Variation linguistics The grammatical structure of the speech community

Social Variation

Marc van Oostendorp

Leiden University

12.2.2008

Social Variation Leiden University

Variation linguistics The grammatical structure of the speech community

Social Variation

Variation linguisticsAn example: Fronting of /aw/

The grammatical structure of the speech communityStyle levels

Social Variation Leiden University

Variation linguistics The grammatical structure of the speech community

I-Language vs. E-Language

◮ A useful distinction to be made here is the Chomskyandichotomy between:

◮ I Language: ‘internal/intensional’ language, roughly (andamong other things) the language system as it isrepresented in the individual speaker

◮ E Language: ‘external/extensional’ language, roughly (andamong other things) the language corpus as it is producedby the language community

Social Variation Leiden University

Variation linguistics The grammatical structure of the speech community

Chomsky (2000)There has been much impassioned controversy

about [. . . ] the question of how languages should bestudied. The controversy is pointless, because there isno right answer. If we are interested in how beescommunicate, we will try to learn something abouttheir internal nature, social arrangements, andphysical environment.

These approaches are not in conflict; they aremutually supportive. The same is true of the study ofhuman language: it can be investigated from thebiological point of view, and from numerous others.Each approach defines the object of its inquiry in thelight of its special concerns; and each should try tolearn what it can from other approaches.

Social Variation Leiden University

Variation linguistics The grammatical structure of the speech community

Labov (1993) (1)

Since judgments of acceptability differ radicallyand unpredictably across individuals, it is normal[within the idealist approach] for any disagreementabout data to be answered by narrowing the unit ofdescription to the ’dialect’ of an individual, usually thetheorist. Since each individual derives the rule systemfrom fragmentary data, it is generally held that thecommunity is an inconsistent mixture of consistentindividuals.

Social Variation Leiden University

Variation linguistics The grammatical structure of the speech community

Labov (1993) (2)The materialist position begins with the study of the

heterogeneity of the speech community, and reduces thisvariation to a series of regular quantitative patternscontrolled by social factors. Early statements about thespeech community emphasized this ‘structuredheterogeneity’ as the fundamental feature of the speechcommunity, maintained by a uniformity of social evaluation.More recently, the uniformity of these variable patterns hasbeen found to be also based on a structural homogeneity.In cities of a million or more population, the basiccategories ands rules that define the variables are almostconstant across social class, sex and age. This reinforcesthe position that the fundamental unit of description shouldbe the language of the speech community, and that thespeech of an individual can only be understood against thisbackground.

Social Variation Leiden University

Variation linguistics The grammatical structure of the speech community

Observer’s Paradox

◮ When observing or interviewing people to find out abouttheir spontaneous speech, researchers will, by their ownpresence and participation, influence linguitic behaviourthat is observed

Social Variation Leiden University

Variation linguistics The grammatical structure of the speech community

Qualitative vs. quantitative analysis (1)

There is [. . . ] a marked asymmetry between thetwo bodies of linguistic activity: those doing empiricalanalysis can use the formal, qualitative analysesdeveloped under an idealist program, but notvisa-versa. The latter are satisfied to construct ruleschema without testing for validity against the data ofspeech production, while the former are not.

Social Variation Leiden University

Variation linguistics The grammatical structure of the speech community

Qualitative vs. quantitative analysis (2)This transition from qualitative to quantitative

analysis is a familiar one in the development ofscience. But the qualitative model of linguistics is noteasily displaced. Many forms of linguistic behavior arecategorically invariant. Furthermore, the number,variety and complexity of linguistic relations are verygreat, and it is not likely that a large proportion can beinvestigated by quantitative means. At present, we donot know the correct balance between the two modesof analysis: how far we can go with unsupportedqualitative analysis based on introspection, before theproposals must be confirmed by quantitative studiesbased on observation and experiment.

Social Variation Leiden University

Variation linguistics The grammatical structure of the speech community

An example: Fronting of /aw/

Gradual change

Social Variation Leiden University

Variation linguistics The grammatical structure of the speech community

An example: Fronting of /aw/

Social stratification

◮

Social Variation Leiden University

Variation linguistics The grammatical structure of the speech community

An example: Fronting of /aw/

Social stratification (2)

Social Variation Leiden University

Variation linguistics The grammatical structure of the speech community

An example: Fronting of /aw/

Men and women

◮

Social Variation Leiden University

Variation linguistics The grammatical structure of the speech community

Social Variation

Variation linguisticsAn example: Fronting of /aw/

The grammatical structure of the speech communityStyle levels

Social Variation Leiden University

Variation linguistics The grammatical structure of the speech community

Shared Constraints Hypothesis

◮

The members of a speech community share commonvalues for the probabilistic constraint effects on variablelinguistic processes.

Social Variation Leiden University

Variation linguistics The grammatical structure of the speech community

t-deletion in two American cities

C > V C >∅ V >∅ Preferred orderPhiladelphia (N=19) 89 100 95 C>V>∅

New York (N=4) 100 50 0 C=∅>V

Social Variation Leiden University

Variation linguistics The grammatical structure of the speech community

Constraints

◮ NOCODA: Syllables should not end in a coda◮ FINALC: Syllables should not end in a coda◮ NOHIATUS: Two vowels should not occur adjacent to each

other.

Social Variation Leiden University

Variation linguistics The grammatical structure of the speech community

Grammars

1. FINALC≫NOHIATUS≫NOCODA No deletion except before consonant2. FINALC≫NOCODA≫NOHIATUS No deletion before pause; deletion elsewhere3. NOCODA≫FINALC≫NOHIATUS Deletion everywhere4. NOHIATUS≫FINALC≫NOCODA No deletion except before consonant5. NOHIATUS≫NOCODA≫FINALC No deletion before a vowel; deletion elsewhere6. NOCODA≫NOHIATUS≫FINALC Deletion everywhere

Social Variation Leiden University

Variation linguistics The grammatical structure of the speech community

Philadelphia and New York

1.Philadelphia: FINALC≫NOHIATUS, with floating NOCODA

2.New York: constraintNoHiatus≫FinalC, with floatingNOCODA

Social Variation Leiden University

Variation linguistics The grammatical structure of the speech community

Floating constraint generalisation

◮ The conditions to which a phonological process issubjected are ranked in the same way in a speechcommunity, even though the process itself may be variable.

Social Variation Leiden University

Variation linguistics The grammatical structure of the speech community

Style levels

Differences between styles of speech

◮ It is obviously necessary to restrict the ways in which twostyles within one language system can differ from eachother.

◮ In many rule-based theories of phonology two styles A andB can differ from each other because

◮ A has more rules than B, or◮ because the forms of some of the rules in A is more general

(contains a smaller number of specified feature values)than the form of those in B,

◮ or because A and B have the same rules ranked in differentorders.

Social Variation Leiden University

Variation linguistics The grammatical structure of the speech community

Style levels

Hypothesis

◮

The more formal the register, the higher ranked thefaithfulness constraints.

Social Variation Leiden University

Variation linguistics The grammatical structure of the speech community

Style levels

Turkish vowel epenthesis

formal form less formal form informal form‘fetters’ pranga pıranga pıranga‘prince’ prens pırens pirens‘test’ prova pırova purova‘announcer’ spiker sıpiker sipiker‘cruiser’ kruvazor kıruvazor kuruvazor

Social Variation Leiden University

Variation linguistics The grammatical structure of the speech community

Style levels

Constraints

◮ SPREAD-F. If a feature F is linked to one segment in aword, it should be linked to all segments in that word.; therelevant instances for this constraint scheme in Turkish areSPREAD-[front] and SPREAD-[round].

◮ NOCLUSTER: *C1C2 in the onset◮ NOEPENTHESIS: A vowel in the ouput form should be

present in the underlying form.◮ NOSPREADING: An autosegmental association between a

feature and a segment in the output form should bepresent in the underlying form.

Social Variation Leiden University

Variation linguistics The grammatical structure of the speech community

Style levels

Grammars

◮ careful register:NOEPENTHESIS≫NOCLUSTER

NOSPREADING≫SPREAD

◮ less careful register:NOCLUSTER≫NoEpenthesisNOSPREADING≫SPREAD

◮ colloquial register:NOCLUSTER≫NOEPENTHESIS

SPREAD≫NOSPREADING

Social Variation Leiden University