Lindsey Resto
APLING 623
Critique Week 3
A critique of William Labov’s “The Reflection of Social Processes in Linguistic
Structures”
Do sociological factors influence speech or does speech influence sociological
outcomes? In his paper entitled “The Reflection of Social Processes in Linguistic
Structures” William Labov summarizes several research studies in which
researchers “bring linguistics into close contact with survey methodology and
sociological theory” (Labov, p. 240). Labov contends that linguistic structures reflect
social processes. Since 1964, when Labov gave the presentation on which his paper
was based, the world has changed quite a bit; however, the study and debate of the
interconnectivity of language and society rages on.
The context in which these studies were conducted should not go unnoticed.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was published in the same year that Labov was
presenting his material in a panel discussion and in the same year that Joshua A.
Fishman wrote the Introduction to his book entitled “The Sociology of Language”
(Fishman, 1964) where he argues that “language and society reveal various kinds
and degrees of patterned co-variation” (Fishman, p. 5) and that a combined
“sociology of language” discipline should be created. This was a time of political
unrest, multifaceted discrimination, burgeoning academic disciplines, and linguistic
change.
Not to mention the increase in communication, transportation, and
accessibility of language to those who may have been previously geographically
isolated.
Labov identifies one particular study conducted in New York City where
researches found that stylistic variation was closely associated with social
Lindsey Resto
APLING 623
Critique Week 3
stratification (Labov, p.243). In this study /r/ was found to be a prestige marker
whereby there was a correlation between a person’s socioeconomic status and their
pronunciation of /r/. Labov interprets the research to indicate that people of
similar socioeconomic status will use /r/ similarly in comparative contexts.
Researcher’s found that those speakers in the study who were identified to have a
low Socioeconomic status were the least confident in their use of /r/, and they also
seem to be the group that is most likely to adopt the “prestigious” form used by the
youngest members of the highest ranking class (Labov, p. 248). So, do we believe
that the use of /r/ causes socioeconomic status?
Does it contribute to its
maintenance? Or does one’s socioeconomic status cause the varied use of /r/? We
are back to the “which came first-the chicken or the egg” debate. It’s possible that
Labov may argue that language contributes to social outcomes. Would Fishman
make the same argument? Fishman may argue that language usage and social
outcomes are cannot be mutually exclusive, but rather are reflexive.
Linguistic prestige is certainly part of a much larger social and historical
context. In the study of sociolinguistics, we are reminded that language is not
neutral and history is written by the winners; that seems to be the case with
language as well. Conqueror’s and colonizer’s bring not only their weapons and
their money with them, but also their language. Why is the “formal use of /r/”
attributed more power/prestige in New York City? Perhaps the “ruling class” spoke
with a particular accent, or perhaps their use of language helped them to maintain
their privileged position. According to Labov, additional social factors contribute to
linguistic structure: the interaction of ethnic groups and “segregation of Negro and
Lindsey Resto
APLING 623
Critique Week 3
white” (Labov, p. 248). However, for semantic integration to occur, so too, must
social integration. If we take a historical look at the way in which language, accent,
dialect, and linguistic power were have shifted since colonial times, we can identify
the result (and perhaps the cause) of linguistic integration. In the aforementioned
New York City study, the researchers are merely assessing the outcomes of
historical linguistic shift. If the study were replicated today, perhaps the outcomes
would mimic the 75 year stagnancy of /th/ (Labov, p. 245), or perhaps we would
see yet another linguistic shift that could further Labov’s argument.
Both Labov and Fishman appear to be pioneers in the creation of the field of
“Sociolinguistics” and/or “The sociology of Language.” It is clear to me that there is
a strong correlation between language and social factors. Linguistics and Sociology
are interrelated. Since the 1960’s the field has grown tremendously, as indicated by
its privileged place as a required component to achieve this Master’s of Applied
Linguistics degree!
References
Fishman, J.A. (1972). “The Sociology of Language”
Labov, W. (1977). “The Reflection of Social Processes in Linguistic Structures.”