Hostname: page-component-6dbcb7884d-vqfl6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-14T03:07:50.914Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The pragmatic variable: Toward a procedural interpretation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 May 2011

Marina Terkourafi
Marina Terkourafi
Affiliation:
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Department of Linguistics, 4080 Foreign Languages Building, 707 S. Mathews Ave., Urbana, IL 61801mt217@illinois.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Labov defined the linguistic variable as “a class of variants which are ordered along a continuous dimension and whose position is determined by an independent linguistic or extralinguistic variable” (1966:15). A precondition for identifying surface forms as variants of a single variable is semantic, or truth-conditional, equivalence. This requirement proves hard to apply beyond (morpho)phonology, and was subsequently relaxed into one of functional equivalence. The focus of this article is pragmatic variation and how we should interpret functional equivalence to account for this. It is proposed that the variants of a pragmatic variable share a common procedural meaning, defined as a set of instructions guiding the inferential phase of utterance interpretation. Recasting the core meaning of pragmatic variables in procedural terms allows us to co-examine alternating forms that may express different referential meanings, remaining true to the spirit of Labov's proposal, who saw linguistic variables as socially motivated clusterings of forms. (Pragmatic variation, functional equivalence, procedural meaning, Relevance Theory)*

Type
Articles
Information
Language in Society , Volume 40 , Issue 3 , June 2011 , pp. 343 - 372
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Aaron, Jessi Elana (2010). Pushing the envelope: Looking beyond the variable context. Language Variation and Change 22:1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aijmer, Karin (1996). Conversational routines in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Anscombre, Jean-Claude, & Ducrot, Oswald (1983). L'argumentation dans la langue. Wavre: Mardaga.Google Scholar
Babel, Molly (2009). Phonetic convergence: A socially motivated process or a cognitive reflex? Paper presented at the 83rd Annual LSA Meeting, San Francisco, CA, January 8–11, 2009.Google Scholar
Bach, Kent (1975). Performatives are statements too. Philosophical Studies 28:229–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blakemore, Diane (1987). Semantic constraints on relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Blakemore, Diane (1992). Understanding utterances. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Blakemore, Diane (2002). Relevance and linguistic meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blum-Kulka, Shoshanna; House, Juliane; & Kasper, Gabrielle (eds.) (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre (1980/1990). Le sens pratique. Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit. Translated by Richard Nice as The logic of practice. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Britain, David (1999). As far as analyzing grammatical variation and change in New Zealand English with relatively few tokens <is concerned/Ø>. In Bell, Adam & Kuiper, Konrad (eds.), Focus on New Zealand English, 198–220. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Buchstaller, Isabelle (2006). Diagnostics of age-graded linguistic behavior: The case of the quotative system. Journal of Sociolinguistics 10:3–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bühler, Karl (1934/1990). Sprachtheorie. Jena: Fischer. Translated by Donald Fraser Goodwin as Theory of language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Carston, Robyn (2002). Thoughts and utterances. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheshire, Jenny (1987). Syntactic variation, the linguistic variable and sociolinguistic theory. Linguistics 25:257–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheshire, Jenny; Kerswill, Paul; & Williams, Ann (1999). The role of adolescents in dialect levelling. Ref. R0000236180. Final report submitted to the U.K. Economic and Social Research Council. London. June 1999.Google Scholar
Cheshire, Jennifer (2005). Syntactic variation and beyond: Gender and social class variation in the use of discourse-new markers. Journal of Sociolinguistics 9(4):479–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornips, Leonie (2005). Variation and formal theories of syntax: Chomskian. In Brown, Keith (ed.), Encyclopedia of language & linguistics, 330–32. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Cornips, Leonie, & Corrigan, Karen (2005). Toward an integrated approach to syntactic variation: a retrospective and prospective synopsis. In Cornips, Leonie & Corrigan, Karen (eds.), Syntax and variation, 1–27. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cremona, Cristiana, & Bates, Elizabeth (1977). The development of attitudes toward dialect in Italian children. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 6(3):223–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Day, Richard (1980). The development of linguistic attitudes and preferences. TESOL Quarterly 14(1):27–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dines, Elizabeth (1980). Variation in discourse—‘and stuff like that.’ Language in Society 9:13–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, Robert (1982). Where have all the adjectives gone? Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ducrot, Oswald (1972). Dire et ne pas dire. Paris: Hermann.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope (2008). Variation and the indexical field. Journal of Sociolinguistics 12:453–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elsig, Martin (2009). Grammatical variation across space and time. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erman, Britt (1992). Female and male usage of pragmatic expressions in same-sex and mixed-sex interaction. Language Variation and Change 4:217–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Firth, John (1966). The tongues of men and speech. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fraser, Bruce (2006). On the conceptual-procedural distinction. Style 40(1/2):24–32.Google Scholar
Garcia, Erica (1985). Shifting variation. Lingua 67:189–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giddens, Anthony (1984). The constitution of society. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Giora, Rachel (2003). On our mind. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Grice, Herbert Paul (1975/1989). Logic and conversation. In Cole, Peter & Morgan, Jerry (eds.), Syntax and semantics, vol. 3: Speech acts, 41–58. New York: Academic Press. Reprinted in Studies in the way of words, 22–40. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen (1998). On the pragmatics of communication. Ed. by Cook, Maeve. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hill, Beverly; Ide, Sachiko; Ikuta, Shoko; Kawasaki, Akiko,; & Ogino, Tsunao (1986). Universals of linguistic politeness: Quantitative evidence from Japanese and American English. Journal of Pragmatics 10:347–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horn, Laurence (1989). A natural history of negation. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Hudson, Richard (1980/1996). Sociolinguistics. 2nd edn.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Janicki, Karol (1986). Tertium comparationis in contrastive sociolinguistics. In Kastovsky, Dieter & Szwedek, Aleksander (eds.), Linguistics across historical and geographical boundaries, 1233–46. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaszczolt, Katarzyna (2005). Default semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnstone, Barbara (1990). Variation in discourse: Midwestern narrative style. American Speech 65:195–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William (1966). The linguistic variable as a structural unit. Washington Linguistics Review 3:4–22.Google Scholar
