Although the process of analogical leveling seems relatively straightforward and its directionality readily predictable, the existence of cross-dialectal leveling alternatives suggests that the processes that actuate and embed analogical leveling can actually be quite complex. Using the case of a vernacular variety spoken on the Outer Banks of North Carolina, we demonstrate how linguistic-systemic principles such as remorphologization, psycholinguistic principles of perceptual saliency, and sociolinguistic processes of symbolic identity converge to account for the development and maintenance of leveling toweren't(I/you/(s)he/we/ you/they weren't here) in this post-insular island community.

Although sociolinguists have performed a valuable service in challenging folk theories about African American English (AAE), they also have unwittingly participated in the construction of sociolinguistic folklore about variation and change in AAE. Several examples of sociolinguistic myths are presented, including the supraregional myth, the change myth, and the social stratification myth. Data used to challenge the canon of AAE description include empirical studies of different types of rural Southern African American communities as well as ethnographic observation. Historical circumstance, social and professional enculturation, and academic exclusivity are considered in explaining the construction of these questionable axioms about AAE. The examination indicates that unchallenged assumptions, unilateral explanations, and imagined dichotomies need to be scrutinized more critically with regard to the canon of AAE description.

No abstract

The recent focus on the discourse level as the primary basis for explaining alternation in interlanguage tense marking is challenged on the basis of an analysis of tense marking for 16 Vietnamese speakers learning English as a second language. The subjects represent four different age levels (10–12, 15–18, 20–25, and 35–55) and two different length of residency groups (1–3 and 4–7 years). The analysis reveals that there are a number of surface‐level constraints that systematically affect the incidence of tense marking, including the distinction between regular and irregular verbs, the shape of the suffix on the regular verb, the following phonological environment, the type of irregular formation, and the relative frequency of the verb form. It is demonstrated that the analysis of tense marking in terms of higher‐level language organization must take into account these kinds of surface constraints if it hopes to provide a valid, empirically based account of tense marking alternation in interlanguage.