Central hypotheses

In view of the above considerations, and based on both contemporary sociolinguistic theory, and previous research on LIKE, the present investigation aims to test five central hypotheses. The first two address claims stated in previous studies on LIKE use and thus relate to its sociolinguistic profile. The latter three hypotheses relate to the theoretical framework more generally and aim to evaluate widespread sociolinguistic assumptions and mechanisms of ongoing linguistic change. The following section will present, describe and discuss each hypothesis in detail.

5.4.1 Hypothesis 1: LIKE is a marker of teenage speech

The following subsection states the first hypothesis and will describe and discuss this hypothesis with respect to previous claims about LIKE use.

Hypothesis I:

LIKE is most common among adolescents and young adults.

The speech of teenagers and young adolescents in contemporary, urban speech communities represents a “tremendous breeding ground for linguistic innovation. […] The language of these speakers is a gold mine for innovative linguistic features, revealing evidence for both grammatical, as well as

sociolinguistic change” Tagliamonte 2005:1913). The relevant literature on LIKE strongly supports the proposal that this also holds for LIKE (e.g. Andersen 1998, 2000; D’Arcy 2005, 2007, 2008; Siegel 2002; Tagliamonte 2005;

Underhill 1988). Accordingly, this hypothesis aims to evaluate to what extent LIKE is a marker of teenage speech, not only in standard varieties of English but across varieties of English more generally. In fact, this hypothsis tests the claim that LIKE is an angloversal marker of teenage speech and evaluates the factors that contribute to mark it either as typically teenage‐speech‐related, or as being a pragmatic marker employed by other social strata or even the population at large. If LIKE is indeed confined to the speech of adolescents and younger adults, then this would confirm previous analysis and strongly suggest that LIKE is not only functional from a language‐internal perspective but that it also possesses an extra‐linguistic function as a social index. If LIKE is not confined to the speech of adolescents and younger adults, however, then this would suggest stabilization, i.e. that LIKE has already diffused through the entire speech community, and would indicate that LIKE’s functionality is predominantly language‐internal – in this case carrying various discourse‐

pragmatic functions.

5.4.2 Hypothesis 2: LIKE as a marker of female speech

The following subsection states the second hypothesis and justifies this hypothesis with respect to previous claims about gendered LIKE use.

Hypothesis II

LIKE is typically a female feature and thus gendered.

Although the relevant literature on LIKE is inconsistent with respect to the existence and degree of gender differences of LIKE use (cf. section 5.8.3), the female lead in cases of vigorous and incipient change is one of the most robust aspects of ongoing change. Labov (2002), for instance, asserts that “in the great majority of cases, it is women who are ahead – usually by a full generation”

(2002). Accordingly, the third hypothesis aims to evaluate the extent to which

the mechanisms that have been observed for ongoing change apply to the spread of LIKE. In addition, this hypothesis serves to shed light on whether and where LIKE is more common amoung female speakers. Similar to hypothesis 1, this second hypothesis targets the functionality of LIKE – if LIKE is used by speakers with a certain social profile, this would support the view that LIKE is a social index and not confined to its intra‐linguistic, pragmatic functionality.

5.4.3 Hypothesis 3: The universality of the Labovian model

The following subsection states the third hypothesis and describes this hypothesis in light of current sociolinguistic theories and the broader outlook of the present study.

The third hypothesis aims to evaluate the universality of the Labovian model of change from below on all mircolinguistic levels. In other words, it tests the extent to which mechanisms which have been observed in cases of phonological change from below are also at work in cases of pragmatic change.

Hypothesis III: The Labovian model of social motivation for linguistic change is valid with regard to pragmatic change.

This hypothesis implies that recurring patterns attested during the incrementation and diffusion of phonological innovations such as a female lead, social stratification, and age‐grading in apparent‐time are not confined to phonological change, but also features of pragmatic change and thus the spread of pragmatic innovations. In essence, the main objective of this hypothesis is to test how fitting the Labovian model of change from below is in cases pragmatic rather than phonological innovations such as the spread of LIKE. The third hypothesis relates to the broader theoretical framework of this study and serves to empirically determine to what extent the Labovian model requires modification when applied to the diffusion of pragmatic innovations. Although this objective seems straightforward, there are so far no systematic studies that evaluate the adequacy of the Labovian model of change from below, although it is frequently taken as a reference point in cases of ongoing change (cf. e.g.

