Foreword
Professor John R. Rickford, Stanford University
For assembling this excellent edited collection, we are indebted to Robert Lawson and
Dave Sayers. But when they issued their original Call for Papers in the Variationist
List [Var-L] on January 18, 2012, noting that “very few people outside academia have
ever heard of sociolinguistics – let alone its influence beyond the groves of academe,”
not everyone agreed. Rudy Troike (University of Arizona, Tucson), for instance,
pointed to early work in the US by William Labov, Roger Shuy, Roseann Gonzalez
and others that helped to dispel myths about African American English, and to
improve testing, teaching and interpreting in classrooms, the armed services, and
courts. Celeste Rodriguez Louro (University of Western Australia, Crawley) noted
counter-examples from Australia too, citing work by Diana Eades and her colleagues
on Australian Aboriginal communication style in court cases, and on problems with
the process of assessing the nationality of people seeking refugee status in Australia.
Responding on Var-L for both editors, Robert Lawson acknowledged the
existence of sociolinguistic activism in the UK as well, for instance, in work by Peter
Trudgill, Ron Macaulay, Sue Fox and others on English in education and resources
for teachers. But he argued that the goal of the volume was to highlight this kind of
activism by bringing it together in one coherent volume, and to focus more explicitly
on engagement, a relatively new phrasing and focus of applied work. The editors have
fulfilled this goal admirably, but before developing this point, I’d like to comment on
the relative significance of applied research in sociolinguistics and/or language
variation and change more generally.
Some of the earliest community studies by US sociolinguists – e.g. Labov et al.
(1968), Shuy et al. (1967), Wolfram (1969) – were funded by the US Department of
Education and/or the Center for Applied Linguistics as a means of better
understanding and redressing educational inequities linked to vernacular dialects.
Despite this, applied issues have usually taken a back seat to analytical and theoretical
issues in sociolinguistics, although several leading figures manage to combine all
three. The diminution of application relative to theory is especially prevalent in the
so-called First World, e.g. N. America, W. Europe, Japan, Australia and New
Zealand. (In Third World countries, e.g. in the Caribbean and West Africa, linguists,
as part of a relatively small intelligentsia, and with students, contacts and interests in
education or government, are much more frequently drawn into educational, nationdevelopment and other applied issues.)
For instance, although Labov’s applied work from the first twenty years of his
linguistics career (e.g. Labov 1969, 1982) is almost as well known as his earliest
descriptive or theoretical work (e.g. Labov 1963, 1980), this is not true of his work
over the last twenty years. His three-volume Principles of Linguistic Change (Labov
1994, 2001a, 2010) is deservedly famous, but his invaluable work on improving
reading for AAVE speakers (e.g. Labov 1995, 2001b, Labov and Baker 2010) is much
less so. Moreover, outside of his current/recent colleagues and students, few if any
linguists know of the vibrant Penn Reading Initiative he spearheaded at the University
of
Pennsylvania,
or
its
associated
Reading
Road
instructional
program
(http://www.ling.upenn.edu/pri/). And fewer still know of the Portals Real World
Reading Bounce B stories he crafted to help elementary students master “silent e” (hat
vs. hate) and other challenges of the English orthography, although his book (Labov
1990) is very widely used in schools in California and Texas.
Speaking more broadly, there is only one book (Trudgill 1984) carrying the title
Applied Sociolinguistics, which pursued “the application of linguistic research to the
solution of practical, education and social problems of all types” (p.1). And most
introductory sociolinguistics texts include at most a chapter or two at the end about
applications to societal problems. One can see this, to varying extents, in the three
most recent Handbooks. Chambers and Schilling’s (2013) Handbook of Language
Variation and Change (which most readers will recognize as a moniker for
quantitative sociolinguistics), includes a final chapter by Wolfram on “Community
Commitment and Responsibility.” Wolfram’s chapter is the only one in the book’s
final section, “Sociolinguists and Their Communities,” and as the only chapter
dealing with applied sociolinguists, it represents 3.8% (1/26) of the book’s contents—
an improvement on the 2002 first edition, which had no such chapter. Bayley et al’s
(2013) Oxford Handbook of Sociolinguistics is better in this regard, with the fifteen
chapters in the book’s final two sections (“Language Policy, Language Ideology, and
Language Attitudes” and “Sociolinguistics, The Professions and Public Interest”)
representing 37.5% (15/40) of the book’s contents. Wodak et al’s (2011) SAGE
Handbook of Sociolinguistics is somewhere in between. It has a five-chapter final
section on “Applications,” as well as various policy and practice-relevant chapters in
other sections, for an overall percentage of about 28%.
One reason for the under-representation of “applied issues” in sociolinguistics
(apart from individual scholars’ interests and inclinations) is the relative status of
theory and application in linguistics departments and in academia more generally. In
many research universities, not least in North America, theory is highly valued, and
applied issues at best ignored. Within linguistics, the situation was exacerbated for
many years by the centrality of “theoretical linguistics” (core syntax, phonology,
semantics and pragmatics) and the marginality of “hyphenated linguistics.” Over the
past two decades, this linguistics-specific distinction has weakened considerably, for
various reasons (more “theory” by sociolinguists and psycholinguists, more interest in
corpora/usage data by “theoretical linguists,” more collaboration between them), but
the primacy of “theory” in research universities remains.
Another possible reason for the under-representation of applied issues in
sociolinguistics texts is the existence of “applied linguistics” as a separate subfield,
with its own conferences and texts, for instance applied linguistics handbooks from
publishers including Blackwell (Davies and Elder 2004), Oxford (Kaplan 2010), and
Routledge (Simpson 2001). Routledge has a whole series of specialized applied
Handbooks, dealing separately with interpreting, multilingualism, language testing,
Hispanic applied linguistics, and so on. It would take us too far afield to discuss the
relations between applied linguistics and sociolinguistics in detail, but a couple quick
observations are in order. The first is that while this varies by continent and
individual, many sociolinguists don’t consider themselves applied linguists, or attend
applied linguistics conferences. The reverse is also true. Shuy (2015: 434) notes, for
instance, that he was “often pigeonholed as a sociolinguist and not thought of as an
applied linguist,” partly because of the traditional focus of applied linguistics on
[second] “language learning, teaching and testing.” Shuy’s paper is rich in
suggestions for broadening the vision and reach of applied linguistics, and for
increasing its relation to theoretical linguistics and enhancing its prestige, and this is
indeed the focus of the entire special issue of Applied Linguistics in which it appears.
(See for instance, Hellerman’s 2015 introduction and other papers in the issue.) This
expanded tent is one in which many sociolinguists with an applied bent could
comfortably find themselves, and indeed, applied sociolinguists could benefit from a
similar soul-searching and reconceptualization, as this volume itself demonstrates.
Whatever the reasons for the traditional under-representation of applied
sociolinguistics, we are at a historical point where the academic rewards for applied
work (in terms of promotion, research grants, funding for individuals and
departments) are gradually increasing. And sociolinguists, who typically gather data
in speech communities and communities of practice in the “real world,” are very well
positioned to pursue and demonstrate “impact.” The rise of “impact” as a key element
in the five-year research evaluation by which universities in the UK are assessed is
documented in revealing detail by Lawson and Sayers in their Introduction to this
volume. From their account, 2014 was a pivotal year, not only because of the name
change that year from Research Assessment Exercise to Research Excellence
Framework, but also because “esteem” was replaced then as a criterion by “impact.”
As they note, “impact” includes not only a 2010 definition as “effect on, change or
benefit to the economy, society, culture, public policy or services, health, the
environment or quality of life, beyond academia,” but an additional 2012 criterion
that “public debate has been stimulated or informed by research.”
Universities in the USA are not required to demonstrate “impact” in their
assessment exercises in quite the same way as our UK counterparts are, but the
National Science Foundation, especially since 2013, assesses grant proposals both in
terms of “Intellectual Merit” and “Broader Impacts,” the latter defined as “the
potential to benefit society and contribute to the achievement of specific, desired
societal outcomes” (http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/merit_review/overview.pdf
and
http://www.nsf.gov/od/oia/publications/Broader_Impacts.pdf).
So
we
are
increasingly subject to the same pressures or incentives.
Of course, for many, perhaps all of us, interest in sociolinguistic application or
impact does not derive solely from recent carrots or sticks, but from longer standing
stirrings to “do justice” and “love mercy” (Micah 6:8), especially since the people
“whose data fuel our theories and descriptions” (Rickford 1997: 186) are often poor,
and oppressed or disadvantaged in schools, housing, courtrooms, interactions with the
police, and opportunities to offer significant improvements to their children. These
stirrings are reflected in Labov’s (1982: 172) principle of debt incurred (“An
investigator who has obtained linguistic data from members of a speech community
has an obligation to use the knowledge based on that data for the benefit of the
community, when it has need of it”) and Wolfram’s (1993) principle of linguistic
gratuity (“Investigators who have obtained linguistic data from members of a speech
community should actively pursue positive ways in which they can return linguistic
favors to the community”).
The chapters in this volume richly exemplify the spirit of the older principles
and the intent of the newer impact criteria. Given the editors’ detailed summaries in
their introduction, and my own wish to avoid specific comparisons, it is unnecessary
for me to discuss the contents of this book chapter by chapter. I would say, however,
that I am impressed, as a group, by the range of their research foci and/or goals
(reduced discrimination, improved teaching and learning, fairer courtroom verdicts
and refugee decisions, more language-enriched public exhibits, better language
policy) and by the variety of their institutional settings (schools, museums,
workplaces, social media, entire countries). The geographical settings constitute a
relatively broad range too, from Canada and the USA, to the UK, other parts of
Europe, Australia, and New Zealand. Gabon, Pakistan and Indonesia get some
coverage too, although it would be terrific to see more so called “Second” and “Third
World” countries included in future editions.
What is really new and exciting about this volume is the explicit and extended
discussion in each chapter of the five Ws and H of “impact” (Who, What, When,
Where, Why, and How), explored in insightful and stimulating ways. I have already
started to tell my students and colleagues about the terrific chapters in this book, and
we are all avidly awaiting its publication. The editors tell me they plan to follow this
book with the creation of an open access journal provisionally named Applied
Sociolinguistics. If that comes to fruition, it could productively extend this book’s
focus on how we conceptualize and carry out “applied” work in sociolinguistics, and
on the proportion and standing of application relative to analysis and theory.
REFERENCES
Bayley, Robert, Richard Cameron, and Ceil Lucas (eds.). 2013. The Oxford
Handbook of Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chambers, J.K., and Natalie Schilling. (eds.). 2013. The Handbook of Language
Variation and Change, 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.
Davies, Alan, and Catherine Elder. (eds.). 2004. The Handbook of Applied
Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Hellerman, John. 2015. “Three contexts for my work as co-editor: Introduction to the
special issue.” Applied Linguistics 36 (4): 419–424.
Kaplan, Robert. B. (ed.). 2010. The Oxford Handbook of Applied Linguistics, 2nd ed.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Labov, William. 1963. “The social motivation of language change.” Word 18: 1–42.
Labov, William. 1969. “The logic of non-standard English.” Georgetown Monograph
on Languages and Linguistics 22: 1–44. Reprinted in Language and Social
Context, 1972, ed. by P. Giglioli, 179–215. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Labov, William. 1980. “The social origins of sound change.” In Locating Language
in Time and Space, ed. by William Labov, 251–265. New York: Academic
Press.
Labov, William. 1982. “Objectivity and commitment in linguistic science: The case
of the Black English trial in Ann Arbor.” Language in Society 11 (2): 165–202.
Labov, William. 1990. Portals Real World Reading Bounce A. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin Harcourt.
Labov, William. 1994. Principles of Linguistic Change Vol. 1: Internal Factors.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Labov, William. 1995. “Can reading failure be reversed? A linguistic approach to the
question.” In Literacy among African American Youth, ed. by Vivian L.
Gadsden and Daniel A. Wagner, 39–68. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
Labov, William. 2001a. Principles of Linguistic Change Vol. 2: Social Factors.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Labov, William. 2001b. “Applying our knowledge of African American English to
the problem of raising reading levels in inner city schools.” In Sociocultural and
Historical Contexts of African American English, ed. by Sonja L. Lanehart,
299–317. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Labov, William. 2010. Principles of Linguistic Change Vol. 3: Cognitive and Cultural
Factors. Oxford: Blackwell.
Labov, William, Paul Cohen, Clarence Robins, and John Lewis. 1968. “A study of the
non-standard English of Negro and Puerto Rican Speakers in New York City.”
Cooperative Research Report 3288. Vols I and II. Philadelphia: U.S. Regional
Survey (Linguistics Laboratory, U. of Pa.).
Labov, William, and Bettina Baker. 2010. “What Is a Reading Error?” Applied
Psycholinguistics 31 (4): 735–757.
Rickford, John R. 1997. “Unequal partnership: Sociolinguistics and the African
American speech community.” Language in Society 26 (2): 161–197.
Simpson, James. (ed.). 2001. The Routledge Handbook of Applied Linguistics. Oxon:
Routledge.
Shuy, Roger W. 2015. “Applied linguistics past and future.” Applied Linguistics 36
(4): 434–443.
Shuy, Roger, W. Walt Wolfram, and William K. Riley. 1967. Linguistic correlates of
social stratification in Detroit speech. USOE Final Report No. 6–1347.
Trudgill, Peter. (ed.). 1984. Applied Sociolinguistics. London: Academic Press.
Wodak, Ruth, Barbara Johnstone, and Paul Kerswill. (eds.). 2011. The SAGE
Handbook of Sociolinguistics. London: SAGE.
Wolfram, Walt. 1969. A Sociolinguistic Description of Detroit Negro Speech.
Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Wolfram, Walt. 1993. “Ethical Considerations in Language Awareness Programs.”
Issues in Applied Linguistics 4: 225–255.