Cover not available
Part of
Exploring Language and Society with Big Data: Parliamentary discourse across time and space
Edited by Minna Korhonen, Haidee Kotze and Jukka Tyrkkö
[Studies in Corpus Linguistics 111] 2023
► pp. 250–276

Chapter 9
Processing and prescriptivism as constraints on language variation and change

Relative clauses in British and Australian English parliamentary debates

| Ghent University
| Utrecht University | North-West University
| KU Leuven
We investigate the choice between the relative markers which and that in 8,283 restrictive relative clauses on subject position, with inanimate antecedents, in a written corpus consisting of British and Australian Hansard materials over five sampling years (1901, 1935, 1965, 1995, 2015). Our aim is to determine how processing-related factors and prescriptivism-related factors influence processes of language variation and change across two varieties of English. We analyse how the language-external variables of period and variety (British, Australian) interact with two groups of language-internal variables, namely predictors related to language processing and linguistic predictors associated with prescriptivism. The analysis shows that the relativiser that has been on the rise over the past century. The increase is particularly pronounced in the British Hansard, as which was comparatively frequent in early twentieth-century British material. As to the relative importance of predictors, we find that language-external predictors are the most important in conditioning the variation in relative markers, followed by processing-related constraints. Prescriptivism-related variables tend to generally be less important in this type of variation.
Keywords: restrictive relative clause, Australian English, British English, real-time study, language processing, prescriptivism
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background
    • 2.1The relative marker alternation
    • 2.2Australian English
    • 2.3Prescriptivism, varieties of English and language change
  • 3.Methods and data
    • 3.1The Hansard: A hybrid spoken-written register
    • 3.2The variable context and corpus retrieval
    • 3.3Predicting relativiser choice
      • 3.3.1Language-external predictors
      • 3.3.2Prescriptivism-related predictors
      • 3.3.3Predictors related to language processing
    • 3.4Analysis
  • 4.Results and discussion
    • 4.1Distributional analysis of the relative markers which and that
    • 4.2Probing the importance of constraints on relativiser choice
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 13 November 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.111.09lab
References
Allan, Keith
1984 The component functions of the high rise terminal contour in Australian declarative sentences. Australian Journal of Linguistics 4(1): 19–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anderwald, Lieselotte
2016 Language between Description and Prescription: Verbs and Verb Categories in Nineteenth-Century Grammars of English. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan, Finegan, Edward & Quirk, Randolph
2007 Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Breiman, Leo
2001 Random forests. Machine Learning 45: 5–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bryant, Pauline
1997 A dialect survey of the lexicon of Australian English. English World-Wide 18(2): 211–241. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Collins, Peter
2014 Relative clauses in Australian English: A cross-varietal diachronic study. In Selected Papers from the 44th Conference of the Australian Linguistic Society, Lauren Gawne & Jill Vaughan (eds), 355–371. Melbourne: University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
Collins, Peter & Blair, David
1989 Australian English: The Language of a New Society. Brisbane: University of Queensland Press.Google Scholar
Curzan, Anne
2014 Fixing English: Prescriptivism and Language History. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
D’Arcy, Alexandra & Tagliamonte, Sali
2010 Prestige, accommodation, and the legacy of relative who. Language in Society 39(3): 383–410. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gravlee, G. Jack
1981 Reporting proceedings and debates in the British Commons. Central States Speech Journal 32(2): 85–99. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hansard
2008 Hansard Usage and Editing Guide. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.Google Scholar
2017 Hansard Style Manual. Canberra: Office of the Legislative Assembly for the Australian Capital Territory. [URL] (20 February 2021).
Harder, Peter
2012 Variation, structure and norms. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 10(2): 294–314. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hendy, David
2017 History of the BBC: Broadcasting Parliament. [URL] (20 February 2021).
Hinrichs, Lars, Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt & Bohmann, Axel
2015 Which-hunting and the Standard English relative clause. Language 91(4): 806–836. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
House of Commons Information Office
2010 Factsheet G17 General Series: The Official Report. [URL] (27 July 2021).
Kroch, Anthony & Small, Cathy
1978 Grammatical ideology and its effects on speech. In Linguistic Variation: Models and Methods, David Sankoff (ed.), 45–55. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kruger, Haidee & Smith, Adam
2018 Colloquialization versus densification in Australian English: A multidimensional analysis of the Australian Diachronic Hansard Corpus (ADHC). Australian Journal of Linguistics 38(3): 293–328. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kruger, Haidee, van Rooy, Bertus & Smith, Adam
2019 Register change in the British and Australian Hansard (1901–2015). Journal of English Linguistics 47(3): 183–220. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Labat, Sofie
2018 Relative Markers in Parliamentary Speech: A Real-time Study of Australian and British English. MA thesis, KU Leuven.
Lee, James F. & Doherty, Stephen
2019 Native and nonnative processing of active and passive sentences: The effects of processing instruction on the allocation of visual attention. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 41(4): 853–879. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey & Smith, Nicholas
2006 Recent grammatical change in written English 1961–1992: Some preliminary findings of a comparison of American with British English. In The Changing Face of Corpus Linguistics, Antoinette Renouf & Andrew Kehoe (eds), 185–204. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
2009 Change and constancy in linguistic change: How grammatical usage in written English evolved in the period 1931–1991. In Corpus Linguistics: Refinements and Reassessments, Antoinette Renouf & Andrew Kehoe (eds), 173–200. Amsterdam: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey, Hundt, Marianne, Mair, Christian & Smith, Nicholas
2009 Change in Contemporary English: A Grammatical Study. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leitner, Gerhard
2004 Australia’s Many Voices: Australian English – The National Language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, Alexander George & Delbridge, Arthur
1965 The Speech of Australian Adolescents. Sydney: Angus & Robertson.Google Scholar
Mollin, Sandra
2007 The Hansard hazard: Gauging the accuracy of British parliamentary transcripts. Corpora 2(2): 187–210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moore, Bruce
2008 Speaking Our Language: The Story of Australian English. Sydney: OUP.Google Scholar
Mustanoja, Tauno Frans
1960 A Middle English Syntax. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Peters, Pam
2014 Usage guides and usage trends in Australian and British English. Australian Journal of Linguistics 34(4): 581–598. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peters, Pam & Young, Wendy
1997 English grammar and the lexicography of usage. Journal of English Linguistics 25(4): 315–331. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Poplack, Shana & Dion, Nathalie
2009 Prescription vs. praxis: The evolution of future temporal reference in French. Language 85(3): 557–587. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ramson, William Stanley
1966 Australian English: An Historical Study of the Vocabulary, 1788–1898. Canberra: Australian National University Press.Google Scholar
Schneider, Edgar W.
2007 Postcolonial English: Varieties around the World. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sigley, Robert
1997 The influence of formality and channel on relative pronoun choice in New Zealand English. English Language and Linguistics 1(2): 207–232. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Slembrouck, Stef
1992 The parliamentary Hansard ‘verbatim’ report: The written construction of spoken discourse. Language and Literature 1(2): 101–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Straaijer, Robin
2016 Attitudes to prescriptivism: An introduction. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 37(3): 233–242. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Strobl, Carolin, Malley, James & Tutz, Gerhard
2009 An introduction to recursive partitioning: Rationale, application, and characteristics of classification and regression trees, bagging, and random forests. Psychological Methods 14(4): 323–348. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Strunk, William & White, Elwyn Brooks
2000 The Elements of Style, 4th edn. London: Longman.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. 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
Tagliamonte, Sali, Smith, Jennifer & Lawrence, Helen
2005 No taming the vernacular! Insights from the relatives in northern Britain. Language Variation and Change 17(1): 75–112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Woolard, Kathryn A. & Schieffelin, Bambi B.
1994 Language ideology. Annual Review of Anthropology 23(1): 55–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yao, Xinyue & Collins, Peter
2019 Developments in Australian, British, and American English grammar from 1931 to 2006: An aggregate, comparative approach to dialectal variation and change. Journal of English Linguistics 47(2): 120–149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar