Lingua 67 (1985)189-224.

North-Holland 189

SHIFI'ING VARIATION

Erica C. G A R d A *
University of Leiden, Tile Netherlands

Received July 1985

The relation of quantitative data on language use to the grammar of the language
remains an important problem in linguistic theory; it has also been the subject of
ambitious claims within sociolinguistics. The paper discusses the evolution of socio-
linguistic analysis to encompass 'syntactic variation', the consequences of confining
analysis to those contexts exhibiting 'variation', and the theoretical implications of
such an approach.

1. Introduction

If, as de Saussure claimed (1959: 6), one of the tasks of linguistics is to

'delimit and define itself', the relation between data and analysis cannot
fail to be the subject of continuing discussion. It is hardly accidental that
the controversy should be particularly keen where frequency data are con-
cerned: the gap between quantity and quality is not easily bridged.
A relation between the two is nonetheless strongly suggested both by the
assumptions implicit in typological studies, and by the fact that diachronic
studies keep appealing, in one way or another, to frequency considerations.
But whether (and how) the relation is relevant to the synchronic analysis
of a particular language is very much a matter of debate (Itkonen (1983:
7-12)), and radically divergent views are held on the subject by equally
influential approaches to linguistic analysis.
The position of generative grammar has been clear and consistent: not
only in' distinguishing competence from performance, but in singling out
the frequency aspect of language use for its irrelevance to linguistic analysis.
For instance, Chomsky (1957: 16-17):

* I am indebted to A. Hawkinson, T. Hoekstra, F. Klein-Andreu, W. Labov, R.L. Otheguy,

O. Prytz, F. v. Putte, W.H. Reid, S. Romaine, S. Thompson and Y. Tobin for helpful sugges-
tions and/or critical comments on earlier versions of this paper.

0024-3841/85/$3.30 © 1985, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. (North-Holland)

190 E.C. Gm'cia / Sh(fthsg variation

'(...) the notion "grammatical in English" cannot be identified in any way with the notion
"high order of statistical approximation to English" (...) In the context "1 saw a fra-
gile " the words "whale" and " o f " may have equal (i.e., zero) frequency in the
past linguistic experience of a speaker who will immediately recognize that one of these
substitutions, but not the other, gives a grammatical sentence.'

And again (ibid.):

'Evidently one's ability to produce and recognize grammatical utterances is not based on
notions of statistical approximation and the like. The custom of calling grammatical
sentences those that "can occur", or those that are "possible", has been responsible for
some confusion here (...) Despite the undeniable interest and importance of (...) statistical
studies of language, they appear to have no direct relevance to the problem of determining
or characterizing the set of grammatical utterances. I think tlmt we are forced to conclude
(...) that probabilistic models give no particular insight into some of the basic problems
of syntactic strttctttre.'

And even more pointedly (Chomsky (1966: 36)):

'No sense has ever been given to the notion of "probabilities" or continuum type scales
(...) it1 the domain of grammatical description; and every concrete proposal that has been
made has been sbown to lead to absurdity. Perhaps the time has come for linguists who
insist on the importance of such notions to face tiffs simple fact.'

Sociolinguists, however, have taken a diametrically opposite stand on this

matter: not only has it been claimed that frequency data must somehow
be accounted for in the synchronic description of a language (Labov (1970:
60), Bickerton (1972: 18, 1973: 24), Cedergren (1973: 13), Cedergren and
Sankoff(1974: 333)), but a specific proposal has been made for the formali-
zation of quantitative relations, i.e., the VARIABLE RULE, an optionaI rule
enriched by coefficients which predict its (variable) degree of application
under different circumstances. According to Labov (1972a: 112):

'(...) variable rules (...) extend the generative notion of "rule of grammar" to account for
a larger range of data (,..) [variable rules] are more than statements that a rule may or
inay not apply; they are lawful co-occurrence relations.'

The new formal device was clearly intended to embody a theoretical claim
(Labor (1969: 759)) :

'It should be (,,.) clear that we are in no way dealing with statistical statements or approxi-
mations to some ideal or true grammar. We are dealing with a set of quantitative RELA'nONS
which are the form of grammar itself.'

In short, taking quantitative data into account was expected to result

in a better understanding of the qualitative relations (and categories) that
 E.C. Garcia / Shifthag variation 191

define the form of grammar. Now such a claim, if true, would be of the
greatest interest: by making available and relevant to linguistic analysis a
vast reservoir of empirical data hitherto largely untapped, it would span
the opposition perceived by many scholars (cf. Itkonen (1983 : 1 et passim))
between 'autonomous' and 'empirical' linguistics.
Since generativists obviously cannot be asked to demonstrate a negative,
the burden of proof must lie on him who makes the stronger claim. A decade
and a half having elapsed since variable rules were first introduced, we can
justifiably pause to take stock and inquire what, if anything, the analysis
of variation has contributed to the understanding of syntax.

2. The structuralist roots of variable rules

In order to understand how variable rules could become relevant to the

study of syntax we must first consider the original research which constitutes
their source and background, i.e., Labov's phonological research into Martha's
Vineyard (1963) and New York City English (1966). The unquestionable
merit of these studies lies in the fact that they brought order into phenomena
which had previously been regarded as inherently and necessarily chaotic:
what appeared as unpredictable free variation within the idiolect, turned
out to be reducible to regularity and order when the perspective adopted
was that of the speech community as a whole (Labov (1969:716, 1970:34,
1971 : 416, et pass#n)), cf. Labov (1966 : 507-508) :

'Tile opening chapters of this study presented the problem of accounting for large scale
variation in the speech of New Yorkers. Inconsistencies and oscillation ranged over a
considerable part of the phonological system, to such an extent that it was difficult to
construct a coherent system for the speech of most individuals (...) [specific analysts]
viewed such variation as deviation from the structure of speech, which had to be eliminated
or disregarded for a systematic presentation of linguistic patterns.
In the present work, this attitude is reversed. We conceive of the variation itself as an
integral part of the structure of New York City speech.'

That is, free variation could be reduced very considerably if the (non random)
distribution of etic variants was described in terms of extra-linguistic para-
meters.
The next step was, quite naturally, allomorph(ophonem)ic variation. In
Labov's (1969) study of the contraction and deletion of the English copula,
variable rules were proposed as such for the first time. The aim was clearly
to do for optionality in (generative) phonological rules what Labov's earlier
192 E.C. Garcia / Shifthtg variation

w o r k h a d d o n e for a l l o p h o n i c free v a r i a t i o n in s t r u c t u r a l i s t p h o n e m i c s ,
of. L a b o v (1969 : 737) :

'(...) if we interpret this notation as meaning no more than the conventional label "optional",
it will hardly allow the facts of systematic variation presented above to be accommodated
in the grammar of NNE. The label "optional" is no more useful in this respect than the
label "free variation" (...) If the data of the preceding sections are to be utilized in
formal rules, it must be shown that the study of variation adds to our knowledge of
linguistic structure, and simplifies the situation rather than reducing the precision of the
rules by uncontrolled and unaccountable notations. To achieve this end, we associate with
each VARIABLERULE a specific quantity tO which denotes the proportion of cases in which
the rule applies as part of the rule structure itself.'

T h e role p l a y e d b y e x t r a - l i n g u i s t i c p a r a m e t e r s in L a b o v ' s earlier w o r k was

here t a k e n o v e r b y the c o n t e x t c o n d i t i o n s o f the r e w r i t e rule, cf. L a b o v
(1969 : 7 3 8 - 7 3 9 ) :

'The data of §4 showed that variation in contraction and deletion is governed by a set
of constraints such as the effect of a preceding pronoun or a following verb. These
variable constraints are features of the environment (...) Thus we may indicate that con-
traction is favored by a following verb and a preceding pronoun by [there follows a rule
where the contexts are qualified by Greek letters indicating the weight of the context in
affecting the implementation of the rule, EG].'

T h e i n c o r p o r a t i o n i n t o the rule itself o f c o n t e x t - d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e f r e q u e n c y

w a s v i e w e d as a s t a t e m e n t a b o u t the v e r y f o r m o f l a n g u a g e , cf. L a b o v
(1969 : 742) :

'The variable notation introduced here performs the same function as the other devices
which we use for condensing rules into a single schema: it captures certain generalizations
about the particular language being examined, and tells us something about the structure
of language in general.'

A n d as in the case o f a l l o p h o n i c v a r i a t i o n it w a s a r g u e d in j u s t i f i c a t i o n o f
v a r i a b l e rules t h a t ( L a b o v (1969: 7 5 9 ) ) :

'(...) the construction of complete grammars for "idiolects", even one's own, is a fruitless
and unrewarding task; we now know enough about language in its social context to
realize that the grammar of the speech community is more regular and systematic than
the behavior of any one individual Unless the individual speech pattern is studied within
the over-all system of the community, it will appear as a mosaic of unaccountable and
sporadic variation.'

T h e i n c o r p o r a t i o n o f e x t r a - l i n g u i s t i c p a r a m e t e r s i n t o v a r i a b l e rules t o o k
place next, in a n i m p o r t a n t theoretical p a p e r ( L a b o v (1970)), e n t i t l e d ' T h e
 E.C. Garcia / Shifthzg variation 193

study of language in its social context'. The formal device of probabilistic

coefficients, developed in Labov (1969) in order to reflect the effect of the
linguistic environment on the (individual's) application of a rule, was here
employed (Labov (1970: 68)) to indicate the effect of extra-linguistic para-
meters in community-wide application of a rule. Thus, by an apparently
natural process, two kinds of variation had become non-distinct with respect
to the expressive formalism: one having to do with the local linguistic
context (the alternative to generative 'optionality'), the other having to do
with extra-linguistic social variables (the alternative to structuralist allophonic
'free variation').
The integration is fully achieved by Labov's next major study (1972c) on
negative attraction and negative concord. There we read (Labov (1972c:
814 fn. 40)):

'As we explore the relevant details of rules used by the speecb community, it becomes
apparent that many rules will require a matrix of two or more dimensions to describe
their use. One dimension will be the various syntagmatic environments; the other will be
the range of dialects or idiolects which differ in their assignment of categorical, variable,
or prohibited status to a given environment.'

Though the formal implications of this statement are not worked out in the
paper, dialectal conditions are repeatedly (1972c : 788, 789, 790, 814) imposed
on a linguistic constraint.
Now it is a question that deserves the most careful consideration whether
this identification of disparate types of phenomena by means of one and
the , same formal device (the variable rule) is in fact theoretically sound:
does it indeed constitute a significant linguistic generalization? It is striking,
to say the least, that the theoretical implications of the identification should
have been left totally undiscussed in Labov (1970) and (1972c). These
implications only grew in importance, however, as the variable rule became
THE analytic tool with which any kind of (socio-)linguistic variation could
be described, regardless of the nature of the phenomenon in question.

