Seeking Systematicity in Variation: Theoretical and Methodological Considerations on the “Variety” Concept

Abstract

One centennial discussion in linguistics concerns whether languages, or linguistic systems, are, essentially, homogeneous or rather show “structured heterogeneity.” In this contribution, the question is addressed whether and how sociolinguistically defined systems (or ‘varieties’) are to be distinguished in a heterogeneous linguistic landscape: to what extent can structure be found in the myriads of language variants heard in everyday language use? We first elaborate on the theoretical importance of this ‘variety question’ by relating it to current approaches from, among others, generative linguistics (competing grammars), sociolinguistics (style-shifting, polylanguaging), and cognitive linguistics (prototype theory). Possible criteria for defining and detecting varieties are introduced, which are subsequently tested empirically, using a self-compiled corpus of spoken Dutch in West Flanders (Belgium). This empirical study demonstrates that the speech repertoire of the studied West Flemish speakers consists of four varieties, viz. a fairly stable dialect variety, a more or less virtual standard Dutch variety, and two intermediate varieties, which we will label ‘cleaned-up dialect’ and ‘substandard.’ On the methodological level, this case-study underscores the importance of speech corpora comprising both inter- and intra-speaker variation on the one hand, and the merits of triangulating qualitative and quantitative approaches on the other.

Sociale betekenis en taalvariatie in luisterverhalen voor Vlaamse kinderen

“…Vanuit de typologie van Auer (2005van Auer ( , 2011 kan het Vlaamse taalrepertoire omschreven worden als diaglossisch: tussen de Vlaamse dialecten (typisch onderscheiden in vier groepen: Brabants, Oost-Vlaams, Limburgs en West-Vlaams, zie bv. Devos & Vandekerckhove 2005) en de Belgisch-Nederlandse standaardtaal in bevindt zich een continuüm aan intermediaire vormen (zie Ghyselen 2016), waarbij het niet altijd vanzelfsprekend is scherpe grenzen te trekken tussen de verschillende lagen van het taalrepertorium (zie Ghyselen & De Vogelaer 2018 voor een theoretische toelichting bij de complexiteit van het concept 'variëteit'). Een bijkomende moeilijkheid betreft intrasprekervariatie.…”

Lessons From Neuro-(a)-Typical Brains: Universal Multilingualism, Code-Mixing, Recombination, and Executive Functions

“…If it were, there would be much less variation within and across S-learners and languages than there actually are. The dynamicity of human linguistic capacity suggests otherwise, and so do sociolinguistic studies, since Labov's seminal work in the 60s, which show how systematic S-learners are in combining and using variants they are exposed to, while creating new ones (see for instance, Dogruöz andBackus, 2009, Backus, 2010;Ghyselen, 2016;Ghyselen and De Vogelaer, 2018, for some recent references). Likewise, work on diachronic changes (e.g., Kroch, 1989, Lightfoot, 2006, and much related work), indicates that S-learners may entertain different competing grammars, even in the same language.…”

Mapping the Structure of Language Repertoires: on the Use of Sociolectometric Methods

“…Whether or not varieties and variety boundaries can be distinguished in dialect/ standard constellations strongly depends on the theoretical interpretation of the term variety (see Ghyselen/De Vogelaer 2018 for an in-depth discussion), but most linguists recognize covariance as an important criterion, conceptualizing varieties as sets of variants strongly correlating in their socio-situative behaviour (cf. Weinreich/ Labov/Herzog 1968, Berruto 2010, Geeraerts 2010.…”