Angelo Makris
APLING 623
Week 3- Labov, “The Reflection of Social Processes in Linguistic Structures”
Overview
In “The Reflection of Social Processes in Linguistic Structures, Labov shows how
linguistic features are linked with social and extra-linguistic factors, such as class, age, and
formality. Using the Phonological Index of a population of Lower East Side New Yorkers,
Labov shows how the absence or presence of a simple phonological unit can potentially reveal
class and social stratifications. This contribution to the field of descriptive linguistics exemplifies
the role language plays toward a more complete sociology.
Significant Themes/ Concepts
One of the main significant themes of the study was that linguistic behavior changes with
social position (240). This leads to variability and stratification in the use of certain regional
markers, in this case the muted /r/ of the NYC accent. Labov writes, “At the level of casual,
every-day speech, only the upper middle class … shows a significant degree of r-pronunciation.
But in more formal styles, the amount of r-pronunciation for other groups rises rapidly.” (245)
This leads into another key concept raised by Labov, the linguistic insecurity of the lower
middle class. This group drops the /r/ the most often in casual speech, yet will knowingly adjust
their pronunciation in more formal contexts. /R/ is not only a marker of prestige by its use by the
upper classes, but by the lower classes’ relative abandonment of it. For the latter, pronouncing
the /r/ is more a conscious act of striving toward a formal standard. Also, during a pronunciation
test, they often split the difference between two forms- the correct ones, and the ones that they in
fact use.
Critical Discussion
This reading reinforces a central tenet of linguistics, the idea that language is not neutral.
It is an expression and indicator of relative power and status, in which individuals must negotiate
with larger social and political structures for meaning and representation across spatial and
temporal relations. Here, the pronunciation of /r/ is seen as a post-World War II marker of
status. Upper classes use the /r/ more readily in casual speech than the lower classes, which
designates it as a marker of prestige. Yet, the /r/ is not just limited to being an effect of social
status- it may also grant access to upward social mobility. That is, the use of /r/ in formal
contexts can be understood as both a linguistic cause and effect of access to discourses
communities associated with greater knowledge, wealth, power, professionalism, education, etc.
Likewise,
this
study
examines
the
dropped
/r/
of
the
Boston
accent:
http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=pwpl
According to Irwin & Nagy (2007: 144-145), there is also a positive link between the use of /r/
and factors such as formality, education, and income. Again, language relates to degree of
success.
Another interesting feature of this study is that it also reinforces a conscious trend toward
a consensus standard.
Native speech patterns are stigmatized by younger generations and
speakers in more formal contexts in a similar fashion to the linguistic and cultural dissonance of
assimilation-minded immigrants and their descendents of the early 20th century. Accents become
the markers of an externalized other, a norm that exists just outside the standard. Could we
understand this linguistic movement away from the local, away from home-culture or regional
markers, as corollary to movements towards collectivism- be they nationalism or globalization,
etc? Can we understand the linguistic insecurity lower classes feel about their pronunciation to
be hegemonic?
And yet, the loss of regional markers may also in some way be attributed to
greater cultural diversification. For example, the Boston accent is heavily ethno-centric, and is
rarely if ever, associated with the city’s growing non-white and immigrant populations.
Ironically, out of diversity arises an aspiration to a marker of standardization and consensus.
Implications for Education
Another concept Labov talks about is semantic integration. This is a compelling concept
for it poses how we can achieve mutual understandings and share common ground on concepts
that vary greatly in tangibility. The author uses common sense as an example, though words like
intelligence, soul, and art also illustrate this point. So it seems that this issue is perhaps most
pertinent with abstract nouns, yet native speakers are generally capable of attaining an
essentialist consensus grip on these concepts. (How) does this differ with ESL students and how
can abstract concepts be taught in the language learning context?
Also, to reiterate, language is power and it is not neutral. Thus language has an inherent
power for social change, as speakers “talk the talk” of structures of power, they have specialized
access to that power. Therein lies the capacity of language as an agent of social change, and the
urgency of language pedagogy toward this end.
Group Questions
As hard as it is for threatened languages to resist language shifts, should we be concerned with
disappearing and/or stigmatized regional markers and accented pronunciations? What other
accents and markers are becoming stigmatized and by whom?
What are the potential
associations of regional markers and/or accents with the place you were born and/or grew up in?
How are they portrayed in mass media and cultural productions?