1. Assignment 1: Compare Labov’s study with other regional dialect studies. Why is Labov’s
study more popular than other regional dialect study?
Introduction
Labov is known to be one of the many sociolinguists in his time to research on dialects
and sociolinguistic which are different than other regional dialect studies. His most famous
studies are the Martha Wineyeard study which he did for his MA in 1963 and New York City
focuses on the pronunciation which he compared to that of the English pronunciation spoken in
that area. For Martha Wineyard study, the focus was on the dipthongs of [ay] and [aw] while The
New York City study was on the [r] sound. These studies brought about the idea that social class
will affect the manner of how English is spoken and pronounced; whether it is for self
confidence or that of a subconscious societal manner of speaking through the years.
Labov’s studies and implications
Juchem (2003) points that the important and special method used by Labov in his studies
as compared to other regional dialect studies is because he did not separate language usage form
the social context that he was researching on. As such, his recordings and findings were
authentic and that they are reliable and valid towards the context given. By collecting the data
based on the real context of language being used and spoken to, Labov is able to make valid
assumptions towards the social behavior on spoken language based on social hierarchy, social
esteem and social class. This is because, unlike other regional dialects studies such as those from
Bernstein or Bereiter & Engelmann, Labov had conducted his research through quantitative
method by coming up with charts and graphs that proves the linguistic variation of a society
(Lock & Strong, 2010). Staying true to his objectives for his researches as ‘to avoid the

2. inevitable obscurity of texts, the self-consciousness of formal elicitations, and the self-deception
of introspection’ (Labov, 1972), Labov had denounced several studies done by other
sociolinguists towards the similar linguistic findings and variations.
The main finding from his studies was that Labov was able to prove how varied the
individuals of a social class can use to communicate when they are in a different context or with
different interlocutors. During his time, the education system was mapped out according to the
viewpoint that lower-class speakers which are influenced by their cultural circumstances are
bound to be linguistically deficit whereby they do not have the schemata to improve and learn to
speak the Standard English (Lock & Strong, 2010). This conclusion was based on Bernstein’s
studies towards the African American during the 1960s. Berstein’s study, though has its strength
in understanding sociolinguistic, shows that Berstein has compared what is perceived to be the
Standard English and that any cultural usage of English that uses the language without following
the lexical and syntactically manner of the language is deemed to be not right.
Labov’s studies thus have become more popular and widely accepted as he views and
studies the language in the culture of its own. He points out that the standard classroom culture is
highly different from that of the experiences, family values and ways of living among each child.
Through the analysis done by Labov, he had even find that lower class speakers tend to
‘hypercorrect’ themselves when given the chance and intimidation. As such, it cannot be
assumed that these children have inferior mother tongue or language capabilities (Labov, 1972).
His recordings on narration of verbal stories became the strong base of how a natural
conversation among people can happen and how the usage of language will thus, be different.

3. This quantitative method of analyzing conversational data bring about the birth of the notion
towards understanding people (speakers) influencing each other in dialogues and forms rather
than having the usage of words that has a specified meaning to be used correctly in the supposed
context. Past researches has focused more towards the appropriateness of words (as to follow the
Standard English usage) grammatically which is now viewed as Critical Discourse Analysis
(CDA). However, Labov’s notion has help in developing the Conversation Analysis (CA) to
study cultural language usage although he did assured through his writings that there can be no
one definite way to code and analyze the linguistic data as many factors come into play. This is
because language usage is not only influenced by the nucleus scope that the individual lives in
but of a wider exterior factor such as political stability, economical strength and even the welfare
solidity. As such, to have stratification towards a society or ethnic class is highly deemed
inappropriate when it takes into consideration of language use per se.
Conclusion
Labov’s studies has brought about a new methodology in conducting linguistic research
as he believes in spontaneous interviews and anonymous investigation by going down to the field
where language is authentically used on everyday communication. The linguistic variable that
denotes the social classes which Labov has found influences many other sociolinguistic studies
from then. Focusing on society instead of language, Labov is able to explain a whole new
spectrum of the importance of language as a tool of communication in a certain culture. Through
the popularity and widely accepted studies of his detailed explanation, William Labov is
considered as the founding father of sociolinguistics.

4. Reference List
Lock, A & Strong, T. (2010). Social constructionism: Sources and stirrings in theory and practice.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Juchem, M. (2003). W. Labov: Case study martha’s vineyard and new york. Retrieved 24
November, 2011 from http://www.maria-juchem.de/Labov.PDF