Topic: Relation Between Linguistic and Social Variation

Variation in language, as a sociolinguistic phenomenon, is the study of the way language varies and
changes in communities of speakers. It depends on different social factors. On the one hand, language
can vary according to the situation in which the speech act takes place and according to the relation
between the speakers i.e. style. Varieties may also be associated with specific functions in particular
situations i.e. register. On the other hand, language varieties may be characterized by the geographical
and the social background of the speaker. A variety associated with the geographical location in which it
is used is called regional variety or regional dialect, whereas variation in language due to social factors is
referred to as social variation or social dialect.

Social variation studies developed from traditional dialectology when scientists understood the
complexity of language variation. In the late 18th century, dialectologists treated variation in language
as a result of the geographical origin of the speaker. In the 1950s, sociolinguists started to concentrate
on social factors’ relevance to language variation. They agreed that the dialectologists´ point of view was
too restricted, and that geographical location was not enough to account for linguistic variation. Firstly
they pointed out that a language is subject to constant change, i.e. the mobility of the speakers of
different dialects of one specific language, and the resulting interaction between these dialects cause
modification or substitution of linguistic features. Secondly they started to investigate differences in
society which proved to be relevant to variation in language. It becomes obvious that the current
sociolinguistic approach to language variation is in two ways more complex than the dialectologists'
view, as not only the aspect of constant change is taken into consideration but also the influence social
factors have on language varieties.

THE SOCIOLINGUIST'S INTEREST IN THE FIELD OF SOCIAL VARIATION

Every single language has a repertoire of varieties, including a standard variety which is the result of
deliberate intervention by society. A language undergoes standardization in order to create a standard
language which serves as an orientation for linguistic norms. A non-standard variety of a particular
language may differ from the standard language on all linguistic levels. It may be characterized by
differences in pronunciation, grammar and in vocabulary. A variety differing from the standard variety in
pronunciation only is often called accent, whereas variation in grammar and vocabulary may be referred
to as dialect. A linguistic variety differs from the standard variety on at least one of these levels. It is
shared by a speech community which is defined by the use of certain linguistic features and by a
common attitude towards the variety. The members of a particular speech community may not all know
nor use the entire repertoire of "their language", but they are aware of the norms about the selection of
varieties. For Example; Gumperz study is based on a social group where cast system exists. The society is
divided into touchable and non-touchable, where the prestigious group Brahmans avoid using the
language of non-touchable in order to maintain or glorify their status.

The sociolinguist concerned with the relation between social and linguistic features confines himself to
the investigation of a restricted number of variables. He concentrates on a certain social variable and
identifies its variants which appear to promote the usage of a certain variant of a linguistic variable
instead of another. "The choices among the variants of a linguistic variable are influenced by both social
and linguistic forces" (Fasold 1990, p.272). The fieldworker has to deliminate the speech community
which he will be focusing on from other communities, and it is necessary to know who is using the
relevant features in which context. He will then prepare a procedure in order to elicit relevant data
confirming his hypothesis about the relation between linguistic and social variables in this particular
speech community.

A. Linguistic Variables
In the study of language variation linguistic, variables function as scientists´ tools, enabling them to
investigate, recognize and analyze particular speech patterns. A variable can be seen as a set of
alternative features, called variants, which can be substituted for one another without changing the
meaning of the word. It was William Labov who introduced this concept to sociolinguistic studies:

“A linguistic variable is a linguistic item that has alternate realizations, as one speaker realizes it one way
and another a different way”. It is the scientist’s aim to find a sociolinguistic explanation of the preferred
use of one variant instead of another, and to relate the variation in language to certain social factors. A
linguistic variable can have a number of variants which differ from one another on a phono- logical level.
There is, for example, the present progressive form of verbs where the -ing- suffix is realized differently
by different speakers. The variable ‘Kha’ and ‘Sha’ in Pashto language or Usage of words “moo’r” and
“Dak” in different context for eating in different regions of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Linguists might argue
that this is the due to morphological difference. The word home, for example, does either begin with an
audible *h+ or it is pronounced *h=kh’] sound because in some of the regions the word (kh’) is
pronounced in their native language which influence their pronunciation. A clear-cut distinction
between the variants is not possible and the identification of the relatively differing variants is much
more complicated. This is also the case when a variable shows multi-dimensional variation that is when
more than one characteristic of the pronunciation of a vowel has to be taken into consideration.

Investigators have looked at the presence or absence of morphemes, for instance, at the third person
singular -s in the present tense form of verbs. The variable (thinks), for example, may be realized as
either [thinks] or [think]. The non-occurrence of the -s-suffix would be regarded as a non-standard
realization of the variable. Again one could argue that this is rather a phonological difference. "[...]
differences in either pronunciation or in morphology [...] are in any case hard to keep separate [...]"
(Hudson 21996, p.43). Variation on the level of syntax has been investigated for negated sentences,
among other things. The sentence (He hasn´t got any money either) is a syntactic variable which has the
possible variants [He hasn´t got no money either] (double negation) and [He hasn´t got no money
neither] (multiple negation 7). It is rare for differences in syntax to be investigated by sociolinguists
because syntactical features seem rather insensitive to variation and are difficult to recognize in
ordinary speech.

Sociolinguists have also looked at the varying usage of lexical items. Investigating the social distribution
of certain synonyms, however, is very rare as significant data is most difficult to elicit. Lexical variation is
rather relevant in investigating different registers. As has been elaborated throughout this section,
linguistic variation is investigated on all linguistic levels. Though scientists mainly concentrate on the
realization of phonemes as, for one thing, pronunciation features do occur most frequently when
natural language is being investigated. Secondly, pronunciation is most sensitive to variation; an
individual speaker never pronounces one word twice in exactly the same way. Thirdly, pronunciation is,
in contrast to the grammar and the vocabulary of a language, less liable to standardization and at the
same time individually marked. Moreover, phonological features are more quickly adopted than
changes in grammar or vocabulary.
B. Social Variables
A social variable can be defined as a social factor with an influence on language variation which,
analogous to the linguistic variable, can occur in various ways. If the choice of one particular variant of a
linguistic variable instead of another is not attributed to regional differences or differences in style or
register, sociolinguists try to explain the variation by quantifiable factors in society which are known or
expected to be influencing language. There is a wide range of social differences between speakers which
have been found to relate to linguistic variation. The following remarks will be confined to three very
influential social variables: socio-economic status, sex and race.

1. The Speaker's Socio-Economic Status

The social variable of socio-economic status was found to influence the realization of, for example, the (-
ing) variable at the end of present progressive verb-forms. In his 1974- Norwich-study, Peter Trudgill
investigated the occurrence of either [-ing] or [-in‘+ with a number of speakers. Dividing the group of
speakers into social classes, he found out that the higher the socio-economic status of the speaker (and
the more formal the style), the more probable the occurrence of the standard variant [-ing]. In casual
style, the least formal speech style, the speakers who were related to the lowest class did use the non-
standard variant [- in‘+ in virtually one hundred percent of the cases.

Trudgill's procedure was designed to find evidence for how speakers' social status and the degree of
formality in their speech relate to the use of the (-ing) variable. Before starting to conduct this
investigation, Trudgill had to divide his selection of speakers into groups which were to represent five
different social classes. According to their occupation, income, education, place of residence and their
father's occupation he assigned the participants either to the middle middleclass, the lower middleclass,
the upper working class, the middle working class or to the lower working class. The question often
raised in this context is, if it is appropriate to stratify society in this way, reducing various social factors
to a single scale and assuming that the resulting concept of socio-economic status is universally valid. It
is obviously difficult to define groups of people on the basis of their social background in general.
William Labov who established social stratification in his New York study argued that different social
factors are relevant to different linguistic variables.9 Scientists agree that the criteria taken into
consideration to provide a representative stratification of society must be chosen with regard to the
variable under investigation. The second complex of Trudgill's study was the aspect of speech style. As
he was looking for evidence for the relation between formality in speech and the use of the (-ing)
variable, he had to elicit different degrees of formality. The participants used the most formal style while
reading prepared wordlists paying most attention to their pronunciation. The most casual speech was
produced in natural conversation, talking to, for example, family members or friends. The two
intermediate speech styles were produced while reading out a reading-passage respectively while
talking to the interviewer. This style stratification, too is one of the methods developed by William
Labov.

2. The Speaker's Sex

One of the first quantative studies of social variation which was carried out by John Fischer in 1958 in
New England, is concerned with the (-ing) variable, relating the choice of variants not only to social class
but also to the speaker’s sex. He carried out this investigation among school children, forming two
separate groups, one group of girls and another of boys. These two groups were again divided according
to social status. Fischer found out that the lower class boys used the most the non-standard variant [-in‘+
while the middle class girls clearly preferred the RP- standard variant [-ing]. The choice between the two
variants did not only depend on the speaker's sex and their location on the social scale, but also on the
degree of formality of the situation. In other words, the children adjusted their pronunciation of the
variable in question to the situation in which the speech act took place. They payed least attention to
the use of the RP-variant in casual speech while talking to their class mates, for instance. One could
speculate that girls rather aspire to be associated with higher social status than boys do. What is
obvious, though, is that the (-ing) variable has social significance not only for the fieldworker, but for the
speakers as well.

The (-ing) variable is generally regarded as a social marker in the English speaking world, i.e. it carries
social information about the speaker. People are aware of markers which show class- and style
stratification. Using the variant [-in'], which is stigmatized in parts of the English speaking world,
associates one's pronunciation with lower-class speech. A social marker can become a stereotype as
soon as it is consciously varied in order to identify oneself with a certain group of speakers.

