Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-mp689 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T13:59:28.650Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

3 - Variation, meaning and social change

from Part I - Theorising social meaning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2016

Penelope Eckert
Affiliation:
Stanford University
Nikolas Coupland
Affiliation:
University of Wales College of Cardiff
Get access

Summary

Introduction

The perspective that I will develop in these pages, what has come to be referred to as the “Third Wave” approach to variation, takes as basic that the meaningfulness of sociolinguistic variation is not incidental, not a by-product of social stratification, but a design feature of language. Sociolinguistic variation constitutes a system of signs that enables the nonpropositional expression of social concerns as they unfold in interaction. It allows people to say things without putting them into words, making it essential to social life and part of the pragmatics that link speech to the wider social system. I will argue further that language is not just a system that happens to change, but a system whose change is central to its semiotic function. Variation is a system of signs that enact a continually changing social world, and it is the potential for change in the meanings of these signs that makes language viable for human life.

This perspective appears to conflict with some of the basic tenets of the view of variation that emerged from work in the First Wave and that endure in much current work in variation. To some extent, this is because the First Wave grew out of the structuralist study of sound change and is primarily concerned with presocial cognitive forces giving rise to change and with macrosocial patterns of variation as structuring the regular social contact that accounts for the spread of change. This limits the view of social meaning to forces deriving from the macrostructure of society, hence external to language. My argument will be that social meaning in variation is an integral part of language and that macrosocial patterns of variation are at once the product of, and a constraint on, a complex system of meaning.

Three waves real quick

The First Wave of survey studies found a robust and repeated pattern of variation correlating with macrosociological categories, showing that change enters communities at the lower end of the socioeconomic hierarchy, and spreads upward. According to the model that emerged in the First Wave, sound change is presocial, originating in the most unconscious and systematic reaches of the speaker's linguistic system and emerging in the speaker's most unmonitored speech, the vernacular.

Type
Chapter
Information
Sociolinguistics
Theoretical Debates
, pp. 68 - 85
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2016

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

Acton, E. 2014. Pragmatics and the social meaning of determiners. PhD dissertation, Stanford University.
Agha, A. 2003. The social life of a cultural value. Language and Communication 23: 231–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakhtin, M. M. 1981. The Dialogic Imagination. Holquist, Michael (ed.), Emerson, Caryl and Holquist, Michael (trans.) Austin and London: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bucholtz, M. 1999. You da man: Narrating the racial other in the production of white masculinity. Journal of Sociolinguistics 3 (4): 443–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchstaller, I. 2006. Diagnostics of age-graded linguistic behavior: The case of the quotative system. Journal of Sociolinguistics 10: 3–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell-Kibler, K. 2008. I'll be the judge of that: Diversity in social perceptions of (ING). Language in Society 37: 637–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, Phillip M. 2005. Prosodic variation in SLA: Rhythm in an urban North Carolina Hispanic community. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 11, 2: 59–71.Google Scholar
Cheshire, Jenny. 2005. Syntactic variation and beyond: Gender and social class variation in the use of discourse-new markers. Journal of Sociolinguistics 9, 4: 479–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coupland, Nikolas. 1983. Patterns of encounter management: Further arguments for discourse variables. Language in Society 12: 459–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coupland, Nikolas. 2001. Language, situation and the relational self: Theorizing dialect-style in sociolinguistics. In Eckert, P. and Rickford, J. (eds.), Stylistic Variation in Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 185–210.Google Scholar
Coupland, Nikolas. 2014. Language change, social change, sociolinguistic change: A meta-commentary. Journal of Sociolinguistics 18, 2: 277–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D'Onofrio, A. 2014. Sociolinguistic knowledge of a sound change in progress: Perceptions of California TRAP backing. Paper presented at 88th Annual Meeting of the Linguistics Society of America, Minneapolis, MN.
D'Onofrio, A. 2015. Persona-based information shapes linguistic perception: Valley Girls and California vowels. Journal of Sociolinguistics 19 (2): 241–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckert, P. 1989. Jocks and Burnouts: Social Categories and Identity in the High School. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Eckert, P. 1996. Vowels and nailpolish: The emergence of linguistic style in the preadolescent heterosexual marketplace. In Ahlers, J., Bilmes, L., Chen, M., Oliver, M., Warner, N., and Werhteim, S. (eds.), Gender and Belief Systems. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Women and Language Group.Google Scholar
Eckert, P. 2008. Variation and the indexical field. Journal of Sociolinguistics 12, 3: 453–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckert, P. 2011a. Language and power in the preadolescent heterosexual market. American Speech 86, 1: 85–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckert, P. 2011b. Where does the social stop? In Parrott, J. (ed.), Language Variation: European Perspectives III. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 13–30.Google Scholar
Eckert, P. 2012. Three waves of variation study: The emergence of meaning in the study of variation. Annual Review of Anthropology 41: 87–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehrlich, S. 1998. The discursive reconstruction of sexual consent. Discourse and Society 9: 149–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ervin-Tripp, S. 1972. On sociolinguistic rules: Alternation and co-occurrence. In Gumperz, J. and Hymes, D. (eds.), Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 213–250.Google Scholar
Gagné, I. 2008. Urban princesses: Performance and “women's language” in Japan's Gothic/Lolita subculture. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 18, 1: 130–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, Matt Hunt, and Tagliamonte, Sali. 2015. The bike, the back, and the boyfriend: Confronting the “definite article conspiracy” in Canadian and British English. Paper presented at Linguistic Society of America Annual Meeting, Portland, OR.
Geenberg, K. 2010. “Poor baby, you got a boo-boo!”: Sound symbolism in adult baby talk. Talk delivered at NWAV 39, San Antonio, TX.
Giddens, A. (1979). Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure and Contradition in Social Analysis. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guy, G., Horvath, B., Vonwiller, J., Daisley, E., and Rogers, I.. 1986. An intonational change in progress in Australian English. Language in Society 15: 23–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haeri, Niloofar. 1994. A linguistic innovation of women in Cairo. Language Variation and Change. 6: 87–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1978. Language as Social Semiotic. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Hay, J., and Drager, K.. 2010. Stuffed toys and speech perception. Linguistics 48, 4: 269–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hebdige, D. 1984. Subculture: The Meaning of Style. New York: Methuen.Google Scholar
Hodder, I. 1982. The Present Past. London: Batsford.Google Scholar
Johnstone, B., Andrus, J., and Danielson, A. E.. 2006. Mobility, indexicality, and the enregisterment of “Pittsburghese.”Journal of English Linguistics 34: 77–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroch, A. S. 1978. Toward a theory of social dialect variation. Language in Society 7: 17–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, W. 1963. The social motivation of a sound change. Word 18: 1–42.Google Scholar
Labov, W. 1966. The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Labov, W. 1972. Some principles of linguistic methodology. Language in Society 1, 1: 97–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, W. 2001. Principles of Linguistic Change: Social Factors. Malden MA. and Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Labov, W. 2010. Principles of Linguistic Change: Cognitive and Cultural Factors. New York: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, W., and Weiner, E. J.. 1983. Constraints on the agentless passive. Journal of Linguistics 19: 29–58.Google Scholar
Latour, B. 2005. Reassembling the Social. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lévi-Strauss, Claude. 1967. The Savage Mind. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
McConnell-Ginet, S. 1984. The origins of sexist language in discourse. In White, S. J. and Teller, V. (eds.), Discourses in Reading and Linguistics. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. New York: New York Academy of Sciences, vol. 433, 123–135.Google Scholar
Melnick, R., and Acton, E.. 2015. Function words, power, and opposition: A socio-pragmatic “deep” corpus study. Poster presented at the 89th Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Portland, OR.
Miller, L. 2004. Those naughty teenage girls: Japanese Kogals, slang, and media assessments. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 14, 2: 225–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nygaard, L. C., and Lunders, E. R.. 2002. Resolution of lexical ambiguity by emotional tone of voice. Memory and Cognition 30, 4: 583–593.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ohala, J. 1994. The frequency code underlies the sound-symbolic use of voice pitch. In Hinton, L., Nichola, J., and Ohala, J. J. (eds.), Sound Symbolism. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press, 325–347.Google Scholar
Peirce, Charles Sanders. 1931. The Collected Papers of Charles S. Peirce, vols. 1-6. Eds. C. Hartshorne, P. Weiss, and A.W. Burks. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Podesva, R. 2007. Phonation type as a stylistic variable: The use of falsetto in constructing a persona. Journal of Sociolinguistics 11, 4: 478–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Podesva, Robert J., and Van Hofwegen, Janneke. Forthcoming. On the complementarity of the three waves: The acoustic realization of /s/ in inland California.
Rickford, J., and McNair-Knox, F.. 1994. Addressee- and topic-influenced style shift: A quantitative sociolinguistic study. In Biber, D. and Finegan, E. (eds.), Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Register. New York: Oxford University Press, 235–276.Google Scholar
Romaine, S. 1984. On the problem of syntactic varation and pragmatic meaning in sociolinguistic theory. Folia Linguistica 18: 409–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sankoff, D., and Laberge, S.. 1978. The linguistic market and the statistical explanation of variability. In Sankoff, D. (ed.), Linguistic Variation: Models and Methods. New York: Academic Press, 239–250.Google Scholar
Silverstein, M. 1976. Shifters, linguistic categories, and cultural description. In Basso, K. H. and Selby, H. A. (eds.), Meaning in Anthropology. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 11–55.Google Scholar
Silverstein, M. 2003. Indexical order and the dialectics of sociolinguistic life. Language and Communication 23, 3–4: 193–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trudgill, P. 1972. Sex, covert prestige and linguistic change in the urban British English of Norwich. Language in Society 1: 179–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trudgill, P. 2008. Colonial dialect contact in the history of European languages: On the irrelevance of identity to new-dialect formation. Language in Society 37: 241–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trudgill, P. 2014. Diffusion, drift, and the irrelevance of media influence. Journal of Sociolinguistics 18: 214–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wacquant, Loïc. 2005.
Weinreich, U., Labov, W., and Herzog, M.. 1968. Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. In Lehmann, W. and Malkiel, Y. (eds.), Directions for Historical Linguistics. Austin: University of Texas Press, 95–188.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×