1 Introduction

This book is about doing variation analysis. My goal is to give you a

step-by-step guide which will take you through a variationist analysis
from beginning to end. Although I will cover the major issues, I will
not attempt a full treatment of the theoretical issues nor of the statis-
tical underpinnings. Instead, you will be directed to references where
the relevant points are treated fully and in detail. In later chapters,
explicit discussion will be made as to how different types of analysis
either challenge, contribute to or advance the basic theoretical issues.
This is important for demonstrating (and encouraging) evolution in
the field and for providing a sense of its ongoing development. Such a
synthetic perspective is also critical for evolving our research in the
most interesting direction(s). Inother words, this book is meant to be a
learning resource which can stimulate methodological developments,
curriculum development as well as advancements in teaching and
transmission of knowledge in variation analysis.
WHAT I S VARI AT I ON ANAL YS I S ?
Variation analysis combines techniques from linguistics, anthropo-
logy and statistics to investigate language use and structure (Poplack
1993: 251). For example, a seven-year-old boy answers a teachers
question by saying, I dont know nothing about that! A middle-aged
woman asks another, You got a big family? Are these utterances
instances of dialect, slang, or simply performance errors, mistakes?
Where on the planet were they spoken, why, by people of what back-
ground and character, in which sociocultural setting, under what
conditions? How might such utterances be contextualised in the his-
tory of the language and with respect to its use in society? This book
provides an explicit account of a method that can answer these ques-
tions, a step-by-step users guide for the investigation of language use
and structure as it is manifested in situ.
1
At the outset, however, I would like to put variationist sociolinguis-
tics in perspective. First, what is the difference between sociolinguis-
tics and linguistics? Further, how does the variationist tradition fit in
with the field of sociolinguistics as a whole?
L I NGUI S T I C S
The enterprise of linguistics is to determine the properties of natural
language. Here, the aim is to examine individual languages with the
intention of explaining why the whole set of languages are the way
they are. This is the search for a theory of universal grammar. In this
process, the analyst aims to construct a device, a grammar, which can
specify the grammatical strings of one language, say English or
Japanese, but which is also relevant for the grammar of any natural
language. In this way, linguistics puts its focus on determining what
the component parts and inner mechanismof languages are. The goal
is to work out the rules of language X whether that language is
English, Welsh, Igbo, Inuktitut, Niuean, or any other human language
on the planet.
The type of question a linguist might ask is: How do you say X? For
example, if a linguist was studying Welsh, she would try to find a
native speaker of Welsh and then she would ask that person, How do
you say dog in Welsh? How do you say The child calls the dog, The
dog plays with the children, etc. This type of research has been highly
successful in discovering, explaining and accounting for the complex
and subtle aspects of linguistic structure. However, in accomplishing
this, modern theoretical models of language have had to exclude
certain things, consigning them to the lexical, semantic or pragmatic
components of languages, or even outside of language altogether. For
example, in a recent syntactic account of grammatical change,
Roberts and Rousseau (2003: 11) state:
Of course, many social, historical and cultural factors influence
speech communities, and hence the transmission of changes (see
Labov 1972c, 1994). Fromthe perspective of linguistic theory, though,
we abstract away from these factors and attempt, as far [sic] the
historical record permits, to focus on change purely as a relation
between grammatical systems.
In this way, linguistic theory focuses on the structure of the
language. It does not concern itself with the context in which the lan-
guage is learned and, more importantly, it does not concern itself with
2 A N A L Y S I N G S O C I O L I NG U I S T I C V A R I A T I O N
the way the language is used. Only in more recent forays have
researchers begun to make the link between variation theory and
syntactic theory (e.g. Beals et al. 1994, Meechan and Foley 1994,
Cornips and Corrigan 2005).
S OC I OL I NGUI S T I C S
Sociolinguistics argues that language exists in context, dependent on
the speaker who is using it, and dependent on where it is being used
and why. Speakers mark their personal history and identity in their
speech as well as their sociocultural, economic and geographical
coordinates in time and space. Indeed, some researchers would
argue that, since speech is obviously social, to study it without refer-
ence to society would be like studying courtship behaviour without
relating the behaviour of one partner to that of the other. Two import-
ant arguments support this view. First, you cannot take the notion of
language Xfor granted since this initself is a social notioninso far as it
is defined in terms of a group of people who speak X. Therefore, if you
want to define the English language you have to define it based on the
group of people who speak it. Second, speech has a social function,
both as a means of communication and also as a way of identifying
social groups.
