1. Language use and identification
Centralization of vowels in Martha’s Vineyard

2. Language use and identification
Centralization of vowels in Martha’s Vineyard []  [] and []  []
while, pie, night
out, house, trout

3. Language use and identification
Centralization of vowels in Martha’s Vineyard []  [] and []  []
Age ay aw
75- 25 22
61-75 35 37
46-60 62 44
31-45 81 88
14-30 46

4. Geographical distribution of centralizationay aw
Down-island 35 33
Up-island 61 66

5. Degree of centralization and orientation towards Martha’s Vineyard
Persons
Orientation ay aw 40
Positive 63 62 19
Neutral 32 42 6
Negative 09 08

6. Register variation Complexity of the speaker’s competence
T’as pas vu le flic ?
N’avez-vous vu le policier ?
Lexical choices (policier / flic)
Syntactic choices
subject pronoun / verb inversion
omission of ne
Phonological choices: Tu as vs. T’as
Social deixis: tu vs. vous

7. Register variation Complexity of the speaker’s competence
You seen the cop?
Have you seen the policeman?
Lexical choices (policeman / cop)
Syntactic choices
omission of perfect aux have
Phonological choices
you : [j] vs [ju:]

8. Register variation Complexity of the speaker’s competence
Have you seen the policeman?
Might you perhaps have seen the policeman
Addition of modal elements might, perhaps

9. Register variation Complexity of the speaker’s competence
She don’t talk to them boys no more.
She doesn’t talk to those boys any more.
Morphological choices
don’t vs doesn’t (as 3rd pers sg auxiliary)
them vs those (as plural demonstrative)
Syntactic choices
double negation

10. Diachronic variation: English
Fæder ure þu þe eart on heofonum;
Si þin nama gehalgod
to becume þin rice
gewurþe ðin willa
on eorðan swa swa on heofonum.
urne gedæghwamlican hlaf syle us todæg
and forgyf us ure gyltas
swa swa we forgyfað urum gyltendum
and ne gelæd þu us on costnunge
ac alys us of yfele soþlice

11. Fæder ure þu þe eart on heofonum;
Father our thou that art in heavens
Si þin nama gehalgod
be thy name hallowed
to becume þin rice
come thy kingdom
gewurþe ðin willa
be-done thy will
on eorðan swa swa on heofonum.
on earth as in heavens
urne gedæghwamlican hlaf syle us todæg
our daily bread give us today
and forgyf us ure gyltas
and forgive us our sins
swa swa we forgyfað urum gyltendum
as we forgive those-who-have-sinned-against-us
and ne gelæd þu us on costnunge
and not lead thou us into temptation
ac alys us of yfele soþlice
but deliver us from evil. truly

12. This version of the Lord's Prayer is from Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 140 [WSCp], a translation of the Gospels written in Bath in the first half of the 11th century; edited by Liuzza (1994). Read by Cathy Ball (Department of Linguistics, Georgetown University) for Edward Vanetten's Sunday School class.

13. Diachronic variation: English
Fæder ure þu þe eart on heofonum, si þin nama gehalgod. To becume þin rice.
Old English, circa 1000 (West Saxon Gospels)
Oure fadir that art in heuenes halewid be thi name, thi kyngdoom come to,
Middle English, circa 1400 (Wyclif Bible)
Our father which art in heaven, hallowed be thy Name. Thy kingdom come.
Early Modern English, circa 1600 (King James Bible)
Our Father, who is in heaven, may your name be kept holy. May your kingdom come into being.
Contemporary English

14. Diachronic variation: English
Fæder ure þu þe eart on heofonum
Our Father, who is in heaven
Syntactic changes
Position of genitive pronoun ure (=our)
Morphological changes
Conjugation of be
Case: heofonum is the dative plural of heofon
Second person pronoun þu (þ = th)

15. Diachronic variation: English
Semantic change
on > in
Phonetic change
Fæder [fædr]
ure [ur]
Spelling system
æ þ ð

16. Diachronic variation: French
Carles li reis, nostre emper[er]e magnes
Set anz tuz pleins ad estet en Espaigne:
Tresqu'en la mer cunquist la tere altaigne.
N'i ad castel ki devant lui remaigne; (Chanson de Roland, environ 1090)
Phonological change: Carles/Charles, castel/château ; reis / roi ; nostre / notre, altaigne/hautaine
Pronunciation of final s

17. Diachronic variation: French
Carles li reis, nostre emper[er]e magnes
Set anz tuz pleins ad estet en Espaigne:
Tresqu'en la mer cunquist la tere altaigne.
N'i ad castel ki devant lui remaigne; (Chanson de Roland, environ 1090)
Morphological change:
Carles, reis, magnes : -s = subject case

18. Diachronic variation: French
Carles li reis, nostre emper[er]e magnes
Set anz tuz pleins ad estet en Espaigne:
Tresqu'en la mer cunquist la tere altaigne.
N'i ad castel ki devant lui remaigne; (Chanson de Roland, environ 1090)
Syntactic change:
*Charles sept ans a été en Espagne
*Jusqu’à la mer (il) conquit la terre haute

19. Diachronic variation: French
Carles li reis, nostre emper[er]e magnes
Set anz tuz pleins ad estet en Espaigne:
Tresqu'en la mer cunquist la tere altaigne.
N'i ad castel ki devant lui remaigne; (Chanson de Roland, environ 1090)
Lexical change (word replacement):
magne > grand; tresque > jusque; remanoir > rester

20. Diachronic variation: French
Carles li reis, nostre emper[er]e magnes
Set anz tuz pleins ad estet en Espaigne:
Tresqu'en la mer cunquist la tere altaigne.
N'i ad castel ki devant lui remaigne; (Chanson de Roland, environ 1090)
Lexical semantic change:
altaigne = hautain, only the metaphorical sense remains

21. Phonological change Latin Français Italien cantum > chant canto
campum > champ campo
carrum > char carro
carum > cher caro
caballum > cheval cavallo

22. Phonological change casus > cas (emprunt médiéval au latin)
campania > campagne (emprunt au provençal ou au picard ou aux deux)

23. Phonological change Latin Français Italien tēlam toile tela
tēctum toit tetto
sēram soir sera
rēgem roi re

24. Morphological change: analogy
Latin Old Fr (1200) French
amo aim j’aime
amas aimes tu aimes
amat aimet il aime
amamus aimons nous aimons
amatis aimez vous aimez
amant aiment ils aiment

28. Conclusion Why the interest in variation?
Not all variation is possible. Possible variation tells us about the structure of linguistic knowledge
Avoid simplistic analyses:
double negation is illogical
meaning and syntax of modal auxiliaries in English
confusion of diachronic and synchronic explanations

29. Conclusion
Central object of linguistic inquiry: the individual speaker’s competence
But
Complexity of that competence (multiple systems for one speaker)
Inter-speaker variation