Labov, William (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Labov, William (1978). Where does the linguistic variable stop? A response to Beatriz Lavandera. Working Papers in Sociolinguistics 44. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.Google Scholar
Labov, William (1982). Building on empirical foundations. In Lehmann, Winfred & Malkiel, Yakov (eds.), Perspectives on historical linguistics, 17–92. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William (1994). Principles of linguistic change, vol. 1: Internal factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Labov, William (2001). Principles of linguistic change, vol. 2: Social factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Labov, William; Cohen, Paul; Robins, Clarence; & Lewis, John (1968). A study of the non-standard English of Negro and Puerto Rican speakers in New York City. Cooperative Research Report 3288. 2 vols. Philadelphia, PA: U.S. Regional Survey.Google Scholar
Lavandera, Beatriz (1978). Where does the sociolinguistic variable stop? Language in Society 7(2):171–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lavandera, Beatriz (1982). Le principe de réinterprétation dans la théorie de la variation. In Dittmar, Norbert & Schlieben-Lange, Brigitte (eds.), La Sociolinguistique dans les pays de langue romane, 87–96. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Lave, Jean, & Wenger, Etienne (1991). Situated learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le Page, Robert, & Tabouret-Keller, Andrée (1985). Acts of identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lee, Hye-Kyung (2002). Towards a new typology of connectives with special reference to conjunction in English and Korean. Journal of Pragmatics 34(7):851–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen (2000). Presumptive meanings. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lightfoot, David (1979). Principles of diachronic syntax. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Macaulay, Ronald (2005). Talk that counts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Márquez Reiter, Rosina (2000). Linguistic politeness in Britain and Uruguay. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, Jerry (1978). Two types of convention in indirect speech acts. In Cole, Peter (ed.), Syntax and semantics, vol. 9: Pragmatics, 261–80. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Nesdale, Drew, & Rooney, Rosanna (1996). Evaluations and stereotyping of accented speakers by pre-adolescent children. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 15:133–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicolle, Steve (1998). A relevance theory perspective on grammaticalization. Cognitive Linguistics 9:1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Récanati, Francois (2004). Literal meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Récanati, Francois (2010). Truth-conditional pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rickford, John; Buchstaller, Isabelle; Wasow, Thomas; & Zwicky, Arnold (2007). Intensive and quotative all: Something old, something new. American Speech 82(1):3–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romaine, Suzanne (1981). On the problem of syntactic variation: A reply to Beatriz Lavandera and William Labov. Working Papers in Sociolinguistics 82. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, Marilyn (1974). The magic boxes: Pre-school children's attitudes toward Black and Standard English. Florida FL Reporter 12 (1/2):55–62.Google Scholar
Sankoff, David, & Thibault, Paul (1981). Weak complementarity: Tense and aspect in Montreal French. In Johns, Brenda & Strong, David (eds.), Syntactic change, 205–16. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Schneider, Klaus, & Barron, Anne (2008). Where pragmatics and dialectology meet: Introducing variational pragmatics. In Schneider, Klaus & Barron, Anne (eds.), Variational pragmatics, 1–32. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schourup, Lawrence (2001). Rethinking well. Journal of Pragmatics 33(7):1025–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, Dan, & Wilson, Deirdre (1986/1995) Relevance. 2nd edn.Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stocking, Michaela, & Baker, Wendy (2008). Hero or villain?: The effect of media on children's perceptions of several varieties of English. Paper presented at NWAV37, Houston, TX, November 6–9, 2008.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali (2006). Analyzing sociolinguistic variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terkourafi, Marina (1999). Frames for politeness: A case study. Pragmatics 9(1):97–117.Google Scholar
Terkourafi, Marina (2002). Politeness and formulaicity: Evidence from Cypriot Greek. Journal of Greek Linguistics 3:179–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terkourafi, Marina (2005). Identity and semantic change: Aspects of T/V usage in Cyprus. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 6:283–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, Jenny (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics 4(2):92–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trudgill, Peter (2008). Colonial dialect contact in the history of European languages: On the irrelevance of identity to new-dialect formation. Language in Society 37(1):241–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verhagen, Arie (2005). Constructions of intersubjectivity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Verleyen, Stijn (2006). L'abandon progressif du fonctionnalisme dans les travaux de William Labov. Historiographia Linguistica 33(3):335–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vincent, Diane, & Sankoff, David (1992). Punctors: A pragmatic variable. Language Variation and Change 4:205–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watt, Dominic (2007). Variation and the variable. In Llamas, Carmen, Stockwell, Peter, & Mullany, Louise (eds.), The Routledge companion to sociolinguistics, 3–11. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Weiner, Judith, & Labov, William (1983). Constraints on the agentless passive. Journal of Linguistics 19:29–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Lawrence, & van Compernolle, Remi (2009). On versus tu and vous: Pronouns with indefinite reference in synchronous electronic French discourse. Language Sciences 31:409–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winford, Donald (1984). The linguistic variable and syntactic variation in Creole continua. Lingua 62:267–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre (2005). New directions for research on pragmatics and modularity. Lingua 115(8):1129–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre, & Sperber, Dan (1993). Linguistic form and relevance. Lingua 90:1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zipf, George (1949). Human behavior and the principle of least effort. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar