2005
DOI: 10.1016/j.lingua.2004.07.006
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Non-standard dialects and linguistic data

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
30
0
1

Year Published

2009
2009
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 29 publications
(31 citation statements)
references
References 3 publications
0
30
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The explanatory power of variationist studies can be expanded with the inclusion of findings from grammatical acceptability judgments (Henry 1995(Henry , 2005 and other tasks that may render information about the social and linguistic constraints on the variation (Alfaraz 2010). For Cuban Spanish, further study with a sample of younger speakers and a range of socioeconomic status groups is necessary to determine whether estar is indeed a change in progress and whether it continues to advance in this variety.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The explanatory power of variationist studies can be expanded with the inclusion of findings from grammatical acceptability judgments (Henry 1995(Henry , 2005 and other tasks that may render information about the social and linguistic constraints on the variation (Alfaraz 2010). For Cuban Spanish, further study with a sample of younger speakers and a range of socioeconomic status groups is necessary to determine whether estar is indeed a change in progress and whether it continues to advance in this variety.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Ainsi, le format choisi permet de contrôler l'environnement syntaxique et phonétique des pronoms, le nombre de phrases avec chaque combinaison, etc. Enfin, Henry (2005) souligne l'importance des données basées sur l'intuition, en particulier grâce aux questionnaires de grammaticalité ou d'acceptabilité, lorsque l'on travaille sur la syntaxe des variétés non-standard.…”
Section: Le Questionnaireunclassified
“…Among them, one finds (i) the interference from prescriptive notions of correctness, that is, the outcome of speakers’ awareness that some of the variants of their native linguistic repertoire are considered ‘incorrect’ by speakers of the standard variety, (ii) a greater degree of interspeaker and intraspeaker variation due to non-standardization leading to less clear-cut variants and judgments over variants, and (iii) the unclear dividing lines among the various ‘lects’ (e.g., acrolect, mesolects, basilect) that exist on the standard-dialect continuum (Cheshire and Stein, 1997; Milroy, 2001; Henry, 2005; Papadopoulou et al, 2014). Such features blur the boundaries of grammatical variants in a way that results in a high degree of grammatical hybridity attested in the form of utterances that may incorporate elements from various lects without code-switching being in place (Cornips, 2006; Tsiplakou et al, 2016; Leivada and Grohmann, 2017).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Such features blur the boundaries of grammatical variants in a way that results in a high degree of grammatical hybridity attested in the form of utterances that may incorporate elements from various lects without code-switching being in place (Cornips, 2006; Tsiplakou et al, 2016; Leivada and Grohmann, 2017). 1 In this context, it has been argued that working from corpora of spontaneous speech might be more useful or desirable than using acceptability judgements when the language under investigation is a non-standard/-codified one — as is the case of the variety investigated in this study — because speakers may be influenced by prescriptive notions of correctness (Henry, 2005). …”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%