Cover not available
Article published In:
The locus of linguistic variation
Edited by Constantine Lignos, Laurel MacKenzie and Meredith Tamminga
[Linguistic Variation 16:2] 2016
► pp. 221–246

Variant-centered variation and the like conspiracy

The conventional methodology of variationist linguistics foregrounds the variable as the object of study: each variant is situated in the envelope of variation against the other variants it competes with. This paper argues that it is necessary to look beyond the context of the alternations a variant participates in in order to get a full picture of the factors affecting variation. The multi-functional variant like is used as a case study to illustrate the value of a variant-centered analysis: the fact that several distinct variables are all simultaneously changing toward the variant like suggests that a variant can be targeted for change across multiple variables, parallelling Campbell-Kibler (2011)’s model of the variant as the carrier of sociolinguistic meaning. It is conjectured that the set of changes toward like can be explained as a top-down discursive change targeting like as an indicator of vague literality, a function it retains in multiple distinct variable contexts.

Keywords: sociolinguistic change, discursive practice, like, locus of linguistic variation, conspiracy, envelope of variation, variationist theory
Published online: 27 January 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lv.16.2.03din
References
Aaron, Jessi Elana
2010 Pushing the envelope: Looking beyond the variable context. Language Variation and Change 221. 1–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Balistreri, Maggie
2003 The evasion-English dictionary. New York: Melville House.Google Scholar
Blank, Andreas
2003 Polysemy in the lexicon and in discourse. In Brigitte Nerlich, Zazie Todd, Vimala Herman, & David C. Clarke (eds.), PolysemyPolysemy: Flexible patterns of meaning in mind and language, 267–293. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blondeau, Hélène & Naomi Nagy
2008 Subordinate clause marking in Montreal Anglophone French and English. In Miriam Meyerhoff & Naomi Nagy (eds.), Social lives in language – sociolinguistics and multilingual speech communities: Celebrating the work of Gillian Sankoff, 273–313. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boberg, Charles
2005 The Canadian shift in Montreal. Language Variation and Change 171. 133–154. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brook, Marisa
2014 Comparative complementizers in Canadian English: Insights from early fiction. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 20(2). 1–10.Google Scholar
Buchstaller, Isabelle
2009 The quantitative analysis of morphosyntactic variation: Constructing and quantifying the denominator. Language and Linguistics Compass 3(4). 1010–1033. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013 Quotatives: New trends and sociolinguistic implications. Malden, MA: Wiley/Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Buchstaller, Isabelle & Erez Levon
2014 Perception, cognition and linguistic structure: The effect of linguistic modularity and cognitive style on sociolinguistic processing. Paper presented at NWAV [New Ways of Analyzing Variation] 431, Chicago.
Campbell-Kibler, Kathryn
2011 The sociolinguistic variant as a carrier of social meaning. Language Variation and Change 221. 423–441. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chambers, Jack & Peter Trudgill
1980 Dialectology, 2d edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cheshire, Jenny, Paul Kerswill, & Ann Williams
2005 On the non-convergence of phonology, grammar, and discourse. In Peter Auer, Frans Hinskens, & Paul Kerswill (eds.), Dialect change: Convergence and divergence in European languages, 135–167. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coupland, Nikolas
2014 Sociolinguistic change, vernacularization, and British broadcast media. In Jannis Androutsopoulos (ed.), Mediatiazation and sociolinguistic change, 67–96. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Crist, Sean Jacob
2001 Conspiracy in historical phonology. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania dissertation.Google Scholar
Dailey-O’Cain, Jennifer
2000 The sociolinguistic distribution of and attitudes toward focuser like and quotative like. Journal of Sociolinguistics 4(1). 60–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
D’Arcy, Alexandra Faith
2005 Like: Syntax and development. Toronto: University of Toronto dissertation.Google Scholar
D’Arcy, Alexandra
2006 Lexical replacement and the like(s). American Speech 81(4). 330–357. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007 Like and language ideology: Disentangling fact from fiction. American Speech 82(4). 386–419. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008 Canadian English as a window to the rise of like in discourse. Anglistik 19(2). 125–140.Google Scholar
