The Sociolinguistics
of the Metropolis
It is a well-known fact that small cities are friendlier than
big ones. But are they? Our research on street life indicates
that, if anything, the reverse is more likely to be the case. As
far as interaction between people is concerned, there is
markedly more of it in big cities--not just in absolute
numbers but as a proportion of the total. In small cities, by
contrast, you see fewer interchanges, fewer prolonged
goodbyes, fewer street conferences, fewer 100%
conversations. . . Individually, the friendliness quotient of
the smaller might be much higher. It could also be argued
that friendships run deeper in a smaller city than in a larger
one. As far as frequency of interchange is concenrned,
however,the streets of the big city are notably more sociable
than those of a smaller one.
--William H. Whyte, City. NY: Doubleday, 1988, p. 6.
The speech community as
• chaos
“one cannot predict what a person will say”
• a fictional construct
“the reality is the individual speaker”
• an average value
“merely the average of individual idiolects”
Ten methods for gathering linguistic data in the metropolis
Approach to Demogr.
Vernacular inform’n
Sociolinguistic interview
Group sessions
Participant observation
Site studies
Rapid & anonymous surveys
Written texts
Studies of mass media
Laboratory experiments
Direct elicitation
Introspection
Variable
Excellent
Excellent
Good
Poor
Poor
Poor
Poor
Poor
Poor
Excellent
Variable
Excellent
Poor
Poor
Variable
Poor
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Volume
Sound
of speech quality
Control of
variables
Excellent
Variable
Excellent
Variable
Poor
Variable
Variable
Variable
Fair
None
Variable
Poor
None
None
Excellent
None
None
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Fair
None
Poor
None
None
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
None
Ten methods for gathering linguistic data in the metropolis
Approach to Demogr.
Vernacular inform’n
Sociolinguistic interview
Group sessions
Participant observation
Site studies
Rapid & anonymous surveys
Written texts
Studies of mass media
Laboratory experiments
Direct elicitation
Introspection
Variable
Excellent
Excellent
Good
Poor
Poor
Poor
Poor
Poor
Poor
Excellent
Variable
Excellent
Poor
Poor
Variable
Poor
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Volume
Sound
of speech quality
Control of
variables
Excellent
Variable
Excellent
Variable
Poor
Variable
Variable
Variable
Fair
None
Variable
Poor
None
None
Excellent
None
None
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Fair
None
Poor
None
None
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
None
% using constricted [r]
Percent [r] in rapid and anonymous study of three
New York City department stores, 1962
80
60
Some
All
40
20
0
Saks 1962
Macy's 1962
S. Klein 1962
Store
Source: Labov 1966
% using constricted [r]
Percent [r] in rapid and anonymous study of three
New York City department stores, 1962 and 1986
80
60
Some
All
40
20
0
Saks 1962
Macy's 1962
S. Klein 1962
% using constricted [r]
Store
80
60
Some
All
40
20
0
Saks 1986
Macy's 1986
May's 1986
Store
Source: Labov 1966, Fowler 1986
Percent [r] in by age in Saks
Saks 1962
100
% using [r]
80
60
40
20
0
Age
15-30
35-50
55-70
Some [r]
All [r]
Source: Labov 1966
Percent [r] in by age in Saks, 1962 and 1986
Saks 1962
100
% using [r]
80
60
40
20
0
Age
15-30
35-50
55-70
Some [r]
All [r]
Saks 1986
100
% using [r]
80
60
40
20
0
Age
15-30
35-50
55-70
Some [r]
All [r]
Source: Labov 1966, Fowler 1986
Percent [r] in by age in Macy’s
M acy's 1962
100
90
80
% using [r]
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Age
15-30
35-50
55-70
Some [r]
All [r]
Source: Labov 1966
Percent [r] in by age in Macy’s, 1962 and 1986
M acy's 1962
100
90
80
% using [r]
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Age
15-30
35-50
55-70
Some [r]
All [r]
M acy's 1986
100
% using [r]
80
60
40
20
0
Age
15-30
35-50
55-70
Some [r]
All [r]
Source: Labov 1966, Fowler 1986
Percent [r] in by stress and position
1962
70
% using all [r]
60
50
40
Saks
Macy's
30
Klein
20
10
0
fourth
floor
FOURTH
FLOOR
Source: Labov 1966
Percent [r] in by stress and position, 1982 and 1986
1962
70
% using all [r]
60
50
40
Saks
Macy's
30
Klein
20
10
0
fourth
floor
FOURTH
FLOOR
1986
% using all [r]
80
60
Saks
Macy's
May's
40
20
0
fourth
floor
FOURTH
FLOOR
Source: Labov 1966, Fowler 1986
Overall increase in percent [r] from 1962 to 1986
100
90
80
70
60
1962
50
1986
40
30
20
10
0
Saks
Macy's
Klein's/May's
Source: Labov 1966, Fowler 1986
Overall increase in percent [r] from 1962 to 1996
100
90
80
70Tiernan 1996
60
1996
50
1986
1962
40 Fowler 1986
30 Labov 1962
20
10
0
Saks
Macy' s
Klei n' s/May's/Bradl ee's
Source: Labov 1966, Fowler 1986, Tiernan 1996
Social and stylistic stratification of (r) in the random
sample of the Lower East Side of New York City [N=81]
90
80
SOCIOECONOMIC
CLASS
70
The cross-over
pattern
Percent [r]
60
higher
9
6-8
4-5
2-3
1
0
50
40
30
lower
20
10
0
Casual
Caref ul
Reading
Style
Word List
Minimal Pairs
The introduction of constricted /r/ by upper middle class
youth in the spontaneous speech of the Lower East Side
sample of New York City [N=81]
60
50
Per cent constrict ed /r/
40
Upper middle c las s
Lower Mi ddle cl as s
30
Working cl as s
Lower c las s
20
10
0
40 and over
20 to 39
Age
8 to 19
Subjective evaluation of (r) in matched guise
tests for New Yorkers by age and social class
100
Per cent posi tive evaluation of ( r)
80
60
8 to 17
18 to 39
40 and over
40
20
0
Lower cl as s
Lower working
c las s
Upper working
c las s
Lower middle
c las s
Upper middle
c las s
Percent positive response to (r) on two-choice
subjective reaction test in New York City
Percent positive on two-choice test
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
16 to 17
18 to 19
20 to 24
25 to 29
30 to 34
Age
35 to 39
40 to 49
50 to 59
The metropolis: a speech
community with a high
degree of social stratification
on a uniform structural and
evaluative base
Stratification by occupation in white employees at Macy’s (1962)
60
50
40
Some (r-1)
30
All (r-1)
20
10
0
Floorwalkers
Sales
Stockboys