Standard definitions of sociolinguistics read something like this:
the study of language in its social contexts and the study of social life
through linguistics (Coupland and Jaworski 1997: 1)
the relationship between language and society (Trudgill 2000: 21)
the correlation of dependent linguistic variables with independent
social variables (Chambers 2003: ix)
However, the many different ways that society can impinge on
language make the field of reference extremely broad. Studies of the
various ways in which social structure and linguistic structure come
together include personal, stylistic, social, sociocultural and sociologi-
cal aspects. Depending on the purposes of the research, the different
orientations of sociolinguistic research have traditionally been sub-
sumed by one of two umbrella terms: sociolinguistics and the sociol-
ogy of language. A further division could also be made between
qualitative (ethnography of communication, discourse analysis, etc.)
and quantitative (language variation and change) approaches.
Sociolinguistics tends to put emphasis on language in social context,
Introduction 3
whereas the sociology of language emphasises the social interpret-
ation of language. Variation analysis is embedded in sociolinguistics,
the area of linguistics which takes as a starting point the rules of
grammar and thenstudies the points at whichthese rules make contact
with society. But then the question becomes: How and to what extent?
Methods of analyses, and focus on linguistics or sociology, are what
differentiate the strands of sociolinguistics. Fromthis perspective, vari-
ation analysis is inherently linguistic, analytic and quantitative.
VARI AT I ONI S T S OC I OL I NGUI S T I C S
Variationist sociolinguistics has evolved over the last nearly four
decades as a discipline that integrates social and linguistic aspects of
language. Perhaps the foremost motivation for the development of
this approach was to present a model of language which could accom-
modate the paradoxes of language change. Formal theories of lan-
guage were attempting to determine the structure of language as a
fixed set of rules or principles, but at the same time language changes
perpetually, so structure must be fluid. How does this happen? The
idea that language is structurally sound is difficult to resolve with the
fact that languages change over time.
structural theories of language, so fruitful in synchronic
investigation, have saddled historical linguistics with a cluster of
paradoxes, which have not been fully overcome. (Weinreich et al.
1968: 98)
Unfortunately, because it is such a expansive field of research,
sociolinguistics often comes across as either too restricting to social
categories such as class, sex, style, geography (the external factors), or
too restricting to linguistic categories such as systems, constraints and
rate of change (the structural factors). In fact, when sociolinguistic
research using variationist methods has shown a focus on the linguis-
tic system, as opposed to the social aspects of the individual and
context, it has garnered considerable criticism (e.g. Cameron 1990,
Rickford 1999, Eckert 2000). More than anything this highlights the
bi-partite underpinnings of the field (Milroy and Gordon 2003: 8).
When attempting to synthesise both internal and external aspects of
language, the challenge will always be to fully explore both. While this
will likely always be tempered by researchers own predilections, it is
also the case that the research questions, data and findings may
naturally lead to a focus on one domain over the other. Having said
4 A N A L Y S I N G S O C I O L I NG U I S T I C V A R I A T I O N
all this, the variationist enterprise is essentially, and foremost, the
study of the interplay between variation, social meaning and the
evolution and development of the linguistic system itself.
Indeed, as Weinreich et al. (1968: 188) so well described in their
foundational work,
Explanations of language which are confined to one or the other
aspect linguistic or social no matter how well constructed, will fail
to account for the rich body of regularities that can be observed in
empirical studies of language behaviour . . .
This duality of focus has been fondly described more recently by
Guy (1993: 223) as follows:
One of the attractions and one of the challenges of dialect research
is the Janus-like point-of-view it takes on the problems of human
language, looking one way at the organisation of linguistic
forms, while simultaneously gazing the other way at their social
significance.
In my view, variationist sociolinguistics is most aptly described as
the branch of linguistics which studies the foremost characteristics of
language in balance with each other linguistic structure and social
structure; grammatical meaning and social meaning those proper-
ties of language which require reference to both external (social) and
internal (systemic) factors in their explanation.
Therefore, instead of asking the question: How do you say X? as a
linguist might, a sociolinguist is more likely not to ask a question at
all. The sociolinguist will just let you talk about whatever you want to
talk about and listen for all the ways you say X.
Note
There is a distinct occupational hazard to being a sociolinguist. You will
be in the middle of a conversation with someone and you will notice
something interesting about the way he or she is saying it. You will make
note of the form. You will wonder about the context. You may notice a
pattern. All of a sudden you will hear that person saying to you, Are you
listening to me? and you will have to say, I was listening so intently to
how you were saying it that I didnt hear what you said!
The essence of variationist sociolinguistics depends on three facts
about language that are often ignored in the field of linguistics. First,
the notion of orderly heterogeneity (Weinreich et al. 1968: 100), or
what Labov (1982: 17) refers to as normal heterogeneity; second, the
fact that language changes perpetually; and third, that language
Introduction 5
conveys more than simply the meaning of its words. It also communi-
cates abundant non-linguistic information. Let us consider each of
these in turn.
ORDE RL Y HE T E ROGE NE I T Y
Heterogeneity is essentially the observation that language varies.
Speakers have more than one way to say more or less the same thing.
Variation can be viewed across whole languages, e.g. French, English,
Spanish, etc. In this case, variation would be in the choice of one
language or the other by bilingual or multilingual speakers.
However, linguistic variation also encompasses an entire continuum
of choices ranging from the choice between English or French, for
example, to the choice betweendifferent constructions, different mor-
phological affixes, right down to the minute microlinguistic level
where there are subtle differences in the pronunciation of individual
vowels and consonants. Importantly, this is the normal state of affairs:
The key to a rational conception of language change indeed, of
language itself is the possibility of describing orderly differentiation
in a language serving a community . . . It is absence of structural
heterogeneity that would be dysfunctional. (Weinreich et al. 1968:
1001)
Furthermore, heterogeneity is not random, but patterned. It reflects
order and structure within the grammar. Variation analysis aims to
characterise the nature of this complex system.
L ANGUAGE C HANGE
Language is always in flux. The English language today is not the same
as it was 100 years ago, or 400 years ago. Things have changed. For
example, aint used to be the normal way of doing negation in English,
but now it is stigmatised. Another good example is not. It used to be
placed after the verb, e.g. I know not. Now it is placed before the verb,
along with a supporting word, do, as in I do not know. Double negation,
e.g. I dont know nothing, is ill-regarded in contemporary English. Not so
in earlier times. Similarly, use of the ending -th for simple present was
once the favoured form, e.g. doth, not do, and pre-verbal periphrastic
do, e.g. I do know, and use of the comparative ending -er, e.g. honester,
not more honest, used to be much more frequent. Such examples are
6 A N A L Y S I N G S O C I O L I NG U I S T I C V A R I A T I O N
easily found in historical corpora such as the Corpus of Early English
Correspondence (Nevalainen and Raumolin-Brunberg 2003).
Variation analysis aims to put linguistic features such as these in the
context of where each one has come from and where it is going how
and why.
S OC I AL I DE NT I T Y
Language serves a critical purpose for its users that is just as important
as the obvious one. Language is used for transmitting information
from one person to another, but at the same time a speaker is using
language to make statements about who she is, what her group loyal-
ties are, how she perceives her relationship to her hearers, and what
sort of speech event she considers herself to be engaged in. The only
way all these things can be carried out at the same time is precisely
because language varies. The choices speakers make among alterna-
tive linguistic means to communicate the same information often
conveys important extralinguistic information. While you can inevi-
tably identify a persons sex froma fragment of their speech, it is often
nearly as easy to localise her age and sometimes even her socioeco-
nomic class. Further, depending on ones familiarity with the variety,
it can be relatively straightforward to identify nationality, locality,
community, etc. For example, is the following excerpt from a young
person or an old person?
I dont know, its jus stuff that really annoys me. And I jus like stare at
him and jus go . . . like, huh. (YRK98/S014c)
How about the following? Male or female? Old or young?
