Constant Rate Hypothesis, Age-grading and Apparent Time Construct NWAV 31, Stanford University October 13, 2002 Kenjiro Matsuda Kobe Shoin Women's University kenjiro@icis.shoin.ac.jp

Apparent Time Construct (Bailey et al. 1991) Classical method in Variationist sociolinguistics Synchronic age difference -> Diachronic change Ambiguity between REAL change and age-grading (AG) Synchronic disambiguation: Possible?

Constant Rate Hypothesis (CRH) (Kroch 1989) In language change, the rate of change is uniform in all relevant linguistic contexts No faster/slower contexts in lang. change! Statistically speaking: Time and linguistic contexts are independent to each other Evidence: Five syntactic changes Alternative model of change to Wave Theory (Bailey 1973) or Markedness Theory (Anderson 2001)

So what about ATC, AG and CRH? By logically extending CRH, one can at least tell when it is not a change in progress, resolving a part of ATC problem Key: Independence beween age and contextual effect Extension of CRH also predicts two kinds of AGs

Extending CRH: ECRH-I In lang. change, time and linguistic contexts are independent to each other (CRH) Replace time with age In lang. change, age and linguistic contexts are independent to each other (Extended Constant Rate Hypothesis, ECRH-I)

Extending CRH: ECRH-II In language change, age and linguistic contexts are independent to each other (ECRH-I) contraposition (p=>q, ~q=>~p) If age and linguistic contexts are not independent to each other (=interacting), it is not an instance of language change (ECRH-II)

Predictions of ECRH If age and linguistic contexts are (i) independent to each other, then it is either 1. A change in progress or 2. Age grading (AG-I) * ECRH does not have anything to say here! (ii) interacting, then it is Age-grading (AG-II)

Empirical Evidence for ECRH (i)-1: Independent and change Syntactic changes (Kroch 1989) Real-time studies (NLRI 1974, Labov 1994) Dialect differentiation (Cameron 1992) (i)-2: Independent and age-grading (AG-I) Zero-marking of (o) in Tokyo Japanese (Matsuda 1995, Fry 2002) (ii): Interacting and age-grading (AG-II) Aging effect of "ambiguous" -t ending in t/d-deletion (Guy and Boyd 1990)

Zero-Marking of (o) in Tokyo Japanese (Matsuda 1995, Fry 2002) Ken-ga banana-o/ø tabeta Ken-Nom banana-Acc ate ‘Ken ate bananas’ Strongest factor: Adjacency between Obj. NP & verb Teens and adults maintain difference by adjacency Age & context are indep. Fits the prediction (i)-2

Guy and Boyd (1990) Speakers gradually treat final -t in kept, wept, etc as a past tense morpheme as they grow older => interaction between age and context (fits the prediction ii)

Counterevidence against ECRH (ay) and (aw) in Martha's Vineyard (Labov 1963) AAVE copula deletion in Springfield, TX (Cukor-Avila 1999) X Interacting but change

(ay) and (aw) in Martha's Vineyard Different contextual effect on the centralization of (ay) and (aw) by age: “[F]or older speakers, internal constraints involved a wide variety of phonetic factors; for the youngest generation, these were resolved into a simple opposition of following voiceless consonants against all other environments. External environments interacted with internal factors.” (Labov 1982: 52-3) X Change but age/contextual effects interacting

AAVE copula deletion in Springfield, TX Different syntactic constraint ranking by age: Pre-WWII Generation: Participial > Stative Adj. > Non-stative Adj. Post-WWII Generation: Non-stative Adj. > Participial > Stative Adj X Change but age & contextual effect interacting

Accounting for Counterevidence Existence of internal/external situations encouraging reinterpretation: Martha's Vineyard: Numerous phonetic factors and transmission of the change across ethnic groups Springfield: Ambiguity of non-stative adjective Reinterpretation made the process simpler or more transparent for the speaker ECRH is valid only when there is no reinterpretation in the process

Two Kinds of Age-Grading AG-I "Classical" age-grading cases Increasing use of stigmatized form by adolescents Co-occurs w/change in progress (Labov 2001) => Predicted by ECRH AG-II Not treated as AG in the past, but show clear age-correlation Social evaluation = neutral (unconscious) Similar example in Wolfram (1969) Period? Paucity of actual AG cases (Chambers 1995)

Conclusion AG is a goldmine, not a wasteland! Typology of Change/AG's: ECRH at least can predict cases that cannot be change in progress ECRH also correctly predicts two types of Age-grading (AG-I & II), with AG-I co-occurring with ongoing change Need for more detailed analysis of AG’s Exception: Reinterpretation cases AG is a goldmine, not a wasteland!