Social Dialectology Ch.3
Measuring the Cause of Variation
Defining a Linguistic Variable
Social Factors Related to Variation
Identifying Variation in Spoken and
Written Texts
Various Views of Language Variation
Earlier Explanations
 Dialect Mixture:
Implies the coexistence in
one locality of 2 or more
dialects which enables a
speaker to draw on one
dialect at one time, and on
the other dialect(s) on other
occasions.
 Free Variation: Refers
to the random use of
alternate forms within a
particular dialect.
Labov’s Variationist
Theory
 Language involved
‘structured heterogeneity.’
 Language contained
systematic variation which
could be characterized and
explained by patterns of
social differentiation within
speech communities.
Terminology of Dialectology
 Linguistic Variable: Any single feature of language that could be realized by
choice; can be phonological, lexical, morphological, etc. Variant is a term for different
ways the feature is used.
 Hypercorrection: When the lower middle class uses more of an elite form than the
high-status group. It reflects their desire to distance self from working class.
 Overt Prestige: Use of linguistic variants to show higher social status.
 Covert Prestige: Working class speech that conforms to local values and norms
instead, in order to mark solidarity.
 Ethnolect: A variety of language that differs from the general patterns of wider
society, based on a sense of identity through ancestry, religion, and culture.
 Vernacular: The least self-conscious style of speech used in relaxed, informal
situations. This style shows more regular rules of variation.
Fieldwork Methods:
Measuring Causes of
Variation
Sociolinguistic Interview
Participant Observation
Anonymous Surveys
Field Experiments
Sociolinguistic Interview
Samples representative of
population
In context (avoid observer’s
paradox)
Informal personal interview
Interviewee leads in teaching about
“local ways and attitudes”
Participant Observation
Researcher works in setting
gathering data
Insider/outsider status
Example: Labov uses it to study
language of gangs in NYC as well
as Philadelphia neighborhoods
Anonymous Surveys
Random sample
15 minutes on phone
Used to supplement other methods
Case study #1
Children in New England (p. 77)
Brief interviews from formal (ex:
classroom recitation of a story) to informal
settings.
 Girls use more –ing than boys
‘Model’ boys use more –ing than “typical”
boys
Case Study #2 Martha’s Vineyard
 Methods: 69 taperecorded interviews. Labov
assigned a number to each of
4 possible responses and,
using averages, created an
index of linguistic use of
feature according to age
group.
 Variations:
– 2 diphthongs [aI] & [əI]
– Scores increase as one
scans down the column
– Reduced levels of
centralization in one group
Age in years Index Score
for (aI)
75+
25
61 - 75
35
46 - 60
62
31- 45
81
14 - 30
37
Case Study #3 NYC Dept. Store
 Methods: Labov
pretended to be a
customer at three large
department stores
used by different
classes. He recorded
264 salespeople
saying “fourth floor.” as
well as their gender,
race, age.
Postvocalic /r/ variations
62% Saks
51% Macy’s
20% Klein’s
 Variations: →
Deliberate Usage
Case Study #3: NYC Lg Study
 Variations: (th) variable pg 88
– Most non-fric forms occurred in casual
speech for all groups.
– Decreasing frequency through more
formal style.
– Sharply stratified char btwn the WC and
LMC.
Case Study # 3: NYC Lg Study
 Variations: Postvocalic (r) pg 89
 Methods: Extensive interviews recording
continuous speech, short passage, word list, word
pairs
– A fine stratification
– Casual Speech level: only UMC shows
significant degree of r-pronunciation.
– All groups increase from informal to formal
styles.
– LMC shows greater increase in the use of [r],
until the word list and minimal pair styles.
Overtake UMC.
Case Study # 4 Class Differences in
Norwich
 Methods: Detailed
socioling. interview with fifty
adults, ten school children,
to generalize about norms
of city.
 Variations:
– Sharply stratified.
– Gap btwn norms of MC
and WC.
– Males: Covert Prestige
– Females: Overt Prestige
MMC
100%
LMC
98%
UWC
30%
MWC
13%
LWC
3%
(the GA slave
class)
Case Study # 5: Class Struggles in
Cane Walk
Methods:
Interview recording using phonetic
spelling for a Creole that’s only
spoken.
Variations:
– WC: Used standard variants only 18 % of
the time.
– LMC: Used it 83% of time.
Social Factors?
 What are the social
implications that
affect the variations
in these case studies
 Break up into 5
groups and come up
with one social factor
for each case study
 gender, class, age
 personality
– Aggressive
– Cooperative
 mood
– Tense
– relaxed
 formality
 SES
 ethnicity
 occupation
 geographic local
 school norms
 residents vs. seasonal res.
 attitude
 identity
 hypercorrection & covert /
overt prestige
 standard vs. creole usage
Outline and Label the possible
variations on this map of the US: