The goal of sociolinguistic study is to investigate the connection between

linguistic diversity and other factors. It also takes into account the social connotations
attached to various sounds and how those connotations affect language change
patterns. Early quantitative studies on sound and sound variation in accents produced
some rather startling results. As a result, there is a distinct class stratification evident in
the phonological variety of speech communities. In any given speech style (such as
reading or informal speech), a person from a higher social class will use proportionately
more standard (posher) forms and fewer vernacular ("local") forms than a person from a
lower class. This is a classic pattern of social stratification of a stable linguistic variable.
For instance, the linguistic variable (ng), which appears in nouns with a 'ing' ending, has
two variations: -in' (vernacular form) and -ing' (standard form). The middle middle class
(MMC) used more tokens of the -ing' variant than the lower middle class (LMC), who
used more than the upper working class (UWC), who used more than the medium
working class (MWC), according to a study of dialect diversity in Norwich. The 'ing'
variety was employed the least commonly by the lower working class (LWC) (Trudgill,
1972).
The use of a sound that is beginning to be utilized or is being discontinued from
use within a speech community is an example of a second classic pattern for a linguistic
variable that is changing. Each social class is arranged hierarchically according to how
frequently the forms of a stable language variable are utilized. As opposed to speakers
from higher social status groups, LMC speakers utilize more tokens of the standard
version for a linguistic variable that is changing (see Coates, 1986; Holmes, 1992). The
study of the post-vocalic (r) in New York conducted by Labov (1972; quoted in Coates,
1986) is regarded as a well-known illustration of the pattern of a linguistic variable under
change. There are two ways to pronounce the letter (r) in words like "gore" and "car."
Only UMC speakers consistently used the distinguished post-vocalic (r) in less formal
forms. However, LMC speakers used more prestigious (r) tokens than UMC speakers in
the more formal styles. According to Labov, LMC speakers who are conscious of their
social status between the middle and lower classes are more sensitive to the use of the
new prestige version when an accent sound changes. Such speakers are believed to
make an intentional effort to speak "properly" as a result of their increased sensitivity, a
behavior known as hypercorrection.
According to numerous research on sound change, it is believed that regular,
systematic changes to dialects usually start in the lower-middle class population's
speech before moving up the socioeconomic ladder. Social class is a valuable structural
social identification category for sociolinguists who study language variation to explain
sound differences within a dialect. The results of variation studies held interest for social
psychologists who were interested in language, but not for the purpose of language
itself, but rather for what they suggested about social identity. The sociolinguistic
concepts of "hypersensitivity," "dialect maintenance," "sound shift," and "dialect shift"
were simply reframed in terms of psychological social identity (see Giles and Coupland,
1991).
 For instance, the 'hypercorrection' of LMC speakers was perceived to be driven
by a desire for a favorable social identity. UMC speakers used "prestige" variations
more frequently in an effort to preserve their group's linguistic distinctiveness as a high-
status group. Additionally, Ryan (1979) observed that the persistence of low-status
linguistic variants was a sign of group solidarity among lower social classes.
The gender distinction of the traditional social stratification patterns in
phonological variance is a significant extra feature. Generally speaking, women's
speech within each class is distinguished by the employment of more standard and
fewer vernacular forms than those of men from the same social class (see Coates,
1986), however there are occasional exceptions. The stratification of phonological
characteristics by socioeconomic status was a possible explanation for women's more
conventional speech. It was claimed that because women's social status is more
insecure than men's, they are more status aware than males.
This interpretation was swiftly criticized by feminist sociolinguists (see Cameron,
1985; Coates, 1986). The justification was predicated on the somewhat sexist notion
that women were either housewives or mothers. It was also problematic because
women's social class was frequently determined by that of their husbands. Furthermore,
the definitions of the terms "linguistic sensitivity" and "status consciousness" are
somewhat arbitrary and circular.