William labov: Language Variation and Change

Language Variation
and Change (LVC)
SHANGRELA V. GENON-SIERAS
PHD E-LANG STUDENT
UNIVERSITY OF SAN JOSE-RECOLETOS, CEBU CITY
Professor of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania

William Labov
(lƏbov) is regarded as
the Father of Modern
Sociolinguistics (Spolsky,
2010), but he prefers the
label “variation and change”
for the type of linguistics he
practices (Hazen, 2010).
“Sociolinguistics is a large and
unformed area with many
different ways of
approaching the subject that
aren’t necessarily linguistic
whereas the study of
variation and change
(Variationist Sociolinguistics)
describes pretty well the
enterprise we’re engaged in”
(Labov in Gordon, 2006).
LANGUAGE VARIATION*WILLIAM LABOV* SGSIERAS *MDMSGSIERAS@GMAIL.COM 03/20/2020 2

“Variation is an
inherent part of
language”
(Labov, 1969).
Foundational maxim of
the LVC approach
“ The key to a rational
conception of language
change is the possibility of
describing orderly
differentiation” (Weinrich,
Labov & Herzog, 1968).

2 roadblocks in linguistics
(Gordon, 2006)
1. Synchronic linguistics held that a
speaker’s idiolect (the grammar of an
individual) was sufficient to account
for the qualities of language.
2. Since the methodology of the time
went no further than the study of a
few idiolects, diachronic linguistics was
not able to account for how people
used language if it was continually
changing.
Background: What
inspires Labov to study
variation and change?
“The linguistic
behavior of
individuals cannot
be understood
without knowledge
of the communities
that they belong to.”

What inspires Labov to study
variation and change?
Labov wanted to position himself as
a linguistic researcher, yet study
speech communities.
Labov had to establish theoretically
the relation between language, the
individual and the community.
“We study individuals
because they give us data
to describe the community,
but the individual is not
really a linguistic unit”
(Labov in Gordon, 2006).

4 linguistic assumptions
Labov found problematic
2. Sound change cannot be directly
observed; (Bloomfield, 1933)
Bloomfield supposed that irregular linguistic
processes such as borrowing would always
disrupt, in the synchronic view, any possible
observation of sound change.
2. Labov find this step as “removing the
empirical study of linguistic change
from the program of 20th century
linguistics.” He found the explanatory power of
empirical synchronic observations in the
correlations between social structures and
linguistic structures.
1. Each synchronic state is marked as to its
direction and rate of change; thus the
two are inseparable.
1. Synchronic language
systems must be studied
separately from diachronic
systems;
Labov’s argument:

4 linguistic assumptions
Labov found problematic
4. The use of non-linguistic data to
explain linguistic change is
prohibited.
4. Labov argues that the role of
language in self identification is
important for phonological
change.
3. Such purism gets in the way of “one’s
view of language as it is spoken”.
3. Feelings about language are
inaccessible;
The speaker’s feelings about sounds should
be off limits to linguists because that is not
what linguists do; lack of methodology in
assessing them (Bloch and Trager, 1942).
Labov’s argument:

To describe correlations between patterns of
linguistic behavior and social identities in as
objective a way as possible, Labov focuses on
phonological variation involving variants that
are discrete and thus quantifiable, and borrows
from Parsonian sociology a way of describing
social facts about speakers in quantifiable terms
(Hazen, 2010).

Labov’s empirical research paved the way to
the transition of “static analysis” in traditional
dialectology to variationist sociolinguistics as he
integrated social information and linguistic
analysis in his studies.
2 important studies
Martha’s Vineyard & New York Studies

STUDY 1: Sound Change in the Martha’s Vineyard
Study (1963)
Labov investigated the variation of the vowels /ay/ and /aw/ based on how the natives of
Martha’s Vineyard pronounced the vowels in two sets of words:
Out, house, trout While, pie, night
Observations:
Centralization occurred on the first part of the diphthongs:
&
 Centering of the words was more noticeable in the first set of the words than in the second

Relationship between the degree of centralization and the social
factors
Social factors (N= 69)
AGE ETHNICITY OCCUPATION PLACE OF
RESIDENCE
 31-45 age
group
 Yankee
descent
Portuguese
Natives
 Fishing
With business
background
serving the
summer
visitors
 Up-island
(center of
fishing
industry)
Down-island

Significance of
the study
Labov demonstrated that:
1. Sound change, long assumed to be cataclysmic or
glacially slow, was observable in synchronic variation.
2. Sound changes were connected to the social forces
in a community.

