Applying William Labov Theory of Narrative Approach - Literature review Example

Applying William Labov Theory of Narrative Approach Name: Institution: Applying William Labov Theory of Narrative Approach Introduction William Labov is credited as being the pioneer of an approach aimed at investigating the approach between language and society in a field that later came to be referred to as variationist sociolinguistics. This field is premised on the central doctrine that suggests that variation is inherent to linguistic structure. This basically means that the manner in which a language is spoken and written varies across individuals as well as the situations which this individual encounters. According to Labov (1975), these differences are normal and necessary to the functioning of a language. Labov's ideology challenged the predominant thinking of the time by famed linguists such as Noam Chomsy and Ferdinand de Saussure who mainly tended to downplay the importance of this variation as well as its role as an elemental uniformity that characterizes language. Development of Labov's Theoretical Perspectives The linguists of the 1970's were primarily concerned with the empirical foundations of linguistics and most considered linguistics to be an empirical science. Most linguists of this era considered linguistic phenomena to be their point of departure, and some considered this at items that required explanation through their theories while others deemed linguistic phenomena as the vessels for explaining pre-existing theories. Contributions by Linguistic Researchers Linguistic researchers such as Noam Chomsky posited that humans are biologically programmed to acquire knowledge and this is made possible through the Nativist Perspective. According to Chomsky, the learning of language is premised on a biological approach that all all humans are genetically predisposed to learning a language since they possess a Language Acquisition Device (LAD). Other researchers who leaned closer to interactionist ideology posited that language is both biological as well as social. These linguistic theorists gave the example of children who are born with a slowly maturing but powerful brain that predisposed them to newer understandings as well as interactions with others (Tomasello, 1995; Bates, 1993; Shaffer et al 2002). One of the main theorists associated with Interaction theory is Lev Vygotsky who is credited with developing a model of collaborative learning. The collaborative learning approach is largely concerned with the notion that children have been observed to learn and develop a lot both cognitively and linguistically following interaction with adults. Other researchers and theorists in this field such as (Skinner, 1957), often argued that adults shaped the speech of children by babbling words in the same manner that infants do. Other theorists such as (O’Barr & Atkins, 1998) are credited for fronting the idea that language differences are situation-specific and are therefore determined by who has authority and power in a conversation, rather than the gender of the people involved. This theory challenged (Lakoff, 1995) that suggested that variants in speech were due to gender. This was explained through an example of a man interviewing a woman and the likelihood that the man would be more assertive in the conversation and this could not necessarily be because of his gender, but simply because he has wielded more authority in that particular situation. This observation was arrived at after O’Barr and Atkins studied courtroom cases for 30 months. This entailed the observation of a broad spectrum of witnesses, and their scrutiny for the ten speech differences that are extant between men and women that Lakoff had identified. In relation to women's languages, these differences included more apologetic and polite tones, empty adjectives, less speaking, tag questions and the avoidance of expletives and coarse language. This study also established that women were more likely to use hyper-correct grammar, indirect requests, punctuation and the use of tone to emphasise certain words. O’Barr and Atkins discovered that Lakoff’s proposed differences were not necessarily the result of being a woman, but of being powerless. Similarities Between Linguistic Theories William Labov (1996), through a New York Study established that individual speech patterns are reflective of a highly systematic structure of stylistic and social stratification. In this particular study, Labov sought to establish how the consonant (r) sounded in words like beer, bare and guard. This was informed by the fact that this variable and its use attracted considerable prestige in New York. This study sought to examine the speech of three sale assistants from different social strata in three different Manhattan stores which included the top tier Saks, middle tier Macy's and low tier Klein's on the fashion and price scale. The test was designed with a view of making the informants elicit the answer 'fourth floor' which ideally may or may not contain the preconsonantal (r) or variable final. The study established that the frequency of the use of 'r' varied with the social class and the level of formality and the sales assistants from top tier Saks used it the most while those from low tier Klein's used it the least. Sales assistant from Macy's demonstrated a great degree of increased frequency of the use of preconsonantal (r) when they were asked to repeat the exercise. The lower middle class was found to be the most vulnerable in relation to the overt prestige of preconsonantal 'r. This followed findings that they experienced differences in terms of casual speech style at 4% compared to 77% of careful speech style in the study that tested the Lower Class, Working Class, Lower Middle Class and the Upper Middle Class. The three lower working classes were found to exhibit the most awareness on the prestige of the preconsonantal 'r' and how it should sound or how people should ideally sound when uttering it. Differences between Linguistic Theories Some of the main differences between linguistic theories are best explained through the contrastive hypothesis which primarily states that: The acquisition of the first language from a foreign language differs especially in the case that learning of the foreign language is preceded by learning of the mother tongue and especially when this mother tongue is fully mastered. All languages possess a specific structure and similarities between two languages cause no learning problems an s these are positively transferred but the differences are negatively transferred and therefore likely to cause problems. These similarities and contrasts can be identified when foreign language is compared to mother tongue. These comparisons between foreign and local languages are important as they help predict learning difficulties and also aid in the formulation of strategies that make teaching of a foreign language more efficient. Other differences include the clear distinction between Lorkoff's theory and (Orbarr & Atkins) that both differed with the former suggesting that linguistic differences are attributable to differences in gender while the latter theorists disputed this theory with courtroom study that suggested linguistic differences are situation and not gender specific. How Labov's Theory Builds on Perspectives from other Theorists As mentioned earlier in the New York study, Labov's major aim was to find out how speech patterns were affected by an individual's level of social stratification. This work is similar to that of other researchers such as Jenny Cheshire who in the 1982 Reading Study sought to establish the relationship between peer group norms and the use of non standard variables. The Reading Study is similar to the New York study in that both their proponents sought to determine how the use of variables was affected by certain factors such as gender and social/style status. Peter Trudgill's 1974, Norwich studies also sought to establish if women in all social classes were more lively to use (RP). By using words such as walking and talking and 'walkin', and 'talkin' as the non standard forms. The study established that more men used the non standard forms as they wished to sound more non standard while women wished to sound more standard and tended to make use of more covert prestige forms. The Theory of Discourse A dictionary definition of the word discourse suggests that it refers to everyday discussion or conversation. However, scholars delved deeper and emerged with various definitions of the term discourse and how it tends to encompass the various forms of communication. According to (Torfing, 2005), discourse theory emerged in the late seventies and was intended to serve as an intellectual response to the mainstream theory and its problematization in 1968. As well, this theory sought to provide response to the critiques levelled against the structural theorists of language, society and culture. The discourse theory sought to offer new diagnostic perspectives that tended to lay more emphasis on the rules and meanings that condition the meaning of political social and cultural identities. This theory was conceived as a cross-disciplinary attempt aimed at integrating social insights from linguistics and hermeneutics with the help of key ideas from social and political science. The inherent problems posed by Marxism that were brought to the fore by the neo-conservative and neo-liberal hegemonies of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. The moral-intellectual and political struggles that resulted from this lead to the awakening of the politics and discourse matters awakening and this informed the need to formulate a theory aimed at fleshing out the critical concepts that resulted from this understanding. Generations of Discourse Theory It is possible to identify at least there generations or traditions in relation to discourse theory. The first generation of discourse theory focuses mainly on the semantic aspects of written and spoken text in addition to defining discourse within the parameters of linguistic sense of textual units that focus on semantic aspects of spoken or written text. The early generation of discourse theory is primarily concerned with a speaker’s actual use of the language. First generation theorists include (Downs, 1984), a socio- linguist who established a correlation between the socio-economic status of a speaker and their vocabulary. Others such as (Holsti, 1969), through his content analysis prism, tended to analyse the usage of certain word combinations, word classes and words in general. There was also a class of researchers that used the sociological method related to ethno- methodology to analyse linguistic interaction and how it tends to be organized such as how conversations are initiated and concluded as well as the turns taken by speakers engaged in discourse, the choice of topics and the manner in which these are changed as well as the sequence of sentences. The first generation discourse theorist includes socio-linguists who focused on the formal and informal aspects of dialogues ( Potter & Wetherell, 1987; Labov & Franchell, 1977). Discourse psychology was mainly inspired by the speech act theory and tended to shift focus fr0m the strategies of the speakers to the organizational features of conversations. However, despite the fact that discourse psychology is primarily concerned with the analysis of spoken language, linguists such as (Fowler et al, 1979), broadened the semantic analysis of discourse to include both spoken and written language. The first generation discourse theorists were vulnerable to linguistic bias mainly because there was no attempt within their conversational analysis, content analysis and socio linguistics to link discourse analysis with other pertinent issues such as power struggles and politics. The unfortunate scenario that resulted from first generation discourse theories was the fact that the ideology they propagated was confined to strict linguistic analysis as well as semantic aspects of dialogue and other ideas relating to power remained under theorized. The second generation discourse theory defined discourse in a much broader manner than first generation discourse theory. These theorists were cognizant of the fact that discourse was not limited to written and spoken language but rather it extended to a wider set of societal practices. Norman Fairclough (1992; 1995) who is credited with the Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), was mainly inspired by Michael Foucault's discursive practices on subjects and objects but rejected his conception of discourse that was largely described as quasi transcendental. CDA was credited with showcasing the power effects of discourse. This is evidenced by the fact that ethnic groups and social classes produce discourse aimed at retaining their hegemonic power. Second generation discourse theorists such as (Michael Foucault, 1985) defined discourse as a wide range of social practices but instead of being confined to actual content and form of semiotic practices and linguistic statements, Foucault laid emphasis on rules that governed such statements and practices. The power analytics replete in (Foucault, 1990), replaced the classic definition of sovereign power from something which is concerned with repression and dominance to a new idea presented by discursive power that tended to focus on the productive aspects of power. In summary, Foucaults work relayed the message that discourse and power are mutually substititutive and one cannot exist without the other, and this work was considered an antidote to (Habermas 1987; 1990; 1992) who similarly termed his work as discourse theory. The third generation of discourse theory primarily suggests that discourse is concerned with all social phenomena. These theories are discursive in nature and often suggest that decentres system of differences and rules tends to inform the meanings provided by these theories. For instance, (Derida, 1978) suggested that the causality of discourse is the result of ''the forfeiting of the metaphysical idea of a transcendental centre that structures the entire structure while itself eluding structuration''. Further discourse according to third generation theorists, was understood to be a relational system of signifying practices that is the result of political and historical interventions aimed at the construction of any meaningful object (Barthes, 1993; Kristeva, 1986 & Lacan, 1977). According to (Laclau & Mouffe, 1982; 1985; 1987), non discursive phenomena such as institutions and technology, are constructed through and in discursive systems of difference and this led to the drawing up of the conclusion that discourse is co-extensively related to the social. Laclau and Mouffe also averred with Foucault on his insistence on the inter-relation between discourse and power that defined discourse in the parameters of what people say, do, think and imagine. Application of William Labov's Theory (i) Abstract The conversation begins with Ahmed and Damon a part time student who is in the process of finding a part time job to earn income to supplement what his guardians provide. The discourse generally revolves around the type of jobs available and what the ideal minimum wage is. Further it involves discussions on the weather in Melbourne which varies between extremely cold and extremely hot and which Damon has had to adjust to. (ii) Orientation The conversation between Ahmed and Damon and it takes place in Melbourne on a morning. The two conversationalists exchange ideas about the process of getting a job and Damon shares that his being a non-native speaker of the English language has affected his chances of getting and keeping a job. The conversation between Joe and the interviewer and the general feelings about three cultures mainly Australian, Arabic and Islamic culture with Joe expressing that he is intrigued by Islamic culture and that he would like to visit the Middle East with his girlfriend and learn more of the culture. (iii) Complicating Action The dialogue begins with the two Ahmed and Damon, with Ahmed as the interviewer and Damon as the informant. This dialogue assumes the narrative of personal experience structure and this is evidenced by Damon's narrations to Ahmed on his experiences working at Vodafone and what lead him to lose his job. Ahmed attributed the loss to a language barrier that he faced because English was not his native language and this greatly disadvantaged him at his Vodafone job because he could not understand most of the requirements of the customers. (iv) Resolution In the first conversation between the interviewer and Damon, the solution suggested is for Damon to get a n job that does not impose taxing demands on ones mastery of the English language, which he is non native