24. Dialectology and Linguistic Diffusion.pdf

24. Dialectology and Linguistic Diffusion : The Handbook of Historical Linguistics : Blackwell Reference Online

12/11/2007 03:44 PM

24. Dialectology and Linguistic Diffusion

WALT WOLFRAM AND NATALIE SCHILLING-ESTES

Subject

Linguistics » Historical Linguistics

Key-Topics

dialect

DOI:

10.1111/b.9781405127479.2004.00026.x

Dialect variation brings together language synchrony and diachrony in a unique way. Language change is

typically initiated by a group of speakers in a particular locale at a given point in time, spreading from that

locus outward in successive stages that reflect an apparent time depth in the spatial dispersion of forms.

Thus, there is a time dimension that is implied in the layered boundaries, or isoglosses , that represent

linguistic diffusion from a known point of origin. Insofar as the synchronic dispersion patterns are reflexes

of diachronic change, the examination of synchronic points in a spatial continuum also may open an

important observational window into language change in progress.

In its ideal form, the spatial-temporal interaction may be displayed through an appeal to a version of the

wave model , in which a change originating at a given locale at a particular point in time spreads from that

point in successive layers in a way likened to the waves in water that radiate from a central point of contact. 1

As a hypothetical example of the spatial-temporal reflex, let us assume that there are three linguistic

innovations, or rule changes, within a language: R1, R2, and R3. We assume further that all three changes

originate at the same geographical location, the focal area for the language change. Each one starts later

temporally than the other, so R1 is the earliest innovation, R2 the next, and R3 the third ( figure 24.1 ).

At time i , R1 is present at the location where the change originated but not in outlying areas. 2 At time ii , R1

may have spread to an outlying area while another innovation, R2, may have been initiated in the focal area.

At this point, both R1 and R2 are present at the focal site, R1 alone is present in the immediate outlying

area, and neither R1 nor R2 may have spread to an area further removed from the focal area. At time iii , the

first change, R1, may have spread to the more distant area, but not the later changes, R2 and R3. In this

hypothetical pattern of diffusion, we see that the successive dialect areas marked by isoglosses - that is,

lines delimiting the boundaries of each of these rules - in geographical space reflect successive stages of

language change over time.

Figure 24.1 The wave model of linguistic diffusion

http://www.blackwellreference.com/subscriber/uid=532/tocnode?id=g9781405127479_chunk_g978140512747926

Page 1 of 16

24. Dialectology and Linguistic Diffusion : The Handbook of Historical Linguistics : Blackwell Reference Online

12/11/2007 03:44 PM

The model represented in figure 24.1 is conceptually appealing, but it is also simplistic and it often ends up

begging essential descriptive and explanatory questions about the empirically documented facts of dialect

diffusion. What are the social and linguistic mechanisms whereby forms spread, and what is the transitional

phase like? What kinds of diffusional configurations result from the process? And, given that it has been

maintained that the dialect boundaries represented by isoglosses are “a convenient fiction existing in an

abstract moment in time” (Carver 1987: 13; and see our discussion of this point below), what might an

empirically motivated, dynamic model of diffusion look like? To a large extent, our discussion will concern

itself with establishing the kinds of conditions and qualifications that need to be set on an ideal, abstract

model of diffusion in order to connect it with the empirical facts of dialect distribution and to delimit the

documentable patterns of diffusion. Our focus is thus on the transition and embedding questions with

respect to language change rather than the actuation question, which addresses why language changes take

place to begin with (Weinreich et al. 1968). 3

Although dialect diffusion is usually associated with linguistic innovations among populations in

geographical space, a horizontal dimension, it is essential to recognize that diffusion may take place on the

vertical axis of social space as well. In fact, in most cases of diffusion, the vertical and horizontal dimensions

operate in tandem. Within a stratified population a change will typically be initiated in a particular social

class and spread to other classes in the population from that point, even as the change spreads in

geographical space. For example, Labov's research (Labov 1966, 1972a; Labov et al. 1972) indicates that

much change in American English is initiated in the working class and lower middle class and spreads from

that point to other classes.

We focus on the diffusion of dialect forms per se, but there is a fundamental sense in which the

transmission of linguistic innovation is framed by the broader question of the diffusion of innovations. For

example, Rogers (1983) argues that there are at least five factors that influence the diffusion of customs,

ideas, and practices: (i) the phenomenon itself; (ii) communications networks; (iii) distance; (iv) time; and (v)

social structure. While linguistic structures present a unique type of “phenomenon” for the examination of

diffusion, the other factors influencing diffusion, such as communications networks, distance, and social

structure, are hardly unique to the dispersion of linguistic innovations. In fact, our ensuing discussion

should confirm the essential role of all of these factors in linguistic diffusion, just as they figure prominently

in other types of diffusion.