STUDY 2: Social Stratification of (r) in the New York
Study (1966)
“We begin with the general
hypothesis suggested by
exploratory interviews: if
any two subgroups of New
York City speakers are
ranked in scale of social
stratification, then they
will be ranked in the same
order by their differential
use of (r )” (Labov, 1972)
He tested his hypothesis by
collecting the data from 3
departmental stores in New York.
The three departmental stores
Labov visited represented high,
middle and low social classes
respectively.
The hypothesis has been confirmed
by a severe test within a single
occupational group.

Findings of the
NYC Study
R-pronunciation after the
re-introduction of vowel
in the NYC speech is the
characteristic feature of
the younger people than
the older ones. The same
feature was found more
likely at the end of the
word like floor than before
the consonants like fourth
(Labov, 1972).
Conclusion
The study concluded
that (r) stratification is
an integral part of the
linguistic structure of
the New York City
speech community.

Significance of
the Study
It has accomplished the aim
to study language apart from
the bias of the normal
linguistic interview.
The results of this study should terminate any
suspicion that the pronunciation of (r) in New
York City is limited to a narrow group of
speakers, or that it is a phenomenon which
occurs only in the presence of linguists and
speech teachers.

Social Stratification of ( r ) in
New York
-The thoroughness of this study is
reflected on how Labov persisted
beyond initial rejections from
potential subjects that do not want
to be interviewed. For example,
under a different guise, he
conducted telephone interviews with
33 subjects who had refused to be
interviewed in person.
-

LABOV´S PRINCIPLES AND ASSUMPTIONS
 Linguistic variation is socially determined.
 Speakers are in a double bind:
On the one hand they show an identification with their locality through
the use of a local variety of language. On the other hand, they aspire to
social acceptability and hence in their speech they move towards the
standard of their area.

Linguistic Variable is the
alternation of forms, or “layering” of
forms, in language. It is a set of
semantically-equivalent variants which
alternated with each other in the
production of a variable context.
“two or more ways of saying
the same thing”
A variable such as (r) could have 2
variants, constricted and unconstricted
/r/, which would be in competition with
one another.
A linguistic variable is a linguistic
entity which varies according to
social parameters (age, sex,social
class, ethnicity), stylistic parameters
(casual, careful, formal), and/or
linguistic parameters (segmental,
suprasegmental). It can be found at
all linguistic levels such as
phonological ( r) or morphological
(ing).
Theoretical concept of the “linguistic variable”
(Labov, 1963; Wolfram, 1991)

Example:
1. And then next mornin’ [In] they
were all brought back again.
2. And I started work on an evening
[ŋ].
3. I can’t remember what that
building [in] is called.
One way to find a linguistic variable is to look for the words that occur frequently in data. If
language is always in flux, then find out what is on the move in a particular place and time.
Theoretical concept of the “linguistic variable”
(Labov, 1963; Wolfram, 1991)
Speakers may vary
pronunciations of “ing” at
the end of words. These
choices are potential
“linguistic variables”.

POA is a foundational concept in
the LVC approach that sets it
apart from other methods.
POA dictates that the
analysts should record all
occurences of a variable
rather than selecting those
variants of a variable that
tend to confirm their
argument while ignoring
others that do not.
The analyst cannot gain access to
how a variant functions in the
grammar without considering it in
the context of the subsystemof
which it is a part.
Each use of the variant under
investigation can be reported as a
proportionof the total number of
relevant constructions (Wolfram,
1993 in Tagliamonte, 2012).
Principle of Accountability (POA)
(Labov, 1966, 1969, 1972)

Labov uses a set of
questions to elicit as
much free conversation
as possible, with some
reading tasks designed
to elicit a range of
styles.
Labovian
Interview
 Surreptitious interview
methods mean that the
observers paradox is
minimized.
The observer´s paradox maintains that
the linguistic behavior of informants
changes under observation, usually
because people then talk the way they
think the linguist wants them to.

Surreptitious recordings
 Made by planting a
recording device
where it will capture
ambient conversations
without the knowledge
or consent of the
participants
Labovian
Interview
Surreptitios interview is
considered unethical,
illegal, and pointless,
but it eliminates the
observer’s paradox.

Informant’s
Speech
Style Shifting
(during interview)
Varying degree of
attention
Varying
degree
of
formality
Labov´s Data Collection Method
Labov stressed the need to collect
data reliably. The linguist must be
aware that an informant will
show the following features in his
speech:

Varying degree
of attention
i.e. some speakers pay
great attention to
their own speech (so-
called 'audio-
monitoring'); in excited
speech and casual
speech the attention
paid by the speaker is
correspondingly
diminished.
determined by the
nature of the
interview; it can vary
depending on how the
informant reacts to
the interviewer and
the situation he/she is
placed in.
Varying degree
of formality

Labov’s 4 Principles of
Linguistic Change
Principle 1 (Change from below)
“Linguistic change from below
originates in a central social group,
located in the interior of the
socioeconomic hierarchy” (Labov,
2001). The so-called “interior” social
classes (lower middle and upper
middle class) lead linguistic change.
They have a higher frequency of
incoming forms.
Principle 2 (Stability)
For stable sociolinguistic variables,
women show a lower rate of
stigmatized variants and a higher
rate of prestige variants than men
(Labov, 2001). Principle 2 strongly
implicates women’s social role in
the speech community.

Labov’s 4 Principles of
Linguistic Change
Principle 3 (Change from above)
Women adopt diffusing forms at a
higher rate than men (Labov,
2001). Principle 3 suggests that
one of the identifying features of
change from above would be the
greater use by women of diffusing
forms and a greater use by men of
local and/or dialectal variants.
Principle 4 (Change from below
Women use higher frequencies
of innovative forms than men
do (Labov, 2001). Principle 4
suggests that an identifying
feature of change from below
would be the greater use by
women of innovative forms.

Conclusion
The study of LVC requires reference to external conditions and internal
conditions to explain variation. The level of grammar of a feature is
important and so are its geographic origin and social evaluation, and these
different facets all contribute to understanding the whole. A grammatical
pattern may be the key to determining where a linguistic feature came from.
A feature’s history in a community may explain its social value. The type of
social correlates a variant has may reveal its evolution. The development of
a linguistic feature reflects social and economic change.

Conclusion
Labov works have
inspired and
influenced many
LVC scholars of
today. His legacy
has produced
productive and
innovative language
scholars.
 The exacting empirical
description of the speech
community’s linguistic system
is the main point in doing
LVC studies. The variables
were only means to that end
( Hazen, 2011).

References
Chambers, J. K., Trudgill, P., & Schilling-Estes, N. (2002). The handbook of language variation and
change. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
Hazen, K. (2010). Labov: Language Variation and Change. Researchgate.
Labov, W. (2001). Principles of Linguistic Change. Volume 2: Social Factors. Malden and Oxford:
Blackwell.
Labov, W. (2006). The social stratification of English in New York City. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Spolsky, B. (2011). Ferguson and Fishman: Sociolinguistics and the Sociology of Language. The Sage
Handboook of Sociolinguistics.
Tagliamonte, S. (2012). Variationist sociolinguistics: Change, observation, interpretation. Malden, MA:
Wiley-Blackwell.

William labov: Language Variation and Change

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to William labov: Language Variation and Change

Similar to William labov: Language Variation and Change (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

William labov: Language Variation and Change