It was sort-of just grass steps down and where I dare say it had been
flower beds and goodness-knows-what . . . (YRK/v)
I amwilling to bet it was relatively easy to make these decisions and
to do so correctly. The first is a young woman, aged eighteen. The
second is a female, aged seventy-nine.
KE Y C HARAC T E RI S T I C S OF VARI AT I ONI S T S OC I OL I NGUI S T I C S
Given these three aspects of language inherent variation, constant
change and pervasive social meaning variationist sociolinguistics
rests its method and analysis on a number of key concepts.
Introduction 7
T HE VE RNAC UL AR
A specific goal of variationist methodology is to gain access to what is
referred to as the vernacular. The vernacular has had many defini-
tions in the field. It was first defined as the style in which the mini-
mum attention is given to the monitoring of speech (Labov 1972c:
208). Later discussions of the vernacular reaffirmed that the ideal
target of investigation for variation analysis is every day speech
(Sankoff 1974, 1980: 54), real language in use (Milroy 1992: 66) and
spontaneous speech reserved for intimate or casual situations
(Poplack 1993: 252) what cansimply be described as informal speech.
Access to the vernacular is critical because it is thought to be the
most systematic form of speech. Why? First, because it is assumed to
be the variety that was acquired first. Second, because it is the variety
of speech most free from hypercorrection or style-shifting, both of
which are considered to be later overlays on the original linguistic
system. Third, the vernacular is the style fromwhich every other style
must be calibrated (Labov 1984: 29). As Labov originally argued (1972c:
208), the vernacular provides the fundamental relations which deter-
mine the course of linguistic evolution.
The vernacular is positioned maximally distant from the idealised
norm (Milroy 1992: 66, Poplack 1993: 252). Once the vernacular base-
line is established, the multi-dimensional nature of speech behaviour
canbe revealed. For example, Bell (1999: 526) argues that performance
styles are defined by normative use. Thus, the unmonitored speech
behaviour of the vernacular enables us to tap in to the broader dimen-
sions of the speech community. In other words, the vernacular is the
foundation from which every other speech behaviour can be
understood.
Note
Many of my students report that their room-mates switch into their
vernacular when talking to their mother on the phone. However you
will notice it shine through whenever a person is emotionally involved,
e.g. excited, scared, angry, moderately drunk, etc. Listen out for it!
T HE S P E E C H C OMMUNI T Y
In order to tap the vernacular (Sankoff 1988b: 157), a vital compon-
ent of variation analysis requires that the analyst immerse herself in
8 A N A L Y S I N G S O C I O L I NG U I S T I C V A R I A T I O N
the speech community, entering it both as an observer and a partici-
pant. In this way, the analyst may record language use in its socio-
cultural setting (e.g. Labov et al. 1968, Trudgill 1974, Milroy 1987,
Poplack 1993: 252). Due to its focus on unmonitored speech beha-
viour, this methodology has succeeded in overcoming many of the
analytical difficulties associated with intuitive judgements and anec-
dotal reporting used in other paradigms (Sankoff 1988b). This is cru-
cial in the study of non-standard varieties, as well as ethnic, rural,
informal and other less highly regarded forms of language, where
normative pressure typically inhibits the use of vernacular forms.
For example, when you hear people use utterances such as (i) I aint
gotta tell you anything, certain social judgements will surely arise.
Whatever judgements come to mind are based on hypotheses that
arise from interpreting the various linguistic features within these
utterances. What are those features? Most people, when asked why
someone sounds different, will appeal to their accent, their tone of
voice or their way of emphasising words. However, innumerable
linguistic features of language provoke social judgements.
One way to explore this is to contemplate the various ways the
utterance in (i) could have been spoken, as in (1). Each possible utter-
ance has its own social value, ranging from the highly vernacular to
standard. Notice, too, how each feature of language varies in particu-
lar ways. Aint appears to vary with havent and possibly dont. Gotta
appears to vary with have to as well as got to. Nothing varies with any-
thing. In this way, each item alternates with a specific set different
ways of saying the same thing.
(1)
a. I aint gotta tell you nothing/anything
b. I havent gotta tell you nothing/anything
c. I dont have to tell you nothing/anything
The linguistic items which vary amongst themselves with the same
referential meaning are the variables which are the substance of
variation analysis. But the next question becomes: How do you deter-
mine what truly varies with what?
F ORM/F UNC T I ON AS YMME T RY
The identification of variables in language use rests on a fundamen-
tal viewin variation analysis the possibility of multiple forms for the
same function. Do all the sentences in (1) mean the same thing? Some
Introduction 9
linguists might assume that different forms can never have identical
function. In variation analysis, however, it is argued that different
forms such as these can indeed be used for the same function, parti-
cularly in the case of ongoing linguistic change. In other words, there
is a basic recognition of instability inlinguistic form/functionrelation-
ships (Poplack 1993: 252) and, further, that differences amongst com-
peting forms may be neutralised in discourse (Sankoff 1988b: 153).
Where functional differences are neutralised is always an empirical
question. It must first be established what varies with what and how.
Notice that you cant say I aint havent to tell you nothing. Why? The goal
of variation analysis is to pinpoint the form/function overlap and
explain how this overlap exists and why.
L I NGUI S T I C VARI AB L E S
Different ways of saying more or less the same thing may occur at
every level of grammar in a language, in every variety of a language, in
every style, dialect and register of a language, in every speaker, often
even in the same sentence in the same discourse. In fact, variation is
everywhere, all the time. Consider the examples in (2) to (10), all of
which are taken from the York English Corpus (YRK), which repre-
sents the variety spoken in the city of York in north England
(Tagliamonte 1998).
Phonology/morphology, variable (t,d):
(2)
I did a college course when I lefschool actually, but I left it because it was
business studies. (YRK/h)
Phonology/morphology, variable (ing):
(3)
We were having a good time out in what we were doin. (YRK/E)
Morphology, variable (ly):
(4)
You go to Leeds and Castleford, they take it so much more seriously . . . They really
are, they take it so serious. (YRK/T)
Tense/aspect, variable future temporal reference forms:
10 A N A L Y S I N G S O C I O L I NG U I S T I C V A R I A T I O N
(5)
. . . I think shes gonna be pretty cheeky. I think shell be cheeky. (YRK/O)
Modal auxiliary system, deontic modality:
(6)
Ive got to cycle all the way back and then this afternoon Ill be cycling back up
again! . . . You have to keep those thoughts err thoughts to yourself. (YRK/X)
Intensifiers:
(7)
I gave hima right dirty look . . . and I gave hima really dirty look. (YRK/O)
Syntax/semantics, variable stative possessive meaning:
(8)
Hes got bad-breath; he has smelly feet. (YRK/i)
Syntax, agreement:
(9)
She were a good worker. She was a helluva good worker. (YRK/)
Discourse/pragmatics, quotative use:
(10)
He just said Fine, go.
It was like It s gonna cost me a fortune!
I thought Ah, and that was it. (YRK/d)
How can such variability become interpretable? It is necessary to
refer to more than just social meaning. Such variation might be
explained by external pragmatic factors; however, it is more often
the case that variation such as this has complex social, linguistic and
historical implications. In the case of variable (ly), stative possessive
have got, the modal auxiliary system, intensifiers and others, variation
amongst forms can be traced back to longitudinal change in the
history of the English language. In the case of adverb placement and
variable agreement, synchronic patterns may address issues pertain-
ing to the configuration of phrase structure, feature checking and
other issues of theoretical importance. Indeed, much of the work on
historical syntax has highlighted the complexity of how linguistic
structures evolve in the process of grammatical change (e.g. Kroch
1989, Warner 1993, Taylor 1994, Pintzuk 1995).
Introduction 11
T HE QUANT I T AT I VE ME T HOD
Perhaps the most important aspect of variation analysis that sets it
apart frommost other areas of linguistics, and even sociolinguistics, is
its quantitative approach. The combination of techniques employed
in variation analysis forms part of the descriptive-interpretative
strand of modern linguistic research (Sankoff 1988b: 1423). Studies
employing this methodology are based on the observation that speak-
ers make choices when they use language and that these choices are
discrete alternatives with the same referential value or grammatical
function. Furthermore, these choices vary in a systematic way and as
suchthey canbe quantitatively modelled (Labov 1969a, Cedergren and
Sankoff 1974; see also more recent re-statements in Young and Bayley
1996: 254, Poplack and Tagliamonte 2001: 88). This is perhaps most
candidly put by Sankoff (1988b: 151):
whenever a choice can be perceived as having been made in the
course of linguistic performance, and where this choice may have
been influenced by factors such as the nature of the grammatical
context, discursive function of the utterance, topic, style,
interactional context or personal or sociodemographic characteristics
of the speaker or other participants, then it is difficult to avoid
invoking notions and methods of statistical inference, if only as a
heuristic tool to attempt to grasp the interaction of the various
components in a complex situation.
The advantage of the quantitative approach lies in its ability to
model the simultaneous, multi-dimensional factors impacting on
speaker choices, to identify even subtle grammatical tendencies and
regularities in the data, and to assess their relative strength and
significance. These measures provide the basis for comparative lin-
guistic research. However, such sophisticated techniques are only as
good as the analytic procedures upon which they are based:
The ultimate goal of any quantitative study . . . is not to produce
numbers (i.e. summary statistics), but to identify and explain
linguistic phenomena. (Guy 1993: 235)
T HE P RI NC I P L E OF AC C OUNT AB I L I T Y
According toLabov (1972c: 72), the most important stepinsociolinguis-
tic investigation is the correct analysis of the linguistic variable.
Correct in this case means accountable to the data. In variation
12 A N A L Y S I N G S O C I O L I NG U I S T I C V A R I A T I O N
analysis, accountability is defined by the principle of accountability,
which holds that every variant that is part of the variable context,
whether the variants are realised or unrealised elements in the system,
must betakenintoaccount. Inother words, youcannot simply studythe
variant forms that are new, interesting, unusual or non-standard aint,
for example, or got. You must also study the forms with which such
features varyinall thecontexts inwhicheither of themwouldhavebeen
possible. In the case of aint, this would mean all the cases where aint is
used as well as all other negation variants with the same referential
value as aint, e.g. I havent got nothing or perhaps even I dont got nothing
whatever occurs in the same context. By definition, an accountable
analysis demands of the analyst an exhaustive report for every case in
which a variable element occurs out of the total number of environ-
ments where the variable element could have occurred, but did not. In
Labovs (1972c: 72) words, report values for every case where the vari-
able element occurs in the relevant environments as we have defined
them. As wehavedefinedthem is theimportant point here. What does
this mean?
C I RC UMS C RI B I NG T HE VARI AB L E C ONT E XT
How does the analyst determine the variants of a variable and the
contexts in which they vary? This procedure is most accurately char-
acterised as a long series of exploratory manoeuvres (Labov 1969a:
7289):
1. Identify the total population of utterances in which the feature
varies. Exclude contexts where one variant is categorical.
2. Decide on howmany variants can be reliably identified. Set aside
contexts that are indeterminate, neutralised, etc.
These manoeuvres accentuate that variation analysis is not inter-
ested in individual occurrences of linguistic features, but requires
systematic study of the recurrent choices an individual makes
(Poplack and Tagliamonte 2001: 89). Analysis of these recurrent
choices enables the analyst to tap in to an individuals use of the
targeted forms. In this case, a pattern refers to a series of parallel
occurrences (established according to structural and/or functional
criteria) occurring at a non-negligible rate in a corpus of language
use (Poplack and Meechan 1998: 129). So, now the question is: How
do you find the patterns?
Introduction 13
T E S T I NG HYP OT HE S E S
Labovs (1969a: 729) third exploratory manoeuvre is to identify all
the sub-categories whichwould reasonably be relevant indetermining
the frequency of forms. These are the underlying patterns, the inter-
nal linguistic contexts that are hypothesised to influence the choice
of one variant over another. How does one find them? Sometimes
these are discovered by scouring the literature, both synchronic and
diachronic. Sometimes they emerge from the ongoing analysis as a
result of various suspicions, inspections, and analogies (Labov 1969a:
729). Sometimes they are stumbled upon by chance in the midst of
analysis and a Eureka! experience unfolds. More often, the very worst
days of variation analysis come when you are in the midst of reams of
statistical analyses and data and numbers, and you just cant see the
forest for the trees! As long as ones practice has been carried out with
a degree of accuracy and linguistic insight, Labov promises that the
end result is a set of regular constraints which operate upon every
group and almost every individual (Labov 1969a: 729). Indeed, it never
ceases to amaze me what patterns underlie linguistic variables that
one has no inkling of in the beginning.
Note
While I was writing my dissertation, I came to a particularly impassable
dead end in my analysis. I could not see any patterns! In desperation,
I wailed at one of my mentors, There are just no patterns at all. The
response was empathetic, but firm: Take it froman old variationist like
me there will be patterns. Keep looking. And, of course, there were.
Once it can be established that a variable exists in a body of materi-
als, the variationist sociolinguist will embark on the long process of
studying the feature: circumscribing the variable context, extracting
the relevant data from corpora, coding the material according to
reasoned hypotheses gleaned from the diachronic and synchronic
literature, and then analysing and interpreting the results in situ.
The question inevitably arises: Why use variation analysis? My
answer is this. It is an area of the discipline that involves real lan-
guage as it is being used, so it is inherently hands-on and practical;
it employs a methodology that is replicable and accountable to
the data; it provides you with the tools to analyse language, not
simply on an item-by-item basis, but at the level of the underlying
system. Finally, variation analysis puts language in context, socially,
14 A N A L Y S I N G S O C I O L I NG U I S T I C V A R I A T I O N
linguistically, synchronically and diachronically. In the end, by con-
ducting a variation analysis you get closer to knowing what language
is and what human beings are all about.
ORGANI S AT I ON AND L OGI C OF T HI S B OOK
The book is organised so that the chapters take the reader from the
first stages of research right through to the last ones. The chapters
build from simple observations, to basic conceptual initiatives, to
training procedures. I then move to general research problems and
issues and gradually turn to explaining how to resolve complex data
handling, computational and linguistic problems. In the final chap-
ters, the focus turns to performing analytic techniques and developing
interpretation skills. Examples from my own research demonstrate
problem-solving at each stage in the research process. This presents
you not only with the techniques of variation analysis, but also with
the process through which it unfolds. Each chapter ends with an exer-
cise highlighting the topic just covered.
Most of the examples come from two linguistic variables which are
the most well known and the most extensively studied in the field
variable (t,d) and variable (ing).
In order to tap into the structured heterogeneity that is rich in
living language, it is necessary to gain access to language in use,
whether it is in the literature, in the media or, as is most typical of
the variationist approach, in the street. For the latter undertaking, it
is necessary to go out of the office, beyond the anecdotal, and into the
speech community. Fieldwork and data collection will be described in
Chapter 2.
Exercise 1: Becoming aware of linguistic variation
The purpose of this exercise is to develop your ability to observe
linguistic variability. In the process you will begin to develop a
sociolinguists ear and eye.
Find some language material. Any data will do, e.g. an audio-tape, a
video, a TV show, a newspaper, a novel, an email message, an MSN
conversational history. Then examine it carefully.
Consider features from different areas of grammar (e.g. phonology,
morphology, syntax, discourse). Notice morphological, syntactic or
discursive alternations, e.g. zero plurals, zero possessives, missing
prepositions, articles, discourse markers, variation in quotative use,
Introduction 15
syntactic structure, etc. Provide an inventory of different variants that
occur in the data. Illustrate intra-speaker alternation of forms, as in (i):
(i) I meanI was real small andeverything you-knowreally tiny built . . . (YRK/O)
Summarise the nature of the features you have identified. Are there
any features that are unfamiliar to you? Are there features that are
typical of older rather than younger speakers? Male more than female,
or vice versa? Standard vs non-standard, etc.? Do they vary across your
sample? Is one variant predisposed to certain sectors of the population
over the other? How? Also make note of the types of contexts in which
each variant occurs. Can you spot any trends?
When you make a linguistic observation froma data set, always back
it up with an example. Further, ensure that the example is referenced to
the location in the original data sample (i.e. speaker number and line
number), audio-tape (counter number) or whatever is suitable for the
data you are examining.
Note
I will typically take the front page of the newspaper from the day
I present this topic to a class and use it to illustrate how normal
variation in language really is. There are usually some good examples.
Try it!
16 A N A L Y S I N G S O C I O L I NG U I S T I C V A R I A T I O N