The framing of linguistic diffusion within a more general model of diffusion however, should not be taken to

mean that the social or “external” factors that affect linguistic structure do so in ways that simply parallel

their influence with respect to other cultural phenomena. We maintain that there is a sense in which the role

of social factors in language change is fashioned to accommodate the structure of language vis-à-vis other

cultural phenomena. For example, the current sociolinguistic position on the origin of change “universally

points to the working class and lower middle class as the originators of sound change in contemporary

American English” (Kroch 1978). This locus for the initiation of change is quite different from that observed

for other cultural phenomena. With respect to technical advances, we know that middle-class groups, not

working-class groups, are the primary innovators of change so that primary social diffusion comes from the

top (Rogers 1983). For linguistic phenomena, innovations initiated by the elite tend to be limited to

borrowings from external prestige groups (Guy 1988); members of higher social classes do not introduce

changes from within the language. The current sociolinguistic position on the locus of change also differs

from the traditional position within linguistics (cf. Bloomfield 1933: 476; Joos 1952; Fisher 1958) that the

lower classes strive to emulate changes initiated by the upper classes in language as they do in other cultural

phenomena.

Furthermore, given the “natural” linguistic basis of many changes originating in the vernacular speech of the

working classes, it is convenient for a dominant group to mark itself as linguistically distinct from the

underclass by resisting or inhibiting the changes toward “more natural” processes proffered by vernacular

dialect speakers. In such a model, natural linguistic changes spread from the lower classes to the higher

social classes when they are ratified and evaluated as socially acceptable. The examination of linguistic

dispersion through a population may thus inform a more general model of diffusion about the interaction of

the innovative “phenomenon” and the social and demographic factors that enable the process of diffusion.

1 Orderly Variation and Diffusion

http://www.blackwellreference.com/subscriber/uid=532/tocnode?id=g9781405127479_chunk_g978140512747926

Page 2 of 16

24. Dialectology and Linguistic Diffusion : The Handbook of Historical Linguistics : Blackwell Reference Online

12/11/2007 03:44 PM

All change necessarily involves variation. 4 Speakers do not suddenly adopt a new form as a categorical

replacement for an older form, whether the form involves a gradual, imperceptible change in the phonetic

value of a vowel within a continuum of phonetic space or an abrupt, readily perceptible change involving the

metathesis of consonants or the linear realignment of constituents within a syntactic phrase. Instead, there

is a period of variation and coexistence between new and old forms in the process of change. This

transitional period of fluctuation has often been ignored in historical linguistics under the assumption that

language change cannot be directly observed. Further, variation in language has traditionally been dismissed

as unsystematic and irrelevant, a reflection of linguistic performance rather than competence and, hence, of

no bearing on models of language change or diffusion. However, as Weinreich et al. put it: “The key to a

rational conception of language change - indeed, of language itself - is the possibility of describing orderly

differentiation in a language serving a community … in a language serving a community, it is the absence of

structured heterogeneity that would be dysfunctional” (1968: 101).

Table 24.1Variation model of change

Stage of

change

E 1 E 2

Categorical status, before undergoing change

X X

Early stage begins variably in restricted environment

X/Y X

Change in full progress, greater use of new form in E 1 where change first initiated X/Y X/Y

Change progresses toward completion with movement toward categoricality first in

E 1 where change initiated

Y X/Y

Completed change, new variant

Y Y

An empirically based model of the dynamic process of diffusion must recognize a variable transition period

in the spread of dialect forms. However, this transitional period is not one of chaotic, random fluctuation;

instead, it is a stage of systematic variability, or “ordered heterogeneity” that guides language change

meaningfully toward completion. Following Bailey (1973), we hypothesize that there are a number of stages

that change goes through in the transition from the categorical use of one variant to its categorical

replacement by another. In between these two points are variable stages that show systematic constraints

sensitive to internal linguistic and external social factors. Furthermore, the systematic variability of

fluctuating forms will correlate synchronic relations of “more” and “less” to diachronic relations of “earlier” or

“later” stages of the change. This is perhaps best shown by setting up a simple, ideal model of the stages of

change, as we do in table 24.1 . Table 24.1 shows the change from the categorical use of one form, X , to

another, Y , in two different linguistic environments, E 1 and E 2 . Fluctuation between the forms is indicated by

X/Y .

Although the variable stages of change do not always follow the ideal model for a number of reasons (cf.

Bailey 1973; Fasold 1990; Wolfram and Schilling-Estes 1996), there is ample documentation in the

quantitative sociolinguistic literature (Labov 1980a, 1994) to affirm the general applicability of this model of

change to a broadly based set of language situations.

