Transcript Constant Rate Hypothesis, age-grading, and apparent time

Constant Rate Hypothesis,
Age-grading and Apparent Time
Construct
NWAV 31, Stanford University
October 13, 2002
Kenjiro Matsuda
Kobe Shoin Women's University
[email protected]
Apparent Time Construct
(Bailey et al. 1991)
• Classical method in Variationist
sociolinguistics
• Synchronic age difference -> Diachronic
change
• Ambiguity between REAL change and
age-grading (AG)
• Synchronic disambiguation: Possible?
Constant Rate Hypothesis (CRH)
(Kroch 1989)
• In language change, the rate of change is
uniform in all relevant linguistic contexts
• No faster/slower contexts in lang. change!
• Statistically speaking: Time and linguistic
contexts are independent to each other
• Evidence: Five syntactic changes
• Alternative model of change to Wave
Theory (Bailey 1973) or Markedness
Theory (Anderson 2001)
So what about ATC, AG and CRH?
• By logically extending CRH, one can at
least tell when it is not a change in
progress, resolving a part of ATC problem
• Key: Independence beween age and
contextual effect
• Extension of CRH also predicts two kinds
of AGs
Extending CRH: ECRH-I
In lang. change, time and linguistic contexts
are independent to each other (CRH)
Replace time with age
In lang. change, age and linguistic contexts
are independent to each other (Extended
Constant Rate Hypothesis, ECRH-I)
Extending CRH: ECRH-II
In language change, age and linguistic
contexts are independent to each other
(ECRH-I)
contraposition (p=>q, ~q=>~p)
If age and linguistic contexts are not independent
to each other (=interacting), it is not an instance
of language change (ECRH-II)
Predictions of ECRH
If age and linguistic contexts are
(i) independent to each other, then it is either
1. A change in progress or
2. Age grading (AG-I)
* ECRH does not have anything to say here!
(ii) interacting, then it is
Age-grading (AG-II)
Empirical Evidence for ECRH
• (i)-1: Independent and change
• Syntactic changes (Kroch 1989)
• Real-time studies (NLRI 1974, Labov 1994)
• Dialect differentiation (Cameron 1992)
• (i)-2: Independent and age-grading (AG-I)
• Zero-marking of (o) in Tokyo Japanese (Matsuda
1995, Fry 2002)
• (ii): Interacting and age-grading (AG-II)
• Aging effect of "ambiguous" -t ending in t/ddeletion (Guy and Boyd 1990)
Zero-Marking of (o) in Tokyo Japanese
(Matsuda 1995, Fry 2002)
100
90
% Zero-marking
80
Adults
Teens
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Adjacent
Non-Adj.
Adjacency
Ken-ga banana-o/ø tabeta
Ken-Nom banana-Acc ate
‘Ken ate bananas’
• Strongest factor:
Adjacency between Obj.
NP & verb
• Teens and adults
maintain difference by
adjacency
• Age & context are indep.
• Fits the prediction (i)-2
Guy and Boyd (1990)
Speakers gradually treat final -t in kept, wept, etc as a past tense
morpheme as they grow older => interaction between age
and context (fits the prediction ii)
Counterevidence against ECRH
• (ay) and (aw) in Martha's Vineyard (Labov
1963)
• AAVE copula deletion in Springfield, TX
(Cukor-Avila 1999)
X Interacting but change
(ay) and (aw) in Martha's Vineyard
• Different contextual effect on the centralization
of (ay) and (aw) by age:
“[F]or older speakers, internal constraints involved a
wide variety of phonetic factors; for the youngest
generation, these were resolved into a simple opposition
of following voiceless consonants against all other
environments. External environments interacted with
internal factors.” (Labov 1982: 52-3)
X Change but age/contextual effects
interacting
AAVE copula deletion in Springfield, TX
• Different syntactic constraint ranking by age:
Pre-WWII Generation:
Participial > Stative Adj. > Non-stative Adj.
Post-WWII Generation:
Non-stative Adj. > Participial > Stative Adj
X Change but age & contextual effect
interacting
Accounting for Counterevidence
• Existence of internal/external situations
encouraging reinterpretation:
– Martha's Vineyard: Numerous phonetic factors and
transmission of the change across ethnic groups
– Springfield: Ambiguity of non-stative adjective
• Reinterpretation made the process simpler or
more transparent for the speaker
• ECRH is valid only when there is no
reinterpretation in the process
Two Kinds of Age-Grading
• AG-I
– "Classical" age-grading cases
– Increasing use of stigmatized form by adolescents
– Co-occurs w/change in progress (Labov 2001)
=> Predicted by ECRH
• AG-II
– Not treated as AG in the past, but show clear agecorrelation
– Social evaluation = neutral (unconscious)
– Similar example in Wolfram (1969)
– Period?
• Paucity of actual AG cases (Chambers 1995)
Conclusion
• Typology of Change/AG's:
– ECRH at least can predict cases that cannot be
change in progress
– ECRH also correctly predicts two types of Agegrading (AG-I & II), with AG-I co-occurring with
ongoing change
– Need for more detailed analysis of AG’s
• Exception: Reinterpretation cases
AG is a goldmine, not a wasteland!