Variation Analysis: The study of linguistic change

Although the origins of the variationist approach are solely within the field of Linguistics, this approach differs from traditional Linguistics in many ways. The basic assumption of variationists is that there are patterns of language which vary according to the social environment and therefore such patterns can only be identified by studying a given speech community. Variation Analysis, thus, is concerned with the variation and changes observed in language along different speech communities.

Originally, prototypical variation analyses were limited to the study of semantically equivalent variants, i.e., to the different words used to refer to the same thing according to geographical location or social level.

However, such analyses have been extended to texts. The variationist approach has developed “in the search for text structure, the analysis of text-level variants and of how text constrains other forms” (Schiffrin, 1994: 282).

The most prominent figure within this approach is William Labov, who developed the initial methodology and theory. Data collection and field work play an important role in Variation Analysis. Labov (1996) argues in favor of the inadequacy of intuition as a source of information about language structure as well as of the importance of the vernacular language (Labov 1972a) of a speech community as the variety showing the

Perspectives on Discourse Analysis: Theory and Practice 157

most systematic grammar of a dialect. Thus, Labov holds a materialistic conception of language, which views language as “a property of the speech community, an instrument of social communication that evolves gradually and continuously throughout human history, in response to a variety of human needs and activities” (2004: 1). The materialist approach starts by observing the variability which is characteristic of speech production and then applies formalisms based on probability theory to this variation. Multivariate analyses are then applied to the data in order to find out how each element of the environment contributes to the application of a rule. An adequate description of language should contain a dynamic and evolutionary perspective, and that is the reason why much of the research within this perspective has to do with the study of linguistic change.

Labov demonstrated how language changes spread through society. He showed that linguistic changes are normally carried out by certain social groups, and that dialect variation is by no means free or haphazard. On the contrary, it is governed by “orderly heterogeneity” or structured variation (Weinreich, Labov and Herzog, 1968).

One of Labov’s most important endeavors is the Telsur/Atlas project, which deals with the linguistic changes in progress in North-American English. It defines the major dialects of North-American English on the basis of some phonological characteristics, and contains regional maps where the phonological features of these dialects can be examined in detail. The interpretation of the data is based on the acoustic analysis of hundreds of linguistic interviews with speakers of the different North-American regions.

Variation Analysis combines both qualitative and quantitative techniques. Quantitative analyses are basic within this approach, and they require the definition of the variants (or different realizations of a type), a classification of the conditions under which those variants may be found, and frequencies of occurrence of the different variants in relation to some factors of the environment.

In addition, certain assumptions have to be made as to the relationship between text and context which necessarily limit the interpretation of such analyses. Therefore, even when quantitative studies of variants are of crucial importance, they also present some limitations, such as, for example, the lack of attention given to particular cases that might be of interest, because variationists generally focus on general trends or patterns.

In general, researchers avoid making statements about typical patterns unless they are based on frequency of occurrence and evaluated by statistical tests.

An important notion in Variation Analysis is that of constraint. Thus,

it is assumed that the overall information structure of a text imposes certain constraints on its parts, and so we see, for example, that the overall temporal structure of a narrative places constraints on its composing elements and even on the syntactic forms used to form those elements.

Another instance can be found in recipes: recipes normally have to contain a list of ingredients, and therefore they always present constraints on the referring terms of the list, which necessarily have to be terms related to food. At the same time, their overall structure is normally constrained to the use of both descriptive structure (lists) and narrative structure (the steps followed for making the dish, which are generally presented in temporal order).

According to Patrick, a typical sequence of analysis for variationists would be the following:

1) Establish which forms alternate with one another –i.e., which are

“the same”.

2) Delimit the environments in which this alternation-with-sameness occurs, and classify the factors within those environments exhaustively.

3) Propose hypotheses for contextual factors which might constrain the variation.

4) Compile a data set that allows for investigation and (dis-) confirmation of the alternations and co-occurrences predicted by hypotheses in (3).

5) Compare the frequencies/probabilities with which the different variants co-occur with the different (environmental) factors.

6) Typically, place primary emphasis on internal linguistic factors, and only secondary importance on external social explanations.

7) Typically, consider analysis primarily exploratory rather than confirmatory (due to lack of precisely predictive sociolinguistic theories) (2004:3).

As Labov explains, variationists focus upon different units of analysis:

It is common for a language to have many alternate ways of saying “the same” thing. Some words like car and automobile seem to have the same referents; others have two pronunciations, like working and workin’. There are syntactic options such as Who is he talking to? vs. To whom is he talking? Or It’s easy for him to talk vs. For him to talk is easy. (1972b:

188)

Thus, variation or linguistic change can not only be studied at the level of semantically equivalent words, but also at other levels, such as the phonological, the syntactic or even the textual level, as Labov himself has

Perspectives on Discourse Analysis: Theory and Practice 159

demonstrated through his analysis of narrative.

Labov regards the study of narrative as “a privileged area of discourse, because this discourse type is the closest to the vernacular”¹, and that is the reason why he has devoted a great part of his research to the study of narrative syntax.

7.1.1. The vernacular

The linguistic analysis made by variationists is not based on linguists’

intuitions of grammatically correct sentences, but mainly upon what people actually say. Therefore, it is of utmost importance for researchers to collect samples of authentic speech data. However, when people know that their language is being recorded or observed, they may alter their register and use different forms, structures or strategies than when not being observed. This fact made variationists seek the mode of speech called the vernacular. The vernacular is the variety acquired in pre-adolescent years that is used by speakers of a given language when they pay minimum attention to speech (Labov, 1984: 29). In order to collect samples of the vernacular, variationists resort to sociolinguistic interviews, which allow them to discover the regular rules of language and the social distribution of variants. As Schiffrin explains, respondents to these interviews are encouraged to tell narratives of personal experience:

Sociolinguistic interviews are a mixed genre of talk […]. One way in which they differ from other interviews is that they encourage topic shifting and group interactions among people present. Another difference is that respondents are encouraged to tell narratives of personal experience.

This is not only because narratives reveal community norms and styles of personal interaction, but also because speakers regularly shift toward the vernacular when telling a story (Labov 1984: 32). (Schiffrin, 1994: 289-90) The work with narratives of personal experience within Variation Analysis is considered to be the basis for the analysis of narrative from a linguistic point of view. We now turn to this approach.