The notion of linguistic “environment” in such a model may be defined in terms of a structural context, such

as a syllable position in the case of phonological change or a phrasal configuration in a syntactic one, or it

may be defined in terms of lexical sets. In other words, the model itself is impartial to the Neogrammarian-

lexical diffusion controversy that has underscored the ongoing development of theories of phonological

change over the last couple of decades (see Labov 1981, 1994; Kiparsky 1988, 1995b (reprinted in this

volume); Hale, this volume). Furthermore, it should also be understood that the notion of variability in this

model applies to both intra-speaker and inter-speaker variation. In other words, an individual speaker will

go through a period of fluctuation between the old and new variant, and speakers within a given speech

community will show variation from speaker to speaker with respect to the use of the new and old variant.

To illustrate, consider the case of h in English words such as hit [hIt] for it [It] and hain't [hent] for ain't

[ent]. 5 There is ample documentation (Pyles and Algeo 1982; Jones 1989) that h was present in these words

in earlier forms of English and that it is still found to some extent in isolated regions of the United States

http://www.blackwellreference.com/subscriber/uid=532/tocnode?id=g9781405127479_chunk_g978140512747926

Page 3 of 16

24. Dialectology and Linguistic Diffusion : The Handbook of Historical Linguistics : Blackwell Reference Online

12/11/2007 03:44 PM

such as Appalachia, the Ozarks, and some Eastern coastal islands (Wolfram and Christian 1976; Wolfram et

al. 1997). At one point, h was found invariantly in these items in both phrasally stressed syllables (e.g., Hít's

the one I like ) and unstressed syllables (e.g., I líke hit ). 6 The occurrence of the h in these items then began

to fluctuate (sometimes h occurred and sometimes not in the production of a given speaker) in unstressed

syllables while it was still maintained invariantly in stressed syllables. Next, the h was variably deleted in

both unstressed and stressed syllables, but it was more frequently deleted in unstressed syllables, where the

change first started. Through time, the h was completely lost in unstressed syllables while it was variably

deleted in stressed syllables. And finally, h was lost in both stressed and unstressed syllables categorically.

The stages of this change are summarized in table 24.2 , using h to indicate the categorical presence of h, h/

Ø to indicate its variable presence, and Ø to indicate categorical absence.

Among American English dialects today, stages 3 and 4 are still represented in various isolated rural

vernacular varieties and stage 5 is current mainstream standard English usage, where the loss of h in it is

complete. 7 As found in this example, the dialect differences in the use of initial h indicated among different

sets of speakers represent an ongoing change at different stages in its progression. Although table 24.2

presents a simplified picture, given other social and linguistic complexities involved in the distribution of

this trait, it serves as a model of the progressive steps that typically characterize the orderly dispersion of a

dialect form, as well as a model of a language change still in progress in some dialect areas.

The lectal-temporal relation of tables 24.1 and 24.2 is necessarily based upon the apparent time

assumption , which has become a basic analytical construct within sociolinguistics over the past three

decades (Labov 1963, 1994; Chambers 1995; Bailey et al. 1991). The fundamental assumption of the

apparent time construct is that, other things being equal (e.g., social class, dialect contact, etc.), differences

among generations of adults will mirror actual diachronic developments in language (Bailey et al. 1991).

From this perspective, the speech of each generation is assumed to reflect the language as it existed at the

time when that generation learned the language. While the apparent time construct has been applied almost

exclusively to inter-generational differences within the same speech-community, it seems appropriate to

extend this construct to the analysis of the geographical dispersion of language change as well (Bailey et al.

1993). For example, we assume that h -dropping in hit and hain't represented in table 24.2 spread from the

urban, focal areas of change in the United States into outlying rural areas in successive stages. The change is

complete in these urban areas and therefore can no longer be observed “in progress.” At the same time, the

change can still be observed in progress in some more rural areas, as successive generations of speakers

exhibit stages 3, 4, and 5. 8

Table 24.2Stages of change in the loss of h in ( h ) it and ( h ) ain't in American English

Stage of

change

Unstressed

syllables

stressed

syllables

Earliest stage of English, before undergoing change

Earlier stage of English, at start of h loss

h/Ø

Change in full progress, h still exhibited by some older speakers in

isolated dialect areas

h/Ø

Change progressing toward completion, h exhibited in restricted

environment by some speakers in isolated dialect areas

h/Ø

Completed change, includes most English dialects outside of isolated

regions

It is typically assumed in quantitative sociolinguistics that an increase or decrease in the incidence of a

particular linguistic variant in apparent time indicates an expansion or recession of a change, respectively.