3. Internal vs. external correlates of variation

That the assimilation of two different kinds of variability is by no means

unproblematic becomes quite clear i f - remaining on the phonological
plane - we contrast 'allophonic free variation' (correlating with extra-
linguistic factors) with another kind of 'variability', i.e., 'variable frequency
of occurrence', conditioned by the syntagmatic environment. Let us begin
194 E. C. Garcia / Shifthag variation

with 'allophonic free variation', the original object of Labov's research,

and assume that information is available on the different frequency with
which Jew as against Gentile, or New Yorkers of Italian as against Irish
extraction, or men vs. women, or old vs. young, or rich vs. poor, etc.,
centralize a diphthong, retroflex their/r/, or dentalize their/0/.
What most essentially characterizes these cases is the ARBITRARINESS
of the relation, i.e., the absence of any causal connection between the
intrinsic nature of the particular 'marker' (e.g., centralization of diphthong,
dentalization o f / 0 / , etc.) and the particular social group which it charac-
terizes. 1 Indeed, since, per definition, no communicative value attaches to
allophones in linguistic free variation, these can easily acquire the value of
social markers, characteristic of different sub-communities.
But different relative frequency under different circumstances is also to
be observed in the case of phonological, 'emic', units. Consider the many
studies of text or list-frequency of phonemes, where such issues are raised
as, for instance, how do apical (vs. labial or dorsal) stops distribute in
word-initial vs. word-final position, etc. This type of question rightly consti-
tutes the mainstay of typological studies (Brasington (1982:82)); it is also
highly relevant to issues of 'markedness' and/or naturalness in generative
(morpho-)phonology, where the effect of context on segment must be
accounted for.
Now this second phenomenon is radically different from the first one
(i.e., the extra-linguistic (social) distribution of etic variants). The relative
frequency with which different phonemes occur in different environments
is NOT arbitrary: as Brasington (1982:85) puts it:

"From the fact (which we have seen conceded though little exploited) that markedness is
not a property which we can assign absolutely to phonetic features, nor even to particular
simultaneous complexes of features (i.e.. segments), it is clearly possible to conclude (...)
that markedness is shown in this way to be merely an observational notion, and that our
attention should in fact be directed towards establishing the constants which conspire to
regulate the occurrence of particular phonetic features in particular environments."

t There has certainly been discussion of the correlations observed among the EXTRA-linguistic
parameters: Trudgill notes that middle-class speech carries (covert) prestige among women
but lower-class speech among men, and suggests (1972: 187-194) a plausible reason why
this should be so. Similarly, van den Broeck (1977) notes a correlation between social class
and formality of speech situation with respect to syntactic complexity, just as Labov (1970:
70-71) early demonstrated a correlation between social class and (phonetic) style shift. What
is at issue in all these cases, however, is a correlation among the extra-linguistic parameters,
which would continue to hold regardless of the particular linguistic phenomena involved
(Itkonen 0983 : 195, 273-274)).
 E. C. Garcia / Shifting variation 195

Furthermore, an explanation for the observed frequency distribution must

be sought in (substantive) universal principles (Brasington (1982: 86)):

"The phonologist must surely work on the assumption that an explanation for the patterning
which he finds will be discovered in the articulatory and perceptual properties of the
sounds concerned."

And indeed, it was early pointed out that at least some of the frequency
data described by means of variable rules might be no more than the
natural result of a linguistic item's occurring in a particular linguistic environ-
ment. Thus, for instance, Kiparsky (1971: 603):

"An alternative, which is suggested by the cross-linguistic validity of the factors that control
the frequency of application, is the following : the frequencies are not learned by the child,
but predictable from (...) substantive constraints."

and (ibid. : 645) :

'If something is learned, it has to be in the grammar; if something is universally predictable,
it is not learned and can be taken out of the grammar (...) What I am conjecturing is that
Labov's data can be taken out of the grammar of English, the grammar of German,
Spanish, etc., and derived from a theory about optional rules in general (...) Labov's
percentages actually reflect what anybody's going to do given that a rule is optional.'

This was conceded by the sociolinguists, for instance with respect to the
variability described by the '-t, d deletion rule' (Labov (1972b: 81), Wolfram
(1973 : 9)). Nonetheless, the need for variable rules was insisted on by varia-
tionists (Berdan (1975: 18), Hudson (1980: 17), Fasold (1978: 86--89)) on
the grounds that what remains unprediciable is the actual effectiveness of
particular linguistic parameters among different social groups. This is also
Labov's position (1972b: 81) :

'We must use the -t, d rule in our BE [Black English, EG] vernacular grammar, because
(...) the weighting of the variable constraints is not general - in fact, it varies from group
to group, and from style to style, and from one age level to another in a meaningful
manner."

In short: the rule as such - the fact that certain environments favour one
alternative more than another - may well reflect universal principles: but
what remains arbitrary, and is for that reason claimed to require formulation
in the particular grammar, is the specific (variable) degree to which the
process takes place in correlation with different extra-linguistic parameters,
i.e., the exact relevance of each linguistic parameter for each social group.
This means, however, that a variable rule is, by the explicit admission
196 E. C. Garcia / Sh(/'ting variation

of variationists themselves, a theoretical hybrid: one and the same formal

(analytic) device is expected to account for two inherently different sorts
of frequency differences :2
(i) those which are dependent on, since MOTIVATED by, the linguistic
environments in which the units in question appear, and
(ii) those which are not, and HENCE can characterize different social
groups.
Paradoxically, the integration of disparate kinds of frequency data into
a single variable rule has been hailed as a theoretical plus, for instance by
Cedergren and Sankoff (1974: 334, 353) :
'By incorporating a speaker's nou-linguistic parameters (class, sex, age, etc.) in the input
probability, and by setting the strictly linguistic parameters at fixed values for the whole
community, this approach neatly solves the problem of commtmity heterogeneity.'

and by G. Sankoff (1980a : 55, 57) :

"If (...) we accept a quantitative analytical method for its demonstrated ability to locate
systematicity in terms of purely linguistic environments, its extension to non-linguistic
environments becomes a powerful tool for sociolinguistics analysis.'

But until a view of language is advanced that makes plausible the uni-
fication of these two disparate types of phenomena, a linguists who value

2 It is perhaps this distinction that Lavandera has in mind when she writes (1978: 174):
'I want to establish a distinction between a difference in frequencies which in itself is
significant, be it socially or stylistically, and a difference in frequency which (...) is simply
the manifestation of a more or less frequent usage of a form in a situational context or
in a social group.'

3 Even D. Sankoff(1978), a brave attempt at presenting a unified (mathematico-probabilistic)

account of variation, brings out the disparity of the two types of variation we have distin-
guished. In Sankoff's opi,~ion (1978: 235):
'The fact that grammatical structures incorporate choice as a basic building block means
that they accept probabilization in a very natural way, mathematicaUy speaking."
But the fundamental distinction nonetheless remains (1978:236):
'(...) while purely linguistic processes are partly responsible for the nature of the pro-
babilities in question, it would be a mistake to neglect the fact that they are in large part
rooted (...) in sociological and interactional regularities. Indeed, variation theory is in
large part the study of to what extent these probabilities are intrinsic to language as a
system, and how extrinsic considerations impinge.'
 E. C. Garcia / Sh(fthlg variation 197

consistency in matters of theory will be justified in maintaining an attitude

of cautious scepticism towards so heterogeneous a construct.

4. The shift from phonology to syntax

In the absence of any unifying theory there is no reason, then, to ignore

the essential difference between arbitrary and motivated frequency. Now
any appeal to motivation requires that careful attention be paid to the
nature of both unit and environment, and it will therefore make a difference
whether phonetic, phonological, or grammatico]lexical units are involved
(Winford (1984: 277-278)).
But here, again, no difference was made in variationist studies. Faithful
to early generative grammar, 4 which used the same formalism of rewrite
rules for both phonology and syntax, sociolinguists felt free to extend
variable rules above and beyond phonology. Since a variable rule is equi-
valent to a (mid 60's) optional generative rule with probabilistic coefficients
of application tacked on, anything for which an (optional) generative rule
could be written eo ipso became fair game for variationist analysis. So if
phonology, morphology and syntax were all formalized in generative gram-
mar by means of rewrite rules, there was no reason why variable conditioning
of optionality should not, in principle, be extended to all these segments
of the grammar.
That there was little doubt as to the feasibility of the enterprise is clear
from statements such as G. Sankoff's (1973 : 44, 58) :
'Tile extension of probabilistic considerations from phonology to syntax is not a con-
ceptually difficult jump. Whenever there are options open to a speaker, we can infer
from his or her behavior an underlying set of probabilities.'

and Labov (1975a: 120):

'It is true enough that none of the studies of syntactic variation have reached tile depth
of the studies of -t, d deletion. But a number of recent investigations of syntactic variation

"~ Despite their theoretical allegiance to generative tenets, variationist studies reflect and
rely on tile transformational formalism of the sixties and mid 70's. Variationist studies have
clearly remained untouched by tile controversies motivating the recent drastic changes within
generative grammar, nor have these changes ill any way been due to insights gained in
variationist studies. The relation between tile two approaches is apparently limited to the
uncritical borrowing of certain expressive devices (Kay and McDaniel (1979: 153), Romaine
(1981 : 96-97)).
198 E.C. Garcia / Shifth~g variation

have opened up new ground, and shown that there is no practical or THEORETICAL
[emphasis mine. EG] harrier to the exploration of syntactic phenomena."

Now whether the extension of variable-rule analysis from phonology to

grammar is (or not) a 'conceptually difficult jump' depends on one's view
of language and linguistics. If one's aim is simply to describe linguistic
behaviour (as it apparently was G. Sankoff's (1973: 45)), variation is varia-
tion, and it matters little whether it involve phonology or syntax, etic or
emic units. But if one's goal is to provide a plausible motivation for the
frequency data, the essential difference between phonology and syntax cannot
be ignored. Difficulties might even be anticipated should the semantic and
syntactic data prove, because of their very nature, refractory to equal treat-
ment with phonology.
And indeed, the very definition of the syntactic variable proved a major
difficulty. Are there, can there in fact be 'different ways of saying the same
thing' among those units whose function is, precisely, to enable speakers
to say different things? (Cf. Hudson (1980: 157) for a brief but pointed
discussion of the issue.) As Labov himself points out (1970 : 77) :

"Speakers do not readily accept the fact that two different expressions actually "mean
the same" and there is a strong tendency to attribute different meanings to them. "s

These difficulties were early spelled out by Lavandera (1978: 175):

"Notice where the source of the difficulty lies: units beyond phonology, let us say a
morpheme, or a lexical item, or a syntactic construction, each have by definition a
meaning. They are not like phonemes which, by definition, do not have any "constance
of reference", as Sapir said.'

