Marie Jean-Conte
APLING 623
September 16, 2012
Week 3 Reflection
Interview with William Labov
Matthew J. Gordon (interviewer and transcriber)
This interview in the Journal of English linguistics, volume 34 Number 4, was conducted by
Matthew J. Gordon on July 19, 2006. The very first question he asks reflects on one of Labov’s
preliminary studies that led to the definition of the linguistic variable. The interview reflects how
William Labov’s narrative analysis differs from some of the earlier approaches in his method
that focuses on oral narrative instead of written text. Labov acknowledges the challenges
sociolinguistics face while doing fieldwork where the task of gathering data could be
compromised by the mere presence of the researchers on location. To avoid all those obstacles,
Labov had to find a way to obtain samples of spoken language containing the sounds, words and
structures he wanted to study without speakers being aware of his goal to analyze the way they
spoke. The idea is to discover how people really speak, not how they speak when they think
someone is observing them. This methodology that Labov develop to that end and his
commitment to conducting a rigorous, empirical, scientific examination of language are among
his major contributions to the study of language
Throughout the interview, Matthew allowed readers to capture the essence of what made
Labov a key figure in the area of linguistics which is known as sociolinguistics. The interviewer
acknowledges Labov’s tremendous impact on the field of linguistics in general and
sociolinguistic in particular.
William Labov has investigated language change and in particular, the role of different social
factors including age, social class, and gender. He indicates upward mobilization, gender, age,
education, and popularity as factors that contribute to leaders in linguistic change. Labov is wellknown for his greatest contribution in understanding the nature of the languages that humans use
to communicate with one another. It is a fact that human language is complex or for better word
dynamic. Its usage varies tremendously to a greater or lesser degree within any speech
community. In fact, there is even an element of variation in an individual’s speech: the same
person does not always say the same thing in the same manner. William Labov was interested in
why that happens. Why does it keep happening today, despite most of us learning a standard
form of language at school? Labov believed the answer to those questions laid in the social role
that language plays to identify the sociological factors – class, gender, age, level of education
with which variations in the speech of individuals or groups individuals might be correlated. The
way each of us uses language is attributable to all the social factors in our history. As
individuals, we are not linguistic units. During the interview, Labov noted the following, “We
study individuals because they give us the data to describe the community, but the individual is
not really a linguistic unit. Many of the people in sociolinguistics disagree with me on this point,
and they think that reality lies in the individual speaker, and I take the position that’s just the
reverse. There are no individuals from a linguistic point of view.” Labov answers positively to
the question that language is the property of the community and that’s why we are studying it.
He asserts that “it’s an objective characteristic of the real world outside of the individual.”
Labov also clarifies his involvement with AAVE commonly known as African American
Vernacular English in term of his initial motivation; whether his interest in African American
English was motivated as much by social justice concerns as by intellectual curiosity about the
linguistic structure of this variety. He mentions that “this situation is typical of linguistic
disagreements.” The jury is still out when it comes to settling the arguments between the
creolists like Bill Stewart and the dialectologists like Juanita Williamson.
Dialect differences can affect the quality of education received by some students both
academically and socially (Labov, 1995). The attitudes of teachers and other school personnel
can impact students negatively because they speak another language other than English.
Expectations play an important role in the students’ success in the classroom. If teachers are not
willing to use the funds of knowledge the students bring in the classroom in spite of speaking a
different dialect they are setting their students to fail. Therefore, teachers should show sensibility
towards their students and value their culture so they can be fully included in the learning
process in all school’s activities.
References:
Gordon, M. “Interview with William Labov.” Journal of English Linguistics, 2006 34:332.
Labov, W. (1995). Can reading failure be reversed: A linguistic approach. In V. Gadsden & D.
Wagner (Eds.), Literacy among African American youth: Issues in learning, teaching and
schooling. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.