Cover not available
Part of
Corpus-based Approaches to Register Variation
Edited by Elena Seoane and Douglas Biber
[Studies in Corpus Linguistics 103] 2021
► pp. 111–142

Chapter 5
Between context and community

Regional variation in register effects in the English dative alternation

| University of Zurich
This paper investigates the relationship between the stylistic context of utterance production and the language user’s regional background as influencing factors in one syntactic alternation, i.e., variation between the double object and the prepositional dative construction. To that end, this chapter zooms in on (1) the competition between stylistic context and regional community regarding dative choice, (2) cross-regional inter-register variation, and (3) register-specific coherence (aka intra-register variation). Comparing data from nine varieties of English using corpora that presumably share the same structure (and registers) reveals that community is more important than context, that the effect of register is regionally variable and that registers are largely but not fully coherent. These findings do not only stress the variable nature of probabilistic grammars but also point to the importance of regional effects when studying register variation (all scripts at https://​osf​.io​/3djkr/).
Keywords: inter-register variation, intra-register variation, dative alternation, World Englishes, probabilistic grammar, regional variation, stylistic context, probabilistic indigenization
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Combining the variationist perspective with register studies
  • 3.Data and methodology
    • 3.1The data
    • 3.2Coding of variables: Language-internal and -external constraints
    • 3.3Statistical measures
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Overall distribution by register and variety
    • 4.2The importance of context vs community
    • 4.3Cross-regional variation in register effects
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 8 December 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.103.05rot
References (81)
References
Baayen, R. Harald. 2008. Analyzing Linguistic Data: A Practical Introduction to Statistics using R. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Balasubramanian, Chandrika. 2009. Register Variation in Indian English [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 37]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bao, Zhiming & Hong, Huaqing. 2006. Diglossia and register variation in Singapore English. World Englishes 25(1): 105–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bates, Douglas, Mächler, Martin & Bolker, Benjamin M. 2013. lme4: Linear Mixed-effects Models Using Eigen and S4 (R Package Version 1.1–7). <[URL]> (26 May 2021).
Bates, Douglas, Mächler, Martin, Bolker, Benjamin M. & Walker, Steve. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67(1): 1–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Behaghel, Otto. 1909. Beziehungen zwischen Umfang und Reihenfolge von Satzgliedern. Indogermanische Forschungen 25: 110–142.Google Scholar
Belsley, David A., Kuh, Edwin & Welsch, Roy E. 1980. Regression Diagnostics: Identifying Influential Data and Sources of Collinearity. New York NY: John Wiley and Sons. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bernaisch, Tobias, Gries, Stefan T. & Mukherjee, Joybrato. 2014. The dative alternation in South Asian English(es): Modelling predictors and predicting prototypes. English World-Wide 35(1): 7–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 1988. Variation Across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1995. Dimensions of Register Variation: A Cross-linguistic Comparison. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Register as a predictor of linguistic variation. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 8(1): 9–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Conrad, Susan. 2012. Register, Genre and Style. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Gray, Bethany. 2013. Being specific about historical change: The influence of sub-register. Journal of English Linguistics 41(2): 104–134. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Breiman, Leo. 2001. Random forests. Machine Learning 45: 5–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, Cueni, Anna, Nikitina, Tatiana & Baayen, R. Harald. 2007. Predicting the dative alternation. In Cognitive Foundations of Interpretation, Gerlof Boume, Irene Kraemer & Joost Zwarts (eds), 69–94. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan & Hay, Jennifer. 2008. Gradient grammar: An effect of animacy on the syntax of give in New Zealand and American English. Lingua 118(2): 245–259. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2006. From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language 82(4): 711–733. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan & Hopper, Paul. 2001. Introduction to frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. In Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure [Typological Studies in Language 45], Joan Bybee & Paul Hopper (eds), 1–24. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Collins, Peter. 1995. The indirect object construction in English: An informational approach. Linguistics 33(1): 35–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2013. Corpus of Global Web-Based English: 1.9 billion Words from Speakers in 20 Countries. <[URL]> (26 May 2021).
Diwersy, Sascha, Evert, Stefan & Neumann, Stella. 2014. A weakly supervised multivariate approach to the study of language variation. In Aggregating Dialectology, Typology, and Register Analysis: Linguistic Variation in Text and Speech [Linguae & Litterae 28], Benedikt Szmrecsanyi & Bernhard Wälchli (eds), 174–204. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Finegan, Edward & Biber, Douglas. 1994. Register and social dialect variation: An integrated approach. In Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Register, Douglas Biber & Edward Finegan (eds), 315–347. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Fox, John. 2003. Effect displays in R for generalised linear models. Journal of Statistical Software 8(15): 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fox, John & Weisberg, Sanford. 2011. An R Companion to Applied Regression, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. <[URL]> (26 May 2021).
Fuchs, Robert & Gut, Ulrike. 2016. Register variation in intensifier usage across Asian Englishes. In Discourse-pragmatic Variation and Change in English, Heike Pichler (ed.), 185–210. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garretson, Gregory, O’Connor, M. Catherine, Skarabela, Barbora & Hogan, Marjorie. 2004. Coding practices used in the project “Optimality Typology of Determiner Phrases”. Ms.Google Scholar
Gelman, Andrew. 2008. Scaling regression inputs by dividing by two standard deviations. Statistics in Medicine 27(15): 2865–2873. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grafmiller, Jason. 2014. Variation in English genitives across modality and genres. English Language and Linguistics 18(3): 471–496. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greenbaum, Sidney (ed.). 1996. Comparing English Worldwide: The International Corpus of English. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan T. 2015. The most under-used statistical method in corpus linguistics: Multi-level (and mixed-effects) models. Corpora 10(1): 95–125. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guy, Gregory R. 2005. Letters to Language. Language 81(3): 561–563. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013. The cognitive coherence of sociolects: How do speakers handle multiple sociolinguistic variables? Journal of Pragmatics 52: 63–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guy, Gregory R. & Hinskens, Frans. 2016. Linguistic coherence: Systems, repertoires and speech communities. Lingua 172–173: 1–9. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heller, Benedikt, Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt & Grafmiller, Jason. 2017. Stability and fluidity in syntactic variation world-wide: The genitive alternation across varieties of English. Journal of English Linguistics 45(1): 3–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilbert, Michaela & Krug, Manfred. 2012. Progressives in Maltese English: A comparison with spoken and written text types of British and American English. In Mapping Unity and Diversity World-wide [Varieties of English around the World G43], Marianne Hundt & Ulrike Gut (eds), 103–136. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hosmer, David & Lemeshow, Stanley. 2000. Applied Logistic Regression. New York NY: Wiley. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hothorn, Torsten, Hornik, Kurt & Zeileis, Achim. 2006. Unbiased recursive partitioning: A conditional inference framework. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 15(3): 651–674. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hundt, Marianne & Mair, Christian. 1999. “Agile” and “uptight” genres: The corpus-based approach to language change in progress. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 4(2): 221–242. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hundt, Marianne, Röthlisberger, Melanie & Seoane, Elena. 2021. Predicting voice alternation across academic Englishes. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. 17(1): 189–222. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janitza, Silke, Strobl, Carolin & Boulesteix, Anne-Laure. 2013. An AUC-based permutation variable importance measure for random forests. BMC Bioinformatics 14(119): 1–11. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koch, Peter & Oesterreicher, Wulf. 1985. Sprache der Nähe – Sprache der Distanz: Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit im Spannungsfeld von Sprachtheorie und Sprachgeschichte. Romanistisches Jahrbuch 36: 15–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. 1972. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia PA: University of Philadelphia Press.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lohmann, Arne. 2011. Help vs help to: A multifactorial, mixed-effects account of infinitive marker omission. English Language and Linguistics 15(3): 499–521. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Loureiro-Porto, Lucía. 2017. ICE vs. GloWbE: Big data and corpus compilation. World English 36(3): 448–470. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McDonough, Kim. 2006. Interaction and syntactic priming: English L2 speakers’ production of dative constructions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28(2): 179–207. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Menard, Scott. 2010. Logistic Regression: From Introductory to Advanced Concepts and Applications. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mesthrie, Rajend & Bhatt, Rakesh M. 2008. World Englishes: The Study of New Linguistic Varieties. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Neumann, Stella. 2012. Applying register analysis to varieties of English. In Anglistentag 2011 Freiburg: Proceedings, Monika Fludernik & Benjamin Kohlmann (eds), 75–94. Trier: WVT.Google Scholar
. 2013. Contrastive Register Variation: A Quantitative Approach to the Comparison of English and German. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Neumann, Stella & Fest, Jennifer. 2016. Cohesive devices across registers and varieties: The role of medium in English. In Variational Text Linguistics: Revisiting Register in English, Christoph Schubert & Christina Sanchez-Stockhammer (eds), 195–220. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oushiro, Livia. 2016. Social and structural constraints in lectal cohesion. Lingua 172–173: 113–130. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pinheiro, José C. & Bates, Douglas M. 2000. Mixed-effects Models in S and S-PLUS. New York NY: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
R Core Team. 2018. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. <[URL]> (26 May 2021).
Röthlisberger, Melanie. 2018a. Regional Variation in Probabilistic Grammars: A Multifactorial Study of the English Dative Alternation. PhD dissertation, KU Leuven.Google Scholar
. 2018b. The dative dataset of World Englishes (Version v1) [Data set]. KU Leuven. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Röthlisberger, Melanie, Grafmiller, Jason & Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2017. Cognitive indigenization effects in the English dative alternation. Cognitive Linguistics 28(4): 673–710. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schaub, Steffen. 2016. The influence of register on noun phrase complexity in varieties of English. In Variational Text Linguistics: Revisiting Register in English, Christoph Schubert & Christina Sanchez-Stockhammer (eds), 251–271. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schilk, Marco, Mukherjee, Joybrato, Nam, Christopher & Mukherjee, Sach. 2013. Complementation of ditransitive verbs in South Asian Englishes: A multifactorial analysis. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 9(2): 187–225. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schneider, Edgar W. 2007. Postcolonial English: Varieties around the world. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schubert, Christoph. 2016. Introduction: Current trends in register research. In Variational Text Linguistics: Revisiting Register in English, Christoph Schubert & Christina Sanchez-Stockhammer (eds), 1–15. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scott-Phillips, Thomas C. & Kirby, Simon. 2010. Language evolution in the laboratory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 14(9): 411–417. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seoane, Elena. 2006. Changing styles: On the recent evolution of scientific British and American English. In Syntax, Style and Grammatical Norms: English from 1500–2000, Christiane Dalton-Puffer, Dieter Kastovsky, Nikolaus Ritt & Herbert Schendl (eds), 191–211. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Strobl, Carolin, Boulesteix, Anne-Laure, Kneib, Thomas, Augustin, Thomas & Zeileis, Achim. 2008. Conditional variable importance for random forests. BMC Bioinformatics 9(307). <[URL]> (26 May 2021). DOI logo
Strobl, Carolin, Boulesteix, Anne-Laure, Zeileis, Achim & Hothorn, Torsten. 2007. Bias in random forest variable importance measures: Illustrations, sources and a solution. BMC Bioinformatics 8(25). <[URL]> (26 May 2021). DOI logo
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2006. Morphosyntactic Persistence in Spoken English [Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 177]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. Variationist sociolinguistics and corpus-based variationist linguistics: Overlap and cross-pollination potential. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue Canadienne de Linguistique 42(4): 685–701. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. Register in variationist linguistics. Register Studies 1(1): 76–99. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt, Grafmiller, Jason, Heller, Benedikt & Röthlisberger, Melanie. 2016. Around the world in three alternations: Modeling syntactic variation in varieties of English. English World-Wide 37(2): 109–137. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt, Grafmiller, Jason, Bresnan, Joan, Rosenbach, Anette, Tagliamonte, Sali A. & Todd, Simon. 2017. Spoken syntax in a comparative perspective: The dative and genitive alternation in varieties of English. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 2(1). 86: 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt, Grafmiller, Jason & Rosseel, Laura. 2019. Variation-based distance and similarity modeling: A case study in World Englishes. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence 2. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2012. Variationist Sociolinguistics: Change, Observation, Interpretation. Malden MA: Wiley-Blackwell.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(2): 135–178. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tamaredo, Iván, Röthlisberger, Melanie, Grafmiller, Jason & Heller, Benedikt. 2019. Probabilistic indigenization effects at the lexis-syntax interface. English Language and Linguistics. 24(2): 413–440 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Rooy, Bertus, Terblanche, Lize, Haase, Christoph & Schmied, Joseph. 2010. Register differentiation in East African English: A multidimensional study. English World-Wide 31(3): 311–349. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wälchli, Bernhard & Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2014. Introduction: The text-feature-aggregation pipeline in variation studies. In Aggregating Dialectology, Typology, and Register Analysis: Linguistic Variation in Text and Speech [Linguae & Litterae 28], Benedikt Szmrecsanyi & Bernhard Wälchli (eds), 1–25. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Xiao, Richard. 2009. Multidimensional analysis and the study of World Englishes. World Englishes 28(4): 421–450. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zaenen, Annie, Carletta, Jean, Garretson, Gregory, Bresnan, Joan, Koontz-Garboden, Andrew, Nikitina, Tatiana, O’Connor, Mary Catherine & Wasow, Thomas. 2004. Animacy encoding in English: Why and how. In Proceedings of the 2004 ACL Workshop on Discourse Annotation, Barcelona, July 2004, Donna Byron & Bonnie Webber (eds), 118–125. East Strouddsburg PA: Association for Computational Linguistics. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Li, Yi, Benedikt Szmrecsanyi & Weiwei Zhang
2024. Across time, space, and genres: measuring probabilistic grammar distances between varieties of Mandarin. Linguistics Vanguard 0:0 DOI logo
Röthlisberger, Melanie
2023. Exploring variation in the dative alternation across World Englishes. In Ditransitives in Germanic Languages [Studies in Germanic Linguistics, 7], ► pp. 226 ff. DOI logo
Engel, Alexandra, Jason Grafmiller, Laura Rosseel & Benedikt Szmrecsanyi
2022. Assessing the complexity of lectal competence: the register-specificity of the dative alternation aftergive. Cognitive Linguistics 33:4 ► pp. 727 ff. DOI logo

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