The relationship between linguistic variables and social factors in the US

The relationship between linguistic variables and social factors in the US

After reading Labov’s study, The Social Stratification of (r) in New York City Department Stores, I decided to do more research on the topic of language and social categorisation. After examining New York department stores, Labov conducted a much more extensive survey of the Lower East Side of New York City. Besides the Lower East Side survey, I would like to examine his research on Martha’s Vineyard and the work of Blake and Josey, who revisited Labov’s work after forty years. My intention is to find proof that linguistic differences can be based on social differences. These three works confirm this theory.

Labov, W. (2006). The Survey of the Lower East Side. In The social stratification of English in New York City (pp. 96-126). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

In his work, The Social Stratification of (r) in New York City Department Stores, Labov introduced and confirmed the following hypothesis: “If any two subgroups of New York City speakers are ranked in a scale of social stratification, then they will be ranked in the same order by their differential use of (r).”(Labov, 1972, p. 169). In his study of the Lower East Side, he tests this hypothesis more exactingly and states that it can be generalized for the other variables he examined. These were the variables examined: (r) in four, (æh) in bad, (oh) in off, (th) in thirteen, and (dh) in brother. Labov chose the Lower East Side for the survey because ethnic groups and social groups (middle class, working class and lower class) are well represented in this area. The group of informants was divided into five categories of ethnicity and race: AA, Jewish-Orthodox, Jewish-Conservative & Reform, Catholic, and white Protestant. Combining the characteristics occupation, education and family income, they created a ten-point socio-economic index, which was used during the study. It was divided into three sections: 0-2 (lower class), 3-5 (working class), 6-9 (middle class).

They used two types of interviews. The main type was the linguistic interview, the other was the so-called television interview. The television interview was for those who refused to take part in the ALS interview or those who could not be reached. Most of them were conducted over the phone. For the first part of the television interview they designed questions to elicit at least one example of a specific variable. They asked questions related to television, for example about the quality of picture. In the second part of the interview their aim was to gather as much information on the informant’s background as possible. The linguistic interview had the same purposes: to measure the values of the five variables and to obtain information on the informant. Apart from some deviation or exceptions, the results were as follows. The higher the social class, the higher the values of (r), (æh) and (oh) are. The higher the social class, the lower the values of (th) and (dh) are. Aside from the fact that (oh) showed some irregular values sometimes, the hypothesis was confirmed again; there is concord between the social stratification and the differential use of the variables.

Labov, W. (1972). The Social Motivation of a Sound Change. In Sociolinguistic patterns (pp. 1-35). Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Labov chose Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts for an investigation of social patterns in linguistic change. The island consists of two parts: up-island and down-island. Down-island is more urban; it has three towns where three-fourths of the population lives. Up-island is absolutely a rural area and the home of Chilmark fishermen. Three main ethnic groups live on the island: an English-descent group, a Portuguese-descent group and an Indian group. There is another group, the large group of summer residents, who were not investigated, but who have an indirect effect on the speech of the permanent population. Two diphthongs, (ay) and (aw) were chosen for examination. A general rise in centralization of these diphthongs was discovered.

The general pattern is that rural up-islanders use a higher degree of centralization than down-islanders, though some degree of centralization was encountered in the diphthongs of down-islanders, too. Basically, this feature is seen by Labov as a distinctive feature of Vineyarders who want to express their resistance to the summer people. The biggest resistance is shown by Chilmarkers, which is a very independent group. Considering the English group, Chilmark fishermen use the highest degree of centralization. Second-generation Portuguese speakers show little or no centralization, but the third and the fourth generation uses high degree of centralization. The level of relative increase of centralization in the Portuguese group is higher than in the English group. It is so because since there are more Portuguese in prominent positions, and their aim is no longer to reduce the impression of being Portuguese, but to insist upon their identity as an islander. The Indian group is similar to the Portuguese, in that it also shows higher level of relative increase than the English group. They want to assert their Indian identity; however, they also want to be recognised as islanders. Since they have no linguistic resources - there is no Indian language anymore-, they will follow the Chilmark pattern of centralization. In conclusion, centralization is a social marker of the islanders, who want to be recognised as distinct from the summer people.

Blake, R., & Josey, M. (2003). The /ay/ diphthong in a Martha's Vineyard community: What can we say 40 years after Labov? Language in Society, 32(4), 451-485.

Blake and Josey re-examined Labov’s study on Martha’s Vineyard after forty years. They chose to examine only the diphthong (ay). Their study was based on only the Chilmark community, not the whole island, because Labov found the highest degree of centralization there. Blake and Josey argue that similarities still exist, despite the fact that Labov examined a Chilmark population that was less than one-third its present size. Chilmark is still a close-knit community and it is still undergoing an economic change, as it was at the time Labov examined it. Chilmark’s economy is more and more based on tourism rather than the fishing industry. However, a tendency is increasing since Labov’s study: “mainlanders” (who used to be “summer people”) tend to live year-round in Martha’s Vineyard, which has affected Chilmarkers’ speech, besides, of course, other aspects of their lives.

Blake and Josey’s findings are that (ay) does not seem to be a linguistic marker of social identity anymore. They explain it with different changes in Chilmark community. The overall attitude of Chilmarkers has changed. They understand that now, tourism practically supports the community, whereas forty years ago it threatened the local economy. Thus they do not see themselves in opposition to mainlanders anymore. The distinction between “locals” and “the others” (mainlanders) is disappearing. Moreover, the relationship between the mainland and Martha’s Vineyard is becoming less tense; young people see the mainland as a world of opportunities. Because Chilmarkers’ economic status also has changed a lot since Labov’s study, “the fisherman” as a notion or concept has disappeared, which caused the centralization of the diphthong (ay) to lose its earlier social meaning. Therefore, there is a lower degree of centralization today. Blake and Josey’s discoveries confirm Labov’s hypothesis that sound changes are socially motivated.