D’Arcy 2005, 2007; Tagliamonte 2005). Therefore, testing this hypothesis has repercussions not only on LIKE use, but on sociolinguistic theorizing more generally – at least when analyses go beyond the study of phonological phenomena.

5.4.4 Hypothesis 4: Diffusion and stratification

The following subsection states and discribes the fourth hypothesis. Similar to the third, this fourth hypothesis also addresses a theoretical issue and aims to evaluate basic assumptions underlying modern sociolinguistic theories.

Hypothesis IV: LIKE use is socially stratified, particularly in locales where it has only recently been introduced. In other words, the higher the frequency of LIKE, the lower the degree of social stratification.

According to Labov (2002), “most of the linguistic changes in progress studied in the 2^nd half of the 20^th century show a high degree of social stratification.” Considering that social stratification wanes once a change is nearing completion, then this implies not only that LIKE use is socially stratified, but also that the degree of social stratification depends on the stage of change. The closer a change is to completion, the less social stratification is expected. The complementary implication is, of course, that the more vigorous a change is, the more social stratification is expected.

If LIKE indeed showed less social stratification in varieties where it is well attested and into which LIKE thus cannot have entered recently, this would support the view that social stratification is a valid index for ongoing change. If LIKE showed significant stratification in locales where it is well attested and which LIKE thus cannot have entered recently, then this could mean two things.

First, that LIKE is undergoing another form of change in which a previously language‐internal functional element has acquired an extra‐linguistic function as a social index. This interpretation would, however, be somewhat unusual, as social marking is typically a feature of innovations or elements which have not

fully diffused through the speech community in the first palce. Second, it could mean that the diffusion of morpho‐syntactic and pragmatic elements is generally accompanied by less social stratification and the existence of social stratification would therefore be of less value for detecting ongoing change for such elements. This latter point would have notable implications for sociolinguistic theory and the practice of sociolinguistic research, which builds heavily on the apparent‐time construct and the generalizing from phonological processes of language change to other elements on other linguistic levels.

5.4.5 Hypothesis 5: LIKE use is modified during local implementation

The last hypothesis is perhaps most crucial with respect to this study. The following subsection states and justifies this hypothesis in light of the broader outlook of this study.

Hypothesis V: The regional locale and the cultural norms and practices shape the local implementation of LIKE.

This hypothesis, in essence, tests the assertion put forth in previous studies on the local implementation of globally available variants that (linguistic) innovations are not adopted wholesale, but that they undergo modification and re‐interpretation during their implementation (cf. Kachru 1992; Buchstaller 2008; Buchstaller & D’Arcy 2009, Meyerhoff & Niedzielski 2003). The use of LIKE in geographically distinct locales should, therefore, exhibit variety‐

specific idiosyncrasies. More specifically, this hypothesis evaluates the degree to which the social and positonal profile of LIKE in recipient varieties mirrors the social and positonal profile in the target or donor variety. With respect to positioning, chapter 4.7 has shown that the position of LIKE with respect to the clause strongly correlates with distinct discourse‐pragmatic functions. If a form undergoes functional modification during its implementation in a given speech community, this would be expressed in a difference between the positional profile of the donor and the recipient variety. If the social meaning

of LIKE is modified and LIKE becomes associated, for instance, with a reference group distinct from its reference group in the donor variety, then this would cause a difference between the social profiles of the donor and the recipient variety. Any difference between the use of LIKE in, for instance, AmE and PhiE or JamE would therefore indicate local modification and support the view that innovations are not adopted wholesale but that they are shaped during implementation to match local norms and needs. If the positioning of LIKE in the recipient variety is very similar to the positioning in the donor variety but the social profile is distinctly different, this would indicate that the social meaning of LIKE is (cognitively) more salient than its linguistic constraints and its language‐internal functionality. If, however, the social profile of LIKE in the recipient variety is very similar to the social profile in the donor variety but the positioning is distinctly different, this would indicate that the language‐

internal functionality of LIKE is (cognitively) more salient than its social function. In any case, the degree of variability between varieties in terms of both positioning and social meaning will further our understanding of processes that accompany the global diffusion of pragmatic innovations.