O N T H E VARIABILITY O F S Y N T A X : S O M E T H E O R E T I C A L R E M A R K S

MARÍA J O S É SERRANO

Universidad de La Laguna

R E S U M E N

En este artículo tratamos de revisar los aspectos teóricos y metodológicos básicos de la variación sintáctica centrándonos en varios fenómenos: las estruc­turas condicionales, los puntores y marcadores discursivos, la alternancia entre el pretér i to i n d e f i n i d o y pretér i to perfecto y la expres ión de sujeto. Relacionaremos los propósitos comunicat ivos individuales con determinados valores sociales y la expresión lingüística, valoraremos el t ipo de signif icado que debe utilizarse c o m o metodológicamente apropiado y estudiaremos el t ipo de contexto en el que cada forma se inserta, para poder así abordar u n adecuado análisis de las variantes sintácticas.

P A L A B R A S CLAVE

Variación Sintáctica, Sociolingüística, Sintaxis, Análisis del Discurso, Significado, Sinonimia

ABSTRACT

This paper aims to review of syntactic variat ion basic issues focusing o n several phenomena: condit ionals, punctors and discoursive markers, alternance between present perfect and indefinite in Spanish, and subject expression. It is important to relate significative indiv idual purpose w i t h social meanings and l i n ­guistic forms wherefore w e deal w i t h the def in i t ion o f syntactic variable and also w i t h the k i n d of meaning that should be stated to def ine it according to the communicat ive purpose and to the analysis o f context in each case, w h e r e u p o n one w o u l d be able to make a right syntactic variat ion research.

CAl'CU Rcnsla tie Filnhgia y su Ohlcictica. „ ' 20-21. 1997-9K / pcigs. 10x1-1071

1053

MARIA JOSE SERRANO

K E Y W O R D S

Syntactic Variation, Sociolinguistics, Syntax, Discourse Analysis, Meaning, Synonymy

RÉSUMÉ

Avec cet article o n prétend réfléchir sur le quest ion de la Variation Syntactique en plusieurs structures: les condit ionnels, les marqueurs discoursi­ves et les puntores, le passé composé et le passé simple, et l 'expression d u sujet. O n analyse le rôle que jouent le contexte et le type de signif icat ion p o u r ajouter quelque chose de nouveau à la descript ion de variantes syntactiques.

M O T S - C L É

Variation Syntactique, Sociol inguistique, Syntaxe, Analyse d u Discours, Signification, Synonymie

I n the l ight of Lavandera's sound cr i t iques ( 1 9 7 8 ) , i t i s very dif f icult to provide any real ly meaningful contr ibut ion to the problem o f syntac­tic variat ion. Subsequent contr ibut ions o f note make it even more di f f i ­cult to d iscuss the subject nowadays. I n the present paper we w i l l en­deavour to review the i ssue and put forward what we consider to be a correct approach to syntactic variat ion research.

1 . REVIEW O F BASIC ISSUES

Precursory var iat ionist w o r k s discovered i n phonology the ideal f ie ld for the analys is o f variables (under ly ing segment) and variants (surface rea l izat ions) , since these are easi ly del imited and recognizable i n that they are discreet un i t s w i t h a h igh frequency o f appearance. Be ing devoid o f meaning, the phonological variant adapts i t se l f perfectly to one of the basic postulates o f soc io l inguis t ics wh ich st ipulates that variants mus t differ on ly i n their social or s ty l is t ic value (Labov 1 9 7 2 / 1 9 8 3 ) . T w o variants o f a phonological variable serve equal ly w e l l

1054

ON THE VARIABILITY OF SYNTAX: SOME THEORETICAL REMARKS

for the same communicative purpose, they designate the same set o f equivalents and i n no case alter the t ru th value.

T h i s exp la ins the success o f socio l inguist ic methodology i n phono l ­ogy, but it does not lend suppor t to the v iew that the methodology cannot be applied to other levels. I f the intended purpose i s to study, analyze and understand language i n direct in terre lat ionship w i t h extra-l inguist ic phenomena, it i s not coherent to concentrate on the phonolo­gical level on ly , given that to do so w o u l d contradict the un i ty o f lan­guage. T h e scant inf luence wh ich the method has had outside these margins can be explained by the var ious di f f icul t ies wh ich are present i n phonology. Once notice was drawn to th is by the major i ty o f soc io l in -gu is ts , a w e l l - k n o w n and wide-ranging debate was opened on the subject. T h e earl iest and indeed strongest cr i t ic ism came f rom Lavandera (1978 ) and was directed against the f i r s t proposal by G i l l i an Sankof f based on the analys is o f the future marker i n ' tok p i s i n ' ( 1 9 7 2 ) , and also against Laberge (1977 ) and h i s w o r k on definite and indef ini te subject p ronouns . Lavandera also raised se r ious objections against w o r k s by Sankoff , Sar ras in & Cedergren ( 1 9 7 1 ) on the e l i s i on o f the que i n French spoken i n Montreal and against the study by Labov & Weiner ( 1 9 7 7 / 1 9 8 3 ) o f the agentless passive.

However, she appears to have failed i n her goal to compare syntax w i t h phonology because of the meaning: taking account o f the mean­ingfu l differences that variants may carry, she then proposes that such data requi res an additional interpretation i n order that the meaning i s not affected. H e r reasoning i s important i n that she draws attention to two obstacles wh ich do not, however, seem interrelated: on the one hand, the fact that variables are carr iers o f social and/or s ty l i s t i c meaning and, on the other, that the reference i s not affected since the supposed variants mus t be treated us ing the cr i ter ion o f functional comparabil i ty w i t h a subsequent weakening o f the meaning (1984 ) . I t w o u l d be better to try to un i f y both tendencies (meaning according to the context and to the speaker 's social condi t ion ings) .

Lavandera's arguments met w i t h response f rom Labov (1978 ) , who , despite having postulated that a variable necessar i ly had to invo lve two different f o rms o f saying the same th ing, considers that, as a heur is t ic procedure, i t shou ld and mus t be studied i n the context o f syntax. Fur ther response came f r o m Romaine (1981 ) , w h o pointed to the need for an adequate def in i t ion o f the syntactic variable so that the same state o f affairs or t ruth value i s not altered.

1055

MARÍA JOSK SERRANO

In Scandinavian countrie.s the perspective is rather le.ss skcptical andthe study of syntactic variation, sponsored by Jacobson (editor of Cheproceedings of three symposia held to date (1980, 1983, 1986)) focusesmainly on meaning, wich particular emphasis on how to approach a typeof meaning which is appropriate for syntactic variants. This representcdmajor progress in dcaling wich meaning, whether analyzed widely andinCuitively, and distinguishing between several meaning types: cognitive,connotative, stylistic, afective and pragmatic (1989: 381-394). Wich sucha variation of 'meaning acceptances' ir wuuld be easy to tackle syntacticvariants, and the entire concept of meaning would also be clearer andinnovative.

Howevcr, nol all che problems are rooted in meaning; there is alsoche difficulty of idencifying contexts and the extremely low frequency ofoceurrence of this type of variant, as Silva-Corvalán suggests (199Ü). Thenature of the variable (linguistic or sociolinguiscic) has also given rise tocontroversy (Lavandera 1984). One might also inelude the difficulty increating syncacCíc variables and variants, the interrelationship hetweenthe elements of discourse and the lack of variable unity, aspeets whichhave not received too much attention up to now.

