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.

In this chapter we investigate the role of socio-psychological motivations in accounts of grammatical change. Laboratory and corpus evidence is presented to substantiate the impact of dynamic prestige meanings (associated with non-posh media cool) on the diffusion of the object pronoun hun 'them' as a subject in Netherlandic Dutch. In a speaker evaluation experiment, 185 listener-judges rated speech stimuli with standard and non-standard pronouns on pictures which were the best instantiations, according to a preceding norming task, of the evaluation dimensions old prestige (superiority), new prestige (dynamism), and disapproval. While subject-hun was found to be significantly less superior than the standard pronoun, it was perceived to be no less dynamic. The impact of this dynamic prestige meaning was further investigated on the basis of a dataset of tweets. Regression analysis demonstrated that the preference for hun could be adequately predicted on the basis of production proxies of hun’s social meaning. Taken together, all the available data suggest that the social meaning of hun is a pivotal determinant of its diffusion, viz. its use as a consciously deployed 'stylizer', but also the internal conditioning of its non-conscious use as a pronoun alternative.

Chapter 2 examines linguistic changes that can be accounted for by solving labeling paradoxes. In Chomsky (2013, 2015), merging a head to a phrase no longer automatically results in the projection of that head into a label and labeling paradoxes arise when two items merge that are (too) symmetric. These paradoxes can be resolved in several ways, namely by having one of the XPs move or by feature-sharing. The resolution discussed in this chapter involves the change from phrase to head, a possibility not discussed by Chomsky. The changes discussed involve pronouns reanalyzing as functional categories, i.e. as T or v, and demonstratives reanalyzing as articles and complementizers. In the changes, a third factor resolution to the labeling problem can be observed: a change from feature-sharing and agree to Minimal Search. The changes also show other factors involved, e.g. the difference between <Q,Q> and <phi,phi> sharing. The wh-elements whether and how are specifiers and show no reanalysis to head, which indicates their feature-sharing is stable.

Chapter 1 provides some background on the shift in emphasis from Universal Grammar (UG) to third factors and gives a description of selected third factors, e.g. the Inclusiveness Condition and the Extension Condition. The main emphasis is on the Labeling Algorithm and the Principle of Determinacy. Generative models focus on the faculty of language as represented in the mind/brain. UG is the “system of principles, conditions, and rules” that all languages share through biological necessity. However, although UG received a lot of attention, recently principles “grounded in physical law” and the general “capacity to acquire knowledge” have been emphasized more. This chapter also introduces two main reasons of language change that are responsible for the linguistic cycle: those caused by economy and those by innovation.

Chapter 5 examines the tension between determinacy and labeling. Due to determinacy, if there is a TP, Verb-second (V2), i.e. V to C, is not possible but TP expletives are. Conversely, if there is no TP, V2 is possible but TP expletives aren’t. I will argue that older stages of English lack a TP and that this enables both V2 and movement of the subject from the specifier of the v*P to the specifier of the CP. It also makes the grammatical subject position and the expletive optional. Later stages of English introduce a TP, which enables expletives in the TP but bars V2. The loss of V2 and introduction of expletives has not been linked before and this offers a new perspective both on the data in English and in V2 languages and on the tension between the two third factor principles.

Chapter 3 considers how the Principle of Determinacy disallows certain constructions and what options are available to ‘fix’ these ungrammatical structures. Chomsky, Gallego, and Ott (2019) rule out having more than one choice in the workspace/phase, i.e. the workspace must be determinate. If a phrase moves from one position to another in the same phase, i.e. without being transferred/eliminated from the workspace, merge will face the dilemma of which of the two copies will move to a higher position. Determinacy is a third factor formulation of anti-locality and accounts for the Subject Island Condition and the ban on topicalization of the subject. The chapter focuses on how the CP–TP complex makes it hard for syntactic objects to move from the specifier of the v*P to the specifier of TP and then higher, to positions where they check the Q-features. Such a movement results in a that-trace violation. Deleting the C solves this problem and also explains subject-less relative clauses and complementizer-less object clauses in English. Other languages don’t posit a TP and solve the anti-locality problem that way. These languages lack that-trace effects but don’t delete the complementizer.

In this book, I have argued that efficient computation is key to language change. Third factor principles such as Minimal Search and Determinacy are implicated in the way languages change and in how paradoxes are resolved. For instance, the change from phrase to head, chronicled in Chapter 2, is a move towards using Minimal Search.

Chapter 4 provides examples of reanalyses, rather than different choices, that are prompted by the Principle of Determinacy. The first change involves the reanalysis of a loosely adjoined phrase as a subject argument because a topicalized subject does not result in an optimal computation. The principle also accounts for changes involving copulas, both the change from demonstrative to copula and from topic to subject. Auxiliaries and quantifiers in English provide fertile ground to investigate determinacy, because these move from lower to higher heads and specifiers, respectively. It is shown that auxiliary movement indeed violates determinacy and that options exist to circumvent it, e.g. skipping T and reanalyzing as a higher functional head. Floating quantifiers do not violate determinacy because they first move as QPs and subsequent moves are of DPs.