3. The Factor of Race

William Labov’s New York City study, which was carried out in 1972, illustrates the factor of race and its
relation to the use of a certain linguistic features. Together with other scientists, Labov investigated the
speech of Afro-American adolescents which proved to be different from the speech of "white"
Americans and others by various features. Labov found out that the variable (is), i.e. any present tense
form of the verb to be, with its variants [is] and [is=∅] is the most distinctive feature, and that "white"
speakers prefer [is] in most of the cases whatever their social status. For the "black" speakers it
appeared that the more they identified with the "black community", the more frequent was the use of
the variant [is=∅]. This manner of identification with a certain group of people by means of a specific
linguistic feature was investigated by Labov among Afro-American teenagers in Harlem. He divided his
selection of speakers into four groups, identifying "core members" of a gang called "the Jets",
"secondary members", "peripheral members" and "non-members" (Hudson ²1996, p.185). He found out
that the closer the speaker's relation to the gang, the more often occurred the socially marked variant
[is=∅]. Even the non-members occasionally used this stereotype identifying themselves with the "black
community", but at the same time they distanced themselves from the gang, using it less often than any
of the members. This study illustrated that linguistic variables may be employed for the purpose of
identification with a particular group or speech community which is defined by a particular social
variable.

THE COLLECTION OF DATA

Before beginning with the actual research work and the collection of data about a particular
sociolinguistic phenomenon, the fieldworker propounds a hypothesis, i.e. he defines an assumption of
the relation between a particular social and a linguistic variable. He has to choose a social variable which
he expects to be relevant to the variation of a linguistic feature. Usually the linguist chooses a linguistic
variable which has been previously observed by other scientists and which is therefore likely to be
socially significant. Some scientists even fall back upon predetermined lists of variables which have been
made by dialectologists or other linguists. The fieldworker also has to decide in what way he expects the
two variables to relate to each other. This initial decision already contains the problematic aspect of
social stratification as the variable needs to be appropriately graduated. He then has to settle which
variants of the linguistic variable carry social information at all, and to which social variant they will
probably relate to.
1. The first step in collecting sociolinguistic data is the preparation of a questionnaire which is
necessary for the performance of the interviews. It is designed with regard to the hypothesis. It
is important to elicit sociolinguistic information as definite as possible, either confirming or
refuting the scientist's assumptions. Creating this questionnaire, the scientist has to deliberate
on the best way of bringing about representative data without which the interview becomes
subject to unnatural conditions. This might turn out to fatally influence the results of the
interviews. Formulating the questions, the fieldworker has to think over which words or
grammatical constructions are suitable for the interviews. He has to bear in mind that
the linguistic environment around the varied feature "[...] systematically influences the
frequency with which each variant could be expected to appear" (Trudgill, 1984, p.246). It was
again William Labov who found out that neighboring phonemes have an effect on the
pronunciation of the varying feature. If the linguist is interested in variation of linguistic features
according to different degrees of formality, he might use William Labov's concept of style
stratification which is generally regarded as a sensible method to elicit different speech styles.
2. The second step in this procedure is the selection of speakers that will be participating in the
interviews. The sociolinguist has to formulate a set of qualifications with regard to the expected
results. This rather subjective method of selecting speakers is called judgement sample and it
has been criticized for leading to misinterpretation. The alternative method, the random
sample, provides an equal chance to be selected for everyone in the population to be sampled.
The choice of participants is arbitrary and, on the one hand, this makes the method much more
objective. On the other hand, though, a randomly selected group of speakers will have to consist
of a much greater number of individuals as only a few of them will be relevant to the study.
Consequently, most of the recorded material will be identified irrelevant. Therefore, judgement
sample is generally preferred in sociolinguistic studies and scientists try to avoid misleading
subjectivity at this early stage of investigation. Although people's speech is more formal under
such conditions than it would be if they were talking to friends or family members, the
apparatus is the most important tool in the sociolinguistic interview. Some scientists have tried
to alleviate this problem. Lesley Milroy, for example, carried out a study in Belfast being part of
the social network of the speakers. She was accepted as a friend, consequently her presence did
not increase the formality of the speech. This is, of course, an exceptional case as usually the
fieldworker comes into the participant's homes as a stranger, and the problem of the observer's
paradox cannot be overcome because everyday language cannot be analyzed without making
tape-recordings first.
3. After the data collection has been completed, the investigator starts with the identification of
the variants by listening to the recordings. This is a rather difficult stage of the study so far as
the linguist's subjective expectations might influence the recognition of the occurrences. This
problem mainly applies to studies concerned with phonological variation. Pronunciation
features may differ in several phonetic dimensions. It is not always possible to reduce the
analysis of a linguistic variable to one distinct feature. The fieldworker has to count the
occurrences of each variant for each text separately to be able to compare different figures for
different texts. He starts, for instance, by counting the occurrences of variant a) in the casual
speech of group 1), he continues by counting the occurrences of variant b) in casual speech of
group 1) and so on, until he reaches the last group 4) to count the occurrences of variant c) in
most formal style. To make the comparison easier, the occurring figures are reduced to
percentages. It matters then to discover the differences between the texts and their relevance
 to the hypothesis. Some differences might not be statistically relevant at all, but if they are they
require sociolinguistic explanation.
4. The scientist can then start to interpret the data, bearing in mind that the phonetic environment
can make speakers favour one variant instead of another and that his hypothesis is not fully
confirmed. The stage of interpreting the data is certainly the most difficult one, as it involves
some important decisions. First of all, the speech patterns need to be precisely described and
explained. The study is regarded as successful when the findings can be generalized and applied
to a level outside the actual investigation.