A call for more diverse sources of data: Variationist approaches in non‐English contexts

Abstract

Over the past 50 years, variationist sociolinguists have taken the influential ideas and pioneering methods of Labov (1966) to many locations around the world. But the majority of variationist research still focuses on English and other European languages, rather than lesser-studied language communities. Like other subfields of linguistics, the variationist paradigm needs to continually explore new data from a range of languages. The present article examines how the principles and methods of Labov (1966) have been applied to non-English language communities, testing the impact and relevance of those half-century-old notions in new and sociolinguistically diverse settings, and calling for more research in new field sites. 五十年以来,变异派社会语言学者利用拉波夫(Labov 1966)的论理及研究 模式在世界各地进行研究。然而,多数变异派学者仍然专注于英语和欧洲 语言而忽略研究其他少数族群的语言。如语言学内的其他领域, 变异派社 会语言学应该继续广泛收集和研究各种不同的语言数据。本文探讨如何 运用拉波夫理论和方法来研究多种非英语语言,测试和验证这些半世纪之 久的观念在新的和多样化情况的实用性,并呼吁变异派社会语言学者探索 众多尚未被研究的少数族群的语言。[Chinese]

New speakers: Challenges and opportunities for variationist sociolinguistics

“…Research on new speakers, then, has much to offer the variationist paradigm, which has renewed calls for ‘more diverse sources of data’ (Stanford, ), and this article has suggested that social network theory, a still very productive avenue of inquiry in variationist research, provides a useful bridge for applying variationist theory to an expanding body of data on new speakers of (severely) endangered or minority languages. New speakers have been shown to play complex roles in these communities: they can be ostracised by native speakers for their new‐speaker practices, and, yet, paradoxically, in those contexts where the target variety is severely endangered, new speakers represent an important proportion of total speaker numbers.…”

“…Since Labov ()'s seminal work in New York City, variationist sociolinguistics has sought to develop a socially accountable theory of linguistic diffusion and change. However, as Nagy and Meyerhoff (), Smackman () and Stanford () have all highlighted, non‐English languages continue to play only a very marginal influential role in the process. Their surveying of the sociolinguistic literature reveals a surprising dearth of geolinguistic diversity in leading variationist venues; language variation and change, then, continues to be the preserve of English and a handful of other dominant European languages.…”

“…In response to Stanford ()'s ‘call for more diverse sources of data […] in non‐English contexts’, this article considers recent work on the emergence of new speakers in (severely) endangered or minority language communities, and what this work might have to offer variationist theory. Although definitions can vary, it has become convention to describe new speakers as individuals ‘with little or no home or community exposure to a minority language but who instead acquire it through immersion or bilingual education programs, revitalization projects or as adult language learners’ (O'Rourke et al, : 1).…”

Expanding our sociolinguistic horizons? Geographical thinking and the articulatory potential of commodity chain analysis

“…Sociolinguists certainly appear to have their stomping grounds and blindspots (cf. Stanford, ) . For these reasons alone, it behoves sociolinguists to expand their horizons, looking further afield and into otherwise hidden or ignored spaces.…”

The role of linguistic ideologies in language contact situations

“…Campbell‐Kibler () argues that an adequate model of sociolinguistic cognition should be able to capture a grammar that is indexically bound to social constructions, processes of self‐regulation, and metapragmatic behaviors that regulate social perception. Testing the validity of such a model requires that we experiment with different linguistic phenomena in different sociolinguistic contexts and across more varied speakers (Stanford, ). Because language contact situations present more complex indexical fields, these linguistic contexts are ideal sites for testing, retesting, and adapting accordingly current theories concerning the interplay among social meaning, linguistic features, and cognition.…”