Thus, we assume in table 24.2 that the decreased use of the initial h in it and ain't by younger speakers in a

given community is indicative of a change toward the loss of the initial h . While this assumption matches the

empirical facts in this instance, it is not always the case that inter-generational differences reflect unilateral

diachronic change. The most obvious exception to the apparent time assumption is the phenomenon of age-

grading , where the use of a form is associated with a particular stage in the life cycle of a speaker. For

example, teenagers may use a particularized set of lexical items that are associated with this stage of life;

however, these items will be abandoned later in adult life because they are no longer age-appropriate.

http://www.blackwellreference.com/subscriber/uid=532/tocnode?id=g9781405127479_chunk_g978140512747926

Page 4 of 16

24. Dialectology and Linguistic Diffusion : The Handbook of Historical Linguistics : Blackwell Reference Online

12/11/2007 03:44 PM

however, these items will be abandoned later in adult life because they are no longer age-appropriate.

Meanwhile, the next generation will proceed through a similar cycle.

There are more subtle exceptions to the apparent time assumption, namely reversals and pseudo-reversals

of change in progress. These cases require more elaborate cross-sectional analysis to determine and explain

the pattern of change. One of the best-known instances of a seeming reversal of a change in progress is

that presented by Labov (1963) in his analysis of the raising of the nuclei of /ay/ and /aw/ in Martha's

Vineyard, an island located off the coast of Massachusetts that has been a noted vacation spot for

generations. Labov demonstrated that on this island, while older residents showed a movement toward the

lowering of the traditionally raised nuclei of /ay/ and /aw/, middle-aged speakers reversed this trend. This

reversal is maintained to a somewhat lesser extent by younger speakers, most likely as a way of asserting

their islander identity against mainlanders who flock to the island in ever-increasing numbers.

We have found a pattern of raising and backing for the nucleus of the /ay/ vowel on the Outer Banks island

of Ocracoke, located off the coast of North Carolina, which suggests, at first glance, that the recession of

raised /ay/ is being reversed in a way parallel to that reported by Labov (1963) for raised /ay/ and /aw/ in

Martha's Vineyard (Wolfram and Schilling-Estes 1996). Ocracoke Island, settled in the early 1700s, is located

about 20 miles from mainland North Carolina and, to this day, is not accessible by road. Thus, Ocracokers

were isolated not only geographically but socially for about two and a half centuries. Shortly after World War

II, the longstanding isolation of Ocracoke Island came to an end, and a vibrant tourist industry transformed

the island. Historically, the Outer Banks region was characterized by a distinct production of /ay/ which was

close to the phonetic value [y] - a production which has led to their characterization as “hoi toiders,” for

high tiders . In Ocracoke, as in Martha's Vineyard, there are select groups of middle-aged speakers with

more /ay/-raising than older speakers. This patterning suggests a reversal of a change in progress that

parallels the Martha's Vineyard case, especially when coupled with the fact that the lowering of the nucleus

of /ay/ to a low central vowel is a process which affected most varieties of English at some point in history.

However, when we compare the youngest group of speakers with both the middle-aged and oldest

generations of speakers we find a dramatic decrease of [y] for the young speakers compared with the two

older age groups. Thus, the overall pattern of change across the three generations does not show a reversal

of a change in progress but a temporary revitalization of the traditional variant before the complete erosion

of [y]. The “pseudo-reversal” we observe in Ocracoke is, then, quite different from the reversal of change

reported for Martha's Vineyard.

The orderly transition of linguistic forms not only shows systematic relationships between the relative use of

variants in terms of earlier and later stages of spreading forms. Change also tends to show a characteristic

trajectory slope in the relative rate of progression through its transitional stage. Most variationists

(Weinreich et al. 1968; Bailey 1973; Labov 1994) maintain that there is a prototypical rate of change which

applies to the dispersion of new forms. This pattern appears to apply both to the adoption of new forms on

an individual level (Bailey 1973) and to the spread of forms within a new community (Weinreich et al. 1968).

Change tends to start out at a slow rate, progressing rapidly in mid-course, and then slowing down again in

the last stages, modeling the trajectory of an S-shaped curve. The change slope applies to change on an

intra-speaker and inter-speaker level; it also applies to change taking place along a vertical or horizontal

plane. As Bailey et al. note:

Like diffusion through the social spectrum, spatial diffusion takes place in a three-part

temporal process that simulates an S curve, with a period of infancy, of slow expansion, during

which the trait is relatively uncommon; a middle period of rapid expansion after a critical

threshold has been reached; and a later period of saturation and filling in as potential adopters

become scarce.

(1993: 366)

Such a model has implications for several different dimensions of the diffusion process, including the

observation of diffusion in progress. For example, the relatively rapid rate of progression through the mid-

course of change makes this period of change less accessible to direct observation than change at its

endpoints. The window for observing change in progress will be open longer at the endpoints of the change

trajectory - when the older or newer form is clearly predominant - than at a midpoint of change when the

fluctuation between forms is likely to be most balanced between the use of the new and old variant.

http://www.blackwellreference.com/subscriber/uid=532/tocnode?id=g9781405127479_chunk_g978140512747926

Page 5 of 16

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika: