Linguistic change, social network and speaker innovation

Abstract

This paper is concerned with the social mechanisms of linguistic change, and we begin by noting the distinction drawn by Bynon (1977) between two quite different approaches to the study of linguistic change. The first and more idealized, associated initially with traditional nineteenth century historical linguistics, involves the study of successive ‘states of the language’, states reconstructed by the application of comparative techniques to necessarily partial historical records. Generalizations (in the form of laws) about the relationships between these states may then be made, and more recently the specification of ‘possible’ and ‘impossible’ processes of change has been seen as an important theoretical goal.

How system-internal linguistic factors indicate language change and diffusion. A geolinguistic analysis of Berber data

“…Structure adequacy and systematisation/generalisation of specific morphological patterns, however, play a significant role in the success of their distribution across the Tarifit varieties. Contrary to the language evolutionary claim that only social factors are responsible for variant selection (Milroy & Milroy 1985;Milroy 1992: 201-202;Croft 2000: 38. 39.…”

Stylistic variation over 200 years of court proceedings according to gender and social class

“…Traditional sociolinguistic approaches on variation (Eckert, 1989;Labov, 1963;Milroy and Milroy, 1985;Milroy and Gordon, 2003;Tagliamonte, 2006;Trudgill, 1974;Weinreich et al, 1968) work with surveys and relatively small but detailed manually collected data. Variation is analyzed considering single as well as several social variables at a time, but the small sample size affects generalization of the findings.…”

Special issue on sense of place in the history of English

“…This article uses the framework of social network analysis, originally offered as an explanation for speaker innovation in the groundbreaking work of the Milroys in their Belfast sociolinguistics projects of the 1970s and 80s (Milroy & Milroy 1985). Milroy (1992) Nevalainen examines a kinship network (that of the Johnsons, a merchant family) and an individual network (that of Samuel Pepys) with members in each classified as conservative, in-between or progressive with respect to various linguistic changes in Early Modern English (EModE) that are at different stages of advancement.…”