2. SYNTACTIC VARIABLES AND VAKIANTS

The nature of the non-phonological variable is an important issue indíscussion of syntactic variation. Some scholars have based their cri-tiques on 'variable' and 'variants' as me el iodo lógica 1 tools. The most essen-tial issue centres on whether these elements are really pare of linguisticCheory; in this regard, Romaine scates categorically that analytical devicesare in a very real sense p;irt of the theoretical assumptions one makesabout the nacure of che probleni in hancl and the methods relevant lo itsdescription (1981: 6). In this way, we have lo consider ali linguistics ele-ments as analytieal and heuristical devices, as indeed thcy are, given thatphoneme, subject and variant are all elements of Che heuristic linguisticdescripción. Henee, we think that Cheshire's assertion that 'sociolinguis-tics has faíled to provide LIS with a coherent model of language use'(1987: 257) is somewhat exaggerated. It was necessary to establish amethod that yields the correlations between the linguistic and extralin-guistic phenomena. In that sense, variable rule has becn a useful too!.However, ii needs to be adjusted accorclíng to the aim of the study, al-though this does nol mean that variation theory is erroneous. It is quice

1056

ON THE VAHIABII.HY OK SYNTAX. .SOME THKORKTIC.AL REMARKS

obvious that the syntactic variable concept requires redefinition, or evendefinition. if one accepts that no proper definition of what syntactit:variable really is or what its main features are has been given. The typesof variables have been defined accurately by Romaine (1981) andWinford (1984), although they merely describe the relations between thelinguístic levéis (morphophonetic, morphosyntactic, puré syntactic, etc).We are therefore dealing with heuristic devices, from very well-knownsubjccts. It is not as imporUint to list the different Lypes of variables pos-sible as it is to try and formúlate what a variant actually is, in whatevercontext it might occur, and revtew our position as regards what constí-tutes a syntactic variable. As Cheshire has indicated (1987: 263), there areno clear grounds for distinguishing between the various variable types.In that sense, non-phonologícal variation cannot receivc the same treat-ment since we are dealing with different linguistic levéis. We have to beaware of such distinctions in order to better understand the problemssurrounding syntactic variable; moreover, we should not consider thevariable as being the solé analytic tool regardlcss of the nature of thephenomenon, as García argües (1986 b: 193).

No consideraron has been given to the possibility of a less stríct des-cription of what a linguistie variable might be: as it cannot be lield thatvariants 'be in some way the same' (Cheshire 1987; 267). This assertioncannoL to be viewed as scientifically sound, so in that sense it has beensettled that 'in this way it would be of course pointless to try to extendthe use of variable rules to the analysis of syntax' (1987; 268).

We will analyze some variation examples which include several eie-ments in order to answer certain quesrions as what a variant should beunclerstood as being: conditionals, punctors and discoursive markers, ihepresent perfect and índefinite in Spanish, and subject expression.

a) Conditionals

As we have already stated, delimiting a phonological variable posesno problems. Conversely, recognizing a grammatical variable calis forsomething more in the way of observation and analysis: the ideas over-lap and, in many instances. the clauses, in terms of the standard notionof them as 'groups of words with a complete meaning", seem incúm-plete and as a result context identifieation also becomes more complex.Note the texl:

'Si tuviera un hijo pequeño, pues a lo mejor estaba en mi casa conmi hijo, me gustaría más.... no tuviera la tristeza que tengo, aunque

1057

MARÍA JOSÉ SERRANO

tengo mis hijas que son m u y buenas y todo, pero tú sola... porque ellas salen por la mañana, l legan tarde... si tuviera ese hi jo pequeño, pues lo esperaría que llegaba c o m o niño' . ('If I had a little boy, I w o u l d probably be at home w i t h my son, I w o u l d be happier..., I w o u l d not be as sad as I am n o w , even though I have my daughters w h o are very g o o d and all that, but y o u alone...because they go off in the m o r n i n g and come home late...if I had that l ittle boy, we l l I w o u l d wai t for h i m to come home l ike a little boy' )

Let u s take the above text. We can extract four unreal enunciated

condit ionals wh ich do not refer to the past:

1) 'Si tuviera u n hi jo pequeño, estaba en m i casa con m i hi jo. ' ('If I had a little boy, I w o u l d be at home w i t h my son.')

2) 'Si tuviera u n hi jo pequeño, me gustaría más.' ('If I had a little boy, I w o u l d be happier. ' )

3) 'Si tuviera u n hi jo pequeño, no tuviera la tristeza que tengo.' ('If I had a little boy, I w o u l d not be as sad as I am now. ' )

4) 'Si tuviera u n hi jo pequeño, lo esperaría que llegaba c o m o n iño. ' ('If I had a little boy, I w o u l d wai t for h i m to come home l ike a little boy. '

I n ( 1 ) the appearance o f the indicative i s condit ioned by the who le

discourse because the point o f departure i s the basic impl icat ions o f the

conversation, wh ich i n t u rn are based on an unreal context (the speaker

does not have a l i t le boy) . T h e speaker i s responding i n unreal terms.

T h e indicative i s tradit ional ly the appropriate (al though not necessary)

way to express reality; however, here it actualizes i ts meaning for the

unreal context.

(2 ) and (4 ) take as their start ing point an impl icat ion (the prev ious

context) and thus the sentence cont inues i n an unreal context. T h e con­

dit ional appears i n the second hal f i n the same circumstances as the

indicative does.

I n ( 3 ) the presence of the subjunct ive i s also condit ional on the pre­

v i ous real context, but the d iscurs ive connection w i t h the p rev ious sen­

tences i s reduced, given that i t i s enunciated afterwards. T h e appear­

ance of the subjunct ive consti tutes the same meaning opt ion as the con­

dit ional and the indicative. Consequently, basic meanings have been

actualized at th is communicative moment and they may thus be consid­

ered as being variants. I n other communicative s i tuat ions the three

modes may poss ib l y denote, for example, dif ferent degrees o f probabi l ­

i ty, o f reality, etc., or two o f them may appear to be alternate forms

wh i l e the th i rd does not. T h i s means that the potential i ty o f meaning o f

1058

O N T H E VARIABILITY O F SYNTAX: SOME THEORETICAL REMARKS

the f o rms i s very varied; hence it i s a case here o f actualization o f mean­ing and not o f functional comparabil ity, as Lavandera proposes (1984 ) , an i ssue wh ich we have already addressed e lsewhere (Serrano 1992) . T h i s functional comparabil i ty i s not feasible in the treatment o f syntactic variants since the funct ional i ty ' o f the fo rms wh ich alternate i n the con­text does not stem f rom chance: i f they alternate it i s because, concep­tually, it i s poss ib le for two f o rms to be used to refer to the same thing. I n th is sense, Lavandera's proposal i s not developed and indeed -once we analyze the verbal f o rms o f the condit ional sentences f rom a varia-t ion is t perspective- it might be said to be contradictory.

About variat ion i n condit ional sentences i n Span ish we may esta­b l i sh a variable def in i t ion: the actualized meaning shared between variants (Serrano 1994, 1 9 9 6 ) .

b) Punctors and discursive markers

Punctors (particles that usua l ly appear at the end o f an utterance) and d iscurs ive markers have been analyzed by some scholars. T h e y are structures produced very often i n discourse and for wh ich one can estab­l i s h comparison between frequency and speaker, so it seems poss ib le that the use may be correlated w i th social factors. According to the tra­dit ional variable concept, it seems imposs ib le to undertake a 'traditional' or ' se r ious ' s tudy as to whether there i s no under ly ing segment, but merely surface real izat ions. Vincent and Sankof f , however, consider that 'at functional level, we can say that they (pLinctors) are interchangeable, even i f they are constrained by etymological or contextual factors' (1992: 206 ) . T o del imit the context they analyzed the prosodic phrase value, thus anabling a var iat ionist approach of the use o f punctors to be carried out. T h e y occur i n four prosodic contexts:

R e g u l a t i o n — vous savez ( 'you k n o w ' ) , la ('there') Demarcat ion n'est-ce pas ('don't we ) , la ('there') Segmentation la ('there') Discourse vous savez ( 'you k n o w ' )

T h e prosodic context i s the constrainer o f variants and of the differ­ent uses they can acquire as isolated un i t s i n d iscourse.

I n a s im i la r way, Ol ive i ra e Si lva & Tavares de Macedo (1992 ) analys­ed the d iscurs ive markers i n spoken B raz i l i an Portuguese according to contextual funct ion ( w i s h to be polite, express subjectivi ty, out l ine per­sonal op in ions , etc) and were able to correlate them w i t h external fac-

1059

MARÍA JOSÉ SERRANO

to rs , concluding that 'the hol is t ic approach o f d iscourse analys is a l l ows

u s to perceive special ized funct ions that had not been yet observed

w h e n their descript ion was l imi ted to the sentential level ' (1992 : 2 4 8 ) .

