Multiple aspects of the external argument ArgE need better understanding. First, no principle of UG explains why ArgE must stay structurally outside any lexical verbal projection. This fact is argued to result from the USM requiring an isomorphic mapping between semantics and structure while UG itself cannot guarantee such a result via X'-theory. The solution is iconicity of independence, which matches ArgE’s conceptual “independent existence” (Dowty 1991) from an event with its structural separation from the projection of the event-denoting V. Second, the grammatical properties of ArgE, especially given the iconicity account, must be compared with those of oblique arguments, eventually leading to a theory of the morphology–syntax interface which allows a uniform account of several types of cross-linguistic fact. Third, regarding word order, moved constituents exhibit the earlier-iff-structurally-higher correlation while in situ constituents don’t, with ArgE typologically in both groups. This property, together with the unique word orders produced by linear iconicity in previous chapters, prompts the hypothesis that linearization results from computational cost and the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which further identifies a new locality phenomenon: the functional domain island.

This chapter deconstructs and compares two English syntactic variables as case studies to explore the linguistic/social interface in variation. The two variables are: (1) complementizer alternation (that/Ø) and (2) subject relative pronoun alternation (who/that/Ø). While both are internally and externally conditioned, the nature and strength of the predictors (also known as factors) differ significantly. I argue that the results from quantitative linguistic analysis, statistical modelling and a comparative perspective grounded in social and historical context provide unique insight into the synergy of social, cognitive, stylistic and linguistic factors. In the case of complementizers, the overwhelming influence of verb is the linguistic footprint that a particular collocation (e.g. I think) has grammaticalized into an epistemic parenthetical away from the original matrix plus complement construction. In the case of relative pronouns, the preponderance of who for subject, animate antecedents aligns with a well-known typological pattern (i.e. human animates contrast with non-humans), which is overlain with social evaluation originating from its prestigious origins that endures in current usage in the speech community. In sum, interpreting the varying roles played by multiplex influences on linguistics features is key to understanding variation.

The introduction to this volume sums up and discusses some of the issues fundamental to the study of syntactic variation, such as the problem of semantic equivalence (since syntactic variants often have different meanings), the delimitation of syntactic alternations, the relation between linguistic and social conditioning of syntactic variables, and the explanatory frameworks that are proposed in the chapters to account for the linguistic choices speakers make when employing syntactic alternants.

Sociolinguistic research demonstrates that speakers are ‘aware’ of some variables in their speech patterns, but not others, as evidenced by, for example, style shifting. In explaining this bifurcation, Labov (1993, 2008) suggests that speakers have a sociolinguistic monitor where ‘members of the speech community evaluate the surface forms of language but not more abstract structural features’. However, determining which linguistic variables are ‘surface’ and which are more ‘abstract’ is far from clear. In this chapter we test the sociolinguistic monitor by comparing the use of two variables which are considered to be abstract structural features - negative concord and use of never for didn't. We compare the use of these forms across two datasets: one where community members are in conversation with a community insider and another with a community outsider. We find that there is style shifting according to interlocutor with negative concord but not with never for didn’t, suggesting that only the former is ‘monitored’ in the speech of this community. These findings suggest that social pressures override similarities across linguistic structure in the operation of the sociolinguistic monitor.

Two approaches to developing a theoretical platform for the study of sociosyntax are compared. The first approach adopts a sentence-based theory of syntax and an objectivist theory of semantics, which serves to qualify forms as variants of a sociolinguistic variable. The second approach replaces the sentence with the sign (signaled by grammatical formatives and word-order patterns) as the primary organizing principle of grammar and the basic carrier of meaning. It also replaces objectivist semantics with subjectivist-construal, functional-semiotic semantics under which grammatical meanings offer particular speaker perspectives. In this second approach the alternants of interest to sociolinguists are in almost every case different in their component meanings, yet amenable to conceptualization as variants of a sociolinguistic variable. Variation is seen as resulting from pressures exerted simultaneously by the exigencies of communication and the force of both internal and external sociolinguistic factors. This approach offers considerable advantages for the study of sociosyntax, advantages that pertain to both overall theoretical coherence and clearer paths to the explanation of the effects of predictor variables. We illustrate these advantages with analyses that demonstrate the impact of switch-reference on the presence and absence of Spanish yo, tú, ella, él, etc. ('I, you, she, he').

This chapter argues that it will make results of variationist studies more relevant for linguistic theory if internal predictors assumed to constrain syntactic variation are operationalized in a way that explicitly relates them to semantic or – more broadly – functional hypotheses. We use word order in Danish adverbial subordinate clauses as a case study for how a hypothesized semantic difference between variants can be operationalized. This word order alternation concerns the relative placement of sentential adverbials and finite verbs in subclauses. While the variable is structurally well defined (Adverb < Verb vs. Verb > Adverb), it challenges classic theoretical and methodological ass+L13umptions in variationist studies by entailing a semantic difference, since the two word orders convey subtly different meanings when used in subclauses. For this study, we operationalize a set of linguistic predictors related to the two most prevalent meaning hypotheses given in the literature, the assertivity and the foregrounding hypothesis. Mixed-effect models and random forest analyses are used to examine the effects and strength of intra- and extralinguistic (social) predictors. Geographical differences related to social stratification indicate an ongoing standardization process emanating from the capital of Copenhagen. The import of our findings related to linguistic theory is discussed.

This chapter is an enquiry into whether we can predict whether a particular instance of variation at the syntactic level may reflect social stratification or not (Labov 1966, 1972, 1994). Therefore, a range of syntactic variables in Dutch has been examined that may reveal social correlations in the spontaneous speech of 67 speakers who were born, grew up, and still live in one particular locality. Most of the syntactic variables consist of variants associated with the local dialect and (codified) standard Dutch. The syntactic variables examined differ in frequency of occurrence, synonymy/functional equivalence, abstract properties, and presumably noticeability. The fact that the social stratification of various syntactic variables can be investigated by following the same speakers within one speech style, i.e. the sociolinguistic interview,L12 offers a unique opportunity to carefully discriminate the effects of similar socio-demographic factors on different types of syntactic variables. The overall result is that social stratification of syntactic variation can be predicted where syntax maps onto discourse. The outcome is dependent on the extent of duration of language contact situations, and interactions in which particular linguistic variables have become socially meaningful depending on the individual and the wider societal, political and ideological context.