Three Waves of Variation Study
1
Three Waves of Variation Study: The emergence of meaning in the study of variation Penelope Eckert Stanford University
Abstract
The treatment of social meaning in variation has come in three waves of analytic practice. The first wave of variation studies established broad correlations between linguistic variables and the macro-sociological categories of socioeconomic class, sex class, ethnicity and age. The second wave employed ethnographic methods to explore the local categories and configurations that inhabit, or constitute, these broader categories. In both waves, variation was seen as marking social categories. This paper sets out a theoretical foundation for the third wave, arguing that (1) variation constitutes a robust social semiotic system, expressing the full range of social concerns in a given community; (2) variation does not simply reflect, but constructs, social meaning, hence is a force in social change and (3) the meanings of variables are basic and underspecified, gaining more specific meanings in the context of styles (personae).
1. The fate of social meaning in the study of variation The first quantitative community study of variation was all about social meaning. Based on ethnographic observations and interviews on Martha 's Vineyard, William Labov (Labov 1963) established that the pronunciation of /ay/ had been recruited as an indexical resource in a local ideological struggle. This diphthong had a centralized nucleus in the Vineyard dialect, but for some years, island speakers had been following the mainland trend to lower the nucleus to [ɑ]. Labov found that some speakers were reversing this lowering trend, in an apparent move to recapture one of the most salient features of the distinctive island dialect. Led by the English ethnic fishing community whose control over the local economy was under threat from the mainland-controlled tourist industry, this revival of a ‘traditional’ local pronunciation constituted a claim to island
Three Waves of Variation Study: The emergence of meaning in the study of variation Penelope Eckert Stanford University
Abstract
The treatment of social meaning in variation has come in three waves of analytic practice. The first wave of variation studies established broad correlations between linguistic variables and the macro-sociological categories of socioeconomic class, sex class, ethnicity and age. The second wave employed ethnographic methods to explore the local categories and configurations that inhabit, or constitute, these broader categories. In both waves, variation was seen as marking social categories. This paper sets out a theoretical foundation for the third wave, arguing that (1) variation constitutes a robust social semiotic system, expressing the full range of social concerns in a given community; (2) variation does not simply reflect, but constructs, social meaning, hence is a force in social change and (3) the meanings of variables are basic and underspecified, gaining more specific meanings in the context of styles (personae).
1. The fate of social meaning in the study of variation The first quantitative community study of variation was all about social meaning. Based on ethnographic observations and interviews on Martha 's Vineyard, William Labov (Labov 1963) established that the pronunciation of /ay/ had been recruited as an indexical resource in a local ideological struggle. This diphthong had a centralized nucleus in the Vineyard dialect, but for some years, island speakers had been following the mainland trend to lower the nucleus to [ɑ]. Labov found that some speakers were reversing this lowering trend, in an apparent move to recapture one of the most salient features of the distinctive island dialect. Led by the English ethnic fishing community whose control over the local economy was under threat from the mainland-controlled tourist industry, this revival of a ‘traditional’ local pronunciation constituted a claim to island
References: Agha, A. (2003). The social life of a cultural value. Language and communication 23: 231-73. Anttila, A. and Y.-m. Y. Cho (1998). Variation and change in optimality theory. Lingua 104(12): 31-56. Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination. Austin, University of Texas Press. Bell, A. (1984). Language style as audience design. Language in Society 13: 145-204. Bell, A. (2001). Back in style: Reworking audience design. Style and sociolinguistic variation. P. Eckert and J. R. Rickford. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 139-69. Benor, S. (2001). Sounding learned: The gendered use of /t/ in Orthodox Jewish English. Penn working papers in linguistics: Selected papers from NWAV 2000. Bod, R., J. Hay, et al. (2003). Probabilistic Linguistics. Cambridge, MIT Press. Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Bourdieu, P. (1977). The economics of linguistic exchanges. Social Science Information 16(6): 645-68. 29 Bourdieu, P. and L. Boltanski (1975). Le fétichisme de la langue. Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales(4): 2-32. Bresnan, J. (2006). Is syntactic knowledge probabilistic? Experiments with the English dative alternation. Roots: Linguistics in search of its evidential base. S. Featherston and W. Sternefeld. Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter. Brown, P. and S. Levinson (1979). Social structure, groups and interaction. Social Markers in Speech. K. R. Scherer and H. Giles. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 291-342. Bucholtz, M. (1996). Geek the girl: Language, femininity and female nerds. Gender and belief systems. N. Warner, J. Ahlers, L. Bilmeset al. Berkeley, Berkeley Women and Language Group: 119-131. Bucholtz, M. (1999). You da man: Narrating the racial other in the production of white masculinity. Journal of sociolinguistics 3(4): 443-460. Bybee, J. (2006). From usage to grammar: the mind 's response to repetition. Language and communication 82(4): 711-33. Campbell-Kibler, K. (2005). Listener perceptions of sociolinguistic variables: The case of (ING). Linguistics. Stanford CA, Stanford. Campbell-Kibler, K. (2007). Accent, (ING) and the social logic of listener perceptions. American speech 82(1): 32-64. Campbell-Kibler, K. (2007). What did you think she 'd say? Expectations and sociolinguistic perception. Paper presented at NWAV. Philadelphia:University of Pennsylvania. Cedergren, H. (1973). The interplay of social and linguistic factors in Panama. Linguistics. Ithaca, Cornell University. Chambers, J. K. (1995). Sociolingiustic Theory. Oxford, Blackwell. Coupland, N. (2000). Language, situation and the relational self: Theorizing dialect-style in sociolinguistics. Stylistic variation in language. P. Eckert and J. Rickford. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Cutler, C. A. (1999). Yorkville crossing; White teens, hip hop and African American English. Journal of sociolinguistics 3: 428-41. Eckert, P. (1980). Clothing and geography in a suburban high school. Researching American culture. C. P. Kottak. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press139-45: 45-48. Eckert, P. (1989). Jocks and burnouts: Social categories and identity in the high school. New York, Teachers College Press. Eckert, P. (1997). Age as a sociolinguistic variable. Handbook of Sociolinguistics. F. Coulmas. Oxford, Basil Blackwell: 151-67. Eckert, P. (2008). Variation and the indexical field. Journal of sociolinguistics 12(3): 453-476. Eckert, P. (in press). Emotion in variation. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 15(2). Edwards, W. and C. Krakow (1985). Polish-American english in Hamtramck: A sociolinguistic study. Paper delivered at Conference on New Ways of Analyzing Variation in English. Washington, Georgetown University. Edwards, W. F. (1991). Sociolinguistic behavior in a Detroit inner-city black neighborhood. Language in Society 21: 93-115. Gal, S. (1979). Language shift: Social determinants of linguistic change in bilingual Austria. New York, Academic Press. Giles, H., Ed. (1984). The dynamics of speech accommodation. International Journal of the Sociology of Language. 30 Haeri, N. (1997). The sociolinguistic market of Cairo: Gender, class and education. London, Kegan Paul International. Hebdige, D. (1984). Subculture: The meaning of style. New York, Methuen. Hill, J. H. (1993). Hasta la vista, baby: Anglo Spanish in the American Southwest. Critique of Anthropology 13: 145-76. Hodder, I. (1982). The present past. London: Batsford. Holmquist, J. (1985). Social correlates of a linguistic variable: A study in a Spanish village. Language in Society 14: 191-203. Irvine, J. (1979). Formality and informality in communicative events. American Anthropologist 81(4): 773-790. Irvine, J. (2001). Style as distinctiveness: The culture and ideology of linguistic differentiation. Stylistic variation in language. P. Eckert and J. Rickford. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 21-43. Knack, R. (1991). Ethnic boundaries in linguistic variation. New Ways of Analyzing Sound Change. P. Eckert. New York, Academic Press: 252-72. Kroch, A. S. (1978). Toward a theory of social dialect variaton. Language in Society 7: 17-36. Labov, W. (1963). The social motivation of a sound change. Word 18: 1-42. Labov, W. (1966). The social stratification of English in New York City. Washington, DC, Center for Applied Linguistics. Labov, W. (1972). Some principles of linguistic methodology. Language in society 1(1): 97-120. Labov, W. (1972). The logic of nonstandard English. Language in the inner city. W. Labov. Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press: 201-240. Labov, W. (2001). Principles of linguistic chage: Social factors. Cambridge, Blackwell. LePage, R. B. (1978). Projection, focussing, diffusion. York papers in linguistics 9. Macaulay, R. K. S. (1977). Language, social class and education: a Glasgow study. Edinburgh, University of Edinburgh Press. Mayer, A. (1975). The lower middle class as historical problem. Journal of Modern History 47: 409-436. Milroy, L. (1980). Language and social networks. Oxford, Blackwell. Modaressi, Y. (1978). A sociolinguistic analysis of modern Persian, University of Kansas. Munson, B. (2007). The acoustic correlates of perceived masculinity, perceived femininity, and perceived sexual orientation. Language and speech 50(1): 125-. Ochs, E. (1991). Indexing gender. Rethinking Context. A. Duranti and C. Goodwin. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Ortner, S. B. (1984). Theory in Anthropology since the Sixties. Comparative studies in science and history 26(1): 126-66. Payne, A. (1980). Factors controlling the acquisition of the Philadelphia dialect by out-of-state children. Locating language in time and space. W. Labov. New York, Academic Press: 143-78. Pierrehumbert, J. (2001). Stochastic phonology. GLOT 5(6): 1-13. Pierrehumbert, J., J. T. Bent, et al. (2004). The influence of sexual orientation on vowel production. Journal of the acoustic society of America 116(4): 1905-8. Podesva, R. (2004). On constructing social meaning with stop release bursts. Paper presented at Sociolinguistics Symposium 15. Newcastle upon Tyne. Podesva, R. (2007). Phonation type as a stylistic variable: The use of falsetto in constructing a persona. Journal of sociolinguistics 11(4): 478-504. 31 Podesva, R. (2009). The California vowel shift and gay identity. Talk presented at Vox California. University of California at Santa Barbara. Podesva, R. J., S. J. Roberts, et al. (2002). Sharing resources and indexing meanings in the production of gay styles. Language and sexuality: Contesting meaning in theory and practice. K. Campbell-Kibler, R. J. Podesva, S. J. Roberts and A. Wong. Stanford, CSLI Press: 175-90. Rickford, J. (1986). The need for new approaches to class analysis in sociolinguistics. Language and Communication 6: 215-221. Rickford, J. and F. McNair-Knox (1994). Addressee- and topic- influenced style shift: A quantitative sociolinguistic study. Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Register. D. Biber and E. Finegan. New York, Oxford University Press: 235-276. Schilling-Estes, N. (1998). Investigating self-conscious speech: The performance register in Ocracoke English. Language in society 27(1): 53-83. Silverstein, M. (1976). Shifters, linguistic categories, and cultural description. Meaning in anthropology. K. H. Basso and H. A. Selby. Albuquerque, University of New Mexico Press: 11-55. Silverstein, M. (2003). Indexical order and the dialectics of sociolinguistic life. Language and communication 23(3-4): 193-229. Staum, L. (2008). Experimental investigations of sociolinguistic knowledge. Linguistics, Stanford University. PhD. Trudgill, P. (1974). The social differentiation of English in Norwich. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Wolfram, W. (1969). A sociolinguistic description of Detroit Negro speech. Washington DC, Center for Applied Linguistics. Wolfram, W. and N. Schilling-Estes (1998). American English. Malden MA and Oxford, Blackwell. Zhang, Q. (2005). A Chinese yuppie in Beijing: Phonological variation and the construction of a new professional identity. Language in society 34(3): 431-66. Zhang, Q. (2008). Rhotacization and the 'Beijing Smooth Operator ': The social meaning of a linguistic variable. Journal of Sociolinguistics 12(2): 201-222. Notes i The standard sociological measures of class employed in these studies are numerical scales based on level of education, occupation and income. This yields a linear scale, suggesting a homogeneous continuum from the chronically unemployed through well-to-do professionals. (The fabulously rich and the true upper class, and the urban underclass, have not been systematically included in community studies). ii Ethnicity is not included here because it has played a liminal role in variation studies. In a few cases (Labov 1966, Laferriere 1979, Horvath 1985), ethnicity has been examined as a primary variable in a variation study. In most cases, however, the dialects of oppressed minorities (most particularly African Americans and Latinos) have been studied separately from their coterritorial white dialects. iii See Labov, Yeager and Steiner (1994) and Labov (1994) for detailed descriptions of this shift. 32 iv The y axis shows factor weights from multivariate analysis using GOLDVARB, developed by David Sankoff and David Rand, and (in the case of the vowel changes) controlling for phonetic constraints. v The boys form a network that corresponds to the girls’ network in general structure. vi Miyako Inoue (2006) details the analogous history of Japanese ‘women’s language’, in which features of this style are circulated in the dialogue of women’s managazines. vii A notable exception to this is Rickford et al 1995.