I f the authors have not given a def in i t ion o f what the variable i s for

their important research, one can suppose that it i s not a lways neccesary

to set out what the 'under ly ing segment' i s . A l though there i s no varia­

t ion i n i ts most usua l sense (as has been establ ished for the phonologi ­

cal leve l ) , there i s variat ion i n a new sense. I t could be establ ished that

there i s variat ion at d iscourse level. Such a s tudy s h o w s that certain

variable un i t s need not originate f r om a prev ious def in i t ion o f the 'varia­

ble'.

c) Present perfect and indefinite

Garcia i s correct i n saying that ' i t i s important to integrate the qual i ­

tative judgements w i t h quantitative data' (1985: 218 ) . I t i s neccesary to

make an accurate qualitative examinat ion o f the l ingu is t ic data that ap­

pears to alternate, isolate the context, and f ina l ly to decide i f quantitative

analys is i s poss ib le . T h i s has to be fu l l y supported by se r i ous theoretical

too ls and aided by D iscourse Ana l ys i s and Pragmatics tools . O n l y i n th i s

way i s w ider variat ion analys is poss ib le .

I n Cañarían Span ish we f ind alternative ways of express ing the same

reference: present perfect ( P P ) and indef ini te ( I N ) w h e n event t ime and

real t ime i s very shor t , namely w h e n reference i s located close to the

t ime of communicat ion ( T O C ) (to use the term of K i n g , 1992: 2 3 ) .

Examp les are as fo l l ows :

5) Esta mañana m e l e v a n t é / m e h e l e v a n t a d o a las siete y m e f u i / h e i d o a la oficina temprano (This m o r n i n g I got u p / I have got u p at seven and I w e n t / I have gone to office early)

6) M e p u s e / h e p u e s t o la chaqueta porque tenía frío pero m e l a q u i t é / h e q u i t a d o porque tenía calor ( I p u t / I have put m y jacket o n because I was co ld , but I took it o f f / I have taken it o f f because I was so hot)

T h e compound f o r m ( I have got up, I have put on ) can be stated

nowadays as the Span ish standard f o r m after a grammatical ization pro­

cess o f the anterior (represent ing an action w i t h current relevance or an

action wh ich init iated i n the past and continues into the present) to past

perfective funct ion (Schwenter 1994) . I n Cañarían Span ish , as i n the

major i ty o f American dialects, such grammaticalization process has not

1060

ON THE VARIABILITY OF SYNTAX: SOME THEORETICAL REMARKS

t a k e n p lace yet, a n d p r e s e n t perfect is t h e less u s e d form in this s p e e c h c o m m u n i t y . Span i sh G r a m m a r s tates that PP is u s e d to refer t o a n ac t ion that h a s t a k e n p l ace in t h e n e a r p re sen t . Converse ly , IN is u s e d , as in o t h e r l a n g u a g e s , t o refer t o ac t ions w h i c h o c c u r r e d at a specific pas t p o i n t in t ime:

7) Me casé l ibremente porque qii ise ( I got marr ied because I want­ed to) (It was a long t ime ago)

8) M e o p e r é y aquí estoy ( I had an operat ion and here I am) (It was many years ago)

T h e spec ia l fea ture of Cañar ían Spanish , un l ike s t a n d a r d Spanish , is tha t IN is u s e d in con tex t s w h e r e PP w o u l d b e e x p e c t e d , that is, t o refer a n ac t ion w h i c h h a s t a k e n p l ace c lose to s p e e c h T O C , t h u s b o t h b e i n g var iants of e a c h o ther . IN fits in this con tex t b y acqu i r ing t h e p r a g m a t i c func ión of Re levance (Spe rbe r y Wi l son 1986) in t h e p re sen t . A l t h o u g h formal features of IN a re co r re la t ed w i th a r e fe rence tha t c o n n e c t s w i th t h e past , it is c a p a b l e of referr ing to a n i m m e d i a t e c o m m u n i c a t i v e si tua­t ion b y m e a n s of Re levance . 'Being re levant ' m e a n s p r o d u c i n g c o n t e x ­tual effects (Spe rbe r y Wi lson 1986, Wi l son y Spe rbe r 1993)).

In this w a y , t h r o u g h a p ragma t i c funct ion, IN c a n cons t i tu te a var ian t of PP for this r e fe rence in Cañar ían Span i sh (Ser rano , 1995 a, 1995 b ) . We h a v e in this s tudy , therefore , t h e a l t e r n a n c e of different forms in a u n i q u e con tex t , w h e r e var iable defini t ion c o u l d b e t h e e x p r e s s i o n of a ' r e fe rence c lose to T O C expres s ion ' .

O u r a im h e r e is to s tate the i m p o r t a n c e of es tab l i sh ing t h e funct ion that a form acqu i r e s in d i scourse , b y m e a n s of a n y d e v i c e ( in this case , t h e p ragma t i c funct ion of Re levance ) w h i c h m a k e s it feasible for t w o forms to p e r f o r m t h e s a m e funct ion. Such a funct ion c a n b e e x p o s e d b y d i scours ive a n d p r a g m a t i c dev ices .

b) Subject expression

T h e s t u d y of sub jec t e x p r e s s i o n is a l r e a d y t r a d i t i o n a l in Sociolinguist ics a n d h a s b e e n a n a l y z e d in severa l s p e e c h c o m m u n i t i e s a n d from different theore t ica l pe r spec t ives . T h e def ini t ion of subject e x p r e s s i o n var iab le has b e e n g iven as ' a b s e n c e vs. p r e s e n c e of subject ' , its cons t ra ine r s a re similar: subject a b s e n c e is co r re la t ed w i th n o n - a m b i ­g u o u s form, wi th ident ical r e fe rence a n d w h e n t h e r e a re t w o 'consti t­uen t s ' .

1 0 6 1

MARIA JOSE SERRANO

Semantic-pragmatic factors s h o w that subject frequency i s l e s s cate­gorical w h e n the referent can be identi f ied w i thout ambiguity and w h e n there i s no 'orational or d iscourse topic', whereas subject exp ress i on i s correlated w h e n there i s a ' focus o f contrast' (Si lva-Corvalán 1982, Morales 1986, Bent ivog l io 1987) . Subject o m i s s i o n i s usua l l y correlated w i t h d iscours ive factors.

More recent s tud ies, however, have analyzed the interrelat ion be­tween phonetic deletion 'devices' and the presence o f a grammatical category. Such studies aim to suppor t the Funct ional is t H y p o t h e s i s o f K i p a r s k y (1982 ) , wh ich states that 'there i s a tendency for semantical ly relevant in format ion to be retained i n surface structure' ( K i p a r s k y 1982: 8 7 ) . T h i s 'saliency' enables certain elements wh ich do not appear i n s u r ­face structure to be compensated w i t h other elements so that communi ­cative purpose i s not affected. Such a hypothes is has explained several l ingu is t ic change processes: ' l o s s o f verbal concordance o f 3 rd person i n B raz i l i an Portuguese ( E l e s comem—eles come)' (Naro 1981) due to 'denasalisation o f f inal vowe ls ' ) . A s a functional device, th i rd person p lu ­ral subject express ion contributes to ' reso lv ing ' poss ib le the ambiguity that s ingular carries. I n Puerto Rican Span ish , Hochberg ( 1 9 8 6 ) and Paredes Si lva (1993) both found signif icant re lat ionship between f inal / s / deletion and ( T ú / é l ) subject exp ress ion . More recently, Ranson (1992 , 1993) i n her analysis o f / s / deletion i n Andalusian Span ish proposes a modif icat ion o f th is hypothes is , consider ing that the tendency to mantain relevant in format ion on the surface i s dependent not jus t on l ingu is t ic factors but on contextuáis ones also.

