Abstract
This paper is concerned with the limitations of inferring grammar change from variable text frequencies in historical corpus data. We argue that fluctuating frequencies of grammatical variants in real time are a function not only of changing grammars but are also conditioned by what we call ‘environmental’ changes (for example, content changes) that affect the textual habitat. As a case study, we explore the English genitive alternation in the Late Modern English period and demonstrate that the English s-genitive is and always has been preferably used with animate possessors; if for some reason animate nps are rare in some specific historical period or text, this will trivially depress s-genitive rates and boost of-genitive rates. Against this backdrop, the paper advocates probing the probabilistic underpinning of grammatical variability in diachrony, for the sake of keeping apart trivial habitat-induced frequency change and grammar change proper.
Acknowledgments
I am grateful for the feedback to an earlier version of this paper presented at the 2011 Boston Workshop on “How can new corpus-based techniques advance historical description and linguistic theory?”, and for valuable comments and suggestions by two anonymous referees. The usual disclaimers apply. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. BCS-1025602. This paper is dedicated to the good people at the University Hospital Freiburg (in particular, Prof. Dr. Jürgen Finke, Prof. Dr. Michael Lübbert, Prof. Dr. Hartmut Bertz, and all the staff at the Station Löhr), for curing my wife.
References
Altenberg, Bengt. 1982. The genitive v. the of-construction: A study of syntactic variation in 17th century English. Malmö: CWK Gleerup.Search in Google Scholar
Behaghel, Otto. 1909. Beziehungen zwischen Umfang und Reihenfolge von Satzgliedern. Indogermanische Forschungen 25. 110–142.Search in Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Susan Conrad. 2001. Register variation: A corpus approach. In Deborah Schiffrin, Deborah Tannen & Heidi E. Hamilton (eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis, 175–196. Oxford: Blackwell.10.1002/9780470753460.ch10Search in Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Edward Finegan. 1989. Drift and the evolution of English style: A history of three genres. Language 65. 487–517.10.2307/415220Search in Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan & Marilyn Ford. 2010. Predicting syntax: Processing dative constructions in American and Australian varieties of English. Language 86. 186–213.10.1353/lan.0.0189Search in Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 2006. From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language 82. 711–733.10.1353/lan.2006.0186Search in Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.21236/AD0616323Search in Google Scholar
Curzan, Anne. 2009. Historical corpus linguistics and evidence of language change. In Anke Lüdeling & Merja Kytö (eds.), Corpus linguistics: An international handbook, 1091–1109. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Search in Google Scholar
Dahl, Lisa. 1971. The s-genitive with non-personal nouns in modern English journalistic style. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 72. 140–172.Search in Google Scholar
Grafmiller, Jason. 2015. Deviant diachrony: Exploring new methods for analyzing language change. Paper presented at “New Developments in the Quantitative Study of Languages“, University of Helsinki, August 28–29.Search in Google Scholar
Grafmiller, Jason & Stephanie Shih. 2011. Weighing in on end weight. Talk given at the LSA 2011 Annual Meeting, 6–9 January 2011, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.Search in Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. & Sandra C. Deshors. 2014. Using regressions to explore deviations between corpus data and a standard/target: Two suggestions. Corpora 9(1). 109–136. doi:10.3366/cor.2014.0053.Search in Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. & Martin Hilpert. 2010. Modeling diachronic change in the third person singular: A multifactorial, verb- and author-specific exploratory approach. English Language and Linguistics 14. 293–320.10.1017/S1360674310000092Search in Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2004. On directionality in language change with particular reference to grammaticalization. In Olga Fischer, Muriel Norde & Harry Perridon (eds.), Up and down the cline: The nature of grammaticalization, 17–44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.59.03hasSearch in Google Scholar
Hinrichs, Lars & Benedikt Szmrecsanyi. 2007. Recent changes in the function and frequency of Standard English genitive constructions: A multivariate analysis of tagged corpora. English Language and Linguistics 11. 437–474.10.1017/S1360674307002341Search in Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139165525Search in Google Scholar
Hundt, Marianne & Christian Mair. 1999. ‘Agile’ and ‘uptight’ genres: The corpus-based approach to language change in progress. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 4. 221–242.10.1075/ijcl.4.2.02hunSearch in Google Scholar
Janda, Richard D. 1980. On the decline of declensional systems: The overall loss of OE nominal case inflections and the ME reanalysis of -es as his. In Elizabeth Closs Traugott, Rebecca Labrum & Susan Shepherd (eds.), Papers from the 4th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, 243–252. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.14.26janSearch in Google Scholar
Jucker, Andreas. 1993. The genitive versus the of-construction in newspaper language. In Andreas Jucker (ed.), The noun phrase in English: Its structure and variability, 121–136. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Search in Google Scholar
Krug, Manfred G. 2000. Emerging English modals: A corpus-based study of grammaticalization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110820980Search in Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1966. The linguistic variable as a structural unit. Washington Linguistics Review 3. 4–22.Search in Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1972. Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Search in Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1982. Building on empirical foundations. In Winfred P. Lehmann & Yakov Malkiel (eds.), Perspectives on historical linguistics, 17–92. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.24.06labSearch in Google Scholar
Lavandera, Beatriz R. 1978. Where does the sociolinguistic variable stop? Language in Society 7(2): 171–182.10.1017/S0047404500005510Search in Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1995. Thoughts on grammaticalization. München: LINCOM EUROPA.Search in Google Scholar
Levshina, Natalia, Dirk Geeraerts & Dirk Speelman. 2013. Towards a 3D-Grammar: Variation in the use of Dutch causative constructions. Journal of Pragmatics 52. 34–48.10.1016/j.pragma.2012.12.013Search in Google Scholar
Mair, Christian. 2004. Corpus linguistics and grammaticalisation theory: Statistics, frequencies, and beyond. In Christian Mair & Hans Lindquist (eds.), Corpus approaches to grammaticalisation in English, 121–150. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/scl.13.07maiSearch in Google Scholar
Mustanoja, Tauno F. 1960. A Middle English syntax, vol. I. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Search in Google Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 1998. Language form and language function. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Pampel, Fred. 2000. Logistic regression. A primer. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.10.4135/9781412984805Search in Google Scholar
Paul, Hermann. 1920. Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte, 5th edn. Halle: Niemeyer.Search in Google Scholar
Pinheiro, José C. & Douglas M. Bates. 2000. Mixed-effects models in S and S-PLUS. New York: Springer.10.1007/978-1-4419-0318-1Search in Google Scholar
Potter, Simeon. 1969. Changing English. London: André Deutsch.Search in Google Scholar
R Development Core Team. 2010. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. ISBN 3-900051-07–0.Search in Google Scholar
Raab-Fischer, Roswitha. 1995. Löst der Genitiv die of-Phrase ab? Eine korpusgestützte Studie zum Sprachwandel im heutigen Englisch. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 43(2). 123–132.Search in Google Scholar
Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena. 2005. The diffusion of subject you: A case study in historical sociolinguistics. Language Variation and Change 17. 55–73.10.1017/S0954394505050039Search in Google Scholar
Rosenbach, Anette. 2002. Genitive variation in English: Conceptual factors in synchronic and diachronic studies. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110899818Search in Google Scholar
Rosenbach, Anette. 2003. Aspects of iconicity and economy in the choice between the s-genitive and the of-genitive in English. In Günter Rohdenburg & Britta Mondorf (eds.), Determinants of grammatical variation in English, 379–412. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110900019.379Search in Google Scholar
Rosenbach, Anette. 2008. Animacy and grammatical variation – findings from English genitive variation. Lingua 118(2). 151–171.10.1016/j.lingua.2007.02.002Search in Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward. 2004. Language: An introduction to the study of speech. Mineola, NY: Dover.Search in Google Scholar
Shih, Stephanie, Jason Grafmiller, Richard Futrell & Joan Bresnan. 2012. Rhythm’s role in genitive construction choice in spoken English. In Ralf Vogel & Ruben van de Vijver. (eds.), Rhythm in phonetics, grammar and cognition. Berlin & Boston: de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2009. Typological parameters of intralingual variability: Grammatical analyticity versus syntheticity in varieties of English. Language Variation and Change 21(3). 319–353.10.1017/S0954394509990123Search in Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2010. The English genitive alternation in a cognitive sociolinguistics perspective. In Dirk Geeraerts, Gitte Kristiansen & Yves Peirsman (eds.), Advances in cognitive sociolinguistics, 139–166. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110226461.139Search in Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2013. The great regression: Genitive variability in Late Modern English news texts. In Kersti Börjars, David Denison & and Alan K. Scott (eds.), Morphosyntactic categories and the expression of possession, 59–88. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.199.03szmSearch in Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt & Lars Hinrichs. 2008. Probabilistic determinants of genitive variation in spoken and written English: A multivariate comparison across time, space, and genres. In Terttu Nevalainen, Irma Taavitsainen, Päivi Pahta & Minna Korhonen (eds), The dynamics of linguistic variation: Corpus evidence on English past and present, 291–309. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/silv.2.22szmSearch in Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali. 2001. Comparative sociolinguistics. In J. K. Chambers, Peter Trudgill & Natalie Schilling-Estes (eds.), The handbook of language variation and change, 729–763. Oxford: Blackwell.10.1002/9780470756591.ch28Search in Google Scholar
Thomas, Russell. 1931. Syntactical processes involved in the development of the adnominal periphrastic genitive in the English language. PhD thesis, University of Michigan.Search in Google Scholar
Weiner, Judith & William Labov. 1983. Constraints on the agentless passive. Journal of Linguistics 19: 29–58.10.1017/S0022226700007441Search in Google Scholar
Wolk, Christoph, Joan Bresnan, Anette Rosenbach & Benedikt Szmrecsanyi. 2013. Dative and genitive variability in Late Modern English: Exploring cross-constructional variation and change. Diachronica 30(3). 382–419.10.1075/dia.30.3.04wolSearch in Google Scholar
Yánez-Bouza, Nuria. 2011. ARCHER past and present: 1990–2010. ICAME Journal 35: 205–236.Search in Google Scholar
Zaenen, Annie, Jean Carlette, Gregory Garretson, Joan Bresnan, Andrew Koontz-Garboden, Tatiana Nikitina, M. Catherine O’Connor & Tom Wasow. 2004. Animacy encoding in English: Why and how. In Donna Byron & Bonnie Webber (eds.), Proceedings of the 2004 ACL workshop on discourse annotation, Barcelona, July 2004, 118–125. East Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL).10.3115/1608938.1608954Search in Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. 1987. Suppressing the zs. Journal of Linguistics 23. 133–148.10.1017/S0022226700011063Search in Google Scholar
©2016 by De Gruyter Mouton
