Labov, vernacularity and sociolinguistic change

Abstract

Despite some well‐known problems in its early formulation, Labov's concept of ‘the vernacular’ has enduring relevance in sociolinguistics. This is even more the case if we recast it more abstractly – as ‘vernacularity’, ideologically contrasted with ‘standardness’. Following Labov, class‐associated vernacular practices have been a major empirical focus of the discipline; they have also locked in the discipline's political consciousness. The paper traces some different ways in which sociolinguistics has positioned itself in relation to vernacularity. Taking the U.K. as a case in point, the paper then asks how large‐scale changes in social class experience may be shifting the bases on which we have defined and researched vernacular language. It considers vernacularisation as a sociolinguistic change running counter to the better‐established process of linguistic standardisation.

Class, Gender, and Rhoticity: The Social Stratification of Non-Prevocalic /r/ in Edinburgh Speech

“…The present study demonstrates that, despite achieving the same economic outcomes as the EMC, patterns of linguistic variation among the NMC are somewhat different even in later life. This pattern follows quite clearly from the understanding of linguistic variation as a potential resource for the construction of a social identity (e.g., Eckert & McConnell-Ginet 1992; Kirkham 2015; Coupland 2016), and the continuous modification and reconstruction of this linguistic identity over the course of the lifespan.…”

“…MacFarlane and Stuart-Smith (2012:766) note the perceived authenticity of a working-class identity in Glasgow, which “is certainly the ‘prestige’ option for many.” The interaction of class identity with gender is further discussed by Lawson (2015), who notes the association of vernacular speech with working-class masculinity and “toughness” among pupils in a Glasgow high school. Coupland (2016) proposes that change over time in class structure and the way in which social class is experienced calls for new approaches to the study of language and class. Coupland (2016) introduces the concept of “vernacularization” as a type of sociolinguistic change running counter to processes of standardization, and we return to this concept in the conclusion.…”

“…Coupland (2016) proposes that change over time in class structure and the way in which social class is experienced calls for new approaches to the study of language and class. Coupland (2016) introduces the concept of “vernacularization” as a type of sociolinguistic change running counter to processes of standardization, and we return to this concept in the conclusion. In the following section, we analyze the realization patterns found for WC men with reference to wider claims of the distribution of rhoticity in urban Scottish speech and the proposal of a socially stratified rhotic continuum (Lawson et al 2014:63).…”

“…The interaction of class identity with gender is further discussed by Lawson (2015), who notes the association of vernacular speech with WC masculinity and "toughness" among pupils in a Glasgow high school. Coupland (2016) proposes that change over time in class structure and the way in which social class is experienced calls for new approaches to the study of language and class. Coupland introduces the concept of "vernacularization" as a type of 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 F o r P e e r R e v i e w 30 sociolinguistic change running counter to processes of standardisation, and we return to this concept in the conclusion.…”

Solidarity, stance, and class identities

“… 1 In the rest of the article I use the terms ‘vernacular’ and ‘standard’ to refer to a broad distinction between: (i) local ways of speaking that are regionally and/or socially marked and often stigmatised, and (ii) widespread, legitimised ways of speaking that tend to be considered prestigious. I do so with caution, however, as I accept Coupland's (2009:285) point that ‘we have to be wary of overconsolidating these terms’ (see also Coupland 2016). I also maintain the use of scare quotes around ‘standard’ throughout to align with the perspective that ‘standard’ English is a sociohistorical construction, not a linguistic fact (Crowley 1989; J. Milroy 1999; Coupland 2000).…”