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.

In sociolinguistics, approaches that use the variables of socioeconomic class and social network have often been thought to be irreconcilable. In this article, we explore the connection between these variables and suggest the outlines of a model that can integrate them in a coherent way. This depends on linking a consensus-based microlevel of network with a conflict-based macrolevel of social class. We suggest interpretations of certain sociolinguistic findings, citing detailed evidence from research in Northern Ireland and Philadelphia, which emphasize the need for acknowledging the importance of looseknit network ties in facilitating linguistic innovations. We then propose that the link between network and class can be made via the notion of weak network ties using the process-based model of the macrolevel suggested by Thomas Hejrup's theory of life-modes. (Sociolinguistics, sociology, quantitative social dialectology, anthropological linguistics)One of the most important contributions of Labov's quantitative paradigm has been to allow us to examine systematically and accountably the relationship between language variation and speaker variables such as sex, ethnicity, social network, and -most importantly perhaps -social class. Language variation in large and linguistically heterogeneous cities as well as in smaller communities has been revealed not as chaotic but as socially regular, and Labov and others have shown how investigating this socially patterned variation can illuminate mechanisms of linguistic change. In this article, we focus on the variables of social class and social network, both of which have appeared in some form in a large number sociolinguistic studies of variation and change. Our principal interest lies not in the complex sociological issues associated with class and network, some of which we discuss here, but in understanding the role of class and network in patterns of linguistic variation and mechanisms of linguistic change.

Glottalization and glottal replacement (particularly of /t/ in British English) have traditionally been assumed to be variants characteristic of male, lower-class speakers. Both phenomena have been heavily stigmatized, but are spreading rapidly. Recent studies in various parts of the British Isles (including Tyneside) have suggested that glottal replacement of /t/ is led by middle-class and/or female speakers. A fuller understanding of the nature of this linguistic change depends on treating glottalization of /p, t, k/ (a more localized Tyneside feature) and glottal replacement as independent phenomena, rather than as points on a lenition scale corresponding to a social continuum (e.g., casual to careful style). The studies of Tyneside glottalization reported here show that, while females lead in the use of glottal replacement, males prefer glottalization. This pattern is interpreted in terms of a preference of males for localized variants, whereas females lead in adopting supra-local norms.

This paper offers a variationist critique of aspects of phonological theory and method, focusing on advances in descriptive methods and highlighting the problems that need to be addressed in explaining phonological variation. On the one hand, socially situated language samples which have been systematically collected and analysed constitute a legitimate -indeed often vital -source of evidence to be utilised by linguists for assessing and refining theoretical models. On the other hand, variationists cannot operate in isolation from theoretical concerns, and can benefit from an evaluation of the competing theoretical frameworks available to them.The paper begins with a brief review of the philosophical foundations underlying the tension between ' external ' and ' internal ' methodology. We then focus on a particular phonological example -glottalisation in English. We demonstrate that phonological models of this can be complemented by systematic and accountable data collection and analysis of the kind associated with sociolinguistics. It is suggested that the patterns of variation produced by speakers are significantly more complex than has been indicated in the phonological literature. Consequently, these approaches can be usefully expanded and extended as theoretical models. We discuss some desiderata for extending the range of phonological models, focusing chiefly on the need to account for variability and change in language.

This paper proposes a collaborative model of repair in aphasic discourse, derived from the procedures of conversation analysis (CA). First, it is suggested that relative to other pragmatic orientations CA can offer a particularly illuminating and practically useful perspective on aphasic discourse. Repair strategies are then examined, first in relation to normal conversation then in relation to aphasic conversation' where one or more of the participants is aphasic. Next, Clark and Schaefer's CA-style model of conversational organization (1 987, 1989) is outlined, with attention to its relevance to the organization of repair in aphasic conversation. Finally, we apply this model in an analysis of some aphasic conversational sequences where the collaborative negotiation of repair is particularly evident.