IS SOCIOLINGUISTIC LACKING IN STYLE?

Abstract

Although the study of stylistic variation has been a feature of much sociolinguistic investigation since the 1960’s, there is little agreement about the nature of this variation and the extent to which it can (or shuld) be investigated systematically. There are at least three problems: 1) a tendency to treat stylistic variation as unidimensional; 2) lack of clarity about the influence of the written language; and 3) a failure to examine the role of all the participants in interviews. Preoccupation with a narrow view of stylistic variation may be have constrained sociolinguistic investigation and rendered it less useful than it might have been. One of the most impressive features of Labov’s pioneering work in New York (Labov, 1966) was its extended description of the methodology he employed, which has provided the model for much of the subsequent sociolinguistic investigation of urban speech. However, as O’Connell (1988) pointed out with respect to the history of psychology, there is a tendency for the subtleties and limitations of earlier studies to the obscured in later citations. This paper is an examination of some of the evidence that has been used in support of various approaches to the collection of sociolinguistic data. Inevitably, this involves critically re-examining some studies that have been frequently cited in the literature but I believe there is a value in looking closely again at the evidence and the assumptions in these works so that future studies may be based on sound methodology.