and noun modifiers in English. English Language and Linguistics 11(1):143–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenbach, Anette. (2014). English genitive variation—The state of the art. English Language and Linguistics 18(2):215–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sankoff, David, & Labov, William. (1979). On the use of variable rules. Language in Society 8:189–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sankoff, David, & Rousseau, Pascale. (1989). Statistical evidence for rule ordering. Language Variation and Change 1(1):1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shih, Stephanie, Grafmiller, Jason, Futrell, Richard, & Bresnan, Joan. (2015). Rhythm's role in genitive construction choice in spoken English. In Vogel, R. & Vijver, R. (eds.), Rhythm in cognition and grammar. Berlin: De Gruyter. 207–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Speelman, Dirk, Heylen, Kris, & Grondelaers, Stefan. (forthcoming). A bottom-up, data-driven operationalization of semantic classes and predictability in syntactic alternation research. In Grondelaers, S. & van Hout, R. (eds.), New ways of analyzing syntactic variation. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. (2006). Morphosyntactic persistence in spoken English: A corpus study at the intersection of variationist sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, and discourse analysis. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali, & 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(2):135–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Travis, Catherine E. (2007). Genre effects on subject expression in Spanish: Priming in narrative and conversation. Language Variation and Change 19(2):101–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wasow, Thomas. (2002). Postverbal behavior. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Wolfram, Walt. (1974). The relationship of White Southern Speech to Vernacular Black English. Language 50(3):498–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolk, Christoph, Bresnan, Joan, Rosenbach, Anette, & Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. (2013). Dative and genitive variability in Late Modern English: Exploring cross-constructional variation and change. Diachronica 30(3):382–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yáñez-Bouza, Nuria. (2011). ARCHER past and present (1990–2010). ICAME Journal 35:205–236.Google Scholar
Zaenen, Annie, Carlette, Jean, Garretson, Gregory, Bresnan, Joan, Koontz-Garboden, Andrew, Nikitina, Tatiana, O'Connor, M. Catherine, & Wasow, Tom. (2004). Animacy encoding in English: Why and how. In Byron, D., & Webber, B. (eds.), Proceedings of the 2004 ACL workshop on discourse annotation, Barcelona, July 2004. 118–125.Google Scholar
Zuur, Alain F., Ieno, Elena N., Walker, Neil J., Saveliev, Anatoly A., & Smith, Graham M. (ed.). (2009). Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. Statistics for Biology and Health. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. (1987). Suppressing the Zs. Journal of Linguistics 23:133–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Download undefined(File)
File 16 KB
Supplementary material: File

Download undefined(File)
File 51.2 KB
Supplementary material: File

Szmrecsanyi supplementary material

Szmrecsanyi supplementary material 1

Download Szmrecsanyi supplementary material(File)
File 265.3 KB
Supplementary material: File

Szmrecsanyi supplementary material

Szmrecsanyi supplementary material 3

Download Szmrecsanyi supplementary material(File)
File 46.2 KB