Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T23:47:07.590Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The status of variable rules in sociolinguistic theory1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Suzanne Romaine
Suzanne Romaine
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, University of Birmingham
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

INTRODUCTION In a recent paper, Botha (1976) suggests that the analysis of linguistic argumentation is a ‘non-normal’ thing for linguists to do. ‘Normally’, he maintains, ‘linguists are oriented towards uncovering the nature of human language, and not the nature of linguistic science.’ Botha (1976: 3) even goes so far as to claim that the analysis of a form of argumentation is not a sort of linguistic analysis; it is instead a form of philosophical analysis. Some philosophers would probably disagree here with Botha and say that philosophical analysis is a sort of linguistic analysis. I am thinking here of Wittgenstein, for example, and the so-called philosophers of language who accept the view that the business of philosophy is to deal with the question of how words mean what they mean, etc., rather than to offer a comprehensive theory of the universe. It is difficult to draw a line of demarcation between a discipline proper and the study of the methodological underpinnings of that discipline, which I am not sure is essential anyway. My point is that a certain amount of self-criticism and awareness of the status of theoretical concepts and arguments can do linguists no harm.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 17 , Issue 1 , March 1981 , pp. 93 - 119
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1981

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Albó, X. (1970). Social constraints on Cochabamba Quechua. Ph.D. dissertation. Cornell University.Google Scholar
Anttila, R. (1974). Formalization as degeneration in historical linguistics. In Anderson, J. M. & Jones, C. (eds.), Historical linguistics: proceedings of the First International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: North Holland. Vol. 1:1–32.Google Scholar
Anttila, R. (1975). Was there a generative historical linguistics? In Dahlstedt, K-H. (ed.), The Nordic languages and modern linguistics. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. 70–92.Google Scholar
Bailey, C-J. (1969). Implicational scales in diachronic linguistics and dialectology. Working Papers in Linguistics. I. University of Hawaii. 123–138.Google Scholar
Bailey, C-J. (1973). Variation and linguistic theory. Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Bickerton, D. (1973a). On the nature of a creole continuum. Lg 49. 641–669.Google Scholar
Bickerton, D. (1973b). The chimera of context. Working Papers in Linguistics. University of Hawaii.Google Scholar
Bickerton, D. (1975). Dynamics of a creole system. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Botha, R. (1976). On the analysis of linguistic argumentation. In Wirth, J. (ed), Assessing linguistic arguments. Washington: Hemisphere Publishing. 1–35.Google Scholar
Braithwaite, R. B. (1960). Scientfic explanation. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Cedergren, H. (1973). The interplay of social and linguistic factors in Panama. Ph.D. dissertation. Cornell University.Google Scholar
Cedergren, H. & Sankoff, D. (1974). Variable rules: performance as a statistical reflection of competence. Lg 50. 333–355.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1966). Cartesian linguistics. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Cohen, D. (ed.) (1974). Explaining linguistic phenomena. Washington. D.C.: Hemisphere Publishing.Google Scholar
Cohen, D. & Wirth, J. (eds.) (1975). Testing linguistic hypotheses. Washington, D.C.: Hemisphere Publishing.Google Scholar
DeCamp, D. (1970). Is a sociolinguistic theory possible? In Alatis, J. (ed.), Linguistics and the teaching of Standard English to speakers of other languages and dialects. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. 151–173.Google Scholar
Fasold, R. (1978). Language variation and linguistic competence. In Sankoff, D. (ed), Linguistic variation, models and methods. New York: Academic Press. 85–95.Google Scholar
Feigl, H. & Brodbeck, M. (eds.) (1953). Readings in the philosophy of science. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P. (1978). Against method. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Gal, S. (1978). Peasant men can't get wives: language change and sex roles in a bilingual community. Language in Society 7. 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guy, G. (1974). Variation in the group and the individual: the case of final stop deletion. Pennsylvania Working Papers on Linguistic Change and Variation. Vol. II. No. 4.Google Scholar
Harré, R. (1972). The principles of scientific thinking. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Harré, R. (1976). The philosophies of science. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hayek, F. (1952). The counter-revolution of science. Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Hempel, C. G. (1965). Aspects of scientific explanation and other essays in the philosophy of science. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Hesse, M. (1974). The structure of scientfic inference. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations in sociolinguistics. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Kanngiesser, S. (1972). Untersuchungen zur Kompetenztheorie und zum sprachlichen Handeln. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik 7. 13–45.Google Scholar
Kay, P. (1978). Variable rules, community grammar and linguistic change. In Sankoff, D. (ed), Linguistic variation, models and methods. New York: Academic Press. 71–82.Google Scholar
Kay, P. & McDaniel, C. (1979). On the logic of variable rules. Language in Society 8. 151–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koestler, A. (1978). Janus. A summing up. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Kroch, A. & Small, C. (1978). Grammatical ideology and its effect on speech. In Sankoff, D. (ed.), Linguistic Variation, models and methods. New York: Academic Press. 45–55.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1963). The social motivation of a sound change. Word 19. 273–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, W. (1966). The social stratification of English in New York City. Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1969). Contraction, deletion and inherent variability of the English copula. Lg 45. 715–762.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1972a). Some principles of linguistic methodology. Language in Society I. 97–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, W. (1972b). The study of language in its social Context. In Labov, W.Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 183–259.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1975). The quantitative study of linguistic structure. In Dahlstedt, K-H. (ed.), The Nordic languages and modern linguistics. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. 188–245.Google Scholar
Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In Lakatos, I. & Musgrave, A. (eds), Criticism and the growth of knowledge. London: Cambridge University Press. 91–19%.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakatos, I. & Musgrave, A. (eds) (1970). Criticism and the growth of knowledge. London: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le Page, R. B. Theoretical aspects of sociolinguistic studies in pidgin and creole languages. Paper given at the Conference on Directions of Theoretical Orientations in Creole Studies. St. Thomas, Virgin Islands. 03 1979.Google Scholar
Linell, P. (1976). Is linguistics an empirical science? SL 30. 77–94.Google Scholar
Macaulay, R. K. S. (1976). Review of Trudgill, P. (1974). The social dyfferentiation of English in Norwich. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lg 52. 266–270.Google Scholar
Milroy, A. L. & Margrain, S. (1978). Vernacular language loyalty and social network. Belfast Working Papers in Language and Linguistics. Vol. 3: 1–59.Google Scholar
Naro, A. (1978). The social and structural dimensions of a syntactic change. Unpublished Ms.Google Scholar
Polanyi, M. (1973). Personal knowledge. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Popper, K. (1961). The poverty of historicism. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Popper, K. (1972). Objective knowledge. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Popper, K.. (1977) The logic of scientific discovery. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Ringen, J. (1975). Linguistic facts: A study of the empirical scientific status of transformational generative grammars. In Cohen, & Wirth, (eds), Testing linguistic hypotheses. Washington, D.C.: Hemisphere Publishing. 1–41.Google Scholar
Romaine, S. (1979). On the non-decisiveness of quantitative solutions: Why Labov was wrong about contraction and deletion of the copula. Work in Progress. Department of Linguistics. Edinburgh University. No. 12. 10–17.Google Scholar
Romaine, S. (1980). What is a speech community? Belfast Working Papers in Language and Linguistics. Vol. 4. 41–60.Google Scholar
Sankoff, D. & Labov, W. (1979). On the uses of variable rules. Language in Society 8: 189–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saussure, F. de (1966). Course in general linguistics. (trans. Baskin, W.). New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
Scheffler, I. (1963). The anatomy of inquiry. Philosophical studies in the theory of science. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Von Mises, R. (1951). Positivism. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Weinreich, U., Labov, W. & Herzog, M. (1968). Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. In Lehmann, W. P. & Malkiel, Y. (eds), Directions for historical linguistics. Austin: University of Texas Press. 95–189.Google Scholar
Winch, P. (1958). The idea of a social science and its relation to philosophy. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Wolfram, W. (1971). Social dialects from a linguistic perspective. In Shuy, R. (ed.). Sociolinguistics. A cross-disciplinary perspective. Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics. 86–135.Google Scholar
Wolfram, W. & Fasold, R. (1974). The study of social dialects in American English. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar