Language Variation and Change

During the 20th century, linguistics as a field of study underwent

significant paradigm shifts that rendered language a social
phenomenon par excellence. With the emergence of various theories,
such as variationist or Labovian sociolinguistics, the conception of
language has shifted from its mental sphere into its social context. In
this sense, William Labov, one of the pioneers of variationist
sociolinguistics, has sought to demonstrate that language, put in its
social context, does vary systematically across users and in use. In
other words, variation entails that the use of language differs
according to the social strata or may also differ stylistically. In this
light, the essay comprises two sections: While the first part will delve
into social variation, or interspeaker variation, the second section will
tackle the stylistic variation of language, or intraspeaker variation.

The investigation of language as a social phenomenon has

centered on two crucial notions: variation and change. Although these
terms are occasionally used interchangeably, they possess separate
meanings. Variation refers to the synchronic change of a language,
while change involves the gradual evolution of language over time.
Essentially, variation captures a language's snapshot at a given
moment, and it has the potential to lead to change over a more
extended period. For instance, examining language variation across
social strata has led linguists such as Labov and Trudgill to scrutinize
the systematicity of social variation. In this respect, language
variation is not random. It is highly structured and systematic in the
speech of individuals and the speech of communities. It is also
structured in the language itself. This is encapsulated in the notions of
orderly heterogeneity and orderly differentiation" (Weinreich,
Labov, and Herzog, 1968).Contrary to the generative paradigm,
which advocates for a monostylistic social monster who is fully
competent and in command of the linguistic medium, Labov fully
focused on the performance aspect of language. By introducing his
variable rule, he has laid the groundwork for a more systematic
investigation of language use in a social context. For instance, Labov
(1966) conducted his famous New York Department Store study in
which he investigated the pronunciation of postvocalic (r) in New
York City speech in words like Fourth and Floor. He carried out this
experiment by walking into three department stores representing
different social classes, namely Saks (Upper Middle Class), Macy's
(Lower Middle Class), and S.Klein (Working Class). The results of
this study, in this regard, show clear and consistent stratification of
(r) in the three stores. The Upper Middle Class, represented by Saks
employees, used the rhotic form of ® the most, showcasing more
linguistic security than their counterparts. In fact, the rhotic ® as a
variable appeared to be extraordinarily sensitive to any measure of
social and stylistic stratification (Labov, 1962). In this sense, the use
of the rhotic /r/ by the upper middle class shows an instance of overt
prestige and linguistic security, while the lower classes exhibit a more
covert form of prestige. These lower classes are more likely to imitate
the higher social classes through prestige, mobility, and power. These
factors play a significant role in the process of standardization and
the innovative aspects of language. To further put it into perspective,
the notions of power and prestige are highly linked to the social
stratification of individuals. It is within the social sphere that
individuals claim their social identity and exhibit a sense of overt or
covert prestige that allows them to interact with their environment.
The transition from a vernacular-based language to a more
standardized form involves a process of selection, codification,
elaboration, and acceptance of the norm. In this case, social classes
play a significant role in shifting language from vernacular to
standard forms and vice versa through innovation and adaptation to
their current social status. Hence, language does vary systematically
across users, essentially across social classes. It is also worth
mentioning that the examination of linguistic variables such as the
rhotic ® has demonstrated that language does not solely vary across
users but also differs in its stylistic use.

Additionally, the variation of language also showcases a stylistic

aspect that pertains to the intraspeaker's use of language. Such
usage of language is systematic and is governed by the principle of
style-shifting. Different conceptions of style have emerged to account
for such systematicity. Contrary to the generative conception of style,
the variationist paradigm considers that there are no single-style
speakers of a language because such individuals control and use a
variety of linguistic styles and no one speaks in the same way in all
circumstances (Wardaugh, 2010). Labov’s study of the social
stratification of English in New York City may be a relevant example
to cite in this regard. Labov (1966) found that middle-class speakers
are much more likely to shift their style of speaking significantly in the
direction of the upper middle class when they are using a careful
style. Labov’s analysis of New Yorkers’ performance revealed a
general overall increase in postvocalic ® in all groups as the task
required more attention to speech. In this context, the lower middle
class experienced a significant increase in the pronunciation of word
lists; their frequency of postvocalic ® was higher than among upper-
middle-class speakers. The transition from informal styles into more
formal and standard-like ones is a gradual process through which the
individual pays more careful attention to his manner of articulation.
Style, in this sense, may be defined as attention to speech or a
manner of expression (Hudson, 1980). However, such a conception of
style may disregard the functional or communicative aspects of
language. Halliday’s systemic functional grammar has put great
emphasis on style as one of the main components of the register.
"Register" is a language variation conditioned by uses rather than
users. In this sense, the main premise of the functional paradigm is to
highlight the shift from the style axiom to the register axiom. Stylistic
variation, in this case, does not occur solely by attending to one’s
speech but through the interaction with the interlocutor. Labov’s
experiment demonstrates that the role of the interviewer is far
greater than the linguistic variable itself. To put it into perspective,
Allan Bell’s Audience Design Theory (1984) demonstrates that
engaging in style-shifting normally occurs in response to audience
members (Bell, 1977) rather than shifts of attention paid to speech
(Labov, 1972). In this way,intra-speaker variation is a response to
interspeaker variation, chiefly as manifested in one’s interlocutors
(Bell, 1984). It is in this sense that style represents a functional variety
of language, which refers to the tenor aspect of register. The
communicative aspect of style, therefore, facilitates interaction
between members of different social classes. In this case, stylistic
variation may lead to social differentiation. Thus, if a linguistic feature
is found to occur frequently in the speech of people from lower social
groups, it will often be frequent in the casual speech of those from
higher social groups too (Holmes, 1992). If for a variable, the
distance between the speech of the top and bottom classes is 75% in
casual speech, the maximum style shift will be 75 percent. Generally it
is much less – 50% by the lower working class (LWC). The pattern is
remarkable in its consistency.

In other words, the same linguistic feature often distinguishes between

speakers socially, while within the speech of one person, it
distinguishes different styles. Labov illustrates the class-style
combination by positing that when the a particular linguistic variable
is used by a casual salesman and a careful pipefitter, it would be
difficult to distinguish between the two despite the fact that each
represents a different social class. In this sense, style shifting tends to
neutralize class differentiation .Given such a potential interaction, the
ratio of stylistic to social variation is subject to an empirically tested
ratio: “the degree of style variation never exceeds the degree of social
variation”. In quantitative terms, the range of style shift is less than
the range of social differentiation because, as Bell (1984) puts it, style
variation derives from social stratification.

In brief, language variation is a process whereby linguistic features

vary according to users across social strata and in use concerning the
amount of style-shifting that individuals use to differentiate themselves
socially from other members of the social environment.