Advertisement

Conclusion

  • Laura RuppEmail author
  • David Britain
Chapter

Abstract

In the conclusion we summarize our main findings in each chapter. Amongst these are the occurrence of the East Anglian Subject Rule (EASR) and the apparent role of discourse-pragmatic factors in motivating grammatical variation (viz. Cheshire in J Sociolinguistics 9:479–508, 2005) like the Northern Subject Rule (NSR). We conclude that the versatility of verbal –s lends support to the concept of functional shift and our ‘Iconicity Hypothesis’. Additionally, we highlight that the phenomenon of verbal –s is best understood by combining insights from historical linguistics, functional grammar, formal syntax and language variation and change. Amongst other things, historical linguistics has shed light on the emergence of verbal –s, language variation and change has documented its variable uses, formal syntax can help predict and understand grammatical constraints on verbal –s, while functional grammar has shown that apparent non-agreement is not dysfunctional (Barlow in A situated theory of agreement. Garland, New York, 1992; Folia Linguistica 33:187–201, 1999).

Keywords

The East Anglian Subject Rule (EASR) Grammatical variation Discourse-pragmatics The ‘Iconicity Hypothesis’ Historical linguistics Functional grammar Formal syntax Language variation and change 

References

  1. Ariel, M. (1999). The development of person agreement markers: From pronouns to higher accessibility markers. In M. Barlow & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-based models of language (pp. 197–260). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  2. Barlow, M. (1992). A situated theory of agreement. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
  3. Barlow, M. (1999). Agreement as a discourse phenomenon. Folia Linguistica, 33, 187–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Britain, D., & Rupp, L. (2005). Subject-verb agreement in English dialects: The East Anglian Subject Rule. Paper presented at The International Conference on Language Variation in Europe 3, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  5. Cheshire, J. (2005). Syntactic variation and beyond: Gender and social class variation in the use of discourse-new markers. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 9, 479–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Childs, B., & Van Herk, G. (2014). Work that -s! Drag queens, gender, identity, and traditional Newfoundland English. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 18, 634–657.Google Scholar
  7. Corbett, G. (2003). Agreement: The range of the phenomenon and the principles of the Surrey database of agreement. Transactions of the Philological Society, 101, 155–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cornips, L., & Corrigan, K. P. (Eds.). (2005). Syntax and variation: Reconciling the biological and the social. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  9. De Cuypere, L. (2008). Limiting the iconic: From the metatheoretical foundations to the creative possibilities of iconicity in language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Epstein, R. (2002). The definite article, accessibility, and the construction of discourse referents. Cognitive Linguistics, 12, 333–378.Google Scholar
  11. Hopper, P. J. (1991). On some principles of grammaticization. In E. C. Traugott & B. Heine (Eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization (Vol. I): Theoretical and methodological issues (pp. 17–36). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  12. Potter, R. (2018). A variationist multilocality study of unstressed vowels and verbal -s marking in the peripheral dialect of East Suffolk (Doctoral dissertation). University of Essex, Colchester.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of HumanitiesVrije Universiteit AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of EnglishUniversity of BernBernSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations