Syntactic Microvariation

Abstract

‘Syntactic microvariation’ and ‘microcomparative syntax’ are the terms for a fairly new research approach that applies the theoretical concepts and techniques of modern generative theory to dialectal and other small‐scale variational data. Traditional studies in dialectology aim at a detailed and fine‐grained description of language variants; the ultimate goal being a proper classification of the dialects, their exact areal distribution as well as their historical/diachronic development. For formal generative theory on the other hand, the foremost goal is to model the human language faculty with Universal Grammar as a theory about possible human languages (and how they can be acquired). Microcomparative syntax tries to reconcile these two research traditions by applying the formal theoretical concepts of generative grammar to those ‘minor’, ‘peripheral’, and sometimes kind of ‘squishy’ differences between closely related language variants as they are typically found in dialectal data. Research in microvariation tries to offer new concepts that can account for the range and (limits) of inter‐ and intra‐speaker variation in a principled way while at the same time testing existing formal theories against these microvariational data and thus contributing to the theory of language variation. A profound understanding of microvariation will also open a way to a deeper understanding of the mechanisms of language change, given that language change necessarily preconditions variability in the data.

Language history on fast forward: Innovations in heritage languages and diachronic change

“…It is hard to document slow changes, especially in the absence of recorded data; this luxury is available for Amharic and Romance, but not for many other languages. In the absence of historical documents, researchers have relied on other means, such as computational modelling of change (see Baker, 2008;Kirby, 2017, for overviews), microvariation across dialects (e.g., Brandner, 2012;Garzonio & Poletto, 2018), or child language data (Lightfoot, 1991(Lightfoot, , 1999Yang, 2003Yang, , 2016. In this paper, we propose a novel testbed for language change phenomena: minority or heritage languages.…”

Sources of convergence in indigenous languages: Lexical variation in Yucatec Maya

“…However, translation is associated with some artefacts that must be taken into account during the interpretation of the data. A major drawback is the bias of the source language, which might foster the use of elements or structures of the language of instruction [ 67 : p. 123, 68 : p. 43, 69 : p. 78]. At the level of lexical choice, which is the object of the present study, speakers tend to maximize the use of words of Mayan origin since the task is to translate the Spanish prompts into Yucatec Maya (although they were not instructed to avoid Spanish variants); see report in the Subsection ‘Spanish variants’ below.…”

IV. Ikergazte. Nazioarteko ikerketa euskaraz. Kongresuko artikulu bilduma. Giza zientziak eta Artea

“…mendean eginiko ikerlana. Sailkapen honetan, lapurtera euskalkian berezko lapurtera -Donibane Lohizuneko, Sarako eta Ainhoako euskarak biltzen dituena-eta lapurtera hibridoa -Arrangoitzen mintzatua-bereizten dira (Bonaparte, 1991(Bonaparte, [1869: 226). Vinsonek (1907: 629), bertzeak bertze, sailkapen hau aintzat hartu zuen, Azkaine, Bidarte, Biriatu, Donibane Lohizune, Getaria, Hendaia, Urruña eta Ziburu, Lapurdi itsas bazterreko lapurteran kokatuz.…”