Language Variation
Regional Dialect
The mapping of regional dialects has had a long history in linguistics (see Petyt 1980,
Chambers and Trudgill 1998, and Wakelin 1977). In fact, it is a well-established part of the
study of how languages change over time, that is, of diachronic or historical linguistics.
Traditionally, dialect geography, as this area of linguistic study is known, has employed
assumptions and methods drawn from historical linguistics, and many of its results have been
used to conirm indings drawn from other historical sources, for example, archeological
indings, population studies, and written records. In this view, languages diferentiate internally
as speakers distance themselves from one another over time and space; the changes result in
the creation of dialects of the languages. Over suicient time, the resulting dialects might
become new languages as speakers of the resulting varieties become unintelligible to one
another.
Mapping Dialects
Dialect geographers have traditionally attempted to reproduce their indings on maps in what
they call dialect atlases. hey try to show the geographical boundaries of the distribution of a
particular linguistic feature by drawing a line on a map. Such a line is called an isogloss: on
one side of the line people say something one way, for example, pronounce bath with the irst
vowel of father, and on the other side they use some other pronunciation, for example, the
vowel of cat. Quite oten, when the boundaries for diferent linguistic features are mapped in
this way the isoglosses show a considerable amount of criss-crossing. On occasion, though, a
number coincide; that is, there is a bundle of isoglosses. Such a bundle is often said to mark a
dialect boundary. One such bundle crosses the south of France from east to west
approximately at the 45th parallel (Grenoble to Bordeaux) with words like chandelle, chanter,
and chaud beginning with a sh sound to the north and a k sound to the south. Quite oten, that
dialect boundary coincides with some geographical or political factor, for example, a
mountain ridge, a river, or the boundary of an old principality or diocese. Isoglosses can also
show that a particular set of linguistic features appears to be spreading from one location, a
focal area, into neighboring locations. In the 1930s and 1940s, Boston and Charleston were
the two focal areas for the temporary spread of r-lessness in the eastern United States.
Alternatively, a particular area, a relic area, may show characteristics of being unafected by
changes spreading out from one or more neighboring areas.
Wolfram (2004) calls the dialect of such an area a remnant dialect and, in doing so, reminds
us that not everything in such a dialect is a relic of the past for such areas also have their own
innovations. Huntley, a rural enclave in Aberdeenshire, Scotland, where Marshall worked
(2003, 2004), is also a relic area. The Rhenish Fan is one of the best-known sets of isoglosses
in Europe, setting of Low German to the north from High German to the south. he set
comprises the modern relexes (i.e., results) of the pre-Germanic stop consonants *p, *t, and
*k. hese have remained stops [p,t,k] in Low German but have become the fricatives [f,s,x] in
High German (i.e., Modern Standard German), giving variant forms for ‘make’ [makәn],
[maxәn]; ‘that’ [dat], [das]; ‘village’ [dorp], [dorf]; and ‘I’ [ik], [ix].
Methods in dialectology
There are methodological issues which have caused sociolinguists to question some dialect
studies. One of these issues has to do with the sample used for the research. First, sampling
methods were based on assumptions about who ‘representative’ speakers of dialects were.
For example, the focus was almost exclusively on rural areas, which were regarded as
‘conservative’ in the sense that they were seen to preserve ‘older’ forms of the languages
under investigation. Urban areas were acknowledged to be innovative, unstable linguistically,
and diicult to approach using existing survey techniques. When the occasional approach was
made, it was biased toward inding the most conservative variety of urban speech. Ignoring
towns and cities may be defensible in an agrarian-based society; however, it is hardly
defensible in the heavily urbanizing societies of today’s world.
Another methodological issue involves basic ideas about language. The data collection
methodology oten used in earlier dialect geography studies assumes that individual speakers
do not have variation in their speech; for instance, if they use the word ‘pop’ to talk about
carbonated beverages they never use the term ‘soda’ to refer to the same thing, or if they
merge the vowels in ‘pin’ and ‘pen,’ they always do this. his assumption has been called ‘the
axiom of categoricity’ (Chambers 1995: 25–33) as it treats linguistic variables as if they are
categorical in the speech of an individual – and from there it is implied that they are
categorical in regional dialects. his is dangerously close to the ‘ideal speaker-listener’
(referred to in chapter 1) that sociolinguistics eschews. As Gordon (2013, 32–3) observes, not
taking variation in the speech of an individual speaker into account leads to an interpretation
of the results which is misleading; presenting speakers as using variables categorically is
‘taken to represent how languages work rather than how linguists work.
Dialect mixture and free variation
Linguists have long been aware of variation in the use of language: individuals do speak one
way on one occasion and other ways on other occasions, and this kind of variation can be
seen to occur within even the most localized groups. Such variation is oten ascribed to dialect
mixture, that is, the existence in one locality of two or more dialects which allow a speaker or
speakers to draw now on one dialect and then on the other. An alternative explanation is free
variation, that is, variation of no social signiicance. However, no one has ever devised a
suitable theory to explain either dialect mixture or free variation, and the latter turns out not
to be so free ater all because close analyses generally reveal that complex linguistic and
social factors appear to explain much of the variation.
Linguistic atlases
There have been some recent developments in linguistic atlas work which hold promise for
future discoveries. hey result largely from our growing ability to process and analyze large
quantities of linguistic data. One, for example, is Kretzschmar’s work on the Linguistic Atlas
of the Middle and South Atlantic States (LAMSAS).
The Linguistic Variable
The investigation of social dialects has required the development of an array of techniques
quite diferent from those used in dialect geography. Many of these derive from the pioneering
work of Labov, who, along with other sociolinguists, has attempted to describe how language
varies in any community and to draw conclusions from that variation not only for linguistic
theory but also sometimes for the conduct of everyday life, for example, suggestions as to
how educators should view linguistic variation (see chapter 13). As we will see, investigators
now pay serious attention to such matters as stating hypotheses, sampling, the statistical
treatment of data, drawing conclusions, and relating these conclusions to such matters as the
inherent nature of language, the processes of language acquisition and language change, and
the social functions of variation.
Variants
A linguistic variable is a linguistic item which has identiiable variants, which are the diferent
forms which can be used in an environment. For example, words like singing and ishing are
sometimes pronounced as singin’ and ishin’. he inal sound in these words may be called the
linguistic variable (ng) with its two variants [ŋ] in singing and [n] in singin’. Another
example of a linguistic variable can be seen in words like farm and far. hese words are
sometimes given r-less pronunciations.
An important principle in the analysis of variants is the principle of accountability, which
holds that if it is possible to deine a variable as a closed set of variants, all of the variants
(including non-occurrence if relevant) must be counted.
Types of linguistics variables
Linguists who have studied variation in this way have used a number of linguistic variables,
many of which have been phonological. Northern Cities Vowel Shit, which addresses
variation in vowel sounds). Studies of variation employing the linguistic variable are not
conined solely to phonological matters. Investigators have looked at the (s) of the third-
person singular, as in he talks, that is, its presence or absence; the occurrence or non-
occurrence of be (and of its various inlected forms) in sentences such as He’s happy, He be
happy, and He happy; the occurrence (actually, virtual nonoccurrence) of the negative
particle ne in French; various aspects of the phenomenon of multiple negation in English, for
example, He don’t mean no harm to nobody; and the beginnings of English relative clauses,
as in She is the girl who(m) I praised, She is the girl that I praised, and She is the girl I
praised.