It is therefore no accident (Lavandera (1978: 175)) that sociolinguistic

analysis should have begun, and scored its greatest successes, with phonetic
variables. Phonetic substance fulfills a diacritic function in language: sound
differences are prime candidates for the role o f - arbitrary - distinguisher,
be it among signals, or among groups of speakers. Phonetic variables
correlate so easily and so well with social factors for the same reason
that phonetic isoglosses have always been relied on for dialect differen-

s The tendency for allomorphic 'variants' to assume independence (i.e., distinctiveness) is a.

widely attested historical phenomenon; its importance for synchronic analysis has been duly
stressed by Anttila (1975).
 E. C. Garcia / Shi[?#tg varh~tion 199

tiation, by natives and linguists alike. These difficulties, however, were not
recognized as symptoms that 'variation' in syntax differed essentially from
the free variation of allophones.
Now the proper analogue to 'syntactic variation' is not the (socially
significant) free variation of allophones, but rather phonotactics, the non-
random (substance motivated) distribution of distinctive phonological units.
And indeed, just as the frequency distribution of articulatory types is far
from random, so that (within a particular language, as well as across
languages) some types of sounds (or sound sequences) are more frequent
than others (both context-freely and -dependently) so likewise do meaningful
units exhibit distributional skewings.
For instance, Lantolf (1978) reports on the varying degree to which
Spanish-speaking informants will fill in an Indicative or a Subjunctive in
subordinate clauses, depending on the semantic nature of the verb in the
main clause, and Schmidely (1971) has observed a considerable number of
skewings with respect to the choice of Spanish/e (Dative) vs. lo (Accusative)
- for instance, depending on whether the pronoun refers to an animate or
an inanimate entity, whether it is followed or not by an infinitive of which
it can be construed as the subject, etc. - though neither Lantolf nor Schmidely
provide any motivation for the skewings they have observed.
In the case of phonotactics, as pointed out earlier, the explanation for
the observed frequency distribution is a substantive one : universal principles
of articulatory or perceptual ease, rooted in the nature (anatomy, physiology,
or psychology) of the language user. Analogously, in the case of 'syntactic
variation', the motivation of the frequency differences between Subjunctive
and Indicative, or le and lo, must be sought in the greater (respectively
lesser) communicative compatibility between the grammatical units in ques-
tion and the lexical or syntactic contexts in which they occur (cf. Garcia
(1985, to appear)). There is no reason why frequency differences in lexicon
and grammar should not in principle be open to the kind of substantive
explanation appealed to in the case of phonotactics (cf. Schwartz (1980:
330)).
But in that case the very concept of 'syntactic variation' - i.e., 'saying the
same thing in different ways' - is in fundamental error, since it equates the
significant alternation between distinct meaningful units with free variation
among non-distinctive allophones. No wonder that so much criticism (Lavan-
dera (1978:175 fn. 4), Romaine (1984:410-411, 413)) should have been
levelled at the requirement that the syntactic variants 'say the same thing'
200 E.C. Garcia / Sh(fthlg variation

o r ' h a v e the s a m e t r u t h v a l u e ' ( L a b o v ( 1 9 7 0 : 3 4 fn. 7, 1972d: 271, 1978: 2),

W e i n e r a n d L a b o v (1983 : 2 9 - 3 0 ) ) . 6
A n d i n d e e d , the difference b e t w e e n p h o n o l o g y a n d s y n t a x m a d e itself
f e l t . i n t h a t for ' s y n t a c t i c v a r i a t i o n ' linguistic e n v i r o n m e n t s t u r n e d o u t ( n o t
s u r p r i s i n g l y ) to be far m o r e i m p o r t a n t t h a n e x t r a - l i n g u i s t i c factors - precisely
the reverse o f w h a t h a d b e e n the case in the early studies o f p h o n e t i c
v a r i a t i o n . T h i s a l o n e s h o u l d have b e e n r e a s o n to q u e s t i o n the m o v e f r o m
p h o n o l o g y to s y n t a x - p a r t i c u l a r l y if, as a r g u e d b y L a b o v (1971: 4 5 6 - 4 5 7 ) ,
the raison d ~ t r e for v a r i a b i l i t y is its social f u n c t i o n . ~

5. 'Syntactic variation': implications for linguistic analysis

T h e a s s u m p t i o n t h a t d i f f e r e n t f o r m s c a n i n d e e d say the s a m e t h i n g a n d
h e n c e v a r y ( p r e s u m a b l y for social r e a s o n s ) in p a r t i c u l a r c o n t e x t s is f r a u g h t
w i t h great a n a l y t i c a l i m p o r t : the a n a l y s t takes i n t o a c c o u n t o n l y t h a t p a r t
o f the s y n t a c t i c r a n g e w h e r e the alleged m e a n i n g e q u i v a l e n c e is c l a i m e d
to hold.

6 An example of the confusion that this criterion - or perhaps an inadequate appreciation

of tile difference between meaning and reference - may lead to can be found in Labor (1973:
356) :
'At about the width of 2.2 to I the likelihood of the object being called a bowl is roughly
equal to the likelihood of its being called a cup. This is tile fringe area, in which it is
possible to assert with equal truth that an object is a cnp and that it is not a cup.'
This is a most surprising statement, as it stands. What can be asserted with equal truth is
that a particular object is a bowl and that the same object is a cup. Since Labor has not
performed a semantic analysis of the words cup and bowl (of. Wierzbicka (1984:207 et passim)),
he has no right to assume that they arc necessarily mutually exclusive designations. Alternative,
not equivalent, expression is what so-called 'syntactic variation' really involves (cf. Bolinger
(1977:4 et passim)).
Here too there has been regrettable confusion in both sociolinguistic doctrine and practice.
Labor (1970: 66) apparently requires of a sociolinguistic variable only that it be 'correlated
with some non-linguistic variable of the social context', while elsewhere he defines it as (1972d:
271): 'the option of saying "'the same thing" in several different ways; that is, the variants
are identical in referential or truth value, but opposed in their social or stylistic significance'.
The second definition makes a great deal more sense : the mere fact of correlation, per se,
tells us nothing, and any claim concerning the social function of a linguistic variable consequently
demands careful justification. Such a justification is often missing in tile case of so-called
syntactic variation, so that the mere observation of a social correlation is apparently taken
by some (Silva-Corvalan (1981:339), Lefebvre (1981:236)) as sufficient indication that a
syntactic variable is involved.
 E.C. Garcia / Shiftb~g variation 201

From the variationist point of view it is only natural that one should
concentrate on that range of use where the alternating forms are felt to be
'linguistically the same' - in traditional terms, in free variation. 8 This
practice can, however, result in significant generalizations being missed,
owing to initial bias with respect to what the relevant data are (Jacobson
(1980: 28)). 9 In this section we shall discuss a series of studies of syntactic
variation, and try to show how:
(i) the very assumption of variation, and
(ii) the consequent restriction of the analysis to only that part of the
range where 'variation' is claimed to occur,
actually results in less than ideal analyses.
We shall begin with the procedure most essential to analyses of 'syntactic
variation', i.e., the restriction of the analysis to those environments where
variation is observed. This can best be exemplified with a concrete - and
classical- example, G. Sankoff and Thibault's (1977) study of the 'syntactic
variation' between avoh" and Etre as Perfect tense auxiliaries in Canadian
French. Sankoff and Thibault are interested in the auxiliary use of Etre,
where Etre + participle combinations 'vary' with avoh" + participle. They
therefore leave out of consideration not only instances of Etre + adjective,
or Etre + complement, but also those cases of Etre + participle that do NOT
vary with avoh'. The operation is saved from circularityt° (but not quite !)

a The possibility of contrast (or of complementary distribution) is not eliminated, of course,

but it is assumed (Labov (1978: 6)) that in those cases the distribution of the forms (i.e.,
the occurrence of one or the other 'variant') is rule-governed, i.e., the outcome of obligatory
rules. The non-varying distribution is consequently regarded as irrelevant since syntactic
variation is confined, by definition, to the domain of optional rules.
9 It is ironical that those who blamed structuralists (and generativists) for considering only
the categorical cases (Labov (1975b: 192)) should themselves be guilty of the same sin in
mirror image form: confining the analysis to the area of variation.
~o A related case is Weiner and Labov (1983: 38), where 'clauses containing verbs with
sentential objects were (...) systematically excluded [from the analysis]' because the corres-
ponding passives (e.g., it is said that thnes are hard) regularly show extraposition, while :
'(...) our examination of internal constraints on the passive (...) give[s] particular attention
to the consequences of placing subject or object in preverbal or postverbal position in
relation to parallel or non-parallel placement of coreference in preceding sentences. Once
extraposition has applied, the underlying object of the agentless passive is no longer in
initial, preverbal position and the effect of such parallel structure is eliminated.'
This boils down to the following: clauses with sentential objects do not pattern with respect
202 E.C. Garcla / Shifting variation

by an independent definition of what marks a verbal form as a 'Perfect

auxiliary', namely occurrence in 'completed' contexts, since according to
G. Sankoff and Thibault (1977: 84) it is only here that one can speak of
a 'perfect' auxiliary. Though a few examples are given of adverbial modifiers
that count as [ + / - Completed], the [+ Completed] marker remains un-
defined in Sankoff and Thibault's study and, even more significant, Sankoff
and Thibault admit (1977: 95) that both avoir and 6tre occur in neutral
contexts, lacking either [+ Completed] or [ - Completed] marking.
Consider the implications of this practice for linguistic analysis: what is
at stake is nothing less than the grammatical units postulated for Canadian
French. Sankoff and Thibault's assumption of a 'variable' for AUX amounts
to a claim that (at least in some varieties of Canadian French) avoir and ~tre
are allomorphs (i.e., variant exponents) of one and the same grammatical
category AUX, the occurrence of the allomorphs being statable in terms of
combinations of lexical and extra-linguistic parameters.
We consequently have a 'variable' 6tre, which we may refer to as 6tre~;
it is, by definition, in complementary distribution with avoir. But there is
also a homonymous 6tre2, which is not an auxiliary, but a copula. Note
that the homonyms 6tret and 6tre2 LIKEWISE occur in complementary
distribution : 6tret (the auxiliary) is supposed to occur only in [+ Completed]
contexts; 6tre,_ is never found there. The net result is that the formally
identical 6tre t and 6tre 2, which occur in complementary distribution, are
analyzed as distinct linguistic units, while formally different units (6tret and
avoir), which admittedly occur in partial contrast, end up as exponents
of the same linguistic unit, i.e., AUX.
In other words, more weight is attached to an undefined context which
defines a function (i.e., to [+ Completed]) than to the observed morphological
sameness of 6tret and 6tre2. In its disregard for form, Sankoff and Thibault's
analysis is reminiscent of the type of morphemics practised in the heyday
of Yale structuralism, when ran~rim and went/go were analyzed as different
allomorphs of the root, conditioned by the presence vs. absence of a 'zero
allomorph' of the past-tense morpheme (Bloch (1947:401)). This practice
is defended by Labov (1978: 6):

"Characteristic of this kind of study of syntactic variation is that the definition of the
variable requires a series of preliminary steps directed at eliminating all the contexts in

to the "internal constraints of the passive" as do other types. The data would thus have been
messier and the analysis more difficult if these clauses had been included. They were excluded.
 E.C. Garcia / Shifting variation 203

which the two alternant forms contrast, i.e. do not say the same thing (...) To return to
the widest possible defining environment as she [B. R. Lavandera] suggests, would reverse
the process and lose the precision of analysis we aim at."lt

The point is made again, and even m o r e radically, in Weiner and L a b o v

(1983 : 31-32) :

'We can infer that there will be contexts where active and passive lead to different
semantic interpretations of states of affairs and ultimately it will be important to locate
these contexts, but these will undoubtedly [sic] be a small subset of the total range of uses
and not likely to affect our search for the general constraints on the choice of active vs.
passive (...) We therefore approach the passive with an eye to a bold simplification of
the problems of meaning."

