SOMETH[N]'S GOI[N] ON!
VARIABLE (ING) AT GROUND ZERO!
Sali Tagliamonte
University of Toronto
Introduction
Variation in the pronunciation of the suffix -ing in English, as in (1) is a feature that has figured
prominently in language variation and change studies (e.g. Fisher, 1958; Labov, 1966/1982;
Trudgill,1974).
1. a.
b.
c.
d.
We were having a good time out in what we were doin'. (E)I
I've said there'd be somethin' on her desk by nine o'clock tomorrow morning. (0)
I'm just startin' at the beginning of this episode. (;i:)
So they're investigating ways of puttin' up a fire-wall. (N)
In fact, the variable (ing) can be considered the foundation linguistic feature of the variationist
enterprise. It was the first linguistic variable to be studied quantitatively (Fisher, 1958). It is said to
occur in virtually all varieties of English, it has become one of the most widely studied features of
the English-speaking world (e.g. Chambers et aI., 2002:120) [Petyt, 1985 #2601 :174]?
The first study of this variation was conducted in the United States in the late 1950's (Fisher, 1958).
Since then, there have been many studies of the (ing) variable in the literature - in the US (Labov,
1966/1982; Wald & Shopen, 1981), Australia (Shopen, 1978; Shnukal, 1982; Horvath, 1985) and in
Britain. In addition to widespread occurrence, Labov claims that this variable "operates in the same
way as well .... " (Labov, 1989:87), suggesting that it is monolithic in its patterns of behaviour.
Thus, the first question is, where did it come from in the first place? Abrief description of the
historical record on this feature puts the variability in perspective.
Historical perspective
The suffix -ing evolved during the Middle English period from the coalescence of at least two
different grammatical forms - a present participle and a verbal noun 3 (Visser, 1966:1081).
Present participle
Consider the history of the present participle. Prior to Middle English, the Old English form of the
present participle was -ende. During the Middle English period there is a gradual disappearance of
this form and its variants as they were replaced by -in. -In came about through a series of reduction
processes, beginning with the reduction offmal/el to schwa, a loss of the final schwa, and then
simplification of the final-nd cluster in unstressed syllables.
1 Tagliamonte, Sali A. (2004). Someth[in]'s goring] on!: Variable ing at ground zero. In Britt-Louise Gunnarsson, Lena Bergstrom, Gerd Eklund,
Staffan Fidell, Lise H. Hansen, Angela Karstadt, Bengt Nordberg, Eva Sundergren and Mats Thelander (eds.), Language Variation in Europe: papers
from the Second International Conference on Language Variation in Europe, ICLA VE 2 Uppsala, Sweden, June 12-14, 2003.
Evolution of the present participle ending: Middle English
lendellindel
reduction of lei to schwa
-end'
loss of fmal schwa
-end
simplification of [nd] cluster
-en
Thus, there is actually "no dropping of the velar nasal [ng]" in present participles, as this variation is
often conceived to be. Instead the form -in is the relic of the old form of the present participle.
Verbal nounOn the other hand, in Old English there was a verbal noun which was formed with the ending -ung
(Labov, 1989:87). In Middle English it began to be spelled I-N-G or Y-N-G-E.
Evolution of the verbal noun ending: Middle English
lungl
becomes lingl in Middle English
[ng] becomes [n]
Whether this form of the verbal noun's suffix was a direct descendant of the Old English verbal
noun or was formed on analogy with it, the capacity of this -ing suffix to operate in all noun-like
configurations continued. Simultaneously, from the same time period, there has also been an
independant tendency for the velar nasal [ng] to be pronounced with its alveolar counterpart [n]
(Visser, 1966:1083),
The expansion of the -ing form
The two independent origins of the -ing form converged with concomitant expansion in the use of
the ending -ing which displaced all the other endings that had been there before. These
developments result in what Visser (1966:1097) describes as, "an extraordinary expansion of the
function range of the form in -ing". The changes had a distinct pattern of diffusion in Britain. For
example, the metamorphosis of the present participle ending -ind into -ing originated in southern
Britain (Visser, 1966: 1096). Then it took some time for the ending -ing to spread north into the
Midlands where -end was in used, and then to the North where -and was the usual spelling. This
long process of diffusion lead to a proliferation of different renderings of the suffix during the
Middle English period. As Visser describes it, there was: "A bewildering medley of different
spellings all over the country" (Visser, 1966: 1096).
Development of social evaluation
By the 18 th century, substitution of -in for -ing was very common. 4 However, it was not highly
regarded. For example Rice (1765:50) refers to the -in variant, as: quote ... "it is a vicious and
indistinct Method of Pronunciation, and ought to be avoided" end quote ... (quoted in Jespersen
(1961:356». Despite such admonishments, the pronunciation of [In] also had a certain degree of
prestige. Jespersen, for example, refers to it as "fashionable" (1961:356). Examples of rhymes from
literary figures, as in the examples in (2) and (3), support this interpretation.
2. a.
b.
c.
d.
Garrick, 1777,jlirtin' rhymed with curtain; willing rybmed with villain
Byron, children: bewildering
Shelley, pursuing:ruin
Tennyson, treading;wed in (Jespersen, 1961 :356)
3. a. For who wou'd grudge to spend his Blood in IRis honour's Cause? Quoth she, A Pudding.
(1663, Butler, Rudibr, I, iii, 219) (Visser 1966: 1085)
2
b. The fIrst maxim a couple oflines may be said in,! if you arein a passion, don't swear at a
wedding. (1840 R.H. Barham, Ingoldsby Legends (world's Classics) p. 405) (Visser,
1966:1085)
Indeed, according to Jespersen (1961:356): "The aristocracy, and 'horsy' people generally, are said
to favour [In]". He adds, however, that it, "is certainly less frequent among ladies". In such
statements, we see the beginning of observations suggesting that variable -ing is socially
conditioned. In Early Modern English -ing became geographically split - -ing predominated in the
south -in the north, (Labov, 1972:88). Further, Visser (1966:1084) says that the -in form is used
"especially in Scotch and Irish English".
Sociolinguistic factors influencing ing
In modern studies it is the sociolinguistic conditioning of variable (ing) that has been its major
"claim to fame", particularly its correlation with sex and social class.
Sex
Interestingly, the age-old conditioning by sex seems to have continued to the present day. Since the
very fIrst quantitative study - Fischer's (1958) -females have been found to use more [N] - and
this is the consistent fInding across every study of variable (ing) in the literature (Fisher, 1958;
Labov, 1966/1982; Trudgill, 1972:179; Shopen, 1978; Wald & Shopen, 1981:246; Shnukal,
1982:202; Ramisch, 1989). Moreover, most researchers allude to the fact that the variable itself has
taken on a symbolic value in the speech community. For example, Fischer (1958:49) suggests that
[N] actually symbolizes female speakers and [In] symbolizes males". In Labov's later work in New
York City he observes that the use of (ing) demonstrates that women are "being more sensitive than
men to overt sociolinguistic values" (Labov, 1972:243). This interpretation is echoed in Trudgill's
association of [Ing] with female speech, which appears to have evolved into an association of the
variants of (ing) with a particular socio-symbolic value - [IN] is female and prestigious; while [In]
is male and holds covert prestige.
Socioeconomic Class
Another factor that has been passed down through the centuries is the correlation with social status.
th
However, unlike its association with the aristocracy in the 18 century, the [In] variant is now
correlated with a very different sector of the population - the working classes.
Trudgill's (1974) study is a milestone paper for documenting this. He demonstrated a strong
stylistic component to variable (ing) - there was in increase in velar [N] forms from everyday
speech to more formal styles, suggesting that the -ing variable "is a very good indicator of social
context" (TrudgiU, 1974:92). Further, stylistic variation was found to be greatest in the case of the
Upper Working Class (Trudgill, 1974:92). Trudgill argues that this is due to the linguistic insecurity
of this sector of the population.
Style
The (ing) variable is also well know to be correlated with formality in speaking: Chambers [,2002
#4796: 122) says: in careful styles in perhaps all standard accents of English, this suffix is
pronounced [N], that is with the velar nasal consonant."
Education
Given the social class associations, it is reasonable to expect that education would influence the
variation between [In] and [ing] as well- those speakers with more education can be expected to
use more of the velar variant and those with less education, more of the apical variant.
3
Age
Generally speaking, variable -ing is considered a stable sociolinguistic variable. This means that a
correlation with age is not expected - and in fact, correlation with speaker age has not been
extensively reported before. However, Horvath's (1985:97) study in Australia demonstrated that
[In] was a feature correlated with teenagers and in Labov's work in New York City he observes that
ing is sensitive to age. Such findings hint at linguistic change in progress ...
In sum the research on variable (ing) in the literature shows it to be a highly social variable.
Linguistic factors influencing ing
However, there are two important studies which cast a different light on variable (ing). Houston's
(1985: 110) research on cities across Britain found that when the -ing suffix occurred in nominal
categories (nouns and adjectives) the velar [N] suffix was more frequent, while less nominal
categories (progressives and gerunds) had more of the apical [In] suffix.
Grammatical category
Houston argued that, "the modem -inglin alternation had a continuous history originating in the Old
English verbal noun and participle" (Labov, 1989:88-89). The conditioning of the alternation
between [In] and [N] could be traced back to the origins of the -ing suffix in the English language.
Labov concludes that this grammatical conditioning showed that -ingl-in variation was, "a
continuation of a geographic alternation of late Old English, which had become transformed into a
social and statistic variable" (Labov, 1989:87).
To my knowledge however, there has not been a study which has tested all the internal and external
constraints on the use of -inling variation together in the same analysis. The early studies tested
sociolingusitic constraints, but not linguistic ones. Houston and Labov focussed on internal
grammatical constraints, but not social ones. This means we do not know which factors are the
explanatory ones in anyone context/dialect. Nor do we have sufficient information from
comparative community-based studies in Britain. Trudgill's study targeted Norwich in the
Southeast (1974) - Houston's targeted only 6 speakers per local across a wide range of British
cites. But what about the important difference between North and South? Moreover, when you
consider the studies that have been done on variable (ing) as a whole - the varieties of English that
have been studied are in the US, in Australia and in Britain, and (with the exception of Trudgill's
study again) these have all been based on relatively standard varieties.
Although it appears that the story has already been told on variable -ing, there is still little
information available on broad cross-variety patterns of its use. Therefore, the questions for this
research are the following: What are the characteristics of this classic sociolinguistic variable in
contemporary British English? How are these reflected at the community-level? Is variable (ing) a
socio-stylistic variable as the majority of modem sociolinguistics studies suggest? Is it
grammatically constrained, as found by Houston? Or is it somewhere along the trajectory of
metamorphosis from one to the other? Further, what are its characteristics in a location where the
use of the [In] variant is geographically pre-disposed - a northern city in north east England? With
these questions in mind, I now turn to the analysis.
4
Data and method
The York English corpus
The data for this study come from a 70 speaker sub-sample of the York English corpus
(Tagliamonte, 1996-1998) as shown in Table 1.
TABLE 1:
Sub sample ofthe York English Corpus:
[born, raised, lived in York all their lives]
<35
35-65
>65
TOTAL
Male
16
6
12
34
Female
11
17
36
27
14
29
70
TOTAL
I define the variable -ing as word-final unstressed -ing. However a number of contexts were
excluded because they produced categorical, ambiguous or indeterminate forms. These included
neutralization contexts, as in (4)5, tokens involving hapology, as in (5)6, tokens involving direct
quotatives, as in (6), meta-linguistic commentary as in (7)7, and forms that have highly reduced
morphology, as in (8).8
4. a. They're just playing [pleIn] golf all of the time. (12/263)
b. I remember being [biin] given free school meals. (26/323)
5. a. I went to the openin' night of that. (34/409)
b. I'm frightened to death of thunder and lightnin'. (33/137)
6. a. She was lyke, "we're going at the end of October and that's that". (311089)
b. And that Tracey from Coronation Street, she was always "going playing her tapes". (311431)
7. a. So she sang, 'Three Blind Mice', you know the one ... " and she cut off their tails with a
carving knife".
8. a. It's quite scary thinking he's gonna be a doctor. (YRKl02/250)
b. I'm round the ship tryna [traIn'] to find him. YRK/(08/296)
Leaving these exceptional distributions aside, the first 40 -ing contexts in each of the 70 taperecorded interviews were extraacted, resulting in a total of just over 3000 tokens (3261).
Results
Distributional analysis
The overall distribution of variable (ing), along with its overall probability of occurrence (or factor
weight) is shown in Table 2.9
5
TABLE 2: Proportion and probability of[ln] in York.
0/0
Form of ing
Factor
N
We!ght
[In]
.65
2129
65
35
.35
1141
JIN]
TotalN
3261
Notice that the so-called non-standard fonn is by far the most frequent (.65). However, in
comparison with the probabilities reported by Houston (1985) for other British cities this value
positions the community precisely where we would expect it to be - beyond the locations in the
south where the -ing fonn dominates. Indeed, York is as conservative as the Scottish cities of
Glasgow and Edinburgh where the [N] has an overall probability of .38. However, as is well-known
in language variation studies, differences in overall occurrence which is what is shown on the map
may be due to any number offactors. However, the constraints on the (ing) variable could be social
or linguistic, or both.
Multivariate analysis
In order to test which factors are actually significant when all of them are considered
simultaneously, we can employ multivariate analysis, as embodied within the variable rule program,
GOLDVARB 2.0 (Rand & Sankoff, 1990). Table 3 shows the results of this type of analysis. Here
all the potential factors claimed to constrain -inl-ing have been thrown in to the analysis.
TABLE 3:
Multivariate analysis of the contribution of external and internal
factors to the probability of [In] in York
Percent
TOTALN
INPUT
Factor
3261
.66
Weight
Gram'al Category
1134
.63
Verb
77
.60
24
Future
75
71
1017
.56
Gerund
211
.41
Adjective
51
821
.29
43
Noun
Range
34
Number of Syllables
2658
.52
69
Two
500
.41
49
Three
103
.33
44
Four
Range
19
Social Class
894
Blue Collar
.61
74
241
.56
70
Student
1605
.45
60
White Collar
.42
354
59
Professional/Managerial
19
Ran~e
FACTORS NOT SIGNIFICANT: Age, Sex, Education, Preceding
Phonological Context, Following Phonological Context, Type of
Lexical Item
Only three factors are selected as statistically significant - grammatical category, number of
syllables in the word containing (ing), and social class. However, the number of syllables and social
class contribute relatively moderate effects (the range in both cases is 19). Compare this to the
6
range for grammatical category, which is 34. As far as the patterns of variation are concerned for
social class, blue collar workers favour the [In] form at .61, so do students at .56; but white collar
workers and professionals disfavour it. This is precisely the constraint hierarchy we would expect
given the consistency of the correlation of [N] with middle class speakers and formal speech more
generally. The effect of syllables shows that 2 syllable words slightly favour the [In] form at .52,
while 3 and 4 syllable words disfavour, particularly 4 syllable words at .33. This means that forms
such as in (9) are far more likely to be pronounced with the apical variant. Examples such as in (10)
and (11) are far more likely to be pronounced with the velar variant.
9. a. And I never did get round to seein' it. (a)
b. Because they're just plavin' cat-and-mouse all the time. (h)
c. The new baby, Travis, is a very crvin'baby. (b)
10. a. We'd have a nice singsongin' night. (C)
b. Oh I hate garden in '. (0)
c. Yeah, just discos and boogeving. (L)
11. a. We used to do a lot of entertaining. (C)
b. He went into the airforce as an engineering apprentice. (M)
c. I do orienteerin'. (%)
However, Table 3 also reveals that by far the most significant effect on the use of variable (ing) is
the grammatical category of the word. Verbal elements highly favour the use of [In] while
adjectives, and especially nouns highly disfavour. The factor weight for nouns is only .29.
Moreover, the range for this factor at 34 - is more than twice the magnitude of the other statistically
significant factors. This means that the examples in (12) are far more likely to be pronounced with
the apical variant. Examples such as in (13) and (14) are far more likely to be pronounced with the
velar variant.
12. a. Lovely horses and they're fetch in , forth-thousand plus. (»:
b. And I was ravin' because they'd let the vicar off. (c)
c. I remember hatin' school. (i)
13. a. I remember my first day was really confusing and worrying. (1)
b. About seven or eight foot drop, it's amazin' what you can do after a beer. (C)
c. I told you my dad's language was disgusting. (V)
14. a. I was what you would call a weakling. (e)
b. And then next mornin' they were all brought back again. (b).
c. And I started work on an evening. (1)
These results demonstrate that the NOUN-VERB contrast in this variety is paramount. The next
step is to tease apart the differences by conducting the same analysis as in Table 3, but this time
separate the NOMINAL from VERBAL categories. This will enable me to determine just how
different these categories are ... by comparing whether the constraints that operate on NOUNS and
viewing whether they are the same or different to those that operate on VERBS. Table 4 shows two
different analyses including the same set of factors - the first is run on nouns, the second on verbs.
7
TABLE 4:
Multivariate analysis of the contribution of external and internal
factors to the probability of [In] in NOUNS and VERBS in York
SIGNIFICANT FACTORS:
Social Class
Student
Blue Collar
White Collar
Professional/Managerial
Range
Number of Syllables
Two
Three
Four
Range
Preceding Phonological
Velar consonant
Glides, liquids
Apical consonant
Range
Following Phonological
Pause
Vowel
Apical consonant
Glides, liquids
Velar consonant
Range
Age
Less than 35
35-65
Greater than 65
Range
Type of Lexical Item
Learned
Everyday
Range
NOUNS
VERBS
TOTALN: 820
Factor
N/cell
%
Weight
TOTAL N: 2230
Factor
N/cell
%
Weight
.64
.61
.46
.36
63
51
36
32
52
217
439
75
28
.56
.38
.31
.53
.61
.45
.43
77
82
71
69
161
622
1079
251
18
48
31
44
560
244
16
Factor not significant
64
58
39
36
128
656
Factor not significant
47
46
41
38
35
156
239
109
237
17
Factor not significant
54
42
34
225
306
289
Factor not significant
55
41
94
726
25
.67
.61
.47
20
.57
.53
.46
.45
.38
19
.59
.52
.41
18
.62
.48
14
.35
.52
17
62
76
202
2028
FACTORS NOT SIGNIFICANT FOR EITHER: Sex & Education
This contrastive perspective reveals that NOUNS and VERBS have entirely separate and
unique linguistic and social profiles. Nouns are conditioned by the number of syllables, verbs are
not. Nouns are phonologically conditioned by both preceding and following phonological segments,
but verbs are not. The type of lexical item conditions both nouns and verbs, but in the opposite
direction - the [In] variant is inhibited on learned verbs at .35, but promoted on learned nouns, at
.62. Perhaps even more striking about the results in Table 4 is that age is statistically significant for
nouns- the factor weights here are incrementally ordered - in apparent time, such that the younger
the speaker, the more they use [In]. Verbs, on the other hand, aren't affected by age. In sum, the
results for verbal categories shows that these forms are stable and embedded in the speech
community according to social class. Conversely, the results for nouns reveal the characteristic
8
pattern we would expect of change and are strongly constrained by multiple internal factors surrounding phonology, the number of syllables in the word and the type of lexical item. The results
of the two analyses could not be more different. The question now becomes, what is the
explanation?
Discussion
First of all, the findings in Table 3 demonstrated that overall internal, rather than external, factors
are the major constraints on variable (ing) in York. While social class does exert a statistically
significant effect, it is much weaker. Moreover, no external factors (education or age or even sex)
exerted a strong enough effect to be statistically significant ... and neither did most of the internal
factors we tested for. Indeed, the effect of grammatical category explains most of the variation
between [In] and [N] in this community. Thus in York, there is very little socio-symbolic value
attached to (ing). Instead, it clearly reflects an underlying grammatical distinction. Despite the
relatively recent research of Houston (1985) and Labov's (1989:87) statement that this"
grammatical conditioning" had never been suspected lO, the grammatical explanation is not new.
For example, in 1866, Marsh (1866:462) concluded the same thing. He observed that:
"The ancient termination in -end survived in popular speech long after it became
extinct in literature, and the vulgar pronunciation going', livin', and the like, is a relic
of that form, not a dropping of the nasal g final in the modem inflexion."
Indeed, the extent of the differences between nominal and verbal categories in the York data led me
to test the constraints which operate on variable (ing) separately for each of them. In so doing, I
discovered that the two forms are not just quantitatively different - they are not the same at all.
For verbal categories the [In] ending is still a vigorous reflex of the old present participle suffix [In].
In contrast, with nouns that end in I-N-G - they've always (or nearly always) had an underlying [ng]
velar nasal anyway. Therefore I conclude, just as Labov did earlier, that inling variation reflects a
dramatic continuity of historical grammatical patterns. In However, in York this variation has not
yet developed the type of social evaluation and symbolic value found in other places.
Further, there is also another story to be told. As I outlined earlier, there has also been a
phonological process overlying the functional differences since Middle English too, leading to the
reduction of [Ing] to [In]. I suggest, therefore, that due to this ongoing process and the strong
influence of the [In] pronunciation of the suffix for verbal forms, analogy has been operating as
well, such that the nominal (ing) forms are gradually developing the [In] pronunciation. In other
words, the variant [In] is in the process of encroaching into the nominal category. The internal
linguistic mechanisms through which this is happening are clearly phonological - preceding and
following phonological context are both statistically significant. This suggests a typical synchronic
process of weakening - whereby final velar nasals being replaced by apical nasals in unstressed
syllables. Support for this explanation is visible in the constraint ranking of the preceding
phonological environment of the contrastive analysis table- [N] is favoured at .67 after velar
consonants. Interestingly, this is reported from the earliest stages of the [In]/[ N] variation.
According to late 18th and early 19th century grammarians, [In] may occur after [N] because it
"prevents a monotonous sound" (see references in Jespersen, 1961:356). The favouring effect of
preceding velar consonants may well be a continuation of this process.
On the other hand, one factor - social class - conditions the variation in both nouns and verbs.
Thus, the variable (ing), regardless ofthe grammatical category it encodes is imbued with a certain
degree of social significance in York - just as it has since Early Modem English. This raises the
9
question of how and when a linguistic feature gets its social values. In this case, apparently, a long
way back. Perhaps, a more important point however, is this: at what point does a variable's social
value become strong enough to transform it into only a socio-stylistic marker as seems to be the case
in some locales? Recall the extreme sociolinguistic conditioning reported for this variable in
southern England, the US and Australia. It would seem that the socio-symbolic value (ing) encodes
there has become a primary component of the variation. Perhaps in at least the case of North
America and Australia, it was the transportation into a new ecology that led to loss of the original
constraints on its use which led to concomitant strengthening of the external factors. On the other
hand, perhaps the internal constraints would be more important there too if they were tested in the
same way as I have done here. Further comparative research is clearly required in order to answer
this question.
Indeed, the results I have reported here can now be used to see if other varieties of English retain the
same internal constraints as this northern British community. For example, do southern British
dialects have the same socio-linguistic profile as York? If Trudgill' s research is any indication, they
should not. If this research is any indication, other northern varieties - Scots and Irish in particular
- should. Again, comparative studies across British dialects would add much to this picture. More
broadly, we can compare and contrast these results across varieties elsewhere in the world,
particularly non-standard, indiginized and hybrid varieties. Given the incontestable source of the
grammatical constraints on variable (ing) in the history of English in Britain, this feature provides an
excellent diagnostic for testing the origins of varieties whose heritage is debated. Finally, I hope to
have demonstrated that mundane variable (ing) still has some interesting stories to tell us about
language variation and change. At ground zero in northeast England, [In] and [N] are still showing
us the grammar of centuries.
ENDNOTES:
In all the following examples, the symbol proceeding the text corresponds to a particular speaker in the York
corpus.
Chambers says:"one of the best-studied stable variables is (ng)". Petyt says "this variability occurs over much
of the English-speaking world, and has done so for centuries".
3
Accoring to Viiser (1966) there is another process going on too. He argues, likely an analogy with the present
participle form.
4
Jespersen (1961 :355).states that "as it is not mentioned earlier by grammarians [earlier than 18 th Century 1and
as the apostrophizing of -in' does not seem to be used by 17th century authors to indicate vulgarity, it can hardly be
connected with the old confusion of the participle in -nde and the verbal noun in -nge."
5
This includes contexts where a velar consonant [k,g] follows in the next word after variable (ing), and the
following velar consonant assimilates to the preceding one.
6
This includes contexts where variable (ing) is added onto a verb as a suffix that ends in unstressed -en. In these
cases, "the -in pronounciation causes it to end in two identical syllables". This ensures that each token selected is a true
suffix on the verb, not influenced at all by the base form of the verb (Wolfram & Fasold, 1974:143).
7
These two categories for exclusion include impersonations, and where variable (ing) occurs in songs or sayings
that may have been learned by rote.
8
These include contexts including, 'going' which reduces to 'gonna' or 'gon', as in (8a) and 'trying' which
reduces to 'traiena' as in (8b).
9
A variant [INk] is also found in Britain; however, it does not occur in York with any degree of frequency. We
found only 4 occurrences.
10
Labov (1989:97) notes that,"This finding first appeared in the work of students in a class on the Study of
Speech Community, at the University of Pennsylvania."
2
10
REFERENCES:
Chambers, J. K., et al. (Eds). (2002). The Handbook 0/Language Variation and Change. Malden
and Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Fisher, 1. L. (1958). Social influences on the choice ofa linguistic variant. Word 14(1): 47-56.
Horvath, B. M. (1985). Variation in Australian English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Houston, A. (1985). 'Continuity and change in English morphology: The variable (ing)'. Ph. D.
dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
Jespersen, O. (1961). A modern English grammar on historical principles: Part 1: Sounds and
spellings. London & Copenhagen: George Allan & UnwinlEjnar Munksgaard.
Labov, W. (1966/1982). The social stratification 0/ English in New York City. Washington, D.C.:
Center for Applied Linguistics.
Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Labov, W. (1989). The child as linguistic historian. Language Variation and Change. 1(1): 85-97.
Marsh, G. P. (1866). Lectures on the English language. London: Murray.
Ramisch, H. (1989). The Variation o/English in GuernseylChannelislands. Frankfurt am Main:
Verlag Peter Lang.
Rand, D. & Sankoff, D. (1990). GoldVarb: A variable rule application/or the Macintosh.
Rice, 1. (1765). An introduction to the art o/reading with energy and propriety. London: 1. and R.
Tonson.
Shnukal, A. (1982). You're gettin' somethink for nothing: Two phonological variables of Australian
English. Australian Journal o/Linguistics. 2(2): 197-212.
Shopen, T. (1978). Research on variable (ING) in Canberra. Talanya. 5: 42-52.
Tagliamonte, S. A. (1996-1998). Roots o/Identity: Variation and Grammaticization in
Contemporary British English Research grant. Economic and Social Sciences Research Council
(ESRC) of Great Britain. Reference #R000221842.
Trudgill, P. (1972). Sex, covert prestige, and linguistic change in urban British English. Language
in Society. 1(2): 179-195.
Trudgill, P. (1974). The social differentiation o/English in Norwich. Cambridge: University of
Cambridge Press.
Visser, F. T. (1966). An historical syntax o/the English language: Part two: Syntactical units with
one verb (continued). Leiden, The Netherlands: E.J. Brill.
Wald, B. & Shopen, T. (1981). 'A researcher's guide to the sociolinguistic variable (ING)'. In T.
Shop en & J. M. Williams (Eds.), Winthrop Publishers: 219-249.
Wolfram, W. & Fasold, R. (1974). The study 0/ social dialects in American English. Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
11