Robin Sabino - Languaging Without Languages Beyond Metro-, Multi-, Poly-, Pluri - and Translanguaging-Brill (2018)

Languaging without Languages
Brill’s Studies in Language,

Cognition and Culture
Series Editors
Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (Cairns Institute, James Cook University)

R.M.W. Dixon (Cairns Institute, James Cook University)
N.J. Enfield (University of Sydney)
volume 18
The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/bslc

Languaging without Languages
Beyond metro-, multi-, poly-, pluri- and
translanguaging
By
Robin Sabino
LEIDEN | BOSTON
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Sabino, Robin author.

Title: Languaging without languages : beyond metro-, multi-, poly-, pluri-
and translanguaging / by Robin Sabino.
Description: Leiden ; Boston : Brill, 2018. | Series: Brill’s studies in
language, cognition and culture ; volume 18 | Includes bibliographical
references and indexes. |
Identifiers: LCCN 2018010382 (print) | LCCN 2018015901 (ebook) | ISBN
9789004364592 (E-book) | ISBN 9789004364585 (hardback : alk. paper)
Subjects: LCSH: Linguistics—Philosophy. | Sociolinguistics.
Classification: LCC P121 (ebook) | LCC P121 .S33 2018 (print) | DDC
410.1—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018010382
Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill-typeface.
issn 1879-5412
isbn 978-90-04-36458-5 (hardback)
isbn 978-90-04-36459-2 (e-book)
Copyright 2018 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi,
Brill Sense and Hotei Publishing.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise,
without prior written permission from the publisher.
Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided
that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive,
Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change.
This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

Contents
Acknowledgments vii
List of Illustrations ix
Abbreviations xi
Introduction: The Languages Ideology 1

0 Ideology 1
1 Discourse, Ideographs, and the Languages Ideology 3
2 Ongoing Signs of Discontent 10
3 A Plausible Alternative 13
1 The Staying Power of an Illusion 16

1.0 Introduction 16
1.1 A History of the Languages Ideology 18
1.2 The Persistent Power of False Assumptions 25
1.2.1 Anthropomorphism 25
1.2.2 Phonocentrism 26
1.2.3 Monolingualism 29
1.2.4 Legitimacy and Deviance 30
1.3 Dissenting Voices 31
1.4 Languaging, Not Languages 33
1.5 Summary 37
2 Entrenchment and the Linguistic Individual 39

2.0 Introduction 39
2.1 The Languaging Individual 41
2.1.1 Why the Idiolect is Central to Linguistic Theory 41
2.1.2 The Unitary Nature of Idiolects 46
2.1.3 Idiolects Emerge from Situated Use 48
2.1.4 What are Idiolects Like? 53
2.2 Usage-based Theory and Emergent Systems 57
2.2.1 Entrenchment 58
2.2.2 Exemplars and Exemplar Clusters 64
2.2.3 Constructions 69
2.3 Summary 73
vi Contents
3 Conventionalization and the Illusion of Shared Grammar 75

3.0 Introduction 75
3.1 Similarities between Entrenchment and Conventionalization 77
3.2 Conventionalization as a Complex Emergent System: Lexical
Items 83
3.3 Conventionalization as a Complex Emergent System: Open Slots in
Constructions 90
3.4 The Role of Conventionalization in Linguistic Change 95
3.5 Summary 99
4 Vernacularization 100
4.0 Introduction 100
4.1 Indexes, and Indexing 102
4.2 Intersections: Vernacularization, Conventionalization, and the
Languages Ideology 106
4.3 Summary 107
5 Conclusion 109
5.0 Introduction 109
5.1 Repeated Calls to Action, Repeated Ideological Reenactment 111
5.2 Liberating Insights Entrapped by the Languages Ideology 114
5.3 Changing the Discourse 122
Appendix I 127
Bibliography 129
Author Index 157
Subject Index 163
Acknowledgments
I have long suspected that frequency of use and networked linguistic memo-
ries, not inborn abstract structure, shapes linguistic resources. Added to this
is curiosity with respect to how linguistic resources are stored and retrieved
in the human brain which has been nurtured by ongoing collaboration with
a specialist in cognitive‑linguistic disorders. These two interests came to the
fore as I continued to grapple with issues I explored in Language Contact
in the Danish West Indies: Giving Jack his Jacket. As I was finishing that proj-
ect, I turned to thinking about issues raised by Bill Kretzschmar and Allison
Burkette on asymmetrical frequency distributions of linguistic atlas data. In
particular, I began to ponder how instead of appealing to adult language learn-
ing, language as an emergent system might better explain how transplanted
Africans and Europeans developed the linguistic resources they needed to
navigate the inequities of the asymmetrical colonial power structure in which
they found themselves. An early attempt to articulate my thinking with respect
to the emergent nature of human language resulted in an article submitted to
Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages. Although the article as submitted was
not accepted as written, encouragement from John McWhorter, who was one
of the reviewers, spurred me on. A visit from Karen Fields to Auburn University
to discuss the connections between witchcraft and racecraft prompted me to
shift the focus of my thinking to the pernicious effect of ideology on academic
thought. This resulted in a revised article, this time submitted to the Journal of
Sociolinguistics. An email rejecting that draft indicated that while readers
appreciated [my] extended critique of the long-standing notion of lan-

guage as bounded entity [and] the breadth of the subfields and materials
[I drew] upon … [they] found most of the points [I] raised not to be new,
having been canvassed quite thoroughly in the work of a number of lead-
ing scholars, although perhaps these principles are not embraced by the
entire field of sociolinguistics as actively they might be….
Realizing that a more substantial discussion was warranted, I began to draft the
current monograph. I delved with renewed vigor into research by leading and
emerging scholars on neurocognition: usage-based grammar: what was being
discussed as metro-, multi-, poly-, pluri- and translanguaging; and Kretzschmar’s
Language and Complex Systems. Preparation for a graduate course on language
as social practice also helped me to crystalize my thinking. The result is the fol-
lowing chapters that argue for reconsidering the ideological perspective that
viii Acknowledgments
limits our understanding of human language. It is my hope that by reconceptu-

alizing how our linguistic experiences are entrenched in the human mind and
by rethinking how mutual experience manifest as conventionalization and
vernacularization evoke connection and community, we can come to under-
stand languaging without languages.
The earliest stages of this project benefitted from comments and questions
offered by colleagues during presentations at the Anthropology Department at
Tulane University and the English Department at Auburn University. In addi-
tion to her expertise and continuing guidance while I was reading literature on
neurocognition and neural imaging, my friend and colleague Nancy Jean Haak
helped me strengthen the introduction. Paula Backscheider’s enthusiasm for
my ideas and her confidence in my ability to get the job done were invaluable
when self-doubt reared its ugly head. She also pointed me towards the invalu-
able discussion in Racecraft. Lindsay Doukopoulos and Anna Head helpfully
commented on a number of the chapters. I continue to be deeply grateful to
Ronald D. Lewis for his keen eye, for his broad and deep understanding of sci-
ence, and his continued interest, patience, and guidance with my work. The
final project has also benefitted from comments from an anonymous reader
and the expertise of Maarten Frieswijk, Editor for Language and Linguistics,
and Maaike Langerak, Production Editor at Brill.
Summer support from the Research Incentive Committee in the English
Department at Auburn University made possible the completion of the manu-
script. Peggy Lindsay and Nathalie Daiko pointed me to figures 4 and 5 which
Allie Brock and Randal Munroe kindly allowed me to use. Allison Burkette gen-
erously provided me both with the idea for the furniture project discussed in
chapter 3 and the images she created for her own research. Paula Backscheider,
Wallis Stanfield, and Krista Grant shared the bigly, BuzzFeed, and The Toast
examples with me.
List of Illustrations
Tables
1 Distribution of third person singular pronoun forms produced by six

Virgin Islanders 45
2 Percent of pronoun forms produced by six Virgin Islanders 46
3 Variation in orthography and pronunciation of [gemde] from Sabino
and Pitts 2016 63
4 Variation in meaning of [gemde] from Sabino and Pitts 2016 64
5 Syntagmatic ‘above, on’ sequences produced by Mr. Joshua 67
6 Syntagmatic ‘above, on’ sequences produced by Mrs. Stevens 68
7 Distributions for World English or World Englishes in the Corpus of
Global Web-Based English: 1.9 billion words from speakers in 20 countries
(Davies 2013) 79
8 Competing constructions for the entity/entities perceived as historically
and/or structurally related to language use in the British colonial empire
in the LLBA database in 2012 and 2017 80
9 Number of cumulative responses in the Language Variation furniture-
terms surveys 85
10 Alabamians’ conventionalization of four furniture terms in the 2015
data set 86
11 Alabamians’ conventionalization of four furniture terms in the 2016
data set 87
Virgin Islanders 88
13 Segments preceding abobo ~ abo ~ bo 93
14 Collocates that precede two or more forms of abobo ~ abo ~ bo 94
15 Frequency of use of [æ, a, ə, ʌ, ai, e] and multiple negation in a Detroit
high school 105
16 Use of rhotacization, interdental pronunciation of dental sibilants, and
full tone in Beijing 105
Figures
1 Citations for barbarous languages from the English Corpus using Google
Books Ngram Viewer 23
2 Citations for native speaker and native writer from the English Corpus
using Google Books Ngram Viewer 28
x List of Illustrations
3 An F1/F2 plot of 142 vowels produced by Mrs. Stevens 48

4 Four alots, imaginary creatures created by Allie Brosh 49
5 Constructionally defined elements by Randall Munroe 54
6 Use of forms for ‘above, on’ by two Virgin Islanders 67
7 A coordination construction for encoding complex events 73
8 Comparison of conjunction use by Mrs. Stevens and Mr. Roberts 73
9 Furniture names for provided by Alabamians between 2013 and
2016 84
10 Furniture names for provided by Alabamians between 2013 and
2016 84
Virgin Islanders 88
12 Conventionalization of [gemde] orthographic representations,
pronunciations, and meanings 91
13 Asymmetric frequency distribution of variants of the NP + modal +
have construction from The Corpus of Historical American English from
Davies 2010– 92
14 Asymmetrical frequency distribution of words that precede variant
forms of abobo ~ abo ~ bo 94
15 Asymmetric frequency distribution of words that occur after variant
forms of abobo ~ abo ~ bo 95
16 Google Books Ngram Viewer citations for conventionalization and
vernacularization 101
Abbreviations
1 first person
2 second person
3 third person
COP copula
DIRA direction away from the speaker or point of reference
IPFV imperfective
LAMSAS Linguistic Atlas of the Middle and Atlantic States
LLBA Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts
LOC locative
NEG negative
PFUT proximate future
PST past
PFV perfective
PL plural
POSS possessive
PROG progressive
PURP purposive
Q pause
SG singular
SLA second language acquisition
Symbols
italics orthographic form

[ ] phonetic representation
/ / phonological representation
() optional element, sociolinguistic variable
~ varies with
Introduction: The Languages Ideology
The ideology of a community is established by the usage of [ideographs]

in specifically rhetorical discourse.
McGee 1980:16
∵
0 Ideology
Ideologies are understandings acquired, expressed, and perpetuated or modi-

fied through social practice. As invisible, widely-shared complexes of assump-
tions, principles, beliefs, ideas, theories, conceptual frameworks, facts, values,
labels, procedures, policies, canons, and activities, ideologies describe and
shape our experiences, establishing common interest and understanding.
Ideologies are manifest unevenly in societies and, as Pennycook and Otsuji
(2016) demonstrate, they can be subject to negotiation and “rework[ing].”
Nevertheless, by providing the primitive notions that form the basis of both
common sense and formal systems, ideologies help us to know why things
are as they are. They also shape our expectations of how things should be-
come and provide the discursive resources for making it so. (See McGee 1980.)
Importantly, as ideologies shape self-awareness, they put flesh on imaginary
bones. As they establish standards of similarity and difference, ideologies
naturalize distributions of privilege and power. Individually and collectively,
we are largely unaware of the ideological forces shaping the categories that
organize our perceptions and direct our behavioral choices, often prompting
us to ignore or reject conflicting evidence. Recent elections and the resulting
political aftermath in the United States reveals the extent of ideology’s power
to impose belief and limit thought.
As unexamined assumptions and understandings with no basis in fact are
repeatedly enacted, ideology is manifest in various ways – in xenophobia, in
sexism, in agism, in the cultural, intellectual, and moral hubris that undergirds
colonial exploitation, in science, and in religion. For example, widespread but
mistaken understanding lead ancient Greeks to interpret mammoth bones as
belonging to giants and to see dinosaur bones as the remains of griffins (Mayor
2000). Similarly, for centuries Christian ideology, Catholic and Protestant,
© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi 10.1163/9789004364592_002

2 Introduction: The Languages Ideology
prompted scientists to accept Aristotle’s claim that underground spontane-

ous generation was the source of fossil seashells buried in the earth and that
marine shells found on mountain tops were deposited by the great flood
(A. Cutler 2003). In another example, Fields and Fields (2014:20–21, referenc-
ing Dillenberger 1961) write of Martin Luther’s rational excoriation of supersti-
tion and his claim that witches “do many accursed things while they remain
undiscovered.” Luther’s understanding was inescapable, Fields and Fields
contend, because it reflected the ideology of the late Middle Ages and early
Renaissance that “… took for granted the existence of an active, well-populated
invisible realm that manifested itself in the realm of the seen as real things,
events, and persons” (21). Men, women, and even dogs thought to be witches
were executed in what is now Massachusetts in the late sixteenth century. A
later example is provided by the eighteenth-century theologian, John Wesley.
In his preaching and writing, Wesley conflates two philosophical schools of
thought regarding the nature of so-called primitive cultures. On the one hand,
consistent with the Doctrine of Original Sin, like many in the Enlightenment,
Wesley subscribed to the belief that humans had degenerated from an origi-
nal pure state. He saw savage/barbaric/primitive peoples (e.g., Africans, Native
Americans, Lapplanders, Finns, Northern Scotts, and the Chinese as degener-
ate “gluttons, drunkards, thieves, dissemblers and liars” who were “lower than
brutes” (Hodgen 1934:315, 320 citing Wesley IX 161–162, 178). On the other hand,
in order to advance his abolitionist sentiments, Wesley presented Africans “on
a higher plane than other primitive peoples … “on a parity with … civilized
man” (320). That today educated persons are familiar with fossil dinosaurs, the
movement of tectonic plates, no longer fear witches, nor subscribe to the no-
tion of primitive cultures developed by early anthropologists illustrates that
even potent ideologies are escapable.
Fields and Fields’ (2014) primary object of concern is a second, pernicious
ideology which they analogize as racecraft. Using numerous contemporary ex-
amples, they demonstrate that, although ideologies are neither internally con-
sistent nor uncontested, logical incongruities continue to plague those who,
despite acknowledging there is no biological basis for race, accept race as a
useful social construct. Among the several instances they point to, one is par-
ticularly striking: Dr. James Dewey Watson, a 1962 Nobel Laureate molecular
biologist, zoologist, geneticist, and co‑discoverer of the structure of DNA, pre-
dicted that “genetic evidence for black peoples’ lesser intelligence w[ill] emerge
within a decade” (8). This 2007 remark, which was “roundly condemned as ‘rac-
ist’ ” and dismissed as “ ‘genetic nonsense’ ” by others in the field (Anonymous
2007), is reminiscent of remarks by another Nobel Laureate, William Shockley,
who earlier advanced similar views with respect to the genetic differences
between the so-called races. This genetic nonsense, as Fields and Fields (2014)
point out, hinges on the impossibility of objectively identifying precisely who
it is that constitute a particular race.
Let me provide an absurd yet real example from a family well known to me.
In the elder generation, one member was legally classified as “white” while sib-
lings were classified as “negro” and “mulatto.” A member of the next generation
left her home classified as “white,” when married was classified as “colored,”
became a mother as “negro” and died as “black”! Her child, whose designation
also has changed over time, when born was classified as “colored.” The case of
the South African woman, Sandra Liang, provides another example of variable
racial classification (See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYZyvxpsCjQ).
Similar inconsistency and contestation occur with respect to ideology and
human language as illustrated, to cite just three examples, 1) by the ongo-
ing debate in the United States with respect to the value of monolingualism,
2) adolescents’ understandings of language conventions and digital commu-
nication that conflict with those of the educational system (Bogetic 2016:3)
or the persistence of multiple linguistic ideologies of English in Hong Kong
(Jenks and Won 2016).
1 Discourse, Ideographs, and the Languages Ideology
Hackert (2012:36) usefully describes discourses as systems of statements that

constitute or construct social reality, commenting that they “limit our think-
ing … making it impossible or at least difficult to think of that which is not
compatible with the discourse itself.” Putting it slightly differently, Hooper
(2015:303) observes that discourses emerge as conventionalized elements are
pieced together “into forms prescribed by the norms that govern … particular
interaction.” Because ideologies are manifest through discourse, they crucially
reflect the manipulation of “a vocabulary of concepts that functions as guides,
warrants, reasons, or excuses for behavior and belief” that McGee (1980:6,7)
labels ideographs.
The ritural (re)enactment of ideologically motivated agendas furthers moral,
economic, and sociopolitical ends. Thus, as Woolard (2004:57) indicates, lin-
guistic ideologies have motivated notions of “community, nation, and human-
ity itself.” Like other participants in Western culture, linguists both influence
and are influenced by what I call the languages ideology whose associated
discourses and the ideographs used to construct them constrain understand-
ings both of languaging (i.e., the production and processing of linguistic re-
sources by individuals) and the nature of human language (e.g., Blommaert
2005, Makoni and Pennycook 2007, Jørgensen and Juffermans 2011). Thus, it is
not surprising that there are striking parallels between witchcraft, racecraft,
and western confidence in the existence of reified linguistic systems. For in-
stance, Chomsky (2000:13) describes “a language as a system of discrete infin-
ity, a procedure that enumerates an infinite class of expressions each of them
a structured complex of properties of sound and meaning.” However, just as
it has proven impossible to identify precisely the biological markers that as-
sign an individual clearly to a race, Hutton (2002) remarks that, there is no
systematic way of identifying either linguistic boundaries or the highly struc-
tured systems such boundaries are supposed delimit. A number of authors,
including Romaine (1989), Gardner-Chloros (1991), Jørgensen et al. (2011), and
Blommaert and Rampton (2011) have made this point.
Like all ideologies, the belief in the existence of grammatical systems that
are widely shared, uniform, clearly delimited, and autonomous crucially de-
pends on (re)enactment made possible by comfort with familiar incongruities.
The reification of languages is promulgated as “practical solidarity” (Eagleton
2007:13, Pennycook 2010). That is, as we experience similar linguistic resources
that facilitate communication or are unable to communicate with those with
whom we have no linguistic resources in common, our ability to classify and
to categorize empowers conceptualization of languages, creoles, sociolects,
jargons, dialects, etc. (here after referred to as languages) as empirical objects.
However, as Pennycook (2007:91) points out, in displacing attention from lan-
guaging to languages, linguists engage in circular logic, assuming that which
we are attempting to establish.
Bounded linguistic entities are poor reflections of languaging (Jørgensen et
al. 2011:23). Nevertheless, once data available for analysis and description are
attributed to languages, discourses emerge that reenact the languages ideol-
ogy. In language planning, in theory making, and in description, the languages
ideology facilitates the elimination of resistant data in order to “simplify[…]
the sociolinguistic field” (Irving and Gal 2000:38). Gal and Irvine (1995:974) de-
scribe this as “erasure.” Focusing on individual variation, Dorian (2010) makes
a similar point.
Irvine and Gal (2000) report that by the nineteenth century linguistic het-
erogeneity was seen as disorderly, reflecting a lack of civilization (61) and
untrustworthiness (65). Because of the languages ideology, anthropologists
ignored what were understood to be contact languages, trade languages, and
“local languages of widespread use” believing these to be inauthentic means of
communication and expressions of culture (Gal and Irvine 1995:988). Although
these entities have become objects of interest, analysists continue to system-
atically exclude data from people identified as incomers, aspirers, categorical
speakers, overly standard speakers, children, the hearing impaired, persons

with language disorders, the hard of hearing nonnative speakers and last
speakers. Or take the case of persons identified as bi- or multilingual. Analysis
typically considers only a portion of the data such persons produce as in the
following example in which de Jong (1926:11) signals the analytic irrelevance of
the emphasized forms to his documentation of “Negerhollandsch.”
1) am a se, am maŋke lo by lan o by ship.

3.sg pst say 3.sg want go by land or by ship
‘S/he said, (did) s/he want (to) go by land or by ship.’
am a se, am diŋ bete lo by lan. ham a

3.sg pst say 3.sg think better go by land 3.sg pst
start by lan.
start by land
‘S/he said, s/he thinks (it is) better (to) start by land. S/he started by land.’
As Irvine and Gal also point out, erasure is not always intentional. Linguists
accept that “lines and boundaries [on dialect maps] fail to capture the facts of
language variation, even within a large regional survey much less a national,
international or global one” (Kretzschmar 2009:185). Nevertheless, concerns
for language-delimited authenticity persist in historical reconstructions, dia-
lectology, sociolinguistics. In fact, Chambers (1995) describes the elimination
of categorical speakers and the collapsing of variants into binary oppositions
axiomatic for variation research. But linguistics’ failure to grapple with the
impossibility of objectively identifying precisely what it is that constitutes a
particular linguistic system has produced a “pseudo-science” (Hutton 2002:121,
132) whose objects of concern are social constructs attributed to nations,
speech communities, communities of practice (Lave and Wenger 1991), and
cultures-of-use (Thorne 2003).
Beyond what Love (2004:528) characterizes as “the scientisation of a par-
ticular kind of perhaps culture-specific common sense,” the languages ideol-
ogy has accumulated a number of pernicious accretions. A quote by O’Reilly
(2009:A14) compellingly illustrates a particularly persistent accretion. When
he asserts that “hip-hoppers … have done more to ruin the modern English
language than Paris Hilton” and attributes phrases like shout out, my bad, and
they be chillin to laziness, O’Reilly confuses individuals’ expansion of their
linguistic resources by innovation and accommodation with what was tradi-
tionally assumed by linguists and is still widely understood by non-linguists
to be language decay. Equally important is that O’Reilly presses his assertion
discursively, activating in his readers what Fields and Fields (2014) describe
as a collectively lived mental map; that is, in addition to reenacting the lan-
guages ideology’s reification of Modern Standardized English as an identifi-
able, bounded, structured system; O’Reilly indexes particular linguistic forms
to negative evaluations of racial, sex, and socioeconomic categories.
Indeed, imaginary biological distinctions have developed as a central com-
ponent of the Western languages ideology. The influx of millions of Jews and
immigrants from areas other than northern Europe resulted in xenophobia
and anti-Semitism prompting the identification of the American heartland
as the locus of a standard American accent (Pavlenko 2002). Bigoted notions
of intellectual progress and cultural enlightenment undergird Europe’s colo-
nial expansion, characterizing Africans and other marginalized and exploited
peoples as uncivilized and linguistically limited. For example, the field of cre-
olistics has been limited by a persistent evocation of racial difference: con-
temporary discussions of colonial contact are rife with comparisons of whites
and blacks although, as pointed out by Sabino (1990, 2012a) these categories
reveal nothing about the linguistic resources controlled by individuals includ-
ed in such groupings. Nor do these categories reveal useful information about
the particular conditions in which these persons deployed their linguistic
resources.
Perhaps the most egregious example of the role of reified entities in the
languages ideology is one that many readers will initially find suspect since
linguistics draws no evaluative distinctions between standardized and unstan-
dardized linguistic systems. Moreover, interest in African-American English
(and its synonyms) reflects what Bucholtz (2003) describes as strategic essen-
tialism aimed at contesting linguistic bigotry. Unfortunately, the mind’s ability
to entertain logical incongruities allows the languages ideology to reject racism
even as linguistic methods of analysis promulgate it. Thus, Fields and Fields
(2014) are right to ask what other than racecraft motivates and sustains the
construct of African-American English. Wassink and Curzan (2004) are correct
in their identification of ideology as limiting linguists’ ability to change the de-
bate that surrounds African-American English. In contrast, they are mistaken
in thinking that addressing the “thorny problem of naming,” (176) will help to
remove the stigma indexed to some of the linguistic resources deployed by
African-American languagers. Rather, since there is no rigorous procedure for
delimiting this reified entity, each instance of naming and description reenacts
the linkage of a reified, bounded, structured linguistic system and an imagined
race, re-energizing both the languages ideology and racecraft. Additionally,
as Bucholtz (2003:402) also points out, erasure is at work. The complexity of
heterogeneous languaging must be reduced to a subset of features used by
languagers deemed racially authentic according to various criteria – criteria

that, as Smitherman and Spears (2004:201) observe, are always subjective,
reflecting researchers’ theoretical orientations. Erasure is also evident when
the use of the so-called core features by individuals identified as belonging to
other groups are under documented. For example, following Sprauve (1997), in
an attempt to describe language use in the Danish West Indies, Sabino (2012a)
rejects data from nonnative-speaker liturgical texts and a grammar influenced
by presciptivism. Hackert (2012) makes a parallel observation with respect to
the importance homogeneity and authenticity play in defining the English na-
tive speaker.
Bloomquist and I. Hancock (2003:1) point to increasing skepticism regarding
claims of homogeneity with respect to the linguistic patterns of people identi-
fied as Black or African American. Nevertheless, the languages ideology has
been slow to change. For example, a search of peer-reviewed, scholarly articles
published between 2003 and 2015 in the Linguistics and Language Behavior
database1 provides little evidence of this skepticism. The search returned only
two articles that contained black English in the title. By comparison, there were
75 article titles containing African-American English. In contrast, there were no
results for white English or European-American English.
Search of the 155-billion-word Google Books (American English) corpus
(Davies 2011–) provides additional evidence for the entwining of racecraft and
the languages ideology: No instances of Caucasian English, Honkey English, or
European(-)American English were located by this search. Early on, the col-
locations b/Black and w/White English typically describe aspects of material
culture (e.g., Black English silk stocks, white English hens) although R. Bailey
(2011:44, quoting Knight 1992:35–36) provides an instance of a New England
justice in 1690 “speak[ing] Negro” to a “Negro Slave” accused of theft. Negro/
negro English appears first in the GoogleBooks corpus in 1820s. Nigger English,
which is infrequent, appears first in the 1860s. In the 1890s, reference to white
English as a linguistic variety is contrasted with Native American language use
(Perry 1892:138). Black English in reference to language appears in the 1940s, co-
incident with the second migration of African-American southerners to north-
ern, midwestern, and western cities in the United States, and begins to increase
in use with respect to language use in the 1960s. The term African(-)American
English emerges in the 1990s.
Focusing on speech communities, networks, and communities of practice,
sociolinguistics broadened the scope of phenomena considered relevant to
1 This search was executed on 25 April, 2015. The GoogleBooks search was conducted on
30 June 2015.
understanding languaging by asking how languagers organize linguistic vari-

ants into “a highly structured system of speech varieties that mirrors and
reinforces … power distinctions” (G. Sankoff 1980:69). By the late twentieth
century, sociolinguistic interest shifted to understanding the ways in which lan-
guagers exploit the indexing of linguistic forms to evoke sociocultural identities
and orientations. A number of subdisciplines including additional/second lan-
guage acquisition (SLA), anthropological linguistics, linguistic anthropology,
multilingualism, code switching, and linguistic contact have similarly sought
to accommodate linguistic behavior that reflects fluid and complex networks
of sociocultural relations constantly influenced by input and feedback from
others. Nevertheless, despite resistant data, these approaches have maintained
as their objects of interest elements that are part of named, bounded, struc-
tured systems tied (either historically or contemporaneously) to geographic
space and/or ethnocultural groups. Bucholtz and Hall’s (2005) otherwise in-
sightful discussion of identity as emerging from situated language use provides
a useful illustration of this discursive (re)enactment of the languages ideology.
They identify getto whities (590, citing Chun 2001:60) as belonging to African
American Vernacular English. A BuzzFeed posting (Griffin 2016) describing a
Latina student unjustly accused of plagiarism by a teacher who assumed hence
was “not [her] word” provides a poignant example of the damage the languag-
es ideology’s notion of appropriation can inflict.
Let me make a counter point also using getto whities. Having heard Garrett
Morris use the racial slur, whitey, in a Saturday Night Live skit decades ago (Cook
and Moore/Sedaka 1976), I understood getto whities when reading Bucholtz
and Hall’s article and can subsequently use it here. However, although the
term is not mine alone, unlike Bucholtz and Hall, I do not consider whitey to
be appropriated from a language system I do know. In another example, the
term bukra living room is one I encountered reading Burkette’s (2012) discus-
sion of data from the Linguistic Atlas of the Middle and South Atlantic States
(LAMSAS). Like getto whities, bukra living room is not a term I am likely to
use in my everyday interactions. Nevertheless, because I have added this term
to my linguistic repertoire, when an appropriate occasion arises, I can do so.
Moreover, because I suspect but do not know the ancestry of the consultant
who provided the term for recording in LAMSAS, I cannot assign it to the lan-
guaging of a particular group with surety.
García and Otheguy (2014) also write of linguistic appropriation but, writing
of heritage language learners who “integrate new features [learned in the class-
room] and appropriate them as their own within a single linguistic repertoire”
(648) see it as I do, from the perspective of the individual languager. Despite in-
voking the languages ideology’s reified systems, a consultant quoted by Otsuji
and Pennycook (2010:242) also demonstrates such integration: “I don’t have

any awareness that I am choosing [a] language or when I recall a particular
conversation it is often the case that I can’t remember in which language it was
spoken.”
The above quote from García and Otheguy illustrates the progress being
made as researchers attempt to free themselves from the constraints of the
languages ideology. But like Otsuji and Pennycook’s consultant, research-
ers concerned with developing models that accommodate all linguistic re-
sources “which are conjointly called upon to find local solutions to practical
problems” (Nicolaï 2014:6) remain constrained by ideographs that evoke reified
languages. For example, Pennycook (2010:77, 129) writes about “languages” and
“creoles” even as he finds “the notion of discrete, bounded languages … very du-
bious” and compellingly urges the exploration of language as repeated, situat-
ed activity shaped by local ideologies. Gadet and Hambye (2014:184) recognize
that “[t]he very act of giving names to ways of speaking is a temptation which
presupposes that varieties exist beyond the analyst’s toolkit.” Nevertheless,
they succumb to the languages ideology when they describe “contemporary
urban vernaculars” relying on scare quotes to distance themselves from the
practice of essentializing linguistic behavior. It seems Steinberg (1987:207) was
far too optimistic when he proclaimed that dialectologists and sociolinguists,
having blurred the lines “between standard and vernacular, among vernacu-
lars, within vernaculars” have escaped the languages ideology. Although atten-
tion increasingly is shifting to understanding both the theoretical and practical
effects of the ways that ideologies shape our conceptions of human language,
even cursory explorations of linguistic databases and journals quickly confirm
the pervasiveness of our attachment to discrete, bounded linguistic systems.
Indeed, how else could we name and count them?2 How else could areas of in-
vestigation such as first or second language learning, bilingualism, or language
death emerge? Whether achieved by divorcing langue from parole, eliminating
inconvenient variation as free, distinguishing competence from performance,
or extracting distinctive features, a central component of the languages ideol-
ogy is patterning that is economical and abstract – patterning whose primary
purpose is to separate language from language, dialect from dialect, sociolect
from sociolect. As a result, linguists of various stripes document and write
2 Although they do not reject reified languages outright (calling instead for reconceptualiza-
tion), Makoni and Mashiri (2007:64–70) present numerical ranges of language users and
multiple names for the same entities demonstrating that we neither name nor count them
particularly well.
grammars for reified entities and, with few exceptions, eschew examining vari-
ation at the level of the individual.
Increasingly researchers with a sociocultural bent argue for recognizing
ongoing interactions in specific contexts as the source of linguistic heteroge-
neity. This perspective acknowledges that our understanding of the world is
emergent, reflecting our cultural histories. Importantly such a view conceptu-
alizes languagers as deploying and creating “linguistic resources for their own
purposes” (Bell 2014:9). At the same time, comparative typologists have begun
to reveal the “largely phylogenetic (cultural-historical) and geographical pat-
terns” of linguistic diversity that blur the boundaries of cultural groups (Evans
and Levinson 2009:42, Dunn, et al. 2011). Thus, at the beginning of the twenty-
first century, linguistics is poised to slip a 2,000 year old ideological tether and
begin creating discourses that will lead us beyond the safety of scare quotes to
signal our discomfort with reification. But in order to do so, linguistics must
fully embrace the fluidity, complexity, and ongoing “constructiveness of social
life” (Pennycook 2010:54, emphasis in the original) that is characteristic not
of languages but of human languaging. To date, the escape has been tentative
and partial.
2 Ongoing Signs of Discontent
Whitney (1875:154, quoted in Hackert 2012:106) warned that “[w]e must be

careful not to overrate the uniformity of existing languages…. In a true and
defensible sense, every individual speaks a language different from every other
individual.” Linguists widely recognize that what we call languages reflect the
habits of individuals (e.g., Jespersen 1946, Haugen 1972a, Hair 2001, Chomsky
quoted in Baptista 2012)3 and acknowledge that the dialect/language distinc-
tion is “artificial,” “blurry” (Wassink and Curzan 2004:177) and often depen-
dent on the existence of published literature (Saussure 1916/1983:202). Barlow
(2013:444) provides empirical evidence from large corpora for idiolectal varia-
tion consistent with skepticism regarding “abstractions concerning ‘English’
(or other languages) and ‘grammar’.”
A number of subdisciplines are embracing the understanding that, be-
cause our linguistic resources emerge from ongoing interactions in specific
contexts, there are considerable phonological, morphological, morphosyn-
tactic, semantic, syntactic and pragmatic differences within human groups.
3 Chomsky, responding to his own rhetorical question (i.e. ‘Why is Chinese an E-language, but
Romance isn’t?’) observes ‘It’s because of colors on maps and continuities of empires….’
As an illustration, Kretzschmar’s (2008:341) view of languages as “observa-

tional artifact[s] that reflect frequencies of situated use” finds support in
Haspelmath’s (2007:123) comment that descriptions of these reified entities
“often exhibit categories that are not even particularly similar.” Along the same
lines, Dediu (2015:206), discussing conventionalization in communities with a
substantial number of deaf members, observes that language does not emerge
whole cloth. Rather, linguistic features, including those as basic as dual pat-
terning, are “driven by use and transmission.” This view of human languaging
also lies behind B. Kachru’s (2017:15) concerns regarding “norms of intelligibil-
ity” and degrees of conventionalization with respect to what he calls World
Englishes.
Recent attempts to accommodate the openness of human language
have resulted in the coining of a number of terms including heteroglossia,
multiglossia, multicompetence, multidialectism, translingualism, and metro-,
multi-, poly- pluri- and translanguaging. For example, Canagarajah (2014) em-
braces the idea of a single linguistic repertoire as a means of understanding
the ways in which individuals deploy their linguistic resources. Nevertheless,
he writes of “languages made vulnerable” (par 1), references varieties of English
whose grammars have been nativized (par 3). Canagarajah questions the “no-
tion that languages are separate, having their own monolithic grammars and
being bounded by specific communities and native speakers who possess
[them]” (par 17) but describes a woman “speak[ing] Zimbabwean English,
Shona, Tonga, and Xohsa” although she is unable to “choose one of these as her
mother tongue or native language” (par 6). In fact, the power of the languages
ideology is so great that his attempt to escape its terrain by coining a new ideo-
graph, “polyglot discourse” (par 7) continues to reify distinguishable languages.
Another example occurs in Kellman and Lvovich’s (2016:403) description of
translingual novelists as those who “write in more than one language or in a
language other than their primary one.”
Efforts such as these to reframe the discourse that undergirds the languages
ideology illustrate the similarity between the “the mental makeshifts of the
proverbial person-in-the-street and the accentuated rationality of academic
life” (Fields and Fields 2014:199). Morphologically linking the openness of lan-
guaging to the boundedness of linguistic systems creates a logical incongru-
ity – one that a scientific linguistics can ill afford. The argument that because
like races, languages are widely accepted social constructs that have material
consequences, although true, will ultimately fail.4 This is because such terms,
4 I do not dismiss the roles these constructs play in the lives of individuals and groups.
Unfortunately, addressing their deleterious impacts is beyond the scope of the present
despite their meritorious intent, discursively reenact the ideology that limits
our understanding of the very subject we seek to know.
Fortunately, as Western society’s progress with respect to witchcraft and
its ongoing efforts to overcome racism and sexism show, ideologies can be
dismantled and social constructs, though powerful, are subject to revision. As
challenging as it is to modify familiar ways of understanding, if linguistics is to
come into its own as a science, we must recognize that by describing languag-
es, by arguing about how such entities emerge, change, shift, are learned, and
are forgotten, we ensure our continued entrapment on unproductive ideologi-
cal terrain. Thee sources I cite amply demonstrate this.
Although the points raised in this and following chapters are not new, the
ongoing discussion has not yet allowed us to extricate ourselves from the limi-
tations of the languages ideology. This is because, as Fields and Fields (2010)
repeatedly illustrate, the human capacity for self-contradiction makes ideo-
logical change very challenging indeed. As a result, in the first quarter of the
twenty-first century, it is still reasonable to claim that much of linguistics has
had “very little to do with human communication” (Wierzbicka 2006:20).
Rapidly accumulating insights with respect to how language is organized in in-
dividual brains also point in this direction. For instance, Poeppel (2008, par 2)
comments on the disjunction between linguistic understandings and those of
the neural sciences with respect to the “properties of the human brain [that]
make it possible to have and use” human language. Psychologists similarly
recognize that discussions of human language often operate in the realm of
the imaginary, as when “our ordinary conversational means for describing peo-
ple’s language experience perpetuates a fiction so compelling that … we talk as
though being bilingual or being a language learner, or being literate in a lan-
guage is an identifiable state with objective criteria and stable characteristics”
(Bialystok and Peets 2010:134). Surely this is not acceptable.
In order to escape the habits of mind made so familiar by the languages
ideology that we no longer see them as such, we must seriously consider the
implications of Paul’s (1880, cited in Graffi 1995:174) assertion that “individual
linguistic activity [is] the only object possessing authentic reality.” We can
begin by relinquishing our attachment to discrete, bounded linguistic sys-
tems, and discontinuing our discursive use of names for languages, focusing
instead on individuals’ continual accrual, loss, modification, and deployment
of linguistic resources. Doing so, I predict, will lead us beyond increasingly
siloed research agendas prompting us to draw on discoveries that span current
work, which intends to prompt linguistics to develop a more accurate ideology of human
language – a monumental task in itself.
disciplinary boundaries. The chapters that follow begin to create a discourse

for exploring languaging without languages. My hope is that when fully de-
veloped, such a discourse will provide a means of escaping the confines of the
languages ideology.
3 A Plausible Alternative
My concern with the languages ideology stems from the centuries-old “de/
reterritoralization” (Deleuze and Guttari 1983, 1987) of European colonial ex-
pansion that produced linguistic heterogeneity in the Caribbean. As the world’s
population has grown, so has the number of migrants: the United Nations
2017 International Migration Report estimates that 258 million persons no
longer live in the country in which they were born. One result of this is lin-
guistic “super-diversity” that has “denaturalized” language names (Blommaert
and Rampton 2011:abstract) and motivated explorations of metro-, multi-,
poly-, pluri-, translanguaging and the like. Already familiar with the litera-
ture on linguistic ideology, SLA, and the neurocognitive aspects of language
processing (e.g., Sabino 2012a), my search for increased understanding of the
relationship between situated use and the emergence of linguistic resources
lead me to explore usage-based grammatical theory and language as a com-
plex adaptive system. The resulting synthesis has undermined my previous
belief in the sufficiency of a revisionist approach to language contact – one that
critically examines the social histories and hence the boundaries of particular
languages in order to more accurately reconstitute them. The current volume
reflects my discomfort with an understanding of human language as “a set of
resources which circulate in unequal ways in social networks and discursive
spaces” (Heller 2007:2, emphasis added). Here in contrast to previous work,
I attempt to write from a perspective that moves beyond the languages ideol-
ogy. In chapters that follow, this more radical discourse avoids language names
and the bounded, structured linguistic systems they are intended to represent.
I do so by discussing current understandings of how we accrue, store, and use
our linguistic resources to three processes: entrenchment, conventionaliza-
tion, and vernacularization.
Chapter 1, “The staying power of an illusion,” begins with an examination
of the millennia-long history of the languages ideology focusing on four false
assumption promulgated by linguistic theory: anthropomorphism, phonocen-
tricism, monolingualism, and legitimacy and deviance. I then consider previ-
ous attempts to shift analytic attention from languages to languaging, arguing
these have not gone far enough. Rejecting the convenience of language names,
and the use of scare quotes to signal discomfort with current understanding,
I point to usage-based theory as a way to account for the entrenchment of indi-
vidually situated, emergent, adaptive, and heterogeneous linguistic memories
of kinesic sequences, auditory patterns, form/meaning potentials, sequential
patterns, and sociocultural indices. In contrast to a structuralist approach
which understands language to be “the production of determinate strings of
phonemes … each identifiable as a manifestation of a determinate linguis-
tic sign” (R. Harris 2014:21), I understand entrenched, conventionalized, and
vernacularized meanings as emerging in discourse. As such, they are subject
to negotiation. Consistent with Eckert’s (2008) discussion of indexical fields,
I consider form/meaning potentials, the source of polysemy, nuance, and lin-
guistic change, rather than the more usual form/meaning mappings.
Chapter 2, “Entrenchment and the linguistic individual,” takes up the chal-
lenge articulated in chapter 1. Keeping firmly in mind that grammatical struc-
ture, as Hopper (1987:142) explains, is “epiphenomenal” – an order imposed,
not discovered by analysis – the discussion first considers evidence that points
to the theoretical and methodological importance of the linguistic individual.
This exploration adopts the concept of “rich memory” (Bybee 2010) in order
to examine the relationship between entrenchment and situated use. I then
demonstrate the goodness of fit between usage-based grammar and a perspec-
tive that takes the idiolect as a theoretical prime. In considering the nature of
entrenchment, the discussion examines the usefulness of exemplar theory and
constructions as descriptive devices.
Chapter 3, “Conventionalization and the illusion of shared grammar,”
illustrates how patterns in corpus data can provide insights into convention-
alization, which occurs when multiple languagers, in some measure, come
to anticipate that paradigmatic and syntagmatic patterns are likely to evoke
certain meanings. Since heterogeneity is at the core of human language and
since description always reflects the analysis of limited data sets, following
Kretzschmar (2009, 2015), I use frequency distributions to compare language
use by and across individuals illustrating how random operations during lan-
guaging produce emergent order.
Chapter 4, “Vernacularization,” introduces the process and provides exam-
ples of how contextually motivated choices among linguistic elements influ-
ences the indexing of various sociocultural identities, ideological stances, and
allegiances. Like Eckert (2008:453), I demonstrate the fluidity of indexing relies
on the potential for modifying meaning “by building on ideological connec-
tions.” The chapter next turns to the intersection of vernacularization, conven-
tionalization and the languages ideology before illustrating how ideographs
and the discourses they constitute might be modified to better capture what
we humans do when we language.
Chapter 5, “Conclusion,” adds my calls to others in applied linguistics, an-
thropological linguistics, linguistic anthropology, sociolinguistics, and prag-
matics for theoretical advancement, synthesizing the themes explored in the
previous chapters. In the response to the realization that “language exists only
in the brains and mouths and ears and hands and eyes of is users” (Crystal
2003:7), the chapter advocates for the development of discourses that formu-
late new questions and methods for answering them and predicts that doing so
will lead to productive interdisciplinarity that increases our chances of reveal-
ing the nature of that which we strive to understand – human language.
Chapter 1
The Staying Power of an Illusion
If you can talk all languages, they are all the same thing to you.
Danish song, quoted in Jespersen 1946:2
∵
1.0 Introduction
Identified with ancestral groups such as the Ewe and defended by armies and
navies (variously attributed) as in the case of Mandarin, languages are part of
the modern world. But thoughtful consideration reveals the widely assumed
relationship between nation and language to be an imprecise one. For exam-
ple, what is described as Italian is not only the designated national language of
Italy; it is also declared to be one of three Swiss national languages. Additionally,
languaging by minority populations in several countries, including Eritrea and
Libya, is described as being carried out in Italian. Further, what is typically
described as multilingualism was tolerated and even locally supported in the
United States and in Central and South America until the nineteenth century
(Pavlenko 2002, R. Bailey 2011, García and Otheguy 2014). Today, while there is
pressure in the United States for a legally defined national language, heteroge-
neous linguistic rights are protected in a number of countries including South
Africa, which recognizes 11 official languages and Mexico, which recognizes 68.
Nor have languages been universally imagined into existence. For instance,
the Tolowa, a West Coast Native American group, reject the notion of one
grammar for the entire community (Collins 1998). In what is today Indonesia,
the idea of a language emerges only in the late nineteenth-century when colo-
nial interests created Malay and Javanese (Heryanto 2006:42). Other invented
colonial linguistic entities that reaffirm the languages ideology include Shona,
Afrikaans, Runyakitara, chiNyanja, and Fijian (Makoni and Pennycook 2007:1).
Ritual reenactment of the languages ideology is also responsible for the
imagining of language types such as jargons, pidgins, and creoles and the
entities that populate these categories such as Moblian Jargon, Bislama, and
Negerhollands. It is the languages ideology that, as Irvine and Gal (2000:36) put

The Staying Power of an Illusion 17
it, “ ‘recognize[es]’ (or misrecognize[s]) linguistic differences [and …] locate[s],

interpret[s], and rationalize[s] sociolinguistic complexity….”
No more real than witches or races and like the nations and the groups they
represent, languages are brought into existence through discourse. Entities like
Ewe and Fijian seem to exist because like all ideologies, the languages ideology
is sustained through ritual reenactment. For example, in the 1970s, the human-
ities and social sciences increased their scrutiny of the link between ideology
and language. A search of for articles published from 1970 onwards located 641
titles containing both ideology and linguistics in the Linguistics and Language
Behavior Abstracts (LLBA) database. However, as might be expected, since ide-
ology guides our analytic choices as we go about our descriptive and theoreti-
cal tasks, many of these titles also contained language names, reenacting, not
countering, the languages ideology.
Like the general public, linguistic theory treats languages as bounded and
highly structured. But, although influenced by the languages ideology, linguists
are not ideologues. When pressed, we readily acknowledge the permeability of
linguistic systems, treating intrusions as borrowing, interference, or code shift-
ing/mixing. We admit to evidence that the linguistic resources of individuals
and groups are dynamic and adaptive but, more often than not, we produce
grammars that reflect behaviors perceived as normative for entities defined by
geography or for social groups of various types. This misses the mark since it is
not possible to precisely delimit and thus describe what it is that constitutes
either linguistic regions or groups. We continue to analyze languages as nam-
able, countable,2 empirically explorable entities although human languaging
does not work that way. The result is a nearly inescapable conflicted under-
standing of our discipline discussed in the previous chapter.
The phrase nearly unescapable in the preceding sentence points to dis-
sent with respect to prevailing explanations of human linguistic behavior
and the categories used to describe it. For example, Lepschy (1986:191) com-
ments on challenges that arise from a “rigid separation” of synchrony and
1 The search of peer reviewed, journal articles in English as the language of publication, was
conducted on 28 April 2016. The distribution of articles by date is 1970 (none), 1980 (2), 1990
(15), 2000 (29), 2010 (18).
2 Errington (2001:19) points to the “diverse colonial interests” served by the European proclivity
for categorizing and counting. Similarly, Makoni and Pennycook (2007:10, 13) see language
invention as a component of “countability and singularity” which they observe also has been
manifest in ethnography, history, and literature.
18 Chapter 1
diachrony3 and, although largely ignored, there have been calls to do away with
this binary (e.g., A. Becker 1991, Eckert and McConnell-Genet 1992, Bybee 2010,
R. Harris 2014). The decades-long debate about the legitimacy of indiginized
varieties (e.g., Y. Kachru 1994, Nero 2005, Rajagopalan 2012) and the emerging
debate over nativeness (e.g., Hackert 2012, Bonfiglio 2013) similarly testify to
the continuing influence of what is increasingly seen as an outmoded Western
intellectual tradition. Additionally, there is the previously discussed awareness
of the ways in which ideologies limit inquiry (e.g., Bucholtz 2003, Cameron
2006). In the sections below, I present a history of the languages ideology, illus-
trate its tenacity, survey recent attempts to articulate a newer understanding of
how we humans deploy language, and suggest a way forward.
1.1 A History of the Languages Ideology
How did we in the West and those who have adopted a Western view of lan-
guaging come to believe in languages? Recent scholarship locates the linkage
between language and nation as “imposed on the rest of the world through
European colonization” (e.g., Bell 2014:5, citing Gal 2006) primarily during the
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries – a period that Haugen (1972a:248) char-
acterizes as “having seen a veritable language explosion.” Indeed, nationalist
movements, nations, and national languages were “dialectally co-constructed”
(e.g., Heryanto 2006, Makoni and Pennycook 2007:7, Khalema 2016) during
colonial activity, spawning and imposing new socicultural identities. Take the
case of Müller’s statement that “nations and languages against dynasties and
treaties, this is what has remodeled and will remodel still more the map of
Europe” (1862:22 quoted in Hackert (2012:234). But, like many constructs in
the “interpretative social sciences and history,” language names emerged in
common usage and were only later adopted for analytic purposes (Brubaker
and Cooper 2000:4).4 Thus, albeit widespread, the view that the association
of language and nation emerged in the eighteenth and nineteenth century is
accurate only in part; embrace of the languages ideology reaches much further
back in time. As Bloomfield (1933:3) reminds us, our linguistic tradition, “like
3 Lepschy (1986:190) observes that, although language is changing all the time, in Saussure’s
understanding, synchronic analysis is predicated on languagers’ lack of awareness of ongo-
ing changes.
4 Alleyne (2010) makes a similar observation with respect to creole as a “folk taxonomic term”
before it was appropriated by linguists.
much that masquerades as common sense derives from the speculations of

ancient and medieval philosophers.”
Before the emergence of nation states, linguistic conventions reflected
linages aligned with ethnic and religious groups, and empires. As an illustra-
tion, Crystal (2003:15, fn 9) observes that Genesis, Chapter 10 lists “the sons of
Japheth … ‘according to their countries and each of their languages.’ ” The lan-
guages ideology is also encountered in the Old Testament’s (11 Gen., King James
Bible) account of the confounding of tongues and the scattering of peoples.5
The creation of the Septuagint Old Testament by third-century Alexandrian
Jews similarly points to reification of Hebrew and Greek since translation is
firmly situated within the languages ideology.
R. Harris (2002) traces the Western concept of language to Ancient Greece,
and Kretzschmar (2015:41, fn 2) points to Aristotle as providing the “model
for much of modern grammar and sentence-level linguistics.” Robins (1979)
also discusses Greek contributions to the West’s view of human language, pro-
viding considerable detail. He mentions encounters with unintelligible non-
Greek peoples, “bárbaroì” ‘barbarians’, who used “foreign words” and uttered
what Grillo (1989:174) identifies as barbarbar “unintelligible sounds.” Robins
(1979:11) also quotes Herodotus’ fifth-century BC attribution of martial success
against the Persians to “the whole Greek community, being of one blood and
one tongue.” Further, he discusses “dialectal divisions within Greek” and the
emergence of Koiné as “a standard language for government, trade, and educa-
tion” (15) and attributes the separation of Greek form and meaning to post-
Alexandrian Stoic thought (16). Robins also remarks on the rise of prescriptive
concerns regarding pronunciation and grammar and locates the centrality of
morphology to typological description in Greek interest in paradigmatic pat-
terning.6 He also sees the understanding of language change as corruption as
rooted in Greek thought (22). Citing an unnamed author, Robins additionally
remarks that “almost every textbook of English grammar bears evidence of a
debt to the Greek grammarian Dionysius Thrax” (32). Bonfiglio (2013:par 50)
5 Second-century Christian writers calculated the original language given to human kind was
confounded into more than 70. Theories of polygenesis dating to the Middle Ages emerge
into prominence during the Renaissance and again during the Enlightenment although “the
ability of people to learn new language or to communicate through translators was a remind-
er that humankind originally formed a single community and could do so again” (Muldoon
2000:83, 90).
6 Kowenberg (2010) argues persistent interest in paradigmatic patterns is responsible for the
under-representation of Afro-Caribbean languaging in surveys such as the World Atlas of
Language Structures.
20 Chapter 1
similarly observes that, although neither the Greeks nor Romans associated
ethnicity or race with linguistic characteristics, concern for language “purism”
existed in both societies. This impetus is nicely illustrated by Apuleius, who
writing in the first century CE, begins The Golden Ass, by apologizing for mis-
takes in what for him was a “foreign language” (Kellman and Lvovich 2016:404).
During the Middle Ages, the expansion of trade eastward resulted in the
production of “grammatical manuals” representing the languaging of newly
encountered peoples (Percival 1986:58). The languaging of the sixth-century
people known as Franks is transformed into French with the suffix -isc, which
derived language names from the names of peoples; Englisc emerged in a par-
allel fashion (Oxford English Dictionary [OED]). The languages ideology also
undergirds seventh- and eight-century grammarians’ dissatisfaction with Latin
grammars (particularly with respect to case marking) when confronted with
the religious literacy needs of newly Catholic Celtic and Germanic peoples of
northern and western Europe (Law 1986:45, 47). The 1066 Norman conquest of
Britain created a demand for “instruction in ‘good’ French” (Percival 1986:59).
During the same era, interest in poetry produced “remarkably fertile … vernac-
ular grammatical output” in Provence (Law 1986:47). Additionally, grammars
were produced in Iceland and Ireland (Percival 1986:59).
The term English language is first documented in 1366 when the Statutes
of Kilkenny “required ‘that every Englishman shall use the English language
and be named by an English name …” (Muldoon 2000:87). The fourteenth cen-
tury also witnesses Salutati’s comments on the “barbarous Latin of his con-
temporaries” (Percival 1986:57). The notion of mother tongue emerges around
this time: Dante distinguishes the “vernacular language that which infants
acquire from those around them” from Latin and Greek, which had been re-
duced to “rule and theory” (Alighieri 1304–1305). In the same period, Alfonso X
“codif[ied] the orthography of Castilian” based on upperclass languaging in
Toledo (García and Otheguy 2014:641). In all of these cases, a bounded linguis-
tic system is tied to an emerging sense of geopolitical belongingness.
The idea of languages as identifiable, structured systems persists in the
Renaissance when the term dialect is introduced (Haugen 1972b:238). Salmon
(1986: 71 citing Trentman 1976) comments on Brerewood’s early seventeenth-
century examinations of “the spread and decline of Greek and Latin, the rise
of the Romance languages, and the nature of some Slavonic and Oriental
tongues.” Percival (1986:59) reports the “serious [grammatical] attention”
paid to “a number of European vernaculars.” Bonfiglio (2013:par 15, citing Eco
2995:17) offers the substantial increase in number of artistic renderings of the
Tower of Babel between “1550 and the early seventeenth century” as evidence
for a relationship between the “anxiety of national identity” and the emergence
of the concept of linguistic nativeness. At the end of the sixteenth century, a
debate emerges concerning the historical origins of Castilian. Woolard (2004)
describes one of the protagonists, Bernardo Aldrete, as “a scholar of Semitic
and classical languages” (70) who proposed that Castilian had developed rath-
er than decayed from Latin (as was held by earlier humanists). Lopéz Madera’s
(1601:70) opposing claim that it was “traitorous to the Spanish nation to assert
that its language derived from any form of “corruption” (translated in Woolard
2004:71) similarly demonstrates “a consciousness of nation” and its association
with a common language that emerges in the early modern period. By the mid-
sixteenth century, issues of nationalistic linguistic inferiority and superiority
were being considered: language behaviors recognized as Dutch were nomi-
nated as representationally perfect, and those identified as Swedish were ar-
gued to be the language of God. Along the same lines, languaging identified as
Danish was attributed to Adam and Eve, while that understood as French was
associated with Satan (Bonfiglio 2013:par 22, citing Eco 1995:97). Considerable
concern with the identification of the pre-Babel human language persisted de-
spite the publication of Prae-Adamitae in 1655 and its translation, Men Before
Adam in 1656, which raised the possibility of polygenesis (Salmon 1986:71–72).
It was also during the Renaissance that language standardization, which
attempted to limit acceptable variation in order to improve and stabilize
identifiable, structured linguistic systems, emerged as a central component
of European cultural development (Watts 2002, Joseph 2002, Sabino 2012a).
For instance, in 1492, Nebrija recognizing the linkage between language and
empire and relying on Priscian’s much-copied Institutiones Grammaticae,
produced a grammar intended to standardize language use in Castile. In 1583,
the Accademia della Crusca was established to regulate Italian as a national
language. Similar bodies were established in Germany and France in the sev-
enteenth century, which also saw the production of a standard Bible in the
Netherlands. Less formally negative attitudes in Britain with respect to linguis-
tic heterogeneity both regional and social emerged with increased “demands
for correctness in speech, orthography, and vocabulary” (Salmon 1986:78–79).
During this era, colonial grammarians began to “construct[…] rather than
discover[…]” indigenous patterns of language use (Woolard and Schieffelin
1994:68). For example, grammars “for local consumption” were created in
Mexico and South America (Percival 1986:62), Williams’ (1643) Key to the lan-
guage of America was published, and Catholic missionaries produced what is
described as a multilingual dictionary to represent the languaging of those liv-
ing in what are today the tropical forests of the Democratic Republic of the
22 Chapter 1
Congo (Makoni and Mashiri 2007). The dictionary was followed by a grammar
in 1659 (Childs 2003).
Vernacular writing emerges in some traditions of Christian worship dur-
ing the sixteenth century. Academic use of what were understood as national
languages proceeded more slowly. In 1677, a faculty member in the medical
school at Upsula lectured in what Haugen (1972c:276) describes as “Swedish.”
However, when a similar attempt was made in Leipzig, the faculty member was
dismissed (Steinberg 1987:200). Not until 1765, in “a reaction to the dominance
of French culture” was a similar effort successful in Naples. About the same
time, a vocational curriculum utilizing the linguistic resources of the general
Anglo Saxon population was implemented in what would become the United
States.
It is not the idea of languages, but what Steinberg (1987:200) calls the “lan-
guage question” that surfaced in the eighteenth century in response to the
Enlightenment’s concern for “rationality and uniformity,” and to interest in
“the emergence of secular states after the decline of religious warfare.” There
was also increasing suspicion that, although God-given, languages responded
to social conditions. That is, while it was thought that languages decayed, it
was also thought they could be improved through standardization. For in-
stance, it is in the eighteenth century that the French philosopher Condillac
connects language to a people’s climate and government. In the nineteenth
century, Herder observes “ ‘that Providence wonderfully separated nationali-
ties not only by woods and mountains, seas and deserts, rivers and climates,
but more particularly by languages, inclinations and characters’ ” (translated in
Hobbs 2002:121 and in Knop 2002:55, who quotes Erang 1931:239–266).
A search of published discourse using Google Books Ngrams Viewer (see
figure 1) indicates that discussion of barbarous German emerges about 1750.
By about 1770, English authors’ concern for “barbarous English” competes
with concern over “barbarous French.” The phrase barbarous Italian appears
in the early eighteenth century. Concern for barbarous Spanish emerges at
the turn of the nineteenth century, co-incident, I suspect, with the attempt
by the Academicas Correspondientes to limit linguistic heterogeneity in Central
and South America. The linkage between Europe’s cultural hubris and its
concern with the rational and uniform is aptly illustrated by Sheridan’s 1762
declaration that “[a]ll barbarous nations agree in not studying or cultivating
their languages, and this is one of the characteristical [sic] marks of barbarism
(217).”7
7 Sabino (2012a, chapter 2) provides a detailed exploration of the linking of language and race
by European intellectuals during this period.
Figure 1 Citations for barbarous languages from the English Corpus using Google Books
Ngram Viewer (extracted 14 Nov 2017)
As Urciuoli (1995: 527) points out, it was in the nineteenth century that an
understanding of languages as standardized monolithic entities represented
in grammars and dictionaries “became deeply presupposed in academics.”
Within linguistics, investment in the language ideology emerges as the field
becomes a separate discipline. In contrast to earlier understanding, there was,
in the words of Irvine and Gal (2000:51, 73) “a firm belief … in the naturalness
and distinctness of its objects of study” … that were “unaffected by human
will or individual intent.” Although the development of historical-comparative
reconstruction under the guidance of Schiegel, W. Von Humboldt, Bopp, and
Schleicher occurred within the milieu of nineteenth-century European na-
tionalist politics (e.g., Johnstone 1996, Irvine and Gal 2000, Hackert 2012), its
development is prefigured at the end of the sixteenth century. As an illustra-
tion, Aldrete made careful, detailed comparisons among “Latin, Spanish and
even other Romance family vocabulary” to establish sound changes, providing
a precursor to historical-comparative reconstruction (Woolard 2004:70).
Like the flows of “people, goods, and ideas” (Canagarajah 2006:25) that char-
acterize modern globalization, European colonization schemes dislocated peo-
ple, occasioning the negotiation and renegotiation of sociocultural boundaries
and the linguistic forms that encoded them. By the time Europe’s grammatical
model was applied to languaging in these localities, the languages ideology was
firmly in place. The concurrent development of European interest in the exotic
24 Chapter 1
and in colonial missionary projects reflected and reinforced widespread belief

in naturally existing, clearly delimited languages. In fact, Errington (2001:34)
describes the objectification of “massively variable … human talk” as a “cen-
tral leitmotif” in the service of colonial power. Developed by the Greeks, re-
fined by the Romans, and promulgated by European grammarians, traditional
grammatical theory saw languages as bounded, structured systems subject to
decay. This understanding of languaging shaped the writing of colonial gram-
mars, the production and promulgation of liturgical materials, and the expan-
sion of European-based literacy practice. For example, R. Bailey (2011:18, citing
Brinsley 1622:15) quotes an English grammar intended to “helpe to reduce the
barbarous to more ciuilitie [sic] and to plant Gods [sic] true religion there….”
Throughout the colonial Americas, Indigenous and African linguistic-resource
expansion was misinterpreted as corruption whose salient characteristics in-
cluded grammatical categories and syntactic patterns that differed from those
of Latin and Greek and context dependency, a characteristic Sabino (2012a:36)
describes as “confound[ing] European expectations of explicitness.”
It was not long before academic interest was peaked by the products of
what was thought to be linguistic contamination. For example, the American
philologist Addison van Name (1869–70:128) writes, “[t]he Creole dialects
which have grown out of different European languages grafted on African
stock, though inferior in general interest to even the rudest languages of na-
tive growth, are in some respects well worth attention.” In the early twentieth
century, Reinecke (1937) treats what were seen as contact varieties extensively
and those who use them with respect. Nevertheless, he writes of “marginal lan-
guages.” Nearer to our own time, DeCamp, proposing a generative analysis of
a post-creole speech continuum, imagined that a creole might “evolve into a
‘normal’ language” (1971:349).
As the Brinsley quote illustrates, the corrosive impact of the languages
ideology on those subject to colonial exploitation was defended as a civiliz-
ing impulse. While over time this logic abates, the languages ideology does
not disappear. Rather, it spreads across the globe. For example, Moorghen
(1982) describes linguistic heterogeneity in Mauritius as “multilingual-
ism” deriving from ethnic-based migration over more than three centuries.
Johnstone (1996:3) takes as a given that linguists know “no two people have
the same knowledge of language” yet she accepts that it is “knowledge of a
language” that is “private and individual.” Wassink and Curzan (2004:173, ref-
erencing Smitherman 2004) argue for expanding an understanding of what
is traditionally described as multilingualism to include non-standardized
varieties. Simmonds-McDonald (2008) defends education in vernacular
languages from charges of “deficiency and inadequacy.” Otsuji and Pennycook
(2010:242) quote a languager’s evaluation of her linguistic choices as “bastard-

izing English and Japanese” and as creating linguistic chaos. Busch and Schick
(2010:217) discuss an insightfully designed educational program that draws
on heterogeneous texts “represent[ing] a wide range of language in use”
including heterogeneous linguistic resources encountered “in exile during the
war years” (228). Nevertheless, they couch their description in terms of lan-
guage names such as “Serbo-Croation” and “Croato-Serbian” (217) and write
of “the languages of changing state administrations … and different liturgical
languages” (218).
1.2 The Persistent Power of False Assumptions
Linguistics’ embrace of reified languages reflects the requirement that sci-

ence examine clearly delimited entities (Hackert 2012:93). Thus, the objects
of interest for most linguists are geographically and temporally bounded, un-
adulterated, homogeneous, natively-spoken linguistic systems. This tradition
is maintained in Structural Theory first as items and their arrangement and
later as item, process, and arrangement. It persists in Generative Theory as the
mental rules known by ideal speaker-hearers. Even usage-based/emergent the-
oretical perspectives indulge in what Friedrich (1986:139) refers to as linguis-
tics’ “rage for order.” The languages ideology continues to constrain insight into
the nature of human language because ritual (re)enactment reflects a number
of false assumptions. Four of these are discussed here: 1) anthropomorphism,
2) phonocentricism, 3) the naturalness of monolingualism, and 4) linguistic
legitimacy and deviance.
1.2.1 Anthropomorphism
Jespersen (1946:17) attributed “the conception that a language has an indepen-
dent existence like some sort of substance or organism” to an “elder generation.
Hackert (2012:83, 247) provides two particularly striking nineteenth-century
examples:
2) The Anglo-Saxon tongue has a craving appetite, and is as rapacious of

words, and as tolerant of forms, as are its children of territory and of reli-
gions (Marsh 1859:69).
3) No language has shown itself less exclusive; none has stood less upon
nicetites; none has thrown open its arms wider, with a fuller confidence,
a confidence justified by experience, that it could make truly its own,
26 Chapter 1
assimilate and subdue to itself, whatever it received into its bosom …

(Trench 1927:45).
Unfortunately, Jespersen was incorrect: this habit of mind persists. In a par-

ticularly well-crafted example, Givón (1979) writes of the “blissful disregard
for the little one knows about ‘normal’ languages and the ways they inter-
act with each other.” Around the same time, Bickerton (1981:75) argues that
Negerhollands is irrelevant to a “general creole tendency” because “although
languages, like people, die they do not, like some people, drop dead. On the
contrary, like Charles II, they are an unconscionable time a-dying….” Other less
striking examples abound in which languages are said to make grammatical
distinctions, draw grammatical features from feature pools, realize structures,
change, shift, split into dialects, and borrow from one another. Of course, on
careful reflection, we readily admit that languages are not in contact, it is peo-
ple who encounter one another. When pressed, we agree that languages do not
change, instead it is people who modify their linguistic resources in response to
changes in their physical (e.g., Burkette 2009, 2012), sociocultural (e.g., Sabino
2012a), and political environments. We admit that languages do not borrow,
languagers expand their linguistic resources. We allow that languages do not
split into dialects, rather the descendants of a people who had similar linguis-
tic repertoires now see themselves as belonging to different groups and deploy
linguistic choices that differ from one another. We agree that language birth,
death, and resurrection are metaphors but are comfortable with pidginization,
creolization, language loss, and language revitalization. G. Sankoff (1983:241)
rightly describes such nominalizations as confusing because they obscure
what people do when they language.
1.2.2 Phonocentrism
In another persistent metaphor, languages are described as tongues, not ears,
hands, fingers, or eyes. This imagery motivates the roots of linguist, linguists,
Lingua and is enshrined in the United States Constitution where free speech
entails activities such as flag burning and monetary contributions to political
campaigns. Not surprisingly, OED citations reveal linguists/linguisters initially
were persons who spoke languages:
4) 1593 Be thou Iohn, the many‑tongued Linguist, like Andrewes, or the curi-
ous Intelligencer, like Bodley (Harvey 1593).
5) 1649 He beinge Linckister (because he could speake the language)

(Winthrop 1996:596).
Consistent with this phonocentric bias, introductory linguistic textbooks argue

for the primacy of speech over writing. In these same textbooks, although sign-
ing is sometimes mentioned, scant attention is paid to auditory processing.
The use of touch by persons deaf and blind is not discussed.
Despite the pervasiveness of phonocentricism today, historically Western
interest in language included reading and writing. For example, Robins
(1979:12) identifies the first Greek linguistic achievement as the “working out”
of an alphabetic system. Centuries later, in 1635, continuing a European tradi-
tion of grammatical instruction, the Boston Latin School was established teach
the linguistic resources necessary for reading at University. Philology, which
prefigured historical-comparative reconstruction, was concerned with the elu-
cidation of written sources (Thurston 1989:559n, cited in Wray and Grace).
In the eighteenth century, the realization that relationships among languag-
es could be studied spread. This prompted as shift to phonocentricism because
folk speech was thought to represent the final stage in the diversification of
Indo-European (Robins 1979, R. Harris 2014).The discovery of sound laws, ad-
vances in phonetics, and the emergence of linguistics as a scientific discipline
served to reinforce the field’s phonocentric bias (Hackert 2012:). By the middle
of the nineteenth century, Müller (1862:58, quoted in Hackert 2012:159) writes
that language “lives in being spoken.” In the early twentieth century, Saussure
identified language use as parole ‘the act of speaking.’ American Structuralists
continued this tradition. For example, Bloomfield (1933:21) prioritize speech,
observing that writing that “writing is not language.” Similarly, Bloch and
Trager’s (1942:5) define a language as “a system of arbitrary vocal symbols by
means of which a social group cooperates.” In 1965, Chomsky argues for the
relevance of the idealized speaker-hearer to linguistic theory. At the century’s
end, he describes the expressions of a language as “structured complex[es] of
properties of sound and meaning” (Chomsky 2000:19). Gumperz’s (1964:137)
definition of verbal repertoire as “the totality of linguistic forms regularly em-
ployed in the course of socially significant interaction,” provides ample space
for other modes of languaging. Nevertheless, phonocentricism is central in
most quantitative sociolinguistic research and persists despite an awareness
that linguistic communities are united by parallel interpretation, not homoge-
neous production (e.g., Hymes 1962, Labov 1972). Phonocentricism is front and
center in Hymes’ (1974) S-P-E-A-K-I-N-G8 model (which like Gumperz’s defini-
tion is useful for exploring situated languaging).
8 S: physical, sociocultural, and psychological Setting/Scene; P: Participants; E: Ends; A: Act se-
quence (components that constitute the languaging event); K: Key (elements that establish
28 Chapter 1
Figure 2 Citations for native speaker and native writer from the English Corpus using Google
Books Ngram Viewer (extracted 10 July 2015)
Although literary production has remained the source of good/correct/proper

language, attempts at spelling reform provide further evidence for phonocen-
tricism (Hackert 2012:176–179). SLA research identifies native-speaker usage as
its target. TESOL similarly “privilege[s]” native speakers as teachers and de-
velopers of theory (Hackert 2012:157). Even insightful theorists like Darvin and
Norton (2015:41) prioritize speech, observing that with the global accessibil-
ity of digital media, “literacy has become even more essential in being able to
claim the right to speak [emphasis added].” Phonocentrism is also evident in
the terms semi-speaker, used to described persons who incompletely entrench
heritage linguistic resources (Dorian 1977) and last speaker to describe indi-
viduals whose linguistic resources are thought to be unique. Two sociopolitical
stances contested in Deaf and DeaF9 communities also reflect phonocentrism:
oralism, the belief that the Deaf should adapt to the speaking/hearing world,
and audism, the stigmatizing of deafness as pathological. In fact, the phono-
centric view of communication is so pervasive that, like literary and compo-
sition theory, research on ASL narrative (e.g., Rose 1996) discusses authorial
tone); I: Instrumentalities (elements that signal register); N: Norms (interactional expecta-

tions); G: Genre.
9 Capitalized Deaf refers to cultural affiliation. In contrast, deaf refers to hearing status. DeaF
describes a cultural orientation that includes both the Deaf and hearing worlds (McIlroy and
Storbeck 2011:510, fn 1, 2).
voice, prompting Hackert (2012:154) to ask, “Why are there no native writers?”
Ironically, although theoretical syntax largely reflects practitioners’ hyperliter-
acy (Hooper 2015:303, citing Linell’s The Written Language Bias in Linguistics),
figure 2 reveals that, while native speaker began to increase in frequency in the
1950s, native writer has remained infrequent.
1.2.3 Monolingualism
Competent languagers are persons who are accepted by others as being so
regardless of the nature of their linguistic repertoires (Coppieters 1987:565).
However, consistent with the assumption of phonocentricism, the western lin-
guistic tradition takes monolingual, native speakers as the norm. This practice
also is operationalized in traditional dialectology’s preference for non-mobile,
older, rural males (NORMs) as informants. Historical-comparative reconstruc-
tion similarly assumes the normalcy of monolingualism in bounded, homo-
geneous systems. The sociolinguistic pursuit of the vernacular, the “relatively
homogeneous, spontaneous speech reserved for intimate or casual settings”
(Poplack 1993:252) as the most systematic source of linguistic data is another
manifestation of monolingual bias. Y. Kachru (1994) identifies monolingual
bias in SLA research, and B. Kachru (2017:66) faults it as responsible for the ab-
sence of “an adequate framework and descriptive methodology … for bi- and
multingual’s’ use of language and linguistic creativity.” Hackert (2012:x) points
to this assumption when she describes nativeness as generally understood as
acquisition from birth onwards, typically in a monolingual speech communi-
ty. Irvine and Gal (2000) demonstrate the assumption of monolingualism in
grammatical description, linguistic typology, and language planning. In fact,
Woolard and Schieffelin (1994:61) characterize contemporary linguistic theo-
ry as “framed and constrained by the one language/one people assumption.”
(Also see Bucholtz 2003, Sabino 2009, Bell 2014).
By the early nineteenth century, monolingualism was firmly linked to na-
tional identities. Although heterogeneous linguistic repertoires composed of
form/meaning potentials initially developed by different sociocultural groups
continued to exist, they were seen as deleterious. For example, an unnamed
Danish author is quoted as asserting that “the coexistence of two languages in
a political state is one of the greatest national misfortunes” (Hackert 2012:192,
quoting Marsh 1874:152–153). Marsh elaborates this idea two years later, iden-
tifying as “a great evil …” newspapers “with an Irish, German, for French prefix
or in a foreign language….” (1876:46, quoted in Hackert 2012:240).
Pennycook (2010:12) writes of the “pluralization of monolingualism,” a per-
spective that appears in Haugen’s (1972d:310) observation that “the ideal bilin-
gual is, of course, two native speakers rolled inside one skin.” The assumption
30 Chapter 1
of monolingualism is front and center in De Houwer’s (1990:339) description of

a child of Dutch and American parents as “two monolingual children in one.”
Readers may find striking, as I do, the exceptionalism implied by the Linguistic
Society of America’s Statement on Language Rights (1996) which asserts that
“[m]any of the Society’s members have experience with, or expertise in, bilin-
gualism and multilingualism.” Readers are justified in asking why this would
not be the case since, like many of the world’s inhabitants, we linguists draw
our linguistic resources from situated interaction with people who identify
with a variety of sociocultural groups.
As a component of the collectively lived mental terrain of the languages
ideology, the assumption of monolingualism is not limited to specialists. It is
blatant in purist ideologies that rail against language mixing. It appears in a
1787 sermon in which Joseph Hutchins comments on “the limited capacity of
man … to attain excellence in more than one language” (R. Bailey 2011:87). The
fear that educational advancement was inherently limited for bilinguals ap-
pears again in the following century and persists in educational circles until
the early 1960s (e.g., Bowden, Sanz, and Stafford 2005, Redd and Webb 2005).
The assumed normalcy of monolingualism also influences the linguistic choic-
es of immigrants who, according to Olneck (2009:390) have not and do not
seek to challenge the hegemony of English in the United States….”
1.2.4 Legitimacy and Deviance

Hackert (2012:101, quoting the OED) observes that standardization is figurative,
deriving from standard, “ ‘an authoritative or recognized exemplar of correct-
ness, perfection’ ” and therefore worthy of emulation. In an effort to ameliorate
the effects of marginalization and to protect language users’ rights, twentieth-
century linguists have worked to undermine the notion that non-standardized
language varieties are little more than chaotic collections of rule violations.
The approach generally taken embraces the view that all language varieties are
highly structured sets of symbolic form/meaning mappings. Nevertheless, an
the assumption of deviance persists in error analysis in SLA research and de-
scriptions of first language acquisition as when Nicolaidis et al. (2003:1) com-
ment on “the pattern of errors that children make when acquiring their first
languages.”
The issue of legitimacy and deviance is a central concern in post-colonial
communities and in contexts impacted by globalization, where the notion of
(ab)normal transmission has led to the naming controversy for “New Englishes”
(Hackert 2012:271, referencing Thomason and Kaufman 1988; B. Kachru 2017). A
related argument has emerged over whether to champion so-called standard
languages or what are described as nativized or indiginized varieties. For ex-

ample, Rajagopalan (2012:383) leaves undisturbed the idea that, regardless of
their social status, languages exist as normative systems but celebrates the
emergent nature of the human linguistic capacity: He observes that it seems
pointless to consider the minority who learned it in childhood to be a lan-
guage’s “sole proprietors.” Along the same lines, E. Schneider (2007:18) writes,
“[f]rom a strictly linguistic perspective, it would make sense to establish the
careful usage of educated members of a society as the target and as an indig-
enous language.” Darvin and Norton (2015:38, quoting Norton and Gao 2008)
also see value in languagers “redefin[ing] the target language community, and
develop[ing] unique forms of intercultural competence” that diverge from
those traditionally associated with Britain and the United States.
Such redefinition also has been invoked to explain emergent linguistic prac-
tice in the under European colonization (e.g., Baker 1990, Sabino 2012a). The
the martyred novelist Ken Saro-Wiwa celebrates the languaging in Sozaboy as
“disordered and disordering. Born of mediocre education and severely limited
opportunities … [that] thrives in lawlessness …” (1986:xx).
1.3 Dissenting Voices
Despite the continued dominance of the structuralist paradigm, research-

ers repeatedly have taken issue with prevailing explanations of linguistic
behavior and the categories used to describe it. The following discussion pro-
vides an indication of the range of concerns raised – some raised repeatedly.
In the early 1980s, Alleyne (1982:3) observed that contact between individuals,
whether alone or in groups, is the norm for our species, a position increas-
ingly finding support in evidence that linguistic similarities and differences
reflect patterns of “political and economic histories” (Donohue and Nichols
2011:163) and group encounter and dispersion (e.g., Evans and Levinson 2009;
Dunn et al. 2011). Decades ago, Ferguson (1982:vii, quoted in Hackert 2012:11)
suggested we drop native speaker and mother tongue “from the linguists’ set
of professional myths about language,” a call recently reiterated by Darvin and
Norton (2015:41). Bobda and Mbouya’s 2005 study of Cameroonians who con-
trol linguistic resources conventionalized in as many as twelve communities
interrogates a number of familiar constructs: mother tongue, first language, in-
terference, and code switching. Firth and Wagner (1997) have taken issue with
(non)native speaker and interlanguage, arguing that there is little profit in
prioritizing monocentric intuitions. B. Kachru (1985) asks that along with
32 Chapter 1
interlanguage, the usefulness of error analysis and fossilization be reconsid-

ered. A recent discussion of linguistic features and their “associations” by
Jørgensen et al. (2011) recognizes the power dimension of rules, correctness,
mother tongue, nativeness, and linguistic purity. Blommaert and Rampton
(2011:par 10) point to the “considerable ideological force” of native speaker,
mother tongue, and ethnolinguistic group. Bonfiglio (2013), objects to “native
speaker, mother tongue, native language, language maternelle, locuteur natif,
Muttersprachler, lingua matera, modersprake” (par 2) and motherese (par 43).
Like Hackert (2012), he establishes connections between the emergence of
the native speaker and “psychological, social, political, historical, and cultural
anxieties” (par 1).
Taking an expansive view, a widely cited article by Hall, Cheng, and Carlson
(2006:222) argues that persistent belief in distinguishable linguistic systems,
(i.e., first language, second language, additional language, and interlanguage)
has “mired” research efforts to understand “language knowledge.” They object
to interlanguage, native speaker, transfer, shift, borrowing, interference, and
balanced bilingual[ism]. Cook (1999) coined multicompetence, intending it
would provide insight into the mental grammars of so-called bi-/multilingual
speakers. Hall, Cheng, and Carlson reject multicompetence, pointing to now
well-established relations between language choice, audience, and the projec-
tion of self. They argue for conceptualizing each languager’s linguistic resourc-
es as a single “communicative repertoire” (232) that emerges from the “amount
and quantity of variable linguistic forms and, … the unique social contexts and
pragmatically-based communicative activities” (230). Calling for research that
strives to understand the relationship between an individual’s linguistic ex-
periences and his or her linguistic resources, they also suggest a number of
ideographs to deveop our thinking about languaging. They propose replacing
ethnolinguistic groups with communities of practice, “a-contextual language
systems” with “communicative activities” (232), and “native speaker, bilinguals,
and multilinguals” with the “multi-contextual communicative expert” (233).
Not unexpectedly, given our capacity for logical incongruity, it has proven dif-
ficult even for insightful researchers to escape the languages ideology’s terrain.
Contradictions strikingly similar to Martin Luther’s simultaneous excoriation
of superstition and belief in witchcraft are recognized by B. Bailey (2007:260),
who attributes the construct of bilingualism to the “naturalization of monolin-
gualism” and writes of “constellations of linguistic features that are officially
authorized as codes or languages” (268), even as he invokes “African American
English,” “standard American English,” “Spanish,” and “Caribbean Spanish.”
Similarly, Pavlenko (2003:58) calls for “cross-linguistic influences as a multidi-
rectional phenomenon that may involve simultaneous L1 influences on L2 and
L2 influences on L1 even as she quotes Shridar (1994:803) to argue for viewing

“multilinguals linguistic repertoires as a ‘unified, complex, coherent, intercon-
nected interdependent, ecosystem….’ ” Surely, the unified linguistic entity she
envisions is not composed of identifiable L1 and L2 grammatical systems. Even
Hall, Cheng, and Carlson (2006) reveal continuing entrapment in the terrain of
the languages ideology, writing as they do about “multilinguals” and “multiple
language users.” Otsuji and Pennycook (2010:241) introduce metrolingualism in
order to characterize “creative linguistic practices across borders of culture,
history, and politics.” Insightfully, they conceptualize language as emergent
and are mindful of how issues of “authenticity and ownership” are shaped by
“conventional language ideology” (241). They also warn against defining het-
erogeneous languaging as “composed of multiple discrete practices” (243) and
provide compelling examples of languagers’ flexible deployment of linguistic
resources. Metrolingualism, focusing as it does on place rather than grammati-
cal boundaries, need not be constrained by the languages ideology. However,
these authors wish to accommodate the “local perspectives of language users”
(243) that conform to the dominant (languages) ideology. As a result, their ar-
gument also fails to escape its terrain.
Besnier (2013) compelling demonstrates the consequences of successful
and unsuccessful deployment of heritage linguistic resources indexed alterna-
tively to the local (i.e., older, uneducated, unsophisticated, less traveled, lower
rank, and lower economic status) and the global (i.e., younger, educated, so-
phisticated, well traveled, higher rank, and higher economic status). However,
he also ritually reenacts the languages ideology as shown by in his description
of “alternative uses of English and Tongan” (463). He need not have done so as
he amply demonstrate the heterogeneous histories of the linguistic resources
in play as shown here as example 6).
6) Trader: Ohh. Too small. E hao la ‘ia Mālia (Besnier 2013:466).
1.4 Languaging, Not Languages
The OED dates languaging to the early seventeenth century.10 Nevertheless,

a search of the LLBA database of peer-reviewed titles containing languaging
demonstrates that, despite repeated indications of discontent with the status
quo, this ideograph has struggled for a foothold: Between 1970 and 2015 only
10 Mercury flyes, and sweares he languag’d it. (Gomersall 1628).

34 Chapter 1
24 titles addressed languaging in some way.11 Joseph (2002:32) argues that this
is because languaging has been “hard to pin down.” From a different perspec-
tive, I see considerable theoretical and methodological benefit in broadly
defining languaging as the storage, deployment, and processing of linguistic
resources during the ebb and flow of form/meaning potentials and situation/
genre-bound expectations for their use. Defined in this way, languaging pro-
vides a useful vantage point from which to explore human language during
situated use and as resident in the human brain.
Focusing on languaging, instead of on discrete languages, moves us beyond
the assumption of monolingualism. We also will be able to capture similari-
ties in the perceptual tuning for signing and speech and the ways these differ
from the perceptual tuning for non linguistic input (Almeida, Poeppel, and
Corina 2016). Thus, while thought of as languages, entities like spoken English
and American Sign Language are distinct from each other, use of languaging
accommodates the “striking parallels between” the neurological underpin-
nings of signed and spoken communication and recognizes the difference
between signed languaging and what Poeppel et al. (2012:14128) describe as
“pantomime.” Thus, the ideograph languaging also provides a means of gain-
ing insight into the relationship between multi-modal activity and linguistic
resources as deaF identities develop (McIlroy and Storbeck 2011).
Developing discourses that theorize and describe situated languaging also
will provide opportunities to explore the entrenchment and deployment of
linguistic resources by persons who, like Helen Keller, process and produce
language tactilely. Further, languaging accommodates reading and writing.
Because it provides a means of comparing and contrasting language use in-
formed by immediate feedback from language use manifest as text, languag-
ing also allows inquiry to move beyond the assumption of phonocentrism
(Olson 1977, Gynne and Bagga-Gupta 2011).
In sum, discourses about languaging focuses attention on how languag-
ers deploy their linguistic resources as they negotiate the circumstances in
which they find themselves. Languaging also provides a means of exploring
languagers’ choices as they produce patterned heterogeneity (i.e., emergent
order) at the level of the individual and at the level of the sociocultural group.
For these reasons, languaging facilitates the development of discourses that
advance our thinking beyond the reified systems that are central to the lan-
guages ideology.
Languaging seems to have first caught the attention of SLA scholars. For
example, Lado (1983, discussed in Swain 2009) distinguishes languaging from
11 The earliest of these was Debes (1981) It’s Time for a New Paradigm: Languaging!
what later Krashen (1977) would describe as monitoring. In another example,

despite writing of learning Burmese as a foreign language and limiting lan-
guaging to speaking/hearing, A. Becker (1991:34) defines languaging as “an ac-
tivity of human beings in the world.” He continues,
Children hear particular bits of languaging. Having robust (if as yet un-
planted) memories, they mimic and repeat the particular bits, and they
gradually learn to reshape these particular little texts into new contexts
and acquire more and more skill and recontextualizing them in new
situations. It is a skill learned over a lifetime, not a system perfected
in infancy.
More recently, languaging has been taken up in contexts where traditional

patterns of language use coexist with those of migrants, former colonizers, or
other global powers. For instance, concerned with a school setting focused on
linguistic resource expansion, Gynne and Bagga-Gupta (2011) discuss chain-
ing as “especially relevant” in vocabulary expansion. Although they too discuss
language varieties, use scare quotes as distancing devices, and define chain-
ing as “languaging in multilingual contexts” (483), their ethnographic study
emphasizes “interconnectedness,” focusing on the ways in which students col-
laboratively draw on the full range of their linguistic resources in multiparty
“meaning making” as they “stage social positions” (492).
Like B. Bailey (2007), García and Otheguy (2014b) argue for a languager-
centered, usage-based, complex-systems approach to linguistic theory. They
recognize that “the seemingly obvious carving out of inherently countable
languages is not at all given or natural” (639) and reject “the myth of the
native speaker,” additive and subtractive language learning, incomplete acqui-
sition, and the idea of a multilingual linguistic system (640). They also discuss
(trans)languaging as representing the situated deployment of “disaggregated”
linguistic resources by individuals (639). Nevertheless, they reenact the lan-
guages ideology when they “focus on Spanish as a way of speaking deployed in
multilingual social contexts by multilingual speakers (including bilingual con-
texts and bilingual speakers)” (639). They also invoke a number of language-
name ideographs (e.g., Catalan, Quechua, Arabic-influenced, Spanishes) and
appeal to ideographs developed to analyze them (e.g., competence, continuum,
diglossic, formerly monolingual).
Focusing on educational practice, Garcia and Li richly illustrate the inti-
mate link between prescriptivism and the pervasiveness of a politically mo-
tivated “ideology of bilingualism that is monoglossic” (55). But, like so many
struggling to escape the influence of the languages ideology, their discourse
36 Chapter 1
illustrates the tenacious hold of the languages ideology. Although García and
Li distance themselves from “socially constructed ‘languages’ ” (10), “ ‘multilin-
guals,’ ” and “ ‘monolinguals’ ” (17), they redefine rather than reject bilingualism,
plurilingualism, and multilingualism and liberally but inconsistently deploy
scare quotes.
Juffermans’ (2011) ethnography of Gambian letter writing compellingly
demonstrates languaging, revealing that the conventionalized and vernacular-
lized linguistic resources of individuals only partially overlap those of other
individuals even when all are members of the same small, rural village. In con-
trast, his attempt to use languaging and languagers to move beyond encap-
sulated, structured systems that are fully controlled only by native speakers
is incomplete. Like, Gynne and Bagga-Gupta (2011) and García and Li (2014a),
Juffermans uses scare quotes to signal his discomfort with the task of defining
languages. As an illustration, he writes, “There is nobody who speaks an entire
language (‘language’ being defined here as the sum of all features that are rec-
ognized as ‘belonging’ to a particular language and there is certainly nobody
who speaks two” (166, emphasis added). However, in not pausing to wonder
just who might legitimately do the recognizing (i.e., reifying) evoked in his
definition,12 Juffermans reveals the logical inconsistency inherent in his argu-
ment, which is therefore a reenactment of the languages ideology.
Increasingly, theorists argue that translanguaging and its synonyms refer
to language use unrestricted by language boundaries. They wish to establish
what traditionally are described as bi- and multilingual use as normative
behavior, but in attempting to do so, they find themselves engaging in ritual
(re)enactment because, inherent in the prefixes metro-, multi-, poly-, pluri- and
trans- is the simultaneity of separate entities. Canagarajah (2011:1) makes this
longical inconsistency explicit: translanguaging is done by “multilinguals”
[whose] languages are part of a repertoire that is accessed for their commu-
nicative purposes; languages are not discrete and separated, but form an in-
tegrated system for them.” If linguistics hopes to come to an understanding
of human language consistent with emerging insights and the evidence dis-
cussed in the following chapters, our discipline needs to move beyond the cur-
rent uneasy accord that accommodates both languaging and languages.
12 This issue also arises in the argument over World English(es) discussed in chapter
three and in debates between the splitter/lumper camps in historical-comparative
reconstruction.
1.5 Summary
Ideographs and the discourses they are used to construct empower “culture-
bound” ideologies (McGee 1980:15). For this reason alone, a science whose
primary object of interest is widely shared, uniform, clearly delimited, linguis-
tic systems is no more tenable than witchcraft or racecraft. As Kretzschmar
demonstrates (2010:263 and elsewhere), what we perceive as languages do
not emerge because of “prior agreement” on autonomous systems of linguis-
tic elements. Instead, what we think of as languages are continually emerg-
ing “ ‘bundles’ of multiple social and contextual variants” (Menezes de Souza
2006:160). Each languager accumulates a unique and constantly changing set
of linguistic memories and enacts available choices according to the require-
ments of specific situations. This is the reality that a science of linguistics must
attend to. Thus, if linguistics is to achieve greater insight into the workings of
human linguistic behavior, and if we are to communicate these understand-
ings to a broader audience, it is not sufficient to acknowledge languages as
socially-constructed or view language names as “artifacts of communicative
efficiency” (Canagarajah 2014, par 1). Nor does signaling skepticism with scare
quotes and other distancing devices recognizes but does solve the problem.
Further, although well intentioned, prefixing languaging with affixes such as
metro-, multi-, poly-, or pluri- that presuppose the existence of languages also
fails to transform linguistics into a scientific discipline. Rather such strategies
ultimately serve only to reenact the languages ideology.
The repeated grappling of thoughtful and insightful researchers with the is-
sues raised in this chapter illustrates the potency of the languages ideology and
the ways in which it constrains rational thought. Developing ideographs and
discourses for communicating about languaging without reified languages pro-
vides an opportunity to escape our no-longer-useful ideology and to embrace
understandings that are becoming increasingly relevant with the continuing
“de-centering of the nation-state paradigm” (Busch and Schick 2010:229) and
the insights of neuroscience.
If we agree to modify our ideological stance with respect to the existence of
languages, what might take their place? In the following chapter, I suggest that
arriving at an understanding of how our linguistic resources emerge as utter-
ances deployed during multiple interactions, with many agents, in real time,
and across our life spans requires consideration of the inherently variable, so-
cially situated linguistic activity of individuals.
A model of human languaging that sees the locus of language as the indi-
vidual eliminates the need to discuss languages, native speakers, bilingualism,
code switching, language death, translanguaging, SLA, and other constructs
38 Chapter 1
given life by the languages ideology. If language contact, language learning,

and language loss are reformulated as linguistic resource expansion and con-
traction, they become normal life-long processes responsive to situational and
cognitive constraints. Linguistic data are recast as heterogeneous collections
of performed linguistic resources, some of which are widely shared in certain
times and/or locations, are used during certain activities, and are available
for indexing to particular individuals, groups, roles, statuses, practices, etc.
Developing such a model, I suggest, begins with entrenchment, which is taken
up in the next chapter.
Chapter 2
Entrenchment and the Linguistic Individual
The language I speak,

Becomes mine, its distortions, its queernesses
All mine, mine alone.
Das 2004
∵
2.0 Introduction
Humans, regardless of their histories or sociocultural environments, share the

flexible referential capacity of language. Thus, it is ironic that, like belief in
witchcraft, sexism, and racecraft, the ideology that constrains linguistic un-
derstanding is predicated on perceptions of difference and opposition which
allow “border-making elements to take on their social reality as ‘languages,’
‘accents,’ or ‘mixing’ …” (Urciulio 1005:525). Imagined language boundaries en-
able historical linguistics to persist in the understanding that as time passes
language users want “at least some segment of the vocabulary that insiders
can use to distinguish them from outsiders” (Joseph 2013:41). Byron (1978:398)
makes a similar point regarding dialectology, which takes as “its basis of study
the distinctions [emphasis in the original] which separate the speech forms of
individuals” … since “it is precisely the distinctions rather than the similarities,
to which speakers are sensitive and to which they attach the greatest social
significance.” Even Yngve (1996:73), who interrogates a number of widely ac-
cepted linguistic constructs, writes of “how it is people differ in the way they
talk in different parts of the world, and how it is that we differ in the way we
talk from earlier generations.”
Perceived linguistic difference at the level of the group also plays a role in
what is traditionally described as language contact. From this perspective on
languaging, what Cassidy (1966) treats as multiple etymology is the emergence
of a linguistic resource that, in his words, can be analyzed as “derivable with
equal plausibility from two or more languages known to have been in con-
tact (211).” But as Weinreich (1968) understood, what in the abstract is seen
as language contact is in practice an individual phenomenon. In other words,

40 Chapter 2
culturally heterogeneous aggregates of individuals whose linguistic resourc-

es by and large do not overlap negotiate new cultural terrain and form new
relationships, entrenching, conventionalizing, and vernacularizing linguis-
tic repertoires in the process. So to recast two of Cassidy’s examples, British
place names such as Greenland, Hauam, and Thorney for some languagers
were learned when speaking with persons of Anglo-Saxon descent and by
others when speaking with persons of Norse descent. Along the same lines,
in Jamaica, kunu may have initially been learned through conversation with
someone whose heritage was British (i.e., ‘canoe’), Bambara (i.e., kunu ‘boat’),
or Efik (i.e., ekundu ‘boat’). Similarly, despite Dutch scholars’ repeated claims
for overwhelming Dutch influence on languaging in the Danish West Indies,
it is quite likely that many form/meaning potentials, such as the modal kan,
emerged multiple times through conversations between Africans and indi-
viduals from England and Ireland (i.e., can), Denmark (i.e., kan) as well as the
Netherlands (i.e., kan). Similarly, ne(m) ‘take’ is identified as originating in in-
teraction with Dutch settlers. However, the OED identifies nym ‘take’ as “bor-
rowing from early Scandinavian,” that persists as an archaic and rare regional
form in seventeenth century texts. Thus ne(m) may also have emerged as a re-
sult of interaction with colonists from the British Isles. Whether nym persisted
in the Danish settler population is a topic for future investigation.
For decades, we have been aware that linguistic communities are united
by convergent interpretation of heterogeneous productions (e.g., Hymes 1967,
Labov 1972). This is basis for quantitative sociolinguistics’ focus on “orderly het-
erogeneity” at the level of the group (Weinreich, Labov, and Herzog 1968:180).
We also find, when we look for it, that individual difference co-occurs.1 For
example, in her examination of linguistic choice in Elba, Alabama, Head (2012)
reports that the factor group INDIVIDUAL SPEAKER accounts for 14 and 15 per-
cent respectively of the variation associated with the monophthongization of
(AI) and (OI) and 10 percent for the alternation of the alveolar and velar vari-
ants for (ING).
Adult language learning is another area of linguistic investigation predicat-
ed on difference. As discussed in the previous chapter, the idea of an English
language dates to the fourteenth century. The construct of the English native
speaker emerges much later – in the mid nineteenth century – and was linked
to discourses debating language standards and nationalism (Hackert 2012:2).
The ideograph native speaker as a foundational construct is currently being
1 Saito (1999) has pointed out that Chi Square and logistic regression assume that observations
be independent. Failing to control for the contribution of individuals violates that assump-
tion and increases the chance of Type I errors (i.e., false positives).
Entrenchment and the Linguistic Individual 41
questioned. McNay (2003:145), echoing Wittengenstein, Habermas, Bourdieu,

and Austin, argues that we must go further – it is the historically prior assump-
tion of languages as “supraindividual and self-replicating” entities (Johnstone
1996:11) that must be reconsidered. That is, escape from the languages ideol-
ogy necessitates negotiating new discourses that address situated languaging.
Whether the object of concern is speaking, signing, touching, writing, hearing,
seeing, feeling, or reading, human language is only available as it emerges in
individually produced, probabilistic patterns of discourse-specific use, evi-
dence of which occurs in asymmetric frequency distributions (e.g., Burkette
2001, 2009, 2012, Kretzschmar 2009, 2015, Sabino 2012b). In other words, while
languaging is the deployment of cognitively entrenched linguistic resources,
the result of languaging is not languages but tokens that can be assembled into
and extracted from data sets. This means that, for linguistics as an empirical
science to achieve its goal of understanding human language, it is essential
that, in addition to examining parallel activity by members of groups, linguists
attend to the processes and results of languaging at the level of the individual.
Lepschy (1986:192) reminds us that this is not a new notion; in comparative
philology, individual texts were recognized as “accidental” and “incomplete.”
2.1 The Languaging Individual
2.1.1 Why the Idiolect is Central to Linguistic Theory

Invoking a parallel with individual reactions to poisons, Jespersen (1946:16–17)
continues, “[m]ind and consciousness are found only in the individual and
even if all, or nearly all, individuals in a community … react in a like manner …
[there are only] many minds that resemble one another.” Motivated by a need
to constrain variation in order to achieve satisfactory (albeit non-unique)
analyses and consistent with Jesperson’s insight, Bloch (1948:7) coins the term
idiolect, defining it as “[t]he totality of possible utterances of one speaker at
one time2 in using a language to interact with one other speaker.” Despite
being constrained by the languages ideology, because Bloch relates what is
linguistically possible directly to prior experience, his formulation provides a
useful starting point.
Although we are not yet able to completely capture human language at
work in human brains, advances in imaging technology are providing evi-
dence for the primacy of the idiolect. Neuroscience tells us that the response
of cognitive learning mechanisms to experience prompts physical changes in
2 Bloch admits a range of temporal units.

42 Chapter 2
our brains. During what Poeppel et al. (2012:14129) describe as “experience-de-

pendent plasticity,” neurons emerge, bundle into clusters, and expand associa-
tions (Pascual‑Leone et al. 2005). Thus, it is not surprising that neuroimaging
research is providing evidence that physical “differences between individuals
tend to outweigh differences between regions within any single brain” (Fisher
and Marcus 2006:13, Fedorenko and Kanwisher 2009). Individuals have differ-
ent experiences, linguistic and otherwise. Thus as R. Harris (2014:33) puts it,
“[e]very individual undergoes a unique apprenticeship to language which is
shared in full by noone else.”
Evidence for the relationship between experience and the ongoing develop-
ment of idiolectal linguistic resources is provided by studies of language pro-
cessing. For example, imaging studies of heterogeneous linguistic experience
(traditionally described as bi- or multilingualism) and brain activity. This re-
search shows that the more varied linguistic resources an individual controls,
the more brain activity s/he experiences (e.g., Wang et al. 2003; Mechelli et al.
2004; Vaid 2008; Reiterer, Pereda, and Bhattacharya 2009). Similarly, Hernandez
(2009) attributes different patterns of neural activation during picture-naming
tasks cued by say or diga to degrees of entrenchment (or in his words, “profi-
ciency”). A study by Cutler et al. (1989) that examined syllabic and non-syllabic
language-processing strategies for segmenting continuous speech also points
to the reality of the idiolect. They report that “sufficient” situated use enabled
adults with heterogeneous linguistic experience who processed speech syl-
labically to develop a non-syllabic processing strategy (229). In a study that
examined stress perception, Dupoux, Peperkamp, and Sebastián-Gallés (2010)
indicate that, for individuals with heterogeneous linguistic experience the
perception of “Spanish lexical stress” (272) was “functionally close to [that of]
monolinguals in their dominant language and to [that of] late learners in the
other language” (275).
Experienced-based plasticity, and therefore the neural basis of language, is
manifest before birth and persists across the each individual’s life span. This
leads Partanen et al. (2013:15147) to speculate that prenatal exposure to lan-
guage and non-linguistic noise may impact “later abilities of speech percep-
tion and language acquisition.” Taking a different approach, Poeppel et al.
(2012, citing Castro-Caldas et al. 1998), comment on the impact of literacy on
the formation of neurological networks. Research on the development of color
perception also has implications for idiolectal difference. For example, Kay
et al. (2009:227) propose that, based on evidence from a series of color-naming
experiments, linguistic experience rewires innate color categories. Idiolectal
difference also emerges as a result of nonlinguistic experiences. For example,
Ladd, Roberts, and Dediu (2015) discuss several studies which together suggest
that variation in the seasonal and geographic amounts of UV radiation avail-

able at birth produces individual difference with respect to the mapping of
colors and color names.
Flege (1987) provides evidence for the relationship between experience and
idiolectal difference. His comparison of groups from the United States and
France demonstrates that repeated encounters with members of a different
cultural group can lead to modification of voicing onset time initially developed
while conversing with members of one’s primary cultural group. Also examin-
ing phonetic differences, Payne (1980) provides evidence of idiolectal distinc-
tiveness between parents and children and among children within households
across five variables (aw, ay, uw, ow, and oy) that is linked to age of arrival in the
new community and the amount of situated use (operationalized as peer-net-
work integration). Trudgill (1986) provides parallel evidence for children whose
families relocated to Australia.
The effect of accumulated life experiences is also revealed by research on
semantic categorization. Providing insight into sociocultural distinctions that
differentiate individuals’ linguistic experiences, Maranda (1978) demonstrates
that semantic range varies in terms of size and complexity depending on the
age, sex, and social status of his Melanesian research subjects. In Vancouver
and in Québec, he demonstrates that, although gendered semantic differences
persisted only into early adulthood, semantic differences that correlate with
differences in age and place of residence persist across the life span. In a more
recent study, Ameel et al. (2008) compare the naming of common household
objects by three groups of Belgium nationals with substantially different lin-
guistic experiences. These experiments reveal that the semantic categories of
individuals described as “bilinguals” were more similar to one another than
they were to those of the groups with less diverse linguistic experience, whom
they describe as “monolinguals.” They also report that the semantic categories
of the group with the more restricted languaging experiences tended be more
elaborated than those of individuals in the group with more diverse linguistic
experiences.
With respect to discourse and syntax, Johnstone (1996:128) points to “unre-
marked idiosyncracies … by which speakers know each other” (xi). Citing stud-
ies by Pavlenko (2002) on morphosyntax, Jarvis (2003) on pragmatics (2003),
and Cook (1999) on grammaticality judgements, Hall, Cheng, and Carlson
(2006) also report the effects of linguistic experience on the development of
idiolects. The range of acceptability judgements for naturally occurring verb
+ adjective sequences discussed in Bybee and Eddington (2006:351, table
23) provides evidence that, even when partially overlapping the linguistic re-
sources of others, our idiolects are unique. Experience with unfamiliar idioms
44 Chapter 2
similarly provides compelling evidence for idiolectal difference. The follow-

ing anecdote illustrates that interpretations can differ in unexpected ways and
that new experiences can produce new understanding:
Having spent a couple of semesters at a university in Alabama, two inter-

national students rented a car and drove west. They decided to lunch in a
small town and thought it especially lucky to find an empty parking spot
in front of an attractive restaurant. At the head of the parking space was
an inviting sign, so they thought, that read “Fine for parking.” Predictably
(for American readers), when they returned to their car after a delicious
lunch, there was a ticket. The students were quite puzzled. After all, they
were familiar with American greeting formulas, often replying when
greeted, “Fine. How are you?” It was only when they went to the police
station to settle the ticket that they learned the sign’s idiom.
Jesperson’s recognition that each individual’s linguistic choices result in

unique patterns has been compellingly demonstrated by Dorian’s (1977, 1981,
1994, 2010) work with Scottish family groups. In another example, Eckert (2011)
locates the beginnings of sound change in individual difference. She observes
that while the innovations of popular girls are adopted, the contributions of
the less popular “fall on deaf ears” (95) and thus either remain idiosyncratic
and eventually disappear – a point I return to in the next chapter. Token dis-
tributions in quantitative studies that control for speaker or writer also reveal
individual patterning. For instance, with the exception of categorical speakers,
none of Head’s consultants produced precisely the same percentages of either
[ai] or [oi] and speakers who were categorical for one variable were not neces-
sarily categorical for the other.
The tables below show the number and percent of third-person pronoun
forms produced by six Virgin Islanders.3 Despite some evidence of overlap, if
we attempt to bundle the forms into a shared grammar, we immediately run
into difficulty: none of the languagers produce all of the forms. Additionally,
while [am] is the most frequent form and is produced by all of the consultants,
it is produced quite different frequencies. Moreover, unlike [am] the second
most frequent form [an], at ten percent, is produced by only three languagers,
whereas [ham], at nearly nine percent, is produced by four.
3 In the 1980s, Mrs. Stevens also used [hi], [him], [i], [im], [ši], [hu] and [i]. These forms are
not available in de Jong 1926 from which data for the other languagers are drawn. Given the
influence of the U. S. mainland on Virgin Island culture, all or some of them are likely to have
been known and/or used by all of the individuals listed in the table.
Table 1 Distribution of third person singular pronoun forms produced by six Virgin Islanders
Languager Birth date [am] [an] [em] [um] [ham] [han] [m] Total
Mr. Joshua 1856 748 17 0 0 288 5 0 1058

Mr. Prince not given 17 0 0 0 12 0 2 31
Mr. Roberts 1863 1541 1 0 0 2 1 0 1545
Mr. Testamark 1859 100 0 0 0 6 0 0 106
Mr. Christian 1850 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 43
Mrs. Stevens 1899 273 317 3 14 0 0 0 607
Total 2827 355 3 14 311 6 2 3518
Percent of total 80.4% 10.1% .1% .4% 8.8% .2% .1% 100.1%
Focusing on the languagers is no more helpful than focusing on the forms.

Mrs. Stevens and Mr. Prince seem similar based on their substantially lower
usage of [am]. Alternatively, given their similar rates of [ham] use, Mr. Prince re-
sembles Mr. Joshua. Mr. Roberts and Mr. Christian seem similar with high rates
of [am], but Mr. Christian, who produced very little data, is categorical for [am]
while Mr. Roberts, who produced the most data, also produced three other forms.
Because [am] is produced by all of the languagers and is the most frequent
for all but Mrs. Stevens, who uniquely produces [em] and [um], it may be
tempting to assign her forms to a different grammar. However, this solution
runs into difficulty when we are forced to account for use of [am] and [an] by
Mrs. Stevens, Mr. Joshua, and Mr. Roberts. In sum, once liberated from the as-
sumption that these data can be meaningfully bundled with others to create
languages, they point to the idiolect an empirically verifiable locus for describ-
ing human languaging.
It may be tempting to accept Bickerton’s (1981:75) assertion that, because
Negerhollands was “an unconscionable time a-dying …,” the data presented
here are exceptional and, thus, irrelevant to linguistic theorizing. However,
Barlow (2013) demonstrates that such idolectal distinctions cannot be ignored.
Using corpora that span one to three years of repeated question-and-answer
exchanges during White House press briefings, Barlow provides a statisti-
cally rigorous illustration of consistent idiolectal differences that also fail to
aggregate cleanly. His examinations of highly frequent bi-grams (e.g., of the,
the president), constructions (NOUN of the NOUN, some/any of the NOUN), tri-
grams (e.g., and that’s why, in the region), and parts-of-speech bigrams (e.g.,
DEFINITE ARTICLE + SINGULAR COMMON NOUN) provide robust evidence
46 Chapter 2
Table 2 Percent of pronoun forms produced by six Virgin Islanders
Languager [am] [an] [em] [um] [ham] [han] [m]
Mr. Joshua 70.7% 1.6% 0.0% 0.0% 27.2% .05% 0.0%

Mr. Prince 54.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 38.7% 0.0% 6.5%
Mr. Roberts 99.7% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0%
Mr. Testamark 94.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.7% 0.0% 0.0%
Mr. Christian 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Mrs. Stevens 45.0% 52.2% .01% 2.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0
for idiolectal difference for both production and comprehension. Importantly

his data also demonstrate idiolectal stability and change with intra-speaker
variation surpassing inter-speaker variation “in almost all cases” (458).
Perhaps the most compelling evidence for the reality of the idiolect comes
from Kretzschmar (2015:141). He calculates that for a set of twenty-two lexical
items there are over four million possible idiolectal combinations! A brief tour
through The Cambridge Online Survey of World Englishes maps available from
links on http://www.tekstlab.uio.no/cambridge_survey/maps provides visual
confirmation of such calculations.
2.1.2 The Unitary Nature of Idiolects

In addition to defining an idiolect as “peculiar to one speaker,” Bloch (1948:7)
also writes that “a given speaker may have different idiolects at successive stag-
es in his [sic] career, and … he [sic] may have two or more different idiolects at
the same time.” Consistent with the languages ideology, Bloch (1948:8) went on
to group idiolects “with the same phonological system” into dialects and then
group dialects into languages. However, efforts to associate neural networks
with particular languages have not been successful (Hernandez 2009). Because
we now have sophisticated methods of analysis that accommodate variation
and because individual variation in production and reception is an established
characteristic of human language, we can embrace the idiolect for what it is –
an individual’s continually emerging linguistic system.
Consistent with the argument that geographically and temporally bounded,
unadulterated, homogeneous, linguistic systems do not exist as empirical ob-
jects, we can now conceptualize the idiolect as encompassing all of the linguis-
tic memories an individual entrenches across his or her life span. In addition
to the research findings discussed in the previous chapter, the validity of the
idiolect is demonstrated by Finlayson and Slabbert (1997, cited in Coulmas
2005). who describe six South-African young men deploying resources associ-
ated with seven sociocultural groups during a single conversation. Similarly,
in exploring the languaging of the “de/reterritoralized,” Jacquemet (2005, cit-
ing Deleuze and Guttari 1983, 1987) argues that because “identity coagulates
around a sentiment of belonging that can no longer be identified with a purely
territorial dimension” (263), we must consider linguistic resources that emerge
to index “recombinant identities” (264) as unitary. Proposing “transidiomatic
practice” to account for the face-to-face and asynchronous languaging of trans-
national individuals, Jacquemet discusses a family reunion whose participants
converse apparently without difficulty “blend[ing]” their varied linguistic re-
sources. He also comments on the use of heterogeneous linguistic resources
on national media in Italy and Albania. Møller (2008), arguing for “polylingual
performance,” similarly provides compelling evidence for the unitary nature of
entrenched linguistic resources in his description of a conversation conducted
by three “Turkish-Danish” young men. Although he conventionally identifies
the resources deployed as Turkish, Danish, English, learner English, German,
Japanese and Chinese, Møller also objects to “categorisation of linguistic pro-
duction in codes, varieties, languages, etc.” (218) arguing for deployment of
“one set of resources or one set of linguistic features” (232).
In line with these authors, Sabino 1994, originally cast in the languages ide-
ology, can now be read as representing a unified idiolectal pattern of situated
use rather than deployment of discrete languages. Figure 3 below presents F1
and F2 values for 142 of the vowel tokens examined in that study that were
recoverable from my notes. Seven phonemic vowels (/i/, /e/, /e/, /a/, /u/, /o/,
and /u/) are represented. Mrs. Stevens reported to me that as a child she used
71 of the tokens represented here by the light circles with her grandparents; the
remaining 71 tokens, represented by the dark circles, she used with members of
the wider Virgin Islands community.
The figure reveals considerable overlap in the distribution of the F1/F2 inter-
sections for the 142 vowel tokens, suggesting a unified set of articulations, some
of which are indexed for use primarily with one group of people; other articu-
lations are indexed for use primarily with another group. Statistical testing4 of
the paired vowels reveals the mean F1 values are not significantly different for
4 Using the utility at http://vassarstats.net/tu.html, the hypothesis tested was that F1 and F2
values of the vowels produced for grandparents and those produced for wider communi-
ty were independent. An F-test was performed to test for significance between variances.
48 Chapter 2
Figure 3 An F1/F2 plot of 142 vowels produced by Mrs. Stevens
any of the pairings. For F2, the mean values are significantly different only for
/e/ (p=.03), /a/ (p=.05), and /u/ (p>.0001)
In sum, there is mounting evidence that linguistics must once again con-
sider the idiolect as an object of interest. Although, it must be admitted that
the physical nature of the idiolect is not yet fully understood. Interdisciplinary
research spanning neuroscience, linguistics, and other fields is providing in-
sight into the “neurobiological mechanisms” that undergird language produc-
tion and processing.
2.1.3 Idiolects Emerge from Situated Use

Scripted languaging such as that found in performatives, songs, and idioms
provides little room for syntactic innovation. More typically, however, dis-
courses are “dynamically constructed” (Eckert and McConnell-Ginet 1992:473,
Silverstein 2003, Ashcroft 2010) with the forms and the meanings they commu-
nicate emerging as they occur in particular temporal, geographic, and social
spaces. For example, the creation of the animate count nouns illustrated below
emerged as a prescriptive response to conventionalization of the monomor-
phemic quantifier alot. The idiolects of those who have encountered the ani-
mate count noun alot and those who have not will differ. In a second example,
When the F-test was significant, probability values for t-tests assuming unequal variances
are reported.
Figure 4 Four alots, imaginary creatures created by Allie Brosh

Used with permission. Additional alots are available at http://
hyperboleandahalf.blogspot.com/2010/04/alot-is-better-than-
you-at-everything.html
the meaning of [šutz] and [livz] in the sentence [hi itz šutz n livz] (Truss 2006)
depends on whether situated use indexes he to a cowboy or a panda or, when
written, if the sentence occurs as He eats, shoots, and leaves or He eats shoots
and leaves. Moreover, although context can reduce ambiguity during situated
use, interlocutors also can impose different interpretations on both forms and
contexts. The traveling students’ expanding understanding of fine illustrates
that misunderstandings can occur even with the best of intentions.
A testimonial that appeared in my local newspaper (shown as example 7)
also illustrates the implication of conflicted understandings for idiolect
development.
7) “As a retired Federal employee, I personally wear hearing aids and I have
to say that DeRamus Hearing Centers is the most experienced
50 Chapter 2
independent hearing center in the River Region and the team really
prides themselves on educating the community and giving back.”
Adams 2015
Lack of comment following the advertisement in the newspaper’s letters to

the editor suggests the quotation was both comprehensible and acceptable,
containing, on the one hand, information establishing the credibility of the
languager (former federal worker, wearer of hearing aids) and, on the other,
praising the company’s experience, commitment to education, and com-
munity mindedness. A different context, for example that of a freshman-
composition instructor reading this sentence in a student text, might provoke
a suggestion for revision since, for that reader, being a retired federal worker
does not inevitably lead to hearing loss.
A number of researchers have pointed out that, as agents, languagers al-
ways communicate from social positions and interests (e.g., Duranti 2001,
Cameron 2006, Voloshinov 1972, Eckert 2008). As audience members of talk
radio and politically oriented television programs know, even in the same set-
ting the deployment and processing of linguistic resources can be influenced
by one’s ideologies, perspectives, and stances. For example, Cameron (1998:9)
observes that “feminists conclude that our languages are sexist,” a perspective
that is unlikely to be shared by non-feminists. Similarly, Pizarro Pedraza (2015)
illustrates different understandings of abortion and the ways advocates of op-
posing positions use the terms pro-life and pro-choice to encode their under-
standings and advance their positions. It follows that the idiolects of pro-life
and pro-choice advocates will differ with respect to these and related terms
such as baby and fetus.
Disparate interpretations can also occur when interlocutors are united by
common interest. For example, drawing on examples from Bailey, Maynor and
Cukor-Avila’s 1991 The Emergence of Black English: Text and commentary, Wald
(1995:245) illustrates “how rhetorically motivated self-deception distorts [lin-
guists’] recognition and even perception” of audio recorded data.” In another
instance, Crystal (2003:78, fn 10) comments on a reviewer’s misunderstanding
of the phrase “in the right place at the right time” in the first edition of English
as a Global Language as jingoistic rather than fortuitous.
Situated use also impacts idiolects by associating meaning with previ-
ously meaningless sequences, an aspect of languaging exploited by musical
groups who give themselves names like themselves Pink Floyd, Coldplay, and
Radiohead. Meaning can even be negotiated for strings that are strongly en-
trenched as meaningless, such as colorless green ideas sleep furiously (Chomsky
1957:15). For instance, if like jumbo shrimp or bitter sweet, colorless green were
to become conventionalized as an oxymoron meaning ‘extremely unripe, im-

mature’, it would be available for use in discourse. Further, although we have
no experience with sleeping ideas, we do have experience with adjective +
noun + sleep + adverb constructions as in the old prospector sleeps deeply
or the married couple sleep calmly (Davies 2010–). Thus, following Grice’s (1975)
cooperative principle, encountering colorless green ideas sleep furiously in a
poem about the challenges of intellectual work might evoke a meaning such
as ‘insufficiently formulated theories are incessantly bothersome’. Moreover,
if, as Bybee (2010) argues, the inferences derived from communication in par-
ticular contexts are an integral component of linguistic memory, languagers
for whom colorless green ideas sleep furiously was previously meaningless, are
not likely to easily dislodge this new meaning.
Assumptions about interlocutors’ prior experience also impact linguistic
choice and thus the idiolects of the languagers involved in the interaction. For
example, storytellers have been shown to manipulate the number of words,
number of events, and level of detail in a narrative based on their estimates of
hearers’ needs (Galati and Brennan 2010). Languagers also modify their choic-
es when their estimates are found to be inaccurate. The following excerpt from
(Pica 1983:226) shows how something as seemingly trivial as the selection an
article can lead to confusion and subsequent negotiation.
8) REQUEST DIRECTIONS
… a drugstore? Oh, that’s right inside the terminal.
Terminal? Yeah. You don’t know the terminal?
No. Oh. You’re not from around here?
Below, in an attempt to make palpable the threat to his social status posed by
placement in the school’s ESL program, a fifteen-year-old provides an example
of strategically deployed linguistic resources.
9)
Barehand: … I feel kind of shame?
Mr. Talmy: Why shame?
Barehand: Specially, like, um, um, all my friends, they’re like, “Ho, what
class you got right now?”
Barehand: Oh, ESL, and they laugh sometimes.
Mr. Talmy: Wow.
Barehand: “Ho you gat, you still got ESL.”5
5 Talmy (2011:36) indicates pause length and uses IPA to signal Barehand’s switch from
“English” to “Pidgin” when quoting his friends. Since I view Barehand’s linguistic resources as
52 Chapter 2
Talmy’s “wow” indicates that Barehands message has been received as intend-
ed. Had it not been – for example, if Talmy had responded, “Well ESL isn’t so
bad because it helps you” – Barehand could have resorted to negotiation, as is
well documented in research on the pragmatics of speech acts.
Three particularly rich descriptions of situated use that entails negotia-
tion are provided by Traverso, Eisenstein Ebsworth and Kodama, and Haugh
and Bousefield. Traverso (2008:2384) describes how linguistic resources are
employed to initiate, to elaborate, to accept or refuse, and to close or drop a
grievance during third-party complaints. Eisenstein Ebsworth and Kodama
(2011:113) present transcripts of negotiations involved in “achiev[ing] a level of
equilibrium and comfort” required for refusing requests in the United States
and in Japan. Haugh and Bousefield (2012) demonstrate how the jocular in-
terpretive frame necessary for successful teasing or joking is co-constructed.
Even when we do not notice it, the variability in production and comprehen-
sion of utterances that emerges during situated use can reflect negotiation.
For instance, Roy (2009:5–6) reveals apparently unconscious adjustment in
caregiver-to-child speech as children’s idiolects develop. He reports a gradual
decrease in utterance length “up to the moment of word birth with a subse-
quent gradual increase in utterance complexity.”
Fully successful language processing occurs when messages are intelligible,
comprehensibile, and interpretable (e.g., Burling 2000, Y. Kachru and Smith
2008, Bybee 2010, K. Schneider 2012). However, the negotiation that impacts
the ongoing development of idiolects also occurs when languaging is difficult
to interpret, as when travelers interact with languagers with whom they do not
share sufficient linguistic resources. Similarly biblical exegesis and literary crit-
icism testify to the ongoing negotiation between authors, translators, and their
readers and to the new meanings that such negotiation provokes. However, as
Peirce (1995) demonstrates, reception is agentful and reflective of power rela-
tions. Interlocutors can challenge, dissent, enact counter discourse, and limit
reception. Thus message producers are not always able to evoke desired re-
sponses (e.g., Eastman and Stein 1993, Rampton 1995, Carter and Sealy 2000,
Bucholtz and Hall 2005, Juffermans 2011). In some cases, the inability to ini-
tially impose reception (Peirce 1995, referencing Bourdieu 1977) leads to modi-
fying existing ressources or to acquiring new ones. For example, civil unrest in
the United States during the 1960s expanded the meaning of [pig] to include
police officers while the ongoing protests against police killings of African-
American persons in the current decade is producing new linguistic resources
a seamless whole belonging not to linguistic systems but to him, I recast the quoted material
in Roman orthography. I have also modified Talmy’s punctuation and capitalization.
such as Black-Lives-Matter and #Blklivesmatter. In other situations, languaging

fails because languagers possess insufficient “meaning-making rights” (Eckert
and McConnell-Genet 1992:473) or “linguistic entitlements” (Besnier 2013:469).
When this happens, strategic violence erupts both to encode dissatisfaction
and in an attempt to adjust power relations so that negotiation can begin.
2.1.4 What are Idiolects Like?

Theorists are increasingly aware that languaging emerges from memories in
the minds of individuals. For example, Wray and Grace (2007:549, fn 6) see
language only as “internal to the individual, or at most, like-minded members
of a coherent speech community,” and Bybee (2010:221) recognizes that “do-
main-general processes operate … within individuals.” Additionally, linguistic
categories are increasingly understood as “transitory,” “unstable,” “fuzzy” and
not neurologically encoded (Hopper 2015:301). For instance, Ibbotson and
Tomasello (2016: 9) report that “the concept of ‘subject’ is more like a ‘family
of resemblance’ of features than a neat [linguistic] category …” while Vigliocco
et al. (2011:408) find grammatical class to be an emergent property that reflects
“semantic distinctions and patterns of co-occurrence.” Similarly, rather than
distinct circuitry responsible for processing nouns and verbs, Kemmerer and
Eggleston (2010:2688) suggest that word classes are better understood as “con-
structionally defined” elements reflecting recency, frequency, cultural salience,
and pragmatic and syntactic contexts. The animated alots in figure 4 above
demonstrate the constructionally defined nature of word classes as does figure 5
(below).
Reinterpretation of Donald Trump’s use of big league as bigly provides a
particularly interesting example of the combined effect of frequency and syn-
tactic context. Big league is frequently used adjectivally as in big‑league game,
big‑league baseball, big‑league team. When Mr. Trump used big league as an
adverb (e.g., “We’re going to cut taxes BIG LEAGUE for the middle class.” [2016]),
listeners perceived an unintended phonetic form with an adverbial ending
(Stack 2016). As an illustration of the effect of cultural salience and syntactic
context, consider the newspaper headline “Still Destroyed in Bullock County”
(Anonymous 2014) which refers not, as I initially thought, to the lingering ef-
fects of the April 27, 2011 F-5 tornados that were the deadliest in Alabama’s
history, but to moon-shine production). Still in the headline is a noun, not
an adverb. Additional examples are available on Tumbler which Baheri
(2013) identifies as a rich source of “grammar‑bending, punctuation‑erasing,
verb‑into‑noun‑turning.”
Although we are rapidly gaining insight into the workings of the human
brain, it must be admitted that the nature of linguistic memory is not yet fully
54 Chapter 2
Figure 5
Constructionally defined elements by Randall Munroe
Used with permission from xkcd.com
understood. Particularly intriguing are the results of three studies discussed

by Thomas (2011) revealing that listeners’ categorization of phonetic tokens
reflects an understanding of the identity of individuals who produce them.
Relevant social cues include speakers’ regional background even when this
information is only implied by a nearby stuffed toy (Niedzielski 1999; Hay,
Nolan, and Drager 2006; Hay and Drager 2010). There also is mixed evidence
with respect to the storage of larger units. There are demonstrated process-
ing advantages for formulaic sequences (Conklin and Schmitt 2012) and some
evidence for the holistic storage of compounds (Mondini et al. 2002) and bi-
nominal sequences (Siyanova-Chanturia, Conklin, and Van Heuven 2011).
However, evidence regarding the storage of formulaic sequences extracted
from corpus data is mixed (Schmitt, Grandage, and Adolphus 2004). Moreover,
although a number of usage-based theorists assume representational storage
of constructions, there is also considerable skepticism regarding the issue of
holistic storage for multi-morphemic/multi-word sequences (e.g., Blumenthal-
Dramé 2012, Siyanova-Chanturia 2015). A series of imaging studies by Ding
et al. (2016:158) bolsters this position. They provide evidence that “hierarchical
linguistic structures … [are] incrementally constructed during comprehension.”
As a result, smaller constructions are “temporally integrated into larger
structures” (162). Moreover, Ding et al. report a decrease of neural “response”
over “the course of a sentence [… not] a transient response only occurring at
the sentence boundary” (161).6
6 In parallel to the findings of Ding et al., Lieberman (2008:528) comments that neurological
structure makes possible the production of “a potentially unbounded number of motor acts
Evidence from child language learning and brain imaging studies also mo-
tivates skepticism. For example, likening the cognitive architecture involved
in languaging to the “mental equivalent of a Swiss Army knife,” Ibbotson and
Tomasello (2016:13, 2) report that “new research shows that young children use
various types of thinking that may not be specific to language at all.”
There is also considerable evidence that the cognitive operations we think
of as language are “fractionated … occurring simultaneously at multiple time
scales” (Poppel 2008:par 31).7 Repeatedly, imaging studies reveal that linguis-
tic activity engages “local regions and processing streams” (Poeppel et al.
2012:14126). These involve broadly distributed neural networks that “necessi-
tate integration of multiple functional systems” that are not dedicated solely
to language (Blumstein 2009:1235, 1237; see also Tettamanti and Weniger 2006,
Tettamanti et al. 2009, Fisher and Marcus 2009). Dediu (2015:137) also empha-
sizes “the complex nature of the genetic architecture required for language
and speech.” In the same vein, Lieberman (2008:527) observes,
[c]omplex brains contain distinct neuroanatomical structures that per-

form local operations … [h]owever, an isolated neural structure or cor-
tical area generally is not the “seat” of a complex behavior. Instead, a
particular neural structure may support many anatomically segregated
groups – populations – of neurons that carry out similar “local” opera-
tions. Each neuronal population is linked to – projects to – an anatomi-
cally distinct neuronal population in another region of the brain forming
a neural circuit.
Given the dynamic nature of linguistic processing and storage, such observa-
tions are consistent with Ellis (2002) who argues for probabilistic accumula-
tions of experience that reflect situated use, and with Kretzschmar (2015:78)
who warns that it is essential that developing theory hold firmly in mind
that languaging results in neural pathways that store and activate memories.
Further, like Hooper (1987, 2015), Kretzschmar points out that our inability to
directly determine the status of linguistic memories forces us to acknowledge
that terms such as morpheme, phrase, and construction are descriptive devices
for characterizing recurrent patterns of language use. Schmid (2014) similarly
such as words or dances by the process of reiteration, selecting and sequencing a ‘finite set of
pattern generators’ that each specify a sub-movement.
7 For example, for decoding “intonational-level processing at the scale of 500~1000 ms, syllabic
information closely correlated to the acoustic envelop of speech ~150–300 ms, and rapidly
changing featural information, ~20–80 ms” (Poeppel et al. 2012:14127).
56 Chapter 2
holds that linguistic knowledge is best understood as “more or less strongly en-
trenched” symbolic, syntagmatic, paradigmatic, and pragmatic associations.”
Whether stored or produced, linguistic elements sociophonetically vary
with respect to style shifting and indexing (Thomas 2011). They are also “se-
miotically complex” (Urciuoli 1995:533, citing Peirce 1956 and Silverstein
1976). Thus, crucial to an understanding of the idiolect is the construct of rich
memory. Rich memories network auditory patterns, kinesic activity (whether
spoken, signed, or touched), paradigmatic and syntagmatic patterning, previ-
ously negotiated meaning(s), details of the contexts in which use occurred,
and inferences derived from communication in those contexts.8 The probabi-
listic expectations that are entrenched in our rich memories are integral to our
linguistic behavior.
The usage-based approach discussed in the next section reflects the un-
derstanding that, as we language in familiar situations, we strengthen neu-
rological pathways and automate language processing and retrieval. In new
situations, we encounter opportunities to reorganize or expand existing mem-
ories. Input that is not salient has little impact on our emergent system of net-
worked linguistic memories. However, as with the sequencing of all tasks that
result in automatic behavior, frequently associated linguistic elements create
new memories that facilitate processing. A number of these, such as hatched,
he’d,9 alot, [fɪ̃] ‘fixing to’,10 [aimine] ‘I’m going to’, confound traditional cate-
gories. Linguistic memories are also “unstable and intrinsically incomplete …
constantly being created and recreated in the course of each occasion of use”
(Hopper 2015:301). Kretzschmar (2015:78) puts it well: the emergent nature of
complex systems reflects “continual [change] that is contingent on time, place,
and circumstance that does not allow grammar to be directly observable.” Thus,
data sets are not understood to be snapshots of idiolects. Nor are patterns and
frequency distributions in corpus data understood as proxies for grammars.
8 Linguistic experiences typically link form and meaning, but they need not do so. Scat
singers and children taught to “sound out” unfamiliar words are capable of producing
meaningless forms. Linguistic activity also is typically semantically continuous and co-
herent, but as The Name Game song demonstrates, this is need not be the case.
9 “Clara Hatch’d run past him … and ‘d caused him to wonder if he’d done right by the little
girl …” (Carr 1997:466).
10 Used as an inchoative aspect marker in the southern United States, as in I’m fixing to/fixin
to/fina/fɪ̃ go to the store. It can also be used with stative verbs as in a narrative about an
auto accident in which the teller reported “I said to myself, I’m fixing die.”
2.2 Usage-based Theory and Emergent Systems
Usage-based theory views human language as composed of networked memo-

ries that emerge from the processing of linguistic experience by cognitive ca-
pabilities and mechanisms developed for interacting with our physical and
social environments. Because productive and receptive languaging “evokes
memories” of experience (A. Becker 1991:34), research within this model holds
considerable promise for escaping the languages ideology.
Generative theorists understand grammar as arising from an innate uni-
versal grammar resident in the human brain. In contrast, usage-based theory
views human language emerging from domain-general cognitive capacities as
languaging is produced, processed, and registered in long-term memory (e.g.,
Bybee 2010, K. Schneider 2012, drawing on Wierzbicka 1985; Schmid 2014).
These processes include abstraction, aggregation, analogical reasoning, au-
tomatization, categorization, cross-modal association, decontextualization,
generalization, habituation, hierarchical organization, imitation, inferenc-
ing, pattern recognition, planning, schematization, segmentation, sequential
learning, and the capacity for integrating relevant content as well as for purg-
ing that which is irrelevant.
When linguistic resources are understood as being derived from patterns
of languaging that emerge during situated use, the idiolect can be conceptual-
ized as a self-organizing complex system created by large numbers of inter-
connected neurological structures whose memories individually respond to
changing internal and external local conditions (e.g., Larsen Freeman 1997,
Baronchelli et al. 2007, Lee et al. 2009; Ellis and Larsen-Freeman 2009; Bybee
2010, Kretzschmar 2009, 2015). The possible responses to local environments
logically entail all of the networked memories, but this is not how language
works. We rely on probabilistic processing that leads to incremental interpre-
tation, which perhaps, as Christiansen and Chater (2008:501) suggest is due to
perceptual memory limitations.
Thus, as language develops, probabilistic learning prioritizes appropriate
responses. As an illustration, phones are randomly produced during cooing,
but sensitivities to distributional probabilities in the linguistic environment
prompt the development of neurological structure that registers particular
phonetic inventories (Kuhl 2010). Similarly, across our life spans, probability
learning impels us toward conventionalized responses during word learning
(e.g., Yu and Smith 2007, Smith and Yu 2008, Frank, Goodman, and Tenenbaum
2009). For example, although disapproval does not guarantee non-use, chil-
dren who experiment with profanity learn that certain linguistic choices are
highly marked in polite company. Along the same lines, Reali and Griffiths
58 Chapter 2
(2009) demonstrate that learners even are “sensitive to fine-grained patterns” of

regularization for competing variant lexical pairs. Dingemanse et al. (2015:604,
citing Monaghan, Christiansen, and Chater 2007) comment on probabilistic
“differences in stress, duration, voicing, and phonotactics” that distinguish
word classes. With respect to syntax, Christiansen and Chater (2008:502) spec-
ulate that conventionalized word-order patterns “may” derive from memory
constraints; Monaghan and Christian (2008) provide a useful review of the role
of probabilistic learning for syntax.
Evidence for the role of probability in the processing of syntactic input is
provided by Ding et al. (2016), and Wiechmann and Kerz (2016) who review
literature on pattern finding in adults and children with respect to clause or-
dering. Ding et al. (2016:159) also report that for synthetic syllables devoid of
co-articulation and prosodic effects, listeners with no prior experience of the
syllabic structures processed only “acoustic rhythm.”
Haugen (1972d:303) rightly observes that the notion of grammatical struc-
ture suggests an “unfortunate … rigidity which is not characteristic of human
behavior.” A similar concern is reflected in usage-based theories in which lin-
guistic knowledge is understood to be characterized by heterogeneity with
respect to polysemous meaning and multiple, partially equivalent form/mean-
ing potentials. In common with American Structuralists, who recognized anal-
yses were non-unique, usage-based theory understands linguistic knowledge to
be characterized by gradience with respect to the status for linguistic elements
such as morpheme, word, and construction (e.g., Bybee 2010). In common with
generative grammar, usage based theorists see language as characterized by
ambiguity. There is also increasing realization that human language is subject
to probabilities of use. Recognizing that language emerges from situated use,
Labov (1969) formalized the probabilistic nature of linguistic choice with vari-
able rules. Kretzschmar (2008) provides a further advancement formulating
language as a complex system. He notes that while frequency differences are
characteristic of language use, “it is the moment to moment unpredictability
of learning and use that characterizes the complex system” (338).
Because linguistic resource expansion is a product of situated, agentful ac-
tivity, the key to a usage-based perspective on the idiolect is entrenchment.
As we language, order emerges reflecting the weighted habituation of neural
pathways. Because situated languaging is ongoing and to some degree idiosyn-
cratic, each idiolect is both unique and continually emerging.
2.2.1 Entrenchment
Schmid (2014:3) proposes “as a first rough approximation” that entrenchment
entails “memory consolidation, chunking, and automatization.” Entrenched
linguistic memories emerge as a languager encounters linguistic material

under conditions that allow for kinesic sequences and form/meaning poten-
tials to become part of his or her linguistic repertoire. Barlow (2013) argues for
distinguishing the entrenchment of production and comprehension experi-
ences since languagers “maintain their own routines for production” even as
they distinguish input from output. Thomas (2011), makes a similar argument
for distinguishing subphonemic production and perception.
It may be that, despite decreasing plasticity, the process of entrenchment
occurs similarly across the life span. Jespersen (1946:18) argues that “[a] man
learning the very deadest language can only do so by the same mental process
which is nearly allied to the manner in which he has taken his native language
into his mind.” That is, an individual expanding his or her linguistic resourc-
es through study rather than interpersonal interaction also does so through
entrenchment. Wode’s (1992) argument that the same cognitive mechanisms
underlie the learning of what are traditionally studied as first and second/
additional language phonology can also be understood from the perspective
of entrenchment across the life span. He contrasts young learners’ gradually
developing ability to segment speech and their rapid entrenchment of sound
classes with the fully developed adult ability to segment speech and greatly
reduced ability to perceive and create new auditory distinctions.11 Bybee
(2010:22, 117) also appeals to entrenchment when she observes that the com-
plexity of the existing networks determines speed of learning in children and
adults, proposing that individual tokens have proportionately greater impact
on the smaller, less complex networks of children.
That said, the ways in which individuals respond to opportunities for idio-
lect expansion differ according to what has been previously entrenched. As
“The Five Graces Group” (2009:10) point out, “neural commitment” to heav-
ily entrenched resources can influence and even inhibit later learning. For
example, Zheng (2014) attributes the erratic path of semantic learning to the
deep entrenchment of early learning, which competes with newer, less well
entrenched information. Moreover, not all memories become permanently ac-
cessible. I remember parking spaces until I retrieve my vehicle, but do not re-
call the various places I parked last week. Disuse weakens even previously well
entrenched memories, challenging the recognition and retrieval of linguistic
resources: passwords gradually fade from memory once they have been up-
dated by new ones. In another example, as a child I could readily produce the
name of plants in my grandparent’s Long Island garden. After decades of living
11 See Strange and Shafer 2008 for a discussion of categorization that emerges due to the
limited sampling capacity of the human auditory system.
60 Chapter 2
in the Caribbean and the American South, my plant vocabulary is considerable

expanded. Nevertheless, it sometimes takes me several days to recall a plant
name I once used regularly.
The details of the settings in which interactions occur, including the na-
ture of input and power relationships, also contribute to languagers’ individ-
ual responses to opportunities for entrenchment (Darvin and Norton 2015).
For example, input may be highly heterogeneous, or not be fully intelligible
or comprehensible. Alternatively, individulas may wish to preserve distinc-
tive identities when confronted with linguistic resources they associate with a
group they resent (e. g., Sabino 2012a).
Available cognitive resources also impact entrenchment since competition
for cognitive resources inhibits languagers’ ability to direct attention to input
(e.g., Tomlin and Villa 1994; Abutalebi, Tettamanti, and Perani 2009; Smiley and
Salsberry 2007). In particular, early language learning requires considerable
cognitive resources, a point nicely demonstrated by Khan and Zafar (2010),
who report that even something as trivial as videotaping a vocabulary learning
exercise inhibited entrenchment.
Rehearsal, which increases frequency of production, is also known to im-
pact entrenchment. For instance, studying for vocabulary tests and practicing
to perform poems, toasts, and speeches generally enhances performance. In
contrast, what we might describe as infrequency of production and/or pro-
cessing inhibits the entrenchment. This lack of entrenchment is demonstrat-
ed by the “semi-speakers” Dorian (1977 and elsewhere) has studied. It is also
manifest in what Moag (1982:30) describes as the “inevitably low effectiveness”
of language instruction in the absence of opportunities for use. With respect
to naturalistic learning, Nicolaidis et al. (2003) and Yoneyama, Beckman, and
Edwards (2003) demonstrate the correlation between frequency and the learn-
ing of lingual consonants. Moreover, Ibbotson and Tomasello (2016: 16) suggest
that infrequency plays a role in the development of grammar by supressing
possible but unconventionalized utterances. For example, “ ‘She donated some
books to the library’ … would decease the probability that ‘She donated the
library some books’ ” would be produced.
It must be admitted, however, that despite considerable research on the
relationship between frequency and entrenchment, there is still much that
is unknown. For example, both frequency and regularity facilitate learning
(Christiansen and Chater 2008:499). VanPatten (2008) observes that, because
unstressed grammatical items and bound morphemes lack perceptual sa-
lience, frequency also interacts with redundancy and the learner preference
for lexical items. Nicolaidis et al. (2003:2) similarly point to perceptual salience
as a variable that plays a role in children being able to meet their community’s
expectations with regard to articulation of consonants. Citing Steriade 2001,

they point out that features of place and features of manner are more clearly
discernable before rather than after a vowel. Siegel (2008) provides a particu-
larly accessible discussion of the role of perceptual salience with respect to
learning in settings of cultural contact.
There has also been discussion regarding how frequency is to be operation-
alized. For example, Krug (1998) distinguishes between absolute frequency
and string frequency, arguing on the basis of corpus data that the former is
of greater importance with respect to gradience. Schmid (2014:15) provides a
useful summary of current research findings over a range of token and type
frequency patterns and their likely cognitive and linguistic effects.
Structural similarity and syntactic complexity also have been identified as
impacting entrenchment (Givón and Shibatani 2009). Other linguistic factors
that correlate with entrenchment include productivity, semantic transparen-
cy, economy, broad applicability and the ability of new forms to fill semantic or
syntactic gaps (Sabino 2005). Entrenchment is also constrained by the extent
to which we wish to engage in social interaction (e.g., Sabino 2012a and the ex-
tensive literature on motivation in SLA) and by our ability to impose reception
(Peirce 1995). High sociocultural salience, whether negative or positive, also
impacts entrenchment, as illustrated by the rapid spread of slang, the persis-
tence of taboo terms and as was likely in the case of the traveling students’ en-
counter with fine for parking. Related to high cultural salience, Kjellmer (2000)
argues for humor as a factor in entrenchment.
In addition to the influence of input and the details of a setting on entrench-
ment, genetics is implicated in an individual’s ability to expand his or her id-
iolect with respect to both minor and rarer, more impactful manifestations
such as autism and several types and degrees of congenital deafness. As an
illustration, there is evidence that the ROBO1 gene is involved in dyslexia and
may be “a strong candidate for involvement in normal variation in language
acquisition …” (Dediu 2015: 124 quoting Bates et al. 2011:54). Since the 1990s,
mutations in FOXP212 have been shown to be associated with articulation dif-
ficulties (Lai et al. 2001). More recently, Chandrasekaran et al. (2015) report that
the apparently widespread FOXP2 “polymorphism” is associated with differ-
ential learning in adults of unfamiliar tone patterns. Dediu (2015) points to
communities in which congenital deafness has lead to the conventionalization
12
F OXP2 has been misnamed the language gene. Rather it is a regulator gene; that is, in
addition to brain function, FOXP2 is associated with the development of the brain, lungs,
and esophagus (Dediu 2015:145). Dediu provides a brief but fascinating discussion of the
evolution of this gene.
62 Chapter 2
of signing. With respect to morphosyntax, Monner et al. (2013:369) discuss in-

dividual differences as the source of what they describe as “learn[ing] to solve
gender assignment and agreement tasks.” Similarly, Dediu and Ladd (2007)
speculate that widely shared genetic configurations (i.e., “population-level
correlation” [Dediu 2015:142]) may influence linguistic choice leading to, for
example, the conventionalization of lexical tone.
The differential entrenchment of linguistic resources by individuals places
idiolectal variation at the center of human language. This is implied by the
gender-correlated use of color terms as documented by Von Worley (2010).
Regarding intuitional data, Maranda (1978, referencing Garden 1973 and
Cedergren and Sankoff 1974) describes group-specific responses in which low-
probability associations are rejected or revised while high-frequency “compati-
bilities are manifest in clichés, proverbs, and stale metaphors” (396). Geeraerts
(1993) identifies situational variability as influencing lexical choice and thus
entrenchment since, although the effect diminishes over time, accessing an
entrenched linguistic memory increases the efficiency of subsequent access.
Given the individual nature of entrenchment, it is not surprising that Gleitman
and Gleitman (1970) show that educational attainment correlates with how
languagers interpret three-word compounds. A comparison of Google and
Google Books N Gram searchers conducted on 17 October 2016 for mothers-
in-law and mother-in-laws bears this out. In the Google search mother-in-laws
was a three-to-one favorite while the Google Books N Gram search showed the
opposite effect: mothers-in-law is preferred roughly two-to-one.
Recent examinations of individual responses to linguistic atlas interviews
also powerfully demonstrate the ubiquity of heterogeneity, implying differen-
tial entrenchment. For instance, Kretzschmar (2008), drawing on data from
LAMSAS, examines choices for semantic domains associated with fire places
(i.e., variants for andiron, fireboard, backlog, and kindling). He reports that a
considerable majority of languagers do not share the same choices. Along the
same lines, again reporting LAMSAS data, Kretzschmar (2009) reports 154 vari-
ants for the vowel in fog. Less dramatic, but equally illustrative, Kretzschmar
(2012), reveals fourteen pronunciations for the vowel in half. While two of these
variants were produced by 156 and 114 persons, and another was produced by
51 interviewees, the remaining forms were infrequent with seven variants pro-
duced by only a single languager. Burkette (2012) provides a compelling lexical
example, also from LAMSAS. In discussing the more than 80 forms offered to
name the room that some languagers call a parlor,13 Burkette demonstrates
13 Students in my spring 2017 language variation class offered additional forms including
sewing room, and morning room. The students intuitions how many of the words listed by
Burkette they were likely to use ranged from 3 percent to 28 percent.
Table 3 Variation in orthography and pronunciation of [gemde] (Sabino and Pitts 2016)
Written form Game day Game-day Gameday
2002–03 data set (N=1159) 474 (41%) 162 (14%) 523 (45%)
2015 data set (N=506) 217 (43%) 47 (9%) 242 (48%)
Spoken form GAME day GAME DAY game DAY
2002–03 data set (N=1159) 496 (43%) 31 (3%) 531 (54%)
2015 data set (N=506) 161 (31%) 13 (3%) 333 (66%)
that opaque historical, cultural, and linguistic influences create persistent id-
iolectal variation. Additionally, Burkette drives home the point that multiple
forms map onto a single meaning and that a single form can have a variety of
meanings.
Sabino (2005) and Sabino and Pitts (2016) report individual differences in
orthographic form, constituency structure,14 and meanings associated with the
bimorphemic sequence [gemde]. With respect to orthographic form, “game-
day,” “game-day,” and “game day” were all reported by survey takers. Reported
spoken forms are GAME day with perceived stress on the first syllable, GAME
DAY with the syllables stressed equally, and game DAY with stress on the last
syllable.15 Survey respondents also reported differences in meaning: 1) the day
of a sporting event, 2) the day of a sporting event and related activities, 3) the
weekend of a sporting event and related activities, and 4) a contest, perfor-
mance, or activity after practice, training, or preparation.
Tables 3 and 4 display the frequency with which orthographic representa-
tions, constituency structures, and meanings occur in earlier and later [gemde]
data sets. Comparison of the data collected in 2015 with the data set collected
a bit more than a decade earlier indicates significantly different intuitions
about orthographic form (Chi Square 7.06, df 2, p <.03) and pronunciation (Chi
Square .33.74, df 2, p <.0001).
14 Early citations include all three orthographic forms: “I’m told they sometimes talk of
‘gameday’ from one week till the next” (Bennett 1910). “Each pupil makes his own pack [of
cards] and on game-day he brings it in” (Chadwick 1915). “At last the big game day arrived,
all the tickets were sold …” (Fond du Lac School District 1923).
15 Stress patterns reveal grammatical category. A single stress indicates a compound noun;
two stresses indicates a noun phrase with day modified by the adjective game.
64 Chapter 2
Table 4 Variation in meaning of [gemde] (Sabino and Pitts 2016)
Meaning Day of sporting Day of Weekend of a Contest, perfor-

event sporting event sporting event mance, or activity
and related and related after practice,
activities activities training, or
preparation
2002–03 data set 530 (48%) 438 (40%) 67 (6%) 65 (6%)

(N=1,100)
2015 data set 245 (33%) 364 (49%) 84 (11%) 45 (6%)
(N=738)
As shown in table 4, languagers also differ in terms of which meanings they

map on to [gemde].16 Additionally there are languagers who recognize multi-
ple meanings and those who, like me, recognize all combinations but use none
of them. Although it starkly contrasts with the homogeneity implied by pre-
scriptive grammars and dictionaries, such heterogeneity is the norm. “Real lan-
guage” is not only “distributed over space and over occasions of use” (Hooper
2015:304, emphasis in the original); it also reflects idiolectal distinctiveness.
2.2.2 Exemplars and Exemplar Clusters

Linguistic exemplars are memories of productive and receptive languaging.
As discussed above, research on the organization and development of the
human brain points to networked patterns of activated neurons that process
input and produce the memories that shape our languaging behavior. Atypical
grammatical structures such as long time no see or monkey see, monkey do can
persist, remaining isolated from more frequent patterns (Davis and Marlow
2011). However, this is not generally the case. As our brains aggregate linguistic
experience, tokens of languaging, whether spoken, signed, touched, or ortho-
graphic representations such keystrokes, are stored as neuromotor sequences
and timing. Recently and frequently experienced exemplars are more easily
retrieved than less recent and less frequent exemplars.
16 In the initial online survey, some respondents did not provide information on meaning.
In fthe later face-to-face survey, a number of respondents provided multiple meanings.
Both form17 and meaning, whether retrieved from memory or inferred from
context, are continuously networked into what Pierrehumbert (2001:139–140)
describes metaphorically as “clouds of remembered tokens” in which non-
identical tokens are entrenched as new exemplars and linked to existing exem-
plars. She continues, “[t]he remembered tokens display the range of variation
that is exhibited in the physical manifestations of the category.” She also com-
ments that tokens can belong to multiple categories. For example, Siyanova-
Chanturia (2015:293, referencing Sprenger, Levelt, and Kempena 2006) reports
that literal word meaning is activated during idiom production. Exemplar
clusters can be linked to one another paradigmatically and syntagmatically.
Because retrieval strengthens relations within complex exemplars, the lat-
ter range from heavily entrenched conversational routines and formulaic se-
quences to loosely connected but collaborative elements like lexical roots and
grammatical morphemes (Bybee 2010, Ellis 2012).
Bybee (2010:6–14) describes the interconnectiveness of linguistic memo-
ries as “rich.” Rich memory accounts for what Jiang (2002:632) describes as the
“compelling evidence” for semantic relatedness of word pairs learned in dif-
ferent cultural contexts such as sofa and couch or dog and perro and for our
ability to select context-appropriate form/meaning potentials. These connec-
tions also make possible the innovation of forms such as beaucoodles ‘lots’
< beaucoup and oodles (Hill‑Racer n.d.) or slanticular ‘magnificant’, a word that
R. Bailey (2011:8) describes as failing to respect the “niceties of etymology.”
Bybee (2010), drawing on Pierrehumbert and her own earlier work, discuss-
es networked linguistic memories as exemplar clusters. Under such a model,
syllables are composed of actions that reflect memories of motor sequences.
Exemplar clusters networked to other elements or sequential patterns cre-
ate form/meaning potentials, such as -amos ‘third person singular or [pekan]
‘pecan’. Exemplar retrieval activates these networks of associated memories
making it possible to understand [pekan], [pekæn], and [pikæn] as the same
word, to rhyme cat, sat, flat, and mat, and to appreciate puns like time flies
like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana. Thus, associations between and among
exemplars account for both the formulaic nature of languaging and for lin-
guistic innovation. Such linkages also make possible the deconstruction of as-
sociated memories, such as those that frequently provide inspiration for the
cartoon strip, Get Fuzzy as shown in a panel available at http://www.gocomics.
17 With respect to spoken forms, documented parameters of difference include speaking
rate, syllable structure, duration, amplitude, pitch, manner of articulation, place of ar-
ticulation, voicing, among others. Appendix I shows the variable length of the word oyster
in conversations lasting about 45 minutes with six individuals.
66 Chapter 2
com/getfuzzy/2012/12/02. In this episode of the cartoon, the cranky cat, Bucky,

boasts, “Satchel, my plans are near fruition. Today I am but unknown, yet to-
morrow my name will be synonymous with power.” Bucky’s benighted dog
companion, Satchel, responds, “You’re changing your name[, ] and the best
middle name you could think of is ‘with”? … Still I guess it’s better than your
today name …, Butt Unknown. And why haven’t you ever corrected me? I’ve
been calling you Bucky for years.” Satchel’s reply deconstructs two construc-
tions, synonymous with and but unknown, transforming prepositional with and
conjunctive but into proper nouns, the second of which is synonymous with a
common (pun intended) name for a body part.
Given the limitations of data collection and preparation, the linguistic
resources of individuals are not documented in their entirety. Nevertheless,
although data aggregates collected from individuals obscure differences, once
disaggregated, corpus data can provide insight into idiolects and thus supply
indirect evidence for degrees of entrenchment. Sabino’s (2012b) examination
of variant choice by three Virgin Islanders during extended discourse for forms
meaning ‘in’, ‘out’, ‘when’, ‘allow’, plural and THIRD PERSON SINGULAR pro-
noun can be interpreted in this light. Figure 6 shows the terms used by these
same Virgin Islanders for ‘above, on’. Again we see idiolectal difference with
respect to the frequency with which the languagers used each of the forms.18
For example, Mr. Robert’s most frequent form is bo suggesting it is highly en-
trenched. Additionally only he produced bono. Mr. Robert’s most frequent
form also is bo, and, like Mr. Joshua, Mr. Roberts produced no forms with /ʌ/.
Mrs. Stevens most frequent forms is abo. She also produces variants /ʌ/, but no
tokens of obu and op.
We can gain insight into the similarity of exemplar clusters for two of these
speakers by examining the relative frequencies of the syntagmatic sequenc-
es associated with the ‘above, on’ variants. Table 5 shows the two most fre-
quent syntagmatic ‘above, on’ sequences for the five most frequent variants in
Mr. Joshua’s data. Table 6 presents parallel data produced by Mrs. Stevens. Both
languagers use a definite article or pronoun following bo and what appears
to be conventionalized use of abobo in utterance-final position. The most fre-
quent three-word sequences in Mr. Joshua’s data are ki bo am ‘watch him’ and
klim bo d^ ~ di ‘climb on it’. Seventeen percent of Mr. Joshua’s bo tokens were
preceded by ki ‘see’, and fifteen percent were preceded by fa ‘for’.
18 The absence of obu and op. in Mrs. Stevens’ data may reflect our mutual entrapment in
the languages ideology. That is, because we met so that she could teach me “Creole,” she
may have avoided forms she considered borrowings. (See Sprauve 1990.).
Figure 6 Use of forms for ‘above, on’ by three Virgin Islanders
Table 5 Syntagmatic ‘above, on’ sequences produced by Mr. Joshua
Mr. Joshua’s choices Preceding element Following element
bo (N = 60) ki ‘see’ 17% d^ ~ di ‘the’ 53%

fa ‘for 15% am ‘3.sg’ 15%
obu (N = 18) flig ‘fly’ 22% di ‘the’ 28%
di ‘the’ 17% ši ‘she’ 17%
op (N = 5) am ‘3.sg’ 40% pause 40%
lo ‘go’ 20% d^ ‘the’ 20%
abobo (N = 3) hal ‘haul’ 33% pause 100%
rak ‘arrive’ 33%
abo (N = 1) leap 100% ‘am ‘3.sg’ 100%
68 Chapter 2
Table 6 Syntagmatic ‘above, on’ sequences produced by Mrs. Stevens
Mrs. Stevens’ choices Preceding element Following element
abo (N = 70) Pause 14% di ~ d^ ‘the’ 50%

di ‘the’ 10% Pronouns 33%
abobo (N = 37) Pause 16% Pause 41%
di ‘the’ 16% de ~ di ‘the’ 19%
^bo (N = 26) ko ‘come’ 8% di ‘the’ 50%
lik ‘like’ 8% Pronouns 27%
bo (N = 25) fam ~ f^m ~ from 52% di ‘the’ 52%
wak ‘wait’ 16% Pronouns 40%
bobo (N = 6) di ‘the’ 17% Pause 50%
ma ‘make’ 17% da ‘there’ 17%
Mrs. Stevens’ most frequent form is relatively free in its combinations although
half of her abo tokens precede di ‘the’. Additionally, Mrs. Stevens used bo in the
sequence fam bo di ‘from above’; Mr. Joshua did not use this sequence.
Situated use increases the ease with which an exemplar can be activated. If
the frequencies in the tables are representative, these data provide evidence
that Mr. Joshua and Mrs. Stevens differ in terms of the forms they have en-
trenched and thus in their exemplar clusters. They also differ in terms of how
strongly each form is entrenched. There is also evidence that points to differ-
ences in the networks linking the syntagmatic sequences within the their re-
spective ‘above, on’ exemplar clusters.
Unless salient, infrequent form/meaning potentials have little impact on
the individual’s memory store of exemplars. In contrast, highly frequent exem-
plars can emerge as forms characterized by phonological reduction and loss
of analyzability (Bybee 2010 and elsewhere). This is what accounts for forms
like [finə], a reduced form of fixing to ‘about to’. Although less reduced pho-
nologically than [ɑə̃ o] ‘I don’t know’ (Bybee and Scheibman 1999), kinda has
also developed as a mitigating discourse particle. Further reduction eliminates
the consonant cluster, producing [kaina], or in the American South, [ka:na].
Phonologically reduced sorta, provides another example as do the forms
[ʌbobo] abo, bo. In this case, the following full and reduced variants are docu-
mented as being in use in the Danish West Indies in the eighteenth century:
nobovo, boven, bovo, na bobo, no bobo, and bobo. Etymologically, these forms
have multiple sources: a locative particle, na, found in West Africa and boven
‘above’ a form used in the Netherlands. In the early twentieth century corpus
abobo, ʌbobo, abo, ʌbo, and bo are documented. All of the forms twentieth-
century forms demonstrate loss of the initial nasal. Loss of word occurs in
abobo, ʌbobo, abo, and ʌbo.
Because the situations that languagers negotiate are themselves fluid, ex-
emplar clusters expand and contract over time. By way of illustration, Wray
and Grace (2007:562) cite individuals’ surprise at a variety of ethological as-
sociations including the following: that “knee” is the root of kneel, that suitcase
is compounded from suit and case, remove is a stem formed on the root move.
With appropriate input, such associations can be restored to consciousness.
Thus, while I found surprising both Burkette’s (2012) illumination of the rela-
tionships among parler ‘to speak’, parlor ‘a room for formal entertaining, and
funeral parlor, and I. F. Hancock’s (2010) report of association of Gyspy with
Egypt, I now appreciate the historical connections.
2.2.3 Constructions
Throughout our individual life spans, languaging across various media (e.g.,
Krashen 1989, Jacquemet 2005) produces networks of differentially entrenched
linguistic memories that underlie human language. In contrast to structural
theories, which define languages in terms of the sequential arrangement of
individual lexical items and grammatical elements, and consistent with usage-
based theory, Wray and Grace (2007:568) argue that “humans do not naturally
require a fully compositional language in order to communicate.” Instead,
competent languagers have the ability to deploy vast numbers of entrenched
linguistic resources, many of which are recurrent, multi-morphemic sequenc-
es (e.g., Hymes 1962, J. Becker 1975, Bolinger 1976, all cited in Pawley 2007).
Linguists have various names for these: collocations (e.g., flatly refuse), conven-
tionalized phrases, fillers (ya know) recurrent multi word units (thank you, God
bless you), irreversible binominals (pidgin and creole), idioms (it’s raining cats
and dogs), chunks (don’t), phrasal verbs (burn up), and formulaic sequences
(s’up). I refer to formulaic, multi-morphemic word sequences as constructions.
After surveying research that explores the “ubiquity” of constructions,
Conklin and Schmitt (2012:46) estimate “between a third and a half of discourse
is formulaic.” Pawley (2007), who provides an extensive review, cites studies
that find constructions comprise as much as 90 percent of some discourses
including weather reports, live sports casting, and auctioneering. Pawley also
cites Altenberg’s (1998) estimation that 80 percent of the words in the London-
Lund corpus participate in constructions.
70 Chapter 2
Early work on formulaic language in Homeric epic poetry (Parry 1930:80,

quoted in Pawley 2007:6) defines constructions as elements “which show lexi-
cal substitutions expressing the same basic structure and idea.” Constructions
contain both fixed and open slots (Goldberg 2003, Bybee 2010). As an illustra-
tion, in the data examined above, Mrs. Stevens often used the construction
fam bo di ‘from above the’, which can be described as occurring in the fam bo di
+ NP construction. In these constructions, the noun-phrase slot is fully open.
However, openness is subject to probability of use. For example, Mrs. Steven’s
second most frequent use of bo is in the sequence wak bo ‘wait for’, which oc-
curs in the wak bo + NP construction in which three of the four NP tokens in
the data set were pronouns. In a second example, searching the 400 million
word Corpus of Historical American English (Davies 2010–) for the flock together
construction locates 63 tokens, 16 of which are contained in the larger birds of
a feather flock together construction.
Residents of the Danish West Indies and their descendants, including Mrs.
Stevens, used a variety of constructions to encode complex events: comple-
mentation (example 10a), clause chaining (example 10b), coordination (exam-
ple 10c), subordination (example 10d), and serial verb constructions (example
101e).
10a) an a lo a tapus fo kop jet. (Mrs. Stevens 026A)

3.sg pst go loc town to buy food
‘S/he went to town to buy food.’
10b) dan ju drai di, ju drai di, ju drai di, … (Mrs. Stevens 006A)
then 2.sg turn it 2.sg turn it 2.sg turn it
‘Then you turn it, you turn it, you turn it’
10c) morok, morok. hopo an receive mi/me.19 (Mrs. Stevens 003A)

morning, morning open and receive 1.sg
‘Good morning, good morning. Open (the door) and invite me into your
home.’
10d) wene den sti mi/me, mi/me lo a bus, lo

when 3.pl send 1.sg 1.sg go loc bus go
set. (Mrs. Stevens 026A)
sit
‘When they send me (to go somewhere), I go into the bushes to sit down.’
19 A verse from a traditional Christmas song.

10e) so dan am a rup tekoma ko, am a gi am twalef

so then 3.sg pst call Tekoma come 3.sg pst give 3.sg twelve
pakaton. (de Jong 1926, # 58)
dollars
‘So then he called Tekoma (and) Tekoma came, he gave him 12 dollars.’
The abstract switch-function symmetrical serial verb construction shown in

example 11e) has slots limited by constituent (noun phrase) and word class
(major verb, minor verb). Regardless of the verbs or noun phrases that
fill the slots, the object (here Tekoma) of the first verb (here rup) is the subject
of the second verb (here ko). In contrast, the counterfactual noun i + calls +
pronouni-self + verb + ing construction shown in example 12) must contain
the verb call, which can either be in the present or past tense.
11) I call/called myself reading the newspaper, but I don’t/didn’t remember

an article about Alaska.
The slots in constructions make possible what Ruthven (2001:36) describes as

“promiscuous[ness] of everyday language.” These slots can be either simple
(e.g., adj) or internally complex (e.g., np, pp). A second search in the Corpus
of Historical American English (Davies 2010–) for the modal + have + verb
construction reveals that the first slot can be filled with either simple or com-
plex forms. The following list is suggestive, though not exhaustive. Slot 1 can
be filled by a single modal expressed as a full form (e.g., should, could, would),
a phonologically reduced form attached to the subject (i.e., ‘d), or a cliticized
variant such as shoulda. Multiple modals (Mishoe and Montgomery 1994) are
also possible, as in we might should have/should’ve/shoulda asked permission.
Hasty (2015) discusses a related construction that contains the double modal
+ oughta construction as in We might should oughta take a second look at this.
A nineteenth-century example (Mitchell and Burton, republished in Scott and
Hitchcock 1991:166) reveals a slot for a simple negative as in “She might not
coulda talked like dat….” Hasty (2012:1719) confirms both full and contracted
negation (for which he indicates a personal preference, p.c.18 November 2016)
after the first modal and full negation after the second modal but finds con-
tracted negation after the second modal to be ungrammatical.
Networked elements or “architecture” (Lamm n.d.) fill the slots in con-
structions. Such relationships are exploited in nonsense poetry. For example,
Carroll’s ’Twas brillig, and the slithy toves exploits the it was + adjective con-
struction and the the + adjective + noun construction while borogoves and
chortled exploit the noun + plural and verb + past tense constructions.
72 Chapter 2
In addition to discourse topic and genre, the items a languager selects to fill
the slots in constructions reflect “assumptions about the [interlocutor’s] state
of knowledge and consciousness” Goldberg (2003:221). For instance, Pica
(1983) shows that, in Philadelphia, choice between a definite or indefinite ar-
ticle or among pronouns, full noun phrases, or zero reflects communicative
context (e.g., fast food or moderately priced restaurant), assumptions regard-
ing interlocutors’ state of awareness (see example 3 above), and assumptions
with respect to uniqueness or position in discourse (e.g., first or subsequent
mention).
Moreover, as those who argue for metro-, multi-, poly-, pluri- and translan-
guaging repeatedly demonstrate, language users can fill slots in constructions
with any of their appropriate resources regardless of the cultural context in
which they were learned. For example, based on her own linguistic history,
Tabouret-Keller (2014:313) observes that in everyday language use, linguistic
features are deployed without knowledge of their origins; they are deployed
because they are available and apt. Otsuji and Pennycook (2010:242) also pro-
vide evidence of consultants’ lack of awareness regarding linguistic choice
when speaking and, later, when recalling a conversation. This flexibility can be
illustrated by the adj + n construction bad hombre used by candidate Donald
Trump during the American presidential debates, which subsequently ap-
peared in news stories, in personal conversations both pro and anti Trump, and,
according to the BBC Trending (2016), “inspire[d] mucho mocking memes.” A
particularly compelling example of the flexibility of entrenched resources is
presented by García and Otheguy (2014:645): Ellos euieron que yo les pago el doble
por parquear el carro ellos dicen que ellos están full por el problema del parade.”
They comment that “[m]any will analyze … [this sentence] as containing a) an
English-based choice of the indicative form in pago; b) redundant, unneces-
sary and English-motivated subject pronouns, ellos and yo; and c) a string of
borrowed (and more or less adapted) English words parquear, full, and parade.”
Importantly, they go on to make the point that, like the user-centered perspec-
tive argued for here, the labeling of linguistic components as belonging to one
language or another “responds to sociocultural” [I would say ideologically]
“motivated conventions of assignment and categorization, not to anything
having to do with linguistic competence per se” (646). As a last illustration
of the resources available to speakers, figure 7 shows the conjunctions used
by Mrs. Stevens in a coordination construction that encodes complex events.
Figure 8 compares the frequency of use for particular conjunctions by
Mrs. Stevens, and Mr. Roberts.
Figure 7 A coordination construction for encoding complex events
Figure 8 Comparison of conjunction use by Mrs. Stevens and Mr. Roberts
2.3 Summary
The study by Ameel et al. (2008) discussed above attributes the elaboration
of semantic categories to the amount of “exposure to each language that a
child growing up with two languages will receive” (58). However, as illustrated
by communities experiencing cultural clash (Sabino 2012a), by some autistic
children, and much classroom foreign-language instruction, it is meaningful
situated use, not exposure, that enables individuals to expand their linguistic
resources whether the impetus for doing so is admiration, imaginative playful-
ness, or self protection. In other words, what matters is who languages with
whom, how frequently, and under what conditions. The view of the nature and
development of the idiolect offered in this chapter is consistent with this claim.
74 Chapter 2
This implies that, in order to fully reap the benefits a usage-based theoretical
perspective, we must do more than nod to situated use while continuing to
work with reified bounded systems. Rather, although patterns of language use
are observable, we are obligated to acknowledge that it is analysts, not lan-
guagers who “create categories” and “nominate” constructions (Kretzschmar
2015:76). We must systematically develop discourses that communicate insight
into the ways in which individual agents innovate, entrench, deploy, and evalu-
ate linguistic resources. This means recognizing that languages do not shift.
It means acknowledging that languaging is not additive, subtractive, or bal-
anced. It means refraining from describing languages as borrowed, switched,
or interfered with. Instead, in today’s world, human language must be seen as
continually emerging in billions of idiolects as it is produced and understood.
Considerable value that has accrued from characterizing linguistic behavior at
the level of the group. Applied linguists are grapple with the variable and in-
dividualistic ways in which languagers develop and deploy their linguistic re-
sources (Valdés, Poza, and Brooks 2014:par 10). Theoretical linguists must do so
as well. Replacing speaking and speakers with languaging and languagers is a
start, but we must further acknowledge that, because the number and strength
of the connections that link our linguistic memories reflect individual experi-
ence, there are differences among members of groups, even very small ones.
That said, the entrenchment of form/meaning potentials by individuals is
only part of the picture. Languaging is a mechanism for establishing solidarity
with others and enabling the creation of “imagined communities” (Anderson
2006) at all levels of social organization from communities of practice to trans-
national alliances. Within such groups, expectations for language use emerge
that, when violated, can “send recipients into interpretative over-drive”
(Blommaert and Rampton 2011:par 36). The process by which the random in-
teraction of languaging individuals creates expectations for the deployment of
form/meaning potentials clustered in geographic and social space is conven-
tionalization, the subject of the next chapter.
Chapter 3
Conventionalization and the Illusion of Shared

Grammar
Although language elements add up to language, they do not add up so

readily to a language.
Urciuoli 1995:531
∵
3.0 Introduction
As we have just seen, entrenchment is contingent on situated use. As histor-

ical-comparative linguists realize, it is possible for entrenched similarities to
emerge independently, as when phonological assimilation results in the pro-
nunciation [ɔɪsčɚ] ‘oyster’ by individuals in the United States Virgin Islands
and others in Apalachicola, Florida even though these communities have
had no prolonged contact with one another. More typically, however, when
we communicate to “make an impression on others” (Jespersen 1946:18), we
choose to model our languaging on theirs. As a result, prefabricated linguistic
elements are “passed around among speakers in comparable social circum-
stances (Hopper 2015:303). Although he might have written of linguistic acts
and languaging habits instead of speech acts and speech habits, E. Schneider
(2007:46) puts it well: “… consensus building start[s] out from the agency of
individual speakers and the occurrence of individual speech acts which then,
through repetition, growing entrenchment, and therefore accommodation
in speech habits, translates into an emergent systemic convention.” To put it
another way, once conventions are established, the “outward bound” nature
of linguistic resource accrual emerges because individuals tend to accommo-
date to patterns at the local, regional, and national levels (Labov 2010). That is,
the entrenched linguistic resources of socially aligned, frequently interacting
persons or those who have parallel experiences become similar although, as
shown in the previous chapter, their individual idiolects will differ to some de-
gree. Despite the inefficiency of everyday communication, idiolectal similari-
ties emerge as linguistic resources are conventionalized as similar input and

76 Chapter 3
similar responses to that input result in overlapping paradigmatic and syntag-

matic associations held by multiple individuals.
Differences in available input and individual’s responses to that input pro-
duce different degrees of conventionalization. For example, the construc-
tion different to has 317 citations in the Corpus of Historical American English
(Davies 2010–). In contrast, different from has 10,651 citations, suggesting that
for the languagers whose data comprises the corpus, different from is more
highly conventionalized. Johnstone (1996:4–5) provides an example of a mini-
mally conventionalized construction that was apparently innovated by her
father: aaahh ‘I think I’ve understood your correctly, and if this is the case,
I’m disappointed.’ Aaahh is similarly used by her sister and is understood
but not used by Johnstone. Twin talk provides a another example of limited
conventionalization.
Positive and negative feedback help the inexperienced languager discern
patterns in the languaging of others as they transition from the idiosyncratic
language use that characterizes the early stages of learning to the successful
deployment of highly conventionalized linguistic resources. However, it is not
merely similarly entrenched linguistic forms that result in conventionaliza-
tion. Crucially, conventionalization also requires the emergence of overlapping
(though not necessarily identical) expectations for the deployment of those
resources. Admittedly, because the strength of entrenched linguistic resources
reflects the situated use of languaging individuals, expectations are not always
met. This can be illustrated by Google Ngram searches for so-called irrevers-
ible binomials in the American English corpus. For example, although black
and white is more highly conventionalized than white and black, both occur.
Similarly, although the in the early construction is considerably more frequent
than early in the and has remained so since 1800, both are used. In a third ex-
ample, in the United States, where the 24-hour clock is the marked alternative
for measuring time, although many are familiar with 24-hour time, a response
to “what time is it?” is not likely to be something like thirteen hundred hours.
Hopper (1991:18 referencing Givón (1971, 1979) describes conventionalization as
“the fixing of pragmatically motivated word orders into syntactic constructions
and agreement patterns.” However, as the comprehensibility of the unconven-
tional syntax of Yoda (a character in the Star Wars Trillogy) and the previously
mentioned conventionalization of white and black illustrate, grammatical sys-
tems are not fixed. Rather, despite the entrenchment of various alternatives,
it is the emergence of shared expectations with respect to the deployment of
linguistic alternatives in particular settings, under particular circumstances,
with particular interlocutors that produce the statistical regularities that lead
to the illusion of grammar.
Conventionalization and the Illusion of Shared Grammar 77
This suggests that what have been described as interlanguages (as opposed
to target languages), child language (vs. adult language), and jargons or pidgins
(in contrast to creoles) might better be considered as differing in terms of de-
grees of conventionalization. For example, SLA and first language acquisition
have been couched largely in terms of learners’ errors and adult/native speaker
targets. Instead we might see learners as languaging in unconventional ways. In
contrast, although not described as such, conventionalization has been a topic
of interest in pidgin and creole studies for decades. For instance, G. Sankoff
(1980) grapples with the emergence of grammatical structure in Papua New
Guinea using an age-based approach. Working with language data from the
Caribbean, DeCamp (1971) and Bickerton (1975) explore a status-based approach
to modeling conventionalized heterogeneity in terms of the creole continuum.
3.1 Similarities between Entrenchment and Conventionalization
Situated use also leads to the entrenchment of linguistic resources and to the
development of expectations regarding their deployment at the level of the
individual. Conventionalization is a product of parallel entrenchment among
individuals. This was recognized by Le Page and Tabouret-Keller (1985) dur-
ing their exploration of the relationship between linguistic choice and the
presentation of self. On the one hand, they see language as “essentially idio-
syncratic” (1985:2, 4) and understand the linguistic resources of individuals
to be “overlapping” (913). On the other hand, they draw attention to the roles
frequent interaction and normative socialization play in conventionalization.
However, because their formulation is constrained by the languages ideol-
ogy, Le Page and Tabouret-Keller, conceptualize idiolects as “repertoire[s] of
socially marked systems” (116). Several decades later, Backus (2014) observes
that the primary challenge of a descriptively adequate theory of human lan-
guage continues to be coming to an understanding of “how individual-based
entrenchment and community-based conventionalization relate to one an-
other” (116). Several of the characteristics that entrenchment and convention-
alization share are discussed here.
One similarity is that entrenchment and conventionalization occur both
within and beyond the reach of sanctioned norm makers. This is so because,
just as the entrenchment of linguistic resources is dependent on individual
experience, the scope of conventionalization is determined by similarities
of expereince. That is, by the extent of the relevant sociocultural setting,
whether it be international, national, or local. For example, when the norma-
tive group is a small family whose members continue to use a form/meaning
78 Chapter 3
potential that emerges during one of its members’ early attempts at languag-
ing, conventionalization is limited. Alternatively when national educational
systems successfully enforce linguistic norms through standardization and
prescriptivism, conventionalization is likely to be extensive though not all-in-
clusive as evidenced by the academic arguments over intuition that emerged
in during the heyday of Transformational Generative Grammar. Similarly, the
persistence of stigmatized phonological variants, slang terms, and lexical intru-
sions (such as those proscribed by the 1994 Loi Toubon ‘French language act’)
illustrate that ensuring the adoption of particular form/meaning potentials for
intended purposes can entail resources beyond those available to nation states.
Secondly, intentionally or unwittingly, any languager can provide a construc-
tion for conventionalization. However, because linguistic resources emerge via
entrenchment, conventionalization typically entails negotiation. Cheshire’s
(2013) discussion of the ongoing conventionalization of man as a first person
singular pronoun illustrates how negotiation in a setting with “linguistic and
normative flexibility” (627) provides the context in which a form used as a
pragmatic marker and associative plural comes to be interpreted as a pronoun.
Due to the role of negotiation, a proffered construction also can fail to find
acceptance. For example, during a conversation among members of a depart-
mental committee, a colleague described a potential invitee to a luncheon as a
[šuzin]. A Google search for shoe in reveals my colleague was not alone in his
understanding.1 Nevertheless, on this occasion, there was instantaneous rejec-
tion of the proffered form by the other group members.
The negotiation that goes on as conventionalization proceeds is also dem-
onstrated in tables 7 and 8. At contest in this case is how to best refer to the
reified linguistic entity historically associated with the British colonial empire.
From a World-English perspective, arbitrators of what counts as correct English
are geographically monocentric. They have a shared sociopolitical history and,
thus, a uniform, monolingual identity. They also recognize a single prescriptive
norm and privilege native-speaker behaviors. In contrast, the World-Englishes
perspective is geographically pluricentric. Proponents of this perspective rec-
ognize the legitimacy of different sociopolitical histories and value heteroge-
neous linguistic identities. They also recognize as multiple norms as valid and
privilege effective (as opposed to correct) language use (B. Kachru 2017).
In table 7, the single-system perspective is strongly represented: 95 percent
of the tokens are of World English. Agreement on this construction centers on
1 The following prescriptive statement was located by a search performed on 3 August 2016:
“The conventional spelling of the noun meaning a sure winner is shoo‑in, not shoe‑in. The
term uses the verb shoo, which means to urge something in a desired direction, usually by
waving one’s arms.”
Table 7 Distributions for World English or World Englishes in the Corpus of Global
Web‑Based English: 1.9 billion words from languagers in 20 countries (Davies 2013)
Country World English World Englishes Percent World Englishes
US 528 0 0%
Canada 10 1 9%
Great Britain 16 7 30%
Ireland 1 0 0%
Australia 4 0 0%
New Zealand 3 0 0%
India 5 1 17%
Sri Lanka 1 1 50%
Bangladesh 1 0 0%
Singapore 1 0 0%
Malaysia 1 1 50%
Hong Kong 6 18 75%
Nigeria 63 3 5%
Ghana 2 0 0%
Philippines 0 2 100%
Kenya 0 3 100%
use in the United States although World English is also used exclusively in six
other countries (Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, Bangladesh, Singapore, and
Ghana). However, at the international level, there is evidence of negotiation
since, in the Phillippines, Kenya and Hong Kong, World Englishes dominates.
In Sri Lanka and Malaysia, usage is evenly distributed, suggesting negotiation
at the national level.
The data in table 7 were extracted from web pages in December 2012, thus
they represent the result of negotiation over an unspecified time period. A
search of the LLBA database executed on the same day as the previous search
and again in mid-September 2017 provides insight into ongoing negotiation in
the journal literature that extends over decades. In this second search, I request-
ed publications containing English or Englishes appearing “anywhere” in the
database entry. Table 8 summarizes the results of the two LLBA searches. Not
surprisingly, here too we see heterogeneity, representing tension between the
monocentric and the pluricentric approaches. Although the choices are con-
siderably expanded, the single-system (i.e., English) perspective is dominant,
appearing in more than 65 percent of the entries in 2012. In the intervening
80 Chapter 3
years, the pluricentric approach has gained ground, most noticeably in the
phrase World Englishes. Nevertheless, this choice remains less dominant than
the Corpus of Global Web‑Based English search would lead us to believe.
Table 8 also shows that the English as an International Language construction,
first documented in 2000, already has garnered more than 2,300 citations, over-
shadowing the other 12 single-system alternatives. Consistent with Eckert’s
(2011) observation on negotiation (i.e., that the sound changes of popular
female adolescents are adopted while the innovations produced by the less-
popular girls languish), the wide acceptance of English as an international lan‑
guage contrasts sharply with the level of uptake of either Post Imperial English
or Globalizing English, both of which have remained infrequent.
An example of ongoing negotiation at the community level is provided by
Sankoff, Wagner, and Jensen’s (2012) study of a “retrograde life span” syntactic
change (113) in Québec. While the majority (80%) of the participants in a panel
Table 8 Competing constructions for the entity/entities perceived as historically and/or

structurally related to language use in the British colonial empire in the LLBA
database in 2012 and 2017
Construction Earliest Number of Percent Number of Percent

date citations 2012 citations 2017
(2012) (2017)
English as a lingua franca 1974 331 6.4 584 8.5

Lingua Franca English 1976 34 .6 48 .7
English Around the World 1978 139 2.7 153 2.2
International English 1978 193 3.8 235 3.4
English as a global language 1987 110 2.1 156 2.2
English as a world language 1994 80 1.6 92 1.3
English in Britain and overseas 1994 23 .5 24 .4
English languages 1994 133 .9 162 2.4
World English 1994 191 3.8 168 2.6
World Englishes 1994 1441 28 2268 33
Global English 1995 118 2.3 181 2.7
Post imperial English 1997 4 .08 4 .06
Globalizing English 1998 3 .06 3 .04
English as an international language 2000 2319 45 2727 40
Global Englishes 2003 21 .4 36 .5
study decreased inflectional future use, continuing a centuries-long pattern, a

minority increased their use of the inflected future over time.
Díaz-Campos and Gradoville (2011), who discuss three studies of /z/ devoic-
ing in Buenos Aires, demonstrate that such negotiation can sometimes reach
resolution. The first study, (Wolf and Jiménez 1979), revealed that the upper-
class languagers behaved unlike languagers in other social groups. The second
study, (Wolf 1984), showed increased devoicing among upper-class languag-
ers. However, “numerous inconsistencies” led her to predict that devoicing
among the highest social class represented stable variation that would not
go to completion. However, Chang (2008) reveals that the change has gone
to completion. In other words, acting independently, members of the Buenos
Aires community over time negotiated consensus. The result was an emergent
system in which /z/ devoicing appears to be categorical.
In the three examples just discussed, negotiation is protracted. Convention-
alization also can proceed relatively rapidly as illustrated by the construction
on fleek. “That was a fleek move you pulled on that chic” appeared in the Urban
Dictionary in 2003, receiving 241 likes but also 307 dislikes. Slightly more than a
decade later, in June 2014, an on-line video appeared in which a young woman
described her eyebrows as “on fleek” (Cheezburger, Inc. 2007–2015). A July 2014
Urban Dictionary entry containing “Eyebrows on fleek” with 15,090 likes and
8,615 dislikes provides evidence for growing approval, implying ongoing con-
ventionalization. By October 2014, the on fleek construction was widely enough
known that Wendy’s, Taco Bell, and the International House of Pancakes used
on fleek in tweeted advertisements. The rapid accumulation of over 27,300
retweets and 18,500 favorites of “Pancakes on fleek” in October 2014 (Cheez-
burger, Inc. 2007–2015) provides additional evidence that on fleek is undergo-
ing conventionalization. On a local scale, the unanimous polite laughter in
response to my mispronunciation of on fleek as “on fleet” reveals conventional-
ization among 24 students in my fall 2015 Survey of Linguistics class even as it
reveals my then lack of entrenchment of the on fleek construction.
In contrast to the on fleek construction, none of the 19 forms whose root is
fleek listed in the Urban Dictionary in late September 2015 had large numbers
of either likes or dislikes, suggesting they are not widely conventionalized.2
Like many slang terms, fleek and on fleek ultimately may be short lived. In
contrast to slang, which tends to be ephemeral, once conventionalized, many
linguistic resources persist across generations. For example, the clitic ‘ve, dis-
cussed below, is documented as early as 1742 (Harper 2001–2016).
2 (E.g., fleekalicious ‘looking on fleek’, fleeked out ‘on fleek to the extreme’, and fleeky ‘awesome,
splendid’.).
82 Chapter 3
Constructions from the comic strip, Get Fuzzy, discussed above, can be used
to illustrate a third point of similarity between entrenchment and convention-
alization. Just as linguistic memories are more and less strongly entrenched at
the level of the individual, constructions range from highly conventionalized
sequences that are deployed by large numbers of languagers to loosely con-
nected, low-frequency syntagmatic sequences like today name. For example,
a search of synonymous with and but unknown in in the 155-billion-word The
Google Books (American) Corpus (Davis 2011–) demonstrates that the former
with 413,360 tokens is more highly conventionalized than the latter which has
only 25,934 tokens. Not surprisingly, there are no tokens in the corpus for butt
unknown suggesting that it is not conventionalized.
Despite the assumed normalcy of monolingualism promulgated by the lan-
guages ideology, entrenchment and conventionalization share a fourth char-
acteristic. Just as idiolects can be composed of linguistic resources initially
conventionalized by different cultural groups, entities reified as mixed lan-
guages, jargons, pidgins, creoles, and contemporary urban vernaculars provide
evidence that languagers can conventionalize resources developed by multiple
communities.
A fifth similarity linking entrenchment and conventionalization is that, as
discussed above, at the level of the individual and at the level of the group,
language is a continually emerging complex system characterized by hetero-
geneity, gradience, ambiguity, and unpredictability. Order at the level of the
individual continually emerges from changes in levels of the entrenchment.
I remember clearly when I first encountered “I should of gone to the game” in
a student’s composition more than twenty years ago. Although I found the
student’s substitution startling, I was immediately able to appreciate its para-
digmatic and syntagmatic relationship to the other members of the modal +
verb construction. Despite their rarity, such insights demonstrate of the emer-
gent nature of the idiolect. In a parallel fashion, order at the level of the group
results from continually emerging expectations for situated use by multiple
languagers that arise from the independent choices and the interpretation of
those choices. For example, Labov (2010:8) attributes the stability of what are
described as regional dialects to many languagers adopting the choices of the
dominant community even in cases where parents’ languaging provides an al-
ternative model. For this reason, just as frequency data at the level of individ-
ual can be interpreted as evidence for degrees of entrenchment, asymmetric
frequency distributions can provide evidence for degrees of conventionaliza-
tion at the level of the group.
3.2 Conventionalization as a Complex Emergent System: Lexical Items
Kretzschmar (2009:198–209) and his students repeatedly have shown, that

whether aggregated by region, state, gender, or ethnicity, ranked frequency
distributions of lexical and phonological variables in linguistic atlas data sets
reveal a few commonly used and hence highly conventionalized alternatives
along with considerable individual difference. Piantadosi (2014) finds similar
“near Ziphian” distributions for lexical items on the Swadish list for 17 distinct
linguistic regions ranging from Basque country to New Zealand and for alter-
natives within several semantic domains. Thus, complex emergent system
analysis offers a compelling alternative model of what have been separately
theorized as language variation, grammaticalization, historical change, dialect
leveling, creolization, and language shift, all of which examine linguistic pat-
terns for groups of individuals. This approach is explored in Bybee (2010) and in
Kretzschmar (2009, 2015) who describe complex systems as resulting from the
independent actions of agents or entities that produce patterns of languaging
during situated use. The ultimate fate of linguistic alternatives and the social
forces that impel languagers to enact those fates differ in particular instances.
These differences, which both reflect and influence expectations for situ-
ated use, produce asymmetrical frequency distributions of linguistic tokens.
Because the distributions are corpus dependent, the system itself is emergent,
not fixed. Human language in its entirety is a complex system as are smaller
data sets created by individuals responding to local conditions.
The usefulness of approaching lexical choice as an emergent complex
system is illustrated by data gathered by Auburn University students between
2013 and 2016. The students, using a methodology developed by Burkette
(2009)3 surveyed self-identified Alabamians who spoke or wrote the terms they
would use to ask for the items pictured below if they were to visit a local fur-
niture store. Figures 9 and 10 show the total forms collected between 2013 and
2016. For the first furniture item, shown in figure 9, all 481 responses provide ev-
idence of entrenchment by the individuals responding to the survey. Wardrobe
and armoire were most highly conventionalized responses; each of these terms
made up 26 percent of the total. Cabinet accounted for an additional 9 per-
cent of responses. The majority of the 80 furniture terms provided for this item
(51 of them or 65 percent) were offered only by single respondents, suggesting
low levels of conventionalization.
3 For this highly successful language variation instructional project, I am indebted to Allison
Burkette, who generously provided the images which she designed for her original survey.
84 Chapter 3
Figure 9 Furniture names for provided by Alabamians collected between 2013 and 2016
Figure 10 Furniture names for provided by Alabamians collected between 2013 and 2016
Table 9 Number of cumulative responses in the Language Variation furniture-terms surveys
Survey year Responses for Responses for Responses for Responses for
2015 (N = 1,259) 280 (52 types) 324 (63 types) 330 (38 types) 325 (57 types)
2016 (N = 1963) 463 (71 types) 481 (80 types) 513 (53 types) 506 (75 types)
Names for the second furniture item, shown in figure 10, show a different con-
figuration of conventionalized forms. Of the 531 responses provided by sur-
vey respondents, drawers, chest of drawers, and dresser accounted for a total
of 27, 24, and 21 percent of responses respectively. All other terms were offered
much less frequently.
The importance of understanding language as an emergent complex rather
than a static homogeneous system is demonstrated by comparing the data col-
lected from the furniture-item survey compiled in 2015 with the larger data set
that was available in 2016. In its entirety, the survey examined the four furni-
ture items pictured in table 9. By the end of spring 2015, 1,259 survey responses
distributed across the four furniture pieces had been collected. In 2016, 704
additional responses were added to the data set.
In spring 2015, for furniture item one, there were 280 responses (tokens) dis-
tributed across 52 lexical items (types) of which 37 (71 percent) were produced
by only a single survey respondent. The tokens for furniture item one increased
to 463. These were distributed across 71 lexical items of which 44 (61 percent)
percent were singletons.
In spring 2015, the second furniture item garnered 324 different responses
distributed across 63 types of which 44 (70 percent) were singletons. By spring
2016, the number of tokens had increased to 481 and the number of types had
increased to 80, 52 (65 percent) were singletons.
In spring 2015, there were 330 tokens provided for the third image. These
were divided into 38 types. Twenty five of these or sixty-six percent of these
were singleton responses. By spring 2016, there were 513 tokens used to name
this piece of furniture, These were divided into 53 types. Forty-four or 83 per-
cent of these were provided by only a single person.
In spring of 2015, the fourth furniture item was named by 325 individuals
who produced 57 furniture names. Of these, 35 (61 percent) were provided by
only a single respondent. The following spring, the number of tokens for this
86 Chapter 3
item had increased 506. Of the 75 different names provided, 44 (59 percent)
were provided by only a single respondent.
Comparison of tables 10 and 11 further illustrates the corpus-dependent na-
ture of linguistic analysis. The tables show the five most highly conventional-
ized terms for each of the four furniture items in the 2015 and 2016 data sets.
Table 10 shows these five lexical items account for between 64% and 86% of
the data consistent with what Kretzschmar describes as the 80/20 rule in which
“relatively few types will account for most of the tokens and the remaining ac-
count for a much smaller group” (2015:86). In table 11, the range is somewhat
closer, between 68% and 84%. In each case, although the details of the distri-
butions differ, there is a sharp drop off in the frequency rankings. Moreover,
even for the most highly conventionalized forms, inspection of the tables re-
veals that the addition of data is impactful: there are changes in the frequency
and, thus, the ranking of the furniture names. For furniture item one, drawers
and chester drawers in table 10 are replaced by chest and tall chest in table 11.
For furniture item two, closet in table 10 is replaced by dresser in table 11. For
furniture item three, the order of nightstand and chest in table 10 is reversed in
table 11, and for furniture item four, armoire in table 11 replaces chest of drawers
in table 10. Thus, while under the influence of the languages ideology, large cor-
pora give the impression of stabilized conventionalization, comparison across
data sets brings emergent order into shape focus.
Table 10 Alabamians’ conventionalization of four furniture terms in the 2015 data set
N % N % N % N %
chest of 94 34% wardrobe 85 26% drawers 128 39% dresser 126 39%
drawers
dresser 78 28% armoire 76 23% chest of 83 25% vanity 75 23%
rawers
bureau 25 9% cabinet 20 6% dresser 38
12% dresser with 29 9%
mirror
drawers 8 3% armoir 16 5% nightstand 17 5% dresser with 10 3%
a mirror
chester 7 3% closet 12 4% chest 15 5% chest of 5 2%
drawer drawers
Percent 212 77% 209 64% 281 86% 245 74%
of forms
Table 11 Alabamians’ conventionalization of four furniture terms in the 2016 data set
N % N % N % N %
chest of 151 33% wardrobe 127 26% drawers 137 27% dresser 197 39%
drawers
dresser 123 27% armoire 124 26% chest of 124 24% vanity 127 33%
drawers
bureau 26 6% cabinet 42 9% dresser 107 21% dresser 48 9%

with mirror
chest 12 3% armoir 18 4% chest 40 8% dresser with 12 2%

a mirror
tall chest 12 3% dresser 14 3% night- 17 3% armoire 7 1%

stand
Total 326 72% 325 68% 427 83% 381 84%
These data demonstrate that a great many languagers know and use highly
conventionalized terms such as chest of drawers, wardrobe, and dresser.
Nevertheless, as shown by the high percentage of singleton responses, indi-
vidual idiolects differ qualitatively and quantitatively in terms of which and
how many memories are likely to have been entrenched for each furniture
item and with respect to the productive and receptive probabilities associated
with each entrenched memory. Increasing the sociocultural diversity of the
pool would further increase the number of types and tokens further adding to
the possible number of combinations of names available for describing of the
four furniture items as a set. In other words, one person might describe these
furniture items with chest of drawers, wardrobe, drawers, and dresser while
another might choose Yorkshire dresser, entertainment cabinet, three-drawer
shaker chest, and double dresser with mirror. Moreover there is no limit on how
many additional terms an individual might entrench.
In a second example, the frequency data for the pronoun forms shown in
table 1 is reprinted here as table 12. Plotting these data produces another asym-
metric pattern representing conventionalized alternatives. This is shown in
88 Chapter 3
figure 11. In contrast to the furniture terms, for pronoun forms there are there
are no singletons. Nevertheless, because forms other than am occur at low
rates, the characteristic asymmetric frequency distribution of an emergent
system appears.
Table 12 Distribution of third person singular pronoun forms produced by six Virgin Islanders
[am] [an] [ham] [um] [han] [em] [m] Total
Mr. Roberts 1541 1 2 0 1 0 0 1545

Mr. Joshua 748 17 288 0 5 0 0 1058
Mrs. Stevens 273 317 0 14 0 3 0 607
Mr. Testamark 100 0 6 0 0 0 0 106
Mr. Christian 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 43
Mr. Prince 17 0 12 0 0 0 2 31
Total 2722 335 308 14 6 3 2 3390
Percent of total 68.22% 8.40% 7.72% 0.35% 0.15% 0.08% 0.05% 84.96%
Figure 11 Distribution of third person singular pronoun forms produced by six Virgin Islanders
The most highly conventionalized variant, am, which is used by all six languag-
ers, occurs at a rate of 68 percent. One speaker, Mr. Christian, produces only
am. If this pattern of use is representative, then for this speaker, pronoun use
may indeed seem fixed. However, this is an illusion. Mr. Christian retains the
option to use other forms in the future. Moreover, as a member of a linguistic
community in which the other forms are deployed, the forms Mr. Christian
hears will continue to modify his entrenched linguistic memories.
In addition to being languager-dependent, the probability that Virgin
Islanders who used both ham and am would choose the former reflects case,
phonological environment, and discourse patterning (Sabino 1986). Nearly all
of the ham tokens (98 percent) occur in subject position. However, nearly as
many (94%) occur after a pause. Additionally, there is a strong tendency to
concord at the string level (D. Sankoff and Laberge 1978). That is, many of the
strings containing ham are sequential, as in example 13) below taken from a
story told by Mr. Joshua (de Jong 1926, # 7).
13) ham a lo a di plantai.

3.sg pst go loc the farm
‘S/he went to the farm.’
ham a ful ši bik ha lo pin am.

3.sg pst feel 3.sg.poss belly pst prog pain 3.sg
‘S/he felt her stomach was hurting her.’
ham a se, wama ši bik lo pin am?

3.sg pst say shy 3.sg.poss belly prog pain 3.sg
‘S/he said, “Why (is) her stomach hurting her”?’
ham a se: enten fuluk nu bi hi.

3.sg pst say neg person neg cop here
‘S/he said, “No one is here”.’
ham a se: mi ale wun hi.

3.sg pst say 1.sg alone live here
‘She said, “Only I live here”.’
so am a kri en juŋkin
so 3.sg pst get a child
‘So she had a baby.’
90 Chapter 3
ham a se; hoso di so a ko?

3.sg pst say how the son pst come
‘She4 said, how did the son come (to be born)?’

However, as shown in example 14) from Mr. Joshua’s retelling of the Perseus
myth (de Jong 1926, # 2), ham also alternates with am in subject position, when
the preceding clause contains ham, and following a pause.
14) weni am ha fin ši ma a di temple,

when 3.sg pst find 3.sg.poss mother loc the temple
‘When s/he found his/her mother in the temple,’
ham a fin fadu jusius da.

3.sg pst find father Dictys there
‘s/he found Father Dictys there.’
am a lo a kiniŋ jusius hus.

3.sg pst go loc king Dictys house
‘S/he went to King Dictys’ house.’
The [gemde] data discussed in chapter 2 can also be viewed from the perspec-
tive of conventionalization as shown in figure 12. When orthographic represen-
tation, pronunciation, and the four meanings (labeled 1, 2, 3 4 in the figure) are
considered concurrently, analysis of the 2015 survey data reveals 56 different
understandings of [gemde]. The most frequent combinations are gameday,
with equal stress on the syllables, meaning ‘the weekend of a sporting event
and related activities’ (16%) and game day, again with equal stress on the two
syllables, also meaning ‘the weekend of a sporting event and related activities’
(12%). Fourteen individuals of the 506 survey takers were unique – that is, they
provided combinations of written form, spoken, and definition, provided by
no one else in the data set.
3.3 Conventionalization as a Complex Emergent System: Open Slots in

Constructions
As was the case with lexical choice, corpus studies provide insight into the
working of probability with respect to the open slots in constructions. For ex-
ample, the np + modal + have construction discussed above contains several
4 Here the meaning potential is narrowed by the discourse and knowledge of the world.
Figure 12 Conventionalization of [gemde] orthographic representations, pronunciations, and meanings
Conventionalization and the Illusion of Shared Grammar
91
92 Chapter 3
open slots. The pronoun most likely to occur in the pronoun + ‘d + ‘ve variant
of this construction5 is skewed. In the Corpus of Historical American English
(Davies 2010–), this variant occurs only with he or I. Moreover, 81 percent of the
tokens are associated with the first person singular pronoun. Thus, although
utterances like I know you/she/he/we/they‘d ‘ve come if you/she/he/we/they
could ‘ve are acceptable, the I‘d + ‘ve + verb construction is the most highly
conventionalized member of the paradigm. Similar skewing suggestive of con-
ventionalized probabilistic tendencies are revealed by Boyland’s (2001) corpus
study of the you’n + pronoun construction. In that case, although the pro-
noun can be either I or me, Boyland indicates that I is more likely.
As for stand-alone lexical items, the choices associated with open slots
in constructions can be ordered in terms of frequency of use. The graph of
14 forms6 that can that fill the modal slot in the Corpus of Historical American
English (Davies 2010–) appear in figure 13. Ranking the tokens from most to
Figure 13 Asymmetric frequency distribution of variants of the np + modal + have construction

from The Corpus of Historical American English (Davies 2010–)
5 Citing Boyland (1996), Bybee (2010:51) discusses this construction as evidence for “loss of
compositionality and analyzability” albeit without quantitative information.
6 The modals matched in the correlation were would, must, might, could, should, may, and will.
Table 13 Segments preceding abobo ~ abo ~ bo
Type Preceding Vowel Preceding Consonant Preceding Pause
abobo 64% (N = 9) 36% (N = 5) 0

abo 43% (N = 3) 57% (N = 4) 0
bo 54% (N = 83) 46% (N = 72) 0
least frequent produces the expected asymmetric distribution. As predictable

from the written (as opposed to oral) sources on which the corpus is based,
full forms tend to occur more frequently than reduced forms. However, a com-
parison of matched rankings for full and cliticized modal variants reveals a
more complex view of conventionalization. A positive correlation (rs = .82,
p < .05) exists that indicates a pairing of etymologically related forms. That is,
in addition to would have being more frequent than, will have, would’ve is more
frequent than will’ve.
Although not included in the figure, the corpus also contains tokens of woul‑
da, musta, mighta, coulda, and shoulda, variants that reveal the effects of neu-
romotor efficiency at the level of the individual. Not surprisingly, since these
forms occur primarily in oral discourse, there is no correlation between the
frequency of these forms and that of either the modal + have or the modal +
‘ve tokens. Also not represented in the graph are 329 tokens of the less widely
conventionalized modal + of + verb variant. The frequencies associated with
the variants for ‘above, on’ discussed in the previous chapter provide another
useful illustration of the relationship between neuromotor efficiency, frequen-
cy, entrenchment, and conventionalization. The distribution for abobo, abo,
and bo according to phonological environment, as documented in the de Jong
(1926) texts, appears in table 13.7 Visual inspection of the tokens indicates that
the alternation is not phonologically conditioned.
What then conditions the alternation? Bybee (2010:43) identifies predict-
ability as the “impetus for the phonetic reduction that creates new exem-
plars,” repeatedly demonstrating that phonological reduction is facilitated by
frequency of occurrance. Since predictability is characteristic of the conven-
tionalization of slots in constructions, it is instructive to consdier whether this
applies to the distribution of abobo, abo, and bo.
Table 14 shows the distribution of forms that precede abobo, abo, and bo.
Examination of the words that precede more than one variant indicate that,
7 ^bo and ^bobo do not occur in these data.

94 Chapter 3
Table 14 Collocates that precede two or more forms of abobo ~ abo ~ bo
Preceding word abobo abo bo
[di] ‘it’ 2 1 13
[klim] ‘climb’ 1 0 6
[kri] ‘get’ 0 1 8
[rak] ‘reach 2 0 1
[ko] ‘come’ 2 0 1
Figure 14 Asymmetrical frequency distribution of words that precede variant forms of abobo ~
abo ~ bo
in contrast to phonological environment, there is a discernable difference in

the frequency with which items fill the slots preceding each of these forms.
Even in this small data set, the most frequent collocates precede the most re-
duced form, bo: di ‘it’, klim ‘climb’ and kri ‘get’. Moreover, ranking the words
that precede these variants according to frequency produces the asymmetric
frequency distribution diagnostic of an emergent system, as shown in figure 14.
The effect of following forms is even stronger. With the exception of di ‘it’,
and following pause, most items following abobo and abo also occur once. The
picture for bo is quite different. For bo, we again see an asymmetric frequency
distribution demonstrating that at the level of the group, usage is probalistic,
not fixed.
Figure 15 Asymmetric frequency distribution of words that occur after variant forms of abobo
~ abo ~ bo
3.4 The Role of Conventionalization in Linguistic Change
Hoenigswald (1986:179) locates “‘yesterday’s syntax’ in ‘today’s morphology.’”

Similarly, Bybee (2010) points out that, in addition to phonological reduction,
highly frequent sequences can become conventionalized as semantic wholes.
For instance, although džumb bo ‘jump on’ and flig bo ‘fly above’ are syntac-
tically analyzable as instantiations of the verb + prep construction, flig bo
‘attack’, sla bo ‘beat’, and ki bo ‘watch’ are better analyzed as semantic units.
The fa bo construction provides an even more striking example. It is possible
to understand fa(n) bo as ‘off of/from’ as in 15). However, five of the fourteen
tokens of fa bo in the de Jong texts occur in the formulaic phrase shown in 16)
in which fa (never fan) is a rhythmic element devoid of meaning.
15) an no kan kri di juŋ fa bo ši rigi. (de Jong # 5)

3.sg neg can get the youth from on 3.sg. poss back.
‘S/he could not get the youth off of his/her back.’
16) en fa bo en tit … (e.g., de Jong # 9)

one __ on a time …
‘Once upon a time.’
96 Chapter 3
When open slots in constructions can be assigned alternative interpretations,

conventionalized form/meaning potentials with partial semantic common-
ality emerge (Bybee 2010). When this occurs repeatedly, grammaticalization
chains (Heine, Claudi, and Hünnermeyer 1991) emerge in which the original
semantic content of a lexical item decreases as functional load increases.
Sabino (2012a:174–175) discusses the grammaticalization chain for preverbal lo,
presented here in examples 17 a–f, in order to illustrate an additional way in
which conventionalization can impact the open slots in constructions.
Languagers in the Danish West Indies deployed verbs in isolation as main
verbs and in symmetrical and asymmetrical serial verb constructions. Lo ‘move
in a direction away from the speaker’ served both functions. Minor verbs in
asymmetrical serial verbs are commonly conventionalized as tense, mood, and
aspect markers while imperfective aspect markers are recruited to encode
proximate future (e.g., Creissels 2000; Parkvall 2000; Aikhenvald 2006). In ex-
ample 17a, lo ‘go’ occurs as a single lexical main verb. In example 17b) lo appears
as a minor verb in an asymmetrical serial verb construction with a directional
and/or purposive meaning. In example 17c), lo is a major verb in a symmetrical
serial verb construction. In examples 17d) and 17e), lo encodes iterative and
progressive aspects. In 17f), lo functions as a marker of proximate fu-
ture. The directional and purposive meaning potentials of the asymmetrical
verb and the progressive meaning of aspectual lo are associated with the con-
ventionalized unit lo slap which can be interpreted as ‘go to sleep’, ‘asleep’, and/
or ‘sleeping’ depending on the context.
Unitary Verb
17a) an ka lo a hus. (Mrs. Stevens 007A)

3.sg pfv go loc home
‘S/he had gone home.’
Serial Verb – minor element
17b) am ∅ lo kri di duksak mais ko gi di

3.sg pst dira/purp get the sack corn come give it
hunduhan (de Jong # 46)
rooster
‘S/he went away and got/to get the sack of corn and returned and gave/
to give/ it to the rooster.
Serial Verb – major element
17c) am ha flig lo (de Jong # 2)

3.sg pst fly go
‘S/he flew away.’
Imperfective Aspect
17d) am a ha am lo kok ši jit, lo

3.sg pst have 3.sg ipfv cook 3.sg.poss food, ipfv
pik houtu, lo dra watu fo am (De Jong # 9)
gather wood ipfv carry water for 3.sg
‘S/he repeatedly had him/her cooking his/her food, gathering wood,
and fetching water for him/her.
17e) wene hun ha bin lo spil, puši maŋke di. (Mrs. Stevens 010A)
when dog have bone ipfv play cat want it
‘when a dog is playing with a bone, a cat wants it’
Proximate Future
17f) mi lo fluk senu leluk. (Mrs. Stevens 023A)

1.sg pfut curse 3.pl bad
‘I am going to curse them out.
The understandings and inferences that emerge and are stored in the minds
of individuals derive from situated use as we meet one another’s expecta-
tions. What we think of as linguistic change begins when an individual’s newer
memories are activated at higher frequencies than the older ones. However,
as Bybee (2010) and Burkette (2009) demonstrates, emergence of a new con-
struction, although it affects probability of use, need not result in the banish-
ment of older terms. Hopper (1991) describes such modifications as layering.
For phonological alternations, Sabino (1994, referencing Dressler 1972 ) appeals
to lexical fading, demonstrating that low frequency forms persist even as they
continue to be used by fewer and fewer individuals.
Change becomes transgenerational when the entrenched memories of
multiple individuals are strengthened or weakened across the overlapping
life spans of generations. For example, egg (historically eggja) and edge are
98 Chapter 3
variants, but because egg (v.) remains only in the egg on construction, semester
after semester, my language variation students are surprised by this relation-
ship. Similarly only a few of my students recognize the relationship between
the root of the adverbial alot and the discount store Big Lots.8 In the same vein,
individuals who have not entrenched the song lyric “While strolling through
the park one day in the merry, merry month of May …” complete the statement
Christmas is in the merry, merry month of __________ with December.
Under conditions of sociocultural stability, the conventionalization of
grammatical elements results from the cumulative language use by multiple
languagers across generations. Under conditions of substantial instability, as
in situations of cultural contact, changes in frequency of use and hence chang-
es in levels of entrenchment can be pronounced within and across generations
of languagers.
In contrast to the way in which linguistic change occurs, as a matter of
method, historical-comparative reconstruction compares homogeneous ab-
stract systems produced by members of isolated linguistic communities at dif-
ferent points in time. The assumption of cultural isolation is at least partially
addressed by focusing on core vocabulary and stable grammatical subsystems.
However, the assumption that abstract linguistic systems exist cannot be simi-
larly salvaged. For all but the novice languager, the linguistic resources of in-
dividuals are quite varied, overlapping across time and geographic and social
space. Instead of modifications to homogeneous systems, what occurs across
the generations is the processing and deployment of linguistic resources by
individuals, each with his or her own unique, heterogeneous idiolect. Once
linguistic resources are understood as produced and processed only by indi-
vidual minds, linguistics is forced to reexamine how we understand linguistic
contact, variation and change. It is not languages that change; rather languag-
ers’ expectations for situated use and the frequencies with which these expec-
tations are met change.
Similarly, with respect to dialect leveling and language shift, because dia-
lects and languages do not exist, they neither level nor shift. Thus, like the
ideograph language change, the terms dialect leveling and language shift are
misnomers, motivated by linguistic description and grammar writing which
idealizes highly conventionalized alternatives and ignores or fails to discover
less frequent form/meaning potentials. Whether the number of highly con-
ventionalized linguistic resources is increased (as in grammaticalization),
8 Here too there is idiolectal variation with respect to the entrenchment of form/meaning po-
tentials. For example, in Janet Evanovich’s High Five (2000:73), a banker says, “What’s with
you? You want some money? I gotta lot.” (73).
modified (as in historical change), or decreased (as in dialect leveling and lan-
guage shift), in all four cases, languaging modifies the distributional probabili-
ties of entrenched linguistic resources, impacting conventionalization.
3.5 Summary
Adopting the perspective of usage-based grammatical theory and understand-

ing human language as an emergent, complex system, this chapter argues that
conventionalization lies behind the illusion of grammatical structure. Tackling
what Backus (2014) identifies as the primary challenge of a descriptively ade-
quate linguistic theory, the discussion defines conventionalization as a process
in which individual languagers become similarly sensitive to situationally spe-
cific expectations for the deployment of particular form/meaning potentials.
After exploring the similarities between entrenchment and conventional-
ization, the discussion next demonstrates that frequency distributions in cor-
pora provide insight into conventionalization both for lexical items and with
respect to the open slots in constructions. Crucially, following Kretzschmar
(2012, 2015), the discussion illustrates that, because language is an emergent
system, analyses are corpus specific. The final discussion in the chapter consid-
ers the role of conventionalization in what are traditionally treated as gram-
maticalization, historical change, leveling, and language shift.
The entrenchment of linguistic resources and the conventionalization of ex-
pectations for the use of those resources are part of the story. Because linguis-
tic behavior enacts belongingness, the negotiation of sociocultural identities,
and the striking of stances, in the next chapter we turn to vernacularization,
which occurs when sociocultural indexes come to be similarly interpreted.
Chapter 4
Vernacularization
The sociocultural setting is all important … providing the linguistic and

normative flexibility that allows innovative forms to develop and survive.
Cheshire 2013:627
∵
4.0 Introduction
As we language, we enact values, assumptions, beliefs, ideas, emotions.

Languaging also communicates demographic and sociocultural identities, ide-
ological stances, alliances, affiliations, and sympathies. This occurs, because
in addition to probabilistic expectations for paradigmatic and syntagmatic
patterning, rich memory contains previously negotiated sociocultural asso-
ciations that reflect the asymmetric frequencies that characterize social inter-
action. In other words, vernacularization creates our expectations about the
ways in which particular sociocultural qualities and stances are enacted lin-
guistically and helps us predict who will embrace or reject particular variants.
Vernacularization is dependent on the perception of boundaries of various
types. When such boundaries are understood to exist, linguistic choice signals
the sociocultural locations of the groups, networks, and organizations that in-
dividuals claim or reject, strengthening or undermining group cohesiveness.
In contrast to entrenchment but like conventionalization, vernacularization
is a social process during which the probabilities that contribute to the lin-
guistic choices of multiple language users become similarly and reciprocally
available. To update Bakhtin (1981:293), vernacularization is the process that
enables a linguistic choice to “taste[…] of the context and contexts in which it
has lived its socially charged life.” Vernacularization reflects the “densely lay-
ered historicity of discourse” (Blommaert 2005:131).
The distinction between entrenchment and conventionalization is widely
accepted in psycholinguistics. However, as figure 16 shows, despite the con-
siderable research that has been done on language and the performance of

Vernacularization 101
Figure 16 Google Books Ngram Viewer citations for conventionalization and

vernacularization
identity, the term vernacularization, especially in the narrow sense that I am

using it, does not yet figure prominently in the published literature. It should!
Like entrenchment and conventionalization, vernacularization emerges from
the languaging of individuals embedded in networks of contingent sociocul-
tural relations.
Eckert (2011:86) observes that the ability to manipulate “the social-indexical”
aspects of variation independently of time and place is an essential compo-
nent of successful languaging. Thus, like conventionalization, vernaculariza-
tion plays a pivotal role in culturally and linguistically heterogeneous settings
in which members of economically subordinate, multicultural communities
draw on the linguistic resources of their heritage, local, and host communi-
ties to represent themselves as individuals and as members of groups and to
influence the material and social worlds in which they live. Additionally, like
degrees of entrenchment and conventionalization, vernacularization differ-
entiates languaging described as jargons and pidgins from those described as
creoles. Vernacularization also differentiates the languaging of young children
from that of adults and the languaging of those who are actively expanding
their linguistic resources from those whose linguistic resources are sufficient
to their needs.
102 Chapter 4
4.1 Indexes, and Indexing
Identities emerge from shared experiences, goals, sympathies, and concerns.

As linguistic forms are deployed, they come to evoke similar sociocultural posi-
tions and the stances those positions sometimes entail. For example, Hensley
(1972) demonstrates that a group of African-American high school students
indexed standardized linguistic variants to friendliness, honesty, unselfish-
ness, considerateness, ambition, loyalty, diligence, happiness, luckiness, intel-
ligence, and attractiveness. However, as Le Page and Tabouret-Keller (1985:2, 4)
remind us, it is “essential” to recognize that, as entrenched linguistic memo-
ries, indexes exist only “in the minds of individuals.” It follows then, because
entrenchment is ongoing, like conventionalization, vernacularization is emer-
gent. To put it another way, as parallel and partially overlapping indexes are
(re)assigned and circulated, they draw on and create the sociocultural catego-
ries that form the basis of our linguistic identities. Like conventionalized lin-
guistic memories, highly vernacularized indexes, because they are pervasive,
are relatively stable. As the ongoing renegotiation of gender categories illus-
trates, even well-established categories are subject to change. Other indexes
are more limited and/or fleeting, emerging in particular situations. Thus, in-
dexes not only serve to signal identities, they also create the categories which
make identify performance possible (e.g., Durnati 2001, Eckert 2008).
Indexes can be of any size and degree of compositionality. For example,
Shields (2017) describes the choice of democrat rather than democratic in
constructions such as Democrat senators, Democrat leaders, and Democrat
members as disparaging and, thus, as suggestive of strong affiliation with the
Republican Party in the United States. In another example, describing an un-
intended automobile collision as a accident, an accident, a crash, or a wreck
indexes place of origin or since these choices are easily learned, regional af-
filiation. In another example, although the use of vocal fry has been treated
as a language disorder traditionally, it is now also indexed to age and gender
(Gibson 2017). A. Pitts (1986) provides a phonological example. She reports
that both glided and unglided variants (e.g., [tuzde or tjuzde]) were indexed as
prestigious but in different parts of the United States.
Allsopp’s Dictionary of Caribbean English Usage lists numerous forms that
are available for indexing Caribbean identity generally or for indexing affili-
ation with particular islands or nations. There are also lexical choices that
index ethnicity. For instance, in Trinidad and Tobago, bitter ‘sour’ is indexed
to Indic identity while bitter ‘extremely hot’ is “non-indic” (Regis 2012:14).
Regis also discusses how a third group that trace their ancestry to both Africa
and India manipulate available alternatives to encode Dougla identity. She
additionally illustrates how an Afro-Trinidadian selecting an Indic term, juljol

‘jackassness’, affirms support for his Dougla colleagues. Alternatively, Sabino
(2012a) argues that differences in syllable structure, pluralization strate-
gies, and syntactic strategies for describing complex events were retained by
African- and European-descended individuals in the Danish West Indies pri-
marily because they indexed different identities and stances.
Examples abound in which languagers and their interlocutors assign alter-
native and even conflicting indexes to the same forms used in the same sit-
uations. Take the pronunciation of the first person singular pronoun in the
United States. Choosing [a:], [ʌɪ], or [ai] can serve to signal place of origin.
It can also signal regional, ethnic, and/or class affiliation. In like fashion, among
those engaged in higher education in the United States, ain’t without prosodic
scare quotes can index one or more of the following: enthusiasm for country
music, lower working class status, advanced age, southern/rural roots, and/or
lack of education. The characteristics indexed to sammich ‘sandwich’ provide
yet another example. More than 3,500 likes on Urban dictionary.com suggest
sammich is positively indexed as a descriptor of the “holiest and mightiest of
all sandwiches.” However, due to the simplification of the [ndw] sequence,
sammich is also indexed to linguistic immaturity. Kellogg Company exploits
the second index in a series of television commercials to advance a quality
trope (i.e., that they use only matured cheese in their product). In the adver-
tisement for Cheez It Sandwich Crackers, a lab-coated technician and the
cheese wheel he is charged with evaluating converse on a set that viewers have
come to recognize as the Cheez‑It maturation testing room. The man shows
the cheese wheel a box of the product which the cheese wheel enthusiasti-
cally describes as ‘sammiches.” After a series of failed attempts to correct the
cheese wheel’s pronunciation, as in previous commercials, the man judges
the cheese wheel to be immature (ispot.tv 2016).
Conflicted indexing also emerged with respect to former vice presidential
candidate Sarah Palin’s use of non-standardardized [in] instead of standard-
ized [ɪŋ]. Some American voters positively indexed her choice to authen-
ticity while others negatively indexed it to a lack of political sophistication.
Alternatively, indexes can be marked in certain circumstances but unmarked
in others. For example, Urciuoli (1995:529, citing Urciuoli 1991) explains that
whether Puerto Ricans living in New York City index a linguistic choice posi-
tively or negatively depends on the speaker’s ethnicity (i.e., African American
or European American descent).
Once vernacularized, indexes can reveal outsiders and imposters. For exam-
ple, the inappropriate claiming of insider status lies behind rejection of tour-
ists use of the phrases ‘yeah, mon” and “no problem, mon” in the Caribbean.
104 Chapter 4
A mismatch of index and a performance also results in rejection. For example,

Carroll O’Connor’s was widely criticized by my Alabama students for his in-
accurate deployment of phonological variants indexed for southern identity
in his depiction of a police chief in The Heat of the Night. Such mismatches
can result from over generalization as the indexical relationship between
r-lessness and residence in the United States causes a child in the United States
Virgin Islands to imitate his teacher’s r-less speech as r-ful. Similarly, Goodwin
and Alim (2010:186) comment on the “reductive representation of wealthy,
white femininity” that emerges with some performances of features associated
with “Valley Girl talk.” My students’ reaction to Ching’s (2001) analysis of the
second person plural forms used by a Tennessee judge occasions yet another
example. Although my students have heard an American northerner (me) use
[jɔl] and southerners use [ju] and [juz gaiz], they found it surprising that a
southern judge used both forms. Alternatively, mismatches between behavior
and an index can result from normative pressures as illustrated by an early
matched-guise study. Hensley (1972) reports, that although non-standardized
lexical, phonological, and syntactic alternatives were “prevalent” among the
group of high school students whose indexing she examined, it was the stan-
dardized variants that produced evaluations of commonality.
Increasingly, attention is turning to the fluid nature of indexes and the agil-
ity with which languagers deploy them. Patrick (2002:19) makes this point with
respect to the “typically heterogeneous and manifold norms” of Caribbean
communities that are “asymmetrically weighted” as a result of colonization,
both historical and present-day. Burkette (2007:294) demonstrates that the
frequency with which individuals chose to deploy a-prefixing (e.g., he came
a-runnin) and non-standardized past tense forms allow story tellers to index
community solidarity while displaying a range of orientations to “ongoing so-
cial and economic change.” Besnier (2013:469) illustrates how, individuals are
able to use exploit linguistic resources to index “conflicting positions, contra-
dictory dynamics, and divergent agendas.”
Eckert (2008) also provides compelling examples of indexical fluidity based
on her own work and that of Zhang (2005). In the first instance, as shown in
table 15, use/nonuse of the features Exkert discusses is indexed to gender and
group membership. However, while Jock males use none of the features and
burnout females use them all, none of the linguistic choices index either cat-
egory directly. For example, non-use of the first three features by jock males
also characterizes the languaging of burnout males. Similarly, the languaging
of burnout females and jock females is characterized by æ > eə, a > æ, and ə > a,
although burnout girls deploy these choices more frequently. However, like the
languaging of jock males, the languaging of jock females avoids ʌ > ɔ, ai > oi,
ɛ < ʌ, and multiple negation. Moreover, while burnout girls and burnout boys
Table 15 Frequency of use of [æ, a, ə, ʌ, ai, e] and multiple negation in a Detroit high school.
(Adapted from Eckert 2008:459.)
Linguistic feature Burnout females Burnout males Jock females Jock males
æ > eə •• •
a>æ •• •
ə>a •• •
ʌ>ɔ •• •
ai > oi •• •
ɛ<ʌ • •
multiple negation • •
Choices marked by •• are used more often than those marked with an •.
Table 16 Use of rhotacization, interdental pronunciation of dental sibilants, and full tone in
Beijing. (Adapted from Eckert 2008:461.)
Linguistic Feature Female state Male state Female Male

workers workers yuppies yuppies
Rhotacization •• •• •
Interdental
pronunciation
• ••
Full tone •• •
Choices marked by •• are used more often than those marked with •.
both use ʌ > ɔ, ai > oi, ɛ < ʌ and multiple negation, frequency of use for ʌ > ɔ and
ai > oi, differentiates these groups.
Zheng (2005) shows a similarly fluid situation exists in Beijing. Again, we see
that use of particular features overlaps gender and group identities. The lan-
guaging of state workers is characterized by a high frequency of rhotacization.
However, male yuppies also rhotacize, albeit less frequently. Frequency, with
respect to the pronunciation of dental sibilants, also differentiates female and
male state workers. Similarly, while use of full tone distinguishes state workers
from yuppies, it is the frequency of use for this feature that indexes yuppie gender.
Giles and Billings (2006:201) provides a number of additional examples in
their comprehensive review of the literature on speaker evaluation studies,
106 Chapter 4
reporting that, “judgements about how people actually sound and speak … can
themselves be a constantly redefining, social construction process and depen-
dent on social cognitive biases.
4.2 Intersections: Vernacularization, Conventionalization, and the

Languages Ideology
There is value in considering conventionalization and vernacularization as

separate process. There is also value in keeping in mind that positive index-
ing enhances the likelihood of increased conventionalization. The spread of
on fleek provides a good illustration of the interrelatedness of these two pro-
cesses. In the early twenty-first century, the Urban Dictionary entry for the
adjective fleek received more “dislikes” than “likes,” suggesting limited conven-
tionalization. Slightly more than a decade later, the use of on fleek in tweet-
ed fast food advertisements documents both increased conventionalization
and vernacularization: the cachè of on fleek was being exploited to increase
sales. Because I had missed the advertisements, I first encountered evidence
for the positive vernacularization of on fleek as youthful and trendy when a
local weather forecaster commented, “As the kids say, the weather is going to
be on fleek.”1 Additionally, since the forecaster is neither youthful nor trendy,
his deployment attempted to renegotiate the index, in order to make on fleek
appropriate for use by a member of an older, established generation.
In a second example, Cheshire (2013) illustrates that the positive indexing
of the first person singular pronoun man with “pop-cultural street credibility”
(Cheshire 2013:620) among economically and culturally marginalized British
adolescents drives frequency of use, enhancing conventionalization. Bucholtz
and Hall (2005:591) provide additional examples of individuals “disrupting nat-
uralized associations between specific linguistic forms and specific social cat-
egories.” The interaction between vernacularization and conventionalization
is also evident in research focusing on language choice by persons of African
descent in the United States (e.g., Fordham and Ogbu 1986, Morgan 2002).
Here, in addition to the positive indexing of ingroup forms, it is the negative
indexing of standardized forms as representing approval/allegiance to Anglo-
American culture that prompts the emergence and persistence of alternative
linguistic preferences.
Under the sway of the languages ideology, the intersection of vernacu-
larization and conventionalization makes possible labeling and analyses of
1 This mention occurred on the October 4, 2015 edition of WSFA 12 News at 6:00.
constellations of similarly indexed linguistic choices. For example, the idea

that “entire linguistic systems such as languages and dialects [can be] in-
dexically tied to identity categories” (Bucholtz and Hall (2005:597) motivates
Wassink and Curzan’s (2004:176) solution to the “thorny problem of naming”
discussed in the introductory chapter. The same intersection prompts Talmy
(2004) to describe the languaging of high school ESL students in Hawaii as
“FOB” ‘fresh off the boat’. Similarly, Lowery et al. (2013) adopt the labeling of
inappropriate use of terms of endearment and inclusive first-person plural
pronouns (e.g., Now, let’s take our medicine, dear) when addressing elders as
elderspeak. The colonial literature is rife with labels like Babu English, Pidgin
(English), and Negerengels.
The labeling of constellations of similarly indexed linguistic choices – what
(Errington 2001:34) describes as the demarcation and naming of “massively
variable … human talk” into languages – is requisite for language standard-
ization. For this reason, although the forces that lead to standardization can
increase degrees of conventionalization, for conventionalization to lead to
standardization, vernacularization is required. In other words, the selection
and codification that characterize standardization requires agreement among
individuals that only some of linguistic alternatives are worthy of use. Whether
through formal means involving dictionaries and grammars or informal means
via correction and ridicule, it is the agreed upon positive and negative indexing
of forms to sociocutural categories and stances that propels the expectation
that certain choices will be deployed by increasing numbers of individuals in
increasing domains of use. Thus, standardization does not occur when norms
are imposed. Instead the narrowing of linguistic choice proceeds for linguistic
alternatives that are indexed to prestigious identities and accepted as appro-
priate for highly valued sociocultural activities such as religious observance,
legal proceedings, scientific communication, education, and literary produc-
tion. Alternatively, the indexing of linguistic choices to undesirable attributes
can lead to marginalization, linguistic purism, and linguicism. For example,
consistent with the Western prescriptive tradition, Heryanto (2006:57) ob-
serves that “it is the very notion and success of language Development [sic]
that has engendered the conviction among contemporary Indonesians that
their language is ‘bad and incorrect.’”
4.3 Summary
Drawing again on the construct of rich memory, vernacularization is defined

as the parallel and partially overlapping entrenchment of indexes that link
108 Chapter 4
linguistic forms with the sociocultural positions of individuals, groups, net-

works, and organizations. In both conventionalization and vernacularization
linguistic memories of multiple language users become reciprocally available.
Nevertheless, I argue these processes are distinct. The discussion then turns
to the nature of indexes, illustrating that across individuals and across time,
indexes are potential and negotiable. I next consider the ways in which con-
ventionalization and vernacularization intersect. In particular, I argue that
vernacularization is an essential component of standardization. Whether pos-
itive or negative, it is indexing that leads to the narrowing of linguistic choice.
Chapter 5
Conclusion
The logical conclusion that we can draw from complex systems is that
there is really only one human language and the phenomena that we
have perceived as different languages are actually levels of scale within
the overall complex system of human language.
Kretzschmar 2015:79–80
∵
5.0 Introduction
Human language is a species-specific entity that, as a product of our individual

and group histories, is shaped by our interactions across time, and across social
and geographic spaces. The asymmetric frequency profiles presented in the
previous chapters and elsewhere by scholars such as Kretzschmar and Burkette
repeatedly demonstrate substantial degrees of uniformity are achieved only by
a minority of available variants – those that are highly conventionalized. In
fact, as Hooper (2015:304) points out, shared “grammar contracts” as data sets
increase in size.
Despite repeated challenges over the course of millennia, the languages
ideology has congealed, animating grammatical systems with “a high degree
of uniformity in both the categorical and variable aspects of language pro-
duction” (Labov 2010:1). It has promulgated the normalcy of monolingual-
ism, legitimized judgments of acceptability and deviance, and promoted the
centrality of “a congruence model of linguistic and ethnic/racial identity”
(Hutton 2002:136). In theoretical and applied work, the language ideology mo-
tivates a phonocentric view of languaging and sustains a cascade of constructs
that, when examined critically, are found to represent competition among
variants that result from rich linguistic memories entrenched in the minds of
individuals. Among these are constructs that are so familiar that theory and
practice treat them as real: (ab)normal transition, bilingualism, code switch-
ing, convergence, error analysis, first language, fossilization, grammaticality,
interference, interlanguage, language death, language revitalization, matrix/
embedded language, mother tongue, nativization, (non)native speaker, target

110 Chapter 5
language, transfer, World Englishe(s), and the names in the Ethnologue.

Gumperz (1972:219) provides a particularly succinct articulation of the lan-
guages ideology, revealing its ties to a historical and contemporary fascination
with what literary scholars describe as the Other:
Most groups of any permanence, be they small and bounded by face-to-

face contact, modern nations divisible into smaller subregions or even
occupational associations or neighborhood gangs, may be treated as
speech communities, provided they show linguistic peculiarities that
warrant special study. The verbal behavior of such groups always consti-
tutes a system. It must be based on finite sets of grammatical rules that
underlie the production of well-formed sentences, or else messages will
not be intelligible [emphasis added].
Eagleton (2007:27) lists four factors that inhibit ideological change in academic
disciplines. All four are applicable here. The first factor is a perception that
ideological change is already in progress. In the present case, this is manifest
in repeated criticism that separate, countable, bounded linguistic systems do
not exist; with the introduction of terms such as metro-, multi-, poly-, pluri- and
translanguaging; and with a redefinition of languages as social constructs.
Eagleton’s second factor is recognition that the inaccuracy and the injustice
engendered by the prevailing ideology is counterbalanced by greater benefits.
As Gadet and Hambye (2014, fn 2) admit, “[w]e would prefer not to name these
language practices (due in particular to the risk of essentializing them), but
we feel that it is impossible to totally avoid a cover term (if not a categoriza-
tion)….” Bucholtz’s (2003) discussion of “strategic essentialism” mentioned in
the introduction also exemplifies this second factor. Reluctance to be drawn
into the fragmentation of post-modern, post-structural, and post-colonial the-
orizing also contributes to the persistence of the languages ideology.
Eagleton’s third factor reflects the strength of dominant positions that ac-
crues from the continual reenactment of the ideology in discourse. Related
to this, Jaspers and Madsen (2016) raise the issue that confusion will arise
with when new competing new ideogoraphs are proposed. Similarly Wolfram
(1998, quoted in Wassink and Cruzan 2004:178) comments on the difficulty
of “argu[ing] against the existence of something that everyone calls by the
same name.”
The final reason for ideological persistence stems from satisfaction with the
insights gained from the current perspective. In the current case, generative
linguistic theory remains dominant because many are convinced of its valid-
ity. Additionally, there is a concern that there is too much at stake for things to
Conclusion 111
change. The protracted “linguistic wars” insightfully described by R. A. Harris

(1995) demonstrate this with respect to the challenge Transformation Grammar
posed to American Structuralists. With respect to the languages ideology, ca-
reers, including my own, have been made by analyzing reified systems. But this
is only the tip of the iceberg with regard to languages ideology’s economic im-
pact. The maintenance of linguistic systems that differ markedly from situated
use provides profit for those producing dictionaries, grammars, and rhetorics
as well as employment for those who work for them. It also creates employ-
ment for administrators who supervise instructional settings, for those teach
children and adults in public and private instructional settings, for those who
prepare these individuals to do so. Similarly, those who design and conduct
language assessment and those who construct and maintain the settings in
which language study takes place benefit from the as a result of the persistence
of the languages ideology.
Scientific progress is characterized by the replacement of limited under-
standings of phenomena with those that are more insightful. Thus, it comes as
no surprise that the concept of a language as bounded, structured systems has
proven to be a useful fiction. Nor is it surprising that, as a human activity, lin-
guistic analysis and theory making are encumbered with ideological baggage
collectively sustained by discursive ritual reenactment. However, although lin-
guistic ideologies are “unavoidable” (Woolard 1998:4; see also Irvine and Gal
2000 and Pennycook and Otsuji 2016), they can be negotiated and transformed
even as they are ritually reenacted. Thus, which ideology shapes our under-
standing of languaging is not predetermined. Rather “[t]he struggle of reason
consists precisely in overcoming what the [sic] understanding has made rigid”
(Hegel 1830, par 32). If we are to progress, we must overcome. Kretzschmar
(2015:34) provides a strongly worded call for change: “What those interested
in language should now get used to, from the evidence of complex systems, is
that any variety we name actually exists as an observational artifact that comes
from our perceptions of the available variants.”
5.1 Repeated Calls to Action, Repeated Ideological Reenactment
Although from later perspectives, previous understandings can appear quite

bizarre, the mind’s ability to entertain inconsistency has slowed scientific ad-
vancement in a number of disciplines. Like belief in giants, dragons, spontane-
ous generation, the great flood, witches, and biological races, the languages
ideology is sustained by the mind’s ability to entertain logical incongruities.
It persists despite the discoveries of nineteenth-century dialect geographers
112 Chapter 5
that forced the rejection of homogeneous regional speech communities. It has

survived more than half a century of sociocultural research that has moved us
beyond free variation by developing an understanding of sociocultural index-
ing. Insights from critical discourse analysis that point to the constitutive and
power-based nature of language use have not displaced the languages ideol-
ogy, nor has our inability to establish a definitive, “coherent and theoretically
valid” means of distinguishing one language, dialect from another (Haugen
1972b:242).
Of course, there have been numerous and repeated attempts to push the
field forward. For example, in addition to admissions with respect to the het-
erogeneity of human languaging discussed in the introduction, Jespersen
(1946) offers a characteristically1 sexist yet insightful observation that
… so far at least as language is concerned, the truth seems to be that one

must neither define ‘mankind’ by ‘man’ nor ‘man’ by mankind’, but must
constantly strive to understand the individual by help of the whole and
the whole by help of the individual (or rather, of individuals); the particu-
lar man is only what he is, and his language is only what it is, in virtue of
his life in the community and the community only exists in and in virtue
of the particular beings who together, constitute it (4).
About the same time, Zipf (1949:ix, quoted in Krug 1998), based on his explora-
tions of frequency effects, calls for “a more cogent theory and more instruc-
tive [linguistic] data.” Decades later although Haugen (1972d:325) does not
dispense with languages, he too acknowledges that a “language exists only in
the minds of its users” and points to limitations of the languages ideology. Near
the end of the twentieth century, A. Becker (1991:34) urges us to “assume there
is no such thing as Language, only continual languaging …,” and Gal and Irvine
(1995:968) point out that, in addition to no longer viewing languages as natural
objects, there is emerging appreciation of the roles that political and econom-
ic agendas play in shaping “our conceptual tools for understanding linguistic
differences.”
At the beginning of the twentieth century, R. Harris (2002:3) attempts to
“provoke” an examination of disciplinary assumptions by characterizing the
Western understanding of human language as mythical while Thorne and
Lantolf (2006) provide a survey critical of persistent efforts by Saussure,
1 For example, Jespersen (1922:250) writes, “[w]omen much more often than men break off
without finishing their sentences because they start talking without having thought out what
they are going to say”.
Conclusion 113
Bloomfield, and Chomsky aimed at eliminating languaging as an object of lin-

guistic study. The development of highly heterogeneous idiolects as a result of
migration and cultural contact also is prompting calls for theory and practice
to “reconcile structure and agency” (Block 2006:46, cited in De Costa 2010:770).
Admittedly, there have been attempts to escape the terrain of the languages
ideology. Still, in spite of repeated comment and increasing awareness and
concern, linguistics remains mired – entrapped by the rhetorical power of its
ideographs. Discourses supportive of the prevailing ideology continue to cir-
culate in discussions of linguistic theory, in description, and in application.
For example, Makoni and Mashiri (2006) call into question the concepts that
are used to understand African languages, reinventing them on the pattern of
“urban vernaculars” (82). Similarly, most chapters in Makoni and Pennycook
(2007) call for reinventing and deconstructing individual languages, and in-
sightful authors like Gadet and Hambye (2014) are unable to resist referring
to entities such as “low-prestige minority languages … Chiac, … Camfranglais”
(104), “immigrant languages,” and “vernacular French” (196). Nor is it sufficient
to argue for the importance of linguistic hybridity in the form of metro-, multi-,
poly-, pluri- or translanguaging because these implicitly multi-system-based
concepts made possible by the languages ideology continue to obscure the
functioning of idiolects.
The existence of purely categorical behavior for large groups is yet to be dem-
onstrated and the boundaries of what we think of as linguistic communities
are permeable and thus imprecise. Nevertheless, because many variants occur
at low frequencies producing the long tails found in asymmetric distributions,
linguistic analysis tends to be reductive and grammars and their applications
continue to “leak” because they typically identify only high-frequency alterna-
tives (Kretzschmar 2015:93 citing Sapir 1921:38–39). From Weinreich’s (1968:74,
fn 11) admission that some bilinguals “seem to have a single language with two
modes of expression” to Dingemanse et al.’s (2015:603) discussion of the de-
ployment of non-arbitrary morphological, syntactic, and discourse patterning
during speech, signing, and gesturing, our field has been nudged repeatedly
beyond the languages ideology. So far, despite a willingness to examine the
ways in which ideology have shaped our understanding of human commu-
nication and the accrual of linguistic resources (e.g., Woolard and Schieffelin
1994, Makoni and Pennycook 2007, Darvin and Norton 2015), as a discipline,
linguistics has remained ensnared in the long-familiar ideological terrain.
Given that scientific endeavors attempt to account for the real (as opposed
to the imagined) it is time we begin to seriously think about how familiar
ideographs obscure insights that can be gained by aligning with cognitive
neuroscientists who are attempting to understand how our individual minds
114 Chapter 5
process, accrue, store, and deploy linguistic resources across our individual life
spans. The next section illustrates how, even making small changes, we might
do so.
5.2 Liberating Insights Entrapped by the Languages Ideology
There is already considerable insightful work on situated languaging. What is

needed now is awareness of the ways in which ideographs and the discourses
they create limit our insights into human language. In other words, the chal-
lenge is to create descriptions and theory that move beyond the languages ide-
ology. A recent article by Pennycook and Otsuji (2016) on the “delanguagized
worlds of everyday practice” (261) advances our thinking. I suggest a number of
additional adjustments that speak to entrenchment below.
The study by Hernandez (2009) described in chapter 3 explains individual
difference in terms of degrees of language proficiency operationalized as ear-
lier and later bilingualism. Since early and later use reflect recency and fre-
quency (Piske, MacKay, and Flege 2001), it is not difficult to recast the article’s
conclusions in terms of differential entrenchment. Doing so points to the neu-
rological activity of agents whose later linguistic experiences in an immigrant
community are mediated to different degrees by their earlier experiences in
an ancestral community. Such framing is also consistent with viewing human
language as an emergent system.
In a second example, drawing on Chin (2001), Bucholtz and Hall (2005:590)
argue that Asian-American males who do not have access to a variety of
English indexed to their ethnicity “appropriate” African American Vernacular
English forms in order to resist the privileging of whiteness. Despite the value
of Chun’s2 documentation, I am forced to reject Bucholtz and Hall’s claim that
“entire linguistic systems such as languages and dialects [can be] indexically
tied to identity categories” (597) and the notion of appropriation. Instead, I
2 After criticism of a landlord whom the three see as unfair and unkind, there is the following
exchange:
Eric: the prototypical whitey.
Jin: ye::ah ma::n?
J H: no social skills.
Jin: but that’s not true for everyone i don’t think.
EC: Uh huh.
Jin: cause all those ghetto whiteys in my neighborhood i think they’re cool (Chun 2001:60,
partially excerpted from Bucholtz and Hall 2005:509).
Conclusion 115
see the young man deploying a conventionalized and vernacularized form/

meaning potential that he and his friends had entrenched through interac-
tion with others who also deploy this term and/or through exposure to media3
in which the term whitey is used. That the term whitey receives no special
attention in the quoted conversation suggests all four of the conversational
participants had entrenched it in parallel, developing the expectation that
it is appropriately used as a count noun to refer to persons perceived to be
of European-American descent. Approaching linguistic choice from this per-
spective accurately describes the documented languaging. It also gives rise
to the question of how, under what conditions, and by whom terms such as
Caucasian, bukra, honkey or wigger might be deployed. In turn, this might lead
to insights with respect to the emergence of order at the level of the individual
and group.
In a third example, echoing Rampton (1995), Maher (2005) offers metroeth-
nicity as a construct to explore indexing of linguistic choice to “blurred ethnic
identities” manifest in various “cool” lifestyles and aesthetic pursuits composed
of elements that are judged to be “symbols of both disaffiliation and associa-
tion” (83, 84). Recognizing parallels between Africans transhipped during the
European colonization, nineteenth British aristocrats, and the American Beat
Generation, Maher sees the deployment of linguistic choice as a tool to resist
cultural hegemony. But, as insightful as his discussion is, Maher’s contribution
is limited by his description of “cool” languagers as using “dialect as well as (but
not instead of) standard Japanese.” Maher leaves unexplored the opportunity
to examine details of entrenchment, conventionalizaiton, and vernaculariza-
tion when he describes situated languaging in Osaka as the emergence of a
new “metrodialect” that is emerging from “dialectally mixed speech” (94).
Maher’s identification of the languaging conventions of metroethnicity
as characteristic of the postnation state is a theme insightfully developed by
Jacquemet (2005). However, Jacquemet’s inexperience with language as a com-
plex system prevents him from realizing that what he describes as languaging
“lack[ing] grammatical and syntactical order” is, on the contrary, the emer-
gence of order. By way of illustration, Jacquemet discusses the conventional-
ization of ska problem ‘no problem” in Italy in 1996, which by 1998 “had spread
to interactions between Albanians and foreigners and played a major role in
the cross-cultural repertoire of Albanian stranger-handlers” (272). Consistent
3 C. Cutler 1999, Maher 2005, Møller 2011, and Cheshire 2013 provide examples of media-
enhanced entrenchment. Reading and translation have has long been recognized as aiding
entrenchment. (See Krashen and Ujiie 2005 for a recent discussion of the value of “junk”
reading.)
116 Chapter 5
with the emergent nature of asymmetric frequency distributions, Jacquemet

also tells us that “by the end of 1999, the construction ska problem had almost
disappeared, replaced by … don uorri ‘don’t worry’, whose rise he attributes to
“the penetration of American pop music,” to the popularity of an Italian TV
character (an Anglican priest named Don Uorri), and to an Italian website ad-
vertising campaign that uses “a testimonial from a fictional character” by the
same name (272).
Jacquemet continues to engage languaging beyond languages with his de-
scription of his research consultants’ migratory histories (e.g., from Albania
to Germany and the United States), domestic relationships (e.g., daughter of
a German mother and a Turkish father), occupation (e.g., translator for an
international employer), and entertainment preferences (e.g., enjoys South
American soap operas and Nuyorican hip hop). But despite his insightful de-
scriptions and his understanding that languagers have “the cognitive skills
to operate in multiple, co-present and overlapping communicative frames,”
Jacquemet’s ideological confinement is revealed when he writes of “‘languages’”
that are “mixed, translated, creolized” (266), describes situated languaging as
“newly acquired linguistic skills in a mixed idiom of Albanian, Italian, English
and personal slang” (270), and glosses xenoglossia as the “ability to speak many
languages” (273, fn12).
Like Jacquemet (2005), Otsuji and Pennycook (2010) provide considerable
insight into the linguistic choices of de/reterrirotialized (Deleuze and Guttari
1983, 1987) languagers. They insightfully refuse to “assume connections be-
tween language, culture, ethnicity, nationality or geography” (246). However,
instead of rejection, they argue for “refram[ing|” what it means to speak ‘in
Japanese’/‘in English’/‘in French’” by “transgressing and reconstituting cultural
and linguistic borders” (244) and by “assign[ing] an alternative meaning to es-
sentialism” (252). The languages ideology also shapes Otsuji and Pennycook’s
appeal to word-level lingusitic features by languagers “who do not necessar-
ily have sufficient knowledge or competence in the particular language” (247).
Ultimately, although Otsuji and Pennycook (2011) see languages as imprecisely
defined, they too accept their validity as social constructs and refer to their
research consultants as “conducting fluid conversations in a mixture of English
and Japanese” (248).
Perceiving the theoretical limitations imposed by the continued use of rei-
fied systems, Møller (2008) and Jørgensen et al. (2011) appeal to the use of lin-
guistic features to characterize the deployment of heterogeneous linguistic
resources. Møller (2008) distinguishes strongly entrenched and widely conven-
tionalized resources from those that are not yet well known or are not wide-
ly shared. For instance, Møller insightfully writes, “[to] describe these three
Conclusion 117
young men as bilinguals or multilinguals would be inaccurate.” Rather they

“use linguistic features from sets of features they know well and from sets of
features they know only what sounds like … a knowledge they could have from
movies, peers, and the local karate club, etc.” (235). However, the languages ide-
ology is reflected when he writes that “sometimes Danish, Turkish, and English
are treated as one set of linguistic features” (2008:235).
Like Møller (2008), Jørgensen et al. (2011) recognize that “some [linguistic
choices] can not very easily be classified anywhere” and that some features
“cannot be analyzed at the level of ‘languages’ or ‘varieties’ without important
loss of content” (25). They also acknowledge that some conventionalized fea-
tures are “difficult to categorize in any given language” (25). Like Pennycook
and Otsuji’s (2016), these authors contribute to the emergence of a new delan-
guaged discourse by paraphrasing English as “[words] which are conventionally
associated with the sociocultural construction labeled English” (24). However,
Jørgensen et al. see languages not as impediments to scientific enquiry but as
“important” “sociocultural constructions” that remain useful in nondiverse
environments (27). Thus, on the one hand, while they recast “does not speak
Turkish” as “does not (know or) use (very many) features which are generally
associated with Turkish …” (35). On the other hand, they write of entities such
as “Danish,” and “Standard Turkish,” and deploy scare quotes “tak[ing] it for
granted that the reader would understand our point” (35). Nothing would is
lost and much is likely to have been gained if , instead of arguing that “[t]he
analysis of features must involve if and how the features are associated with
one or more “languages” (25), they had explored the ways in which the lan-
guagers they studied indexed constructions conventionalized by particular
sociocultural groups of individuals.
Despite his interest in languagers and languaging, Juffermans (2011) also
deploys familiar ideographs, writing that 95 percent of his consultants from
Foni, Gambia, spoke Mandinka; 59 percent spoke Jola; 57 percent spoke Wolof;
35 percent spoke Fula; 43 percent understood English; 14 percent understood
Arabic; and 9 percent understood French (168). He also reports that the two
main actors in a letter-writing event were “very articulate and highly multilin-
gual” with one described as “‘effectively proficient’ in or [having] ‘mastered’
several languages” and was able to draw on “resources from a variety of other
languages in which he has a ‘basic-level’ or ‘threshold’ competence” (170).
Arguably, it would have been more laborious to have written instead of the
linguistic resources associated with particular ancestral (Jola, Maidinka, Fula,
Manjago, Wolof), political (England, France), or religious (Arabic) groups.
However, as illustrated above, Jacquemet (2005) demonstrates this can be done
without undue complication. Admittedly, it is more challenging to dispense
118 Chapter 5
with constructs like “effectively proficient” and “basic-level” (170), but eventu-
ally this has to be done as well. We cannot meet the challenge of developing
discourses that disassociate languaging from languages if we continue to use
languages-centric terms, scare quotes, and disclaimers. Until we commit our-
selves to developing more appropriate ideographs, the progress we make and,
thus the insights gained will remain only partial.
In yet another example, Eppler (2011) provides a rich description of the
languaging strategies4 that her consultants use to index their female, eastern
European, Jewish, Austrian, and immigrant identities; to establish solidarity;
to maintain positive face; and to enhance discourse coherence. Regrettably, in
order to avoid the terms bilingualism and code switching, the languages ideol-
ogy prompts Eppler to reify “Emigranto,” which she describes as a low-prestige
variety. Here too an alternative discourse is possible: as with Hernandez (2005)
nothing would have been lost had Eppler instead referred to the deployment of
conventionalized and vernacularized heritage linguistic resources entrenched
in childhood and immigrant linguistic alternatives entrenched, conventional-
ized, and vernacularized in adolescence and adulthood.
Also fully ensnared in the languages ideology, Sabino (2012a) argues that
situated use by languagers from distinct cultural heritages and with distinct
legal statuses in the Danish West Indies led to the emergence of opposing Afro-
and Euro-Caribbean identities indexed to structurally different language vari-
eties, Negerhollands and Hoch Kreol. Having come to appreciate the distorting
power of the languages ideology, I present a more nuanced description here.
Because the complex systems that continually emerge during entrenchment,
conventionalization, and vernacularization are contingent on situated use,
here as in the earlier discussion, I focus on who interacted with whom, how fre-
quently, and under what conditions. Forced to admit that little is known about
the languagers themselves or the particular situations in which individuals
expanded and deployed their resources to create community, I rely on evidence
that increased contact need not lead to increased homogeneity in asymmetric
social situations. I assume that despite communication pressures, Africans and
Europeans in the Danish West Indies negotiated the challenges of the colony’s
plantation economy in profoundly different ways as conflicting assumptions,
practices, needs, desires, and goals resulted in cycles of dominant repression
and subaltern resistence.
In the Danish West Indies, as in many Caribbean colonies, African and
European residents initially could be divided into two groups reflecting their
4 Eppler discusses latching, self completion, other completion, cooperative overlap, minimal
responses, token repetition, utterance recycling, joking, teasing, and face-saving hedging.
Conclusion 119
legal status: those who were free, privileged and empowered, and those who
were indentured or enslaved and were exploited and oppressed. The initial
settlement period between 1672 and 1688 was characterized by high death
rates. With increased stability at the end of the century, first among the
Euro-Caribbean population and then among the Afro-Caribbean population,
community formation became possible. Olwig (1985) indicates that dense,
multiplex Afro-Caribbean networks extended across plantation boundaries by
the eighteenth century. At this time, one’s legal status (enslaved or free) was
highly correlated with ancestry. As a result, despite overlapping residence pat-
terns, of 24 personal and cultural characteristics, the Afro- and Euro-Caribbean
communities shared only age, gender, and presumably sexual orientation.
Because groups produce discourses that privilege their own “concepts, view-
points, and values” (Peirce 1995, Gee 2001:538), ideological clash emerged, pit-
ting Afro-Caribbean resistance against European cultural understandings. This
resulted in “particularly harsh” (Carstens 1997:xli) repression which served to
intensify bonds within the two communities, solidifying their opposition to
one another. For example, Taylor (1888:8–9) reports that, in the 1690s, plant-
ers, primarily of Dutch, Danish, and British origin, moved from their country
estates to town for protection from both foreign invasion and from “internal
troubles.”
Europeans judged Africans to be culturally inferior and, in some instanc-
es, sub-human. At no period in the colony’s history is there evidence that
Europeans entrenched the African linguistic resources they encountered.
There was limited entrenchment of European linguistic resources by Africans
during the initial settlement period because of 1) shortened life spans, 2) psy-
chological and physical duress, and 3) the predominance of adult males.5
Later, Afro-Caribbean languagers responded individually to opportunities to
entrench the linguistic resources deployed primarily by members of the Euro-
Caribbean community. However, the colony’s “structured inequalities, exploi-
tive social and material arrangements, and asymmetric power relations” (Kea
1996:170) provided limited opportunities for Africans and their descendants to
enhance their status or to benefit from cultural assimilation.
The enslaved faced permanent residence in the colony. In contrast,
European colonists initially thought of themselves as temporary residents, re-
turning to Europe when possible. The situation changed between 1700 and 1715
as enhanced economic opportunity and improvements in infrastructure made
permanent residence increasingly attractive for the Euro-Caribbean elite. As
5 Research points to estrogen-enhanced early learning for tasks that require verbal and de-
clarative memory (Ullman 2005:148).
120 Chapter 5
commercial activity overtook agriculture on St. Thomas, the first of the three
islands colonized by the Danes, rich planters created large domestic staffs, and
personal attendants became common (Carstens 1997). This provided members
of the Euro-Caribbean elite with access to the conventionalized linguistic re-
sources of the Afro-Caribbean community. Members of the Afro-Caribbean
community serving in Euro-Caribbean households similarly had access to the
linguistic resources of those who held them in bondage. As intermediate iden-
tities emerged, alternatives that were phonologically intermediate between
those predominant in the Afro-Caribbean community or Euro-Caribbean
community were negotiated, becoming entrenched, conventionalized, and
vernacularlized during situated use. Over time, the number and strength of
network ties between the two communities increased. Individuals with inter-
ests in both groups encountered a wider range of linguistic resources more
frequently than did others whose interactions remained isolated within their
respective communities.
Consistent with the working of complex systems, individuals living in the
colony entrenched some, many, or all of the constructions that they encoun-
tered in what was and continued to be a heterogeneous linguistic environment.
As interaction, which was most likely to occur within rather than across groups,
provided opportunities for situated language use, individuals expanded their
linguistic resources and began the negotiations that would ultimately result
in conventionalization.6 During vernacularization, indexes connecting cer-
tain form/meaning potentials to particular stances and sociocultural positions
emerged further influencing patterns of use and thus propelling entrenchment
and conventionalization. In spite of attempts to impose European definitions
of culture and language on the colony’s residents, Africans and their descen-
dants conventionalized and vernacularized forms that reflected heritage
linguistic patterns. There was also some movement toward Euro-Caribbean
norms as implied by numerous proverbs that warn against “hanging your hat
higher than your head.” Additionally documentation of Afro-influenced fea-
tures in use in the Euro-Caribbean community points to the positive indexing
of local as opposed to European identity by privileged Euro-Caribbean adoles-
cents such as Jochum Melchior Magens, author of a grammar of Creolske sprag
‘creole speech’ in 1770 and a “Creols” ‘creole’ translation of the New Testament
in 1781.
6 I cannot but wonder whether the fact that in, the twentieth-century data, the third person
pronoun has the greatest number of variant forms reflects the frequency of discourses in the
Afro-Caribbean community about the behavior of the Euro-Caribbean population.
Conclusion 121
By the 1730s, a “tenuous” free Afro-Caribbean population existed on

St. Thomas (Sensbach 2005:42); in the next decade, one-third of free popu-
lation was of African descent. By the mid-eighteenth century, European cul-
tural influence was waning, and Oldendorp (1987) reports that the linguistic
resources initially conventionalized by the Afro-Caribbean community had
become indexed to rurality and what Virgin Islanders in the twentieth century
referred to as “slavery times.” These were being replaced by those indexed to
modernity and economic opportunity associated with what would soon be-
come the United States. As the century progressed, linguistic resources associ-
ated with the United States and British Caribbean were used with increasing
frequency in both the public and private spheres. By the 1930s, parallel to the
persistence of historical forms discussed by Burkette (2009), the use of form/
meaning potentials associated with the heyday of Danish rule was limited to
older adults who used low-frequency variants to conceal meaning from chil-
dren. Nevertheless, fieldwork conducted in the late 1920s and again in the 1980s
reveals African linguistic patterns persisted in vowel copying, a preference for
codaless syllables, optional plural marking limited to definite nouns, and verb
serialization. Emanuel (1970) documents abundant lexical and discourse level
African linguistic survivals.
Bearing in mind the role played by the ability to impose reception during
situated use, we can assume that individual languagers in the culturally het-
erogeneous colony encountered qualitative and quantitatively different fre-
quencies of input. We can also assume that, for a variety of reasons discussed
in detail in Sabino 2012a, individuals differentially attended to and processed
the input they encountered. The result was that, among “de/reterritorialized”
(Deleuze and Guttari 1983, 1987) and “disaggregat[ed]” (Hall 1991:123) Africans
and Europeans and among their Afro-Caribbean and Euro-Caribbean descen-
dants, partially overlapping idiolects and expectations for the deployment of
linguistic alternatives emerged. As the colony’s residents deployed their idio-
lects comprised of both shared and disparate linguistic resources to establish
and maintain social relationships, linguistic choices ranging from phonetic
elements to proverbs and discourse patterns were vernacularized to index
Euro-Caribbean and Afro-Caribbean identities. In both groups, children were
socialized to make linguistic choices that reflected their caregiver’s and their
community’s interactional norms.
The languaging produced in the colony consisted of heterogeneous pools
of variants that can be characterized by asymmetric frequency distributions.
Several of these appear in previous chapters. Although some variants were
common to both the Euro- and Afro-Caribbean communities, for particular
122 Chapter 5
moments in time, distinct asymmetric frequency distributions can be chart-

ed for tokens produced by the colony’s elite and by the those they enslaved.
However, contrary to the claims in Sabino (2012a), these distributions do not
represent Negerhollands or Hoch Kreol, Quite the contrary! Those reified
abstractions serve only to distract attention from what should be considered –
situated languaging. Finally, since languaging continually modifies entrench-
ment and thus the expectations that propel conventionalization and vernacu-
larization, frequency distributions of languaging in the Danish colony differ
not only according to individual languagers and socio-cultural group but also
with respect to genre, the period in the colony’s history in which the data were
produced, and the conditions under which they were documented.
5.3 Changing the Discourse
Like all human behavior, linguistic communication emerges from a relation-

ship between agency and opportunity. Thus, it is languaging, not languages,
that enables us to enact our identities, establish our social relationships, and
communicate our needs, wants, sorrows, and joys. This suggests that linguis-
tics has much to gain from exploring the ways in which form/meaning poten-
tials are keyed to situations of use. Based on this insight, the previous chapters
provide a rationale for abandoning the assumptions and conceptual frame-
works that undergird the languages ideology and urge developing linguistic
theory that locates individual variability at its center. Theorizing languaging
without languages, on the one hand, will investigate the ways in which situated
use provides opportunities to entrench memories of auditory patterns, kinesic
sequences, paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations, negotiated meanings, and
situation-specific expectations for the deployment and interpretation of lin-
guistic resources across human life spans. On the other hand, it will encourage
exploration of the processes by which an individual’s linguistic resources come
to partially overlap the accrued resources of others. Further, in order to con-
front the difficult questions of how people store the resources they control and
why they deploy them as they do, we must be open to exploring the hetero-
geneity, gradience, ambiguity, and unpredictability that characterizes human
language as a complex system.
Whether among the folk or in the academy, familiar messages predicated on
unfounded assumptions reproduce discourses that prevent us from thinking
precisely and rationally. Parallel to academics’ superstitious belief in biologi-
cal races (B. Fields 1990), the reified bounded, structured, symbolic systems of
the languages ideology limits precise and rational thinking. Like all ideologies,
Conclusion 123
the languages ideology has circulated discursively, asserting the normalcy of

dominant groups, attributing difference (or more maliciously, deviance), and
disadvantaging those who are less powerful.
The injustice and marginalization produced by quotidian engagements with
the languages ideology are all too familiar. Under its domination, linguistic
choice functions as a vehicle for establishing, maintaining, and enforcing op-
pressive social relations. Hence the intimate association of language and rac-
ism and the distinction between pure (homogeneous) and corrupted/broken
(heterogeneous) languages that emerged as a result of cultural contact in the
Caribbean. Similar ideologically imbued notions of acceptability are in control
when a citizen of Mexico is lynched for using his ancestral linguistic resourc-
es in Texas (Delgado 2009) and when linguistic behavior that is frequent in
the southern United States is differentiated into a bounded, highly structured
system and christened “Southern English.” In contrast, the ideological shift I
propose enhances opportunities for considering how political and economic
agendas shape our conceptual tools and the ways in which we deploy them. That
is, seeing human language as continually produced by and influencing usage-
based neural networks of probabilistic responses to ongoing discourses draws
attention to concepts such as agency, desire, identity, resistance, and affiliation.
McGee (1980:4) tells us that ideologically determined truth and falsity
are rhetorically dependent on “normative commitments.” Although it is dif-
ficult, these can be modified – even replaced – by eliminating the practices
that sustain them. As I demonstrate above, this requires negotiating more
exact ideographs and circulating new discourses. As a beginning, if an object
of linguistics is to “promote and protect” language rights (Linguistic Society
of America 1996), linguists who do not believe in the categories and concepts
that sustain the languages ideology must resist the temptation to deploy them.
After all, if languages do not exist, some cannot be more complex or refined
than others. Moreover, replacement should not occur by half measure. It is
not enough to reject “syntactocentricism” (Jackendoff 2003, cited in Evans and
Levinson 2009:32) or to replace hard-wired rules with constructions. Nor can
we simply redefine languages as social constructs or signal our discomfort with
scare quotes in order to go about business as usual (e.g., Eckert 2011, Otsuji
and Pennycook 2011). As the researchers I cite demonstrate, to be insightful,
a new ideology must recognize that interaction between individuals who are
simultaneously members of multiple and fluid sociocultural groups is the
norm for our species. It must acknowledge that the dynamic entrenchment
of linguistic resources reflects situated languaging both in terms of produc-
tion and in terms of processing. It must reveal the similarities and differences
between conventionalization and vernacularization. Our new ideology must
124 Chapter 5
also reflect an awareness that grammatical descriptions are “epiphenomenal”

(Hopper 1987:142), created “after the fact” Kretzschmar (2015:76). It will remain
beneficial to trace the ebb and flow of forms and frequencies though time and
across social space in pooled data sets. However, we need to remember that,
as we negotiate meaning in particular temporal, geographic, and social spaces,
it is idiolects that change as linguistic memories are entrenched and the net-
works that connect them emerge, are strengthened, or wither away. In other
words, while it is both possible and interesting to aggregate the languaging of
multiple individuals, there are no languages.
In addition to laying waste to the assumption of linguistic legitimacy and
deviance, theorizing about languaging will lay waste to animating metaphors
in which putative bounded grammatical systems, not human beings engage in
linguistic activity. It also has the potential to free us of phonocentricism and
to escape the limitations of “monolingual and monoglossic ideologies” (García
and Li 2014:136). Creating discourses that embrace the theoretical, method-
ological, and applied opportunities inherent in viewing languaging from the
perspective of entrenchment, conventionalization, and vernacularization is
consistent with Johnstone’s (1996) assertion that we will only move forward
by examining the products of languaging at the micro level and with the
continual emergence of order repeatedly revealed in linguistic atlas data by
Kretzschmar and Burkette. Such discourses also position us to explore “varia-
tion in the norms individuals orient to” (Blommaert and Rampton 2011:par 36)
and, thus, to reveal how different communities’ “parameters of variation” con-
tribute to degrees of linguistic (in)tolerance (Carrington 1992:6).
The languages ideology would have us believe that learning an unfamiliar
language is a daunting task. Not so. Languaging “is the result rather than the
prerequisite of cooperative action” (Coulmas 2005:143). Thus, it is individuals’
“attunement” to one another (Thorne and Lantolf 2006, citing Rommetveit
1992) and their “willingness” to engage (Rajagopalan 2012:379) that empowers
communication. Canagarajah (2010:238) argues that helping language learn-
ers develop “metalinguistic awareness” of how languaging works will facilitate
their attempts to expand their linguistic resources. When such awareness in-
cludes approaching languaging as I suggest, learners can come to appreciate
that, when we lack relevant linguistic memories, every form/meaning potential
has a frequency of zero. Moreover, since conventionalization and vernacular-
ization entail parallel communicative expectations, it follows that entrench-
ing such expectations requires the processing and production of linguistic
resources deployed in new social environments. At first glance, such reframing
may seem little more than awkward tactical maneuvering. However, the ideo-
graphs we choose to deploy either undermine or reinforce the understanding
Conclusion 125
that linguistic resource expansion is a natural, ongoing process that humans

engage in whenever we encounter new linguistic resources.
In addition to improving educational outcomes, approaching linguis-
tic resource expansion from the perspective of languaging has the potential
to resolve the paradox of the instability of “interlanguage systems” (Larsen-
Freeman 1997:156). Similarly, combining insight into how linguistic resources
are stored and modified in the human brain with increased understanding of
conventionalization and vernacularization also may facilitate unpacking what
has been discussed as fossilization.
Reformulating constructs created to theorize languages will ultimately
lead to dismantling the subdisciplines that our belief in reified systems has
spawned. For example, we can recast heritage languages as home languaging
practices and mother/native tongues as the linguistic resources convention-
alized and vernacularized by the sociocultural group into which one is born
and/or by the group by which one is raised. So-called nonnative speakers and
language learners can be thought of as individuals using or attempting to use
the conventionalized and vernacularized linguistic resources of a group to
which they do not belong. Code switching and bi-, metro-, multi-, poly-, pluri-
and translanguaging can be discussed as the deployment of a single linguistic
repertoire composed of conventionalized and vernacularized form/meaning
potentials developed by more than one sociocultural group, as when linguis-
tic resources indexed to colonial power are used in discourses in which re-
sources indexed to indigenous rights also occur. As a byproduct, the challenge
of uniquely assigning linguistic elements to particular languages – a concern
raised decades ago by G. Sankoff (1980) and Christie (1983) and more recently
by Bobda and Mbouya (2005), Pennycook (2010) and Léglise and Migge (2012) –
disappears. Additionally, what we think of as borrowing can be discussed in
terms of degrees of conventionalization. For example, Weston and Gardner-
Chloros (2015:197) that point out that American citizens raised in Poland expe-
rience tęsknota in example 20a) differently from those who have no experience
with Polish people or culture. Similarly, persons born in New York City will
likely experience schlemiels in example 20b) differently from a reader born in
rural Alabama. In other words, linguistic resources described as nonce bor-
rowings and foreign loan words or les mots juste) are less frequent and thus
less widely conventionalized than linguistic resources traditionally labeled as
integrated borrowings.
20a) I am suffering my first, severe attach of nostalgia, or tęsknota – a word

that adds to nostalgia the tonalities of sadness and longing (Hoffman
1998:4).
126 Chapter 5
20b) Working hard in your chosen profession … when there’s no reward,

and no possibility of improving your conditions, and when anything
may happen tomorrow, is for fools and schlemiels (Hoffman 1998:15).
Although I am forced to reject constructs like metro-, multi-, poly-, pluri- and
translanguaging as languages-centric, I applaud the insights behind their de-
velopment and recognize that those who propose these ideographs also un-
derstand that continuing to reduce imaginary entities to their constituent
parts will not increase our understanding of human languaging. Recognizing
that rejection is only helpful when an alternative is offered, in the preceding
chapters I draw on sociocultural studies of situated language use and research
on language ideology, the history of linguistics, neurocognition, usage-based
grammatical theory, and language as a complex system in order to compel
consideration of a linguistic theory of languaging without languages. Equally
important is my desire to mitigate the pernicious effects of othering, disen-
franchisement, and marginalization on theory and practice that hinge on the
“ideologization of language use” (Woolard and Shieffelin 1994:56). My concern
emerges from over four decades of work with languaging in the Caribbean, a
region in which the languages ideology has been used to define linguistic nor-
malcy and shape educational policy and practice.
Both objectives are met if we conceptualize human languaging as produc-
ing idiolects composed of entrenched linguistic memories. Parallel and par-
tially overlapping entrenchment produces the coordinated expectations of
language use that characterize conventionalization and vernacularization. It
is these processes that are implicated in the distinctions we make between
those who know and those who do not know, between those who are learning
and those who are fully competent. Such an understanding leaves no room
for valuing one individual’s entrenchment or conventionalization of linguistic
resources over another’s. Nor can we argue this variety or that one is (un)ac-
ceptable in one domain or the other because (non)standardized languages,
mixed languages, creoles, sociolects, and interlanguages exist only when they
are conjured up by analysts who, relying on erasure, produce abstractions that
consist of the most frequent and/or prestigious form/meaning potentials.
In his poem Among the School Children, Yates (1928) asks, “How can we
know the dancer from the dance?” It is useful to ask the same question with
respect to human language. If linguistics is to contribute to an understanding
of what language is and how we humans create, store, and use it, we must de-
velop ideographs and produce insightful discourses that explore the relation-
ship between the languager and languaging.
Appendix I
Variable length of oyster in millimeters from conversations with six individuals last-
ing about 45 minutes. Variables influencing length include word class (noun, verb,
adjective), following phonological environment (word, constituent boundary), posi-
tion in discourse, and word stress. Lengths are arranged in descending by position in
discourse.
Speaker 1 Speaker 2 Speaker 3 Speaker 4 Speaker 5 Speaker 6
0.56 0.50 0.40 0.45 0.47 0.61

0.51 0.48 0.53 0.56 0.37 0.52
0.43 0.35 0.50 0.53 0.43 0.33
0.45 0.32 0.41 0.40 0.54
0.33 0.38 0.37 0.31 0.54
0.45 0.22 0.39 0.25 0.53
0.33 0.37 0.35 0.60
0.49 0.41 0.28 0.43
0.35 0.43 0.46 0.49
0.54 0.40 0.29 0.46
0.41 0.33 0.40 0.34
0.54 0.40 0.48 0.34
0.31 0.30 0.38 0.30
0.41 0.49 0.38
0.49 0.52 0.30
0.31 0.33 0.43
0.34 0.37 0.43
0.44 0.44 0.30
0.35 0.36 0.32
0.59 0.38 0.23
0.44 0.27 0.26
0.24 0.28 0.36
0.34 0.38 0.33
0.54 0.47 0.43
0.54 0.34 0.26
0.23 0.27 0.35
0.30 0.50 0.40
0.34 0.34 0.39

128 Appendix I
(cont.)
Speaker 1 Speaker 2 Speaker 3 Speaker 4 Speaker 5 Speaker 6
0.35 0.42 0.24

0.27 0.41 0.39
0.34 0.37
0.58 0.23
0.50 0.33
0.27 0.34
0.25 0.33
0.49 0.37
0.45 0.24
0.24
0.39
0.25
0.37
0.36
0.36
0.32
0.38
0.43
0.51
Bibliography
Abutalebi, Jubin, Marco Tettamanti, and Daniella Perani. 2009. “Editorial.” Brain &
Language 109.2/3: 51–54.
Adams, Nancy. 2015. Advertisement for DeRamus Hearing Centers. Opelika-Auburn
News. April 8, 5A.
Aikhenvald, Alexandra. Y. 2006. Serial verb constructions in typological perspective.
In Alexandra Y. Aiknenvald and R. M. W. Dixon (eds.), Serial Verb Constructions:
A cross-linguistic typology, 1–68. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Alighieri, Dante. 1304–1305. Steven Botterill [trans.] De vulgari Eloquentia. http://
www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/modernlanguages/people/lines/community/
kenilworth/term2-wk9-dante-reading_2.pdf (3 December 2013).
Alleyne, Mervyn C. 2010. From ‘then’ to ‘now’: Interrogating the ‘creole’ concept. A paper
presented at the 18th Biennial Meeting of the Society for Caribbean Linguistics,
Barbados.
Alleyne, Mervyn C. 1982. Theoretical Orientations in Creole Studies. Mona, Jamaica:
Language Laboratory, University of the West Indies.
Allsopp, Richard. 1996. Dictionary of Caribbean English Usage. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Almeida, Diogo, David Poeppel, and David Corina. 2016. The processing of biologically
plausible and implausible forms in American Sign language: Evidence for percep-
tual tuning. Language, Cognition, and Neuroscience 11.3: 361–374.
Ameel, Eef, Gert Storms, Barbara C. Malt, and Fons Van Assche. 2008. Semantic conver-
gence in the bilingual lexicon. A paper presented at the 30th Annual Meeting of the
Cognitive Science Society. http://csjarchive.cogsci.rpi.edu/proceedings/2008/pdfs/
p53.pdf (1 September 2014).
Anderson, Benedict. 2006. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the origin and spread
of nationalism, revised edition. NY: Verso Books.
Anonymous. 2014. Still destroyed in Bullock County. Opelika-Auburn News. August 22, 3A.
Anonymous. 2007. Nobel winner in ‘racist’ claim row. http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH
/science/10/18/science.race/index.html?iref=topnews (26 September 2014).
Ashcroft, Bill. 2008. Caliban’s Voice: The transformation of English in post-colonial litera-
tures. London and NY: Routledge.
Backus, Ad. 2014. Towards a usage based account of language change: Implications
of contact linguistics for linguistic theory. In Robert Nicolaï (ed.), Questioning
Language Contact: Limits of Contact, Contact at its limits, 91–118. Leiden: Brill.
Baheri, Tia. 2013. Your ability to can even: A defense of internet linguistics. The Toast.
The Internet. http://the‑toast.net/2013/11/20/yes‑you‑can‑even/ (5 September 2017).
130 Bibliography
Bailey, Benjamin. 2007. Heteroglossia and boundaries. In Heller, Monica (ed.)

Bilingualism: A social approach, 257–274. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
http://works.bepress.com/benjamin_bailey/55/ (30 June 2016).
Bailey, Richard. W. 2011. Speaking American: A history of English in the United States.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Baker, Philip. 1990. Off target. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Language 5.1: 107–119.
Bakhtin, Mikhail. M. 1981. Michael Holquist (ed.), Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist
(trans.) The Dialogic Imagination: Four essays. Austin, TX and London: University
of Texas Press. http://www.public.iastate.edu/~carlos/607/readings/bakhtin.pdf
(16 September 2015).
Baptista, Marlyse. 2012. On Universal Grammar, the bioprogram hypothesis, and creole
genesis. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 27.2: 351–376.
Barlow, Michael. 2013. Individual differences and usage-based grammar. International
Journal of Corpus Linguistics 18.4: 443–478.
Baronchelli, Andrea, Ciro Catto, Vittorio Loreto, and Andrea Puglisi. 2007. Complex
systems approach to the emergence of language. http://www.tagora-project.eu/wp
-content/2008/06/paper_sleb2007.pdf. (30 November 2012).
Bates T. C., M. Luciano, S. E. Medland, G. W. Montgomery, M. J. Wright, N. G. Martin.
2011. Genetic variance in a component of the language acquisition device: ROBO1
polymorphisms associated with phonological buffer deficits. Behavior Genetics 41.1:
50–7.
BBC Trending. 2016. Presidential debate: Trump’s ‘Bad Hombres’ quip inspires mucho
mocking memes http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs‑trending‑37711067 (25 October
2016).
Becker, A. L. 1991. Language and languaging. Language and Communication 11.1/2: 33–35.
Becker J. D. 1975. The phrasal lexicon. In Roger Schank and Bonnie L. Nash-Webster
(eds.), Theoretical Issues in Natural Language Processing, 60–63. Cambridge, MA:
Nolt Bernback and Newman.
Bell, Al1an. 2014. The Guidebook to Sociolinguistics. Malden, Massachusetts: Wiley-
Blackwell.
Bennett, Bertha A. 1910. Physical training. Posse Gymnasium Journal 18.11: 8. https://
books.google.com/books?id=o5waAQAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=
gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false (1 March 2016).
Besnier, Niko. 2013. Language on the edge of the global: Communicative competence,
agency and the complexity of the local. Language and Communication 33.4: 463–471.
Bialystok, E. and Kathleen F. Peets. 2010. Bilingualism and cognitive linkages: Learning
to read in different languages. In Marilyn Shatz, Louise C. Wilkinson (eds.), The
Education of English Language Learners: Research to Practice, 133–151, NY/London:
The Guilford Press.
Bickerton, Derek. 1981. Roots of Language. Ann Arbor, MI: Karoma Publishers.
Bibliography 131
Bickerton, Derek. 1975. Dynamics of a Creole System. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

University Press.
Bloch, Bernard. 1948. A set of postulates for phonemic analysis. Language 24.1: 3–47.
Bloch, Bernard and George Leonard Trager. 1942. Outline of Linguistic Analysis.
Baltimore, MD: Linguistic Society of America at the Waverly Press.
Block, David. 2006. Identity in applied linguistics. In Tope Omoniyi and Goodith White
(eds.), The Sociolinguistics of Identity. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Blommaert, Jan. 2005. Discourse: A Critical Introduction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Blommaert, Jan and Ben Rampton. 2011. Language and superdiversity. Diversities 13.2.
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/002147/214772e.pdf#214780 (17 July 2016).
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. NY: Henry Holt and Company.
Bloomquist, Jennifer and Isaac Hancock. 2013. The dirty third: Contributions of south-
ern hip hop to the study of regional variation within African American English.
Southern Journal of Linguistics 37.1: 1–27.
Blumenthal‑Dramé, Alice. 2012. Entrenchment in Usage‑Based Theories: What corpus
data do and do not reveal about the mind. Berlin: DeGruyter Mouton. https://
books.google.com/books/about/Entrenchment_in_Usage_Based_Theories.html
?id=5br3GAmAyYIC] 6/28/2016.
Blumstein, Sheila E. 2009. Reflections on the cognitive neuroscience of language.
In Michael S. Gazzaniga (ed.), The Cognitive Neurosciences, 4th edition, 1235–
1240. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. www.hse.ru/data/2011/06/28/1216307711/
Gazzaniga.%20The%20Cognitive%20Neurosciences.pdf (17 November 2013).
Bobda, Augustin Simo and Innocent Fasse Mbouya. 2005. Revisiting some linguistic
concepts and beliefs in the light of the sociolinguistic situation of Cameroon. In
James Cohen, Kara T. McAlister, Kellie Rolstad, and Jeff MacSwan (eds.), Proceedings
of the 4th International Symposium on Bilingualism, 2122–2132. Somerville: Cascadilla
Press.
Bogetic, Ksenija. 2016. Metalinguistic comments in teenage personal blogs: Bringing
youth voices to studies of youth language and technology. Text & Talk 36.3: 245–68.
Bolinger, Dwight. 1976. Meaning and Memory. Forum Linguisticum 1.1: 1–14.
Bonfiglio, Thomas Paul. 2013. Inventing the native speaker. Critical Multilingualism Studies.
1.2 http://cms.arizona.edu/index.php/multilingual/article/view/29/54 (1 June 2016).
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1977. The economies of linguistic exchanges. Social Sciences
Information 16.6: 645–668.
Bowden, H. W., C. Sanz, and C. A. Stafford. 2005. Individual differences: Age, sex, work-
ing memory, and prior knowledge. In Christina Sans (ed.), Mind and Context in Adult
Second Language Acquisition: Methods, theory and practice, 105–140. Washington,
DC: Georgetown University Press.
132 Bibliography
Boyland, Joyce Tang. 2001. Hypercorrect pronoun case in English? Cognitive processes
that account for pronoun usage. In Joan L. Bybee and Paul J. Hopper (eds.), 383–405.
Brinsley, John. 1622. A Consolation for Our Grammar Schooles. London: Printed by
Richard Field for Thomas Man, dwelling in Pater noster Row, at the signe of the
Talbot.
Brosh, Allie. 2010. Hyperbole and a half. http://hyperboleandahalf.blogspot.com/2010/
04/alot‑is‑better‑than‑you‑at‑everything.html (15 July 2016).
Brubaker, Rogers and Frederick Cooper. 2000. Beyond ‘identity’. Theory and Society
29.4: 1–47.
Bucholtz, Mary. 2003. Sociolinguistic nostalgia and the authentication of identity.
Journal of Sociolinguistics 7.3: 398–416.
Bucholtz, Mary and Kira Hall. 2005. Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic
approach. Discourse Studies 7: 585–614.
Burkette, Allison. 2012. Parlor talk: Complexity from a historical perspective. American
Speech 87.4: 391–411.
Burkette, Allison. 2009. The lion, the witch and the armoire: Lexical variation in case
furniture terms. American Speech 84. 3: 315–339.
Burkette, Allison. 2007. Constructing identity: Grammatical variables and the creation
of a community voice. Journal of Sociolinguistics 11.2: 286–296.
Burkette, Allison. 2001. The story of chester drawers. American Speech 76.2: 139–57.
Burling, Robbins. 2000. Comprehension, production, and conventionalization in the
origins of language. In Chris Knight, Michael Studert-Kenndey, and James R. Hurford
(eds.), The Evolutionary Emergence of Language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press. 27–39.
Busch, Brigitta and Jürgen Schick. 2010. Educational materials reflecting heteroglossia:
Disinventing ethnolinguistic differences in Bosnia-Herzegovina. In Sinfree Makoni
and Alastair Pennycook, 216–232.
Bybee, Joan. 2010. Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Bybee, Joan and David Eddington. 2006. A usage-based approach to Spanish verbs of
‘becoming’. Language 82.2: 323–355.
Bybee, Joan L. and Paul J., Hopper, (eds). 2001. Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic
Structure. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Bybee, Joan L., and Joanne Scheibman. 1999. The effect of usage on degrees of constitu-
ency: The reduction of don’t in English. Linguistics 37: 575–596.
Bynon, Theodora and F. R. Palmer (eds.). 1986. Studies in the History of Western
Linguistics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Byron, Janet L. 1978. Linguistics and the study of language standardization. Current
Anthropology 19.2: 397–99.
Bibliography 133
Cameron, Deborah. 2006. Ideology and language. Journal of Political Ideology 11.2:
141–152.
Cameron, Deborah. 1998. Introduction. In Deborah Cameron (ed.), The Feminist cri-
tique of language: A reader, 1–30. London and NY: Routledge
Canagarajah, Suresh. 2014. Professional migration, neoliberal development discourses,
and language vulnerability. https://profession.commons.mla.org/2014/10/09/profes
sional-migration-neoliberal-development-discourses-and-language-vulnerability/
(21 October 2014).
Canagarajah, Suresh. 2011. Translanguaging in the classroom: Emerging issues for re-
search and pedagogy. Applied Linguistics Review 2.1: 1–28.
Canagarajah, Suresh. 2010. After disinvention: Possibilities for communication, com-
munity, and competence. In Sinfree Makoni and Alastair Pennycook, 233–239.
Canagarajah, Suresh. 2006. TESOL at forty: What are the issues? TESOL Quarterly 40.1:
9–34.
Carr, Caleb. 1997. The Angle of Darkness. NY: Random House.
Carrington, Lawrence D. 1992. Some considerations at the crossroads of pidgin creole
studies. A paper presented at the 9th Biennial Meeting of the Society for Caribbean
Linguistics, Cave Hill, Barbados.
Carstens, Johann Lorentz. 1997. Arnold R. Highfield. (ed. and trans.). J. L. Carstens’
St. Thomas in Early Danish Times: A general description of all the Danish, American
or West Indian Islands, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands: The Virgin Islands Humanities
Council.
Carter, Bob and Alison Sealey. 2000. Language, structure, and agency: What can realist
social theory offer to sociolinguistics? Journal of Sociolinguistics 4.1: 3–20.
Cassidy, Frederick G. 1966. Multiple etymologies in Jamaican Creole. American Speech
41.3: 221–215.
Castro-Caldas A., K. M. Petersson, A. Reis, S. Stone-Elander, M. Ingvar. 1998. The illiter-
ate brain: Learning to read and write during childhood influences the functional
organization of the adult brain. Brain 121.6: 1053–1063.
Cedergren, Henrietta J. and David Sankoff. 1974. Variable rules: Performance as a statis-
tical reflection of competence. Language 50.2: 333–355.
Chadwick, R. D. 1915. Vitalizing the history of work. The History Teacher’s Magazine
6.4: 116https://books.google.li/books/about/The_Social_studies.html?hl=de&id=NF
EeAQAAIAAJ (1 March 2016).
Chambers, J. K. 1995. Sociolinguistic Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.
Chandrasekaran, Bharath, Han-Gyol Yi, Nathaniel J. Blanco, John E. McGeary, and
W. Todd Maddox. 2015. Enhanced procedural learning of speech sound categories
in a genetic variant of FoxP2. The Journal of Neuroscience 35.20: 7808–7812.
134 Bibliography
Chang, Charles B. 2008. Variation in palatal production in Buenos Aires Spanish. In

Maurice Westmorland and Juan Antonio Thomas (eds.), Selected Proceedings of
the 4th Workshop on Spanish Sociolinguistics, 54–63. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla
Proceedings Project.
Cheezburger, Inc. 2007–2015. Eyebrows on fleek. Know Your Meme. http://knowyour
meme.com/memes/eyebrows-on-fleek (19 September 2015).
Cheshire, Jenny. 2013. Grammaticalization in social context: The emergence of a new
English pronoun. Journal of Sociolinguistics 17.5: 608–633.
Childs, Tucker F. 2003. An Introduction to African Languages. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:
John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Ching, Marvin K. I. 2001. Plural you/y’all variation by a court judge: Situational use.
American Speech 76.2: 115–127.
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Linguistics and brain science. In Alec P. Marantz, Yasushi
Miyashita, and Wayne O’Neil (eds.), Image, Language, Brain, 13–28. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic Structures. The Hague/Paris: Mouton.
Christiansen, Morten H. and Nick Chater. 2008. Language as shaped by the brain.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 31.5: 489–509.
Chun, E. W. 2001. The construction of White, Black and Korean-American identities
through African American Vernacular English. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology
11: 52–64.
Collins, James. 1998. Our ideologies and theirs. In Kathryn A. Woolard, Paul V. Kroskrity,
and Bambie B. Schieffelin (eds.), Language Ideologies: Practice and theory, 256–270.
Conklin, Kathy and Norbert Schmitt. 2012. The processing of formulaic language.
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 32: 45–61.
Cook, Peter and Dudley Moore/Neil Sedaka. 1976. Lifer Follies. Saturday Night Live
Season 1, episode 11 http://snltranscripts.jt.org/75/75klifer.phtml (23 February 2014).
Cook, Vivian. 1999. Going beyond the native speaker in language teaching, TESOL
Quarterly 33.2: 185–98.
Coppieters, René. 1987. Competence differences between native and near-native
speakers. Language 63.3: 544–573.
Coulmas, Florian. 2005. Sociolinguistics: The study of speakers’ choices. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Creissels, Denis. 2000. Typology. In Bernard Heine and Derek Nurse (eds.), African lan-
guages: An introduction, 231–258. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Crystal, David. 2003. English as a Global Language. 2nd edition. Cambridge, UK:
Cutler, Alan. 2003. The Seashell on the mountaintop: A story of science, sainthood, and
the humble genius who discovered a new history of the earth. NY: Dutton.
Bibliography 135
Cutler, Anne, Jacques Mehler, Dennis Norris, and Juan Segui. 1989. Limits on
Blingualism. Nature 340: 229–230.
Cutler, Cecilia A. 1999. Yorkville Crossing: White teens, hip hop and African American
English. Journal of Sociolinguistics 3.4: 418–442.
Darvin, Ron and Bonny Norton. 2015. Identity and a model of investment in applied
linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 38: 36–56.
Das, Kamala. 2004. An introduction. Summer in Calcutta. Kottayam, India: D C Books
http://www.cse.iitk.ac.in/users/amit/books/das-1965-summer-in-calcutta.html
(16 January 2014).
Davies, Mark. 2013. Corpus of Global Web‑Based English: 1.9 billion words from speakers
in 20 countries. http://corpus.byu.edu/glowbe/ (15 November 2014).
Davies, Mark. 2011–. Google Books (American English) corpus (155 billion words, 1810–
2009). http://googlebooks.byu.edu/ (19 September, 2014).
Davies, Mark. 2010– The Corpus of Historical American English: 400 million words, 1810–
2009. http://corpus.byu.edu/coha/.
Davis, Stephen P. and David W. Marlow. 2011. Computer-mediated TESOL: Employing
technology to meet the global demand for English Instruction. Journal of System
and Management Sciences 1: 91–105.
Debes, John L. III. 1981. It’s time for a new paradigm: Languaging! Language Sciences
3.1: 186–192.
DeCamp, David. 1971. Toward a generative analysis of a post-creole speech continu-
um. In Dell Hymes (ed.), Pidginization and Creolization of Languages, 349–370.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
De Costa, Peter I. 2010. Reconceptualizing language, language learning, and the adoles-
cent immigrant language learner in the age of postmodern globalization. Language
and Linguistics Compass 4.9: 769–781.
Dediu, Dan. 2015. An Introduction to Genetics for Language Scientists: Current concepts,
Methods, and Findings. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
De Houwer, Annick. 1990. The Acquisition of Two Languages from Birth: A case study.
de Jong, Jan Petrus Benjamin de Josselin. 1926. Het Huidige Negerhollandsch (Texten
en woordenlijst). Amsterdam: Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen te
Amsterdam.
Deleuze, Gilles and Félix Guattari. 1983. Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and schizophrenia.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Deleuze, Gilles and Félix Guattari. 1987. A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and schizo-
phrenia 2. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Delgado, R. 2009. Law of the noose: A history of Latino lynching, The Harvard Civil
Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review 44. http://heinonline.org/HOL/Landing
Page?handle=hein.journals/hcrcl44&div=16&id=&page=. (14 January, 2015).
136 Bibliography
Díaz-Campos, Manuel and Michael Gradoville. 2011. An analysis of frequency as a factor

contributing to the diffusion of variable phenomena: Evidence from Spanish data.
In Luis A. Ortiz-López (ed.), Selected Proceedings of the 13th Hispanic Linguistics
Symposium, 224–238. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. http://www
.lingref.com/cpp/hls/13/paper2490.pdf (1 February, 2013).
Dil, Anwar S. (ed.). The Ecology of Language: Essays by Einar Haugen. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Dillenberger, John. 1961. Martin Luther: Selections from his writings. NY: Anchor Books.
Ding, Nan, Lucia Melloni, Hang Zhang, Xing Tian, and David Poeppel. 2016. Cortical
tracking of hierarchical linguistic structures in connected speech. Nature Neur
science 19.1: 158–164.
Dingemanse, Mark, Damián E. Blasi, Gary Lupyan, Morten H, Christansen, and Padraic
Monaghan. 2015. Arbitrariness, iconicity, and systematicity in language. Trends in
Cognitive Science 19.10: 603–615. http://ac.els-cdn.com/S1364661315001771/1-s2.0-S13
64661315001771-main.pdf?_tid=3abd24aa-8414-11e5-b333-00000aab0f27&acdnat=14
46765992_7906c8889b13afc0562aa29556cbe694 (5 November 2015).
Donohue, Mark and Johanna Nichols. 2011. Does phoneme inventory size correlate
with population size? Linguistic Typology 15.2: 161–170.
Dorian, Nancy. 2010. Investigating Variation: The effects of social organization and social
setting. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dorian, Nancy C. 1994. Varieties of variation in a very small place: Social homogeneity,
prestige norms, and linguistic variation. Language 70.4:–631–696.
Dorian, Nancy. 1981. Language Death: The life cycle of a Scottish Gaelic Dialect. University
of Pennsylvania Press.
Dorian, Nancy. 1977. The problem of the semi-speaker in language death. International
Journal of the Sociology of Language 1977.12: 23–32.
Dressler, Wolfgang U. 1972. On the phonology of language death. Proceedings of the
Chicago Linguistic Society 8: 448–457.
Dunn, Michael, Simon J. Greenhill, Stephen C., Levinson, and Russell D. Gray. 2011.
Evolved structure of language shows lineage-specific trends in word-order univer-
sals. Nature 473: 79–82. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v473/n7345/full/
nature09923.html (5 May 2014).
Dupoux, Emmanuel, Sharon Peperkamp, and Núria Sebastián-Gallés. 2010. Limits on
bilingualism revisited: Stress ‘deafness’ in simultaneous French–Spanish bilinguals.
Cognition 114.2: 266–275.
Duranti, Alessandro. 2001. Performance and encoding of agency in historical-natural
languages. Texas Linguistic Forum 44: 266–287. http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/anthro/
faculty/duranti/reprints/01perf_agency.pdf (28 January 2015).
Eagleton, Terry. 1991. Ideology: An introduction. NY/London: Verso.
Bibliography 137
Eastman, Carol M. and Roberta F. Stein. 1993. Language display: Authenticating

claims to social identity. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 14.3:
187–202.
Eckert, Penelope. 2011. Language and power in the preadolescent heterosexual market.
Eckert, Penelope. 2008. Variation and the indexical field. Journal of Sociolinguistics 12.4:
453–476.
Eckert, Penelope and Sally McConnell-Ginet. 1992. Think practically and look locally:
Language and gender as community-based practice. Annual Review of Anthropology
12: 461–490.
Eco, Umberto. William Weaver (trans.) 1995. The Island of the Day Before. NY: Harcourt
Brace and Company.
Eisenstein Ebsworth, Miriam and Nobuko Kodama. 2011. The pragmatics of refusals in
English and Japanese: Alternative approaches to negotiation. International Journal
of the Sociology of Language 2011.208: 95–117.
Ellis, Nick C. 2012. Formulaic language and second language acquisition: Zipf and the
phrasal teddy bear. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 32: 17–44.
Ellis, Nick C. 2002. Frequency effects in language acquisition: A review with implica-
tions for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition 24.2: 143–188.
Ellis, Nick C. and Diane Larsen-Freeman. 2009. Language as a Complex Adaptive System.
Malden, Massachusetts: Wiley-Blackwell.
Emanuel, Lezmore Evan. 1970. Surviving Africanisms in Virgin Islands English Creole.
Ph. D. Dissertation, Howard University.
“English”. Oxford English Dictionary. http://www.oed.com.spot.lib.auburn.edu/search?
searchType=dictionary&q=english&_searchBtn=Search (3 December 2013).
Eppler, Eva Duran. 2011. A bisserl (‘little’) English, a bisserl Austrian, a bisserl Jewish,
a bisserl female: minority identity construction on a bilingual collaborative floor.
International Journal of Bilingualism 17.1: 23–42.
Erang, R. R. 1931. Herder and the Foundations of German Nationalism. NY: Columbia
University Press.
Errington, Joseph. 2001. Colonial linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 30:
19–39.
Evanovich, Janet. 2000. High Five. NY: St. Martin’s Paperbacks.
Evans, Nicholas and Stephen C. Levinson. 2009. The myth of language universals:
Language diversity and its importance in cognitive science. http://www.ncbi.nlm
.nih.gov/pubmed/19857320 (5 April, 2013).
Fedorenko, Evelina and Nancy Kanwisher. 2009. Imaging of language: Why hasn’t a
clearer picture emerged? Language and Linguistics Compass 3/4: 839–865.
138 Bibliography
Ferguson, Charles A. 1982. Forward. In Braj B. Krachru (ed.), The Other Tongue: English
across cultures, vii–xi. Urbanna, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Fields, Barbara J. 1990. Slavery, race, and ideology in the United States of America. New
Left Review 181.5: 95–118.
Fields, Karen E. and Barbara J. Fields. 2014. Racecraft: The soul of inequality in American
Life. London/NY: Verso.
Finlayson, Roaslie and Sarah Slabbert. 1997. ‘I’ll meet you halfway with language’: Code-
switching within a South African urban context. In Martin Pütz (ed.), Language
Choices: Conditions, constraints and consequences, 381–421. Amsterdam /Philadelphia:
John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Firth, Alan and Johannes Wagner. 1997. On discourse, communication and (some) fun-
damental concepts in SLA research. The Modern Language Journal 81.3: 285–300.
Fisher, Simon E. and Gary F. Marcus. 2006. The eloquent ape: Genes, brains and the
evolution of language. Nature Reviews: Genetics 7: 9–20. http://www.nature.com/
nrg/journal/v7/n1/abs/nrg1747.html. (20 April 2013).
Flege, James Emil. 1987. The production of new and similar phones in a foreign lan-
guage: Evidence for the effect of equivalence classification. Journal of Phonetics 15.1:
45–65.
Fond du Lac School District. 1923. High School Life, 179. Fond du Lac School District,
WI. https://books.google.com/books?id=Hx0wAQAAMAAJ&q=%22The+Big+Gam
e+Day%22+life&dq=%22The+Big+Game+Day%22+life&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUK
EwjO4IfXkYfNAhVGJiYKHWkmBfUQ6AEIHDAA (1 March 2016).
Fordham, Signithia and Ogbu John U. 1986. Black student’s school success: Coping with
the ‘burden of acting white.’ The Urban Review 18.3: 176–206.
Frank, Michael C., Noah D. Goodman, and Joshua B. Tenenbaum. 2009. Using speakers’
referential intentions to model early cross-situational word learning. Psychological
Science 20.5: 578–585.
“French”. Oxford English Dictionary. http://www.oed.com.spot.lib.auburn.edu/search?s
earchType=dictionary&q=French&_searchBtn=Search (3 December 2013).
Friedrich, Paul. 1986. The Language Parallax: Linguistic relativism and poetic indetermi-
nacy. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Gadet, Françoise and Philippe Hambye. 2014. Contact and ethnicity in “youth lan-
guage” description: In search of specificity. In Robert Nicolaï, (ed.), 183–216.
Gal, Susan. 2006. Migration, minorities and multilingualism: Language ideologies in
Europe. In Clare mar-Molinero and Patrick Stevenson (eds.), Language Ideologies,
Policies and Practices: Languages and the future of Europe. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave
Macmillan. 13–27.
Gal, Susan and Judith Irvine. 1995. The boundaries of languages and disciplines. Social
Research 62: 967–1001.
Bibliography 139
Galati, Alexia and Susan E. Brennan. 2010. Attenuating repeated information: For the
speaker, or for the addressee? Journal of Memory and Language 62.1: 35–51.
García, Ofelia and Wei Li. 2014. Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism, and educa-
tion. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
García, Ofelia and Ricardo Otheguy. 2014. Spanish and Hispanic bilingualism. In Manel
Lacorte (ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Hispanic Applied Linguistics, 639–659.
London and NY: Routledge.
Garden, Jean Claude. 1973. Document analysis and linguistic theory. Journal of Docu-
mentation 29.2: 137–168.
Gardner-Chloros, Penelope. 1991. Language Selection and Switching in Strasbourg.
Oxford: Clarendon.
Gee, James Paul. 2001. Literacy, discourse, and linguistics: Introduction and what is
literacy? In Eugene R. Kintgen, Barry M. Kroll, Mike Rose, and Ellen Cushman (eds.),
Literacy: A critical sourcebook, 525–544. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s. [Originally
published in1989.]
Geeraerts, Dirk 1993. Varieties of lexical variation. http://www.euralex.org/elx_pro
ceedings/Euralex1994/11_Euralex_Dirk%20Geeraerts%20-%20Varieties%20of%20
lexical%20variation.pdf (22 July 2015).
Gibson, Todd A. 2017. The Role of Lexical Stress on the use of Vocal Fry in Young Adult
Female Speakers. Journal of Voice 31.1: 395–412.
Giles, Howard and Andrew C. Billings. 2006. Assessing language attitudes: Speaker
evaluations studies. In Alan Davis and Catherine Elder (eds.), The Handbook of
Applied Linguistics, 187–209. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
Givón, Talmy. 1979. Prolegomena to any sane creology. In Ian F. Hancock (ed.), Readings
in Creole Studies, 3–35. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing
Company.
Givón, Talmy. 1971. Historical syntax and synchronic morphology: An archeologist’s
field trip. In Papers from the Chicago Linguistic Society 7: 394–415.
Givón, Talmy and Masayoshi Shibatani (eds.). 2009. Syntactic Complexity: Diachrony,
acquisition, neuro-cognition, evolution. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins
Publishing Company.
Gleitman, Lila R and Henry Gleitman. 1970. Phrase and paraphrase: Some innovative
uses of language. W. W. Norton and Company, Inc.
Goldberg, Adele E. 2003. Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language.
TRENDS in Cognitive Science 7.5: 219–223
Goodwin, Marjorie Harness and H. Samy Alim. 2010. “Whatever (neck roll, eye roll,
teeth suck)”: The situated co-production of social categories and identities through
stancetaking and transmodalstylization. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 20.1:
179–194.
140 Bibliography
Gomersall, Robert. 1628. The Leuites reuenge: Containing poeticall meditations vpon the
19. and 20. chapters of Iudges. London: Miles Flesher for John Marriott.
Graffi, Giorgio. 1995. Old debates and current problems: Völkerpsychologie and the
question of the individual and the social in language. In Lia Formigari and Daniele
Gambarara (eds.), Historical Roots of Linguistic Theories, 171–184. Amsterdam/
Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Grice, Herbert Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Peter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan
(eds.), Syntax and Semantics, vol. 3, 41–58. NY: Academic Press.
Griffin, Tamerra. (2016) A professor circled “hence” on a Latina student’s paper and wrote
“This is not your word.” BuzzFeed. https://www.buzzfeed.com/tamerragriffin/a
-professor-circled-hence-on-a-latina-students-paper-and-wro?utm_term=.crlD
k9OJy#.dkxg190qe (4 November 2016).
Grillo, R. D. 1989. Dominant Languages: Language and hierarchy in Britain and France.
Gumperz, John. 1964. Linguistic and social interaction in two communities. American
Anthropologist 66.6: 137–152.
Gumperz, John. 1972. The speech community. In Pier Paolo Gigioli (ed.), Language and
Social Context: Selected readings, 219–231. NY: Penguin Books. [Originally published
in 1968.]
Gynne, Annaliina and Sangeeta Bagga-Gupta. 2011. Young people’s languaging and so-
cial positioning. Chaining in “bilingual” educational settings in Sweden. Linguistics
and Education 24.4: 479–496.
Hackert, Stephanie. 2012. The Emergence of the English Native Speaker: A chapter in
nineteenth‑century linguistic thought. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Hair, Victor H. 2001. The Columbia History of Chinese literature. NY: Columbia University.
Hall, Joan Kelly, An Cheng, and Matthew T. Carlson. 2006. Reconceptualizing multi-
competence as a theory of language knowledge. Applied Linguistics 27.2: 220–240.
Hall. Neville A. T., B. W. Higman (ed.). 1991. Slave Society in the Danish West Indies:
St. Thomas, St. John, and St. Croix. Baltimore: John’s Hopkins University Press.
Hancock, Ian F. 2010. The ‘Gypsy’ stereotype. In Ian Hancock (ed), Danger! Educated
Gypsies: Selected Essays by Ian Hancock, 212–222. Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire
Press.
Harper, Douglas. 2001–2016. Online etymological dictionary. Douglas Harper Press.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=I%27ve (2 June, 2016).
Harris, Randy Allen. 1995. The Linguistic Wars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Harris, Roy. 2014. On redefining linguistics. In Hayley G. Davis and Talbot J. Taylor
(eds.), Redefining Linguistics, 18–52. London and NY: Routledge.
Harris, Roy. 2002. The role of the language myth in the Western cultural tradition. In
Roy Harris (ed.), The Language Myth in Western Culture. 1–24. London: Curson Press.
Bibliography 141
Haspelmath, Martin. 2007. Pre-established categories don’t exist – Consequences for

language description and typology. Linguistic Typology 11.1: 119–132.
Hasty, J. Daniel. 2012. We might should oughta take a second look at this: A syntac-
tic re‑analysis of double modals in Southern United States English. Lingua 122.14:
1716–1738.
Harvey, Gabriel. 1593. Pierce’s supererogation, or; A new prayse of the old asse. 1st edi-
tion, vol. 1. London: I. Wolfe.
Haugen, Einar. 1972a. Linguistics and dialinguistics. In Anwar S. Dil (ed.), 299–305.
[Originally published in 1966].
Haugen, Einar 1972b. Dialect, language, nation. In Anwar S. Dil (ed.), 236–253.
[Originally published in 1966].
Haugen, Einar. 1972c. Scandinavian languages as cultural artifacts. In Anwar S. Dil (ed.),
265–286. [Originally published in 1968].
Haugen, Einar. 1972d. The ecology of language. http://history.lzu.edu.cn/editor/asp/
upfiles/file/201504/20150413155755110.pdf (30 November 2015).
Haugh, Michael and Derek Bousefield. 2012. Mock impoliteness, jocular mockery and
jocular abuse in Australian and British English. Journal of Pragmatics 44.9: 1099–1114.
Hay, J. and K. Drager. 2010. Stuffed toys and speech perception. Linguistics 48.4: 865–892.
Hay, J., A. Nolan, and K. Drager 2006. From fush to feesh: Exemplar priming in speech
production. The Linguistic Review 23.3: 351–379.
Head, Anna Ruth. 2012. The sounds of social change phonology and identity in Elba,
Alabama. Ph. D. dissertation, Auburn University.
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. 1830. The Encyclopaedia Logic (with the Zusätze)
https://rosswolfe.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/georg-wilhelm-friedrich-hegel-ency
clopedia-logic.pdf (23 May 2017).
Heine, Bernd, Ulrike Claudi, and Friederike Hünnerneyer. 1991. Grammaticalization:
A conceptual framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Heller, Monica. 2007. Globalization, the new economy and the commodification of
language and identity. Journal of Sociolinguistics 7.4: 473–492.
Hensley, Anne. 1972. Black high school students’ reactions to black speakers of Standard
and Black English. Language Learning 22.2: 253–259.
Hernandez, Arturo E. 2009. Language switching in the bilingual brain: What’s next?
Brain and Language 109. 2–3: 133–140.
Heryanto, Ariel. 2006. Then there were languages: Bahasa Indonesia was one among
many. In Sinfree Makoni and Alastair Pennycook, 42–61.
Hill-Racer, Anita Jo. n.d., Review. https://www.facebook.com/pages/Nails-2001-Salon/
100452163357671 (23 December 2015).
Hobbs, Thomas. 1660. The Leviathan. Great voyages in the history of western philosophy
1492–1776. http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302. (17 March 2007).
142 Bibliography
Hodgen, Margaret T. 1934. The Negro in the anthropology of John Wesley. The Journal
of Negro History 19.3: 208–323.
Hoenigswald, Henry M. 1986. Nineteenth-century linguistics on itself. In Theodora
Bynon and F. R. Palmer, 172–188.
Hoffman, Eva. 1998. Lost in Translation: A life in a new language. London: Vintage.
Hopper, Paul. 1987. Emergent grammar. Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting
of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 139–157. journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceed
ings/index.php/BLS/article/view/1834/1606 (2 February 2017).
Hopper, Paul. 1991.On some principles of grammaticalization. In Elizabeth Closs
Traugott and Bernd Heine (eds.), Approaches to Grammaticalization, vol. 1, 17–35.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Hopper, Paul J. 2015. Emergent grammar. In James Paul Gee and Michael Handford
(eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Discourse Analysis, 301–314. London and NY:
Routledge.
Hutton, Christopher. 2002. The Language myth and the race myth: Evil twins of mod-
ern identity politics? In Roy Harris (ed.), 118–138.
Hymes, Dell. 1962. The Ethnography of speaking. In Thomas Gladwin and
William C. Sturtevant (eds.), Anthropology and Human Behavior, 13–53. Washington,
DC: Anthropology Society of Washington.
Hymes, Dell. 1974. Foundations of Sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach. Philadel-
phia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Ibbotson, Paul and Michael Tomasello. 2016. Evidence rebuts Chomsky’s theory of
language learning. Scientific American http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/
evidence-rebuts-chomsky-s-theory-of-language-learning/ (14 September 2016).
Irving, Judith T. and Susan Gal. 2000. Language ideology and linguistic differentiation.
In Paul V Kroskrity (ed.), Regimes of language: Ideologies, polities, and identities,
35–83. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press. https://www.google.com/
search?q=language+ideology+and+linguistic+differentiation&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8.
(21 August 2016).
ispot.tv. 2016. Cheez-It Sandwich Crackers TV Spot, ‘Sammich’. https://www.ispot.tv/
ad/Ay9L/cheez-it-sandwich-crackers-sammich (15 August, 2016).
Jackendoff, Ray. 2003. Toward better mutual understanding (response to peer commen-
taries on “Reintegrating generative grammar” [Précis of Foundations of Language]).
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26.6: 695–702.
Jacquemet, Marco. 2005. Transidiomatic practices: Language and power in the age of
globalization. Language and Communication 25.3: 257–277.
Jarvis, S. 2003. Probing the effects of the L2 on the L1: A case study. In V. J. Cook (ed.)
Effects of the second Language on the first, 81–102. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Jaspers, Jürgen and Lian Malai Madsen. 2016. Sociolinguistics in a Languagised World:
Introduction. Applied Linguistics Review 7.3: 235–258.
Bibliography 143
Jenks, Christopher J. and Jerry Won Lee. 2016. Heteroglossic ideologies in world
Englishes: An examination of the Hong Kong context. International Journal of
Applied Linguistics 26.3: 384–402.
Jespersen, Otto. 1922, Language: Its nature, development and origin. NY: Henry Holt and
Company.
Jespersen, Otto. 1946. Mankind, Nation and Individual. London: George Allen and
Unwin Ltd.
Jiang, Nan. Form-meaning mapping in vocabulary acquisition in a second language.”
Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24.4: 617–637.
Johnstone, Barbara. 1996. The Linguistic Individual: Self-expression in language and lin-
guistics. NY: Oxford University Press.
Jørgensen, J. N. and Kasper Juffermans. 2011. Languaging. http://www.toolkit-online
.eu/docs/languaging.html (7 November 2011).
Jørgensen, J. N., M. S. Karrebæk, L. M. Madsen, and J. S. Møller. 2011. Polylanguaging in
Superdiversity. Diversities 13.2: 23–38.
Joseph, John E. 2013. Identify work and face work across linguistic and cultural bound-
aries. Journal of Politeness Research 9.1: 35–54.
Joseph, John E. 2002. Is languaging a verb? Conceptual change in linguistics and lan-
guage teaching. In H. R. Trappes‑Lomax and Gibson Ferguson (eds.), Language in
Language Teacher Education, 29–47. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins
Publishing Company.
Juffermans, Kasper. 2011. The old man and the letter: Repertoires of literacy and lan-
guaging in a modern multiethnic Gambian village. Compare 41.2: 165–179.
Kachru, Braj B. 2017. World Englishes and Culture Wars. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Kachru, Braj B. 1985. Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English
language in the outer circle. In Randolph Quirk and Henry Widdowson (eds.),
English in the World: Teaching and learning the language and literatures, 11–30.
Kachru, Yamuna. 1994. Sources of bias in SLA research. Monolingual bias in SLA re-
search. TESOL Quarterly 28.4: 795–800.
Kachru, Yamuna and Larry E. Smith. 2008. Cultures, Contexts and World Englishes.
Milton Park/NY: Routledge.
Kay, Paul, Terry Regir, Aubrey L. Gilbert, and Richard B. Ivy. 2009. Lateralized Whorf:
Language influences perceptual decision in the right visual field. In James W.
Minette and William S.-Y. Wang (eds.) Language, Evolution and the Brain, 261–284.
Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong Press.
Kea, Ray A.1996. ‘When I die, I shall return to my own land’: An ‘Amina’ slave rebellion
in the Danish West Indies 1733–1734. In John Hunwick and Nancy Lawler (eds.), The
Cloth of Many Colored Silks, 159–193. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
144 Bibliography
Kellman, Steven G. and Natasha Lvovich. 2016. Introduction. Studies in the Novel 48.4:
403–406.
Kemmerer, David and Alyson Eggleston. 2010. Nouns and verbs in the brain: Implications
of linguistic typology for cognitive neuroscience. Lingua 120.12: 2686–2690.
Khalema, Nene Ernest. 2016. Linguicism and nationalism: Post-colonial gaze on the
promotion of Afrikaans as a national language in apartheid South Africa. Interna-
tional Journal of Language Studies 10.1: 91–110.
Khan, Zaved Ahmed and Shahila Zafar. 2010. The effects of anxiety on cognitive pro-
cessing in English language learning. English Language Teaching 3.2: 199–209.
King James Bible. 1611. http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611-Bible/ (14 May 2015)
Kjellmer, Göran. 2000. Potential words. Word 51.2: 205–228.
Knop, Karen. 2002. Diversity and Self-determination in International Law. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press. http://books.google.com/books (9 January 2012).
Kowenberg, Sylvia. 2010. Creole studies and linguistic typology: Part II. Journal of
Pidgin and Creole Linguistics 25.2: 359–380.
Krashen, Stephen, 1989. We acquire vocabulary and spelling by reading: Additional evi-
dence for the input hypothesis. The Modern Language Journal 73.4: 440–464.
Krashen, Stephen. 1977. Some issues relating to the monitor model. In H. Brown, Carlos,
Yorio, and Ruth Crymes (eds.), On TESOL ‘77: Selected Papers from the Eleventh
Annual Convention of Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, 144–158.
Washington, DC: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.
Krashen, Stephen and Joan Ujiie. 2005. Junk food is bad for you but junk reading is
good for you. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching 1.3: 5–12.
Kretzschmar, William A. 2015. Language and Complex Systems. Cambridge, UK:
Kretzschmar, William A. 2012. Variation in the traditional vowels of the Eastern States.
Kretzschmar, William. A. 2009. The Linguistics of Speech. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Kretzschmar, William A. 2008. Neural networks and the linguistics of speech.
Interdisciplinary Science Review 3.4: 338–356. 2011.
Krug, Manfred. 1998. String frequency: A cognitive motivating factor in coalescence,
language processing, and linguistic change. Journal of English Linguistics 26.4: 286–320.
Kuhl, Patricia. 2010. The linguistic genius of babies. http://www.ted.com/talks/patricia
_kuhl_the_linguistic_genius_of_babies?language=en (17 June 2015).
Labov, William. 1969. Contraction, deletion, and inherent variability of the English
Copula. Language 45.4: 715–762.
Labov, William. 1972. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
Press.
Bibliography 145
Labov, William. 2010. What is to be learned? A paper presented at 34th LAUD Sym-
posium on Cognitive Linguistics, University of Koblenz-Landau, Mainz, Germany.
http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~wlabov/Papers/WTBL.pdf (3 July 2011).
Ladd, D. Robert, Seán G. Roberts, and Dan Dediu. 2015. Correlational studies in typo-
logical and historical linguistics. Annual Review of Linguistics 1: 221–41.
Lado, Robert. 1983. Thinking and “languaging”: A psycholinguistic model of perfor-
mance and learning. Sophia Linguistica 12: 3–24.
Lai, Cecilia S. L., Simon E. Fisher, Jane A. Hurst, Faraneh Vargha‑Khadem, and
Anthony P. Monaco. 2001. A forkhead‑domain gene is mutated in a severe speech
and language disorder. Nature 413.6855: 519–523. http://www.nature.com/nature/
journal/v413/n6855/abs/413519a0.html (23 May 2010).
Lamm, Jodi. n.d. Making phonological sense out of nonsense poetry. http://www.gmu
.edu/org/lingclub/WP/texts/8_Lamm.pdf (15 May 2015).
“Languaging” Oxford English Dictionary. http://www.oed.com.spot.lib.auburn.edu/
view/Entry/105583?redirectedFrom=languaging#eid39694833 (19 September 2014).
Larsen-Freeman, Diane. 1997. Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisi-
tion. Applied Linguistics 18.2: 141–165.
Lave, Jean and Etienne Wenger. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate peripheral participa-
tion. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Law, Vivien. 1986. Originality in the Medieval normative tradition. In Theodora Bynon
and F. R. Palmer, 43–55.
Lee, Namhee, Lisa Mikesell, Anna Dina L. Joaquin, Andrea W. Mates, and John
Schumann. 2009. The Interactional Instinct: The evolution and acquisition of lan-
guage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Le Page, Robert B. and Andrée Tabouret-Keller. 1985. Acts of Identity: Creole-based ap-
proaches to language and ethnicity. Cambridge. UK: Cambridge University Press.
Lepschy, Giulio. 1986. European linguistics in the twentieth century. In Byron and
Palmer, 189–201.
Lieberman, Philip. 2008. Cortical-striatal-cortical neural circuits, reiteration, and the
“narrow faculty of language” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 31.5: 527–528.
Linell, Per. 2005. The Written Language Bias in Linguistics. London and NY: Routledge.
Linguistic Society of America. 1996. Language Rights. http://www.linguisticsociety.org/
sites/default/files/lsa-stmt-language-rights.pdf (6 October 2014).
Lopéz Madera, Gregorio. 1601. Discursos de la certidumbre de las reliquias descubier-
tas en Granada desde el no de 1595 hasta del de 1598. Granada: Sebastian de Mena.
Love, Nigel. 2004. Cognition and the language myth. Language Sciences 26.6: 525–544.
Lowery, Mary, Nancy Jeanne Haak, Allison M. Plumb, Daniel Phillips, and Robin
Sabino. 2013. Elderspeak: helpful or harmful? A systematic review of speech to
elderly adults. Journal of Medical Speech-Language Pathology 21.4. Available from
Plural Publishing, Inc.
146 Bibliography
Maher, John C. 2005. Metroethnicity, language and the principle of cool. International
Journal of the Sociology of Language. 175/176: 83–102.
Makoni, Sinfree and Pedzisai Mashiri. 2007. Critical historiography: Does language
planning in Africa need a construct of language as part of its theoretical apparatus?
In Sinfree Makoni and Alastair Pennycook, 62–89.
Makoni, Sinfree and Alastair Pennycook. 2007. Disinventing and Reconstituting
Languages. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters LTD.
Maranda, Pierre. 1978. The popular subdiscourse: Probabilistic semantic networks.
Current Anthropology 19.2: 396–397.
Marsh, George P. 1874. Lectures on the English Language. 7th edition, edited with addi-
tional lectures and notes by William Smith, D. C. L., LL. D. London: Murray.
Mayor, Adrienne. 2000. The First Fossil Hunters: Paleontology in Greek and Roman times.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
McGee, Michael Calvin. 1980. The “ideograph”: A link between rhetoric and ideology.
Quarterly Journal of Speech 66.1: 1–16.
McIlroy, Guy and Claudine Storbeck. 2011. Development of DeaF identity: An ethno-
graphic study. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 16.4: 494–511.
McNay, Lois. 2003. Out of the orrery? Situating language. Journal of Political Ideologies
8.2: 139–156.
Mechelli, Andrea, Jen T. Crinion, Uta Noppeney, John O’Doherty, John Ashburner,
Richard S. Frackowiak and Cathy J. Price. 2004. Structural plasticity in the bilin-
gual brain: Proficiency in a second language and age at acquisition affect grey-
matter density. Nature 431: 757. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v431/n7010/
full/431757a.html. (28 February 2009).
Menezes de Souza, Lynn Mario. 2006. Entering a culture quietly: Writing and cul-
tural survival in indigenous education in Brazil. In Sinfree Makoni and Alastair
Pennycook, 136–169.
Mishoe, Margaret and Michael Montgomery. 1994. The pragmatics of multiple modal
variation in North and South Carolina. American Speech 69.1: 3–29.
Mitchell, Jake and Robert Wildon Burton. 1991. A mule was a mule. In Kathryn Sport
and Bert Hitchcock (eds.), De Remnant Truth: The tales of Jake Mitchell and Robert
Wildon Burton, 165–170. Tusdaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.
Møller, Janus Spindler. 2008. Polylingual performance among Turkish-Danes in late-
modern Copenhagen. International Journal of Multilingualism 5.3: 217–236.
Moag, Rodney. 1982. English and a foreign, second, native, and basal language: A new
taxonomy of English-using societies. In John Pride (ed.), New Englishes, 11–50.
Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers, Inc.
Monaghan, Padraic, Morten H. Christiansen, and Nick Chater. 2007. The phonological-
distributional coherence hypothesis: Cross-linguistic evidence in language acquisi-
tion. Cognitive Psychology 55.4: 259–305.
Bibliography 147
Monaghan, Padraic and Morten. H. Christiansen. 2008. Integration of multiple proba-

bilistic cues in syntax acquisition. In H. Behrens, (ed.), Trends in Corpus Research:
Finding structure in data, 139–163. Amsterdam/Philadephia: John Benjamins
Publishing Company.
Mondini, S., G. Jarema, C. Luzzatti, C. Burani, and C. Semenza. 2002. Why is “red cross”
different from “yellow cross”?: A neurophysicological study of non-adjective agree-
ment within Italian compounds. Brain and Language 81.1–3: 621–634.
Monner, Derek, Karen Vatz, Giovanna Morini, So-One Hwang, and Robert DeKeyser.
2013. A neural network model of the effects of entrenchment and memory develop-
ment on grammatical gender learning. Bilingualism 16.2: 246–265.
Morgan, Marcyliena. 2002. Language, Discourse and Power in African American Culture.
Muldoon, James. 2000. Mediaeval notions of race or culture. In Berel Lang (ed.), Race
and Racism in Theory and Practice. 79–97. NY/Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield
Publishers, Inc.
Munroe, Randall. n.d. Not to go all sentence fragment on you. https://xkcd.com/1443/
(7 July 2015).
Müller, Max. 1862. Lectures on the science of language delivered at the Royal Institution
of Great Britain in April, May, and June 1861. NY: Scribner.
Nero, Shondel J. 2005. Language, identities, and ESL pedagogy. Language and Education
19.3: 194–211.
Nicolaï, Robert (ed.). 2014. Questioning Language Contact: Limits of contact, contact at
its limits, Leiden: Brill.
Nicolaï, Robert. 2014. Introduction. In Robert Nicolaï, (ed.), 1–13.
Nicolaidis, Katerina, Jan Edwards, Mary Beckman, and Georgios Tserdanelis. 2003.
Acquisition of lingual obstruents in Greek. Preprint. https://www.ling.ohio-state
.edu/~edwards/glc6.pdf (20 March 2011).
Niedzielski, Nancy. 1999. The effect of social information on perception of sociolin-
guistic variables. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 18.1: 62–85.
Norton, Bonny and Yihong Gao. 2008. Identity, investment and Chinese learners of
English. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication 18.1: 109–120.
Oldendorp, Christian Georg Andreas, Johann Jakob Bossard (ed.) Arnold R. Highfield
and Vladimir Barac (trans.). 1987. A Caribbean Mission. Ann Arbor, MI: Karoma
Publishers, Inc. [Originally published in 1777].
Olneck, Michael R. 2009. What have immigrants wanted from American schools? What
do they want now? Historical and contemporary perspectives on immigrants, lan-
guage, and American Schooling. American Journal of Education 115.3: 379–406.
Olson, David R. 1977. From utterance to text: The bias of language in speech and writ-
ing. Harvard Education Review 47.3: 257–281.
148 Bibliography
Olwig, Kargen Fog. 1985. Cultural Adaptations and Resistance on St. John: Three centu-
ries Afro-Caribbean life. Gainsville, FL: University of Florida Press.
“On fleek”. Urban Dictionary. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=on
+fleek (2 November2015).
O’Reilly, Bill. Don’t Say That. Columbus Ledger Enquirer, July 11, 2009, A14.
Otsuji, Emi and Alastair Pennycook. 2001. Metrolingualism: Fixity, fluidity and lan-
guage in flux. International Journal of Multilingualism 7.3: 240–254.
Parkvall, Mikael. 2000. Out of Africa: Influences in Atlantic Creoles. London: Battlebridge
Publications.
Partanen, Eino, Teija Kujala, Risto Näätänen, Auli Litola, Anke Sambeth, and Mina
Huotilainen. 2013. Learning-induced neural plasticity of speech processing before
birth. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110.37: 15145–15150. www.pn
as,org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1302159110 (30 September 2013).
Pascual‑Leone, Alvaro, Amir Amedi, Felipe Fregni, and Lotfi B. Merabet. 2005. The
plastic human brain cortex. Annual Review of Neuroscience 28: 377–401. http://www
.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.neuro.27.070203.144216?journalCode=
neuro (18 August 2013).
Patrick, Peter. 2002. Caribbean creoles and the speech community. Society for Caribbean
Linguistics Occasional Papers Series, No. 30. St. Augustine, Trinidad: University of the
West Indies.
Paul, Herman. 1880. Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte Halle: Max Niemeyer.
Pavlenko, Aneta. 2003. I feel clumsy speaking Russian: L2 influence on L1 in narratives
of Russian L2 users of English. In Vivian Cook (ed.), Effects of the Second Language
on the First, 32–61. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters, LTD.
Pavlenko, Aneta. 2002. ‘We have room for but one language here’:Language and na-
tional identity in the US at the turn of the 20th century. Multilingua 21.2/3: 163–196.
Pavlenko, Aneta. 2002. Bidirectional transfer. Applied Linguistics 23.2: 190–214.
Pawley, Andrew. 2007. Developments in the study of formulaic language since 1970:
A personal view. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312916168_Developments
_in_the_study_of_formulaic_language_since_1970_A_personal_view (25 August 2006).
Payne, Arvilla. 1980. Factors controlling the acquisition of the Philadelphia dialect by
out‑of‑state children. In William Labov (ed.), Locating Language in Time and Space,
143–178. NY: Academic Press.
Peirce, Bonny Norton. 1995. Social identity, investment, and language learning. TESOL
Quarterly 29.9: 9–31.
Pennycook, Alistair and Emi Otsuji. 2016. Lingoing, language labels, and metrolingual
practices. Applied Linguistics Review 7.3: 259–277.
Pennycook. Alistair. 2010. Language as Local Practice. Milton Park/NY: Routledge.
Pennycook. Alistair. 2007. The myth of English as an international language. In Sinfree
Makoni and Alastair Pennycook, 90–115.
Bibliography 149
Percival, W. Keith. 1986. Renaissance linguistics: The old and the new. In Theodora
Bynon and F. R. Palmer, 56–95.
Perry, Nora. 1892. Major Molly’s Christmas promise. Harpers Young People XIV.686:
137–142. https://books.google.com/books?id=yapGAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA138&dq=%22
white+English%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=WQaXVfblCZL7gwTJmrPAAg&ved=0CDQQ
6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=%22white%20English%22&f=false (3 July 2015).
Piantadosi, Steven T. 2014. Zipf’s law in natural language: A critical review and future
directions. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 21.5: 1112–1130.
Pica, Teresa. 1983. The article in American English: What the textbooks don’t tell us.
In Nessa Wolfson and Elliot Judd (eds.), Sociolinguistics and Language Acquisition,
222–233. Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House.
Pierrehumbert, Janet. 2001. Exemplar dynamcs: Word frequency, lentition, and con-
trast. In Joan Bybee and Paul Hopper (eds.), 137–257.
Piske, Thorsten, Ian MacKay, and James E. Flege. 2001. Factors affecting degree of for-
eign accent in an L2: A review. Journal of Phonetics 29.2: 191–215.
Pitts, Ann. 1986. Flip-flop prestige in American tune, duke, news. American Speech 61.2
1986: 130–8.
Pizarro Pedraza, Andrea. 2015. Who said ‘abortion’? Semantic variation and ideology in
Spanish newspapers’ online discussions. Australian Journal of Linguistics 35.1: 53–75.
Poeppel, David. 2008. Cognitive neuroscience of language – An unabashedly paro-
chial primer. http://www.lcs.pomona.edu/HewlettCognitiveScience/essays/assets/
CogNeuroLang_Dav idPoeppel.pdf. (2 December 2013).
Poeppel, David, Karen Emmorey, Gregory Hickok, and Liina Pylkkänen. 2012. Towards
a new neurobiology of Language. Journal of Neuroscience 32.41: 14125–14131.
Poplack, Shana. 1993. Variation, theory and language contact: Concepts, methods
and data. In Dennis R. Preston (ed.), American Dialect Research: Celebrating the
100th anniversary of the American Dialect Society, 1889–1989, 251–263. Amsterdam/
Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Rajagopalan, Kanavillil. 2012. ‘World English’ or ‘World Englishes’? Does it make any
difference? International Journal of Applied Linguistics 22.3: 374–391.
Rampton, Ben. 1995. Language crossing and the problematization of ethnicity and so-
cialization Pragmatics 5.4: 485–513.
Reali, Florencia and Thomas L. Griffiths. 2009. The evolution of frequency distributions:
Relating regularization to inductive biases through iterated learning. Cognition 111.3:
317–28.
Redd, Teresa M. and Karen S. Webb. 2005. A Teacher’s Introduction to African American
English: What a writing teacher should know. Urbana, Il: National Council of Teachers
of English.
Reinecke, John E. 1937. Marginal languages: A sociological survey of the creole lan-
guages and trade jargons. Ph. D. dissertation, Yale University. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI.
150 Bibliography
Reiterer, Susanne, Ernesto Pereda, and Joydeep Bhattacharya. 2009. Measuring second
language proficiency with EEG synchronization: How functional cortical networks
and hemispheric involvement differ as a function of proficiency level in second lan-
guage speakers. Second Language Research 25.1: 77–106.
Regis, Ferne Louanne. 2012. Constructing identity within communities of practice: The
case of two Trinidadian Douglas. Society for Caribbean Linguistics Occasional Papers
Series, No. 36. St. Augustine, Trinidad: University of the West Indies.
Robins, R. H. 1979. A Short History of Linguistics. 2nd edition. NY/ London: Longman.
Romaine, Suzanne. 1989. Bilingualism. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Rommetveit, R. 1992. Outlines of a dialogically based social-cognitive approach to
human cognition and communication. In A. H. Wold (ed.), The Dialogical Alternative:
Towards a theory of language and mind, 19–44. Oslo: Scandinavian University
Press.
Rose, Heidi M. 1996. Inventing one’s own “voice”: The interplay of convention and self-
expression in ASL narrative. Language in Society 25.3: 427–444.
Roy, Deb. 2009. New horizons in the study of child language acquisition. Proceedings
of Interspeech. Brighton, England. http://www.media.mit.edu/cogmac/publications
.html (19 Feb 2016).
Ruthven, K. K. 2001. Faking Literature. Cambridge/NY: Cambridge University Press.
Sabino, Robin. 2012a. Language Contact in the Danish West Indies: Giving Jack his jacket.
Leiden: Brill.
Sabino, Robin. 2012b. The A-curve and personally patterned variation: More tools for
investigating language variation and change. American Speech 87.4: 412–431.
Sabino, Robin. 2009. Reconsidering official English: Beyond the culture wars. The
Southern Journal of Linguistics 33.2: 32–54.
Sabino, Robin. 2005. Survey says … gameday. American Speech 80.1: 61–77.
Sabino, Robin. 1994. They just fade away: Language death and the loss of phonological
variation. Language in Society. 23.4: 395–426.
Sabino, Robin. 1993. Negerhollands Origins: A reappraisal. Linguistic Society of
American/Society for Pidgin and Creole Linguistics, Los Angeles, CA.
Sabino, Robin. 1990. Towards a phonology of Negerhollands. Ph. D. dissertation, Uni-
versity of Pennsylvania.
Sabino, Robin and Sarah Pitts. 2016. Gameday revisited. A paper presented at SECOL
83, New Orleans, LA.
Saito, Hidetoshi. 1999. Dependence and interaction in frequency data analysis in SLA
research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition Research 21.3: 453–475.
Salmon, Vivian. 1986. Effort and achievement in seventeenth-century British linguis-
tics. In Theodora Bynon and F. R. Palmer, 69–95.
“Sammich”. Urban Dictionary. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term
=sammich (15 August 2016).
Bibliography 151
Sankoff, David and Suzanne Laberge. 1978. Statistical dependence among successive
occurrences of a variable in discourse. In David Sankoff, (ed.), Linguistic Variation:
Models and methods, 119–126. NY: Academic Press.
Sankoff, Gillian. 1980. The Social Life of Language. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press.
Sankoff, Gillian. 1983. Comments on Valdman’s “Creolization and second language ac-
quisition.” In Roger W. Anderson (ed.), Pidginization and Creolization as Language
Acquisition, 241–245. Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers, Inc.
Sankoff, Gillian, Suzanne Evens Wagner, and Laura Jensen. 2012. The long tail of lan-
guage change: Québécis French futures in real time. University of Pennsylvania
Working Papers in Linguistics 18.2. http://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol 18/iss2/13.
(17 January 2013).
Sapir, Edward. 1921. Language. NY: Harcourt Brace and Company. http://www.ugr.es
/~fmanjon/Sapir,%20Edward%20-%20Language,%20An%20Introduction%20
to%20the%20Study%20of%20Speech.pdf (2 July 2016).
Saro-Wiwa, Ken. 1986. Sozaboy: A novel in rotten English. Port Harcourt: Saros.
Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1916/1983. Course in General Linguistics, trans. and ed. by Roy
Harris. Peru, Il: Open Court Classics. http://books.google.com/ (23 January 2013).
Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2014. Entrenchment, memory and automaticity: The psychology
of linguistic knowledge and language learning. http://www.anglistik.uni-muenchen
.de/personen/professoren/schmid/schmid_publ/introduction_entrenchment.pdf
(2 July 2015).
Schmitt, Norbert, Sarah Grandage, and Svenja Adolphus. 2004. Are corpus derived
recurrent clusters psycholinguistically valid? In Norbert Schmitt (ed.) Formulaic
Sequences, 127–151. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Schneider, Edgar. 2007. English: Varieties Around the World. NY: Cambridge University
Press.
Schneider, Klaus P. 2012. Appropriate behavior across varieties of English. Journal of
Pragmatics 44.9: 1022–1037.
Sensbach, Jon. 2005. Rebecca’s Revival: Creating black Christianity in the Atlantic World.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Sheridan, Thomas. 1762. A Course of Lectures on Elocution: Together with two disserta-
tions on language; and some other tracts relative to those subjects. London: A. Millar,
R. and J. Dodsley, T. Davies, C. Henderson, J. Wilkie, and E. Dilly.
Shields, Mark. 2017. Exposing Republican code-speak. https://www.creators.com/read/
mark-shields/02/17/exposing-republican-code-speak (17 February 2017).
Siegel, Jeff. 2008. The Emergence of Pidgin and Creole Languages. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Silverstein, Michael. 2003. Indexical order and the dialectics of sociolinguistic life.
Language and Communication 23.3–4: 193–229.
152 Bibliography
Silverstein, Michael. 1976. Shifters, linguistic categories, and cultural descriptions. In