2012 The diachrony of quotation: Evidence from New Zealand English. Language Variation and Change 241. 343–369. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diertani, Chaya Eliana Ariel
2011 Morpheme boundaries and structural change: Affixes running amok. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania dissertation.Google Scholar
Dines, Elizabeth R
1980 Variation in discourse – “and stuff like that”. Language in Society 91. 13–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drager, Katie K
2011 Sociophonetic variation and the lemma. Journal of Phonetics 391. 694–707. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferrara, Kathleen & Barbara Bell
1995 Sociolinguistic variation and discourse function of constructed dialogue introducers: The case of be + like. American Speech 70(3). 265–290. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fuller, Janet M
2003 Use of the discourse marker like in interviews. Journal of Sociolinguistics 7(3). 365–377. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fruehwald, Josef
2013 The phonological influence on phonetic change. Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania dissertation.Google Scholar
Gordon, Matthew J
2011 Methodological and theoretical issues in the study of chain shifts. Language and Linguistics Compass 5(11). 784–794. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guy, Gregory R
1991 Explanation in variable phonology: An exponential model of morphological constraints. Language Variation and Change 31. 1–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herold, Ruth
1990 Mechanisms of merger: The implementation and distribution of the low back merger in eastern Pennsylvania. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania dissertation.Google Scholar
Hock, Hans Heinrich
1991 Principles of historical linguistics. Berlin: Mouton/de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
James, Allan R
1983 Compromisers in English: A cross-disciplinary approach to their interpersonal significance. Journal of Pragmatics 71. 191–206. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, Otto
1942 A modern English grammar on historical principles. Part VI: Morphology. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H. & Sara W. Smith
1998 And people just you know like wow: Discourse markersDiscourse markers as negotiation strategies. In Andreas H. Jucker & Yael Ziv (eds.), Discourse markersDiscourse markers: Description and theory, 171–201. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kallen, Jeffrey L
2013 Irish English, Volume 2: The Republic of Ireland. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kastronic, Laura
2011 Discourse like in Quebec English. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 17(2). 105–114.Google Scholar
Labov, William
1966 The linguistic variable as a structural unit. Washington Linguistics Review 31. 4–22.Google Scholar
1972 Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
1993 The unobservability of structure and its linguistic consequences. Paper presented at NWAVE [New Ways of Analyzing Variation in English] 221, Ottawa.
2007 Transmission and diffusion. Language 83(2). 344–387. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Labov, William, Sharon Ash, & Charles Boberg
2006 Atlas of North American English: Phonetics, phonology, and sound change. Berlin: Mouton/de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lavandera, Beatriz R
1978 Where does the sociolinguistic variable stop? Language in Society 71. 171–182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
López-Couso, María José & Belén Méndez-Naya
2012 On the use of as if, as though, and like in Present-Day English complementation structures. Journal of English Linguistics 40(2). 172–195. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015 Secondary grammaticalization in clause combining: From adverbial subordination to complementation in English. Language Sciences 47B1. 188–198. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Macaulay, Ronald
2001 You’re like “why not?”: The quotative expressions of Glasgow adolescents”. Journal of Sociolinguistics 5(1). 3–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacKenzie, Laurel
2013 Variation in English auxiliary realization: A new take on contraction. Language Variation and Change 251. 17–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maddeaux, Ruth & Aaron Dinkin
To appear. Is like like like?: Evaluating the same variant across multiple variables. Linguistics Vanguard.
Maguire, Warren, Lynn Clark, & Kevin Watson
2013 Introduction: What are mergers and can they be reversed? English Language and Linguistics 17(2). 229–239. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mali, Taylor
2002 Totally like whatever, you know? In What learning leaves. Newtown, CT: Hanover Press.Google Scholar
Metcalf, Allan
2013 What’s not to like? Blog post for Lingua Franca, [URL]. (Viewed 25 November 2014.)
Meyerhoff, Miriam
2001 Dynamics of differentiation: On social psychology and cases of language variation. In Nikolas Coupland, Srikant Sarangi, & Christopher N. Candlin (eds.), Sociolinguistics and Social Theory, 61–87. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Miller, Jim & Regina Weinert
1995 The function of LIKE in dialogue. Journal of Pragmatics 251. 365–393. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panman, Otto
1982 Homonymy and polysemy. Lingua 581. 105–136. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pichler, Heike
2010 Methods in discourse variation analysis: Reflections on the way forward. Journal of Sociolinguistics 14(5). 581–608. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Poplack, Shana & Danielle Turpin
1999 Does the Futur have a future in (Canadian) French? Probus 111. 133–164. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rickford, John R., Arnetha Ball, Renee Blake, Raina Jackson, & Nomi Martin
1991 Rappin on the copula coffin: Theoretical and methodological issues in the analysis of copular variation in African-American Vernacular English. Language Variation and Change 31. 103–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Romaine, Suzanne & Deborah Lange
1991 The use of like as a marker of reported speech and thought: A case of grammaticalization in progress. American Speech 66(3). 227–279. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ryan, Erin Gloria
2011 My love affair with “like”. [URL]. (Viewed 2 December 2014.)
Schourup, Lawrence C
1985 Common discourse particles in English conversation. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Sharifian, Farzad & Ian Malcolm
2003 The pragmatic marker “like” in English teen talk: Australian Aboriginal usage.” Pragmatics and Cognition 111. 327–344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shepherd, Zabrinah
2011 “Guest blog: You, like, need to stop using the word “like”. [URL]. (Viewed 25 November 2014.)
Siegel, Muffy
2002 Like: The discourse particle and semantics. Journal of Semantics 191. 35–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. & Alexandra D’Arcy
2007 Frequency and variation in the community grammar: Tracking a new change through the generations. Language Variation and Change 191. 199–217. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tamminga, Meredith
2014a Persistence in the production of linguistic variation. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania dissertation.Google Scholar
2014b Sound change without frequency effects: Ramifications for phonological theory. In Robert E. Santana-LaBarge (ed.), Proceedings of the 31st West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 457–465. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Tracy, Marc
2013 Linguist says you can use “like” more. He’s, like, wrong. [URL]. (Viewed 25 November 2014.)
Underhill, Robert
1988 Like is, like, focus. American Speech 63(3). 234–246. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wallenberg, Joel C
2013 A unified theory of stable variation, syntactic optionality, and syntactic change. Paper presented at DiGS [Diachronic Generative Syntax] 151, Ottawa.
Wasko, Brian
2011 Why we, like, say “like” all the time. [URL]. (Viewed 26 November 2014.)
Wolfram, Walt
1991 The linguistic variable: Fact and fantasy. American Speech 66(1). 22–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 11 other publications

Aijmer, Karin
2022. ‘Did you just basically steal everything?’ – A study of discourse -pragmatic variation and change. Journal of Pragmatics 200 ► pp. 8 ff. DOI logo
Beltrama, Andrea
2020. Social meaning in semantics and pragmatics. Language and Linguistics Compass 14:9 DOI logo
BELTRAMA, ANDREA & EMILY A. HANINK
2019. Marking imprecision, conveying surprise:Likebetween hedging and mirativity. Journal of Linguistics 55:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Brook, Marisa
2018. Taking it up a level: Copy-raising and cascaded tiers of morphosyntactic change. Language Variation and Change 30:2 ► pp. 231 ff. DOI logo
Brook, Marisa
2020.  I feel like and it feels like: Two paths to the emergence of epistemic markers. Linguistics Vanguard 6:1 DOI logo
Brook, Marisa
2023.  As if, as though, and like in Canadian English. English World-Wide. A Journal of Varieties of English 44:3 ► pp. 381 ff. DOI logo
Labov, William
2018. The role of the Avant Garde in linguistic diffusion. Language Variation and Change 30:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Maddeaux, Ruth & Aaron Dinkin
2017. Is like like like?: Evaluating the same variant across multiple variables. Linguistics Vanguard 3:1 DOI logo
Schweinberger, Martin
2018. Alexandra D’Arcy.Discourse-pragmatic variation in context – eight hundred years of LIKE. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 2017. 235 pp. DOI 10.1075/slcs.187. ISBN 978 90 272 5952 3 (HB), ISBN 978 90 272 6531 9 (EBOOK).. ICAME Journal 42:1 ► pp. 219 ff. DOI logo
Weston, John
2018. Alexandra D'Arcy, Discourse-pragmatic variation in context: Eight hundred years of LIKE. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2017. Pp. xx, 235. Hb. $143, €95.. Language in Society 47:4 ► pp. 640 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2017. Discourse-Pragmatic Variation in Context [Studies in Language Companion Series, 187], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 april 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.