A truer w o r d was never spoken.

But is there any alternative? In the case o f S a n k o f f and Thibault's
problem it is, clearly, to postulate but one ~tre, combinable with participles
as well as adjectives or other types o f complements, and capable o f occurring
in [ + Completed] as well as [ - C o m p l e t e d ] contexts. The 'auxiliariness'
o f ~tre would then be (pace traditional g r a m m a r ) not a grammatical fact
o f French, but a context-induced interpretation o f that verb. Such an analysis
would, o f course, require equal attention for all uses o f ~tre, in all contexts.
But w h a t o f variation, then? The facts remain, but they could n o w be
viewed from a different, perhaps m o r e promising angle. The problem is no
longer: what social or linguistic parameters 'constrain' the variation between
~tret and avoir, the two allomorphs o f AI.rx? It rather becomes: w h y is
avoir + participle, presumably THE ' g r a m m a t i c a l ' device available in French
for the formation o f perfect tenses, NOT exploited under all circumstances?
To what extent is the explanation for the less-than-total exploitation o f
avoir historical, to what extent synchronic? W h y and h o w does avoir extend
its range? W h a t lexical and social factors play a role in this extension?

t t The carving out of only part of the distributional range of a form for analysis in variation
studies had indeed been objected to by Lavandera (1978: 178), who correctly points out:
'It is important to emphasize that this method of gradually getting rid of categorical environ-
ments is not an ad hoc resource in Sankoff and Thibault's [1977] study, but is central to
sociolinguistic analysis."
This is emphatically endorsed by Thibault (1983: 12):
"La d~limitation entre les domaines variable et cat~gorique de la variable constitue un
aspect essentiel de l'analyse variationniste."
204 E. C. Garcia / Sh(fting variation

How productive must a unit be before it can be considered part of the

inflectional system (grammar) of the language? At what point in the history
of French could/can it be said that avoir + participle is in fact THE gram-
matical device for forming perfect tenses? etc. etc. An answer to these
questions will require careful consideration of (at least) all the facts pur-
portedly accounted for by a variationist analysis. Full justice can thus be
done to the data without appealing, at any point, to 'syntactic variation'.
But what cannot be dispensed with is knowledge of the value of avoir +
participle in relation to ~tre + complement constructions. And such an
understanding requires, in turn, that ALLQthe uses of dtre be included in
the analysis.
To put the problem in the most general terms: it has never been claimed
by anyone, to our knowledge, that the INTERPRETATION o f a linguistic
sign - what, in imitation of Martinet, we might term its 'communicative
load' - is necessarily the same in all contexts and thus cannot vary, context-
sensitively, from environment to environment. If anything, the reverse has
been the case: claims for semantic invariance (by R. Jakobson, for instance)
have always gone paired with heavy emphasis on the conditioning effect of
context on interpretation. This effect is of critical importance for language
history, since sharp discontinuities in the interpretation of forms (particularly
when the discontinuities can be associated with formally characterizable
contexts) are the probable source of grammatical and semantic change:
cf. the reinterpretation of Latin habere in the context of past participles.
Though all uses of a form undoubtedly constitute equally legitimate exploi-
tations of one and the same synchronic value (cf. Householder (1962),
Lyons (1977: 375) for the relation of meaning to distribution), from a
psychological (and historical) perspective some synchronic uses may well
reflect that meaning less obviously than others (Garcia (1985)). It is these
(context-induced) hairline cracks in the (synchronic) unity of form-and-
meaning that the study of 'syntactic variation' presumably aims at dis-
covering, before language change presents the analyst with the fait accompli.
A fascinating and most worthwhile endeavour: but one which must pre-
suppose an adequate understanding of how language works SYNCHRONIC-
ALLY, and how different contexts affect the interpretation of one and the
same linguistic unit. And it is this understanding which is likely to escape
the analyst who, on principle, looks at only part of the data. In short:
by splitting up the uses of a form into 'variable' vs. 'obligatory' (or 'cate-
gorical') the analyst runs the risk of missing the significant generalization
which would enable him to motivate the observed alternation.
 E. C. Garcia / Shifting var&tion 205

That the risk is a real one can be shown on the basis of studies where
the assumption of variation - i.e., the equation of distinct expressive means -
stands in the way of a larger, more insightful analysis. Consider, for instance,
G. Sankoff's (1982) study of the circumstances under which French speakers
'duplicate' the subject by adding a proclitic pronoun to either lexical or
emphatic pronominal mention, as in:

Mon grand p6re il est n6 dans Montr6al.

'My grand-father he was born in Montreal.'
Lui, il a pas perdu son temps.
'Him, he didn't waste his time.'

She isolates certain (sentence-defined) 'syntactic' contexts where clitic use

is highly frequent, and views these as 'syntactic constraints'. Attention to
the larger context, namely the discourse, reveals, however, that 'pronoun
duplication' has a clear communicative function. Sankoff then asks (1982 : 83) :

'S'agit-il d'un paradoxe? Si l'ajout d'un clitique poss6de une fonction discursive, peut-il
6tre soumis ~. une contrainte syntaxique?'

The ready acceptance of syntactic variation has apparently kept Sankoff

from examining the alleged 'syntactic constraints' in the light of the general
discourse function she herself has observed. It would be most satisfying
(arid not very surprising!) if, by their very form and nature, the environ-
ments 'requiring' clitic mention of the subject should instantiate the observed
discourse function. Should this be the case, however, the presence vs. absence
of subject duplication would be automatically explained, and there would
be neither constraint, nor variation - and the answer to Sankoff's question
would, clearly, be: 'non'.
Or take G. Sankoff's (1973) discussion of the Tok Pisin particle bai, 12

~ The discussion of yet another study by G. Sankoff should - emphatically - not be under-
stood as reflecting of the quality of her work. On the contrary: it is the caliber of G. Sankoff's
scholarship that brings out most clearly the deleterious effect of variationist analytical practice.
Besides, it was G. Sankoff herself who, in her influential (1973) paper, threw syntax open to
variationist analysis. Most important, she stands out among variationists for daring to tackle
so-called syntactic variation: Sankoff's analysis of bai is in fact singled out by Romaine
(1984:433 fn. 7) as a prime example of a 'pure' syntactic variable. Other studies (Schiffrin
(1981), Ashby (1981)) are not fundamentally concerned with variation per se, the variationist
techniques serving but as a means of presenting large bodies of quantitative data.
206 E. C. Garcia / Shiftbsg variation

whose position is claimed to be 'syntactically constrained', and yet to serve

a discourse function:
(i) "(...) bai almost never [follows the subject] in the case of most NP's
consisting of a single pronoun other than em' (Sankoff (1973 : 48)),
and
(ii) the order Pronoun-bai-verb seems '(...) to indicate particular emphasis
on the pronoun subject to the exclusion of other people, as in Mi bai
kishn "I (not you guys) will get it"' (ibid.) ta
We reproduce below the Tok Pisin data exactly as presented in table 1 of
Sankoff (1973 : 46).

Table 1
Bai placement in terms of subject NP (G. Sankoff (1973 : 46)).

Subject NP Position of bai

Definition Form NP __.VP

I stsg. mi 78 7
2ndsg. yu 52 I
3rdpl. ol 31 I
lstpl, excl. I mil
I stpl. incl. yumi: pela 22 6
2ndpl. t yu /
3rdsg. em Il 47
other NP 22 36
0subject 53

Despite the fact that the order Pronoun-bai-verb is stated to have a com-
municative value of its own, the array of table 1 does indeed suggest that
statement by (variable) rule is the only way to account for the data. Such
a conclusion, however, is heavily dependent on the categorization of the
data, which is itself influenced by the assumption of variation. And indeed,
the data presented in table 1 are open to other classifications.
Consider, for instance, the implicit claim that with zero-expression of a
(third-person singular) subject bai immediately precedes the verb: it is just

13 Sankoff does not make explicit what she means by "emphasis', but we may (plausibly)
assume that under 'emphatic' circumstances the hearer's attention is drawn to the subject
of the sentence - for whatever (discourse) reason.
 E. C. Garcia / Shifting variation 207

as true t h a t it precedes the z e r o - m e n t i o n o f the subject! W i t h a z e r o - s u b j e c t

o n e c a n ' t tell. It has a p p a r e n t l y e s c a p e d G . S a n k o f f ' s notice t h a t with z e r o -
m e n t i o n o f t h e subject there c a n n o t be a n y c o n t r a s t - a n d hence no v a r i a t i o n I -
with respect to the p o s i t i o n o f b a i . But this r e a l i z a t i o n casts a n entirely
different light o n the w h o l e p r o b l e m .
I f we o r g a n i z e the d a t a in t e r m s o f c o n t r a s t vs. no c o n t r a s t in the p o s i t i o n
o f b a i , a n d further inquire w h a t the f a v o u r e d o r d e r is in the case o f those
subject expressions w h e r e the p o s i t i o n o f b a i CAN be exploited, we get a
very different picture.
A s is a p p a r e n t f r o m the d a t a in table 1, e m a n d lexical m e n t i o n o f the
subject have, as their n o r m a l , p r e f e r r e d o r d e r , precisely t h a t p l a c e m e n t o f
b a i w h i c h c o n v e y s ' e m p h a s i s ' in the case o f ( p r o n o m i n a l ) in-st o r second
o r t h i r d - p e r s o n p l u r a l subjects. W h y this s h o u l d be so is easiest to u n d e r -
s t a n d in the case o f era, w h i c h t r a n s p a r e n t l y s t a n d s in o p p o s i t i o n to zero
m e n t i o n o f a t h i r d - p e r s o n singular subject. 14 It is o b v i o u s t h a t o f the two
alternatives - null, a n d o v e r t expression b y e m - the latter, precisely
because o f its p e r c e p t i b l e nature, m u s t have g r e a t e r i m p a c t o n the hearer. Is
S a n k o f f d o e s n o t state w h a t m o t i v a t e s the use o f e m (vs. n o n m e n t i o n o f
the subject) b u t (as in the ease o f S p a n i s h subject p r o n o u n s ) recourse to
explicit m e n t i o n is likely to c o r r e l a t e with the degree to w h i c h the referent
is NOT self-evident f r o m the discourse c o n t e x t : L a t t e y (1979: 26-32) in

