The discourse marker LIKE: a of English - ediss.sub.uni ... · The discourse marker LIKE: a...

Click here to load reader

  • date post

    16-Aug-2019
  • Category

    Documents

  • view

    230
  • download

    0

Embed Size (px)

Transcript of The discourse marker LIKE: a of English - ediss.sub.uni ... · The discourse marker LIKE: a...

  • ThediscoursemarkerLIKE:

    acorpus‐basedanalysisofselected

    varietiesofEnglish

    DissertationzurErlangungdesGradesdesDoktorsderPhilosophiebeiderFakultätfürGeisteswissenschaften

    FachbereichSprache,Literatur,Medien&EuropäischeSprachenundLiteraturenderUniversitätHamburg

    ÜberarbeiteteVersion

    vorgelegtvon

    MartinSchweinbergerausBadKarlshafenHamburg,Juni2014

      

  • Hauptgutachter: Prof.Dr.PeterSiemundZweitgutachter: Prof.Dr.MarkkuFilppulaDatumderDisputation: 30.09.2011

    AbgenommenvonderFakultätfürGeisteswissenschaftenderUniversitätHamburgam: 02.11.2011

    VeröffentlichungmitGenehmigungderFakultätfürGeisteswissenschaftenderUniversitätHamburgam: 03.09.2014

  • MartinSchweinberger

    ii

    Acknowledgments

    ThisbookistheresultofresearchconductedduringmyworkattheUniversityofHamburg.MywarmestthanksforhissupportgotoProf.PeterSiemund,mysupervisor–withouthimthisbookwouldhavebeenimpossibleandtowhomIamdeeplyindeptedforhissupport.ThemanypeoplewithintheUniversitywhohavemadethisanextraordinaryfruitfulworkenvironmentthroughtheircollegial support, fruitful exchange of ideas, and their friendship are toonumeroustomention,butamongthem,FlorianDolberg,GeorgMaier,ThomasBerg,SuzanneFlach,TayoTakada,PatrickMcCraeandSvenjaKranichstandout.

    MuchofthebookisbasedondatatakenfromtheInternationalCorpusofEnglish(ICE)andthesociolinguisticapproachtakenherewouldnothavebeenpossiblewithouthavingbeengrantedaccesstothewealthofextra‐linguisticinformationnotyetavailabletothewiderscholarlycommunity.Mygratitudeis thus due to all those ICE teamswhich supportedmy research. I am alsoindebtedtotheHamburgischeWissenschaftlicheStiftungforkindlygrantingadditionalfinancialsupport,whichenabledmetotakepartinconferencesandwork‐shopswhichIwouldotherwisenothavebeenabletoattend.

    In addition, I am grateful toThe SkepticsGuide to theUniverse,RichardDawkins,Thunderf00t,Pharyngula,PointofInquiry,TheAtheistExperience,andAronraforpromotingscienceandskepticalthinking.Theyhaveentertainedmeduringendlesshoursofcodingdata,runningstatisticalmodelsandeditingthisbook,aswellaseducatingmeon thescientificmethodand illustratinghoweasilyonecanbedeceived,notonlybyothersbutalsobyoneself.

    Lastbutnotleast,myfamily,inparticularmyparentsErikaandKlaus,mybrother Enno,my grandmothers Charlotte and Anna, andmy daughter ZoeMilenadeservespecialthanksfortheirsupportandlove,whichhascarriedmealongwhathasattimesbeenadifficultpassage.

  • ThediscoursemarkerLIKE:acorpus‐basedanalysisofselectedvarietiesofEnglish

    i

    TableofContents

    1  Introduction...........................................................................................................1 

    2  Languagechangeandvariation.....................................................................10 

    2.1  Introduction...........................................................................................................................10 2.2  Languagechange..................................................................................................................11 2.3  Globalization,localpracticeandthediffusionofLIKE.........................................13 2.4  Sociolinguisticvariationandchange...........................................................................19 2.4.1  Real‐timeandapparent‐time................................................................................25 2.4.2  Socialclass....................................................................................................................31 2.4.3  Gender............................................................................................................................35 2.4.4  Identity,prestigeandstyle.....................................................................................40 2.4.5  Traditionaldialectologyandthemodernvariationistparadigm...........44 

    2.5  Synopsis...................................................................................................................................47 

    3  Discoursemarkers:Definition,features,andorigin.............................48 

    3.1  Discoursemarkers..............................................................................................................48 3.1.1  Featuresofdiscoursemarkers.............................................................................53 

    3.2  Synopsis...................................................................................................................................58 

    4  OverviewofpreviousresearchonLIKE.....................................................59 

    4.1  ThehistoryofLIKE.............................................................................................................59 4.1.1  Grammaticalization...................................................................................................59 4.1.2  ThegrammaticalizationofLIKE..........................................................................63 4.1.3  Interimsynopsis.........................................................................................................69 

    4.2  ThedevelopmentofLIKE.................................................................................................69 4.3  Spreadorparalleldevelopment?..................................................................................73 4.4  LIKEacrossvarietiesofEnglish.....................................................................................77 4.5  AttitudestowardLIKE.......................................................................................................87 4.6  ThesyntaxofLIKE...............................................................................................................90 4.7  Thediscourse‐pragmaticfunctionsofLIKE.............................................................93 4.7.1  Clause‐internalLIKE.................................................................................................96 4.7.2  Clause‐externalLIKE..............................................................................................113 

    4.8  Synopsis.................................................................................................................................118 

    5  Dataandmethodology...................................................................................120 

  • MartinSchweinberger

    ii

    5.1  Introduction.........................................................................................................................120 5.2  WhatdoeslocalimplementationentailforLIKE?................................................122 5.3  Researchquestions...........................................................................................................124 5.4  Centralhypotheses............................................................................................................126 5.4.1  Hypothesis1:LIKEisamarkerofteenagespeech.....................................126 5.4.2  Hypothesis2:LIKEasamarkeroffemalespeech......................................127 5.4.3  Hypothesis3:TheuniversalityoftheLabovianmodel............................128 5.4.4  Hypothesis4:Diffusionandstratification.....................................................129 5.4.5  Hypothesis5:LIKEuseismodifiedduringlocalimplementation.......130 

    5.5  Datasources.........................................................................................................................131 5.5.1  Introduction...............................................................................................................131 5.5.2  TheICEfamilyofcorpora.....................................................................................133 

    5.6  Dataprocessing..................................................................................................................137 5.7  Dataediting..........................................................................................................................139 5.7.1  TypesofLIKE.............................................................................................................145 

    5.8  Descriptionandmotivationofvariables..................................................................153 5.8.1  Dependentvariables...............................................................................................153 5.8.2  Independentvariables...........................................................................................154 5.8.3  Regionalvariety(VAR)..........................................................................................156 5.8.4  Gender(SEX)..............................................................................................................157 5.8.5  Age(AGE)....................................................................................................................160 5.8.6  Occupation,social‐classandsocio‐economicstatus(OCC)....................162 5.8.7  Nativeandnon‐nativespeakersofEnglish(L1).........................................165 5.8.8  Ethnicity(ETH).........................................................................................................166 5.8.9  Region(REG)..............................................................................................................167 5.8.10  Thedateofdatacollection...................................................................................168 5.8.11  Primingeffects,accommodationandidiosyncraticoveruse(PAI).....170 

    5.9  Statisticaldesign................................................................................................................172 5.9.1  Generalremarksaboutquantitativeanalysesandstatistics.................173 5.9.2  Statisticalconceptsspecifictothepresentanalysis..................................175 

    6  LIKEacrossvarietiesofEnglish..................................................................180 

    6.1  SurveyingLIKEacrossvarietiesofEnglish.............................................................181 6.1.1  Clause‐initialLIKE...................................................................................................187 6.1.2  Clause‐medialLIKE.................................................................................................189 6.1.3  Clause‐finalLIKE......................................................................................................193 6.1.4  Non‐clausalLIKE......................................................................................................195 

    6.2  ThesociolinguisticsofLIKEuseacrossvarietiesofEnglish............................198 

    7  LIKEwithinvarietiesofEnglish.................................................................204 

  • ThediscoursemarkerLIKE:acorpus‐basedanalysisofselectedvarietiesofEnglish

    iii

    7.1  LIKEuseinUSAmericanEnglish................................................................................204 7.1.1  StatisticalanalysisofLIKEusageinAmericanEnglish............................211 7.1.2  SummaryanddiscussionofLIKEuseinAmericanEnglish....................224 

    7.2  LIKEinCanadianEnglish................................................................................................228 7.2.1  StatisticalanalysisofLIKEusageinCanadianEnglish.............................232 7.2.2  Real‐timeandapparent‐time..............................................................................245 7.2.3  SummaryofLIKEuseinCanadianEnglish....................................................247 

    7.3  LIKEinBritishEnglish.....................................................................................................252 7.3.1  StatisticalanalysisofLIKEusageinBritishEnglish..................................259 7.3.2  SummaryanddiscussionofLIKEuseinBritishEnglish.........................260 

    7.4  LIKEinIrishEnglish.........................................................................................................265 7.4.1  StatisticalanalysisofLIKEusageinIrishEnglish......................................272 7.4.2  Evaluationoftheapparent‐timeconstruct...................................................286 7.4.3  SummaryanddiscussionofLIKEuseinIrishEnglish..............................289 

    7.5  LIKEinIndianEnglish.....................................................................................................294 7.5.1  StatisticalanalysisofLIKEinIndianEnglish................................................299 7.5.2  Evaluationoftheapparent‐timeconstruct...................................................315 7.5.3  Summary:LIKEuseinIndianEnglish.............................................................315 

    7.6  LIKEinJamaicanEnglish................................................................................................320 7.6.1  StatisticalanalysisofLIKEusageinJamaicanEnglish.............................323 7.6.2  Evaluationoftheapparent‐timeconstruct...................................................332 7.6.3  Summary:LIKEuseinJamaicanEnglish........................................................334 

    7.7  LIKEinNewZealandEnglish........................................................................................336 7.7.1  StatisticalanalysisofLIKEusageinNewZealandEnglish.....................341 7.7.2  Summary:LIKEuseinNewZealandEnglish................................................352 

    7.8  LIKEinFilipinoEnglish...................................................................................................356 7.8.1  StatisticalanalysisofLIKEusageinNewZealandEnglish.....................362 7.8.2  Evaluationoftheapparent‐timeconstruct...................................................371 7.8.3  Summary:LIKEuseinFilipinoEnglish...........................................................375 

    8  Globalsynopsisanddiscussion..................................................................378 

    8.1  Introductoryremarks:thediscoursemarkerLIKEinselectedvarietiesofEnglish..................................................................................................................................................378 8.1.1  Clause‐initialLIKE...................................................................................................382 8.1.2  Clause‐medialLIKE.................................................................................................382 8.1.3  Clause‐finalLIKE......................................................................................................383 8.1.4  Non‐clausalLIKE......................................................................................................384 

    8.2  Discussionofthehypotheses........................................................................................385 8.2.1  Discussionofhypothesis1:LIKEisamarkerofteenagespeech.........385 8.2.2  Discussionofhypothesis2:LIKEasamarkeroffemalespeech..........391 

  • MartinSchweinberger

    iv

    8.2.3  Discussionofhypothesis3:TheuniversalityoftheLabovianmodel394 8.2.4  Discussionofhypothesis4:Diffusionandsocialstratification.............396 8.2.5  DiscussionofHypothesisV:LIKEuseismodifiedduringlocalimplementation............................................................................................................................398 

    8.3  Discussionofotherfindings..........................................................................................399 8.3.1  Priming,accommodationandlanguagechange..........................................399 8.3.2  TheglobaldiffusionofLIKEandthemedia..................................................400 8.3.3  TheICEasasociolinguisticdatasource.........................................................406 

    9  Conclusionandoutlook.................................................................................408 

    10  References..........................................................................................................413 

    11  Appendix.............................................................................................................439 

    11.1  EidesstattlicheVersicherung........................................................................................547 

  • ThediscoursemarkerLIKE:acorpus‐basedanalysisofselectedvarietiesofEnglish

    v

    ListofFigures

    Figure1:S‐shapedcurverepresentingtherateofchange(cf.Labov2001:450)........21 Figure2:Six‐stagemodelofgenderrelationsinlinguisticchangefrombelow(cf.Labov2001:309).....................................................................................................................................25 Figure3:Real‐andapparent‐timeinlanguagechange(cf.Downes1998:238)...........26 Figure4:Alinearmodelofincrementationforasinglespeakerfrom1to45yearsofage(cf.Labov2001:448).....................................................................................................................29 Figure5:Ageprofilesoflinguisticchangeinprogresswithuniformincrementationofthechange(cf.Labov2001:449)......................................................................................................30 Figure6:Grammaticalizationpathforlike(Romaine&Lange1991:261)....................65 Figure7:GrammaticalizationpathoflikeasproposedbyD’Arcy(2005:218‐219)...68 Figure8:LikeasafocussingdeviceacrossvarietiesofEnglish(AdoptedfromKortmann&Lunkenheimer2011)..................................................................................................78 Figure9:ExamplesforoutliersinPhiEandAmE....................................................................151 Figure10:FrequencyofLIKEvariantsinthefinaldataset.................................................152 Figure11:HistogramcorrelatingthenumberofspeakerswiththeirrateofLIKE..182 Figure12:LIKEacrossvarietiesofEnglish(indecreasingorderaccordingtotheirmeanfrequency)...................................................................................................................................183 Figure13:Clause‐initialLIKEacrossvarietiesofEnglish(indecreasingorderaccordingtotheirmeanfrequency)..............................................................................................188 Figure14:Clause‐medialLIKEacrossvarietiesofEnglish(indecreasingorderaccordingtotheirmeanfrequency)..............................................................................................191 Figure15:Clause‐finalLIKEacrossvarietiesofEnglish(indecreasingorderaccordingtotheirmeanfrequency)..............................................................................................194 Figure16:Non‐clausalLIKEacrossvarietiesofEnglish(indecreasingorderaccordingtotheirmeanfrequency)..............................................................................................197 Figure17:AgeandgenderdistributionofLIKEacrossvarietiesofEnglish................200 Figure18:AgeandgenderdistributionofLIKEacrossvarietiesofEnglish................200 Figure19:MeanfrequencyofLIKEaccordingtothedateofdatacompilation..........202 Figure20:LIKEvariantsinAmE....................................................................................................207 

  • MartinSchweinberger

    vi

    Figure21:AgedistributionofLIKEinAmE...............................................................................208 Figure22:LIKEinAmEwithrespecttotheoccupationofspeakers..............................210 Figure23:Ageandgenderdistributionofclause‐initialLIKEinAmE...........................214 Figure24:Ageandgenderdistributionofclause‐medialLIKEinAmE.........................219 Figure25:Ageandgenderdistributionofnon‐clausalLIKEinAmE..............................222 Figure26:RateofLIKEvariantsinCanE....................................................................................229 Figure27:Boxplotsshowingthedistributionofclause‐initial(left),clause‐medial(middle),andnon‐clausalLIKE(right)inCanEwithrespecttogender........................230 Figure28:Ageandgenderdistributionofclause‐initialLIKEinCanE..........................231 Figure29:Ageandgenderdistributionofclause‐medialLIKEinCanE........................232 Figure30:Ageandgenderdistributionofclause‐initialLIKEinCanE..........................235 Figure31:Ageandgenderdistributionofclause‐medialLIKEinCanE........................238 Figure32:Ageandgenderdistributionofnon‐clausalLIKEinCanE.............................244 Figure33:HistogramcorrelatingthenumberofspeakerswiththeirrateofLIKEuse......................................................................................................................................................................255 Figure34:RateofLIKEvariantsinEngE....................................................................................256 Figure35:AgeandgenderdistributionofLIKEinEngE......................................................257 Figure36:ScatterplotofyoungLIKEusersinEngEincludingasmoothedregressionline...............................................................................................................................................................259 Figure37:RateofLIKEvariantsinIrE........................................................................................267 Figure38:AgeandgenderdistributionofLIKEinIrE..........................................................269 Figure39:Agedistributionofclause‐finalLIKEinIrE..........................................................271 Figure40:Agedistributionofclause‐medialLIKEinIrE.....................................................272 Figure41:Agedistributionofclause‐initialLIKEinIrE.......................................................275 Figure42:Agedistributionofclause‐medialLIKEinIrE.....................................................278 Figure43:AgedistributionofClause‐finalLIKEinIrE.........................................................281 Figure44:Agedistributionofnon‐clausalLIKEinIrE..........................................................285 Figure45:RateofLIKEvariantsinIndE.....................................................................................297 

  • ThediscoursemarkerLIKE:acorpus‐basedanalysisofselectedvarietiesofEnglish

    vii

    Figure46:AgeandgenderdistributionofLIKEinIndE.......................................................298 Figure47:AgedistributionofLIKEinIndE...............................................................................299 Figure48:Agedistributionofclause‐initialLIKEinIndE...................................................302 Figure49:Agedistributionofclause‐medialLIKEinIndE.................................................306 Figure50:Agedistributionofclause‐finalLIKEinIndE......................................................309 Figure51:Agedistributionofnon‐clausalLIKEinIndE......................................................313 Figure52:Agedistributionofclause‐medialLIKEinJamE................................................321 Figure53:RateofLIKEvariantsinJamE....................................................................................322 Figure54:Ageandgenderdistributionofclause‐initialLIKEinJamE..........................326 Figure55:Agedistributionofclause‐medialLIKEinJamE................................................328 Figure56:Agedistributionofnon‐clausalLIKEinJamE.....................................................331 Figure57:LIKEinJamEwithrespecttothedateofdatacollection................................332 Figure58:RateofLIKEvariantsinNZE......................................................................................338 Figure59:AgeandgenderdistributionofLIKEinNZE........................................................339 Figure60:LIKEuseinNZEwithrespecttotheoccupationofspeakers.......................340 Figure61:Ageandgenderdistributionofclause‐initialLIKEinNZE............................343 Figure62:Ageandgenderdistributionofclause‐medialLIKEinNZE..........................346 Figure63:Ageandgenderdistributionofclause‐finalLIKEinNZE...............................349 Figure64:Ageandgenderdistributionofnon‐clausalLIKEinNZE...............................351 Figure65:RateofLIKEvariantsinPhiE.....................................................................................357 Figure66:AgeandgenderdistributionofLIKEinPhiE.......................................................359 Figure67:AgeandgenderdistributionofLIKEinPhiE.......................................................360 Figure68:Ageandgenderdistributionofclause‐initialandclause‐medialLIKE.....361 Figure69:FrequencyofLIKEinPhiEwithrespecttooccupation...................................362 Figure70:Ageandgenderdistributionofclause‐initialLIKEinPhiE...........................365 Figure71:Ageandgenderdistributionofclause‐medialLIKEinPhiE.........................367 Figure72:Ageandgenderdistributionofnon‐clausalLIKEinPhiE..............................370 

  • MartinSchweinberger

    viii

    Figure73:FrequencyofLIKEinPhiEwithrespecttothedateofdatacompilation372 

  • ThediscoursemarkerLIKE:acorpus‐basedanalysisofselectedvarietiesofEnglish

    ix

    ListofTables

    Table1:Patternsofchangeintheindividualandthecommunity(cf.Labov1994:83)........................................................................................................................................................................28 Table2:LIKEacrossvarietiesofEnglish(AdoptedfromKortmann&Lunkenheimer2011)............................................................................................................................................................79 Table3:CommondesignoftheICEcomponents....................................................................135 Table4:Overviewofthefinaldatasetforthisstudy............................................................138 Table5:Overviewofthedatabaseforthepresentanalysis..............................................152 Table6:Overviewofthedependentvariablesincludedintheanalysis........................154 Table7:Overviewoftheindependentvariablesincludedintheanalysis....................155 Table8:OperationalizationofregionalvarietyofEnglishinthisanalysis(VAR).....157 Table9:Operationalizationofthegenderofspeakersinthisanalysis(SEX).............160 Table10:Operationalizationoftheageofspeakersinthisanalysis(AGE).................162 Table11:Operationalizationoftheoccupationofspeakersinthisanalysis(OCC)..164 Table12:Operationalizationofthemothertongueofspeakersinthisanalysis(L1).......................................................................................................................................................................166 Table13:Operationalizationoftheethnicityofspeakersinthisanalysis(ETH)......167 Table14:Operationalizationofregioninthisanalysis(REG)...........................................168 Table15:Operationalizationofdateofdatacollectioninthisanalysis(DATE)........169 Table16:OperationalizationofthePAIindexinthisanalysis(PAI)..............................172 Table17:OverviewofLIKEuseacrossvarietiesofEnglish................................................181 Table18:OverviewofLIKEvariantsacrossvarietiesofEnglish......................................185 Table19:OverviewofLIKEvariantsacrossvarietiesofEnglish......................................186 Table20:Overview‐clause‐initialLIKE.....................................................................................189 Table21:Overview‐clause‐medialLIKE...................................................................................191 Table22:Overview‐clause‐finalLIKE........................................................................................195 Table23:Overview‐non‐clausalLIKE........................................................................................197 

  • MartinSchweinberger

    x

    Table24:AgeandgenderdistributionofLIKEacrossvarietiesofEnglish..................199 Table25:Numberofnon‐LIKEuserstoLIKEusersandtheresultingratiosaccordingtothedateofdatacompilation........................................................................................................202 Table26:OverviewofLIKEuseinUSAmE................................................................................206 Table27:AgeandgenderdistributionofLIKEinAmE........................................................208 Table28:ResultsofthemultivariateregressionforLIKEuseinAmE...........................212 Table29:LIKEwithrespecttoAGEandGENDER...................................................................212 Table30:Ageandgenderdistributionofclause‐initialLIKEinUSAmE......................214 Table31:Resultsofthemultivariateregressionforclause‐initialLIKEinAmE.......215 Table32:Resultsoftheχ2‐testsforfemaleuseofclause‐initialLIKEinAmEusingtheyoungestfemalesasreference.................................................................................................216 Table33:Clause‐initialLIKEwithrespecttoAGEandGENDER......................................217 Table34:Ageandgenderdistributionofclause‐medialLIKEinAmE...........................218 Table35:Resultsofthemultivariateregressionforclause‐medialLIKEuseinAmE......................................................................................................................................................................219 Table36:Clause‐medialLIKEwithrespecttoAGE................................................................220 Table37:Ageandgenderdistributionofnon‐clausalLIKEinAmE................................222 Table38:Resultsofthemultivariateregressionfornon‐clausalLIKEuseinAmE..223 Table39:Overview‐LIKEuseinCanE........................................................................................228 Table40:AgeandgenderdistributionofLIKEinCanE........................................................230 Table41:ResultsofthemultivariateregressionforLIKEuseinCanE..........................233 Table42:Ageandgenderdistributionofclause‐initialLIKEinCanE............................234 Table43:Resultsofthemultivariateregressionforclause‐initialLIKEinCanE.......235 Table44:Clause‐initialLIKEwithrespecttoGENDER.........................................................236 Table45:Clause‐initialLIKEwithrespecttoAGE..................................................................236 Table46:Ageandgenderdistributionofclause‐medialLIKEinCanE..........................238 Table47:Resultsofthemultivariateregressionforclause‐medialLIKEinCanE.....239 Table48:Clause‐medialLIKEwithrespecttoAGE................................................................239 

  • ThediscoursemarkerLIKE:acorpus‐basedanalysisofselectedvarietiesofEnglish

    xi

    Table49:Clause‐medialLIKEwithrespecttoGENDER.......................................................240 Table50:Resultsoftheχ2‐testresultsevaluatingtheeffectofgenderforclause‐medialLIKEinCanE.............................................................................................................................240 Table51:Ageandgenderdistributionofclause‐finalLIKEinCanE...............................242 Table52:Ageandgenderdistributionofnon‐clausalLIKEinCanE...............................243 Table53:Resultsofthemultivariateregressionforclause‐initialLIKEinCanE.......245 Table54:ResultsofthemultivariateregressionforLIKEuseinCanE(real‐time)..246 Table55:Meanfrequencies,numberofnon‐LIKEuserstoLIKEusersplustheresultingratiosaccordingtothedateofdatacompilation..................................................246 Table56:LIKEusewithrespecttoAGEandthedateofdatacompilation...................247 Table57:Overview‐LIKEuseinEngE........................................................................................255 Table58:AgeandgenderdistributionofLIKEinEngE........................................................257 Table59:Overview‐LIKEuseinIrE............................................................................................266 Table60:AgeandgenderdistributionofLIKEinIrE............................................................268 Table61:ResultsofthemultivariateregressionforLIKEuseinIrE..............................273 Table62:LIKEwithrespecttoAGE..............................................................................................274 Table63:Ageandgenderdistributionofclause‐initialLIKEinIrE................................275 Table64:Resultsofthemultivariateregressionforclause‐initialLIKEinIrE...........276 Table65:LIKEwithrespecttoAGE..............................................................................................276 Table66:Ageandgenderdistributionofclause‐medialLIKEinIrE..............................277 Table67:Resultsofthemultivariateregressionforclause‐medialLIKEinIrE.........279 Table68:Clause‐medialLIKEwithrespecttoAGE................................................................279 Table69:Clause‐medialLIKEinIrEwithrespecttoregion...............................................280 Table70:Ageandgenderdistributionofclause‐finalLIKEinIrE...................................281 Table71:Resultsofthemultivariateregressionforclause‐finalLIKEinIrE..............282 Table72:Genderdifferencesintheuseofclause‐finalLIKEwithrespecttoAGE....283 Table73:Ageandgenderdistributionofnon‐clausalLIKEinIrE...................................284 Table74:Resultsofthemultivariateregressionfornon‐clausalLIKEinIrE.............285 

  • MartinSchweinberger

    xii

    Table75:Resultsoftheχ2‐testevaluatingtheeffectofagefornon‐clausalLIKEamongmalespeakersinIrE.............................................................................................................286 Table76:Resultsofthemultivariateregressionforclause‐medialLIKEuseinIrE.287 Table77:Clause‐medialLIKEusewithrespecttothedateofdatacompilation.......287 Table78:LIKEusewithrespecttoAGEandthedateofdatacompilation...................288 Table79:Overview‐LIKEuseinIndE.........................................................................................296 Table80:AgeandgenderdistributionofLIKEinIndE........................................................298 Table81:ResultsofthemultivariateregressionforLIKEinIndE...................................300 Table82:T‐TestresultsforLIKEusewithrespecttoAGE..................................................300 Table83:T‐TestresultsforLIKEusewithrespecttoAGEandGENDER......................300 Table84:Ageandgenderdistributionofclause‐initialLIKEinIndE.............................302 Table85:Resultsofthemultivariateregressionforclause‐initialLIKEinIndE.......303 Table86:Clause‐initialLIKEwithrespecttoAGEandGENDER......................................303 Table87:Clause‐initialLIKEwithrespecttoAGE..................................................................303 Table88:Ageandgenderdistributionofclause‐medialLIKEinIndE...........................305 Table89:Resultsofthemultivariateregressionforclause‐medialLIKEinIndE.....307 Table90:Clause‐medialLIKEwithrespecttoAGEandGENDER....................................307 Table91:Clause‐medialLIKEwithrespecttoAGE................................................................307 Table92:Ageandgenderdistributionofclause‐finalLIKEinIndE................................309 Table93:Resultsofthemultivariateregressionforclause‐finalLIKEinIndE..........310 Table94:Clause‐finalLIKEwithrespecttoAGEandGENDER.........................................310 Table95:Clause‐finalLIKEwithrespecttoAGE.....................................................................311 Table96:Ageandgenderdistributionofnon‐clausalLIKEinIndE................................312 Table97:Resultsofthemultivariateregressionfornon‐clausalLIKEinIndE..........314 Table98:Non‐clausalLIKEwithrespecttoAGEandGENDER.........................................314 Table99:Non‐clausalLIKEwithrespecttoAGE.....................................................................314 Table100:Non‐clausalLIKEwithrespecttoAGE..................................................................314 

  • ThediscoursemarkerLIKE:acorpus‐basedanalysisofselectedvarietiesofEnglish

    xiii

    Table101:LocationofinterviewsintheS1AfilesoftheIndiancomponent..............317 Table102:Overview‐LIKEuseinJamE.....................................................................................321 Table103:AgeandgenderdistributionofLIKEinJamE.....................................................323 Table104:ResultsofthemultivariateregressionforLIKEinJamE...............................324 Table105:Ageandgenderdistributionofclause‐initialLIKEinJamE.........................325 Table106:Resultsofthemultivariateregressionforclause‐initialLIKEinJamE....326 Table107:Ageandgenderdistributionofclause‐medialLIKEinJamE.......................327 Table108:Resultsofthemultivariateregressionforclause‐medialLIKEinJamE..329 Table109:Ageandgenderdistributionofnon‐clausalLIKEinJamE............................330 Table110:Resultsofthemultivariateregressionfornon‐clausalLIKEinJamE.......331 Table111:LIKEuseper1,000wordsinJamEaccordingtothedateofdatacompilation..............................................................................................................................................333 Table112:Meanfrequenciesofclause‐medialLIKEuse;numberofnon‐likeusers;andlikeusersplustheirratio;andthepercentageofLIKEusersinJamE,accordingtothedateofdatacompilation.............................................................................................................333 Table113:Overview‐LIKEuseinNZE.......................................................................................337 Table114:AgeandgenderdistributionofLIKEinNZE.......................................................338 Table115:ResultsofthemultivariateregressionforLIKEinNZE.................................341 Table116:Ageandgenderdistributionofclause‐initialLIKEinNZE...........................343 Table117:Clause‐initialLIKEwithrespecttoGENDERandAGE....................................344 Table118:Clause‐initialLIKEwithrespectAGE.....................................................................344 Table119:Ageandgenderdistributionofclause‐medialLIKEinNZE.........................345 Table120:Resultsofthemultivariateregressionforclause‐medialLIKEinNZE....347 Table121:χ2‐testresults:theeffectofgenderonclause‐medialLIKEwithinagegroupsInNZE.........................................................................................................................................347 Table122:Ageandgenderdistributionofclause‐finalLIKEinNZE..............................349 Table123:Ageandgenderdistributionofnon‐clausalLIKEinNZE..............................351 Table124:Resultsofthemultivariateregressionfornon‐clausalLIKEinNZE........352 

  • MartinSchweinberger

    xiv

    Table125:OverviewofLIKEuseinPhiE....................................................................................357 Table126:AgeandgenderdistributionofLIKEinPhiE......................................................358 Table127:ResultsofthemultivariateregressionforLIKEinPhiE................................363 Table128:Ageandgenderdistributionofclausal‐initialLIKEinPhiE.........................364 Table129:χ2‐testresults:theeffectofgenderonclause‐medialLIKEwithinagegroupsinPhiE........................................................................................................................................365 Table130:Ageandgenderdistributionofclausal‐medialLIKEinPhiE.......................367 Table131:Resultsofthemultivariateregressionforclause‐medialLIKEinPhiE...368 Table132:Ageandgenderdistributionofnon‐clausalLIKEinPhiE.............................370 Table133:Resultsofthemultivariateregressionfornon‐clausalLIKEinPhiE........371 Table134:Useofclause‐medialLIKEwithrespecttothedateofdatacompilation373 Table135:χ2‐testresults:theeffectofthedateofdatacompilationontheuseoftypesofLIKE...........................................................................................................................................373 Table136:LIKEusewithrespecttoAGEandthedateofdatacompilation................374 Table137:Summaryofsignificantandinsignificantvariablesinthepresentstudy......................................................................................................................................................................439 Table138:FinaldatasetofAmE....................................................................................................464 Table139:FinaldatasetofCanE...................................................................................................471 Table140:FinaldatasetofEngE...................................................................................................481 Table141:FinaldatasetofIrE........................................................................................................494 Table142:FinaldatasetofIndE....................................................................................................507 Table143:FinaldatasetofJamE...................................................................................................517 Table144:FinaldatasetofNZE.....................................................................................................527 Table145:FinaldatasetofPhiE....................................................................................................537 

  • ThediscoursemarkerLIKE:acorpus‐basedanalysisofselectedvarietiesofEnglish

    xv

    Listofabbreviations

    ICE InternationalCorpusofEnglishCIE CorpusofIrishEnglishCOLT TheBergenCorpusofLondonTeenageLanguageLCIE LimerickCorpusofIrishEnglishAmE AmericanEnglishAusE AustralianEnglishCanE CanadianEnglishEngE BritishEnglishEAE EastAfricanEnglishIndE IndianEnglishIrE IrishEnglishJamE JamaicanEnglishNIE NorthernIrishEnglishNZE NewZealandEnglishPhiE Philippine/FilipinoEnglishSctE ScottishEnglish

  • ThediscoursemarkerLIKE:acorpus‐basedanalysisofselectedvarietiesofEnglish

    1

    1 IntroductionThe discoursemarker LIKE1 as in (1) is one of themost salient features ofpresent‐day English (cf. D’Arcy 2005:ii). Despite being deemed archaic(Underhill1988:234),dismissedasmeaninglessandconsideredsymptomaticofcarelessspeech(Newman1974:15),thisnon‐standardfeaturehasreceivedscholarlyattentionandattractedinterestinthepublicmedia(Diamond2000;Johnson1998;Levey1999;Peters2008).Inspiteofbeingmetwithderision,its functional versatility and global presencemake LIKE an ideal object forcross‐varietal, sociolinguistic analyses of ongoing change and sociallymotivatedvariation.Infact,vernacularusesofLIKEare“rapidlyincreasinginthespeechoftheyoungergeneration,particularlyinWesternEnglishspeakingcountries”(Tagliamonte2005:1898).

    (1) a. Andtookthestairsandalotofpeopleweregoingoutbutthethingislikemaybehalfofthepeoplewerestillstayedinthere.(ICEPhilippines:S1A‐007$B)

    b. Becausetheyhadthissortoflikeuhmyouknowthatkindofflooringtileupthestairsand…(ICECanada:S1A‐007$B)

    c. ButalotlikeMike'slikequiteatrustworthyguyandmightjustlikeletusdrinkitallafterwards.(ICEGB:S1A‐030$A)

    d. I I think it's 'tis geared fordeathyouknow like Mm(ICEIreland:S1A‐055$B)

    ThediscoursemarkerLIKEiswellworthscholarlyattention,becauseofitshigh frequency and salience in present‐dayEnglish(es), andbecause itmayhelp to understand mechanisms and processes of local implementation ofgloballyavailableinnovativeforms2.Inaddition,theglobalspreadofLIKEmay

                                                                1 Inthefollowing,LIKEincapitallettersreferstothediscoursemarkerLIKE,whilelike,

    writteninlowercaseitalicsreferstoinstancesoflikewhichdonotfallintothecategory‘discoursemarker’.Thisdoesnotapply,however,toinstancesofthediscoursemarkerLIKEwhichoccurinexamples.

    2 This terminology is adopted from Buchstaller (2008), and Buchstaller and D’Arcy(2009)whohaveapproached the analysisofbe like as anopportunity to studyhowgloballyavailablefeaturesareadaptedduringimplementationinlocalsystems.Asthe

  • MartinSchweinberger

    2

    serve in evaluating the stability of sociolinguistic mechanisms in distinctcontactscenarios.Hence,thepresentinvestigationaddressesquestionssuchas:Howdo linguistic featuresspreadthroughoutspeechcommunities?Whopromoteslinguisticchange?Whichgroupsadoptnewfeaturesmorereadily?AresomevarietiesofEnglishintegratingincomingfeaturesmorequicklythanothers,andifso,why?DocertaincommunitiesrejectLIKEduetoitsideologicalassociationwiththeUnitedStates?

    VernacularusesofLIKEareidealforansweringthesekindsofquestions.The discourse marker LIKE is highly frequent and almost universal,particularlyamongyoungerspeakers;itisalsosyntacticallyoptionalandthusflexible,allowingrapidchange.Thesefeaturesarevaluableforthepurposeofobservinganddescribingtheglobalizationofvernacularfeatures,astheyalsoallowanevaluationof thestrengthandconsistencyof recurringpatterns inongoinglanguagechangeindiverseandmultilingualsettings.Theseattractivecharacteristicscoincidewithfeaturesofprototypicaldiscoursemarkersand,hence, determine LIKE’s status as a part of speech. In addition, thesecharacteristics render LIKE a perfect testing ground for studying theglobalizationofvernacularfeatures.

    Despitetheever‐growingamountofliterature,thediscoursemarkerLIKEhassofarnotbeeninvestigatedfromacross‐varietal,variationistperspectivewhichsystematicallysurveysusagepatternsacrossvarietiesofEnglish.Thisisremarkable, considering that a cross‐varietal analysis of multifunctionalvernacular forms “provides a unique opportunity to assess the complex

                                                                presentinvestigationissimilartothesestudieswithrespecttoitstheoreticaloutlookand methodological approach, the wording is adopted to avoid terminologicalconfusion.

  • ThediscoursemarkerLIKE:acorpus‐basedanalysisofselectedvarietiesofEnglish

    3

    interaction of social and discourse‐pragmatic correlates across the world’smanyvarietiesofEnglish”3(Tagliamonte&Denis2010:28).

    The current study aims to resolve this shortcoming by focusing on thesociolinguisticpatterning indistinct regionalvarietiesofEnglish inorder tounearth the sociolinguisticmechanismsof local adoption and embeddingofglobalinnovations–exemplifiedbyvernacularusesofLIKE.Toaddresstheseissuesandrelatedquestions,thisanalysisemploysamulti‐methodapproach(i.e.combiningquantitativeandqualitativemethodology)basedonlarge‐scale,comparable data sets (the ICE family of corpora) and advanced statisticalevaluation.

    Given that LIKE has become a salient feature in contemporary spokenEnglisharoundtheworld,itisrathersurprisingthatLIKEhassofarnotbeeninvestigated from a cross‐varietal perspectivewhich systematically surveysusagepatternsacrossvarietiesofEnglish.Consequently,theaimofthepresentstudyistosurveythevariety‐specificusagepatternsofthediscoursemarkerLIKEandtoretraceitsspreadacrosstheworld.Furthermore,thisstudywillre‐assessthepragmaticfunctionsassociatedwithLIKEanditwilltestclaimsregardingtheuseofLIKEbyspeakersdifferinginageandgender.

    Althoughthestudyofthelinguisticbehaviorisbasedona“sizeableamount[sic.]ofcases,[theyare]scatteredacrossthefewcommunitiesthathavebeenselectedforasociolinguisticstudy”(Labov2001:284).Althoughmorerecentstudieshavetakenalessanglo‐centricperspective,ongoingchangehassofaronly rarely been analyzed from a global perspective. In fact, mostsociolinguisticstudieshavefocusedonmonolingualsettings(cf.,forexample,Labov2001:518),whilethemorecommoncaseofmultilingualsettingshasforthe most part been neglected (Sture Ureland 1989:242‐245). The overallperspective is predominantly monolingual, and it stresses inner‐linguistic                                                            3 ThisassertionbyTagliamonteandDenis(2010)originallyreferstogeneralextenders

    and not to discourse markers, but it is also viable with respect to other discourse‐pragmaticfeatures.

  • MartinSchweinberger

    4

    processes,assumingthatcontact issecondaryandofminorimportance.Thepresentstudyaddressesthisshortcomingbyprovidingadetailedanalysisofongoing language change within eight geographically distinct varieties ofEnglish.

    With respect to the structure of the current investigation, the presentchapter introduces theoverall contextandpresents the issuesaddressed inthis analysis of vernacular uses of LIKE, while chapter 2 is dedicated todescribingthetheoreticalunderpinningsofthisresearch.Accordingly,chapter2 introduces the basic variationist concepts, provides a brief overview ofcontemporary sociolinguistic theory, and explains essential mechanisms oflanguage change and variation. Thus, it provides the theoretical frameworkemployedtosummarize,discuss,andinterpretthefindingsinchapters6,and7.

    Chapter3focusesondiscoursemarkersingeneralandLIKEinparticular.Hence, this chapter deals with definitions and typical features of discoursemarkers toascertainwhether it is justifiable toclassifyspecific instancesofLIKE as a discourse marker. Although this may seem trivial, it is not: forexample, if the instances in (2) show, LIKE does not always behave like aprototypicaldiscoursemarker:incontrasttoothertypicaldiscoursemarkers,suchasyouknow,Imean,well,soetc.,itappearstobemoredeeplyintegratedintosyntacticstructureandmayatleastincertaincontextsberegardedasaborderlinecasebetweendiscoursemarkerandquotativecomplementizerasin(2b)or,accordingtoAndersen(1997:379),betweendiscoursemarkerandadverbial(asin(2c)).

    (2) a. Uh there is there was like another company that did ribbons strippedribbons.(ICEJamaica:S1B‐072$C)

    b. [A]ndIwaslikeforgetit.(ICECanada:S1A‐022#B) c. I ran away for like five days for almost aweek I stayed atmy friend’s

    house...(ICEPhilippines:S1A‐047$B)

    Chapter4presentstheorieswhichdealwiththehistoricaldevelopmentofLIKE. Inparticular, thischapterdiscussesmodelsofgrammaticalizationand

  • ThediscoursemarkerLIKE:acorpus‐basedanalysisofselectedvarietiesofEnglish

    5

    pragmaticalizationputforthintherespectiveliterature.ItsurveystherelevantliteratureonLIKEanddepictsfunctionallydistinctusesofLIKEasdiscussedparticularlyindiscourse‐pragmaticanalyses.Althoughitmayappearthatalluses of LIKE are realizations of a single, underlying form, a fine‐grainedanalysesprovideamoredetailedpicture(e.g.Andersen2000;D’Arcy2007).Indeed,LIKEappearstobeofamultifacetednature(cf.D’Arcy2007:391‐397)comprising a heterogeneity of functionally distinct useswhich occur underspecific conditions and in rather well circumscribed contexts (e.g. D’Arcy2005:ii; Tagliamonte2005:1897).Depending on the linguistic context, LIKEfulfillsavarietyof(pragmatic)functions.Section4.7exemplifiesthefunctionalandpositionaldiversityofLIKEandprovidesaclassificationwhichallowsthesystematizationofseeminglyunrelatedinstancesofLIKE.

    Chapter5concernsitselfwithissuesrelatedtothedataandmethodologyof the present analysis. In particular, the database deserves additionalattention: it illustrates how the ICE can be utilized to serve as a valuableresourceforsociolinguisticanalysesofongoingchange.

    In order for the ICE to be helpful for variationist studies, it had to becomputationallyprocessed.TheresultingeditedversionoftheICEmatchestherequirementsoffine‐grainedsociolinguisticresearch,astheexactwordcountsforeachindividualspeakerareextracted.IncontrasttopreviousstudiesbasedontherespectiveICEcomponents,thesewordcountsallowthecalculationoftherawfrequencyofinnovationsinthespeechofeachspeaker.Inturn,theseraw frequencies can be transformed into normalized frequencies (e.g. per‐1,000‐word frequencies) which guarantee maximal comparability. Whileprevious studies have mainly been concerned with regional variation,elaboratecomputationalprocessingexpandstheversatilityoftheICEdataandenablesresearchevenonthelevelofindividualspeakers.

    The edited version of the ICE consists of text files comprising onlyutterances of one particular speaker. As the teams compiling the ICEcomponentsprovidedextensiveinformationoftheindividualspeakers,each

  • MartinSchweinberger

    6

    individualized sub‐component has been assigned to various sociolinguisticattributesof thespeaker.Whenretrievingthe instancesofLIKE, itwasthuspossible to retrace the age, gender, occupation, and L1 of the speakerproducing this instance. In addition, itwaspossible to retrievewhether theinformantspeaksotherlanguages,e.g.GermanorSpanish,whereheorshehasbeenbroughtup,andexactlywherethespeakernowlives.Accordingly,ithasbeenpossibletoassigneachtokenofLIKEtoamultitudeofsociolinguisticallyrelevant variables. For example, a certain occurrence of LIKE can now beattributedtoaspeakeraged26to33whoispursuinganacademiccareer,livesnotinNorthernIrelandbutintheRepublicofIreland,andspeaksEnglishashisfirstlanguage.Althoughthisapproachisextremelyintriguing,particularlywithrespecttotheanalysisofthesociolinguisticdistributionofcertainformsin regionally and culturally diverse settings, it has a notable deficiency: thespeakerinformationdidnotalwayscovertheentirespectrumoffeatures,orwasevenentirelymissingforcertainspeakers.Insuchcases,theinstancesofsuchspeakershadtoberemovedfromtheanalysis,insomecasesleavingonlyarelativelysmallnumberofspeakersinthedataset.

    Thisrepresentsavaluable innovation, since theresultingdatamayofferintriguingopportunitiesforstudyingongoingchangeonthemicro‐level,i.e.onthelevelofindividualspeakers.Hence,theincreaseinversatilityoffersahighlyaccurate depiction of regionally distinct usage patterns. In this sense, theregionallydistinctICEcomponentsrepresentidealresourcesforcross‐varietalanalyses and satisfy the need for bothmatching data sets and comparablemethodsasexpressedbyBuchstallerandD’Arcy:“Whatisneeded,therefore,arereliableandcomparablemethodsappliedrigorouslyanduniformlyacrossdatasetstouncoverwhichconstraintsholdbothacrossandwithinvarietiesofEnglishworldwide”(2009:298).

    Nonetheless, the analysis of LIKE in geographically distinct localesmayserveasacaseinpointforhowICEcomponentsmayserveasresourcesforfutureresearchinsociolinguistics. Indeed,theyrepresent idealdatabasesas

  • ThediscoursemarkerLIKE:acorpus‐basedanalysisofselectedvarietiesofEnglish

    7

    they offer awide variety of extra‐linguistic variables and represent variousregisterspairedwithamatchingdesign.

    Chapter6surveystherelativefrequenciesofLIKEinthecombineddata,focusingon and comparing theuseof LIKEacross varieties ofEnglish.Thiscross‐varietalsurveydisplaysdifferencesofboththeoverallfrequencyandthefunctionally distinct uses of LIKE. In addition, this chapter provides apreliminaryanalysisoftheglobalgenderandagedistributionofLIKEtogaininsightintogeneraltendenciesofitsuse.

    Chapter 7 represents the core of the present analysis, as it evaluatescorrelations between functionally distinct uses of LIKE and extra‐linguisticsocialvariablessuchasageandgender.Therelevantaspect for thepresentstudyis,however,notthemereexistenceofsuchcorrelations,butthefactthattheyareindicativeofspecificstagesofongoinglanguagechange.Asspecificphasesofchangeareprototypicallyassociatedwithdistinctdegreesofgenderdifferentiation(Labov2001:307‐308)andagestratification(Labov2001:449),thedistributionofinnovationsacrossagegroupsandtheirdegreeofgenderdifferentiation,informaboutwhetheracertainvariantiscurrentlyundergoingchange,andifso,atwhichstageofchangeitcanbelocated.Hence,basedoncorrelations between the use of LIKE and extra‐linguistic variables, it ispossibletoprovideafine‐grainedaccountofthesociolinguisticdistributionofLIKE within regionally distinct varieties of English. Indeed, contemporarysociolinguistictheoryutilizesthesociolinguisticprofilesofinnovativevariantstodrawinferencesaboutthetrajectoryoftheongoingchange.Thecrucialpointhereisthatthetrajectoryofchangeprovidesinformationnotonlyaboutthetypeofchange,butalsoaboutthesubsectionofspeakersresponsiblefor“thefascinatingspreadoftypesofusesof like (Labov,personalcommunication)”(Fox&Robles2010:716).

    This assumption that the distribution of innovative forms allows far‐reachinginferencestobedrawnabouttrajectoriesofchangeis,however,notwithout problems. This criticism is particularly relevant with respect to

  • MartinSchweinberger

    8

    analyses of language change which are based solely on the apparent‐timeconstructwhichhasbeenessentialtosociolinguisticanalysesforover50years(Baileyetal.1991:241).Thebasicassumptionunderlyingtheapparent‐timeconstruct is that the linguistic behavior of older speakers reflects earlierhistoricalstagesofthelinguisticsystem.Thispremiseisnottrivial.Althoughamonotonicpattern(anear‐linearrecessinusewithincreasingage)commonlyreflects ongoing change, emerging monotonic patterns in apparent‐timeanalysesrequireadditionalinspectionfromareal‐timeperspective.Withoutreal‐time confirmation, issues relating to the exact type of change – age‐grading, generational change, communal change (Labov 2001:76) – remainunresolved. In other words, whether a given distribution represents age‐gradingorchangeinprogress“canonlybedeterminedbycomparingtheusageof speech communities at two points in time. Only then can we tell ifcontemporaryvariation,orwhatwemightcall‘changeinapparenttime’isastageinlongtermchange,or‘changeinrealtime’”(Romaine2005:1702).

    This problem arises because the apparent‐time construct relies on theassumption that once theuseof a certain form is fully acquired, it remains“essentiallyfixedorstaticoverthecourseofthelifetimesof[…]individuals”(Tagliamonte&D’Arcy2009:61).However,TagliamonteandD’Arcypointoutthat “[t]here is an increasing body of research […] documenting ongoingchange throughout the lifespan” (2009:61). To address this difficulty, thepresentstudycomplementstheapparent‐timeresultswithanadditionalreal‐timeanalysis,whenthedatapermits.

    Chapter8isdedicatedtotheinterpretationofthefindingswithrespecttore‐tracingboththespreadofLIKEacrosstheworld,anditsdiffusionthroughlocal speech communities and global spread. In addition to discussing thefindings in light of previous research onLIKE, chapter 0 sheds light on theinteraction between (universal) mechanisms of language change and theculturaldiversityoflocalpractices.

  • ThediscoursemarkerLIKE:acorpus‐basedanalysisofselectedvarietiesofEnglish

    9

    Finally,chapter9presentstheconclusionsdrawnfromthepresentanalysisandprovidesanoutlookforfurtherresearch.

    In summary, the present analysis focuses on systematic correlationsbetweentheuseofthediscoursemarkerLIKEandextra‐linguisticvariablesingeographicallydistinctlocales.Thus,theinvestigationsetsouttoanalyzethesociolinguistic mechanisms underlying use of LIKE, and employs bothapparent‐timeandreal‐timedatatoretraceLIKE’shistoricaldevelopment.Toaccount for thedifferences in theusagepatternsofLIKEacrossvarietiesofEnglish, the study employs a multi‐method approach, i.e. combiningquantitativeandqualitativemethodology.Thecross‐varietalsectionemploysmultifactorial statistical evaluation of the frequencies of LIKE occurring invarious grammatical environments. This quantitative, empirical analysis isbasedonlargematchingdatacollections–theICEfamilyofcorpora.

  • MartinSchweinberger

    10

    2 LanguagechangeandvariationThefollowingchapterprovidesanddiscussesthetheoreticalframeworkofthisstudy and familiarizes the reader with crucial concepts of modernsociolinguistic theory of language variation and change. In addition topresentingtheseconcepts,thefocusofthischapterliesondiscussingfindingswhich form the empirical basis of these concepts. The chapterwill proceedfrommoregeneralissues,suchaswhatlanguagechangereferstoandhowitisaffectedbyglobalization,toconceptsspecifictoaLabovianunderstandingofmechanisms underlying language variation and change such as age‐gradingand communal change. Furthermore, the chapter will discuss prominentapproachesused todetectongoing change, suchas apparent‐timeand real‐timeanalyses,andextra‐linguisticfactorsthataffectongoingchangesuchasgender,age,andprestige.

    2.1 Introduction

    The studyofLIKE isneither anend in itself, nor is itprimarily intended toprovideasynchronicprofileofLIKEuseacrossandwithinvarietiesofEnglish.Rather,itservestoexemplifyandtestmoregeneralmodelsandmechanismsoflanguagechange.Sofar,studieshavefocusedalmostexclusivelyonchangewithin single communities in rather limited geographical areas. In order toaddressthisshortcoming,thecurrentinvestigationattemptstorecreatehowLIKEenteredthevariousvarietiesofEnglish.Thus,ittakesaglobalperspectiveonthesociolinguisticpatternsoflanguagechange,withtheaimofevaluatingthefeatureswhichreflectuniversalpatternsofchangeandcontrastingthesewithfeatureswhicharevariety‐specificanddisplayrestrictionsonuniversalmechanismsbyavarietyofspecificconditions.

  • ThediscoursemarkerLIKE:acorpus‐basedanalysisofselectedvarietiesofEnglish

    11

    2.2 Languagechange

    Language is by nature dynamic, and thus change is ever present (Hickey2001:1).Itfollowsthat languageisnotahomogenousentity,butconstitutesheterogeneousforms.Nevertheless,thisheterogeneityisnotrandom;itisan“orderlyheterogeneity”(Weinreich,Labov&Herzog1968:100),allowingthescientificendeavortounearthgeneralpatternswithinseeminglyirrationalorunpredictable processes underlying linguistic behavior (cf. Labov 1994:10).The search for stable patterns of linguistic variation constitutes the aim ofvariationistapproachestolanguage.Theobjectofmodelsforlanguagechangeis thusuncovering themechanisms throughwhichvariationand itsgeneraltrendsarise.

    Inviewofthisendeavor,thestudyofthediscoursemarkerLIKEdoesnotintendtoprovidemerelyasynchronicprofileofLIKEuseacrossandwithinvarieties of English, but it exemplifies and tests more general models andmechanismsof language change.Hence, this investigationprovides a globalperspectiveonlanguagechangeandvariation,andaddressesquestionssuchashow linguistic innovationsspreadaroundtheworldby identifyingwhichsocialgroupsandfactorsadvocateongoingchange.Sofar,studieshavefocusedalmostexclusivelyonchangewithineithersinglecommunities,oramoderateset of varieties within rather limited geographical boundaries. In order toaddressthisshortcoming,thepresentinvestigationtakesaglobalperspectiveonthesociolinguisticpatternsoflanguagechangewiththeaimofevaluatingwhichfeaturesreflectuniversalpatternsofchangeandwhichareconstrainedbyvariety‐specificconditions.

    The aimof discovering general laws of linguistic change and separatingthesefromfeaturesofchangebestattributedtochanceisbynomeansarecentdevelopment. Throughout the past century, starting with Gauchat’s (1905)studyofongoingphonologicalchangeintheSwissFrenchvillageofCharmey,a growing body of research has provided a detailed account of trends andprinciplesunderlyingseeminglyrandomchangesoflinguisticbehavior.Such

  • MartinSchweinberger

    12

    generalprincipleswouldallowthepredictionthatchange,onceinitiated,“willmovethroughthespeechcommunityinauniformfashion”(Labov2010:184).

    Themechanismsbywhichnewformsareintroducedandpromotedwithinspeechcommunitiesareinextricablylinkedwiththeidentificationofthesociallocation of innovators. Knowledge of the social location of these speakersallows one to investigate the role of factors such as socioeconomic status,gender, age and ethnicity on the transmission, incrementation, andcontinuationofchange(cf.Labov2001:xiv).Hence, theanalysisofvariableswhich allow linguistic behavior to be reconstructed and subsequentlypredictedhasbecomeoneofthekeyaimsofrecentsociolinguisticapproachestowards understanding the underlying general mechanisms of languagechangethroughoutthelastcentury.

    The fact that language, like everything else in nature, is constantlyundergoingchange,transformationandrenewalis,however,oftenconsideredadestructiveforceresultingindecayorcorrosionandleadingtoaninferior,lessperfectstateoflanguagebybothscholarsandlaymen(Aitchison2001:4‐14).

    A language may become greatly altered and excessive prevalence of thewearing out processes, abandoning much which in other languages isretainedandvalued.Itisnecessarythatwetakenoticeofthedisorganizinganddestructiveworkingsofthistendency.(Whitney1904:75)

    The‘GoldenAge’principle,i.e.theassumptionthatlanguageiscontinuouslydecaying,hasledtotheviewthatlanguagechangeis“anunmixedevil”(Labov2001:30),andencouraged linguists toblameproponentsofchange for theircorruptinginfluenceanddemandedthatsocialactionbetaken.

    Suchphoneticchanges[…]areinevitableandcreepinonthemselves;butthisisonlyanotherwayofsayingthatwedonotknowwho inparticular istoblameforthem.Offensesmustcome,butthereisalwaysthatmanbywhomtheycome,couldwebutfindhimout.(Whitney1904:34)

  • ThediscoursemarkerLIKE:acorpus‐basedanalysisofselectedvarietiesofEnglish

    13

    Thenegativeevaluationoflanguagechangeappearstobepartofthehumancondition, as lamentation about the decay of language andmorals of everyyoungergenerationisprobablyasoldaslanguageitself.Ithassparkedmanyattemptstouncoveritsmechanismsandprovideexplanatorymodels.Onlyinthe latter half of the twentieth century have scholars emphasized positiveexplanationsoflanguagechange–Chambers(1995),forexample,hasstressedthepositiveaspectsofvariation(cf.Labov2001:191).

    2.3 Globalization,localpracticeandthediffusionofLIKE

    The most fundamental issue addressed in the present research relates toadoptionandembeddingofgloballyavailableinnovationsintolocalizedspeechcommunities. Inotherwords, this investigationexplores the implicationsofglobalization for contemporary concepts of sociolinguistic theory:“globalizationforcessociolinguists[…]torethinkitselfasasociolinguisticsofmobile resources, framed in terms of trans‐contextual networks, flows andmovements” (Blommaert 2010:1). Globalization in the present context is,hence,definedas:

    a multidimensional set of processes that create, multiply, stretch, andintensifyworldwide social interdependencies and exchangeswhile at thesametimefosteringinpeopleagrowingawarenessofdeepeningconnectionsbetweenlocalandthedistant(Steger2003:13).

    Indeed,overthepastfewyears,speechcommunitiesinculturallydiversesettings have increasingly gained attention among scholars in general, andsociolinguistsinparticular(cf.Buchstaller&D’Arcy2009:293).However,thisglobalizedsettingandtheimpactofsupra‐localflowsonlocalsystemsrequireadjustingmethodologicalandtheoreticalconcepts.

    Meyerhoff and Niedzierlski (2003)were among the first to address therelation between effects of globalization (or more specifically,Americanization), i.e. supra‐local trends, and their implementation in local

  • MartinSchweinberger

    14

    systems. What they observed was, however, not a uniform trend towardsstandardization,ase.g.Hjarvard(2004)suggests,butthat“globalizationhasbeen found to be accompanied by increased localization” (Meyerhoff &Niedzierlski 2003:535). This finding contrasts with previous studies whichsuggested that “[l]anguage itself is seen as essentially unaffected byglobalization (culture, society, and so on), and globalization is seen as justanothercontextinwhichlanguageispracticed,anewoneatbest”(Blommaert2010:2).

    Commonly,sociolinguisticanalyseshaveviewedthediffusion4oflinguisticvariantsasspreadingoutward fromamajoreconomicorculturalepicenter.While this poses less of a problem when regionally adjacent speechcommunities are concerned, diffusion across non‐continuous geographicsettings is more complex (Buchstaller & D’Arcy 2009:291). Meyerhoff andNiedzierlski(2003)pointtoaveryintriguingaspectoftrans‐nationalspread:following Audretsch (2000:73) they hypothesize that complex meanings ofvariables spread “only if there is face‐to‐face, quality contact betweenindividuals”(2003:537),whileonlyfairlysuperficialaspectsoftheinnovationare transferred if personal contact is notably limited (cf. Meyerhoff &Niedzierlski2003:538‐539).Mostsociolinguisticanalyses–inparticularthosediscussed in Labov (2001:228) – assume face‐to‐face contact as theprototypicalscenarioincasesofdiffusionandshowthattheinfluenceofmassmediaislimitedorevennegligible:

    Auniformincreaseincontactwithotherdialectsmayalsobeaneffectofthemassmedia.Butalloftheevidencegeneratedinthisvolumeandelsewherepointstotheconclusionthatlanguageisnotsystematicallyaffectedbythe

                                                                4 There are two distinct definitions of diffusion in contemporary sociolinguistics. One

    referstotheprocessofalinguisticelemententeringpreviouslyconstrained(syntactic)environments(cf.e.g.Bybee2002).Inthisstudy,diffusionisconsideredsynonymouswith the concept of spread and refers to a process of spreading from one speechcommunitytoanother.

  • ThediscoursemarkerLIKE:acorpus‐basedanalysisofselectedvarietiesofEnglish

    15

    mass media, and is influenced primarily in face‐to‐face interaction withpeers.(Labov2001:228)

    The hypothesis that mass media lack a substantial effect on languagechange rests on many studies conducted in American cities but also otherlocations, e.g. Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand (Tagliamonte2001:41). Most of these studies have, however, focused exclusively onphonologicalchangeanddismissspreadoflexicalinnovations.Withrespecttothe spread of lexical elements, Romaine (1994:34) shows that the lexicalinnovation “nerd”emerged inScandiinavia throughanAmericanmovieandconcludes:

    …thepossibilitiesforchangeofthistypeare indeedenormousnowadays,considering how much more mobile most people are, and how muchexposurepeopleget to speechnormsoutside their immediate communitythroughthemassmedia.(Romaine1994:34)

    Althoughmorerecentaccountsputstrongeremphasisonthemassmediaasamethodofdiffusion‐whichhassofarbeendisregarded(Hickey2003:360)‐ the effect of mass media on language change remains controversial.Tagliamonte,forinstance,summarizsesthecurrentstateofaffairsasfollows:

    In some cases, media language appears to faithfully reflect ambientcommunitynorms.Theformsandrankingofintensifiersvery,really,andsoin thetelevisionseriesFriendsmirroredreportedusage(TagliamonteandRoberts2005).However,astudyofquotativebelikeinAmericanfilmfoundneither sufficient tokens nor the patterns (i.e. constraints) that had beenconsistently reported in the literature (Dion and Poplack 2007). ThissuggeststhattherapidspreadofbelikeinNorthAmericawasnottheresultof,norinfluencedby,themedia.(Tagliamonte2011:41)

    MeyerhoffandNiedzielski(2003)similarlyassert thattherecognitionofconstraintsandthefunctionalityofinnovationsrelysuponqualityface‐to‐faceinteraction.IntheirvariationiststudyofbelikeinNZE,theyshowthatcasesofsuperficialcontact,asinthecaseofacquisitionviamassmedia,onlytransmits

  • MartinSchweinberger

    16

    superficialinformationabouttheinnovationathand(Meyerhoff&Niedzielski2003:537‐538). In cases of geographically non‐continuous or even remotevarieties, this implies that the variety‐specific functionality, positioning andattitudeswhichundergomoreseverere‐negotiationpresumablyleadtoratherdistinctusageprofilesandpositionaldistributions.Thecrucialpointhereistodifferentiatebetweentransmission,whichreferstonative‐languageacquisitionby children (cf. Labov 2010:307) and diffusion, which refers either moregenerallytothetransferoffeaturesfromonespeechcommunitytoanotheror,morespecifically,fromoneadultspeakertoanother(cf.Labov2010:308).Inmost cases of borrowing, the processes we observe are best described asdiffusionratherthantransmission,althoughtransmissionwilltakeplaceafterthe innovationhasbecomenativized.Another importantdifferencebetweentransmission and diffusion relates to the fact that transmission faithfullypreserves the language variation patterns while diffusion does not (Hazen2010:12).Incasesoftransmission, intra‐linguisticconstraintsarepreservedbecausechildrenreadily learnunderlyinggrammaticalusageconstraints: incasesofdiffusion,constraintsarelostbecauseadultsarenotapttolearntheunderlying grammar of innovations. This difference is crucial, as Labovconsidered the preservation of intra‐linguistic constraints during L1acquisitionasakeydifferencebetweendiffusionandtransmission(cf.Labov2007).

    Theimportantissueathandis,thus,notonlytoexplorewhichprocessesareatworkincasesofdiffusionfromonespeechcommunitytoanotherbutalsotoreviewwhichprocessesareatworkwhenlinguisticinnovationsdiffusethroughouttherespectivespeechcommunities.

    LIKE is an ideal item for investigating such processes; this vernacularfeatureiscommon,widespread,andcurrentlyundergoingrapidchangeasitspreadsthroughouttheEnglish‐speakingworld(Tagliamonte2005:1898).Inastudypursuingsimilarends,BuchstallerandD’Arcy(2009)hypothesizethat“globalinnovationsmustbeconsideredinlightoflocalsystemsintowhichtheyareadopted[…][andthat]theformandamountofcontactmustbecorrelated

  • ThediscoursemarkerLIKE:acorpus‐basedanalysisofselectedvarietiesofEnglish

    17

    withrespecttotheknowledgetransfertheyallow”(2009:291).Inotherwords,in cases of global diffusion (in this study synonymous with global spread)movingoutward fromanoriginal epicenter, the innovative features arenotsimply adopted, but their implementation is accompanied by re‐contextualization, re‐organization and re‐negotiation of their meaning (cf.Kachru 1992; Buchstaller & D’Arcy 2009:292‐294). These linguisticnewcomerstherebyundergotransformationandadaptationwheninterlopingintopragmaticnichesoftherespectivevarietiesasaresultofthesocialandlinguistic local underpinning. Consider Buchstaller and D’Arcy (2009:317‐318):

    [I]nsteadofsimplyacceptingorrejectinganinnovation,potentialadoptersare often active participants in the diffusion process, struggling to givemeaningtothenewideaasitisappliedtotheirlocalcontext.[…]Inotherwords,globalresourcesarenegotiatedinsituastheyareintegratedintopre‐existinglocalnormsandpractices.

    In Labovian terms, such processes constitute “contact across (national)communities inwhichspeakers(oftenadults)acquirenewvariants fromanoriginating community (i.e. diffusion; Labov 2007)” (Buchstaller & D’Arcy2009:291‐292).Thetheoreticalimplicationsofsuchscenariosareofparticularrelevancehere:howstablearesupra‐localoruniversaltrajectoriesconcerningthe diffusion of innovative forms through social strata in geographicallydistinct settings, and to what degree do such processes of adaptation andadjustmentleadtolocallydistinctpatternsofsocialstratification?

    FollowingBritain(2002:618),thereareatleastthreescenariosincasesofcontact between a global or supra‐local innovation and the norms andpractices of local speech communities: (i) wholesale adoption; (ii) flatrejection;or(iii)interactionbetweenthegloballyavailableformanditslocalimplementation. Investigating the mechanisms at work in such scenarios,Buchstaller (2008) aswell asBuchstaller andD’Arcy (2009)have indicatedthat linguistic elements arenot simplyborrowedor adoptedwholesale (i.e.

  • MartinSchweinberger

    18

    Britain’s(2002:618)firstscenario)buttheyundergore‐interpretationastheyareadaptedtothelocalsystems.ThissuggeststhatLIKE,whenimplementedinlocalsystems,undergoessimilarmodificationsleadingtoregionallydistinctusage patterns. Indeed, this not only applies to the linguistic elementsthemselves, but also to the attitudes attached to them.An attitudinal studyconducted onbe like in EngE byBuchstaller (2006b), for instance, stronglysuggests that “the adoption of global resources is amore agentive process,whereby attitudes are re‐evaluated and re‐created by speakers of theborrowing variety” (Buchstaller 2006b:362). Buchstaller’s (2006b) analysis,therefore,callsintoquestiontheuniversalityoftheassociationofvernacularuses of LIKE with female adolescents leaving room for regionally distinctassociationsbetweenLIKEandpossiblereferencegroupsandsocialcategories.In other words, the assumption that LIKE is generally associated with theCalifornia “Valley Girl” persona, as attested to by D’Arcy (2007) for NorthAmericanEnglish,maynothold forother regional varietiesofEnglish.This“reallocationof attitudes” (Buchstaller2006b:363),may impact thegender‐and age‐specific usage patterns leading to a diversity of variety‐specificdistributions.

    The increasing attention paid to the “sociolinguistic mechanisms ofglobalization” (Buchstaller 2008:15) poses an additional, albeit related,problem.Forthepastthirtyorsoyears,sociolinguisticstudieshavefocusedonmonolingual settings and do “not deal with influences thatmay stem fromdialect contact or the substrate effects of other mother tongues” (Labov2001:518). The more common case of linguistic and cultural diversity inmultilingual settings has for the most part been neglected (Sture Ureland1989:242‐245):

    Theoverallperspectiveisexcessivelymonolingualandonlyinner‐linguisticevolutionaryprocessesarestressed,assumingthatcontactissecondaryandof minor importance. […] It is a monolingual world without bilingual orbilectal speakers, in which each language or dialect functions completelyindependentlyofallotherlanguagesandlanguagevarieties.

  • ThediscoursemarkerLIKE:acorpus‐basedanalysisofselectedvarietiesofEnglish

    19

    Theunderlyingpremiseofamonolingualspeechcommunityis,however,moreoftenthannotfictitious,particularlyinsecondlanguagevarietiessuchasIndE.Thestabilityofrecurringpatternsinsociolinguisticdiffusionmayerodeif applied to different local systems in which innovative forms meetlinguisticallydiversesettingsandquitedifferentcompetingvariants.Acaseinpoint is Sankoff et al.’s (1997) study of discoursemarker use in a contactsituation.Indeed,Sankoffetal.(1997:213)foundthattheuseofFrenchcommeisverysuggestiveofinterferenceeffectsfromEnglishvernacularusesofLIKE.This implies that various issues relating to possible factors influencinglinguisticbehaviourhave,unfortunately,beenneglected.

    Beforediscussingpossible shortcomingsof contemporary sociolinguistictheory,letussurveyitsbasictheoreticalconceptsandmechanisms.

