Answers to Exercises
Chapter 1
1.1 Spotting linguistic variables
Q1 a, variable deontic modality, i.e. have got to/have to; d, variable relative pronoun, i.e. what/who; j, variable future temporal reference, i.e. gonna/will
Q2 relative “what”, past reference “come”, non-3rd singular “s”, demonstrative “them”, etc.
Q3 a, b, c, g, I
Q4 f
1.2 The variable context
Q1 I think[IN] he met me; I think,[OUT] and I was sitting; I think[IN] she won the waterloo-cup; I think[OUT] She stood about two birds; island I think[OUT] really; You-know. I think[IN] they would
Chapter 2
2.1 Tips on interpreting sociolinguistic patterns
No answers are required for this exercise
2.2 Identifying sociolinguistic patterns
Q1 gradient stratification
Q2 stability
Q3 e
Q4 a
Q5 c
2.3 Interpreting sociolinguistic patterns
Q1 Notice that there is little difference amongst the working classes, except on (h) variable
Q2 The MMC use RP variants more
Q3 There is a clear break between the social classes, therefore, sharp stratification
Q4 This is where the biggest gap is
Q5 The frequency of [ø] is much lower. Virtually nonexistent amongst the middle classes. The others are fairly frequent across the board. It is the only variable where the UWC straddles between the classes – MMC/LMC and MWC/LWC
Q6 Hardly at all. The only difference is that [N] seems to be less stigmatized amongst the middle classes than [n] and [ø]
Q7 Further information on the speakers, e.g. age, sex, education, as well as on the data collection method, method of analysis, etc. Mean vs. individual behaviour, etc.
Chapter 3
3.1 Identifying linguistic patterns
Q1 b
Q2 d
Q3 c
Q4 a
Q5 fixin’ to – because the frequency changes from oldest to youngest speakers suggest that there is ongoing development in the tense/aspect system of this variety of English; because “fixing to” is a good example of a change from lexical item to grammatical marker
3.2 Interpreting linguistic patterns
Q1 (a) rising frequency of have got over time, linguistic change in progress
(b) maintenance of constraint across time, the constant rate effect
Q2 (a) decreasing frequency of have to in apparent time, linguistic change in progress
(b) leveling of constraints across time, i.e. grammaticalization
Chapter 4
Please note: there are no exercises in this chapter.
Chapter 5
5.1 Interpreting variable rule analysis tables
Q1 Strong verb morphology, marked vs. not marked. The unmarked variant is also referred to as the “stem form”, e.g. take
Q2 The stem form, i.e. unmarked form, e.g. come, run, see, find, etc.
Q3 The overall propensity is measured by the CORRECTED MEAN at the top of each analysis in the table. It may also be referred to as the INPUT PROBABILITY or INPUT WEIGHT
Q4 All three. Verb class, temporal disambiguation and verbal aspect are all significant at the .05 level. This is calculated by the program
Q5 The answer to this question requires you to look at which of the factors included in the analysis has the largest RANGE. Note that or each Community, this is VERB CLASS. For SE the range is 45, compared to 28, 17, and 11. For ESR the range is 62, compared to 30, 26 and 0. For NPR the range is 63, compared to 49, 36, and 33, etc.
Q6 Class 1 verbs highly favor zero marking. The other classes disfavor. Further, given the comparative perspective (you can compare this result across analyses for each community)… the position of Class 2 vis-á-vis Class 3 is inconsistent. In some varieties Class 2 holds the second ranked position (SE, NPR); in others it holds the third ranked position (ESR, GYE, but not by much here!, and GYV)
Q7 They are remarkably similar. Although the factor weights have different values, the constraint ranking is the same for each factor group for each variety, except for ONE slight difference in one variety. Can you spot it?
5.2 Mixed effects models
Q1 Pronominal recipient, pronominal theme and givenness of theme
Q2 Givenness of recipient
Q3 Semantic class
Chapter 6
6.1 Interpreting comparative analyses across datasets
Q1 c
Q2 d
Q3 a
Q4 d
Q5 b
6.2 Strong transfer, weak transfer or calquing
Q1 The constraint rankings differ. In Bislama, the ranking shows a split between the case where there is an object present in the prior clauses versus not present. Not present in the prior clauses is the only context in which free pronoun or NP is strongly favored. In Tamambo, the cut is more subtle. If the referent in the prior clauses is not a subject or an object, then the object is less likely to be null
Q2 It goes in the opposite direction
Q3 In both Tamambo and Bislama, the strongest constraint on the variable was the grammatical role of the referent in the prior clause, and the second strongest constraint was whether the referent would be considered an alienable or inalienable possession. There were no other significant factors on either language
Q4 Strong transfer
Q5 They are borrowings. Poplack and Budzhak-Jones (1997: 251)
Chapter 7
7.1 Identifying phonological variables
Q1 The male uses more glottal stops than the female. Two syllable words are more likely to have glottal stops
7.2 Interpreting phonological variables
Q1 Age, with a range of 43
Q2 Young people highly favour the incoming form [/]
Q3 Three syllable words
Chapter 8
8.1 Identifying morpho-syntactic variation
Q1 Answer: regularization of present tense “be” in plural existential constructions, e.g. there are; there’s forty-five; there’s a lot; there’s a lot. NOTE: “there’s like a condo” is not a token because it is singular. The variable comprises plural existentials only
Q2 3 are regularized to contracted “is”, 3/4, 75%
Q3 use of “like” occurs 7 times “like I saw”; “there’s like a condo”; “like yeah”; “like forget”
8.2 Spotting Linguistic Variables
Q1 The tokens are:
1. Gets in
2. Playing bingo
3. Won
4. Got all these things, great
5. Run out
6. Got mi foot out the fire-bucket
7. Got a taxi home at the finish
Q2 Realization of the subject varies: overt vs. non-overt subjects
Q3 have vs. ‘ve got: I have no money pet, but I’ve got an interesting life
Q4 lack of plural marker a few yearØ; lack of preposition, I went the bingo; use of “mi” as subject pronoun, e.g. mi husband; referring to people as our Sharon; I says; strange prepositions, e.g. I hurt mi ankle through it; over the road
8.3 Interpreting morpho-syntactic variables
Q1 a, b
Q2 c
Q3 c
Q4 a
Q5 b
Chapter 9
9.1 Identifying discourse pragmatic variables
Q1 Code for whether “like” occurs within the clause or outside of it:
within clause or independent of clause
C clausal Have you actually like translated it and stuff?
I independent
(i.e. does not modify specific sentence element)
Erm. well like, I usually take the train about twenty past.
9.2 Interpreting discourse pragmatic variables
Q1 be like only
Q2 think and say significantly; be like but not non-significant (trend only)
Q3 say and think (barely). The interesting thing about British English is that males all tend toward use of every quotative except for be like
Q4 go is highly favoured amongst Canadian males
Q5 Canadian males strongly favour go while in Britain females strongly favour be like
Chapter 10
10.1 Identifying tense/aspect variables
Q1 Alternation between historical present/simple past; what is going on with the present progressive?; use of preterite “he got” (as opposed to perfect “has gotten”) in line aa; use of “up” in lines b, e and o – notice supertoken in line e with “climbing up” and line I with “climbing”. Does the repetition have anything to do with it?
10.2 Preamble: Variable (habitual) in York English
Q1 There seems to be a extra-sentential structure to the variants. The form “used to” seems to appear first, followed by “would”. There is variation between full and contracted forms of “would”. Contractions are in the majority.
10.3 Interpreting tense/aspect variables
Q1 used to, 675/1592, 42%
Q2 The analysis confirms that “used to” is favoured at the beginning of a habitual sequence (at .56) and “would” shows a tendency to be used for middle clauses. This is the same pattern that is observed in the examples in Example 10.32a–b. Further, each of the forms seems to have a favoured spot in the discourse of habitual sequences, as indicated by the shaded probabilities.
Q3 It looks like the same pattern obtains in Toronto. This would, of course, have to be tested to know for sure.
Chapter 11
11.1 Identifying unusual variables
Q1 6/23, 26%
Q2 Speaker A
Q3 bad 3/4, or 75%
Q4 Yes. Speaker A intensifies bad, 3/4, 75%; Speaker B intensifies bad 2/5, 20%
Q5 bad 3/4, or 75%, both really and so
Q6 1. The younger speaker intensifies more. They younger speaker has more varied intensification. Both really and so. The older speaker intensifiers less and has only one intensifier very.
Q7 Use of intensifiers is constantly changing not only in terms of (1) frequency but also (2) lexical preference. In other words, (1) younger people use more intensifiers overall; but (2) they also use very different intensifiers, e.g. younger people use more really. Older people use more very
Q8 so
11.2 Finding unusual (not boring!) variables
Q1 preterite “come” and “run”; non-standard agreement with “was” and “is”; regularized past partiicple, e.g. “took”; demonstrative “them”; intensifier “right”; Note the “you was”! General extenders “or something”, “an everything”; subject drop; variable “ing” in “billin’”; zero relative pronoun; “long” instead of “along”; “got” passive; Canadian “eh”!; bare habituals, “they skate on it, they drain it”
Q2 “you see”, “I guess”, “well”, “there”, “right”, “just”, “oh yeah”
Q3 I don’t know… yet!