Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-8r8nv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T14:06:59.493Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The dimensionality of grammatical variation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2026

David Sankoff  and
Henrietta J. Cedergren
David Sankoff
Affiliation:
Université de Montréal
Henrietta J. Cedergren
Affiliation:
Université du Québec a Montréal
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recent approaches to variability have focused on the rank ordering of linguistic objects (e.g. noun-phrase transformations, environments of phonological reduction rules) or sociolinguistic objects (e.g. speakers, speech communities). These one-dimensional orderings can take various forms, such as implicational scales, squishes, or the ranking of variable constraints. It is suggested here that sometimes a higher dimensional configuration might better represent the variation. Computer-based heuristic procedures, notably multidimensional scaling techniques, are available for investigating the dimensionality of large data sets. In applying such methods to some well-known data, we confirm the one-dimensionality of Ross' collection of tests of noun-phrasiness as well as of the classes of fake NP's; and we confirm the two-dimensionality of the complementizer QUE-deletion rule in Montreal French. The linguistic environment of syllable-final S-reduction for speakers of Panamanian Spanish is shown to be three-dimensional. Phonological data are used to find two sociolinguistically significant dimensions of the speech community.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 52 , Issue 1 , March 1976 , pp. 163 - 178
Copyright
Copyright © 1976 by Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bailey, C.-J. N., and Shuy, R. W. (eds.) 1973. New ways of analyzing variation in English. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Bickerton, Derek. 1971. Inherent variability and variable rules. Foundations of Language 7.457–492.Google Scholar
Bickerton, Derek. 1973. Quantitative versus dynamic paradigms: the case of Montreal que. In Bailey & Shuy, 23–43.Google Scholar
Black, Paul. 1973. Multidimensional scaling applied to linguistic relationships. Murray Hill, NJ: Bell Laboratories.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. D., and Chang, J.-J. 1970. Analysis of individual differences in multidimensional scaling via an n-way generalization of Eckart-Young decomposition. Psychometrika 35.283–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cedergren, Henrietta. 1973a. Interplay of social and linguistic factors in Panama. Cornell dissertation.Google Scholar
Cedergren, Henrietta. 1973b. On the nature of variable constraints. In Bailey & Shuy, 13–22.Google Scholar
Cedergren, Henrietta., and Sankoff, David. 1974. Variable rules: performance as a statistical reflection of competence. Lg. 50.333–355.Google Scholar
DeCamp, David. 1971. Toward a generative analysis of a post-creole speech continuum. Pidginization and creolization of languages, ed. by Hymes, D., 349–370. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
Elliott, Dale, Legum, Stanley; and Thompson, Sandra A. 1969. Syntactic variation as linguistic data. Papers from the 5th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, 52–59.Google Scholar
Kruskal, J. B. 1964a. Multidimensional scaling by optimizing goodness-of-fit to a nonmetric hypothesis. Psychometrika 29.1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruskal, J. B. 1964b. Nonmetric multidimensional scaling: a numerical method. Psychometrika 29.115–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. 1969. Contraction, deletion, and inherent variability of the English copula. Lg. 45.715–762.Google Scholar
Ross, John R. 1972. The category squish: Endstation Hauptwort. Papers from the 8th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, 316–328.Google Scholar
Ross, John R. 1973. A fake NP squish. In Bailey & Shuy, 96–140.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan. 1973. On the state of progress on progressives and statives. In Bailey & Shuy, 83–95.Google Scholar
Sankoff, Gillian. 1974. A quantitative paradigm for the study of communicative competence. Explorations in the ethnography of speaking, ed. by Bauman, R. & Sherzer, J., 18–49. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
Shepard, R. N. 1972a. A taxonomy of some principal types of data and of multidimensional methods for their analysis. Multidimensional scaling: theory and applications in the behavioral sciences, ed. by Shepard, R. N., Romney, A. K. & Nerlove, S. B., 21–47. New York: Seminar Press.Google Scholar
Shepard, R. N. 1972b. Psychological representation of speech sounds. Human communication: a unified view, ed. by David, E. E. & Denes, P. B., 67–113. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Terbeek, Dale. 1973. Six dimensions of vowel quality. Papers from the 9th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, 672–678.Google Scholar
Torgerson, W. S. 1958. Theory and methods of scaling. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar