Analysis of William Labov and Penelope Eckert - Literature review Example

You should: COMPARE THE METHODLOGIES, DATA AND RESULTS OF EACH STUDY, and COMMENT ON HOW THESE STUDIES HAVE APPROACHED THE ISSUE OF LANGUAGE VARIATION AND HOW THEY REFLECT DEVELOPMENT IN THE FIELD OF SOCIOLINGUISTIC. William Labov and Penelope Eckert Introduction William Labov’s Martha’s Vineyard study and Penelope Eckert’s Jocks, Burnouts, and the High School Corporate Culture investigate social class through two distinct methods of theoretical analysis. While Labov’s work is heavily rooted in scientific and statistical categorizations of sociolinguistic phenomenon, Eckert’s impressionistic approach is much in-line with the observational style of Roland Barthes, Dell Hymes, and contemporary theorist Danah Boyd. In developing a greater understanding of these processes of sociolinguistic investigation, this essay examines and compares the methodological assumptions and conclusions within the theorists’ Martha’s Vineyard and Jocks and Burnouts studies. Martha’s Vineyard William Labov’s seminal Martha’s Vineyard study incorporates direct linguistic observation with past recorded linguistic accounts to analyze the patterns of linguistic change among the island inhabitants of Martha’s Vineyard, Dukes County, Massachusetts. Labov identifies one of the key benefits of the study being the secluded nature of the island, and notes how this isolation is effective when formulating viable sociolinguistic analysis. While the island is sufficiently secluded, it also “has enough social and geographic complexity to provide ample room for differentiation of linguistic behavior (Labov 4).” Labov offers a description of the island and which elements of it will be included in the study, disregarding the nearly 42,000 tourists, as their transitory nature excludes them from contributing viable sociolinguistic data to the specific study. As a result of its physical seclusion and conscious resistance to mainland Boston cultural standards, Martha’s Vineyard is understood to have retained significant features of English indicative of pre-1800 New England. Labov argues that the most prominent feature that has been retained “is the retention of final and preconsonantal /r/. New England short /o/ is still well represented among the older speakers (Labov 7).” However, he indicates that such analysis of static English morphology is not the essential concern, and that instead the study will focus on the sociolinguistic determination of change and linguistic variation throughout the island. In addressing the factors associated with the determination of the study’s linguistic variable, Labov illustrates his underlining philosophic approach to sociolinguistic investigation. He indicates three predominant requirements: (1) The variable should occur frequently in unstructured conversation. One might consider the dilemma of the documentary filmmaker who is faced with the paradoxical scenario of the camera influencing the action of the participants. By adopting a less structured linguistic variable, the study will be allowed to achieve a higher level of objective truth; (2) The linguistic variable should be ‘structural’. Labov is referencing the Structural Linguistic theory of Saussure who states in his General Course on Linguistics, "A linguistic system is a series of differences of sounds combined with a series of differences of ideas (Saussure 10)." It remains difficult to precisely determine what Labov means by implying that certain words are more structural than others, as Saussure contends that each linguistic unit is equally part of the same structural system, but Labov’s point could possibly be better formulated by merely stating that it is in search of words with highly definable definitions; (3) The linguistic variable should occur over a wide variety of ages and classes. While it’s hard to disagree with Labov that the variable should be frequently occurring, some researchers might note that the results of the sociolinguistic analysis should determine the variation of language use among spoken word communities, not the other opposite way, as Labov features it. Labov indicates that the central linguistic concern of the study focused realisations of the diphthongs [aw] and [ay]. Labov also indicates that the study’s methodology of data collection was structured so that questions related to the social background of the participants would cause them to respond by using one of these diphthongs. In addition, supplementary observations were made throughout the island by listening to casual conversations in restaurants, street corners, bars, stores, and docks. While Labov notes that these observations didn’t count toward the statistical formulations of the study, it’s notable that he is promoting various means of linguistic detection, as it shows a pragmatic, and possibly even post-modern willingness to adopt multiple means of understanding. There were a number of distinguishable groups on the island. Labov indicates that the main features that distinguished these groups were attributable to region (specific geographical location within Martha’s Vineyard), ethnic background (Portuguese, Indian, English), economic background (amount of financial pressure participants experienced), as well age. Ultimately, the statistical information was gathered from 69 participant interviews, during three periods, from 1961-1962. Labov indicates that the diphthongs [aw] and [ay] are considered centralized because they include a schwa sound instead of an /a/ sound. Rather, “this phenomenon comes from the fact that when we make the schwa sound our tongue is in a more central position inside the mouth compared to when we make the [a]. The two diphthongs with the schwa are therefore centralized (Crick 1976).” One of the key contributions Labov makes to sociolinguistic discourse is his discovery of covert and overt methods of communication. That is, overt prestige refers to the speech patterns implemented by the majority population. Covert prestige refers to the prestige given to the linguistic utterances of groups that are smaller in scale. While Labov arguably formulates this theory more explicitly in later studies, the essential discovery he makes in the Martha’s Vineyard study relies heavily on these concepts. Labov determined that the main habitants on the island, and subsequently overt language users, most frequently had adopted the uncentralized diphthong as the semantic unit of prestige. However, he discovered that a smaller sub-set of individuals had adopted the centralized diphthong as a covert prestige element of communication. Labov was able to determine that the factor of whether the interview participant adopted the centralized or uncentralized diphthong pronunciation was directly related to their desire to identify with the island community (uncentralized), or to align themselves with the mainland population and significant tourist influence (centralized). Even as the educational system promoted the use of the centralized diphthong, the results of the Martha’s Vineyard study indicated its uncentralized use was on the rise among the island’s younger inhabits. The study noted that the island’s younger inhabitants had gradually begun adopting the conservative language patters of the island’s Chilmark fishermen. Labov determined that the youth cultured, despite the overt prestige placed on the centralized diphthong by the educational establishment, had begun to associate the use of the centralized speech patterns with the affluent tourists who visited the island and threatened their existence and identity. The use of the uncentralized diphthong of the Chilmark fishermen was then a means of co-opting traditional island values and distinguishing oneself as a ‘true’ islander. This pattern of the co-optation of marginalized dialectical forms of communication has been shown by Labov to be frequently recurring occurrence that is central concern of sociolinguistic analysis. Notably, Kiesling (1998) discusses a similar occurrence in a Labovian study that analyzed the use of fraternity males to use –in rather than –ing. It was determined that in this instance their co-optation of the marginalized slang was a means of identifying with working class values. Jocks and Burnouts Penelope Eckert’s Jocks, Burnouts, and the High School Corporate Culture offers a sociological analysis of the social culture of Belten High School. While parents and administrators often deride student’s social concerns as unnecessarily complicated and involved, Eckert argues that these extra-curricular activities “actually constitute a tightly organized, highly competitive, hierarchical social system. In fact, they constitute a corporate setting very much like of the business or the academic world (Eckert 47).” She indicates that while popular culture derisively refers to the ‘popularity contests’ inherent in high school relations, the communal structure of this institution actually mirrors the adult world. While a large portion of Eckert’s observations are sociological, she begins her investigation of sociolinguistic terminology by considering the ‘jock’ label. She argues that this is a label much like adults in the business world may refer to someone as a corporative executive or administrative assistant. She further characterizes the label as not only meaning that those called jocks plays sports, but that the term is oftentimes extended and differentiated: people who play exclusively sports are referred to as ‘sports jocks’ whereas people who are significantly involved in activities are referred to as ‘activities jocks’. Eckert argues that through their participation in extra-curricular activities, jocks are engaging in a competitive hierarchical organization. Through this they process they are, “granted special freedoms, recognition, and visibility – they attain institutional status, and gain control of many aspects of the daily life of the school (Eckert 48).” Eckert goes on to structure a dichotomous relationship between jocks and what she terms as ‘burnouts’. While the term has many connotations, it seems Eckert is referencing it as an oppositional catch-all phrase for students who can’t or don’t want to participate in the jock activities. She argues that as a result of the jock’s increased social status in regards to these activities, there emerges a considerable resentment on the part of the burnout subculture. Eckert states that there is a direct connection between jock participation in these extra-curricular activities and their future work prospects. She argues that one of the primary reasons students participate in these school functions is out of a competitive desire to attend college and these specifically in-school activities offer the greatest route towards this ultimate achievement. Again, this is contrasted with the burnout subculture that views their future as not containing forms of higher education, and as a result they fail to see the purpose in participating in these activities. According to Eckert the burnouts understand that their post-high school future is to immediately enter the work force, therefore the skills and reasons for participating in jock culture doesn’t adequately address their needs. While these observational findings are interesting and clearly have some applicability, it seems that in many regards Eckert is relying on gross generalizations. This is perhaps the key distinction between this study and previously referenced Martha’s Vineyard study. While Labov’s work is heavily linked by the scientific method and objective statistical analysis, Eckert relies entirely on an impressionistic categorization of complex social phenomenon. In labeling her sample study simply ‘jocks’ and ‘burnouts’ and extended the definition to include anything that falls into her later categorization of the two, Eckert has not offered much in the way of insightful analysis. Is it not possible that a significant amount of the college bound population is content with academic standards and not distinguishing themselves through after school activities? It seems that the phenomenon of extra-curricular activities extends far beyond the simple distinction between people who want to go to college and those who don’t. For instance, Eckert fails to acknowledge significant of lower income students who participate in sports solely as a means of entertainment, due to the lack of financial affluence that affords other students the opportunity to play video games. Further, she assumes an exceptionally large amount of manipulative callous on the part the jock participants without understanding much of the underlining importance and significance these after school activities hold not for social gain and dominance, but merely for an individual’s self-esteem and personal growth. Eckert even goes as far as claiming that jock students will purposely avoid intimate relationships with students from other schools, because it would mean they wouldn’t gain the same strategic leverage that dating a fellow jock would afford. While it’s an interesting dichotomy to consider – that is, that students who don’t participate in extra-curricular activities are somehow more community centered than school centered – it ultimately is a highly generalized description of a process that warrants critical and scientific reflection. While Eckert’s observations are not entirely substantiated by statistical analysis, there still remains a strong contingent of academic support for her method of sociolinguistic analysis. In promoting progressive interpretations of culture, noted theorist Clifford Geertz (1993) supports such a sociological view that seeks to find the deeper interpretive meaning of the cultural utterance. He writes: Culture, this acted document, is thus public.,,once human behaviour is seen as symbolic action – action which like phonation in speech, pigment in painting, line in writing, or sonance in music, signifies – the question of whether culture is patterned conduct or a frame of mind, or even the two somehow mixed together loses sense. The thing to ask is what [their - a gesture like a wink or an act] import is: what it is …that in their occurrence and through their agency, is getting said. Geertz is arguing for an interpretation of the cultural act that goes beyond descriptive means of analysis and philosophically investigates the intentions that underline individual agency. In formulating her hypothesis on extra-curricular activities as the embodiment of a deeper social structural occurrence, Eckert is advancing a long line of cultural and sociolinguistic investigation, that is not only linked to Geertz, but to theorists such as Kenneth Burke (1969, p. 19) who spoke of human interaction as "a symbolic means of inducing cooperation in beings that by nature respond to symbols." While Eckert’s dichotomous distinction between jocks and burnouts and is highly problematic and over generalized, a number of her observations are relevant in that they do seem to insightfully characterize a pervasive attitudes among certain individuals. For instance, she claims burnouts view teachers either institutionally or personally, and the personal categorization requires that they transcend their institutionally assigned role. She also argues convincingly that there is a superstructural value system within the high school institution to which students are expected to conform. While jock subculture readily submits to these values for their apparent social gain, this does not mean the burnouts are completely devoid of value; rather, Eckert believes their value system is based in strongly in social institutions existing outside the high school framework. Conclusion In conclusion, William Labov’s Martha’s Vineyard study and Penelope Eckert’s Jocks, Burnouts, and the High School Corporate Culture investigate social class through two distinct methods of sociolinguistic analysis. While Labov’s work is firmly rooted in experimental psychology and the scientific method, Eckert offers a more impressionistic social analysis. It’s difficult to deny the scientific objectivity of Labov’s results, and his statistical analysis and adherence to scientific standards have made him a theorist of considerable acclaim. Even as Eckert’s observations don’t match Labov’s scientific rigidity they still, as Geertz and Kenneth Burke attest, are necessary modes of cultural investigation. Bibliography Barthes, Roland. (1964) Elements of Semiology, Communications 4, Seuil:Paris. (This work isn’t cited within the essay, but it’s a seminal work that explains many of the tenants of semiotic analysis that can seen to have influenced theorists such as Eckert) Barthes, Roland. (1957) Mythologies, Seuil:Paris. (An influential book of essays that applies structural linguistic concepts to analyze a diverse group of cultural events, including professional wrestling.) Boyd, Danah (2007). None of this is Real: Identity and Participation in Friendster. In Joe Karaganis (Ed.) Structures of Participation in Digital Culture. (pp. 132-157) New York: Social Science Research Council. (One of my favorite journal articles. It’s an observational sociolinguistic analysis of social networking sites such as Facebook) Burke, Kenneth (1969). Grammar of Motives. California: University of California Press. (Cited in text) Crick, Malcolm (1976) Explorations in Language and Meaning, New York: Halsted Press. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University. (Cited in text) Geertz C. (1993).The interpretation of cultures: selected essays. London: Fontana Press. (Cited in text) Hymes, Dell. (1974) Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach. (Groundbreaking work in sociolinguistic analysis that defined many of the paramaters found in works such as Eckert’s) Hurst, Charles E. Social Inequality: Forms, Causes, and Consequences. 6. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc, 2007. (Great overview of cultural and institutional oppression) Kiesling, Scott F. (1998). "Mens Identities and Sociolinguistic Variation: The Case of Fraternity Men". Journal of Sociolinguistics 2: 69–99 (Cited in text) Labov, William. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: U. of Pennsylvania Press, 1972. (Cited in text) Labov, William. The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Washington, D.C.: Center For Applied Linguistics, 1966. 2006. Second edition: Cambridge/Cambridge U. Press. (Further reading on overt and covert prestige studies) Milroy, L (1992). Social network and social class: Toward an integrated sociolinguistic model. Language in Society, 21(1), 563. (Looks at how linguistic variation occurs through social relations) Ottenheimer, Harriet. The Anthropology of Language: An Introduction to Linguistic Anthropology. Wadsworth Publishing, 2008 (Great overview of linguistic anthropology) Saussure, Ferdinand de. (2002) Writings in General Linguistics, Oxford: Oxford University Press. (Cited in text) Read More