Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg WS 2007/08

V: Modern Historical Linguistics Prof. Dr. Bernd Kortmann

II. The Sociolinguistic Approach I: The Labovian Paradigm

(or: The Variationist Model of Language Change)
1. The manifesto: Weinreich/Labov/Herzog "Empirical Foundations for a Theory
of Language Change" (1968)

• The fundamental question with which a theory of language change must cope:

"…, if a language has to be structured in order to function efficiently, how do

people continue to talk while the language changes, that is, while it passes through
periods of lessened systematicity? Alternatively, if overriding pressures do force a
language to change, and if communication is less efficient (as would deductively
follow from the [structuralist] theory), why have such inefficiencies not been
observed in practice?" (100f.)

• different from structural and generative approaches to language change,

"it is necessary to learn to see language – whether from a diachronic or a

synchronic vantage – as an object possessing orderly heterogeneity." (100)

"The key to a rational conception of language change – indeed, of language itself –

is the possibility of describing orderly differentiation in a language serving a
community. We will argue that nativelike command of heterogeneous structures is
not a matter of multidialectalism or 'mere' performance, but is part of unilingual
linguistic competence." (101)

Note: "Not all variability and heterogeneity in language structure involves change;
but all change involves variability and heterogeneity." (188)

• the 5 major problems to be dealt with (101f., 183-187; cf. also extra handout):

(i) actuation ("the very heart of the matter"): Why does a given linguistic
change occur at a particular time and place that it does? How do changes
begin and proceed? What starts a change and what carries it along?
(ii) constraints: What are the possible constraints on language change that
determine possible and impossible changes and directions of change? (e.g.
uniformitarian hypothesis: no change possible in language diachrony that
would violate universal principles in language synchrony)
(iii) transition: How (or by what route(s)) does language change? What
intermediate stages can be observed, or must be posited, for a language on
the way from stage 1 to stage 2? (includes the question: which kinds of
changes are gradual, which abrupt?)
(iv) embedding: What other changes in language or, for example, society are
associated with the given changes that cannot be attributed to chance? How
does the greater environment in which the change takes place influence the
change?
 2

(v) evaluation (of linguistic changes "in terms of their effects upon linguistic
structure, upon communicative efficiency…, and on the wide range of non-
representational factors involved in speaking"): E.g. How do members of a
speech community evaluate a given change, and what is the effect of their
evaluation on the change?

• general principles for the study of language change (187f.; see extra handout)

• Note, incidentally: Weinreich/Labov/Herzog spend more than 16 pages (104-120)

on the theories of Hermann Paul; cf. also Labov (1994): "The four chapters of part
D were concerned with the resolution of the controversies and paradoxical
findings that proceeded from the Neogrammarian position on the regularity of
sound change. The results have provided remarkably strong support for their point
of view." (1994:547)

• con structuralist "ideological barriers" (Labov 1972: 13f.):

(i) strict division of synchrony and diachrony: structural systems of the

present and historical changes of the past have to be studied in isolation
(ii) sound change cannot be directly observed
(iii) ! free variation cannot be constrained, in other words: "The internal
structure of variation was therefore removed from linguistic studies and
with it the study of change in progress." Labov instead: 'free variation'
to be reinterpreted as structured, rule-governed variability
(iv) feelings about language are inaccessible; "The social evaluation of
linguistic variants was therefore excluded from consideration."

• method: empirical quantification, establishing correlations (-> correlational

sociolinguistics): social constraints (e.g. socio-economic class, gender, age, ethnic
group, geographical mobility) are considered to be independent variables, while
language is the dependent variable. Socially significant variation is observed in
terms of correlation: the dependent (i.e. linguistic) variable changes when some
independent (i.e. external) variable changes (cf. Chambers 1995: 25).

• (linguistic) variable vs. (linguistic) variant

2. Classic I: The social motivation of a sound change on Martha's Vineyard (1963)

• Labov's Master's thesis

THE work which is reported in this chapter concerns the direct observation of a sound
change in the context of the community life from which it stems. The change is a shift in the
phonetic position of the first elements of the diphthongs /ay/ and /aw/, and the community is
the island of Martha’s Vineyard, Massachussetts. By studying the frequency and distribution
of phonetic variants of /ay/ and aw/ in the several regions, age levels, occupational and ethnic
groups within the island, it will be possible to reconstruct the recent history of this sound
change: by correlating the complex linguistic pattern with parallel differences in social
structure, it will be possible to isolate the social factors which bear directly upon the linguistic
process. It is hoped that the results of this procedure will contribute to our general
understanding of the mechanism of linguistic change.
 3

TABLE 1.2 TABLE 1.3 TABLE 1.4

CENTRALIZATION OF GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION CENTRALIZATION BY
(ay) AND (aw) BY OF CENTRALIZATION OCCUPATIONAL GROUPS
AGE LEVEL
(ay) (aw)
Age (ay) (aw) (ay) (aw) Fishermen 100 79
75- 25 22 Down-island 35 33 Farmers 32 22
61-75 35 37 Edgartown 48 55 Others 41 57
46-60 62 44 Oak Bluffs 33 10
31-45 81 88 Vineyard Haven 24 33
14-30 37 46 Up-island 61 66
Oak Bluffs 71 99
N. Tisbury 35 13
West Tisbury 51 51
Chilmark 100 81
Gay Head 51 81

In summary, we can then say that the meaning of centralization, judging from the context in
which it occurs, is positive orientation towards Martha‘s Vineyard. If we now overlook age
level, occupation, ethnic group, geography, and study the relationship of centralization to this
one independent variable, we ran confirm or reject this conclusion. An examination of the
total interview for each informant allows us to place him in one of three categories: positive—
expresses definitely positive feelings towards Martha‘s Vineyard; neutral—expresses neither
positive nor negative feelings towards Martha‘s Vineyard; negative—indicates desire to live
elsewhere. When these three groups are rated for mean centralization indexes, we obtain the
striking result of Table 1.6.
TABLE 1.6
CENTRALIZATION AND ORIENTATION
TOWARDS MARTHA’S VINEYARD
Persons (ay) (aw)
40 Positive 63 62
19 Neutral 32 42
6 Negative 09 08

The fact that this table shows us the sharpest example of stratification we have yet seen,
indicates that we have come reasonably close to a valid explanation of the social distribution
of centralized diphthongs.

• three types of variables:

(i) indicators: vary only along the social continuum (i.e. stratify only socially)
(ii) markers: vary along both the social and the stylistic continuum
(iii) stereotypes: high level of social awareness; overt topic of social comment,
show correction and hypercorrection

• role of hypercorrection (Æ lower-middle-class speakers in rather formal styles):

indicates sensitivity to social pressures from above

• changes from above vs. changes from below

(i) from above: introduced by dominant social class, often with full public
awareness
 4

(ii) from below: systematic changes first appearing in the vernacular; represent
operation of internal, linguistic factors; completely below the
level of social awareness; may be introduced by any social
class (apparently except for highest social class)

3. Classic II: The social stratification of (r) in New York City (1966)

• Labov's Ph.D. thesis: refined application of the techniques developed on Martha's

Vineyard

Fowler’s Department Store Study replication

 5

4. Characteristics of the sociolinguistic approach to language change

• strongly empirical (Æ refined techniques for data collection, representative

selection of informants)

• predominantly apparent-time studies

• predominantly studies in urban settings

• predominantly studies on phonological change

• includes the consideration of language attitudes

Some general claims about linguistic change which have been made based on large-scale
sociolinguistic investigations in urban settings are:
1. Linguistic changes originate in the intermediate social classes (the upper working class
or lower middle class), not the highest or the lowest classes.
2. The innovators of change are usually people with the highest local status, who play a
central role in the speech community.
3. These innovators have the highest density of social interactions within their
communication networks and they have the highest proportions of contacts outside the
local neighbourhood, as well.
4. Women lead most linguistic changes (women accept and help to propagate the
linguistic changes earlier than man do).
5. Different ethnic groups who newly enter a speech community participate in changes in
progress only to the extent that they begin to gain local rights and privileges in jobs
and housing, and access to or acceptance in the society. (See Labov 1994).
(Campbell 1998: 197)

• Is all linguistic change motivated by social factors?

 6

5. Two important ”post-Labovian” approaches

(i) social networks (Milroy and Milroy (Belfast)): speech behaviour shaped by one's
network of peers, by who you choose to associate with
(ii) one's feelings of identity (Le Page/Tabouret-Keller 1985): how you speak depends
prominently on who you think you are in terms of cultural affiliation

References

Campbell, Lyle. 1998. Historical Linguistics. An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh

University Press.
Labov, William. 1972. "The social motivation of a sound change." In: idem, Sociolinguistic
Patterns, 1-42.
Labov, William. 1972. "The social stratification of (r) in New York City Department Stores."
In: idem, Sociolinguistic Patterns, 43-69.
Labov, William. 1972. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
Press.
Labov, William. 1994. Principles of linguistic change, vol. 1: Internal factors.
Oxford/Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell. (especially Part A)
Pope, Jennifer/Miriam Meyerhoff/D. Robert Ladd. 2007. “Short report: Forty years of
language change on Martha’s Vineyard.” Language 83/3: 615-627.
Schneider, Edgar W. 1997. ”Language change: The state of the art.” In: W. Böker/H. Sauer,
eds. Anglistentag 1996 Dresden - Proceedings. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag. 49-60.
Weinreich, Uriel/William Labov/Marvin Herzog. 1968. "Empirical foundations for a theory
of language change." In: W. Lehmann/Y. Malkiel, eds. Directions for historical
linguistics. Austin: University of Texas Press. 95-198.