to such as cleaning dishes. The other suggestion floated is that Damon should practice speaking English with Natives more often, as this was one of the proven ways that could make his English could improve. The second conversation involves Joe expressing the fact that he would like to visit the Middle East with his girlfriend and this decision could be informed by interaction with peers since peer group norms have been identified as influencing linguistic choices and other desires. (v) Evaluation The suggestion that Damon could improve his English through speaking it more often with Native speakers of the language closely conforms to the New York Study that established a connection between one's speech pattern and their level of social stratification. It is highly likely that Ahmed was of a lower social strata in which he was less exposed to English a widely used and common language worldwide. For him to actually have such difficulties in communication at such an advanced level if education further entrenches this notion. In the second conversation, like the first there is a lot of use of informal language and many pauses and interruptions during dialogue. The way some words are uttered also makes it difficult to understand if one was listening to the language as oppose to reading its written version which makes pointing out of mistakes easier. (vi) Coda In conversation 1, between the interviewer and non-native speaker the dialogue brings to the fore linguistic challenges faced by non-native speakers and how this influences key aspects of their lives even putting them in a position of great disadvantage in the quest for employment. In the second conversation with Joe, the interviewer faces similar communication challenges with Mr. Joe who is a Chinese-Australian. Despite the fact that he is a native speaker, his English is still poor and riddles with poor grammar and poor expression skills, and this has forced the interviewer to make up certain aspects of the conversation that he did not understand, by trying to decipher what Mr. Joe meant. Conclusion Labov's contributions to linguistics are underscored by his New York Study which demystified previous notions that accents were too heterogeneous and diverse to study. This study further offered key insights into the role one's social stratification plays in determining their speech patterns. Further, the staff proved that in addition to strata, style also plays a key role in determining one's linguistic tendencies. The study also illuminated the fact that other factors were at work in determining the difference between causal and careful pronunciations and this was not just confined to prestige. The elements of evaluating narratives which he outlined are important as well. as they underscored the importance as to why narratives should follow a chronological sequence and the importance of this inherent sequentiality in determining factors such as reportability aspect of the narrative and its ability to attract and sustain the attention of its target audience. References Barthe R. (1972).  A Barthes Reader . New York: Hill and Wang. Bates, E. (1993). Comprehension and Production in Early Language Development: Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, Serial No. 233, Vol. 58, Nos. 3-4,222-242. Derida & Jacques, (1978). Writing and Difference. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Downes, W., (1985). Language and Society. London: Fontana. Fairclough, N., (1995). Critical Discourse Analysis. The Critical Study of Language. London: Longman. Foucault, M.., (1984). The order of discourse. In M. Shapiro (ed.):  Language and Politics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Foucault, M,. (1985). The Archaeology of Knowledge. London: Tavistock. Fowler, (1979). Language and Control. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Habermas, Jurgem (1987). The Theory of Communicative Action, vols I-II. Cambridge: Polity Press. Habermas, Jurgem (1990). The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity: Twelve Lectures Cambridge Polity Press. Holsti (1969). Content Analysis for the Social Sciences and the Humanities. Reading: Addisson-Wesley. Kristeva, J., (1986). Word, Dialogue and Novel.The Kristeva Reader (34-61). Oxford: Blackwell. Labov, W. What is a Linguistic Fact? (1975). Lisse: Peter de Ridder Press. Labov, W., William, & Franchel, D. (1977). Therapeutic Discourse: Psychotherapy as Conversation. New York. Labov, William. 1966. The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Washington D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics.  Lacan, (1977). Ecrits: A Selection. New York. W.W. Norton & Co. Laclau, E., & Mouffe, C., (1985). Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards A Radical Democratic Politics. London: Verso. Lakoff, R. (1995). Language and Woman's Place. Language and Society, 2, 45-79. O' Barr, W., & Atkins, B., (1998). ''Women's Language' or 'Powerless Language''? In J. Coates Ed. (1998) Language and Gender: A Reader. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Potter, J., & Wetherell., M. (1987). Discourse and Social Psychology: Beyond Attitudes and Behaviour. London Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Skinner, B.F. (1957). Verbal Behaviour. New York: Appleton Croft. Tomasselo, M., (1995). Joint Attention as Social Cognition. Its Origins and Role in Development. (pp 103-130) Hillsdale. NJ: Erlbaum. Torfing, J., (2005). Discourse Theory: Achievements, Arguments and Challenges. Trudgill, P., (1974) The Social Differentiation of English in Norwich. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Read More

Other theorists such as (O’Barr & Atkins, 1998) are credited for fronting the idea that language differences are situation-specific and are therefore determined by who has authority and power in a conversation, rather than the gender of the people involved. This theory challenged (Lakoff, 1995) that suggested that variants in speech were due to gender. This was explained through an example of a man interviewing a woman and the likelihood that the man would be more assertive in the conversation and this could not necessarily be because of his gender, but simply because he has wielded more authority in that particular situation.

This observation was arrived at after O’Barr and Atkins studied courtroom cases for 30 months. This entailed the observation of a broad spectrum of witnesses, and their scrutiny for the ten speech differences that are extant between men and women that Lakoff had identified. In relation to women's languages, these differences included more apologetic and polite tones, empty adjectives, less speaking, tag questions and the avoidance of expletives and coarse language. This study also established that women were more likely to use hyper-correct grammar, indirect requests, punctuation and the use of tone to emphasise certain words.

O’Barr and Atkins discovered that Lakoff’s proposed differences were not necessarily the result of being a woman, but of being powerless. Similarities Between Linguistic Theories William Labov (1996), through a New York Study established that individual speech patterns are reflective of a highly systematic structure of stylistic and social stratification. In this particular study, Labov sought to establish how the consonant (r) sounded in words like beer, bare and guard. This was informed by the fact that this variable and its use attracted considerable prestige in New York.

This study sought to examine the speech of three sale assistants from different social strata in three different Manhattan stores which included the top tier Saks, middle tier Macy's and low tier Klein's on the fashion and price scale. The test was designed with a view of making the informants elicit the answer 'fourth floor' which ideally may or may not contain the preconsonantal (r) or variable final. The study established that the frequency of the use of 'r' varied with the social class and the level of formality and the sales assistants from top tier Saks used it the most while those from low tier Klein's used it the least.

Sales assistant from Macy's demonstrated a great degree of increased frequency of the use of preconsonantal (r) when they were asked to repeat the exercise. The lower middle class was found to be the most vulnerable in relation to the overt prestige of preconsonantal 'r. This followed findings that they experienced differences in terms of casual speech style at 4% compared to 77% of careful speech style in the study that tested the Lower Class, Working Class, Lower Middle Class and the Upper Middle Class.

The three lower working classes were found to exhibit the most awareness on the prestige of the preconsonantal 'r' and how it should sound or how people should ideally sound when uttering it. Differences between Linguistic Theories Some of the main differences between linguistic theories are best explained through the contrastive hypothesis which primarily states that: The acquisition of the first language from a foreign language differs especially in the case that learning of the foreign language is preceded by learning of the mother tongue and especially when this mother tongue is fully mastered.

All languages possess a specific structure and similarities between two languages cause no learning problems an s these are positively transferred but the differences are negatively transferred and therefore likely to cause problems. These similarities and contrasts can be identified when foreign language is compared to mother tongue. These comparisons between foreign and local languages are important as they help predict learning difficulties and also aid in the formulation of strategies that make teaching of a foreign language more efficient.

Read More