Jessica Medeiros
Apling 623
Fall 2012
The article The Reflection of Social Processes in Linguistic Structures, written by
William Labov in 1977 focuses on the new developments at the time of language and social
structures and behaviors coinciding with one another, where they were formally seen as separate
entities. For his article, Labov used examples drawn from a study in New York City, and he
hoped for language use to be seen as “valuable for the understanding of social structure and
social change” (251). In order to show the language implications for social behaviors and class
constructions, Labov addressed phonological, lexical, and semantic structures. What he did find
was that “the shape of linguistic behavior… [changed] rapidly as the speaker’s social position
[changed]” (240).
His secondary survey is based on a study conducted in the Lower East Side of New York
City in the 1960’s. It is noted that New York City’s wide range of stylistic variations of
language has caused difficulty in the study of linguistic systems; however, the phonological and
lexical structures surveyed presented some consistent results. The participants of the survey
were grouped into socio-economic status based on three indicators: occupation of the
breadwinner, education of the respondent, and income of the family (244).
“Linguistic structures are seen to reflect social processes” throughout Labov’s article
(250). Although he did not expand much on the social relationships in semantic structures of
words or the social relationships of lexical behavior of words, there was a consistency between
the analysis of the lexical behaviors and phonological indicators of the survey: linguistic
insecurity. When looking at lexical behaviors, participants of lower social status selected the
pronunciations of words with socially significant variations of pronunciation they thought were
“correct,” and then indicated which pronunciations they used in their own speech, often differing
in the two indications. Although there was very little focus on the lexical language and its
connection to social structures, the linguistic insecurity was also found in the analysis of
phonological variables in language.
Phonology, being the variable that indicated the biggest relationship between language
and social structure and behavior, was the biggest focus. As Labov stated, “A great deal of
evidence shows that lower middle class speakers have the greatest tendency towards linguistic
insecurity, and therefore tend to adopt… the prestige forms used by the youngest members of the
highest ranking class” (248). In other words, there are visible pressures for those in certain
social situation to conform to the views of what is the “proper” way to speak the language. A
perfect example is a native Portuguese-speaking English teacher who once told me she wished
she could get rid of her accent so she could sound like everyone else, as she proceeded to ask me
if I knew of any techniques she could use.
More specifically in phonology, the traditional New York City pattern of /r/ neglecting to
be heard in final positions or before consonants was used for the study. Overall, the
pronunciation of /r/ was seen as a prestigious marker due to it being used more often in more
formal contexts, regardless of who was using it and from what social class. Here, a relationship
is seen between language and social change, where speakers are becoming aware of the social
situations they are in, and improving their pronunciations of words when they are in more formal
contexts. This relationship is present in everyday situations, where many people speak using less
formal words and pronunciations—perhaps even slang—when speaking among friends, but alter
their language to be more formal in social situations that require professionalism (i.e. the
workplace).
In addition, although the speakers increased their pronunciation in more formal social
situations, speakers of the higher social classes used the pronunciation of the /r/ even in informal
contexts, reminding me of being told that the native Spanish-speakers in Puerto Rico who did not
pronounce /s/ as the final consonant were considered to be “of lower intelligence.” Regardless of
hooks’ (1994) notion of “possessing a shared language… [being] a way to make a community,”
social constructions are put into place based on the language used by those who do not speak like
each other, regardless of if speakers share the same language or speak different languages (170).
The language structures used may not actually indicate the social class of the speakers, but I do
believe they show the social classifications of speakers made by others, as well as the insecurities
of speakers and the pressures of those speakers to conform to what they think is right.
With these ideas in mind, there are implications for language teachers that language is
always changing, and although students may be speaking different versions of the same
language, that language is going to continue to change. Teachers must be aware of the social
constructions that might occur within the classroom, remembering that language may be a large
indication of the constructions made. There are constantly insecurities of learners as they go
through the pressures of every day life in school, and it is important to bear in mind that
language use can be a big part of this. Teachers should remember to embrace language because
no one version is correct; it is merely a part of the speakers’ own cultures that have been
socialized.
References
hooks, b. (1994). “Teaching New Worlds/New Words.”
Labov, W. (1977). “The Reflection of Social Processes in Linguistic Structures.”