~4 Sankoff (1973) does not specify whether "0 subject' applies, as table I suggests, exclu-
sively to the third-person singular, or to all persons and numbers. However, in Sankoff and
Laberge (1973:46 fn. 6) we read:
"The status of em as a pronoun which behaves similarly to the others is already dubious
on other grounds [besides the clear difference with respect to placement of bai]. Its optional
character permits its frequent omission, which accounts for the majority of 0 subject
sentences in Table 4."
(Sankoff and Laberge (1973) is the source of the data in Sankoff (1973), table I of the latter
paper exactly reproducing table 4 in the earlier study. Both are here reproduced as table i).
That zero-expression of the subject should be stron~y favoured in the case of third-person
singular subjects is indeed highly plausible, in view of the frequency with which (cross-
linguistically) the third-person singular lacks pronominal expression (Benveniste (1966: 228-
230)).
ts Cf. for instance the "emphatic" value of subject pronouns in Spanish (Rosengren (1974:
234 et passim)). Particularly relevant in this connection is the "emphatic" use of em as an
ADDITION tO lexical subjects in order to mark topic change (Sankoff (1980b: 267-268)). The
possibility that simple em is to 0 as Lexical NP +em is to plain Lexical NP is not discussed
by Sankoff: according to Mihalic (1971 : 15) em is used in Tok Pisin also as a demonstrative.
Sankoff (1984: 114) describes em as a non--clitic subject pronoun.
208 E.C. Garck~ / Sh(fting variation

fact provides evidence that this is what lies behind the use of em (vs. 0)
for object-references in Tok Pisin.
It appears highly likely, then, that the greater frequency of em-bai-verb
with respect to bai-em-verb is due to the fact that the order Subject bai verb
has attention-calling value by itself (cf. the effect it has with personal pronoun
subjects (Sankoff (1973:48)). As such, it is the appropriate order to use
with an attention-deserving form like em. When a speaker wishes to draw
attention to the subject, he will normally do so by all means available:
by the use of a strong, explicit form (em), and by means of the position of
bai. Em-bai-verb, where explicit mention of the subject and position of bai
coincide in attracting the hearer's attention, is semantically more coherent
(it hangs together better) than bai-em-verb. The intrinsic coherence of two
devices that independently work towards the same communicative goal is
the reason, then, behind the greater frequency of em-bai-verb.
In the case of lexical reference to the subject the order subject-bai-verb
is favotired for a different, but just as understandable reason. Lexical
reference to the subject occurs only in the case of third persons which, by
definition, are not given in the speech situation. When, furthermore, these
referents are not recoverable from the context, i.e., are new, the only
alternative is to make use of lexical indications. It follows that 'lexical'

Table 2
Recourse to attention-drawing placement of bai dependent on communicative problem.

Nature Communicative bai-Subject-Vb Subject-bai-Vb Total % Subject-bai-Vb

of problem (attention
subject drawing)

3rdsg. 0 None 53 53

3rdpl.; Normalreference; 183 15 198 7.5

speech referents
ptpts, identifiable

Lexical Mostly new 22 36 58 62

refer- referents : require
ence attention

3rdsg. Explicit,attention- I1 47 58 81
em drawing reference
to a familiar
referent
 E. C. Garcia / Shifting variation 209

subjects will, perforce, involve a high proportion of 'new' referents. Now it

is natural that new referents will need to have the hearer's attention drawn
to them more than do familiar referents. One way of drawing the hearer's
attention to the (new) subject is by means of the placement of bai. We would
consequently expect that 'emphatic' (i.e., attention-drawing) positioning of
bai will be relatively more frequent (because necessary) in the case of new
entities being introduced via lexical reference into the discourse, than in
that of familiar referents, wherepronominai reference is sufficient. Which is
exactly what the data show, as can be seen in table 2.
But if this is what is actually going on in Tok Pisin there is no variation
left to account for. All we have is motivated placement of words by Tok
Pisin speakers, who (very sensibly) put their bai where their meaning is, i.e.,
where it will best help to get their message across. Which is what all
speakers of all languages do with every form they use. But in that case,
the willingness to postulate variation, and to assume (in the teeth of the
communicative function of language) that different expressive means CAN
say the same thing may well have resulted in a misrepresentation of Tok
Pisin.
That positing an arbitrary (variable) rule of bai-movement (G. Sankoff
(1973)) may indeed misrepresent the structure of Tok Pisin is further
suggested by the fact that a striking parallel for the distribution just discussed
is observed in Papiamentu. 16 Consider the following facts:
(i) just as Tok Pisin has evolved a 'future marker bai' from the lexical
item bairn bai (< E. bye-and-bye, Sankoff and Laberge (1973: 36)), so does
Papiamentu have a 'future marker 1o' (Goilo (1953:115)), derived from a
Portuguese time adverb logo 'later' (Naro (1978: 324, 329)),
(ii) in Tok Pisin bai generally precedes personal pronouns, but follows
lexical expression of the Subject (Sankoff (1973:48)); similarly, 1o in Papia-
mentu generally precedes personal pronouns but follows lexical subjects
(Goilo (1953 : 115-116)), and
(iii) in Tok Pisin, the order 'future marker-personal pronoun-verb' is
unmarked, whereas the order 'personal pronoun-future marker-verb' is 'em-
phatic' (Sankoff (1973: 48)). Exactly the same is true in Papiamentu: 1~
lo-mi-verb 'future-lst. p.-verb' is the normal order; ami-lo-verb 'Ist. p.

,6 I am indebted to F. v. Putte for bringing the Papiamentu facts to my attention.

t7 I am indebted to I. v. Puttc-de Windt (a native speaker o f Papiamentu) for confirmation
o f this point.
210 E.C. Garcia / Shifthtg variation

emphatic-future-verb' conveys emphasis both by the placing of 1o (Goilo

(1953:116)) and by the emphatic form of the pronoun (Goilo (1953:6)).
This striking parallel between two genetically unrelated creoles suggests
- as in the case of cross-linguistic phonotactic skewings - that the position
of the future markers transcends the limits of language-particular arbitrari-
ness, and is explicable on the basis of general (i.e., 'universal') cognitive-
processing principles. Such generalizations of larger scope will necessarily
be missed, however, if description of unmotivated 'syntactic variation' is
all one aims at.
Now if different linguistic units DO differ in communicative value, and
for that reason are favoured in different environments, in accordance with
the different communicative ends envisaged by speakers, a reason is suggested
for the preferential use of certain forms or certain constructions by particular
social groups, or in particular social contexts. The mere fact that the fre-
quency of a syntactic phenomenon is observed to correlate with a social
variable does not necessarily imply that a sociolinguistic variable is involved,
endowed with a SOCIAL function. There may be a natural (communicative-
functional) explanation for one group's rather than another's resorting to
a particular expressive device (Gazdar (1976: 123), cf. fn. 7 above). Sugges-
tions in this direction have indeed been made, inter alia, by Hasan (1973:
270), Lavandera (1982 : 94, 1978 : 180-181), Romaine (1984: 421,430), Brown
(1980: 127-134), and Traugott (1982: 266-267).
Here, too, the assumption that 'different ways' can 'say the same thing'
can result in partial and fauffy analysis. Consider another classic study,
the alleged 'variation' between the be and the so-called get passive, discussed
in Labov (1975a: 121-124). Labov starts from the fact that a semantic
difference is perceived between:

I was arrested to prove a point.

and:
I got arrested to prove a point.

The responsibility of the subject for his arrest is transparent in the case
of the sentence with get, not so, however, when be is used. Because the
subject is perceived as the cause of what happens to him, Labor (1975a:
122) speaks of a "causal' meaning in get.
However, the minimal pair presented above contains a purpose infinitive,
which may actually be what 'brings out the causative meaning of get" (ibid.).
 E. C. Garcia / Shifthag variation 211

So w h a t a b o u t plain:

I was arrested.

versus:

I got arrested?

' D o these mean the s a m e ? ' L a b o v asks (1975a: 121). Given that:

I got arrested to p r o v e a point.

and :

I was arrested to prove a point.

are interpreted as clearly non-equivalent (and therefore have a 'different

meaning and structure', L a b o v (1975a : 122)), are we justified in concluding
that this same (analytical) difference carries over to the n o n - p u r p o s e pair?
A simple-minded answer might be that, regardless o f presence or absence
o f a p u r p o s e expression, both pairs obviously differ in the same way, i.e.,
the presence o f get vs. be.
Labov, however, finds this c o m m o n - s e n s e conclusion highly unsatisfactory
(1975a : 122):

'If we argue that [I was arrested] and [1 got arrested] mean something different, there is a
strange (...) consequence. It is well known that the "get passive" is more colloquial than
the be passive; in fact, many people deny using it altogether. Though no systematic study
has been made, there is reason to believe that its use is stylistically and socially stratified.
Is it the case that people think more causally when they are talking more informally?'

A n d to THIS question L a b o v clearly expects a negative answer. L a b o v

a p p a r e n t l y reasons as follows:

(1) Linguistic usage that is stylistically and socially stratified canNOT be

the result o f cognitive differences, or even o f different cognitions,
(2) Difference in meaning entails difference in cognition,
(3) There is reason to believe that the get and be passives are stylistically
and socially stratified,
(4) get and be passives therefore do not differ in meaning. ~8

is However, Labov remains surprisingly silent on the issue of linguistic analysis. He says
( 1975a : 124):
212 E.C. Garcia / Sh(fiing variation

But the whole issue is in fact a pseudo-problem, brought on by the hasty

and superficial characterization of the get passive as 'causal', a charac-
terization that is clearly the result of examining the get passive in the
restricted context of a purpose infinitive. 19
This characterization should not be blamed on Lakoff (1971), Labov's
source for the contrast. Though Lakoff does not pretend to offer a full-
fledged analysis of get and be as 'passive auxiliaries', her discussion of get
(1971:154-155) does suggest a reason for its favouring in colloquial or
informal speech. Get, according to Lakoff, suggests not 'causality', but
speaker involvement and subject responsibility for the event.
This insight is anticipated in Hatcher (1949: 442), who is not referred to
by either Lakoff or Labov, and is further refined by Stein (1979: 54-59,
64-67) on the basis of a considerable corpus. 2° According to Stein (1979: 59) :

'(1) Get passives generally reflect the speaker's opinion on an event which happens, happened
or may happen to the subject of the sentence (...)
(2) Get conveys in all passive sentences an actional and resultative/s~atal meaning. This
basic meaning of ge t passives assumes different shades o f meaning which depend on
the specific type o f verb and the tense form in which it is used (...),21

Stein's characterization accounts for a variety of facts, such as the frequent

use of get in passive imperatives (Stein (1979: 54)), or the type of verbs
that get, be, (and become) are regularly combined with (Stein (1979: 64)).

'The results of this experiment point towards two distinct modes o f interpretation o f get
with past participles. With a purpose clause, the causative meaning appears to be strong;
without a purpose clause, we do not detect any difference between get and be, and we
would therefore regard the get and be passives as social variants.'

... in all contexts? Or only in the absence o f purpose clauses? In which case, what is the
ANALYTICAL relation between get in the context of purpose clauses, vs. elsewhere?
19 Stein's (1979: 46-67) careful discussion of what get contributes to the communication o f
"passive' messages at no point invokes 'causality'.
20 Stein is able to arrive at her insightful characterization o f the semantic contribution o f get
because she refuses to limit herself to what traditional grammar labels a ~passive'. She rather
takes as her point o f departure the linguistic phenomenon get + past participle, in its entire
lexical range. For perceptive discussion o f this methodological point, cf. Stein (1979: 74-78).
For another analysis o f the get-passive, also within the larger perspective o f the entire range
o f uses o f get, cf. Miller (1985: 181-185).
2t The contrast between get and be (i.e., highlighting 'action' vs. 'statal' traits o f the event)
is, interestingly enough, clearly observed in contexts lacking a purpose clause (Stein (1979: 53))
- precisely there where Labov claims equivalence between the two expressions.
 E. C. Garcia / Shifthlg variation 213

Now the fact that get is used to signal the speaker's opinion allows us
to understand why it should be favoured in colloquial rather than in formal
speech. A subjective ('speaker's opinion') presentation of the subject matter
is more likely in emotionally charged speech, and this will be more easily
allowed in a colloquial setting, rather than in formal discourse or in
scholarly prose. Besides, one can advance one's own personal views more
safely in informal speech, because it is here that full responsibility for one's
words can be more easily declined.
The possibility of motivating the favouring of get in informal rather than
in formal speech suggests, then, that an adequate understanding of the facts
can be arrived at if one seeks out the connection among all uses of get,
in all contexts (vs. all uses of be, in all contexts), and that it is unnecessary
to conclude, as Labov does (1975a: 125) that we must 'regard the get and
be passives as social variants'. Such a conclusion is particularly unwarranted
when no correlation is shown to hold between get and be and any social
parameter whatsoever. 22

6. Variation as an end in itself

Since, as just seen, variationist studies have only attempted to describe,

rather than (substantially) motivate the observed frequency data (Kay and
McDaniel (1981: 257), Itkonen (1983: 277)), it comes as no surprise that
much recent work should center on the mechanics of quantitative analysis.
D. Sankoff and Cedergren (1976) examine the problem of 'dimensionality
of variation': significantly, the variability of a correlation is discussed in
the abstract, almost independently of the linguistic parameters that define it
(1976: 166). It is recognized that:

"(...) the method depends on the existence of an initial two-way cross-cutting classification
of the situations.' (ibid.: 167)

But it is clear that the LINGUISTIC significance of the variation plays second
fiddle :

'Once again, given a way to calculate Or measure x [the variable, EG] in a large number
of situations, the major problem is this: is there some number d, and some meaningful

22 Stein (1979: 164) points out that it is in fact highly unlikely that get should be a colloquial/
stylistic variant of be, since for certain messages get is the only possibility.
214 E. C. Garcia / Shifting variation

d-dimensional classification o f these situations, such that the d-dimensional scaling con-
dition is satisfied?" (ibid.: 166)

and :
"Using statistical and linguistic criteria, we select the best dimensionality and associated
scale." (ibid. : 168)

The same motif recurs in Sankoff and Labov (1979:217-218). An even

more revolutionary note is sounded in Sankoff and Thibault (1981). The
difficulty posed by the fact that:

"(...) as we proceed from phonology to morphology to syntax and semantics it becomes

more and more difficult to work out the common underlying grammatical basis for
variants (...)" (Sankoff and Thibault (1981 : 207))

can be BY-PASSED by starting from the frequency distribution. Of what,

one asks in amazement? Sankoff and Thibault's

"(...) main claim is that the syntactic variable is largely recognized through its distributional
properties, mainly its distribution across a speech community." (ibid. : 207)

They seek, in short, weak complementarity, defined as:

"(...) quantitative inverse relationship between rate o f usage o f two forms across a com-
munity." (ibid.: 207) z3

Since obviously not any two forms will do

"(...) something additional is needed, but this is difficult to pin down (...) In many cases (...)
the most we can say is that the proposed variants can serve one or more generally similar
discourse function. We cannot even require that they be identical discourse functions, the
lack o f rigorous criteria [being] seemingly related to the role o f these variables in the change
process.' (ibid.: 207-208)

And to make quite sure that the point gets across they state:

"In working with these variants we are generally convinced that we are dealing with
bonafide variables and that the particular nature o f the underlying form, or even its
existence is irrelevant. How can this be? Because o f the distributional facts.' (ibid. : 207) 2~

.,a Sankoff and Thibault oppose "weak' complementarity, which is fundamentally quanti-
tative in nature, to "ordinary or strong complementarity o f distribution, which is qualitative'.
By the latter they presumably mean normal linguistic complementary distribution.
:~ The same position is taken in Thibault (1983: 7):
 E. C. Garcia / Shifting variation 215

The circularity inherent in this approach should be apparent.

Since the linguistic side of the variable is so ill-defined, the metric relied
on is relative frequency (per line, number of words, etc. (cf. Sankoff and
Thibault (1981:210,214)), rather than the customary percentage of one
variant over the total number of instances of the variable. In short, a
further shift from linguistic variables to variables, t o u t c o u r t . And indeed,
the linguistic value of the forms in question is of little interest or importance
(Sankoff and Thibault (1981 : 211)) :

"If we succeed in proving weak complementarity for alld and dtd despite the semantic
distinction on which some would insist it would show the irrelevance or the neutralization
o f this distinction in discourse."

The viability of Sankoff and Thibault's proposed course of action is

(un)fortunately cast in doubt by a significant admission made in the'con-
cluding paragraph of their paper:

"An important problem to which we have scarcely alluded is that o f identifying, in a

systematic way, the universe o f basic discourse functions.' (ibid. : 215)

If sociolinguistics can, by successive shifts, become plain 'variation', the

logical next step can only be the study of plain frequency - without com-
parison or control. This stage is exemplified in Dines (1980), who gives
absolute frequency data for a variety of terminal tags in the speech of
women from two socio-economic groups, the working-class women showing
a higher number of tags. She is prevented from going beyond this first
data-gathering stage by:
(i) a failure to demonstrate, language internally, what the communi-
cative function of terminal tags is; hence,
(ii) the impossibility of locating what (other) speech forms, if any, fill a
comparable function in middle-class speech; hence,
(iii) the impossibility of calculating, for either group, the relative fre-
quency of terminal tags in terms of a relevant control.

"Normalement, I'emploi d ' u n drmonstratif dans des contextes identifirs c o m m e 6tant du

domaine des simples reprrsentants, devrait produire un effet de sens mais on serait justifi6
de croire que l'effet de sens a subi une usure si I'on trouvait un taux anormalement 61ev6
d'occurrences de [le d r m o n s t r a t i f en question, EG] dans de tels contextes.'

No indication is given, unfortunately, o f how one can decide what constitutes "un taux
anormalement ~lev~ d'occurrences'.
216 E.C. Garcia / Shifting variation

In short, only one 'variant' has been isolated, on purely quantitative grounds
- because terminal tags have forced themselves on the observer's attention.
But, as has long been recognized, one category is no c a t e g o r y : linguistic
units are defined by the oppositions into which they enter. Dines herself
clear-sightedly concludes, with c o m m e n d a b l e honesty ( 1 9 8 0 : 2 9 ) :

'The outcome of the preceding exercise is that it is as yet pointless to undertake quantitative
analysis."

7. Conclusions: a theoretical blind alley

T h e awareness that all is not as it should be appears to have penetrated

even the variationist camp. 25 The grandiose claims made in the past for
the theoretical significance o f variable rules and variationist analysis have
undergone significant change over the years, the shift sometimes a m o u n t i n g
to a wholesale withdrawal o f earlier claims.
The retreat has taken place on various fronts. T h e first c o m p o n e n t to
be sacrificed was, paradoxically, the social one. Quite early (in fact, in
contradiction with a later assertion [1971 : 456--457]) L a b o v stated (1970: 78) :

"As far as the synchronic aspect of language structure is concerned, it would be an error
to put for [sic] much emphasis on social factors. Generative grammar has made great
progress in working out the invariant relations within this structure, even though it wholly
neglects the social context of language."

Then there followed the significant m o v e from SOClolinguistic to plain

LINGUISTIC variable ( L a b o v (1978: 10-11)); indeed, Weiner and L a b o v
(1983 : 31, 37) clearly suggest that 'syntactic variation' can in fact not be due
to social factors.

25 The refashioning of generative rules proposed by sociolinguists of course did not go

unchallenged : objections were early voiced on a number of grounds, such as :
(i) variables for which coefficients are statable do not necessarily stand in a one-to-one
relation with respect to the rules one would postulate for the grammar anyway (Hudson
(1980: 182)),
(ii) knowledge about community-wide frequency relations cannot be part of the com-
petence of individuals (Bickerton (1971)),
and, more seriously,
(iii) variable rules were objected to as theoretically incoherent (Gazdar (1976: 123, 127
fn. 22), Kay and McDaniel (1979: 153), among others).
 E. C. Garcia / Shifting variation 217

This was followed, in turn, by a disavowal of the status of variable rules

as a significant contribution to linguistic theory (D. Sankoff and Labov
(1979 : 217)) :

'Though formalisms are necessary to focus an analysis on particular linguistic relations,

it would be foolhardy to put too much stock on any one formalism. The theory that we
are constructing is not a new form of model-building, and we do not make the error of
confusing the set of rules we write with the grammatical processes that people use.
Indeed, the notational and formal questions surrounding variable rules have receded in
importance (...) Though the methodology of variable rules was motivated by and developed
in conjunction with the project to incorporate variability in generative grammar, it would
be a mistake to think that this methodology is logically tied to a particular grammatical
formalism."

A particularly striking reversal of position occurs in Labov (1978: 1):

'Linguistic variables or variable rules are not in themselves a "theory of language". They
are all heuristic devices."

and (ibid. : 12-13) :

'Thus a variable rule analysis is not put forward as a description of the grammar, but
a device for finding out about the grammar.'

Finally, in a recent paper Labov (1982: 34) alludes to the variable rules
of the seventies as 'techniques for multivariate analysis'; he also acknowl-
edges (ibid. : 55) that phonology and syntax work according to very different
principles, and that linguistic sameness is not to be taken for granted (ibid. :
85 fn. 2). He even admits (ibid.) that important issues are raised in Lavandera
(1978) (the object of caustic rebuttal in Labov (1978)). However, as was
seen above, these valuable insights were apparently thrown to the winds in
Weiner and Labov (1983).
How is all this to be accounted for? The failure of the variationist
approach seems to be due to sociolinguists' having adopted the formalism
of generative rules as a purely descriptive device, without seriously con-
sidering its theoretical implications (cf. Labov (1972b: 43), Cedergren and
Sankoff (1974: 353)).26 For instance, the crucial question raised by Kiparsky

26 As Kay and McDaniel correctly point out (1979: 185):

'(...) it seems impossible to alter Chomsky's view o f linguistic competence to account for
observed patterns in token frequencies without distorting the original concept beyond
recognition and usefulness (...) it is probably a mistake to try to accommodate data on
token frequencies (...) At present it would seem preferable to acknowledge that we have
218 E.C. Garcia / Sh(fting variation

(1971) concerning what is learnt, has never received a satisfactory answer,

nor has it ever become really clear in variationist studies what knowledge
or whose knowledge is being formalized. 27 Specifically, does the order of
languereside in the individual (= competence), or in the community (= social
stratification)? This issue is central, for instance, to Hudson (1980). It has
not, however, been addressed in consistent fashion by variationists (Romaine
(1981: 101-106)).
Most fundamentally, sociolinguistics has never even attempted to develop
the required analytical categories which, by providing an original view of
language, would have made it possible to integrate qualitative judgments
on linguistic structure with quantitative data on language use (Itkonen
(1983:276-278)). 28 As Naro points out (1980: 165):

' F r o m the point of view of linguistic theory, it would be much more interesting if
patterned behavior in linguistic variation could be shown to be a RESULT of linguistic
competence, rather than just a PART of it, in the same way as the regular behavior of a
coin upon flipping is a result of its physical structure.'

no formal theory of variable d,ata on linguistic tokens than to attempt to graft an account
of these data onto a formal theory that was specifically designed for other and contrary
purposes. It appears that there simply does not exist currently any formal theory that
comes reasonably near to giving a coherent account of the systematicity observed in
respect to linguistic tokens.'
:~ Consider the following remark by Labov (1972b: 81):
'(...) the I-t, d deletion] rule (...) is an excellent candidate for a panlinguistic grammar (...)
the general rule may indeed have escalated out of our grammar into a metagrammar.'
Despite his use of the generative formalism, Labor apparently understands by 'grammar'
something different from Kiparsky (1971 : 645): it is not clear in what sense a 'pan linguistic'
or 'meta' grammar would be learnt, nor by whom. This unclarity with respect to the central
issue of what (and where) grammar is has allowed variationist studies to develop more and
more independently of concerns in theoretical linguistics and - as we have seen - to center
more and more on research techniques.
2a Consider, for instance, the following statement (Labor (1978: 13)):
'(...) it is the explanation of the variable constraints that lead [sic] us to conclusions about
the form of grammar. When we reach those conclusions we will not hesitate to place
probabilistic weights upon our grammatical rules, no matter where they do occur.'
No suggestion is offered as to what might constitute an 'explanation of the variable constraints'.
An even more fundamental question is left unasked, let alone answered: once an explanation
is found for the 'variable constraints', will there be any rule left on which to place probabilistic
weights?
 E. C. Garcia / Shifting variation 219

This kind of understanding has clearly not been achieved.

Indeed, the greatest difficulty with sociolinguistic/variationist analysis is
the uncertainty in which it leaves us with respect to its fundamental goals.
Particularly unclear is the position on 'choice' - a concept that supposedly
integrates linguistic structure with statistical (probabilistic) formalization
(D. Sankoff (1978 : 235)). In the case of syntax the connection is established
at the cost of a certain obscurity, perhaps contradictoriness, in the inter-
pretation of 'choice'. Weiner and Labov describe as their aims (1983:29):
(i) to present 'a quantitative study of the factors that determine the
selection of passive constructions over active ones by English speakers',
and
(ii) 'to throw light on the crucial question of which syntactic and which
semantic features of the environment act to constrain the choice'.
It is not clear whether these aims are to be viewed as distinct but com-
plementary, or as 'different ways of saying the same thing'. In any case,
the only things actually discussed in the paper are the various linguistic and
non-linguistic factors observed to correlate with the occurrence of agentless
passives, vs. '[-Specific] subject' actives (Weiner and Labov (1983:37)).
That discussion is entitled 'external (resp. internal) constraints on the
choice of active or passive' (ibid. :40, 43), but it does little to clarify the
statement of aims. We read, for instance:

'Before we conclude that given vs. new is the dominant factor in determining the choice
of active or passive (...)' (ibid.: 47)

But:

'(...) the choice of active and passive (...) is conditioned by formal, syntactic factors
(...)' (ibid.: 52)

And again :

"[the data on age and social class correlations] do not indicate that external factors have
a sizeable influence on the choice of active or passive in agentless sentences," (ibid. : 42)

But :

'(..,) tile over-all distribution of this constraint [i,e,, surface-structure parallelism] proves
to be somewhat larger than the given vs, new effect," (ibid. : 47)

Weiner and Labov never do make clear what exactly they understand by
'the choice between active and passive" and, particularly, whether "choice"
?Z20 E.C. Garcia S3~#?ing n~ri,:tion

is tbr them distinct from "occurrence off. It is hard to understand how, if

the choice of a form is DETERMINED by a I:actor (say. parallel structure),
it can be CONSTRAINED b v that same factor.
It is possible, of course, that Weiner and Labor basically view the
occurrence of active Ivs. passive} structures as an essentially random pheno-
menon. That is. active and passive might, in principle, be expected to be
equally likely, as behooves truth-value-equivalent variants. In that case,
"choice" would amount to "tYee variation, random occurrence of equivalent
lbrms', and deviations from this hypothetical distribution (expected on the
.m-ounds o f linguistic equivalence) would be due to the constraining effect
of different environments. But if this is what is meant it is very misleading
to speak o f these constraints as determining the CHOICE, as if a meaningful
option were invoh'ed.
This obscurity, perhaps even contradictoriness, in Weiner and Labor's
view o f "linguistic choice" is probably rooted in their view o f language as
rule-governed behaviour (Labor (19"/8: ll)j. From this perspective, the
linguist's .job can only be to discover and describe the hidden regularities
that "govern" the apparent chaos and randomness o f language use (D. Sankoff
(1982 : 678-679)) - a view of things that is quite compatible with variationists"
willingness to :
(i) assume the linguistic equivalence o f different expressions, and
(ii) divide the "rule-governed" distribution o f forms into "categorical" vs.
~aDing'.
Such assumptions, however, rob "choice" o f all linguistic significance:
the use of a lbrm paradoxically turns out NEVER to be the result o f a
meaningful choice by the speaker. In the "categorical" contexts (Labov
(1978 : 6)) the occurrence o f the form is determined and obligatory, and in
the ~,'ao'ing' contexts there is, by definition, only arbitrarily constrained
randomness. What is thus systematically and siL,nificantly left out in varia-
tionist studies is the communicative value o f the forms in question. THE
DIFFERENCE IT MAKES TO WHAT ONE SAYS WHETHER ONE CHOOSES ONE
FORM OR ANOTHER. In sociolinguisties, it would appear, the SPEA.KER never
has a choice. This is particularly parado~cal, and especially to be deplored.
~ithin an approach to which the social nature o f language is supposedly
basic.
We cannot but conclude that variationist studies have failed to establish
a satisfactory (explanatoD') relation between the frequency distributions
obser,,ed in language use, and the _m-~mar postulated by the analyst. On
 E. C. Garcia / Shifting variation 221

the contrary, they have done a fine job of vindicating Chomsky's scepticism.
Despite Labov's recent optimistic claims (1980: xiv), the large amounts of
quantitative data produced by variationist studies have not shed any new
light on the structure of language (Itkonen (1983: 258)). Linguistics has
certainly been provided with extremely useful research and analytical tech-
niques, and much very interesting information has been amassed on many
aspects of language use. But the significance and relevance of such data
for linguistic theory has yet to be demonstrated. For this, a coherent view
of language is required.

References

Anttila, R., 1975. The indexical element in morphology. Innsbrucker Beitr~ige zur Sprach-
wissenschaft. Vortrag 12.
Ashby, W.J., 1981. The loss of the negative particle ne in French. Language 57, 674-687.
Benveniste, E., 1966. Structure des relations de personne dans .le verbe. In: E. Benveniste,
Probl/~mes de linguistique g6n6rale, 225-236. Paris: Gallimard.
Berdan, R., 1975. The necessity of variable rules. In: R.W. Fasold and R.W. Shuy (eds.),
Analyzing variation in language, I 1-25. Washington D.C. : Georgetown University Press.
Bickerton, D., 1971. Inherent variability and variable rules. Foundations of Language 7,
457-492.
Bickerton, D., 1972. The structure of polylectal grammars. In: R.W. Shuy (ed.), 23rd. George-
town Round Table Conference, 17-42. Washington D.C. : Georgetown University Press.
Bickerton, D., 1973. Quantitative vs. Dynamic paradigms: the case of Montreal que. In:
Ch.-J. Bailey and R.W. Shuy (eds.), New ways of analyzing variation in English, 23-43.
Washington D.C. : Georgetown University Press.
Bloch, B., 1947. English verb inflection. Language 23, 399-418.
Bolinger, D., 1977. Meaning and form. London : Longman.
Brasington, R.W.P., 1982. Markedness, strength and position. In: D. Crystal (ed.), Linguistic
controversies, 81-94. London: Edw. Arnold.
Broeck, J. van den, 1977. Class differences in syntactic complexity in the Flemish town of
Maaseik. Language in Society 6, 149-181.
Brown, P., 1980. How and why are women more polite: some evidence from a Mayan com-
munity. In: S. McConnell-Ginet, R. Borker and N. Furman (eds.), Women and language
in literature and society, 111-136. New York : Praeger.
Cedergren, H., 1973. On the nature of variable constraints. In: Ch.-J. N. Bailey and R.W. Shuy
(eds.), New ways of analyzing variation in English, 13-22. Washington D.C. : Georgetown
University Press.
Cedergren, H. and D. Sankoff, 1974. Variable rules: performance as a statistical reflection
of competence. Language 50, 333-355.
Chomsky, N., 1957. Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.
Chomsky, N., 1966. Cartesian linguistics. New York: Harper & Row.
222 E.C. Garcia / Sh(fting variation

Dines, E.R., 1980. Variation in discourse- 'and stuff like that'. Language in Society 9,
13-31.
Fasold, R., 1978. Language variation and linguistic competence. In: D. Sankoff (ed.), Lin-
guistic variation. Models and methods, 85-95. New York: Academic Press.
Garcia, E.C., 1985. Quantity into quality: synchronic indeterminacy and language change.
Lingua 65, 295-326.
Gareia, E.C., to appear. Grasping the nettle: variation as the proof of invariance. Pro-
ceedings of the First International Roman Jakobson Conference.
Gazdar, G., 1976. Quantifying context. York Papers in Linguistics 6, 117-129.
Goilo, E., 1953. Gramatical Papiamentu. Curaqao: Hollandse Boekhandel.
Hasan, R., 1973. Code, register and social dialect. In: B. Bernstein (ed.), Class, Codes and
Control, Vol. 2, 253-292. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Hatcher, A.G., 1949. To get/be invited. Modern Language Notes 64, 433--446.
Householder, F.W., 1962. On the uniqueness of semantic mapping. Word 18, 173-185.
Hudson, R.A., 1980. Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Itkonen, E., 1983. Causality in linguistic theory. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Jacobson, S., 1980. Issues in the study of syntactic variation. In: S. Jacobson (ed.), Papers
from the Scandinavian Symposium on syntactic variation, 23-36. Stockholm Studies in
English LII.
Kay, P. and C.K. McDaniel, 1979. On the logic of variable rules. Language in Society 8,
151-187.
Kay, P. and C.K. McDaniel, 1981. On the meaning of variable rules. Langt, age in Society
10, 251-258.
Kiparsky, P., 1971. Historical linguistics. In: W.O. Dingwall (ed.), A survey of linguistic
science, 576-649. College Park, MD : University of Maryland.
Labor, W., 1963. The social motivation of a sound change. Word 19, 273-309.
Labov, W., 1966. The social stratification of English in New York City. Washington D.C.:
Center for Applied Linguistics.
Labov, W., 1969. Contraction, deletion and inherent variability of the English copula. Language
45, 715-762.
Labov, W., 1970. The study of language in its social context. Studium Generale 22, 30-87.
Labov, W., 1971. Methodology. In : W.O. Dingwall (ed.), A survey of linguistic science, 412-
497. College Park, MD : University of Maryland.
Labor, W., 1972a. The internal evolution of linguistic rules. In: R.P. Stockwell and R.K.S.
Macaulay (eds.), Linguistic change and generative theory, I01-171. Bloomington, IN : Indiana
University Press.
Labov, W., 1972b. Where do grammars stop? In: R.W. Shuy (ed.), 23rd. Georgetown Round
Table Conference, 43-88. Washington D.C. : Georgetown University Press.
Labov, W., 1972c. Negative attraction and negative concord in English grammar. Language
48, 773-818.
Labov, W., 1972d. Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania
Press.
Labov, W., 1973. The boundaries of words and their meanings. In: Ch.-J.N. Bailey and
R.W. Shuy (eds.), New ways of analyzing variation in English, 340-373. Washington D.C. :
Georgetown University Press.
Labov, W., 1975a. Empirical foundations of linguistic theory. In: R. Austerlitz (ed.), The
scope of American linguistics, 77-133. Lisse: de Ridder.
 E.C. Garcia / Shifthtg variation 223

Labov, W., 1975b. The quantitative study of linguistic structure. In: K.H. Dahlstedt (ed.),
The Nordic languages and modern lingt, istics, Vol. 2, 188-234. Stockholm: Almqvist.
Labov, W., 1978. Where does the linguistic variable stop? A response to Beatriz Lavandera.
Sociolinguistic Working Papers, 44. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development
Laboratory.
Labov, W., 1980. Introduction. In: W. Labov (ed.), Locating language in time and space,
xiii-xx. New York: Academic Press.
Labov, W., 1982. Building on empirical foundations. In: W.P. Lehman and Y. Malkiel (eds.),
Perspectives on historical linguistics, 17-92. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lakoff, R., 1971. Passive resistance. Chicago Linguistic Society 7, 149-162.
Lantolf, J.P., 1978. The variable constraints on mood in Puerto-Rican-American Spanish. In:
M. Suffer (ed.), Contemporary studies in Romance linguistics, 193-217. WashingtOn, D.C.:
Georgetown University Press.
Lattey, E., 1979. Beyond variable rules. Papers in Pidgin and Creole Linguistics 2, 21-36
(Pacific Linguistics, Series A, N ° 57).
Lavandera, B.R., 1978. Where does the sociolinguistic variable stop? Language in Society 7,
171-182.
Lavandera, B.R., 1982. Le principe de r6interpr6tation dans la th6orie de la variation. In:
N. Dittmar and B. Schlieben-Lange (eds.), La sociolinguistique darts les pays de langue
romane, 87-124. Tiibingen: Gunter Narr.
Lefebvre, C., 1981. The double structure of questions in French : a case of syntactic variation.
In : D. Sankoff and H. Cedergren (eds.), Variation Omnibus, 229-237. Edmonton : Linguistic
Research Inc.
Lyons, J., 1977. Semantics. Cambridge: cambridge University Press.
Mihalic, F., 1971. The Jacaranda Dictionary and Grammar of Melanesian Pidgin. Milton:
Jacaranda Press.
Miller, J., 1985. Semantics and syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nai'o, A.J., 1978. A study on the origins of pidginization. Language 54, 314-347.
Naro, A.J., 1980. Review of D. Sankoff (ed.). Linguistic Variation. Language 56, 158~170.
Romaine, S., 1981. The status of variable rules in sociolinguistic theory. Journal of Linguistics
17, 93-119.
Romaine, S., 1984. On the problem of syntactic variation and pragmatic meaning in socio-
linguistic theory. Folia Linguistica 18, 409-437.
Rosengren, P., 1974. Presencia y ausencia de los pronombres personales sujetos en espaffol
moderno. Stockholm: Acta Univ. Gothoburgensis XIV.
Sankoff, D., 1978. Probability and linguistic variation. Synth6se 37, 217-238.
Sankoff, D., 1982. Sociolinguistic method and linguistic theory. In: J.J. Cohen et al. (eds.),
Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science VI, 677-689. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Sankoff, D. and H. Cedergren, 1976. The dimensionality of grammatical variation. Language
52, 163-178.
Sankoff, D. and W. Labov, 1979. On the uses of variable rules. Language in Society 8,
189-222.
Sankoff, D. and P. Thibault, 1981. Weak complementarity: tense and aspect in Montreal
French. In : B.B. Johns and D. R. Strong (eds.), Syntactic change, 205-216. Natural Language
Series, 25. Ann Arbor, MI : University of Michigan. (Linguistics Department.)
Sankoff, G., 1973. Above and beyond phonology in variable rules. In: Ch.-J.N. Bailey and
R.W. Shuy (eds.), New ways of analyzing variation in English, 44-61. Washington D.C.:
Georgetown University Press.
224 E.C. Garcia / Shifting variation

Sankoff, G., 1980a. A quantitative paradigm for the study of communicative competence.
In : G. Sankoff, The social life of language, 47-79. Philadelphia, PA : University of Penn-
sylvania Press.
Sankoff, G., 1980b. Variability and explanation in language and culture : cliticization in New
Guinea Tok Pisin. In : G. Sankoff, The social life of language, 257-270. Philadelphia, PA :
University of Pennsylvania Press.
Sankoff, G., 1982. Usage linguistique et grammaticalisation: les clitiques sujets en franqais.
In : N. Dittmar and B. Schlieben-Lange (eds.), La sociolinguistique dans les pays de langue
romane, 81-85. Tiibingen : Gunter Narr.
Sankoff, G., 1984. Substrate and universals in the Tok Pisin verb phrase. In : D. Schiffrin (ed.),
Meaning, form and use in context, 104-119. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University
Press.
Sankoff, G. and S. Laberge, 1973. On the acquisition of native speakers by a language.
Kivung 6, 32-47.
Sankoff, G. and P. Thibault, 1977. L'alternance entre les auxiliaires avoh" et ~tre en franqais
parl6 en Montr6al. Langue franqaise 34, 81-108.
Saussure, F. de, 1959. Course in general linguistics. New York: Philosophical Library.
Schiffrin, D., 1981. Tense variation in narrative. Language 57, 45-62.
Schmidely, J., 1971. Grammaire et statistique: l'alternance le/Io dans I'expression de I'objet
pronominal 'direct' en espagnol. Etudes de linguistique appliqu~e 6, 37-58.
Schwartz, L.J., 1980. Syntactic markedness and frequency of occurrence. In: Th.A. Perry (ed.),
Evidence and argumentation in linguistics, 315-333. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Silva-Corval~in, C., 1981. Extending the sociolinguistic variable to syntax: the case of pleonastic
clitics in Spanish. In: D. Sankoff, H. Cedergren (eds.), Variation omnibus, 335-342. Ed-
monton: Linguistic Research Inc.
Stein, G., 1979. Studies in the function of the passive. Tiibingen : Gunter Narr.
Thibault, P., 1983. Equivalence et grammaticalisation. University of Montr6al. (Ph.D. Disser-
tation.)
Traugott, E.C., 1982. From propositional to textual and expressive meanings: some semantic-
pragmatic aspects of grammaticalisation. In : W.P. Lehman, Y. Malkiel (eds.), Perspectives
in historical linguistics, 245-271. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Trudgill, P., 1972. Sex, covert prestige and linguistic change in the urban British English of
Norwich. Language in Society 1, 179-195.
Weiner, E.J. and W. Labov, 1983. Constraints on the agentless passive. Journal of Linguistics
19, 29-58.
Wierzbicka, A., 1984. Cups and mugs: lexicography and conceptual analysis. Australian Journal
of Linguistics 4, 205-255.
Winford, D., 1984. The linguistic variable and syntactic variation in Creole continua. Lingua
62, 267-288.
Wolfram, W., 1973. On what basis variable rules? In: Ch.-J.N. Bailey and R.W. Shuy (eds.),
New ways of analyzing variation in English, 1-12. Washington D.C. : Georgetown University
Press.