<b>Explanations in Sociosyntactic Variation</b> . Ed. By Tanya Karoli Christensen and Torben Juel Jensen. (Studies In Language Variation and Change.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022. Pp. xv, 210. ISBN: 9781108492843. $110 (Hb).

Reviewed by: Explanations in sociosyntactic variation ed. by Tanya Karoli Christensen and Torben Juel Jensen James A. Walker Explanations in sociosyntactic variation. Ed. by Tanya Karoli Christensen and Torben Juel Jensen. (Studies in language variation and change.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022. Pp. xv, 210. ISBN 9781108492843. $110 (Hb). Since the sociolinguistic variable was first extended ‘above and beyond’ phonology (Sankoff 1973), the status of syntactic variation and explanations for its conditioning have proven controversial (e.g. Lavandera 1978, Weiner & Labov 1983) and remain so, as illustrated by recent publications (see, for example, Beaman et al. 2020), including the present volume (which arose from a symposium held at the University of Copenhagen in 2014). Each of the contributions to this volume addresses methodological and analytical questions raised by syntactic variation, through an examination of a range of variables in different languages (Danish, Dutch, English, Spanish) in various locales (Canada, Denmark, the Netherlands, the UK, the US). Several questions, identified by the editors, arise repeatedly throughout the volume: How should the variable context for syntactic variation be defined? Are syntactic variables socially stratified in ways similar to phonetic variables (cf. Cheshire 1998)? If so, does such stratification reflect social indexing or other considerations, such as dialect, style, or register (Cheshire 2005)? Can variables be ranked on a hierarchy of their availability to a ‘sociolinguistic monitor’ (Labov 1993)? As the editors state in their introduction, linguistic variation is ‘increasingly examined as an empirical fact of naturally occurring language use, even within approaches to language that traditionally have ignored or dismissed variable language use’ (5). They divide syntactic variables into three types: those involving the presence or absence of a syntactic constituent (e.g. copular verbs, complementizers, subject pronouns), those involving considerations of word order (e.g. dative constructions, auxiliary/participle placement), and those involving paradigmatic substitution (e.g. the form of pronouns or of negation). Noting that ‘[s]yntactic alternations lie (restlessly) at the interface of grammar and social action, of category and variation, of syntax and lexis’ (22), they outline various explanations that have been offered to account for syntactic variation: functional, cognitive, structural, and social. In Ch. 1, Sali A. Tagliamonte addresses two of the five ‘problems’ of language change identified by Weinreich et al. (1968): its embedding in social and linguistic systems and its evaluation by members of the speech community (the problem of its actuation is raised at the end of the chapter but not addressed). The distribution and conditioning of two syntactic variables [End Page 850] in English are examined (complementizer that versus zero; relative that, zero, and wh-form), based on data from sociolinguistic interviews conducted in York (UK) and Toronto (Canada) between 1997 and 2010. Complementizer variation is complicated by frequent subject-verb collocations (I think, you know) that function more as epistemic discourse markers than as matrix clauses (e.g. Torres Cacoullous & Walker 2009)—once these tokens are removed from consideration, the matrix verb and the subject and complexity of the subordinate clause are significant in multiple-regression analyses in both locales. Random-forest analyses concur on the importance of the matrix verb and subject, with social factors ranked below linguistic factors. In the relative marker system, wh-forms occupy a minor role in the variation and are conditioned by formality and social class, in keeping with their historical trajectory. Relative that is favored in contexts where it provides ‘clarity’ as to the status of the antecedent NP. In both locales, antecedent animacy is the most important factor in the choice of relative marker. In Ch. 2, Jennifer Smith and Sophie Holmes-Elliott examine two English variables, negative concord and the use of never in contexts of didn’t, from Buckie (Scotland). Speakers of three generations were recorded in sociolinguistic interviews twice between 2013 and 2016, once by a community insider and once by an outsider. While negative concord is the community norm for most speakers regardless of generation, all speakers decrease their use of negative concord when talking to the outsider interviewer. Use of nonstandard never is ‘robust’ throughout the community, although higher among younger speakers. The interviewer effect is...

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.