Grammaticalization and language contact in a discourse-pragmatic change in progress: The spread ofinnitin London English

Heike Pichler

doi:10.1017/s0047404521000257

Abstract

AbstractThis variationist analysis investigates the development and spread ofinnitas an invariant tag in London English. The sociolinguistic distribution ofinnitin a socially stratified corpus of vernacular speech suggests that the form's emergence and spread were initiated and propelled system-internally through changes associated with grammaticalization. Frequency triggered phonetic reduction ofisn't ittoinnit; loss of syntactic-semantic usage constraints and growing functional versatility enabledinnitto seize the range of contexts and functions of grammatically-dependent tags (e.g.didn't you,weren't we), virtually ousting these from the system of negative-polarity interrogative tags. Examination of cross-linguistic data and comparisons with relevant pre- and non-contact varieties indicate multiple language contact and grammatical replication may have played an ancillary role. I flag some challenges of establishing contact effects in discourse-pragmatic change, and propose that the promotion ofinnitfor invariant use was governed by its low salience and social indexicality of localness. (Innit, question tags, (Multicultural) London English, grammaticalization, language contact, grammatical replication)*

Highlights

English grammatically-dependent tag questions consist ofclausal anchors and interrogative tags comprising an auxiliary, pronoun, and, frequently, a negator
It reveals that phonetic reduction and fusion are implicated in synchronic NEG-TAG variability, and that
The findings suggest the system in which an innovating variant is embedded and the innovating variant itself need not move in the same direction throughout the course of semantic-pragmatic change

Summary

Introduction

English grammatically-dependent tag questions consist of (non)clausal anchors and interrogative tags comprising an auxiliary, pronoun, and, frequently, a negator. The specific form of dependent tags is determined by the syntactic-semantic properties (person, number, gender, type, tense, polarity) of the anchor subject and verb, exemplified in (1).. The specific form of dependent tags is determined by the syntactic-semantic properties (person, number, gender, type, tense, polarity) of the anchor subject and verb, exemplified in (1).1 Complex, these formation rules are robust across diachronic and synchronic varieties of vernacular British English (see, for example, Hoffmann 2006; Tottie & Hoffmann 2006, 2009; Moore & Podesva 2009; Pichler 2013; Childs 2016). Used across social groups, Andersen finds innit is most frequent among females, adolescents, and individuals from lower social classes and ethnic minority backgrounds, especially when used as in (2b,c) beyond its presumed source context after third-person

Results

Discussion

Conclusion