What are your takeaways from reading the Labov article and how does this study provide an example of the relationship between language and social status?
Powered by:
top
What are your takeaways from reading the Labov article and how does this study provide an example of the relationship between language and social status?
Powered by:
William Labov’s work, particularly his study on linguistic variation in New York City, provides significant insights into the relationship between language and social status. Labov’s study highlighted how language is stratified within society. He observed that speakers from different social classes exhibit distinct linguistic features. For example, he found that working-class speakers tended to use non-standard forms more frequently than middle-class speakers. Labov identified linguistic variables, such as the pronunciation of the postvocalic. Labov’s study demonstrated a clear correlation between linguistic variation and social status. He found that speakers from higher socioeconomic backgrounds were more likely to use prestige forms associated with standard language, while those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds were more likely to use non-standard forms.
Very good. Thank you!
The study by Labov showcases how language can be closely tied to social status. Labov’s research showed that elements of speech, such as pronunciation and vocabulary, can be indicators of a speaker’s social position. For instance he found that individuals from higher social classes often show patterns of speech associated with prestige and education, while those from lower classes may use different linguistic features.
This study highlights how language can serve as a an important role of social identity and can be influenced by factors like education, occupation, and social environment. Labov’s findings underscore the complex relationship between language and social status, showing how linguistic choices can both reflect and reinforce social hierarchies.
Very good. It also shows how people sometimes “approximate” how the believe people from a “higher” socio-economic class talk. Well done. Thank you.
One of the most important contributions to sociolinguistics is Labov’s work, namely his paper “The Social Stratification of English in New York City.” The illustration of the relationship between linguistic variance and social constructs like class and ethnicity is a crucial insight.
Labov looked into how New York City English pronounces the postvocalic /r/ in his research. He discovered that people’ pronunciations of the /r/ sound varied depending on their socioeconomic class. In particular, he noticed that compared to speakers from higher social classes, those from lower social classes were less likely to pronounce the /r/ sound in specific contexts.
This study demonstrates how social identity and position can be indicated by linguistic variety. When it comes to the pronunciation of the sound /r/, using or not using it started to be connected with specific social groups. The speakers’ need to identify with or set themselves apart from particular social groupings was reflected in the pronunciation disparities, which were social rather than linguistic in nature.
Additionally, Labov’s research emphasizes the intricate relationship between language and social context. Social factors including class, race, and sense of communal identity organize language variance rather than causing it to happen at random. Researchers can learn more about the complex ways that language both reflects and drives social dynamics by looking at linguistic elements in their social context.
Thanks for your contribution. Very good.
Labov’s article “ The Social Stratification of ( r ) in New York City Department Stores” showcases the linguistic components between language and social status. The study was able to provide proof that language is grouped within society. Labov took note that individuals from different social constructs displayed certain linguistic characteristics.
Labov noted that individuals from the working-class displayed the use of non standard form, the use of postvocalic ( r ) habitually as opposed to individuals of the middle class who dropped the ( r ) with non standard pronunciation. The study demonstrated how those of higher economic backgrounds are likely to utilize higher class forms of pronunciation as opposed to those who are of the lower economic background tend to use the non-standard form.
I think you have it a bit backwards. The “lower” groups tended to drop the post vocalic r, and the “higher” groups retain it….otherwise ok….
In William Labov’s study he attempted to prove a correlation between social class and linguistic style. By using the phonological variable r-1, or the pronunciation of r in certain words, he compared the linguistic styles of individuals working in 3 department stores in New York of varying prestige and price-points. What he found is that there was a clear pattern of social and stylistic stratification. The study found that the employees of the store with the most social prestige, Saks Fifth Ave, were more likely to use r-pronunciation. This type of speech pattern is associated with higher education and socioeconomic status, whereas the lack of r-pronunciation is associated with lower education and socioeconomic status. Macy’s, being a store advertised to the middle class but with a lower price point than Sak’s was not far behind in the r-pronunciation amongst employees. The third store S. Klein, ranked the lowest in social prestige, was found to be the least likely to have employees that use r-pronunciation. It should also be noted the stratification in employees amongst the 3 stores. S. Klein, a store with the lowest price point and one that is advertised primarily to the working class also employs the most people from varying ethnic backgrounds. Sak’s had the least variation in employees with most employees being of white or Western European backgrounds. This further proves the degree of stratification with socioeconomic status and speech patterns.
Very good contribution. Thank you!
Very good.
Labov’s research, particularly his study on linguistic variation in New York City, provides significant insights into the relationship between language and social status. Labov showed that elements of speech, such as pronunciation of the postvocalic, can have indicators of a speaker’s social position. Labov’s study demonstrated a clear correlation between linguistic variation and social status. He showed that speakers from higher socioeconomic status were more likely to use prestige forms associated with standard language, while those from lower socioeconomic status were more likely to use non-standard forms.
Labov’s study showed that how we talk can reflect our social position. For example, he found that people from higher social classes in New York City tended to pronounce certain words differently from those in lower classes. This difference in pronunciation became a way to identify someone’s social status. It’s like a code embedded in how we speak that signals where we fit in society. This study helps us see how language is not just about communication—it’s also about showing who we are in the social pecking order.
Labovs article helped me understand how people of higher to middle to lower class citizens use language especially in New York. For example people with higher social status will hold themselves up to that standard with how they communicate. This can be useful for networking. People of lower to middle social status exhibit linguistic insecurity and may feel obligated to hold themselves to that low standard with how they speak and communicate as well.
William Labov’s research provided an example of the relationship between language and social status. His research connected a person’s social status based on what a person works, how much money they make, and their wealth. Labov discovered that the linguistic variable (r) served as a socioeconomic factor in New York. Overall, rhotic /r/ was pronounced more frequently by workers in higher-class retailers who had a higher socioeconomic level than by those in lower-class establishments. Labov’s work demonstrates how both language and social status are connected based on a person’s place in society whether they are upper-class individuals or lower-class class their linguistic variables will be different from each other.