Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Language Knowledge and Other Dialects

1982; Duke University Press; Volume: 57; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês

10.2307/455176

1527-2133

Walt Wolfram,

Spanish Linguistics and Language Studies

TN RECENT VARIATION studies, we have found an increasing number of proposals to extend the limits of the grammar beyond the idealized unistylistic idiolect (Butters 1971, Bailey 1973, Bickerton 1973, Labov 1973, Trudgill 1974). The question of the outer limit of the grammar is not, of course, a consideration which has been opened up uniquely by variationists, and the issue would not die with a diminished interest in variation studies. It is, in fact, an issue which must be confronted squarely by anyone attempting to write a serious grammar. At various points in the history of American linguistics, there have been attempts to expand the limits of the grammar to cover more than one variety. In each attempt, there are important theoretical assumptions on which the proposal is based, although the theoretical basis of some of these proposals has sometimes been more implicit than explicit. The thread of this concern winds through linguistic descriptions regardless of one's theoretical orientation. It is found in Trager and Smith's overall pattern (1951), Weinreich's diassystem (1954), Klima's extension rules (1964), Carden's unified method analysis (1973), Bickerton's polylectal grammar (1973), and Bailey's panlectal grammar (1973). Each of these proposals has offered some interesting alternatives to the I'll describe my dialect, you describe yours era of linguistics. Given the fact that at least some variationists are taking issues concerning the outer limits of the grammar quite seriously, it becomes important to know how we can establish the range of capabilities for speakers who do not use productively a particular structure. Rather than speculate on the basis of selective anecdote or theorize without empirical evidence, as many proposals have done, this article confines itself to an illustrative case. Admittedly, our conclusions may be modest, but they do have implications which extend considerably beyond the particulars of our illustrative case. While we cannot realistically answer all questions involving the issue of the outer limits of a grammar, we hopefully can gain some insight into the types of evidence admissible for considering the boundaries of the grammar.