Skip to main content

ETHNOS_APP

Home • Search • Journals • List 0

Language Knowledge and Other Dialects

Bibliographic Data

ID8730129
AuthorsWalt Wolfram (0000-0002-5386-7754, corresponding author)
Year1982
Volume57
Issue1
Pages3-3
Publication date1982-01-01
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueAmerican Speech (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0003-1283 • E-ISSN: 1527-2133
PublisherJSTOR (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.2307/455176
OpenAlexW2320705403
LanguageEN
Citations received5
References cited2

TN RECENT VARIATION studies, we have found an increasing number of proposals to extend the limits of the grammar beyond the idealized unistylistic idiolect (Butters 1971, Bailey 1973, Bickerton 1973, Labov 1973, Trudgill 1974). The question of the outer limit of the grammar is not, of course, a consideration which has been opened up uniquely by variationists, and the issue would not die with a diminished interest in variation studies. It is, in fact, an issue which must be confronted squarely by anyone attempting to write a serious grammar. At various points in the history of American linguistics, there have been attempts to expand the limits of the grammar to cover more than one variety. In each attempt, there are important theoretical assumptions on which the proposal is based, although the theoretical basis of some of these proposals has sometimes been more implicit than explicit. The thread of this concern winds through linguistic descriptions regardless of one's theoretical orientation. It is found in Trager and Smith's overall pattern (1951), Weinreich's diassystem (1954), Klima's extension rules (1964), Carden's unified method analysis (1973), Bickerton's polylectal grammar (1973), and Bailey's panlectal grammar (1973). Each of these proposals has offered some interesting alternatives to the I'll describe my dialect, you describe yours era of linguistics. Given the fact that at least some variationists are taking issues concerning the outer limits of the grammar quite seriously, it becomes important to know how we can establish the range of capabilities for speakers who do not use productively a particular structure. Rather than speculate on the basis of selective anecdote or theorize without empirical evidence, as many proposals have done, this article confines itself to an illustrative case. Admittedly, our conclusions may be modest, but they do have implications which extend considerably beyond the particulars of our illustrative case. While we cannot realistically answer all questions involving the issue of the outer limits of a grammar, we hopefully can gain some insight into the types of evidence admissible for considering the boundaries of the grammar

Linguistics · Computer Science · Lexicography and Language Studies · Linguistic Variation and Morphology · Spanish Linguistics and Language Studies · History · Philosophy

  • The stigma enigma

    Open Access•Laurence R Horn•Journal of Pragmatics•2025

  • Obsolescence and abortive innovations in variationist approaches to language change

    Open Access•Marisa Brooks•Language and Linguistics Compass•2024

  • Historical and Comparative Perspectives Ona-Prefixing in the English of Appalachia

    Michael B Montgomery, Michael Montgomery•American Speech•2009

  • A comprehensive survey of a-prefixing in Southern Appalachia

    Open Access•Goldie Ann Mcquaid•Language and Linguistics Compass•2017

  • Genre and linguistic expectation shift

    Open Access•Lauren Squires•Language in Society•2019

  • The Social Stratification of English in New York City

    Open Access•William Labov•Social Stratification of English…•2006

  • Is a Structural Dialectology Possible

    Uriel Weinreich•WORD•1954

Citations per year0.29
Citation span2009 - 2025 (17)
Highly citedNo

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub
Ethnos_APP • Open Source Project • MIT License • Frontend v2.0.0 • Privacy and Cookies • API Documentation: api.ethnos.app/docs • API Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17049435 • Frontend Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17050053 • cruz.rio.br • Expectantes Misericordiae