Cover not available
Article published In:
Compiling and analysing the Spoken British National Corpus 2014
Edited by Tony McEnery, Robbie Love and Vaclav Brezina
[International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 22:3] 2017
► pp. 429–455

Sociolinguistic variation at the grammatical/discourse level

Demonstrative clefts in spoken British English

| University of Waikato
This paper brings together the study of sociolinguistic variation and the area of grammatical analysis by investigating demonstrative cleft constructions in spoken British English such as That’s what I wanted to talk about and This is where I saw him. Using the Spoken BNC2014S, I ask whether speaker characteristics, including gender, age, education and occupation, might be correlated with the use of demonstrative clefts and with various aspects of their structure (preference for the distal or proximal demonstrative pronoun, use of negative polarity, and use of stance adverbs). Findings suggest that in British English, demonstrative cleft use is more likely to be present in the speech of male compared to female speakers, working adults in higher-skilled occupations compared to semi-skilled adults, and in adults of middle age compared to younger adults. This work shows that even highly abstract grammatical constructions can be sensitive to speaker preferences and linguistic communicative style.
Keywords: demonstrative clefts, sociolinguistic variation, spoken British English, anaphora
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Sociolinguistic variation within grammar
  • 3.Demonstrative clefts
  • 4.Data and methods
  • 5.Demonstrative clefts in spoken British English
    • 5.1All demonstrative clefts
    • 5.2 What-demonstrative clefts
      • 5.2.1 This-demonstrative clefts and that-demonstrative clefts
      • 5.2.2Negative and positive what-demonstrative clefts
      • 5.2.3Stance adverbs and what-demonstrative clefts
  • 6.Discussion
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 23 November 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.22.3.06cal
References (46)
References
Ball, C. (1977). Th-Clefts. Pennsylvania Review of Linguistics, 21, 57–69.Google Scholar
Barbieri, F. (2008). Patterns of age‐based linguistic variation in American English. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 12(1), 58–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barlow, M. (2013). Individual differences and usage-based grammar. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 18(4), 443–478. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Beaugrande, R., & Dressler, W. U. (1999). Introducción a la Lingüística del Texto. Barcelona: Ariel.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Stig, J., Geoffrey, L., Susan, C., Edward, F., & Quirk, R. (1999). Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Boston: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Calude, A. (2008). Demonstrative clefts and double cleft constructions in spontaneous spoken English. Studia Linguistica, 62(1), 78–118. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009a). Formulaic tendencies of demonstrative clefts in spoken English. In R. Corrigan, E. A. Moravcsik, H. Quali & K. M. Wheatley (Eds.), Formulaic Language (pp. 55–76). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009b). Cleft Constructions in Spoken English. Berlin: VDM Verlag.Google Scholar
Cheshire, J. (1999). Taming the vernacular: Some repercussions for the study of syntatic variation and spoken grammar. Cuadernos de Filologia Inglesa, 81 (Retrieved from [URL] (last accessed July 2017).
(2005). Syntactic variation and beyond: Gender and social class variation in the use of discourse-new markers. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 9(4), 479–508. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cheshire, J., & Fox, S. (2009). Was/were variation: A perspective from London. Language Variation and Change, 21(1), 1–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cheshire, J., Paul, K., Fox, S., & Torgersen, E. (2011). Contact, the feature pool and the speech community: The emergence of multicultural London English. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 15(2), 151–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Collins, P. (2004). Reversed what-clefts in English: Information structure and discourse function. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 27(2), 63–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). Cleft and Pseudo-Cleft Constructions in English (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H. (1999). Demonstratives: Form, Function and Grammaticalization. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D., & Kristiansen, G. (2014). Cognitive linguistics and language variation. In J. Littlemore & J. Taylor (Eds.), The Bloomsbury Companion to Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 202–217). London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., McIntosh, A., & Strevens, P. (1968). The users and uses of language. In J. Fishman (Ed.), Readings in the Sociology of Language (pp. 139–169). The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hardie, A. (2012). CQPweb – Combining power, flexibility and usability in a corpus analysis tool. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 17(3), 380–409. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hedberg, N. (2000). The referential status of clefts. Language, 76(4), 891–920. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. K. (2002). The Cambridge Grammar of English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach. London: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, K. (2001). A framework for the analysis of cleft constructions. Linguistics, 39(3), 463–516. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lavandera, B. R. (1978). Where does the sociolinguistic variable stop? Language in Society, 7(2), 171–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Love, R., Dembry, C., Hardie, A., Brezina, V., & McEnery, T. (this issue). The Spoken BNC2014: Designing and building a spoken corpus of everyday conversations. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 22(3). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Macaulay, R. (1997). Standards and Variation in Urban Speech: Examples from Lowland Scots. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002). Extremely interesting, Very interesting, or only quite interesting? Adverbs and social class. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 6(3), 398–417. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mair, C. (2013). Writing the corpus-based history of spoken English: The elusive past of a cleft construction. Language and Computers, 771, 11–29.Google Scholar
Mair, C., & Winkle, C. (2012). Change from to-infinitive to bare infinitive in specificational cleft sentences. In M. Hundt & U. Gut (Eds.), Mapping Unity and Diversity World-wide: Corpus-based Studies of New Englishes (pp. 243–262). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meyerhoff, M. (2006). Syntactic variation. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Language Linguistics (pp. 402–404). Amsterdam: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Syntactic variation and change: The variationist framework and language contact. In I. Léglise & C. Chamoreau (Eds.), The Interplay of Variation and Change in Contact Settings (pp. 23–51). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miller, J. (1996). Clefts, particles and word order in languages of Europe. Language Sciences, 18(1), 111–125. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miller, J., & Weinert, R. (1998). Spontaneous Spoken Language: Syntax and Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Patten, A. (2012). The historical development of the it-cleft: A comparison of two different approaches. Studies in Language, 36(3), 548–575. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). The English It-Cleft: A Constructional Account and a Diachronic Investigation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Pavesi, M. (2016). Formulaicity in and across film dialogue: Clefts as translational routines. Across Languages and Cultures, 17(1), 99–121. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
R Development Core Team. (201). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing [Computer software]. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
Romaine, S. (1984). On the problem of syntactic variation and pragmatic meaning in sociolinguistic theory. Folia Linguistica, 18(3–4), 409–438.Google Scholar
Sankoff, G., & Wagner, S. E. (2006). Age-grading in retrograde movement: The inflected future in Montréal French. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 12(2), 16. Retrieved from [URL] (last accessed July 2017).
Serrano, M. J., & Oliva, M. A. A. (2011). Syntactic variation and communicative style. Language Sciences, 33(1), 138–153. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Squires, L. (2013). It don’t go both ways: Limited bidirectionality in sociolinguistic perception. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 17(2), 200–237. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, S., Smith, J., & Lawrence, H. (2005). No taming the vernacular! Insights from the relatives in Northern Britain. Language Variation and Change, 17(1), 75–112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trotta, J. (2000). Wh-Clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Weiner, E. J., & Labov, W. (1983). Constraints on the agentless passive. Journal of Linguistics, 19(1), 29–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weinert, R., & Miller, J. (1996). Cleft constructions in spoken language. Journal of Pragmatics, 25(2), 173–206. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wickham, H. (2009). ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. New York: Springer Science. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Miller, Jim & Andreea S. Calude
2020. Speaking and Writing English. In The Handbook of English Linguistics, ► pp. 547 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 august 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.