    2.4 Sociolinguisticvariationandchange

    Theaimofdiscoveringgenerallawsoflinguisticchangeisbynomeansrecent.Suchgeneralprincipleswouldallowonetopredictthatchange,onceinitiated,“will move through the speech community in a uniform fashion” (Labov2010:184).

    On a general level, two types of change can be distinguished insociolinguistics: (i) change from above and (ii) change from below. ThedistinctionbetweenaboveandbelowwasintroducedbyLabov(1966)inhisNewYorkCitystudy(Labov1966)andrefers“simultaneouslytothelevelofsocial awareness and position in the socioeconomic hierarchy” (Labov1994:78).

    “Changefromaboveisintroducedbythedominantsocialclass,oftenwithfull public awareness” (Labov 1994:78). Hence, this type of change is aconscious process involving the adoption of linguistic features due to theirstatusasprestigevariants.Borrowedlinguisticelementsarecommonlylexical,butalsoextendtophonologicalorsyntacticalfeaturesperceivedascarrying

  • MartinSchweinberger

    20

    prestige in the viewof the sociallydominant class. Theoccurrenceof theseprestige variants is, nevertheless, mostly restricted to careful speech“reflecting a superposed dialect learned after the vernacular is acquired”(Labov 1994:79). The connotations these words carry communicatemembershipinahighersocialmilieu,thusservinganaccommodativefunction.

    Changes frombelow are systematic changes operatingmostly below thelevelofsocialawareness.Itisonlywhensuchchangesarenearingcompletionthatthespeechcommunitybecomesawarethattheyhavebeentakingplace.Changes frombeloware,predominantly, introducedby social groupswhichcanbelocatedinthemiddleofthesocioeconomiccontinuumandinvolvethechangeoffeaturesduetolanguage‐internalcauses.

    Throughoutthepastthreedecades,variousstudieshaveexaminedthesetypesofchanges.Theamountofresearchhasresultedinamoredetailedandenlarged database which has subsequently led to a much better and moreaccurate understanding of the general trends and principles underlyinglinguistic change.With respect to the rate of change, the picturewhichhasemergedoverthepastyears,resemblesanS‐shapedcurvewhichappearstobeunderlyingmostchangesstudiedsofar.AnidealizedgraphicalrepresentationoftheS‐shapedcurveisprovidedinFigure1.

  • ThediscoursemarkerLIKE:acorpus‐basedanalysisofselectedvarietiesofEnglish

    21

    Figure1:S‐shapedcurverepresentingtherateofchange(cf.Labov2001:450)

    The S‐shaped curve indicates that change does not follow amonotonic,linear rate: the rate of change is rather slow initially, then increasesexponentiallyandfinallyslowsdownaftertheincomingformhasspreadandenteredmostenvironments.Indeed,thetrajectoryexpressedbytheS‐shapedcurve has given rise to the comparison between language change and thespreadofinfectiousdiseases.Inthissense,thediffusionoflinguisticformsisequivalenttoan“epidemicspreadthroughoutapopulation.Atfirst,onlyafewpersons are affected. Then, the disease or change picks upmomentum andfinally runs its course” (Romaine 2005:1698). Similar to the spread ofinfectious diseases, the explanation for the non‐linearity of change is theamountofexposureofspeakerstoincomingforms(cf.Labov1994:66):whilespeakersusinganoldformareonlyrarelyexposedtothenewforminitially,theamountofexposureincreasesassoonasmorespeakersadopttheincomingform, leading to an increased amount of exposure of “old‐form” users. Atmidpoint, the amount of exposure reaches a maximum and subsequently

  • MartinSchweinberger

    22

    decreasesas theconservative form isonly rarelyusedandexposure to thisvariantisreducedtoaminimum.

    According to Labov (1994), different intervals of the S‐shaped curverepresent five distinct phases of change which differ quantitatively withrespect to the percentage with which an incoming variant is used (cf.Nevalainen&Raumolin‐Brunberg2003:55):

    (i) Incipient below15percent(ii) Newandvigorous between15and35percent(iii) Mid‐range between36and65percent(iv) Nearingcompletion between66and85percent(v) Completed over85percent

    Moreover, thesephasescanbecharacterizedbydifferent levelsof socialstratificationandgenderdifferentiation.Forinstance,theincipientphaseandtheincomingformarenotyetassociatedwithacertainsocialreferencegroup.Thedistinctivefeaturesofincipientchangesarethatonlyafewspeakershaveadoptedtheincomingformandthatitsoveralluseisstillinfrequent.

    On the other hand, new and vigorous changes are marked by a rapidincrease in the respective variant and pronounced age‐grading, as theinnovativevarianthardlyexists in thespeechofolder. Inaddition,newandvigorouschangeshavecommonlynotbreachedthelevelofsocialawarenessand are thus “never referred to in discussions of languagewith communitymembers”(Labov1994:82).Duringthisphaseofchange,incomingformsareresponsive to social situations and show consistent patterns of socialevaluation,although theyarenotyetsubject tocorrection incareful speech(Labov 1994:82). During midrange, the rate of change begins to decrease,resulting in a lower degree of age‐grading. When changes are nearingcompletion, they are widely used, but show a notable degree of socialstratification.Theagecoefficientscontinuetodecreaseastheincomingvariantproceeds to intrude into the speech ofmore conservative speakers. Finally,onceachangeiscomplete,it“iscompletelybelowthelevelofsocialawareness”(Labov1994:79)andage‐gradingisdisappearing.

  • ThediscoursemarkerLIKE:acorpus‐basedanalysisofselectedvarietiesofEnglish

    23

    So far, the accountof linguistic changeandvariationhas focusedon thegeneraltendenciesofthespreadofformsitselfwhichisaccuratelyreflectedintheS‐shapedpatterndisplayedinFigure1.ButwhilethisS‐shapedcurveisaneat display, the complexity of processes underlying change substantiallyexceeds this rather sketchy pattern. Following Labov (2001:308), stages ofchange are characterized by specific gender differences in the rate of theincomingform.Thus,ifthegenderofspeakersandtheirlinguisticperformancearebothconsidered,thefive‐stagemodelpresentedabovecanberefinedtoshowsixdistinctstages:

    Instagezero,nogenderdifferenceistobeexpectedastheincomingformisnotyetassociatedwithareferencegroup–forexample,thevernacularofthefemalecaretaker.

    The first stage is identified as the phase in which an incoming form isassociatedwithaspecificreferencegroup,whiletheincomingformbeginstobeassociatedwithoneortheothergenderonlyduringthesecondstageofthechange.

    Initsthirdstage,genderdifferentiationtakesplaceas“malesinthelowersocialclassesshowaconsistentpatternofretreatingfromorresistingfemale‐dominatedchange”(Labov2001:308).Thereverseeffect,ontheotherhand,seems to be negligible as females appear not to retreat or resist male‐dominatedchange.

    Initsfourthstage,afirstgenerationaccelerationtakesplaceasthechildrenof youngmothers who have already acquired the incoming form enter thespeechcommunity.Maleslearntousetheparticularformandshowasharpincreaseinitsuse,whilefemalesshowsteadylinearprogressioninfrequency.Inotherwords, “[M]en are at the level of linguistic change characteristicoftheirmothers”(Labov2001:306‐307).

    Thefifthstageismarkedbyasecondgenerationacceleration,whenyoungmales – i.e. the children of stage twomothers – receive a second step‐wiseacceleration,whilefemalescontinuetoprogresslinearly.

  • MartinSchweinberger

    24

    In its sixth stage, the change approaches its completion and the genderdifferentiation weakens, but it will only disappear when the whole speechcommunity adopts the now mature and integrated form. If the form isassociatedwithaspecificsocialreferencecategory,however,itwilltypicallydevelop a linear alignmentwith this group or social class. In addition, onecommonlyobservesaninteractionbetweensocialclassandgender,meaningthat the degree of gender differentiation differs from class to class. Forexample,women tend touse lessovertly stigmatizednon‐standard featureswhilemalestypicallyshowhigherratesofovertlystigmatizednon‐standardfeatures.

    Tosummarize,mostprocessesofchangefollowageneralscheme:whileinitsinitialphase,changeproceedswithaverylowrate,increasingexponentiallyoncethelinguisticfeaturebecomesassociatedwithaspecificsocialgroup.Itisonlythenthatgenderdifferentiationsetsin,withfemalestakingtheleadinthemajorityofcaseswhilemalescommonly fail toadoptthenewfeature.Afteraboutonegeneration,whenthislinguisticfeaturehasspreadsufficientlyandexhibits substantial gender differentiation, the youngestmale group beginsadoptingthe incomingfeatureastheyacquirethe incomingformfromtheirfemale caretaker, i.e. inmost cases, theirmothers. At this point, the genderdifferencebeginstolevelout,whiletherateofchangebeginstodecreaseasinmost environments the incoming feature has replaced its competitors. Theadoptionofthefeaturebymalechildrenisrepeatedafteranothergeneration,leading to another rapiddecrease in gender differentiationwhichbegins todiminishasthechangenearscompletion.Thefeaturelosesitsassociationwithacertaingenderand,asaconsequence,thegenderdifferencewanesandwillsubsequentlydisappear.Finally,thechangeiscomplete,andtheincomingformhasintrudedintomostenvironments.Theremainingenvironmentswhichthenewformhasfailedtointrudeintoareoftencalques,i.e.environmentswhichresistchangeandbecomeidiomatic.

  • ThediscoursemarkerLIKE:acorpus‐basedanalysisofselectedvarietiesofEnglish

    25

    An idealized graphical representation of the resulting nearly linearprogression of female speakers and the step‐wise progression of malesincludingtherespectivephasesisprovidedinFigure2.

    Figure2:Six‐stagemodelofgenderrelationsinlinguisticchangefrombelow(cf.Labov2001:309)

    ThearrowsinFigure2toindicatethedirectionofinfluencegofromfemaletomale(cf.Labov2001:309).

    2.4.1 Real‐timeandapparent‐timeSofar,wehavediscussedhowchangeproceedsbutnottheda