Keith Basso and Henry A. Selby (eds.), Meaning in Anthropology, 11–55. Albuquerque,
NM: University of New Mexico Press.
Simmonds-McDonald, Hazel. 2008. Reexamining notions of deficiency and inadequa-
cy in vernacular education. A paper presented at the 17th Biennial Meeting of the
Society for Caribbean Linguistics, Cayenne, French Guiana.
Siyanova-Chanturia, Anna. 2015. On the holistic nature of formulaic language. Corpus
Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 1.2: 285–301.
Siyanova-Chanturia, Anna, Kathy Conklin, and Walter J. B. Van Heuven. 2011. Seeing a
phrase “time and again” matters: The role of phrasal frequency in the processing of
multiword sequences. Journal of Experimental Psychology, Learning, Memory, and
Cognition 37.3: 776–784.
Smiley, Patricia and Trudy Salsberry. 2007. Effective Schooling for English Language
Learners: What elementary principals should know and do. Larchmont, NY: Eye on
Education.
Smith, Linda B. and Chen Yu. 2008. Infants rapidly learn word-referent mappings via
cross-situational statistics. Cognition 106.3: 1558–1568.
Smitherman, Geneva. 2004. Language and African Americans: Movin on up a lil higher.
Journal of English Linguistics 32.3: 186–196.
Smitherman, Geneva, and Arthur K. Spears. 2004. Response to Kirk Hazen’s Review
of Sonja L. Lanehart’s Sociocultural and Historical Contexts of Africana American
English. American Speech 79.2: 2001–2007.
Sprauve, Gilbert. 1990. Dutch/English Creole distancing: Historical and contemporary
data considered. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 85.1: 41–50.
Sprenger, Simone A., Willem J. M. Levelt, and Gerard Kempena. 2006. Lexical access
during the production of idiomatic phrases. Journal of Memory and Language 54.2:
161–184.
Stack, Liam. 2016. Yes, Trump is saying ‘big league,’ not ‘bigly. The New York Times
National November 25, 2016, A20.
Steinberg, Jonathan. 1987. The historian and the questione della lingua. In Peter Burke
and Roy Porter (eds.), The Social History of Language, 198–209. Cambridge, UK:
Strange, Winifred and Valerie L. Shafer. 2008. Speech perception in second language
learners: The re-education of selective perception. In Jette G. Hansen Edward
and Mary L. Zampini (eds.), Phonology and Second Language Acquisition, 153–191.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Johns Benjamins Publishing Company.
Swain, Merrill. 2009. Languaging, agency, and collaboration. In Heidi Byrnes (ed.),
Advanced Language Learning: The contributions of Halliday and Vygotsky, 95–108.
London: Continuum.
“Take”. Oxford English Dictionary http://www.oed.com.spot.lib.auburn.edu/view/Entry/
127135?rskey=o7czkS&result=2&isAdvanced=false#eid (19 January 2017).
Bibliography 153
Talmy, Steven. 2011. The interview as collaborative achievement: Interaction, identity,

and ideology in a speech event. Applied Linguistics 32.1: 25–42.
Taylor, Charles Edwin. 1888. Leaflets from the Danish West Indies. London: Wm. Dawson
and Sons.
Tettamanti, Marco, Irene Rotondi, Daniela Perani, Guiseppe Scotti, Ferruccio Fazio,
Stefano F. Cappa, and Andrea Moro. 2009. Syntax without language: Neurobiological
evidence for cross-domain syntactic computations. Cortex 45: 825–838. www.scien
cedirect.com (2 January 2014).
Tettamanti, Marco and Dorothea Weniger. 2006. Broca’s area: A supramodal hierarchi-
cal Processor? Cortex 42: 825–838.
“The Five Graces Group,” Beckner, Clay, Richard Blythe, Joan Bybee, Morten H.
Christiansen, William Croft, Nick C. Ellis, John Holland, Jinyun Ke, Diane Larsen‑
Freeman and Tom Schoenemann. 2009. Language is a complex adaptive system:
Position paper. Language Learning 59.1: 1–26.
Thomas, Eric. 2011. Sociolinguistic variables and cognition. https://www.researchgate
.net/publication/230220056_Sociolinguistic_variables_and_cognition (8 February
2016).
Thomason, Sarah Grey and Terrence Kaufman. 1988. Language Contact, Creolization,
and Genetic Linguistics. Berkley, CA: University of California Press.
Thorne, Steven L. 2003. Artifacts and cultures-of-use in intercultural communication.
Language Learning and Technology 7.2: 38–67.
Thorne, Steven L. and James P. Lantolf. 2006. A linguistics of communicative activity.
In Sinfree Makoni and Alastair Pennycook, 170–195.
Thurston, W. R. 1989. How exoteric languages build a lexicon: Esoterogeny in West
New Britain, In R. Harlow and R Hooper (eds.), VICAL1: Oceanic Languages: Papers
from the Fifth International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, Auckland, New
Zealand, January 1988, pp. 555–579. Linguistic Society of New Zealand, Auckland,
New Zealand.
Tomlin, Russell. S. and Victor Villa. 1994. Attention in cognitive science and second
language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 16.2: 183–203.
Traverso, Véronique. 2008. The dilemmas of third-party complaints in conversation be-
tween friends. Journal of Pragmatics 41.12: 2385–2399.
Trench, Richard Chenevix. 1927. English past and present. London: Dent and NY:
Dutton. [Originally published in 1855.]
Trentman, J. A. 1976. The study of logic and language in the early 17th century.
Historiographia Linguistisca 3.2: 179–201.
Trudgill, Peter. 1986. Dialects in Contact. NY: Basil Blackwell.
Trump, Donald J. 2016. Donald J. Trump Verified account@realDonaldTrumphttps://
twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/785298212513021953?lang=en (November 30, 2017).
Truss, Lynne. 2006. Eats, Shoots & Leaves: The zero tolerance approach to punctuation.
NY: Gotham Books.
154 Bibliography
Ullman, Michael T. 2005. A cognitive neuroscience perspective on second language

acquisition: The declarative/procedural model. In Christine Sanz (ed.), Mind &
Context in Adult Second Language Acquisition: Methods, theory, and practice, 141–178.
Washington: Perspective.
United Nations. 2017. The International Migration Report 2017 (Highlights). https://
www.un.org/development/desa/publications/international-migration-report-2017.
html (20 December 2017).
Urciuoli, Bonnie. 1991. The political topography of Spanish and English: The view from
a New York Puerto Rican neighborhood. American Ethnology 18.2: 295–310.
Urciuoli, Bonnie. 1995. Language and borders. Annual Review of Anthropology 24:
524–546.
Vaid, Jyotsna. 2008. The bilingual brain: What is right and what is left. In Jeanette
Altarriba and Roberto R. Heredia (eds.), An Introduction to Bilingualism: Principles
and processes, 129–141. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Valdés, Guadalupe, Luis Poza, and Maneka Deanna Brooks. 2014. Educating students
who do not speak the societal language: The social construction of language-
learner categories. Essays on the Vulnerability of Language Published in Profession.
http://news.commons.mla.org/2014/10/09/essays-on-the-vulnerability-of-lan
guage-published-in-profession/ (21 October 2014).
van Name, Addison. 1869–1870. Contributions to creole grammar. Transactions of the
American Philological Association 1: 123–167.
VanPatten, Bill. 2008. Input processing in adult second language acquisition. In Bill
VanPatten and Jessica Williams (eds.), Theories in Second Language Acquisition: An
introduction, 115–135. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Vigliocco, Gabriella, David P. Vinson, Judit Druks, Horacio Barber, and Stefano F.
Cappa. 2011. A review of behavioral, electrophysiological, neuropsychological and
imaging studies: Nouns and verbs in the brain. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral
Reviews 35: 407–426. http://www.neurocog.ull.es/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/
Vigliocco-Vinson-DrUKs-Barber-Cappa-2011.pdf (2 February 2014).
Voloshinov, V. N. 1972. Marxism and the Philosophy of Language. NY: Seminar Press.
Von Worley, Stephen. 2010. His and hers colors: Men, women, and two thousand color
names. http://www.datapointed.net/2010/09/men-women-color-names/ (24 June 2016).
Wald, Benji. 1995. The problem of scholarly predisposition. G. Bailey, N. Maynor, and
P. Cukor-Avilor eds., The Emergence of Black English: Text and commentary. Language
in Society 24.2: 245–257.
Wang, Y., J. A. Sereno, A. Jongman, and J. Hirsch. 2003. fMRI evidence for cortical modi-
fication during learning of mandarin lexical tone. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
15.7: 1019–1027.
Wassink, Alicia Beckford and Anne Curzan. 2004. Addressing ideologies around
African American English. Journal of English Linguistics 32.3: 171–185.
Bibliography 155
Watts, Richard. 2002. From polite language to educated language. In Richard Watts
and Peter Trudgill (eds.), Alternative Histories of English, 155–172. London and NY:
Routledge.
Weinreich, Uriel. 1968. Languages in Contact: Findings and problems. The Hague:
Mouton Publishers. [Originally published in 1953.]
Weinreich, Uriel, William Labov, and Marvin Herzog. 1968. Empirical foundations
for a theory of language change. In Winifred Lehmann and Jakob Malkiel (eds.),
Directions for Historical Linguistics, 95–188. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Wesley, John. 1826–1827. The Works of the Rev. John Wesley 10 vol. NY: Harper.
Weston, Daniel and Penelope Gardner-Chloros. 2015. Mind the gap: What code-
switching in literature can teach us about code-switching. Language and Literature
24.3: 194–212.
Whitney, William Dwight. 1875. The Life and Growth of Language. London: King.
Wiechmann, Daniel and Elma Kerz. 2016. Formulaticy as a determinant of processing
efficiency: Investigating clause ordering in complex sentences. English Language
and Linguistics 20.3: 412–437.
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1985. Different cultures, different languages, different speech acts.
Journal of Pragmatics 9.2–3: 145–178.
Wierzbicka, Anna. 2006. English: Meaning and Culture. NY: Oxford University Press.
Winthrop, John. 1996. The Journal of John Winthrop, 1630–1649. Cambridge, MA/
London: The Belnap Press of Harvard University Press.
Wode, Henning. 1992. Categorical perception and segmental coding in the ontogeny
of sound systems: A universal approach. In Charles A. Ferguson, Lise Menn, and
Carol Stoel‑Gammon (eds.), Phonological Development: Models, research, implica-
tions, 605–631. Timonium, MD: York Press, Inc.
Wolf, Clara. 1984. Tiempo real y tiempo aparente en el estudio de una variación
lingüística. Ensordecimiento y sonorización del yeísmo porteño. In Lía Schwartz
Lerner and Isaías Lerner (eds.), Homenaje a Ana María Barrenechea, 175–196.
Madrid: Editorial Castalia.
Wolf, Clara, and Elena Jiménez. 1979. El ensordecimiento del žeísmo porteño. Estudios
lingüísticos y dialectológicos. In Ana María Barrenechea, Mabel de Rosetti,
María Luisa Freyre, Elena Jiménez, Teresa Orecchia, and Clara Wolf (eds), Temas
Hispánicos, 299–312. Buenos Aires: Hachette.
Wolfram, Walt. 1998. Language, ideology, and dialect: Understanding the Oakland
Ebonics controversy. Journal of English Linguistics 26.2: 108–21.
Woolard, Kathryn A. 1998. Introduction: Language ideology as a field of inquiry. In
Bambi Shieffelin, Kathryn A. Woolard, and Paul V. Kroskrity (eds.), Language
Ideologies, 3–47. NY/Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Woolard, Kathryn A. 2004. Is the past a foreign country?: Time, language origins, and
the nation in Early Modern Spain. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology. 14.1: 57–80.
156 Bibliography
Woolard, Kathryn A. and Bambi Shieffelin. 1994. Language ideology. Annual Review of
Anthropology 23: 55–82.
Wray, Alison and George W. Grace. 2007. The consequences of talking to strangers:
Evolutionary corollaries of socio-cultural influences on linguistic form. Lingua 117.
3: 543–578.
Yates, William Butler. 1928. Among the school children. The Tower. NY: Macmillan and
Company.
Yngve, Victor. 1996. From Grammar to Science: New foundations for general linguistics.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Yoneyama, Kiyko, Mary E. Beckman, and Jan Edwards. 2003. Phoneme frequencies
and acquisition of lingual stops in Japanese. www.ling.ohio-state.edu/~mbeckman.
(20 March 2011).
Yu, Chen and Linda B. Smith. 2007. Rapid word learning under uncertainty via cross-
situational statistics. Psychological Science 18.5: 414–420.
Zheng, Yongyan. 2014. The fluctuating development of cross-linguistic semantic aware-
ness: A longitudinal multiple-case study. Language Awareness 23.4: 369–388.
Zipf, George Kingsley. 1949. Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort: An intro-
duction to Human Ecology. NY: Hafner.
Author Index
Abutalebi, Jubin 60 Blommaert, Jan 3, 4, 13, 74, 100, 124

Adams, Nancy 50 Bloomquist, Jennifer 7
Adolphus, Svenja 54 Blumenthal-Dramé, Alice 54
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 96 Blumstein, Sheila E. 55
Alighieri, Dante 20 Blythe, Richard 59
Alim, Samy H. 104 Bobda, Augustin Simo 31, 125
Alleyne, Mervyn C. 18n4, 31 Bogetic, Ksenija 3
Allsopp, Richard 102 Bolinger, Dwight 69
Almeida, Diogo 34 Bonfiglio, Thomas Paul 18, 19, 20, 21, 32
Amedi, Amir 41 Bourdieu, Pierre 41, 52
Ameel, Eef 43, 73 Bousefield, Derek 52
Anonymous 2, 53 Bowden, H. W. 30
Anderson, Benedict 74 Boyland, Joyce Tang 92
Ashburner, John 42 Blanco, Nathaniel J. 61
Ashcroft, Bill 48 Brennan, Susan E. 51
Brinsley, John 24
Backus, Ad 77, 99 Brooks, Maneka Deanna 74
Bagga-Gupta, Sangeeta 34, 35, 36 Brosh, Allie 49
Baheri, Tia 53 Brubaker, Rogers 18
Bailey, Benjamin 32, 35 Bucholtz, Mary 6, 8, 18, 29, 52, 106, 107, 110,
Bailey, G. 50 114
Bailey, Richard W. 7, 16, 24, 30, 65 Burani, C. 54
Bialystok, Ellen 12 Burkette, Allison 8, 26, 41, 62, 62n13, 63, 69,
Baker, Philip 31 83, 83n3, 97, 104, 109, 121, 124
Bakhtin, Mikhail M. 100 Burling, Robbins 52
Baptista, Marlyse 10 Burton, Robert Wildon 71
Barber, Horacio 53 Bybee, Joan L. 14, 18, 43, 51, 52, 53, 57, 58, 59,
Barlow, Michael 10, 45, 53, 39 65, 68, 70, 83, 92n5, 93, 95, 96, 97
Baronchelli, Andrea 57 Byron, Janet L. 39
Bates, T. C. 61 Busch, Brigitta 25, 37
BBC Trending 72
Becker, A. L. 18, 35, 57 Cameron, Deborah 18, 50
Becker, J. D. 69 Canagarajah, Suresh 11, 23, 36, 37, 124
Beckman, Mary E. 30, 60 Cappa, Stefano F. 55
Beckner, Clay 59 Carlson, Matthew T. 32, 33, 43
Bell, Allan 10, 18, 29 Carrington, Lawrence D. 124
Bennett, Bertha A. 63n14 Carr, Caleb 56n9
Besnier, Niko 33, 53, 104 Carstens, Johann Lorentz 119, 120
Bhattacharya, Joydeep 42 Carter, Bob 52
Bickerton, Derek 26, 45, 77 Cassidy, Frederick G. 38, 40
Billings, Andrew C. 105 Castro-Caldas, A. 42
Blasi, Damián E. 58, 113 Catto, Ciro 57
Bloch, Bernard 27, 41, 41n2, 46 Cedergren, Henrietta J. 62
Block, David 113 Chadwick, R. D. 63
Bloomfield, Leonard 18, 27, 113 Chambers, J. K. 5
158 Author Index
Chandrasekaran, Bharath 51 Dorian, Nancy 4, 28, 44, 60

Chang, Charles B. 81 Drager, K. 54
Chater, Nick 57, 58, 60 Dressler, Wolfgang U. 97
Cheezburger, Inc. 81 Druks, Judit 53
Cheng, An 32, 33, 43 Dupoux, Emmanuel 42
Cheshire, Jenny 78, 100, 106, 115n3 Duranti, Alessandro 50
Ching, Marvin K. 104 Dunn, Michael 10, 31
Childs, Tucker F. 22
Chomsky, Noam 4, 10, 10n3, 27, 50, 113 Eagleton, Terry 4, 110
Christiansen, Morten H. 57, 58, 59, 60, 113 Eckert, Penelope 14, 18, 40, 48, 50, 53, 80, 101,
Chun, E. W. 8, 114, 114n2 102, 104, 105, 123
Claudi, Ulrike 96 Eco, Umberto 20, 21
Collins, James 16 Eddington, David 43
Conklin, Kathy 54, 69 Edwards, Jan 30, 60
Cook, Peter 8 Eggleston, Alyson 53
Cook, Vivian 32, 43 Eastman, Carol M. 52
Cooper, Frederick 18 Eisenstein Ebsworth, Miriam 52
Coppieters, René 29 Ellis, Nick C. 55, 57, 65, 59
Corina, David 34 Emanuel, Lezmore Evan 121
Coulmas, Florian 47, 124 Emmorey, Karen 34, 42, 55, 55n7
Creissels, Denis 96 Eppler, Eva Duran 118, 118n4
Crinion, Jen T. 42 Erang, R. R. 22
Croft, William 59 Errington, Joseph 17n2, 24, 107
Crystal, David 15, 19, 50 Evanovich, Janet 98n8
Curzan, Anne 6, 10, 24, 107 Evans, Nicholas 30, 60
Cutler, Alan 2
Cutler, Anne 42 Fedorenko, Evelina 42
Cutler, Cecilia A. 115n3 Ferguson, Charles A. 31
Fazio, Ferruccio 55
Darvin, Ron 28, 31, 60, 113 Fields, Barbara J. 2, 3, 6, 11, 12, 112
Das, Kamala 38 Fields, Karen E. 2, 3, 6, 11, 12
Davies, Mark 7, 51, 70, 71, 76, 79, 92 Finlayson, Roaslie 47
Davis, Stephen P. 64 Fisher, Simon E. 42, 55, 62
Debes, John L. III 34n11 Firth, Alan 31
DeCamp, David 24, 77 Flege, James Emil 43, 114
De Costa, Peter I. 113 Fond du Lac School District 63n14
Dediu, Dan 42, 55, 61, 61n12, 62 Fordham, Signithia 106
DeKeyser, Robert 62 Frackowiak, Richard S. 42
De Houwer, Annick 30 Frank, Michael C. 57
de Jong, Jan Petrus Benjamin de Josselin 5, Fregni, Felipe 42
44n3, 90, 93, 95 Friedrich, Paul 25
Deleuze, Gilles 13, 47, 116, 117
Delgado, R. 123 Gadet, Françoise 9, 110, 113
Díaz-Campos, Manuel 81 Gal, Susan 4, 5, 16, 18, 23, 29, 111, 112
Dillenberger, John 2 Galati, Alexia 51
Ding, Nan 54, 54n6, 58 Gao, Yihong 31
Dingemanse, Mark 58, 113 García, Ofelia 20, 35, 36, 72, 124
Donohue, Mark 31 Garden, Jean Claude 62
Author Index 159
Gardner-Chloros, Penelope 4, 125 Heine, Bernd 96

Gee, James Paul 119 Heller, Monica 13
Geeraerts, Dirk 62 Hensley, Anne 102, 104
Gibson, Todd A. 102 Hernandez, Arturo E. 42, 46, 114, 118
Gilbert, Aubrey L. 42 Heryanto, Ariel 16, 18, 107
Giles, Howard 105 Herzog, Marvin 40
Givón, Talmy 26, 61, 76 Hickok, Gregory 34, 42, 55, 55n7
Gleitman, Henry 62 Hill-Racer, Anita Jo 65
Gleitman, Lila R. 62 Hirsch, J. 42
Goldberg, Adele E. 70, 72 Hobbs, Thomas 22
Gomersall, Robert 33n10 Hoenigswald, Henry M. 95
Goodwin, Marjorie Harness 104 Hodgen, Margaret T. 2
Goodman, Noah D. 57 Hoffman, Eva 125, 126
Grace, George W. 27, 69 Holland, John 59
Gradoville, Michael 81 Hopper, Paul J. 14, 53, 56, 75, 76, 97, 124
Graffi, Giorgio 12 Huotilainen, Mina 42
Grandage, Sarah 54 Hünnerneyer, Friederike 96
Gray, Russell D. 10, 31 Hurst, Jane A. 61
Greenhill, Simon J. 10, 31 Hutton, Christopher 4, 5, 109
Grice, Herbert Paul 51 Hwang, So-One 62
Griffin, Tamerra 8 Hymes, Dell 27, 40, 69
Griffiths, Thomas L. 57
Grillo, R. D. 19 Ibbotson, Paul 53, 55, 60
Guattari, Félix 13, 47, 116, 117 Ingvar, M. 42
Gumperz, John 27, 110 ispot.tv 103
Gynne, Annaliina 34, 35, 36 Irvine, Judith 4, 5, 16, 23, 29, 112
Ivy, Richard B. 42
Haak, Nancy Jeanne 107
Hackert, Stephanie 3, 7, 10, 18, 23, 25, 27, 28, Jackendoff, Ray 123
29, 30, 31, 32, 40 Jacquemet, Marco 47, 69, 115, 116, 117
Hair, Victor H. 10 Jarvis, Scott 43
Hall, Joan Kelly 32, 33, 43 Jaspers, Jürgen 110
Hall, Kira 8, 52, 106, 107, 114, 114n2 Jenks, Christopher J. 3
Hall, Neville A. T. 121 Jensen, Laura 80
Hambye, Philippe 9, 110, 113 Jespersen, Otto 10, 16, 25, 26, 41, 44, 59, 75, 112
Hancock, Ian F. 69 Jiang, Nan 65
Hancock, Isaac 7 Jiménez, Elena 81
Harper, Douglas 81 Joaquin, Anna Dina L. 57
Harris, Randy Allen 111 Johnstone, Barbara 23, 24, 41, 43, 76, 124
Harris, Roy 14, 18, 19, 27, 42, 112 Jongman, A. 42
Harvey, Gabriel 26 Joseph, John E. 21, 34, 39
Haspelmath, Martin 11 Jørgensen, J. N. 4, 32, 116, 117
Hasty, Daniel J. 71 Juffermans, Kasper 4, 36, 52, 117
Haugen, Einar 2, 18, 20, 22, 29, 58, 112
Haugh, Michael 52 Kachru, Braj B. 11, 29, 30, 31, 78
Hay, J. 54 Kachru, Yamuna 4, 18, 29, 52
Head, Anna Ruth 40, 44 Kanwisher, Nancy 42
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich 111 Kaufman, Terrence A. 30
160 Author Index
Kay, Paul 42 MacKay, Ian 114

Ke, Jinyun 59 Maddox, Todd W. 61
Kea, Ray 119 Madsen, Lian Malai 110
Kellman, Steven G. 11, 20 Maher, John C. 115, 115n3
Kemmerer, David 53 Makoni, Sinfree 4, 9n2, 16, 17n2, 18, 22, 113
Kempena, Gerard 65 Malt, Barbara C. 43, 73
Kerz, Elma 65 Maranda, Pierre 43, 62
Khalema, Nene Ernest 18 Marcus, Gary F. 42, 55
Khan, Zaved Ahmed 60 Marlow, David W. 64
Kjellmer, Göran 61 Marsh, George P. 25, 29
Knop, Karen 22 Martin, N. G. 61
Kodama, Nobuko 52 Mashiri, Pedzisai 9n2, 22, 112
Kowenberg, Sylvia 19n6 Mates, Andrea W. 57
Krashen, Stephen 35, 69, 115n3 Mayor, Adrienne 1
Kretzschmar, William A. 5, 11, 14, 19, 37, 41, Mbouya, Fasse 31, 125
46, 55, 56, 57, 58, 62, 74, 83, 86, 99, 109, McConnell-Ginet, Sally 18, 48, 53
111, 113, 124 McGeary, John E. 61
Krug, Manfred 61, 112 McGee, Michael Calvin 1, 3, 37, 123
Kuhl, Patricia 57 McIlroy, Guy 28n9, 34
Kujala,Teija 42 McNay, Lois 41
Mechelli, Andrea 42
Laberge, Suzanne 89 Medland, S. E. 61
Labov, William 27, 40, 58, 75, 82, 109 Mehler, Jacques 42
Ladd, Robert D. 42, 62 Melloni, Lucia 54, 54n6, 58
Lado, Robert 34 Menezes de Soua, Lynn Mario 27
Lai, Cecilia S. 61 Merabet, Lotfi B. 42
Lamm, Jodi 71 Mikesell, Lisa 57
Lantolf, James P. 112, 124 Mishoe, Margaret 71
Larsen-Freeman, Diane 57, 59, 125 Mitchell, Jake 71
Lave, Jean 5 Moag, Rodney 60
Law, Vivien 20 Møller, Janus Spindler 47, 110, 115n3, 116–117
Lee, Jerry Won 3 Monaco, Anthony P. 61
Lee, Namhee 57 Monaghan, Padraic 58, 113
Le Page, Robert B. 77, 102 Mondini, S. G. 54
Lepschy, Giulio 17, 18n3, 41 Monner, Derek 62
Levelt, Willem J. M. 65 Montgomery, G. W. 61
Levinson, Stephen C. 10, 31 Montgomery, Michael 71
Li, Wei 35, 36, 124 Moore, Dudley 8
Lieberman, Philip 54n6, 55 Morgan, Marcyliena 106
Linell, Per 29 Morini, Giovanna 62
Litola, Auli 42 Moro, Andrea 55
Lopéz Madera, Gregorio 21 Muldoon, James 19n5, 20
Loreto, Vittorio 57 Müller, Max 18, 27
Love, Nigel 5
Lowery, Mary 107 Näätänen, Risto 42
Luciano, M. 61 Nero, Shondel J. 18
Lupyan, Gary 58, 113 Nichols, Johanna 31
Luzzatti, C. 54 Nicolaï, Robert 31
Lvovich, Natasha 11, 20 Nicolaidis, Katerina 30, 60
Niedzielski, Nancy 54
Author Index 161
Nolan, A. 54 Rajagopalan, Kanavillil 18, 31, 124

Nopenny, Uta 42 Rampton, Ben 4, 13, 32, 52, 74, 115, 124
Norris, Dennis 42 Reali, Florencia 57
Norton, Bonny 28, 31, 60, 113 Redd, Teresa M. 30
Regir, Terry 42
Oldendorp, Christian Georg Andreas 121 Regis, Ferne Louanne 102
Olneck, Michael R. 30 Reinecke, John E. 24
Olson, David R. 34 Reis, A. 42
Olwig, Kargen Fog 119 Reiterer, Susanne 42
O’Reilly, Bill 5–6 Robins, R. H. 19, 27
Otsuji, Emi 1, 8, 9, 24, 33, 72, 111, 114, 116, 117, Roberts, Seán G. 42
123 Romaine, Suzanne 4
O’Doherty, John 42 Rommetveit, R. 124
Ogbu, John U. 114 Rose, Heidi M. 28
Otheguy, Ricardo 8, 9, 16, 20, 35, 72 Rotondi, Irene 55
Roy, Deb 52
Parkvall, Mikael 96 Ruthven, K. K. 71
Partanen, Eino 42
Pascual-Leone, Alvaro 42 Sabino, Robin 6, 7, 12, 21, 22n7, 24, 25, 29, 31,
Patrick, Peter 104 41, 47, 60, 61, 63, 66, 73, 89, 96, 97, 103,
Paul, Herman 12 118, 121, 122
Pavlenko, Aneta 6, 16, 32, 43 Saito, Hidetoshi 40n1
Pawley, Andrew 69, 70 Salsberry, Trudy 60
Payne, Arvilla 43 Sambeth, Anke 42
Peets, Kathleen F. 12 Sankoff, David 62, 89
Peirce, Bonny Norton 52, 56, 61, 119 Sankoff, Gillian 8, 26, 77, 80, 125
Pennycook, Alistair 1, 4, 9, 10, 16, 17n2, 18, 24, Sanz, C. 30
29, 33, 72, 111, 113, 114, 116, 117 123, 125 Sapir, Edward 113
Peperkamp, Sharon 42 Saro-Wiwa, Ken 31
Perani, Daniella 55 Saussure, Ferdinand de 10
Pereda, Ernesto 42 Scheibman, Joanne 68
Perry, Nora 7 Schick, Jürgen 25, 37
Petersson, K. M. 42 Schmid, Hans-Jörg 55, 57, 58, 61
Phillips, Daniel 107 Schmitt, Norbert 54
Piantadosi, Steven 83 Schneider, Edgar 31, 75
Pica, Teresa 51, 72 Schneider, Klaus P. 54, 51
Pierrehumbert, Janet 65 Schoenemann, Tom 59
Piske, Thorsten 114 Schumann, John 57
Pitts, Ann 102 Scotti, Guiseppe 55
Pitts, Sarah 63 Sealey, Alison 52
Pizarro Pedraza, Andrea 50 Sebastián-Gallés, Núria 42
Plumb, Allison M. 107 Sedaka, Neil 8
Poeppel, David 12, 34, 42, 55, 55n7 Segui, Juan 52
Poplack, Shana 29 Semenza, C. 54
Poza, Luis 74 Sensbach, Jon 121
Price, Cathy J. 42 Sereno, J. A. 42
Puglisi, Andrea 57 Shafer, Valerie L. 59n11
Pylkkänen, Liina 34, 42, 55, 55n7 Sheridan, Thomas 22
162 Author Index
Shields, Mark 102 Vaid, Jyotsna 42

Shibatani, Masayoshi 61, 76 Valdés, Guadalupe 74
Siegel, Jeff 61 Van Assche, Fons 43, 73
Silverstein, Michael 48, 56 Van Heuven, Walter J. B. 54
Simmonds-McDonald, Hazel 24 Van Name, Addison 24
Siyanova-Chanturia, Anna 54, 65 VanPatten, Bill 60
Slabbert, Sarah 47 Vargha-Khadem, Faraneh 61
Smiley, Patricia 60 Vatz, Karen 62
Smith, Larry E. 52 Vigliocco, Gabriella 53
Smith, Linda B. 57 Villa, Victor 60
Smitherman, Geneva 7, 24 Vinson, David P. 53
Spears, Arthur K. 7 Voloshinov, V. N. 50
Sprenger, Simone A. 65 Von Worley, Stephen 62
Sprauve, Gilbert 7, 66n18
Stack, Liam 53 Wagner, Johannes 31
Stafford, C. A. 30 Wagner, Suzanne Evens 80
Stein, Roberta F. 52 Wald, Benji 50
Steinberg, Jonathan 9, 22 Wang, Y., J. A. 42
Stone-Elander, S. 42 Wassink, Alicia Beckford 6, 10, 24, 107
Storbeck, Claudine 28n9, 34 Watts, Richard 21
Storms, Gert 43, 73 Webb, Karen S. 30
Strange, Winifred 59n11 Weinreich, Uriel 39, 40, 113
Swain, Merrill 34 Wenger, Etienne 5
Weniger, Dorothea 55
Tabouret-Keller, Andréé 72, 77, 102 Wesley, John 2
Talmy, Steven 51–52, 107 Weston, Daniel 125
Taylor, Charles Edwin 119 Whitney, William Dwight 10
Tenenbaum, Joshua B. 57 Wiechmann, Daniel 58
Tettamanti, Marco 5, 60 Wierzbicka, Anna 12, 57
Thomas, Eric 54, 56, 59 Winthrop, John 26
Thomason, Sarah Grey 30 Wode, Henning 59
Thorne, Steven L. 112, 124 Wolf, Clara 81
Thurston, W. R. 27 Wolfram, Walt 110
Tian, Xing 54, 54n6, 58 Woolard, Kathryn A. 3, 21, 23, 29, 111, 113, 126
Tomasello, Michael 53, 55, 60 Wray, Alison 27, 69
Tomlin, Russell S. 60 Wright, M. J. 61
Trager, George Leonard 27
Traverso, Véronique 52 Yates, William Butler 126
Trench, Richard Chenevix 26 Yi, Han-Gol 61
Trentman, J. A. 20 Yngve, Victor 39
Trump, Donald J. 53 Yoneyama, Kiyko 60
Truss, Lynne 49 Yu, Chen 57
Tserdanelis, Georgios 30, 60
Zafar, Shahila 60
Ujiie, Joan 115n3 Zhang, Hang 54, 54n6, 58
Ullman, Michael T. 115n5 Zheng, Yongyan 59, 105
United Nations 13 Zipf, George Kingsley 112
Urciuoli, Bonnie 23, 56, 75, 103
Subject Index
‘above, on’ 66, 67, 68, 93 categorical speaker 4–5, 44, 45

accent 6, 39 categorization 1, 4, 17, 31, 42, 43, 47, 54, 57,
acceptability 43, 109, 123 59n11, 65, 72, 74, 102, 117
accommodation 5, 75 children 5, 30, 35, 43, 52, 55, 56n8, 57, 58, 59,
additional language 32 60, 73, 121
additional language phonology 59 child language 55, 77, 101, 118
see also second language (SLA) chunks 68
adolescence 3, 80, 106, 118, 120 cognitive chunking 58
adulthood 118 cognitive constraints 38, 58
adult language 77 collocation 69, 94
language learning 40 colonization 1, 13, 18, 23, 24, 31, 104, 107, 115,
language processing 59 118–122, 125
advertisement 50, 81, 103, 106 communication 3, 4, 12, 28, 34, 51, 56, 75,
affiliation 28n9, 102, 103, 123 107, 113, 118, 122, 124
agency 52, 58, 75, 113, 122, 123 community 3, 16, 19, 19n5, 47, 104, 112, 114,
agent 37, 50, 74, 83, 114 118, 119
allegiance 14, 106 linguistic community 29, 31, 53, 60, 82,
alot 48, 56, 98 89, 121
ambiguity 49, 58, 82, 122 competence 9, 11, 31, 32, 35, 72, 116
ancestry 8, 16, 102, 114, 117, 119 complementation 70
ancestral linguistic resources 123 complex system 35, 56, 57, 58, 82, 83, 99,
see also heritage linguistic resources 109, 111, 115, 117, 120, 122, 126
anthropomorphism 13, 25 comprehension 46, 52, 54, 59, 123
appropriation 8, 11 see also reception, processing
asymmetric frequency distribution 41, 82, comprehensibility 76
88, 92, 94, 95, 104, 116, 121–122 conjunctions 72–73
audism 28 constructions 14, 45, 51, 53, 54, 55, 58, 66,
autism 61 69–73, 74, 76, 78, 80, 81, 82, 90–95, 96,
automatization 57, 58 97, 98, 99, 102, 116, 117, 120, 123
context 10, 14, 32, 35, 49–50, 51, 53, 56, 65, 72,
barbarism 2, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24 78, 100
belongingness 7, 20, 26, 47, 99, 125 context dependency 24
Bible 19, 21 conventionalization 11, 13, 14, 48, 61, 62, 74,
bigly 53 75–99, 106–107, 108, 115, 118, 120, 122, 123,
bilingual 12, 29, 30, 32, 35, 43, 113, 117 124–126
bilingualism 9, 30, 32, 35, 36, 37, 109, 114, 118 cooing 57
binominal sequence 54, 69 coordination 70, 72–73
borrowing 17, 32, 40, 66, 125 corpora 10, 45, 69, 86, 99
brain 12, 15, 34, 41, 42, 53, 55, 57, 61n12, 64, 125 corpus data 14, 54, 56, 61, 66, 76, 82–83,
86, 90, 92, 93, 99
Caribbean 13, 60, 77, 102, 103, 104, 118, 121, cultural assimilation 119
123, 126 cultural contact 61, 98, 113, 123
Afro-Caribbean community 19n6, linguistic contact 8, 98
119–120, 120n6, 121
Euro-Caribbean 118, 119, 120, 120n6, 121 Danish West Indies 7, 40, 68, 70, 96, 103, 118
categorical behavior 81, 109, 113 de/reterritorialization 13, 47, 116, 121
164 Subject Index
deafness 11, 27, 28, 61 grammatical categories 24, 26, 53, 63n15, 64,

deaF 28, 28n9, 34 65, 77, 98
deconstruction 65, 66, 113 grammatical judgements 43 71
deviance 30–31, 109, 123, 124 grammatical system 4, 14, 24, 32, 33, 56,
discourse 3–10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17, 22, 34, 35, 37, 57, 58, 60, 76, 98, 99, 109, 110, 124, 126
40, 41, 43, 48, 51, 52, 66, 69, 72, 74, 89, grammaticalization 83, 96, 98, 99
90n4, 93, 100, 110, 112, 113, 114, 117, 118, 119,
120n6, 121, 122–126 habituation 57, 58
discourse particle 68 heritage linguistic resources 8, 28, 33, 49,
dyslexia 61 101, 118, 120, 125
historical-comparative reconstruction 5, 23,
emergent grammar 10, 14, 25, 31, 33, 34, 53, 27, 29, 36n12, 39, 75, 98
56, 57, 75, 81, 82, 83–99, 102, 114, 116
entrenchment 13, 14, 34, 38, 39–74, 75, 76, identity 8, 14, 18, 21, 29, 30, 34, 47, 54, 60, 78,
77–83, 87, 80, 93, 97, 97n8, 98, 99, 100, 99, 100–101, 102–107, 114, 115, 118, 120–121,
101, 102, 107, 114, 115, 115n3, 118, 119, 120, 122, 123
122, 123, 124, 126 Dougla identity 102–103
erasure 4–5, 6, 126 ideograph 3, 9, 11, 14, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 40, 98,
ethnicity 20, 83, 102, 103, 114, 116; 113, 114, 117, 118, 123, 124, 126
metroethnicity 115 ideology 1–9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20,
etymology 39, 65 23, 24, 25, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38,
exemplars 64–69, 93 39, 41, 46, 47, 57, 66, 77, 82, 86, 106, 109,
exemplar theory 114 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 116, 117, 118, 122, 123,
124, 126
feedback 8, 34, 76 idiolect 10, 14, 41–58, 59, 61, 62, 63, 64, 66, 73,
fixing to 56, 56n10, 68 74, 75, 77, 82, 87, 98, 98n8, 113, 121, 124,
form/meaning potential 14, 29, 34, 40, 58, 126
59, 65, 68, 74, 78, 96, 98, 98n8, 99, 115, index 6, 8, 14, 33, 38, 47, 49, 56, 99, 101,
120, 121, 122, 124, 125, 126 102–106, 107, 108, 112, 114, 115, 117, 118,
fossilization 32, 109, 125 120, 121, 125
frequency 11, 44, 53, 58, 60, 61, 63, 64, 66, 68, indexical field 14
70, 72–73, 76, 82, 92, 93, 97, 98, 100, 104, inference 51, 56, 57, 65, 97
105, 106, 112, 113, 114, 120, 120n6, 121, 124, input 8, 34, 58, 59, 60, 64, 69, 75–76, 121
125, 126 interlanguage 31, 32, 77, 109, 125, 126
frequency distribution 14, 41, 56, 83, 86, interlocutor 49, 50, 51, 72, 76, 103
87, 88, 92, 93, 94, 95, 99, 109, 116, 121, interpretation 27, 40, 44, 49, 50, 53, 57, 82,
122 96, 122
furniture terms 83–88 inventing languages 16, 17n2, 113
[gemde] 63–64, 90 jargon 4, 16, 77, 82, 101

generative grammar 24, 25, 57, 58, 78, 110 joking 51, 118n4
genetics 61
genre 28n8, 34, 72, 122 kinda 68
grammar, teaching of 27 kinesic activity 27, 41, 56, 64
grammarian 19, 20, 21, 24 kinesic sequences 14, 59, 155
linguistic grammar 7, 10, 11, 16, 17, 19, 21,
21, 22, 23, 24, 29, 44–45, 64, 98, 111, 113, Linguistic Atlas of the Middle and Atlantic
120, 124 States (LAMSAS) 8, 62
Subject Index 165
languagers 6, 7, 8, 10, 14, 18n3, 26, 29, 31, 33, metro 11, 13, 36, 37, 72, 110, 113, 125, 126
34, 36, 40, 44, 45, 50, 51, 52, 53, 59, 60, Middle Ages 2, 19n5, 20
62, 64, 66, 69, 74, 76, 79, 81, 82, 83, 87, missionary activity 20, 24
89, 96, 98, 99, 103, 104, 115, 116, 117, 118, misunderstanding 49, 50
119, 121, 122 modal + have + verb construction 71, 90,
languaging 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 92, 93
18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 27, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, monocentricism 29–30, 31, 78, 79
36, 37, 39, 40, 41, 43, 45, 47, 50, 52, 53, mother tongue 11, 20, 31, 32, 109
55, 57, 58, 64, 65, 69, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, multi- 11, 13, 32, 36, 37, 42, 72, 110, 113, 125, 126
82, 83, 99, 100, 101, 104, 105, 107, 109, 111, multilingual 5, 8, 16, 21, 24, 29, 30, 33, 35,
112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 121, 122, 123, 42, 117
124, 125, 126 myth 31, 35, 112
legitimacy 13, 18, 25, 36, 109, 124
linguistic description 4, 6, 14, 19, 25, 29, 30, naming problem 6, 30, 107
33, 47, 98, 113, 115, 116, 118–122 nation 3, 5, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 29, 37,
linguistic heterogeneity 4, 6, 10, 13, 14, 21, 22, 40, 47, 74, 75, 78, 102, 116
24, 25, 29, 33, 34, 38, 40, 42, 47, 58, 60, post national 115
62, 64, 77, 78, 79, 82, 98, 101, 104, 112, 113, native language 11, 32, 59
116, 120, 121, 122, 123 nativeness 18, 21, 29, 32
linguistic innovation 5, 44, 48, 50, 65 nativization 11, 31, 109
linguisic memory 14, 35, 37, 46, 51, 53, 56, 57, native speaker 7, 11, 28, 29, 31, 32, 35, 36, 37,
58–69, 74, 82, 87, 89, 97, 100, 102, 107, 40, 77, 78
108, 109, 119, 122, 124, 126 nonnative speaker 5, 7, 31, 109, 125
linguistic individual 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 17, negotiation 14, 23, 51, 52–53, 78–81, 99, 102,
28, 32, 35, 36, 37, 39–57, 59, 60, 61, 62, 120
63, 68, 69, 73–74, 75, 76, 77, 82, 83, 87, neurological networks 42, 46, 55, 56, 57, 58,
90, 93, 97, 98, 101, 102, 104, 106, 109, 114, 59, 64, 65, 68, 69, 123, 124
120, 121, 124, 125, 127 neuron 42, 55, 64
linguistic repertoire 8, 11, 26, 27, 29, 32, 33,
36, 40, 59, 77, 125 on fleek 81, 106
linguistic rights 16, 30, 53, 123 oralism 28
linguistics/linguists 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 17,
18n4, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, 31, 36, 37, 41, paradigmatic patterning 14, 19, 19n6, 56, 65,
48, 50, 69, 74, 98, 113, 122, 123, 126 76, 82, 100, 122
anthropological linguistics 8, 15 parlor 69
applied linguistics/linguists 15, 74 persistence 67, 78, 106, 121
dialectology 5, 9, 29, 39, 111 phonocentricism 13, 26–29, 109, 124
historical linguistics 39 phonological assimilation 75
see also historical-comparative reduction 63, 93, 95
reconstruction plasticity 42, 59
psycholinguistics 100 plural 29, 66, 71, 78, 103, 104, 107, 121
sociolinguistics 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 15, 17, 27, 29, pluri- 11, 13, 36, 72, 78, 79, 80, 110, 113, 125,
40 126
Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts polygenesis 19n5, 21
(LLBA) 17, 33, 79, 80 poly- 11, 13, 36, 37, 42, 72, 110, 113, 125, 126
listener 53, 54, 58 polymorphism 61
polysemy 14, 58
male 119 power 1, 4, 8, 11, 12, 32, 35, 37, 52, 53, 60, 112,
marginalization 30, 107, 123, 126 113, 118, 119, 123, 125
166 Subject Index
power 66 serial verbs 70–71, 96–97, 121

pragmatics 15, 43, 52 sexism 1, 12, 39, 50, 112
predictability 93, 110 situated use 11, 13, 14, 34, 42, 43, 47, 48–53,
unpredictability 122 55, 57, 58, 68, 73, 74, 75, 77, 82, 83, 97,
prescriptivism 19, 35, 48, 64, 78, 78n1, 107 98, 111, 118, 120, 121, 122
prestige 113, 118 slang 61, 78, 87, 116
privilege 1, 28, 78, 119, 120 social networks 7, 8, 13, 43, 100, 101, 108, 119,
probability 48n4, 57, 58, 62, 90, 100 120
probabilistic learning 55, 57, 58, 99 socioeconomic class 81, 103
probabilistic use 41, 58, 60, 70, 87, 89, 92, stance 14, 28, 50, 99, 110, 102, 103, 107, 120
97, 100, 123 standardization 6, 21, 23, 24, 30, 78, 102, 103,
processing 3, 13, 27, 34, 42, 48, 50, 52, 53, 54, 104, 106, 107, 108, 126
55, 55n7, 56, 57, 58, 60, 98, 124 Structuralism 14, 25, 27, 31, 58, 69, 111
production 3, 14, 27, 40, 46, 47, 48, 52, 54n6, post-structuralism 111
59, 60, 65, 109, 110, 123, 124 syllable 58, 65, 65n17, 103
productivity 61 see also [gemde]
pronoun 44–46, 66–70, 71, 72, 78, 87–89, 92, switching 8, 31, 37, 51n5, 74, 109, 118, 125
103, 106, 107, 120n6 syntagmatic patterning 14, 56, 65, 66,
pronunciation 19, 62, 63, 75, 81, 90–91, 103, 67–68, 76, 82, 100, 122
105
purism 20, 107 target language 28, 31, 77, 109
trans- 11, 13, 35, 36, 37, 47, 72, 110, 113, 125,
race 2, 3, 4, 6, 11, 17, 20, 22n7, 111, 122 126
racecraft 2, 4, 6, 7, 37, 39 transfer 32, 110
racism 6, 12, 123 translation 19, 19n5, 21, 52, 115n3, 116, 120
reception 46, 52 transmission 11, 30
imposition of reception 61, 121 transparency 61
(re)enactment of identity 99, 100, 122
ideology 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 16, 17, 25, 33, 35, 36, usage-based theory 13, 14, 25, 35, 54, 56,
110, 111, 112, 122 57–58, 74, 99, 126
enactment of linguistic choice 37, 52, 83
reification 4, 6, 10, 19 variation 4 5, 9, 10, 21, 24, 32, 37, 41, 43, 46,
Renaissance 2, 19n2, 20, 21 52, 58, 61, 62, 63, 65, 68, 71, 74, 81, 98,
repetition 75, 118n4 98n8, 101, 107, 112, 122, 124
rhetoric 1, 50, 111, 113, 123 variant 66, 78, 83, 89, 92, 93, 94, 98, 100, 102,
rich memory 14, 56, 65, 100, 107 104, 109, 111, 113, 120n6, 121, 127
see also ‘above, on’; furniture terms;
salience 24, 53, 56, 60–61, 68 [gemde]; pronoun
sammich 103 vernacular 8, 9, 20, 22, 24, 29, 82, 113, 114
Saussure 18n3, 27, 112 vernacularization 13, 14, 40, 99, 100–108, 115,
scientisation 5 118–120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126
Second language acquisition (SLA) 8, 13,
28, 29, 30, 37, 61, 77 witchcraft 2, 4, 12, 17, 32, 37, 39, 111
learning 9
phonology 59 xenoglossia 116
scholars 34 xenophobia 1, 6

Robin Sabino - Languaging Without Languages Beyond Metro-, Multi-, Poly-, Pluri - and Translanguaging-Brill (2018)

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Robin Sabino - Languaging Without Languages Beyond Metro-, Multi-, Poly-, Pluri - and Translanguaging-Brill (2018)

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Languaging without Languages

Brill’s Studies in Language,

Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (Cairns Institute, James Cook University)

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/bslc

Names: Sabino, Robin author.

Copyright 2018 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.

This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

Introduction: The Languages Ideology 1

1 The Staying Power of an Illusion 16

2 Entrenchment and the Linguistic Individual 39

3 Conventionalization and the Illusion of Shared Grammar 75

appreciated [my] extended critique of the long-standing notion of lan-

limits our understanding of human language. It is my hope that by reconceptu-

1 Distribution of third person singular pronoun forms produced by six

3 An F1/F2 plot of 142 vowels produced by Mrs. Stevens 48

italics orthographic form

The ideology of a community is established by the usage of [ideographs]

Ideologies are understandings acquired, expressed, and perpetuated or modi-

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi 10.1163/9789004364592_002

prompted scientists to accept Aristotle’s claim that underground spontane-

1 Discourse, Ideographs, and the Languages Ideology

Hackert (2012:36) usefully describes discourses as systems of statements that

speakers, overly standard speakers, children, the hearing impaired, persons

1) am a se, am maŋke lo by lan o by ship.

am a se, am diŋ bete lo by lan. ham a

languagers deemed racially authentic according to various criteria – criteria

understanding languaging by asking how languagers organize linguistic vari-

and Pennycook (2010:242) also demonstrates such integration: “I don’t have

2 Ongoing Signs of Discontent

Whitney (1875:154, quoted in Hackert 2012:106) warned that “[w]e must be

As an illustration, Kretzschmar’s (2008:341) view of languages as “observa-

disciplinary boundaries. The chapters that follow begin to create a discourse

The Staying Power of an Illusion

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi 10.1163/9789004364592_003

it, “ ‘recognize[es]’ (or misrecognize[s]) linguistic differences [and …] locate[s],

1.1 A History of the Languages Ideology

much that masquerades as common sense derives from the speculations of

and in colonial missionary projects reflected and reinforced widespread belief

(2010:242) quote a languager’s evaluation of her linguistic choices as “bastard-

1.2 The Persistent Power of False Assumptions

Linguistics’ embrace of reified languages reflects the requirement that sci-

2) The Anglo-Saxon tongue has a craving appetite, and is as rapacious of

assimilate and subdue to itself, whatever it received into its bosom …

Unfortunately, Jespersen was incorrect: this habit of mind persists. In a par-

5) 1649 He beinge Linckister (because he could speake the language)

Consistent with this phonocentric bias, introductory linguistic textbooks argue

Although literary production has remained the source of good/correct/proper

tone); I: Instrumentalities (elements that signal register); N: Norms (interactional expecta-

of monolingualism is front and center in De Houwer’s (1990:339) description of

1.2.4 Legitimacy and Deviance

languages or what are described as nativized or indiginized varieties. For ex-

1.3 Dissenting Voices

Despite the continued dominance of the structuralist paradigm, research-

interlanguage, the usefulness of error analysis and fossilization be reconsid-

L2 influences on L1 even as she quotes Shridar (1994:803) to argue for viewing

6) Trader: Ohh. Too small. E hao la ‘ia Mālia (Besnier 2013:466).

1.4 Languaging, Not Languages

The OED dates languaging to the early seventeenth century.10 Nevertheless,

10 Mercury flyes, and sweares he languag’d it. (Gomersall 1628).

what later Krashen (1977) would describe as monitoring. In another example,

More recently, languaging has been taken up in contexts where traditional

given life by the languages ideology. If language contact, language learning,

Entrenchment and the Linguistic Individual

1 Distribution of third person singular pronoun forms produced by six

10 Mercury flyes, and sweares he languag’d it. (Gomersall 1628).

2 Bloch admits a range of temporal units.

19 A verse from a traditional Christmas song.

11) I call/called myself reading the newspaper, but I don’t/didn’t remember