Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Syntax
- Cambridge Handbooks In Language And Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Syntax
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- 1 The Comparative Syntactic Enterprise
- Part I Comparative Syntax: Theory, Methodology, and Data Collection
- 2 Theoretical Approaches to Comparative Syntax
- 3 Databases for Comparative Syntactic Research
- 4 Quantitative Approaches to Syntactic Variation
- 5 Computational Approaches to Syntactic Variation
- 6 Comparative Syntax from Formal and Functional Perspectives
- 7 Micro-Comparative Syntax, Dialectology, and Sociolinguistics
- 8 Change
- 9 Universal and Language-Specific Properties of Language
- Part II Comparative Syntax: Building Blocks and Combinatorial Properties
- Part III Comparative Syntax: Dependency Relations and Dependency Marking
- Part IV Comparative Syntax: Interfaces
- Index
- References
7 - Micro-Comparative Syntax, Dialectology, and Sociolinguistics
from Part I - Comparative Syntax: Theory, Methodology, and Data Collection
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 January 2026
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Syntax
- Cambridge Handbooks In Language And Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Syntax
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- 1 The Comparative Syntactic Enterprise
- Part I Comparative Syntax: Theory, Methodology, and Data Collection
- 2 Theoretical Approaches to Comparative Syntax
- 3 Databases for Comparative Syntactic Research
- 4 Quantitative Approaches to Syntactic Variation
- 5 Computational Approaches to Syntactic Variation
- 6 Comparative Syntax from Formal and Functional Perspectives
- 7 Micro-Comparative Syntax, Dialectology, and Sociolinguistics
- 8 Change
- 9 Universal and Language-Specific Properties of Language
- Part II Comparative Syntax: Building Blocks and Combinatorial Properties
- Part III Comparative Syntax: Dependency Relations and Dependency Marking
- Part IV Comparative Syntax: Interfaces
- Index
- References
Summary
This chapter discusses the subdiscipline of micro-comparative syntax in its relation to dialectology and sociolinguistics. While micro-comparative syntax seeks to contribute to a theoretical cognitive model of the human language capacity, dialectology and sociolinguistics study the relation between linguistic properties and external factors such as geography, age, gender, and social class. Differences and similarities between the three subdisciplines are discussed, as well as the ways they can be combined. The chapter has a strong focus on methodology. The appendix to this chapter provides an overview of recent large-scale dialect syntax projects with links to the project websites and databases.
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Syntax , pp. 203 - 227Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2025
References
Adger, D. 2016. Language variability in syntactic theory. In Eguren, L., Fernandez-Soriano, O., and Mendikoetxea, A. (eds.), Rethinking Parameters [Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax], 49–63. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Akmajian, A. 1970. On deriving cleft sentences from pseudo-cleft sentences. Linguistic Inquiry 1: 149–168.Google Scholar
Ashby, W. 1981. The loss of the negative particle ne in French: A syntactic change in progress. Language 57(3): 674–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auer, P., and Schmidt, J. E. (eds.). 2010. Language and Space: An International Handbook of Linguistic Variation, vol. 1: Theories and Methods. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Baker, M. 1985. The mirror principle and morphosyntactic explanation. Linguistic Inquiry 16: 373–415.Google Scholar
Baker, M. 2008. The macroparameter in a microparametric world. In Biberauer, T. (ed.), The Limits of Syntactic Variation, 351–373. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barbiers, S. 2005. Word order variation in three-verb clusters and the division of labour between generative linguistics and sociolinguistics. In Cornips, L. and Corrigan, K. (eds.), 233–264).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barbiers, S. 2013. Microsyntactic variation. In den Dikken, M. (ed.), Cambridge Handbook of Generative Syntax, 899–926. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barbiers, S. 2020. A sociogrammatical analysis of linguistic gaps and transitional forms. In Beaman, K., Buchstaller, I., Fox, S., and Walker, J. A. (eds.), Advancing Socio-Grammatical Variation and Change. In Honour of Jenny Cheshire, 1–15. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Barbiers, S., and Bennis, H. J.. 2007. The Syntactic Atlas of the Dutch Dialects. A discussion of choices in the SAND-project. Nordlyd 34: 53–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barbiers, S. et al. 2006. Dynamische Syntactische Atlas van de Nederlandse Dialecten (DynaSAND). Amsterdam: Meertens Instituut. www.meertens.knaw.nl/sand/zoeken/index.php.Google Scholar
Barbiers, S., Koeneman, O., Lekakou, M., and van der Ham, M (eds.). 2008. Microvariation in Syntactic Doubling [Syntax and Semantics 36]. Bingley: Emerald.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barbiers, S., van Koppen, M., Bennis, H., and Corver, N.. 2016. MIcrocomparative MOrphosyntactic REsearch (MIMORE): Mapping partial grammars of Flemish, Brabantish and Dutch. Lingua 178: 5–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barbiers, S., Bennis, H., and Dros-Hendriks, L.. 2018. Merging verb cluster variation. Linguistic Variation 18( 1): 144–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beaman, K., Buchstaller, I., Fox, S., and Walker, J. (eds.). 2020. Advancing Socio-Grammatical Variation and Change. In Honour of Jenny Cheshire. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benincà, P. (ed.). 1989. Dialect Variations and the Theory of Grammar. Proceedings of the GLOW workshop in Venice 1987. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Biberauer, T., and Roberts, I.. 2017. Parameter setting. In Ledgeway, A. and Roberts, I. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Historical Syntax, 134–162. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birkenes, M. B., and Fleischer, J.. 2021. Syntactic vs. phonological areas: A quantitative perspective on Hessian dialects. Journal of Linguistic Geography 9(2): 142–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandner, E. 2012. Syntactic microvariation. Language and Linguistics Compass 6(2): 113–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cedergren, H., and Sankoff, D.. 1974. Variable rules: Performance as a statistical reflection of competence. Language 50(2): 333–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chambers, J., and Trudgill, P.. 2012. Dialectology, 2nd ed. [Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cheshire, J. 1987. Syntactic variation, the linguistic variable and sociolinguistic theory. Linguistics 25(2): 257–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheshire, J. 2005. Syntactic variation and spoken language. In Cornips, L. and Corrigan, K. (eds.), 81–106.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Martin, R., Michaels, D., and Uriagereka, J. (eds.), Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N., and Lasnik, H.. 1977. Filters and control. Linguistic Inquiry 11: 425–504.Google Scholar
Christensen, T., and Jensen, T. J. (eds.). 2022. Explanations in Sociosyntactic Variation: Studies in Language Variation and Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cinque, G. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornips, L., and Corrigan, K. (eds.). 2005. Syntax and Variation: Reconciling the Biological and Social [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 225]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornips, L., and Poletto, C.. 2005. On standardizing syntactic elicitation techniques. Lingua 115: 939–957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Vogelaer, G. 2005. Subjectsmarkering in de Nederlandse en Friese dialecten. PhD dissertation, Ghent University.Google Scholar
De Vogelaer, G., and Devos, M.. 2008. On geographical adequacy, or: How many types of subject doubling in Dutch. In Barbiers, S., Koeneman, M., Lekakou, M., and van der Ham, M. (eds.), Microvariation in Syntactic Doubling [Syntax and Semantics 36], 251–276. Bingley: Emerald.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dines, E. 1980. Variation in discourse – and stuff like that. Language in Society 9: 13–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dros-Hendriks, L. 2018. Not Another Book on Verb Raising. PhD dissertation, Leiden University [LOT Dissertation 487].Google Scholar
Eckert, P. 2012. Three waves of variation study: The emergence of meaning in the study of sociolinguistic variation. Annual Review of Anthropology 41: 87–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fanselow, G., Barbiers, S., Delbar, S. N., Nauta, S., and Rothert, J.. 2024. On the asymmetry of wh-doubling in varieties of German and Dutch. Special issue of Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 43(1).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, L. 1992. Theory and Description in Generative Grammar: A Case Study in West-Flemish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Henry, A. 1995. Belfast English and Standard English: Dialect Variation and Parameter Setting [Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, T. 2006. Corpora and introspection as corroborating evidence: The case of preposition placement in English relative clauses. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 2(2): 165–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, T., and Trousdale, G. (eds.). 2013. The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmberg, A., and Platzack, C.. 1995. The Role of Inflection in Scandinavian Syntax [Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kayne, R. 2005. Some notes on comparative syntax, with special reference to English and French. In Cinque, G. and Kayne, R. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Syntax, 3–69. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kroon, M. 2022. Towards the Automatic Detection of Syntactic Differences. PhD dissertation, Leiden University [LOT Dissertation 629].Google Scholar
Kroon, M., Barbiers, S., Odijk, J., and van der Pas, S.. 2020. Detecting syntactic differences automatically using the Minimum Description Length principle. Computational Linguistics in the Netherlands Journal 10: 109–127.Google Scholar
Labov, W. 1966. The Social Stratification of English in New York. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Labov, W. 1972. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Li, A., and Wei, W.. 2019. Microparameters and language variation. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 4(1): 106. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.938.Google Scholar
Montgomery, M., and Nagel, S.. 2009. Double modals in Scotland and the Southern United States: Transatlantic inheritance of independent development? Folia Linguistica Historica 27: 91–108.Google Scholar
Neuckermans, A. 2008. Negatie in de Vlaamse dialecten volgens de gegevens van de Syntactische Atlas van de Nederlandse Dialecten (SAND). PhD thesis, Ghent University.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D. 1970. Surface structure constraints. Linguistic Inquiry 1 (20): 187–255.Google Scholar
Poletto, C. 2000. The Higher Functional Field in the Northern Italian Dialects. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. (ed.). 2004. The Structure of CP and IP, vol. 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scherrer, Y., and Stoeckle, P.. 2017. A quantitative approach to Swiss German dialect syntax. Paper presented at the International Conference on Language Variation in Europe (ICLAVE 9), Malaga (Spain), June 6–9. https://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:95472.Google Scholar
Schütze, C., and Sprouse, J.. 2014. Judgment data. In Podesva, R. J. and Sharma, D. (eds.), Research Methods in Linguistics, 27–50. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sprouse, J., and Almeida, D.. 2012. Assessing the reliability of textbook data in syntax: Adger’s Core Syntax. Journal of Linguistics 48: 609–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spruit, M. R. 2008. Quantitative Perspectives on Syntactic Variation in Dutch Dialects. PhD dissertation University of Amsterdam [LOT Dissertation 174].Google Scholar
Spruit, M. R., Heeringa, W., and Nerbonne, J.. 2009. Associations among linguistic levels. Lingua 119(11): 1624–1642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, B. 2012. Grammatical Variation in British English Dialects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, B., Grafmiller, J, Bresnan, J, Rosenbach, A, Tagliamonte, S, and Todd, S. 2017. Spoken syntax in a comparative perspective: The dative and genitive alternation in varieties of English. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 2(1): 86. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.310.Google Scholar
van Alem, A. 2022. Life of Phi: Phi-features in West Germanic and the Syntax-Morphology Interface. PhD dissertation, Leiden University [LOT Dissertation 634].Google Scholar
van Alem, A., and Barbiers, S.. 2021. Poor weak het ‘it’ and agreement patterns in pronominal clefts. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 53(2): 221–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Craenenbroeck, J. 2004. Ellipsis in Dutch Dialects. Dissertation, Leiden University [LOT Dissertation 96].Google Scholar
van Craenenbroeck, J., and Temmerman, T. (eds.). 2018. The Oxford Handbook of Ellipsis, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Craenenbroeck, J., van Koppen, M., and van den Bosch, A.. 2019. A quantitative-theoretical analysis of syntactic microvariation: Word order in Dutch verb clusters. Language 95(2): 333–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Auwera, J., De Cuypere, L. and Neuckermans, A.. 2006. Negative indefinites: A typological and diachronic perspective on a Brabantic construction. In Nevalainen, T., Klemola, J., and Laitinen, M. (eds.), Types of Variation: Diachronic, Dialectal and Typological Interfaces [Studies in Language Companion Series 76], 305–319. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Koppen, M. 2005. One Probe – Two Goals: Aspects of Agreement in Dutch Dialects. PhD dissertation, Leiden University [LOT Dissertation 105].Google Scholar
Weiner, J., and WLabov, .. 1983. Constraints on the agentless passive. Journal of Linguistics 19: 29–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westendorp, M. 2018. New methodologies in the Nordic Syntax Database: Word order variation in Norwegian wh-questions. Nordic Atlas of Language Structures (NALS) Journal 3(1): 1–18.Google Scholar
Wood, J., and Zanuttini, R.. 2018. Datives, data and dialect syntax in American English. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 3(1): 87. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.527.Google Scholar
Zeijlstra, H. 2004. Sentential Negation and Negative Concord. PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam [LOT Dissertation 101].Google Scholar
Zwart, C. J.-W. 1993. Dutch Syntax: A Minimalist Approach. Groningen: Groningen Dissertations in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.2 AAA
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
The HTML of this chapter
complies with version 2.2 of the
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
(WCAG), offering more comprehensive accessibility measures for a broad range
of users and attains the highest
(AAA)
level of WCAG compliance, optimising the user experience by meeting the most extensive
accessibility guidelines.
Content Navigation
Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.
Reading Order & Textual Equivalents
Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
Full alternative textual descriptions
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.
Visualised data also available as non-graphical data
You can access graphs or charts in a text or tabular format, so you are not excluded if you cannot process visual displays.
You can access graphs or charts in a text or tabular format, so you are not excluded if you cannot process visual displays.
Visual Accessibility
Use of high contrast between text and background colour
You benefit from high‐contrast text, which improves legibility if you have low vision or if you are reading in less‐than‐ideal lighting conditions.
You benefit from high‐contrast text, which improves legibility if you have low vision or if you are reading in less‐than‐ideal lighting conditions.