I n these studies variat ion analys is evidences that determining a 'pure' non-phonological variable (as suggested by Romaine 1984 and W i n f o r d 1984) i s an extremely dif f icult matter, since a compensating device promotes variat ion existence. I n my op in ion , the most interest ing analysis i s that by Ranson, w h o demonstrates that compensating devices are not on ly l inguist ic but also contextual, such as p ronoun exp ress ion i n / s / deletion or contextual exp ress ion o f grammatical person. I n the fo l low ing example, the l is tener 's knowledge -that on ly men w o r k i n the fields and that the speaker has two daughters and one s o n - a l l ows h i m to interpret the subject o f dos hijos que tiene as the brother and not the speaker, mentioned more recently by the p ronoun yo:

7) Allí trabaja u n h e r m a n o m í o q u e t e n g o y o , y d o s hijos q u e tiene, y h o m b r e s d e la cal le q u e e s t á n allí c o l o c a d o s t r a b a j a n d o t a m b i é n ('A b r o t h e r of m i n e that I h a v e w o r k s t h e r e , a n d t w o s o n s tha t he has, a n d m e n f rom t h e s t reet a r e p l a c e d w o r k i n g t oo ' ) ( F r o m R a n s o n 1991: 143)

1062

ON THE VARIABILITY OF SYNTAX: SOME THEORETICAL REMARKS

A l l th i s means that l inguis t ic f o rms are not on ly condit ioned by l i n ­guist ic elements but also by others wh ich are inferred f rom communica­tive interaction between l is tener and speaker. He re we have proof o f the existence o f another f o r m o f def in ing syntactic variables; taking account of their interrelat ion w i t h other l inguis t ic elements such as a compensat­ing device or a deleting or expressed f o r m condit ioned by external fac­tors o f the l inguis t ic sys tem. A s Lavandera suggests (1988: 2 4 ) , i t i s important to take account o f the interpersonal o r interactional context.

I n the l ight o f these non-phonological elements one can d iscuss what might be defined as being a variable and thus examine h o w analyt­ic tools can be related to l inguis t ic reality.

I t i s quite obv ious that i n order to del imi t the f ie ld o f grammatical variables and variants i t i s f i r s t necessary to acknowledge that the pho­nological variable i n most cases i s clearly perceptible and, consequently, the variants are also easi ly d ist inguishable. T h i s i s not on ly because, as Lavandera says (1984: 4 3 ) , they do not have referential meaning, but because i n the spoken chain even a non-expert could d iscern whether a certain phoneme i s being produced i n different ways. I f , at a given moment, a speaker produces the aspirated variant o f ( r ) i n came (meat), it i s easy to tel l that i t i s a different pronunciat ion o f the same phoneme. Conversely, i f someone says 'Si lo habia visto, me habia gustadd (If I had seen it, I would have liked it), recognizing that the pluperfect o f the indic­ative i s a variant o f the pluperfect o f the subjunct ive i n hypothetical-potential or unreal contexts, requi res, at the very least, a certain obser­vation o f and fami l iar i ty w i t h l inguis t ic data. De l im i t i ng a syntactic varia­ble entails considerably greater dif f iculty, i f we want to do it i n the same sense as it i s done at phonological level, since it i s obv ious that there i s interre lat ionship o f elements o f d iscourse. Given that our aim here i s not to study the bonsais o f syntax, to use Stubbs ' exp ress ion (1987 :20 ) , the disorder o f the concepts may we l l confuse u s . I n these cases it i s impor­tant to tu rn to the pragmatics o f l ingu is t ics and discourse analys is i n order to achieve our objective. Moreover, the lack o f variable un i ty i s associated w i t h the concept thereof found i n phonology: m i n i m u m , d i s ­crete and easi ly d iv is ib le un i t s . T h i s i s not poss ib le i n grammar. Whereas in phonology variables are phonemes, i n syntax the concept o f variable cannot be l imi ted to a particular element. I t i s neither a verbal fo rm, a noun or an adverb. Rather there are certain elements that may vary i n the context o f the spoken chain, i n wh ich the poss ib i l i t i es are extremely wide. Logically, th is i s due to the fact that what var ies at the grammati-

1063

MARÍA JOSÉ SERRANO

cal level i s much more complex. F o r that reason one may ask: What can be defined as a syntactic variable?.

F r o m the above examples one can infer that many th ings can be defined as 'variable' and also that i n many cases it i s quite dif f icult to establ ish a def in i t ion o f what i s vary ing. I t can be an actualized meaning (as i n condi t ionals) , a pragmatic funct ion ( indef ini te verb f o r m ) , a d i s -cours ive funct ion (as i n punctors or subject exp ress ion ) , a compensating device (as i n subject exp ress ion a lso) , an agreement funct ion (as i n sub ­ject exp ress ion i n O ld French ( D u p u i s , Lemieux & Gosse l i n 1992) .

What one could establ ish therefore i s that a new variable concept has to be settled, one wh ich i s different f r om the tradit ional v iew.

I t i s more clear, however, what a variable i s i n Creole continua, as W i n f o r d ( 1 9 8 4 ) has argued, given that ' i t s equivalents' are taken f rom standard language and 'native speakers have at their d isposal a r ich variety o f morphological and syntactic alternants for express ing what appear to be the same meanings (...) and many o f these k i n d s o f alter­nants operate on the border l ine o f morphology and syntax' . I t s variable def in i t ion i s the f o rm that creole i tem comes f rom, although the author considers that 'the nature o f variat ion at the morpholog i cal and syntac­tic levels i n Creole continua poses substant ial di f f icul t ies for the concept o f l ingu is t ic variable, part icularly w i t h respect to speci fy ing the bas is o f equivalence between variants according to the different types o f varia­b les (1984: 284 ) .

L ingu is t ic reality i s much more complex than our analytic too ls and somet imes these do not suff ice to describe l inguis t ic variable phenome­na. We shou ld not concentrate on the concept o f 'choice', and i n so doing we can avoid the considerat ion that, as Garcia puts i t ( 1986 b: 2 1 9 ) , the speaker has no choice. I t h ink the speaker does have a choice between the var ious l ingu is t ic f o r m s available and he chooses the one he needs according to the context and the communicative s i tuat ion. Scholars have devised the concept o f variable to s tudy f o r m s that might not be 'the same' and th i s has been the focus o f debate on syntactic variat ion problems. Determin ing whether we shou ld continue to v iew the variable as ' two ways o f saying the same th ing ' (a very poor def in i ­t ion ) i s a very important step i n progress i n the study o f non-phonolo­gical variat ion.

At th is point I might propose an extens ion o f the variable concept w h e n considered at the syntactic level, analyzing contexts i n wh i ch f o r m s are produced and the acquired funct ion according to communi ­cative purpose. I t i s at th is point that the problem o f meaning ar ises.

1064

O N THE VARIABILITY O F SYNTAX: SOME THEORETICAL REMARKS

3) W H A T KIND O F MEANING?

If t h e e x a m p l e s g i v e n a b o v e a re c a p a b l e of cor re la t ing wi th soc io -linguistic factors, it is o b v i o u s that a t y p e of m e a n i n g ad jus ted to varia­t ion m a y b e p r o p o s e d . In o u r v i e w w h a t is truly i m p o r t a n t is t h e n a t u r e of m e a n i n g w h i c h o n e a d o p t s . T h e c o n c e p t of m e a n i n g in syntact ic varia­t ion c a n n o t h a v e t h e s a m e in te rpre ta t ion as it h a s in o t h e r s tud ies , tha t is, it c a n n o t b e c o n c e i v e d as b e i n g a n o n v a r i a n t ent i ty in its m o s t s t ruc­turalist a spec t s , n o r in its cogni t ive a s p e c t g iven that , if this w e r e t h e case , o b v i o u s l y n o var ia t ion of a n y sort c o u l d exist. T o limit m e a n i n g to its de no t a t i ve s ide is t o r e d u c e it t o a ve ry p o o r v i e w 1 . It s h o u l d b e p o s ­sible t o es tabl i sh m e a n i n g var iants o n a level s u c h that all o t h e r e l e m e n t s c a n b e t a k e n in a c c o u n t (d i scours ive a n d p r a g m a t i c funct ions , e tc ) . Since p ragmat i c rea l iza t ions a re ve ry different d e p e n d i n g o n e a c h cu l tu re , it is poss ib l e that t h e s e di f ferences m a y b e c o m e real in e a c h c o m m u n i c a t i v e s i tuat ion, y ie ld ing a different t y p e of m e a n i n g e a c h t ime , t h u s facilitating var iant s a m e n e s s . A l t h o u g h Chesh i r e (1987: 270) e s t ab l i shed that it is c o m p l i c a t e d to d e t e r m i n e p ragma t i c m e a n i n g b e c a u s e of t h e lack of k n o w l e d g e of cer ta in d i scours ive traits, a n d a l so b e c a u s e of t h e scarce objectivity that s u c h a d e t e r m i n a t i o n m a y imply .

T h e p r a g m a t i c m e a n i n g w e a im to d e s c r i b e as a d e q u a t e for t h e s t u d y of n o n - p h o n o l o g i c a l var ia t ion is re la ted to t h e desc r ip t i on of m e a n i n g g iven b y Lyons (1971): (cogni t ive , affective a n d socia l ) , w h i c h is m e a n ­ingful w h e n t h e t h r e e factors a re t a k e n t o g e t h e r a n d w h e n c o n t e x t u a l a n d d iscurs ive traits a re a d d e d . It is o b v i o u s that t h e r e a s o n w h y o n e var iant is Lised is s t rongly mo t iva t ed b y t h e c o m m u n i c a t i v e con t ex t in w h i c h it a p p e a r s and , h e n c e , b y p ragma t i c m e a n i n g .

1. The failure to adopt a useful (if not coherent) criterion led Erica Garcia (1986 b) to consider that" Temo que venga" and " Tengo miedo de que vengoC could not be viewed as syntactic variants owing to differences in meaning. From the point of view of the purely cognitive meaning of the lexical and grammatical elements making up the two sentences, it is true that they possess different meanings. If, on the other hand, we limit ourselves to pragmatic circumstances, such as communicative intent, position in the dis­course, and other grammatical aspects (in which case the subordinated clause may or may not feature de. "Trata de que piense que lo haga", as opposed to ""Trata de que piense de que lo haga"), beginning or end of the sentence, expression of the subject, etc., we may conclude that they can be indeed be treated as variation data given that the truth values are the same, ie the same thing is being said. It is true that if the clause is introduced by de the relationship of the complement to the verb is different, but this does not transcend to the referential value of the variants.

1065

MARÍA JOSÉ SERRANO

T y p e o f meaning i n syntactic variat ion was taken into considerat ion by Jacobson (1980, 1983, 1986) w h o coined the term hyponymic mean­ing to denote a constant and super io r cognitive meaning, wh ich w o u l d fal l w i t h i n the margins o f the very value o f t ruth. A s it i s described, the concept o f hyponymy (wh ich supposes the weakening o f the concept o f s y n o n y m y ) invo lves the systematizat ion o f a use fu l type o f s y n o n y m for w o r k s on syntactic variat ion.

I n order to preserve the Labovian pr inciple o f 'same meaning', i t seems vital to treat meaning i n such a way that the condi t ions o f t ru th are not altered. However , it i s e r roneus to describe syntactic variants by means o f t ru th condit ions. ' T r u t h value' i s neither a l ingu is t ic no r a com­municative i ssue ; it may be a gesture, a s ignic mot ivat ion, etc but i n any case it may be a concrete value that could be considered as being 'mean­ing' . Syntax and semantics certainly have a l im i t and one s h o u l d not to go too far w i t h t ruth value condit ions. F o r th i s reason, 'meaning' cannot 'be i n some way the sense' as Cheshire has put it (1987: 2 6 7 ) , because such a def in i t ion wou ld be s im i la r to the def in i t ion o f ' t ruth value'. Nei ther s h o u l d it be considered, as Romaine has proposed ( 1 9 8 1 : 22 -23 , ) that no conflict ex i s t s between a contextual and a t ru th condit ional the­o ry o f meaning. A contextual meaning i s quite different to ' t ruth value condi t ions ' and i s produced i n a concrete communicative s i tuat ion, l i n ­guist ical ly codified, a funct ion derived f rom the f o r m (such as preterite and indef ini te or condit ionals, as ment ioned p rev ious l y ) . I do not t h ink that they are even interrelated, as Romaine argues (1988: 22 -23 ) . T o del imit the type o f meaning at w o r k i n variat ion o f f o r m s , one has to observe not the logic conceptualization o f what i s intended to be said, but rather what i s derived f rom the fo rm. I n that sense, 'the same state o f affairs' shou ld not be considered either (Werner y Labov 1983) .

N o matter what we are endeavouring to study, it i s better to define meaning according to the actualization o f communicative purpose. T h i s w o u l d also represent an advance i n Semantics, whereby 'the no t ion o f def in ing meaning i n terms o f communicative intent consti tutes a radical change i n our conception o f t ru th ' , as Romaine has argued ( 1 9 8 1 : 19) . T h u s , def ining meaning i n th is sense imp l ies that there i s noth ing wh i ch prevents u s f r om consider ing that two f o rms could have the same (or dif­ferent) communicative purpose. I t i s jus t as arbitrary to say that commu­nicative purpose i s the same as it i s to contend that it i s different; i n each case, context shou ld be accurately analyzed. I f the same communicative purpose can be expressed through different l inguis t ic meanings that have no phonological, lexical or semantic s im i la r i t y , variat ion i s clearly

1066

ON THE VARIABILITY OF SYNTAX: SOME THEORETICAL REMARKS

b e i n g p r o d u c e d . T w o u s e s c a n b e c o m p a r e d w h i c h m i g h t h a v e d i f f e r e n t s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s , s i n c e b o t h S y n t a x a n d P h o n o l o g y c a n r e f l e c t t h e s o c i o l o g i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e s p e a k e r .

It is v e r y i m p o r t a n t t o o b s e r v e w h i c h m e s s a g e is c a r r i e d b y l i n g u i s ­t ic f o r m , g i v e n t h a t t h e r e is n o s t r i c t a n d u n i q u e c o r r e s p o n d e n d c e b e ­t w e e n f o r m a n d f u n c t i o n . E a c h l i n g u i s t i c f o r m m a y a c q u i r e a d i f f e r e n t f u n c t i o n i n c o n t e x t ; t h e s p e a k e r c a n m a n i p u l a t e t h e c h o i c e t h e l i s t e n e r m a k e s o f t h e c o n t e x t ( B l a k e m o r e 1 9 8 8 : 2 8 7 ) s i n c e t h e r e a r e l i n k s b e ­t w e e n l i n g u i s t i c f o r m a n d s t a t e m e n t ( u t t e r a n c e ) i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . It is n o t t r u e , c o n t r a r y t o w h a t L a v a n d e r a s t a t e s ( 1 9 8 4 : 4 1 ) , t h a t t h e f o r m s t h e m ­s e l v e s a r e w h a t i n t r o d u c e d i f f e r e n c e o f m e a n i n g , s i n c e t h i s w o u l d i m p l y t h a t m e a n i n g is u n r e l a t e d t o u s e . M e a n i n g h a s t o b e a n a l y z e d a c c o r d i n g t o l i n g u i s t i c u s e a n d t o c o m m u n i c a t i v e p u r p o s e , a n d t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e ­t w e e n f o r m a n d f u n c t i o n m u s t b e t a k e n i n t o a c c o u n t . T h a t h a s b e e n d o n e b y s e v e r a l s c h o l a r s , s u c h F r e e d ( 1 9 9 4 : 6 3 4 ) w h o c o n c l u d e d t h a t ' t h e f u n c t i o n o f a q u e s t i o n , t h a t is , t h e p r a g m a t i c o r s o c i a l u s e t o w h i c h q u e s t i o n s a r e p u t b y s p e a k e r s i n c o n v e r s a t i o n , i s t h e r e f o r e s e e n i n t h e i n t e r a c t i v e c o n t e x t i n w h i c h it o c c u r s ' .

It is o u r a i m t o p o s t u l a t e h e r e t h a t m e a n i n g i n v a r i a t i o n s h o u l d b e c o n s i d e r e d a s b e i n g a p r a g m a t i c f u n c t i o n , l e a d i n g t o a n a c t u a l i z a t i o n o f m e a n i n g a c c o r d i n g t o t h e s p e c i f i c c o m m u n i c a t i v e p u r p o s e , a n a l y z i n g t h e s e n s e i n w h i c h t h e t w o f o r m s a r e a c t i n g i n s i m i l a r f a s h i o n . It is a l s o f e a s ­i b l e t o o b s e r v e t h e ' c o m m o n f u n c t i o n i n d i s c o u r s e ' ( D i n e s 1 9 8 0 ) a s a p o s s i b i l i t y o f a s e m a n t i c t i e b e t w e e n v a r i a n t s .

S y n o n y m s a c q u i r e t h e r e f o r e a n o t h e r d i m e n s i o n a n d a n o t h e r s t r u c ­t u r e . If w e t r y t o t a k e p r a g m a t i c m e a n i n g , c l e a r l y t h i s c o n c e p t w i l l n o t b e t h e s a m e . W i n f o r d ( 1 9 9 3 ) a n a l y z e s m e a n i n g i d e n t i t y a c c o r d i n g t o i n t r a d i a l e c t a l v a r i a t i o n ( t h e u s e o f p e r f e c t h a v e i n T r i n i d a d i a n E n g l i s h ) a n d a l s o t o t h e s y n o n y m o u s c o n c e p t e s t a b l i s h e d b y L y o n s ( 1 9 8 6 : 1 9 9 ) . H e c o n s i d e r e d t h a t i n t h i s c a s e t h e r e is ' s a m e n e s s o f s e n s e ' . A s y n o n y m m a y w o r k o n d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s ; it m a y b e a n a b s t r a c t u n i t o r a v e r y l i m i ­t e d u n i t i n w h i c h u s e is n o t t a k e n i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n or , c o n v e r s e l y , it m a y b e a b r o a d e r c o n c e p t w i t h i n w h i c h o t h e r e l e m e n t s p l a y a p a r t . F u n c t i o n a l d i f f e r e n c e s s u c h a s i n sembrare a n d parere u s e s i n I t a l i a n ( d e J o n g e 1 9 9 3 : 5 3 4 ) r u l e o u t t h e e x i s t e n c e o f s y n o n y m s .

F r o m a r e a l i s t i c v i e w o f l a n g u a g e ( G a r d e n f ó r s 1 9 9 3 : 2 8 8 ) t h e s p e a k ­e r is n o t w r o n g w h e n u s i n g a c e r t a i n m e a n i n g s i n c e it i s u s e d b e c a u s e o f t h e o p t i m a l f u n c t i o n a l i t y it p r o v i d e s i n a g i v e n c o m m u n i c a t i v e s i t u a ­t i o n . As G u y e t a l . p o i n t o u t ( 1 9 8 6 : 4 6 ) , s e m a n t i c e q u i v a l e n c e b e c o m e s r e l e v a n t in e a c h c o n t e x t , t h u s a c q u i r i n g a r e a l i s t i c v i e w o f m e a n i n g .

1 0 6 7

MARIA JOSE SERRANO

T h e p r o b l e m is t o re la te significative indiv idual p u r p o s e w i t h social m e a n i n g s a n d linguistic forms, for w h i c h it is n e c e s s a r y t o e x a m i n e t h e specific c o m m u n i c a t i v e s i tuat ion, c o n v e r s a t i o n a n d d i s c o u r s e s igns in o r d e r t o really d e m o n s t r a t e that fo rms a r e b e i n g u s e d w i th t h e s a m e p r a g m a t i c funct ion. H e n c e , a c c o u n t s h o u l d b e t a k e n of t h e p r a g m a t i c p u r p o s e wi th in w h i c h d i s c o u r s e is f ramed, n o t t ru th va lues .

This t y p e of m e a n i n g ties in a l so w i th t h e s e m a n t i c po ten t i a l refer­r e d t o b y Hal l iday (1978): g iven that e a c h l a n g u a g e h a s its o w n w a y of signifying c o n c e p t s t h r o u g h forms a n d of d i rec t ing sa id po ten t i a l func­t ionally, t h e s a m e capac i ty is p o s s i b l e a l so in t h e con t ex t of t h e s a m e lan­g u a g e t h r o u g h its o w n m e c h a n i s m s .

We h a v e s e e n that it is n e c e s s a r y t o ac tual ize m e a n i n g at t h e p r e c i s e c o m m u n i c a t i v e m o m e n t . In this w a y a l o n e is it pos s ib l e t o so lve p r o ­b l e m s de r ived from pos s ib l e dif ferences in m e a n i n g . To w e a k e n t h e c o n ­c e p t of m e a n i n g , as Lavandera (1984) p r o p o s e s , w o u l d b e to t a k e a s t e p b a c k w a r d s , s ince o u r a im is t o es tabl i sh that m e a n i n g in var ia t ion h a s t h e s a m e po ten t i a l possibi l i t ies as in a n y o t h e r c o m m u n i c a t i v e s i tua t ion, e x c e p t that it acts in a different w a y in that specific con tex t . Its signifi­c a n c e m u s t no t b e l e s s e n e d , b u t ra ther w e m u s t select t h e s e n s e w h i c h it h a s a c q u i r e d at that par t icular m o m e n t a c c o r d i n g to t h e t y p e of m e a n ­ing c h o s e n (p ragmat i c as o p p o s e d to cogni t ive , pos s ib l e a d o p t i o n of t h e c o n c e p t of h y p o n y m y , analys is of t h e con tex t in all its d i m e n s i o n s , analysis of t h e c o m m u n i c a t i v e s i tuat ion, e tc . ) .

We h a v e e n d e a v o u r e d t o d e m o n s t r a t e h e r e that it is essent ia l t o del imit t h e con t ex t in w h i c h s u p p o s e d var iants a l t e rna te in o r d e r t o b e ab le t o ascer ta in that t h e b o u n d s of m e a n i n g of e a c h uni t l e ave r o o m for n o d o u b t w h a t s o e v e r as r e g a r d s their ident i ty in a g iven con tex t . In this w a y , t h e s tudy of t rue syntact ic var ian ts m a y b e v iab le .

4. T H E LINGUISTIC OR SOCIOLINGUISTIC NATURE O F THE VARIABLE

D e m o n s t r a t i n g w h e t h e r var ian ts a re sociol inguis t ic in n a t u r e p o s e s a n e w difficulty resul t ing from t h e p r e v i o u s o n e s ; if it c a n n o t b e d e m o n ­s t ra ted that var ia t ion exists in t h e t e r m s just ou t l ined , it is c lear tha t n o truly au then t i c sociol inguis t ic in te rp re ta t ion is poss ib le , s ince this r equ i r e s cer ta inty that var iants a re p re sen t . This difficulty w a s a d d r e s s e d b y Lavandera (1984:39), w h e n s h e a s k e d w h e t h e r var iab les w h i c h d id no t h a v e social o r stylistic i n c i d e n c e w e r e sociol inguis t ic in n a t u r e o r not . Labov a n d Weiner (1977) s t u d i e d t h e passive/active voice var iab le a n d

1 0 6 8

ON THE VARIABILITY OF SYNTAX: SOME THEORETICAL REMARKS

c o n c l u d e d tha t it d id n o t co-vary w i th social facts, a n d h e n c e it w a s clas­sified as a l inguist ic var iab le only . If it c a n b e e s t ab l i shed that n o social stratification of t h e p h o n e m e exists, it c a n b e c o n c l u d e d that t h e varia­b le is l inguistic a n d no t sociol inguis t ic , w h i c h w o u l d d e m o n s t r a t e that t h e r e a re g rammat i ca l a reas o r q u e s t i o n s w h i c h d o n o t co-vary w i t h social p h e n o m e n a , a s i tuat ion w h i c h o c c u r s a lso in p h o n o l o g y .

T h e p r o b l e m is w h e t h e r , w h e n a c c o u n t is t a k e n of t h e spec ia l cir­c u m s t a n c e s s u r r o u n d i n g syntact ic var ia t ion, t h e d e n o m i n a t i o n of soc io ­linguistic var iable is poss ib l e in the s a m e s e n s e as its p h o n o l o g i c a l c o u n ­terpar t . T h e par t icu lar fea tures a l l u d e d to ear l ier ( the in te r re la t ionsh ip b e t w e e n t h e e l e m e n t s of d i s cou r se a n d t h e lack of va r iab le un i ty) m a k e it m o r e difficult t o es tabl i sh s o m e t y p e of social co-var ia t ion . H o w e v e r , t h e further w e g o in o u r inves t igat ion of a par t icular l inguist ic p h e n o m ­e n o n the g rea te r o u r in tui t ion (albei t u s ing a m e t h o d r e c o g n i z e d as b e i n g unscient if ic) tha t cer ta in forms, cer ta in u se s , a re b e i n g e m p l o y e d b y cer ta in p e o p l e a n d in cer ta in con tex t s . This c o n s i d e r a t i o n c a n b e ar r ived at fo l lowing t h e a p p r o p r i a t e m e t h o d o l o g y . Labov for e x a m p l e pos tu l a t ed (1983:36) t h e se lec t ion of the l inguist ic var iable : this s h o u l d b e a n e l e m e n t w h i c h is p r e s e n t f requent ly t h r o u g h o u t d i s cou r se , s h o u l d b e s t ruc tured in a h ighe r uni t sys tem a n d s h o u l d b e ab le t o b e stratified. Acco rd ing to López Mora les (1989:107), t h e k e y i ssue is t h e f r equency w i th w h i c h e a c h s p e a k e r u s e s t h e var iab le , g iven that t h e r e n o s p e a k e r n e v e r o r a lways u se s t h e s a m e var iant . Lavandera , h o w e v e r , a d o p t e s a m o r e cau t ious a p p r o a c h to f requency , s ince t w o var iants m a y poss ib ly a l t e rna te a c c o r d i n g to a g iven s i tuat ional con t ex t and , c o n s e q u e n t l y , t h e y migh t no t b e mean ingfu l e i ther socially o r stylistically. In t h e uni t s g iven b y Lavandera , reventado/exhausto ( w i p e d o u t vs exhausted), t o w h i c h s h e refuses to a t t r ibute t h e quali ty, t h e s a m e occurs ; t h e y a re i n d e e d n o t s y n o n y m o u s n o r d o t hey a p p e a r in t h e s a m e con tex t s . H o w e v e r , w e a lso k n o w -intuitively- that t h e r e m a y b e s p e a k e r s w h o n e v e r o r a lmos t n e v e r u s e o n e of t h e t w o t e rms , a n d i n d e e d t h e y migh t b e unfamil iar w i t h their m e a n i n g . Tht is , it is pa r adox ica l to state, as Lavande ra d o e s , tha t t h e forms t h e m s e l v e s a re w h a t i n t r o d u c e c h a n g e s of m e a n i n g a n d that w e h a v e h e r e a l a n g u a g e m e c h a n i s m for mani fes t ing stylistic o r social infor­m a t i o n a n d no t a f r equency re la t ionsh ip d e r i v e d f rom t h e compat ib i l i ty b e t w e e n t h e m e a n i n g s . T h e s e w o u l d b e c o m p a t i b l e t o t h e e x t e n t that t h e y se rve to d e n o t e t h e s a m e reality, b u t t hey w o u l d differ as r e g a r d s the i r social a n d / o r stylistic cons ide ra t ion .

López Mora les ' bel ief (1989:108) that Lavandera ' s p r o p o s a l , tha t e le ­m e n t s w h o s e social o r stylistic def ini t ion is a l r eady d e t e r m i n e d a priori

1069

MARIA JOSE SERRANO

cannot be considered as being socio l inguis t ic variables, s tems f r o m cir­cular reasoning: because we k n o w that a variant corresponds to a partic­ular social group usage or s ty le , wh ich i s more ' famil iar ' o r 'vulgar', we expect that after treating them quantitatively their frequencies w i l l be i n accordance w i t h such prejudices. Contrary to what th is author t h i n k s , and w i thout taking those prejudices too far, we prefer to consider that it i s obv ious that the social connotations are contained w i t h i n the lan­guage and, given that the choice o f different f o rms motivates f requen­cies, these shou ld and can be studied as socio l inguist ic variables w i thou t reservat ions. Otherwise, most o f the connections between language and society w o u l d remain outside the scope o f research o f any type.

T h e syntactic variable, then, has important relevance i n s tud ies o f th is type. Calculating whether i ts value i s socio l inguist ic i s the job o f the researcher w h o , after us ing the procedures common to the methodol­ogy, w i l l be i n a pos i t ion to recognize whether or not a l ingu is t ic phe­nomenon i s co-variable w i t h social factors.

R E F E R E N C E S

AMASTAE, J O H N & E. OLIVARES. 1 9 8 2 . Spanish in the United States: Sociolinguistic aspects. N e w York: Academic Press.

BENTIVOGLIO, PAOLA. 1 9 8 7 . Los sujetos pronominales de primera persona en el habla de Caracas. Caracas: Universidad Central de Venezuela.

BLAKEMORE, D IANE. 1 9 8 8 . "La organización del discurso", en Newmeyer ed. 1 9 8 8 , 2 7 5 - 2 9 7 .

BO L T O N , HELEN & KINGSLY H W O K . 1 9 9 2 . Sociolinguistics today: International

perspectives. London: Routledge. B O S Q U E , IGNACIO. 1 9 9 0 . Indicativo y Subjuntivo. Madrid: Taurus. CHESHIRE, JENNY. 1 9 8 7 . "Syntactic variat ion, the linguistic variable, and sociol in­

guistic theory", Linguistics 2 5 : 2 5 7 - 2 8 2 . D E J O N G E , B O B . 1 9 9 3 - "The existence of synonyms in a language: t w o forms but

one, or rather t w o meanings?", Linguistics 3 1 : 5 2 1 - 5 3 8 . DINES, ELIZABETH. 1 9 8 0 . "Variation in discourse 'and stuff l ike that'", Language

in Society 9: 1 3 - 3 1 -D U P U I S , FERNANDE, M O N I Q U E LEMIEUX & DANIEL GOSSELIN. 1 9 9 2 . "Consequences

de la sous-specification des traits de AGR dans l ' identif ication de Pro", Language Variation and Change 3: 2 7 5 - 2 9 9 -

FASOLD , R. y D . SCHIFFRIN, eds. 1 9 8 9 . Language change and variation. Washington: Georgetown University Press.

1070

O N T H E VARIABILITY O F SYNTAX: SOME THEORETICAL REMARKS

1071

FREED , ALICE . 1 9 9 4 . "The f o r m and funct ion of questions in informal dyadic con­versation", Journal of Pragmatics 2 1 : 6 2 1 - 6 4 4 .

G A R D E N F Ô R S , PETER . 1 9 9 3 . "The emergence o f meaning", Linguistics and

Philosophy 16: 2 8 5 - 3 0 9 .

GARCÍA , ERICA . 1 9 8 6 a. "El fenómeno del (de)queísmo desde una perspectiva dinámica del uso comunicat ivo de la lengua", Actas del II Congreso

Internacional del Español de América, 4 6 - 6 5 .

— 1 9 8 6 b. "Shifting Variation", Lingua 6 7 : 1 8 9 - 2 2 4 . G U Y , G R E G O R Y , BARBARA HORVATH , JULIA VONWILLER , ELAINE DAISLEY & I N G E

RO G E R S . 1 9 8 6 . "An intonat ional change in progress in Austral ian English",

Language in Society 15 : 2 3 - 5 2 . HALLIDAY , M . A . K . . 1 9 7 8 . Language as social semiotic. London: Edward A r n o l d . H O C H B E R G , J. 1 9 8 6 . "Functional compensat ion for / - s / delet ion in Puerto Rican

Spanish", Language 6 2 : 6 0 9 - 6 2 1 . J A C O B S O N , Sven . 1 9 8 0 . Papers from the Scandinavian symposium on syntactic

variation. Estocolmo: Almqvist & Wiksel l Internacional .

— 1 9 8 3 - Papers from the second Scandinavian symposium on syntactic varia­

tion. Estocolmo: Almqvist & Wiksel l Internacional . — 1 9 8 6 . Papers from the third Scandinavian symposium on syntactic variation.

Estocolmo: Almqvist & Wiksel l Internacional .

— 1 9 8 9 - "Some approaches to syntactic variat ion", en Fasold y Schiffrin eds.

1 9 8 9 , 3 8 1 - 3 9 4 .

K I N G , LARRY. 1 9 9 2 . The Semantic Structure of Spanish. CILT: John Benjamins.

K IPARSKY , PAUL. 1 9 8 2 . Explanation in Phonology. Dordtrecht: Foris.

LABERGE , Suzanne . 1 9 7 7 . Étude de la variation des pronoms sujets définits et

indéfinits dans le français parlé à Montréal. Montréal: Université de

Montréal . LABOV , W i l l i am . 1 9 7 8 . "Where does the l inguistic variable stop? A réponse to

Beatriz Lavandera", Sociolinguistic Working Papers 44.

— 1 9 8 3 . Modelos Sociolingüísticos. Madrid: Cátedra. LAVANDERA, Beatriz. 1 9 7 5 . Linguistic structure and sociolinguistic conditioning

in the use of verbal endings in 'si'-clauses, PH.D. Dissertation. Philadelfia: University of Pennsylvania.

— 1 9 7 8 . "Where does the sociolinguistic variable stop?", Language in Society

4 0 : 1 7 1 - 1 8 2 .

— 1 9 8 4 . Variación y Significado. Buenos Aires: Hachette.

— 1 9 8 8 . "El estudio del lenguaje en su contexto socio-cultural", en Newmeyer

ed. 1 9 8 8 , 1 5 - 2 9 .

— 1 9 9 0 . "El cambio de m o d o como estrategia de discurso", en Bosque ed. 1 9 9 0 ,

3 3 0 - 3 5 9 .

L Ó P E Z MORALES , Humber to . 1 9 8 9 . Sociolinguistic a. Madr id: Gredos. LY O N S , J O H N . 1 9 8 6 . Semuntks. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

MAKiA jOSF SERRANO

MORALES, Amparo .1986. '"Algunos aspectos de la gramática en contacto: laexpresión del su jet u en el español de Puerto Rico", Anuario de Letras 24:71-85.

NARO, ANTHONY. 1981. "The social and stnictural dimensions of a syntactícchange". Language 57: 63-98.

NEWMEVEIÍ, FHKDKKICK. 1988. Panorama Actual de la Lingüística Española.Madrid: Visor.

OUVFIHA F SILVA, GLSELLE & Ai.ziRA TAVARES DE MACEDO. 1992. "Disrourse markersin the spoken Pe «tugúese of Rio de Janeiro", Language Variation andChange í: 235-249.

PAREDES SILVA, VKHA LI < ¡A. 1993- "Subject omission ancl functional compensa-tion: evidence from written Brazilian Portuguese", Language Variation andChange 5: 35-49

1ÍANSON, DIANA. 1991. "Person marking in the wake of/s / deletion in AndalusianSpanish", Language Variation and Change '$-. 133-152

— 1992. "Nominal number marking in Andalusian Spanish in ihe wake of As/deletion", Hispanic Lingüistica 4: 301-327,

— 1993. "The interaction of linguistic and contextúa] markers in AndalusianSpanish", Hispania 76: 919-930.

ROMAINE, Suzanne .1981. 'On the problem of syntactic variation: A reply toBeatriz Lavandera and William l.abov". Sociolinguistic Working Papen 82:2-38.

— 1984. "On the problem of .syntactic variation and pragmatic meaning insociolinguistic theory", Folia Lingüistica 18: 409-437.

SANKOFh', DAVID. 1988. "Sociolingüística y Variación Sintáctica", en Newmeyer ed.1988, l'íO-161.

SANKOFF, (iilüan. 1972. 'Above and beyond phonology in variable rules", Newways of analyzing variation in English. 44-61, Washington: D.C.Georgetown

— SAHKASIN, Robert y Henrietta CEDERGRlíN, 1971. "Quelques considerations surla distribution de la variable que dans le trancáis de Montréal'', paper pres-en ted at Congrés de l'Association cannadiense-francais pour l'Advance-ment des Sciences.

— & PÉNELO PE BKOWN. 1976. "The origins of syntax in discourse", Language 52:631-666.

ScilWENTER, SCO'IT. 1994. "The graininaticalization of an anterior in progress:evidence from a peninsular Spanish dialect", Stuclies in Language 18: 71-111.

SciillTRlN, DEIÍORAH. 198"7. Discoiirse markers. Cambridge: University Press.— 1988. "El análisis de la conversación", en Newmeyer ed. 1988, 299-327.Si-:t<K\»o. MAUÍA JOSK 199'j ,i La variación sintáctica: formas verhales del perío-

do htpo!¿lic<t en español Madrid: Fntinenu.

1072

ON THE VARIABIIJTY OF SYNTAX. *>OME THEORKTICAL liEMARKS

— 1995 a. "Del pretérito indefinido al pretérito perfecto: un caso de cambio ygramaticalización en el Español de Canarias y Madrid", LingüísticaEspañola Actual 16: 37-57.

— 1995 V). "Pretérito Perfecto y Pretérito Indefinido en el Español de Canarias:Pragmática y Variación", Boletín de Filología de la Universidad de ChileXXXV: 533-566.

— 1996. "El análisis del discurso en variación sintáctica", Hispanic Linguistics 8:154-177.

SILVA CORVALAN, Carmen .1980-81. "La función pragmática de la duplicación depronombres díticos", Boletín de Filología de la Universidad de Chile 31:561-570.

— 1981. "The diffusión of object-verb agreement in Spanish". Papera inRomance í: 163-176.

— 1982. "Subjeet expression and placement in Mexican-American Spanish", enAma.stae & Olivares eds. 1982. 93-120.

— 1989 a. "The pragmastylistics of hypothetical discourse", en Hickey ed. 1989.87-105.

— 1989 b. Sociolingüísttca: leoría y análisis. Madrid: Alhambra.— 1990. Reseña a Lavandera 1984, Romana.' Philology 27: 612- 619.SPHRBEH, DAN Y DEIHDRE WILSON. 1986. Releuance. Communication and Cogni-

tion. London: Hasil Blackwell.STU13BS, Michael .1987. Análisis del discurso. Análisis sociolingüístico del len-

guaje natural. Madrid: Alianza Editorial.VINCKNT, DiANE & DAVID SAINKOFK. 1992. -Punctors: a pragmatic variable",

Language Variation and Change 4: 205-216.WFINER, JUDITH & W11.1.1AM IAROV. 1977/1983^ "Constraints on tbe agentless pas-

sive", Journal of Linguistics 19: 29-58.WILSON, DEIRDRK Y DAN SPKRBER. 1993. "Linguisüc fonn and Relevance", Lingua

90: 1-25.WiNKORn. DOKALD. 1984. "The linguistic variable and syntacüc variation in cre-

óle continua", Lingua 62: 267-288.— 1993. "Variability in the use of perfect nave, in Trinidadian English: a problem

of Categorical and Semantic Mismatch", ¿anguage Variation and Change 5:141-187.

1073