Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-4hvwz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-29T15:17:56.389Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Linguistic variation, context, and meaning: A case of -ing/in' variation in North American workers' speech

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2008

Michael R. Huspek
Michael R. Huspek
Affiliation:
Department of Speech CommunicationUniversity of Illinois
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The variable rule method of accounting for linguistic variability suffers on two counts: (1) it is insensitive to social context; (2) it regards meaning as irrelevant (variability being treated as different ways of “saying the same thing”). Given these shortcomings, an alternative approach sensitive to social context and the relevance of meaning is recommended. The proposed alternative approach, scaffolded on an ethnography of communication base, is then used to support an analysis of -ing/in' variability in some North American industrial workers' speech. The analysis indicates that instances of morphophonemic variation, contrary to what proponents of the variable rule method have suggested, may express a number of various meanings that express, reflect, and reproduce speakers' life experiences. The analysis also enables us to develop a set of theoretical statements that explain the motivations of workers' selections of a low prestige variant and why workers' reliance on a low prestige variant persists. (Ethnography of communication, variable rule methodology, social class dialect, morphophonemic variation)

Type
Articles
Information
Language in Society , Volume 15 , Issue 2 , June 1986 , pp. 149 - 163
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Anshen, F. (1975). Varied objections to various variable rules. In Fasold, R. & Shuy, R. (eds.), Analyzing variation in language. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. 1–10.Google Scholar
Bernstein, B. (1971). Social class, linguistic codes and grammatical elements. In Class, codes and control (Vol. 1). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. 95–117.Google Scholar
Cedergren, H. (1973). On the nature of variable constraints. In Bailey, C.-J. N. and Shuy, R. (eds.), New ways of analyzing variation in English. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. 13–22.Google Scholar
Cedergren, H., & Sankoff, D. (1974). Variable rules: Performance as a statistical reflection of competence. Language 50:333–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dittmar, N. (1983). Descriptive and explanatory power of rules in sociolinguistics. In Bain, B. (ed.), The sociogenesis of language and human conduct. New York: Plenum. 225–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elgin, P. (1980). Talk and taxonomy: A methodological comparison of ethnosemantics and eth-nomethodology with reference to terms for Canadian doctors. Amsterdam: John Benjamins B.V.Google Scholar
Fischer, J. (1958). Social influences on the choice of a linguistic variant. Word 14:47–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1970). Functional diversity in language as seen from a consideration of modality and mood in English. Foundations of Language 6:322–61.Google Scholar
Huspek, M. (1982). Power and communicative inadequacy. Paper presented in the University of Washington Social Theory Colloquia Series.Google Scholar
Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In Pride, J. & Holmes, J. (eds.), Sociolinguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin. 269–92.Google Scholar
Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations in sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Hymes, D. (1983). Report from an underdeveloped country: Toward linguistic competence in the United States. In Bain, B. (ed.), The sociogenesis of language and human conduct. New York: Plenum. 189–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kay, P. & McDaniel, C. (1979). On the logic of variable rules. Language in Society 8:151–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kress, G., & Hodge, R. (1979). Language as ideology. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1966). The social stratification of English in New York City. Arlington, Va.: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1969). Contraction, deletion and inherent variability of the English copula. Language 45:715–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, W. (1972a). Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1972b). Language in the inner city: Studies in the Black English Vernacular. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Lavandera, B. (1978). Where does the sociolinguistic variable stop? Language in Society 7:171–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LeMasters, E. E. (1975). Blue-collar aristocrats: Life-styles at a working-class tavern. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Macauley, R. K. S. (1976). Negative prestige, linguistic insecurity, and linguistic self hatred. Lingua 36:147–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfeffer, R. M. (1979). Working for capitalism. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Romaine, S. (1981). The status of variable rules in sociolinguistic theory. Journal of Linguistics 17:93–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubin, L. B. (1976). Worlds of pain: Life in the working-class family. New York: Basic.Google Scholar
Sankoff, G. (1974). A quantitative paradigm for the study of communicative competence. In Bauman, R. & Sherzer, J. (eds.). Explorations in the ethnography of speaking. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sankoff, G. (1980). Political power and linguistic inequality in Papua New Guinea. In The social life of language. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sennett, R. & Cobb, J. (1973). The hidden injuries of class. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Shimanoff, S. (1980). Communication rules: Theory and research. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1981). Irony and the use-mention distinction. In Cole, P. (ed.). Radical pragmatics. New York: Academic. 295–318.Google Scholar
Sterelny, K. (1983). Linguistic theory and variable rules. Language and Communication 3(1):47–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trudgill, P. (1974). The social differentiation of English in Norwich. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Winford, D. (1984). The linguistic variable and syntactic variation in Creole continua. Lingua 62:267–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfram, W., & Christian, D. (1976). Appalachian Speech. Arlington, Va.: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar