I.D.: 806007430
Title: Detail what is known about language variation according to gender, ethnicity and socio-
economic class.
The field of sociolinguistics continuously explains the causes and occurrence of linguistic
variation. Variation is the change of any variant in a language. A variant is the “realisation of a
Variation can be caused by geography, education, occupation, religion and social networks,
amongst others. Gender, ethnicity and socio-economic status cause variation as women use
Hassan Basarally 806007430 LING 2302 2
standard forms to elicit prestige, groups use specific variation to highlight cultural identity and
lower socio-economic brackets shift toward the language of those above them.
Variation occurs within a specific speech community that has interaction with others and
develops, consciously or not, due to factors such a gender, ethnicity and socio-economic status. A
whose members share knowledge about and attitudes towards the language use patterns of others
as well as themselves” (25). This knowledge encompasses the realities of gender, ethnicity and
“We generally treat gender as ‘given’ and unalterable, automatically classifying every
person we encounter as female or male...” (Holmes, 303). On the contrary gender is formed as a
result of social interaction and enculturation, they are “social constructs, they institutionalise
cultural and social statuses” (Wodak and Benke, 129). Research into variation has shown that
significant linguistic shifts are a direct result of gender attitudes. Milroy and Milroy conducted as
investigation into the deletion of medial /ð/ in inner city Belfast. The results showed a gender
difference in the variable as opposes to age difference. Milroy and Milroy suggested that “gender
difference may be prior to class difference in driving linguistic variation and change” (56). This
study left several probing questions that latter linguists tackled. Wodak and Benke describe
William Labov’s analysis of similar results in a New York department store in 1966. “Women of
all classes and ages use more standard variants than their equivalent men. As the standard is
usually regarded as the language of the elite, for the rest of the population an approximation to
this standard implies a deviation of one’s own group” (133). The question of why women appear
to shift to a more prestigious variety remains. Labov gives general reasons such as women rely
on expressive symbols to assert their position (Wodak and Benke, 135). Wodak and Benke also
quote Trudgill who states “that it may be more necessary for women to secure and signal their
Hassan Basarally 806007430 LING 2302 3
social class linguistically” (135). On the other hand the reason for men’s continuous use of the
non standard is explained by Milroy and Milroy, “men are subject to more rigid group pressure
to speak in vernacular than women...female linguistic behaviour is viewed more tolerantly than
local peer-groups, so that women have , in a sense, more linguistic freedom” (136).
Language reflects how a particular ethnic group views itself and others. Laferriere
conducted a study in Boston in 1979 amongst three ethnic groups: Irish, Italian and Jewish. The
result showed that “the dialect variant has become a valued trait of Irish and Italians in
Boston. It is clearly their linguistic feature- a mark of identity for them” (613). A group utilises a
variant to maintain cultural identity, especially in cosmopolitan societies. A case study done by
G. J. Escure, focussing on Carib and Creole in Belize shows that variation occurs as a means of
distinctiveness and portraying a particular group as linguistically elite and advanced. Belize has
four speech communities, two being Creole and Carib or Garifuna speakers. While both speak
the individual varieties in homogenous communities, interaction requires the use of Creole or
Belize Standard English. The result is that “socially ambitious speakers strive towards achieving
a varieties distinct as possible from the stigmatised, and as close as possible to the prestige
model, through two main processes: elimination of marked Creole features, and saturation of
marked English forms” (Giles and Saint-Jacques, 113). This situation can be explained in light of
Winford’s 1972 study in Trinidad, in which it was believed that unity in a community produces
linguistic fusion. The different speech communities have little unity hence the existence of four
distinct varieties in Belize and the manipulation of the standard being used as a yardstick of
linguistic competence.
class proves difficult to examine due to the different criteria used for determining the class an
Hassan Basarally 806007430 LING 2302 4
individual belongs to. There exists varying positions on what to use as a measure of socio-
economic status. Some criteria used were employment, father’s employment and in the case of
women, husband’s education, employment. In 1966 William Labov did a study of Martha’s
Vineyard. He interviewed people of English, Portuguese and Native American backgrounds. The
results showed that different segments of each group displayed the same type of centralisation of
diphthongs /ay/ and /aw/. Centralisation was shown by “those who laid claim to native status as
Vineyarders” (Labov, 186). However there were not just cases of centralisation but
hypercorrection in which the variant was applied to phonological areas it would not appear. The
centralisation is viewed as more desirable and linked to Martha’s Vineyard. Hence Labov infers
that “the hypercorrect pattern is more characteristic of upward mobility that of membership in
any particular socio-economic group” (Labov, 197). According to Wodak and Benke, Labov
believes that “the lower middle class (LCM) “hypercorrects” its language; it copies features of
the middle class (MC), whose language behaviour is more standard, in order to gain social
prestige” (133). The upward mobility and social prestige Labov refers to is in fact the desired
group of the interviewees or the group that identification is most sought with. Labov also states
that the socio-economic history of a group would cause variation towards a higher group. After
investigation in the Lower East Side of New York, Labov states, “a group of speakers with a past
history of upward mobility is more apt to resemble the next higher socio-economic group in their
linguistic behaviour” (Labov, 202). This mention of socio-economic history has drawn criticism
as it determines class on an individual’s parent’s etc. and does not take into account factors such
as education.
Despite variation being a topic of constant research, several facts have been discovered
through studies spanning decades. The language of women is different to that of men. Ethnicity
causes speech communities to choose varieties that best represent the group. Socio-economic
Hassan Basarally 806007430 LING 2302 5
class causes a conscious shift to the variety to the desired group in society. Through these finding
variation is understood better and the foundation for future studies are laid.
Works Cited
Giles, Howard & Saint-Jacques, Bernard. Language and Ethnic Relations. Pergamon Press,
1998.
Labov, William. The effect of Social Mobility on Linguistic Behaviour. Sociological Inquiry. 32
(2), 186-203, 1966.
Laferriere, Martha. “Ethnicity in Phonological Variation and Change.” Language 55. 3 (1979)
:603-617. 25 Feb. 2008 <http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0097-
8507%28197909%2955%3A3%3C603%3AEIPVAC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-H.>
Milroy, James and Milroy, Lesley. “Varieties and Variation.” The Handbook of Sociolinguistics.
Ed. Coulmas, Florian. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd., 1997. 49-56.
Spolsky, Bernard. Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Wodak, Ruth and Benke, Gertraud. “Gender as a Sociolinguistic Variable: New Perspectives on
Variation Studies.” The Handbook of Sociolinguistics. Ed. Coulmas, Florian. Oxford: Blackwell
Publishers Ltd., 1997. 126-156.
Hassan Basarally 806007430 LING 2302 6