NOTES
6.3 WILLIAM LABOV AND THE VARIABILITY CONCEPT
The variability concept is rooted in the tradition of American, British and Prague structuralism and influenced by the traditional linguistic disciplines that are concerned with the analysis of speech variation, such as dialectology, anthropological linguistics and research on languages in contact. It starts from a completely different theoretical position than the code theory and uses much more adequate descriptive methods for analysing different language varieties than Bernstein and his followers who were trained psychologists and education researchers.
166 Understanding pragmatics
The difference hypothesis assumes that language varieties are functionally equivalent ‘in relation to the possibilities of expression and the logical capacity for analysis’ and aims at the ‘explanation of all linguistic differentiations caused by the intervention of social and regional parameters, and of their correlations with the social structure’ (Dittmar 1976: 103). Thus, contrary to the directed hypotheses of research in the code theory paradigm that try to explain the role of differently evaluated speech codes for the social success of its speakers at school by considering just a limited number of social parameters, the research hypotheses within the variability concept are undirected. The speech behaviour described in the variability concept paradigm is not observed in formal test situations (mostly) in school contexts, but in naturally occurring social interactions on the basis of participant observation and other, specially developed methods of data gathering (see Labov 1970b, 1972d). The aim is to discover socially determined speech norms, both on the micro level – where forms of verbal interaction between individuals are analysed – and on the macro level – where the distribution and function of speech varieties in a society are researched (see Dittmar 1976: 103). Language is studied in its social context with a strong emphasis on the specific speech situation and the social background and significance of the communicative interaction and the speakers involved. In addition, questions about the pragmatic functions of language varieties are in the focus of the variability concept.
For the purposes pursued here, this section will concentrate only on a few of Labov’s papers which refute the deficit hypothesis and compensatory education programmes, especially in ghetto schools. Labov starts his paper on ‘The logic of nonstandard English’
with the observation that these programmes are based on the assumption that the Black children in these schools ‘show a cultural deficit as a result of an impoverished environment in their early years. As far as language is concerned, the deficit theory appears as a concept of “verbal deprivation”’ (Labov 1970a: 153). Labov supports this assessment with quotes from Bereiter et al.’s (1966) and Bereiter and Engelmann’s (1966) publications on this topic which are based on Bernstein’s code theory. Labov writes:
Bereiter’s program for an academically oriented preschool is based upon their premise that Negro children must have a language with which they can learn, and their empirical finding that these children come to school without such a language. In his work on four-year-old Negro children from Urbana, Bereiter reports that their communication was by gestures, ‘single words’, and ‘a series of badly connected words or phrases’ such as They mine and Me got juice. He reports that Negro children could not ask questions, that ‘without exaggeration ... these four-year-olds could make no statements of any kind’. Furthermore, when these children were asked ‘Where is the book?’, they did not know enough to look at the table where the book was lying in order to answer. Thus Bereiter concludes that the children’s speech forms are nothing more than a series of emotional cries, and he decides to treat them ‘as if the children had no language at all’. He identifies their speech with his interpretation of Bernstein’s restricted code: ‘the language of culturally deprived children ... is not merely an underdeveloped version of standard English, but is a basically non-logical mode of expressive behavior’ (Bereiter et al., 1966. p. 113).
(Labov 1970a: 156f.)
Pragmatics and politics 167 Labov debunks ‘the notion of “verbal deprivation” [as] a part of the modern mythology of educational psychology’ and sets out to ‘clear away’ this ‘illusion ... and provide a more adequate notion of the relations between standard and non-standard dialects’. He shows that the ‘empirical’ findings reported by Bereiter and his co-workers are based on ‘a poor understanding of the nature of language’ (Labov 1970a: 154) and points out that the interview data gathered and presented by Bereiter to illustrate and justify his analysis are based on the
asymmetrical situation ... where anything [the child] says can literally be held against him. He has learned a number of devices to avoid saying anything in this situation ... If one takes this interview as a measure of the verbal capacity of the child, it must be as his capacity to defend himself in a hostile and threatening situation ... The verbal behavior which is shown by the child ... is ... the result of regular sociolinguistic factors operating upon adult and child in this asymmetrical situation.
(Labov 1970a: 158) On the basis of his own data and data gathered by his collaborators, Labov illustrates that ‘in many ways working-class speakers are more effective narrators, reasoners, and debaters than many middle-class speakers who temporize, qualify, and lose their argument in a mass of irrelevant detail’ (Labov 1970a: 164). His comparative analysis of Standard English and what he calls Non-standard Negro English (NNE) reveals that both dialects follow distinct grammatical rules and a logic of their own and he points out that ‘[a]ll linguists who work with NNE recognize that it is a separate system, closely related to Standard English but set apart from the surrounding white dialects by a number of persistent and systematic differences’ (Labov 1970a: 184). The fact that the data and insights on the NNE gathered and gained by linguists like Labov differ so much from the claims of educational psychologists like Bereiter and Engelmann is due to the different theoretical and methodological approaches to this variety of American English. The insights gained by research done within the framework of the variability concept reveal the inadequacy and fallacies of the deficit hypothesis and its ‘ignorance of the most basic facts about human language and the people who speak it’ (Labov 1970a: 187). Labov concludes his plea for an appropriate treatment of the non-standard dialect of Black schoolchildren as follows: ‘That educational psychology should be strongly influenced by a theory so false to the facts of language is unfortunate; but that children should be the victims of this ignorance is intolerable’ (Labov 1970a: 187).
Insights like this illustrate that at least at this point of the controversy scholars like Labov were completely aware of the political importance and impact of their research.
The highly political controversy about how to assess and understand the speech behaviour of Blacks in the USA pedagogically, socially and linguistically motivated Labov and other linguists working within the theoretical framework of the variability concept to continue and intensify their research on this variety of American English.
The various labels they used to refer to this language variety – Non-standard Negro English (NNE) – Black English Vernacular (BEV) – Afro-American (Vernacular) English (AA(V)E) – African American Language (AAL) – mirror the political impact this research had over the years, as well as the various political and linguistic ideologies
168 Understanding pragmatics
with respect to the ‘politically’ correct reference to this variety. In a number of studies Labov (1972a) described the structure – the grammatical and semantic rules – of AAL in which he explained, for example, why a sentence like
It ain’t no cat can’t get in no coop does not mean:
*’There isn’t any cat that cannot get into any [pigeon] coop.’
but, according to the grammatical and semantic rules of the AAL:
‘There isn’t any cat that can get into any [pigeon] coop.’
(Labov 1972a: 130).
Moreover, Labov studied the use of AAL in ritual insults (see 3.3.1 above) and in stories of personal experience (see also Dittmar 1976: 226–235) and analysed this language in its specific social setting in New York City. He impressively illustrates not only the creative power of the grammar of the language spoken by the Blacks in South Central Harlem, but also the ‘great verbal skills’ its speakers display, for example in ritual insults that are ‘well-organized speech event(s) which [occur] with great frequency in the verbal interaction of black adolescents ... and [occupy] long stretches of their time’
(Labov 1972b: 305). Despite their low level of achievement in school, the Black adolescents who get engaged in ritual insults show (off) their highly-developed linguistic competence and capabilities within this form of interaction with members of their peer group. Detailed and minute studies like these contributed to finishing the hot and often highly ideological controversy between the supporters of the code theory and their opponents, who argued on the basis of the variability concept. The outcome of the dispute was finally a matter of a good theory driving out a bad one.3
That ideology also played a role for the Black adolescents in Harlem themselves and not only for the linguists who researched their verbal behaviour was illustrated by Labov in his article on ‘The linguistic consequences of being a lame’. The Harlem adolescents refer to ‘isolated children who grow up without being members of any vernacular peer group’ as ‘lames’. Therefore they do not have the grammatical competence and the verbal skills to adequately interact with members of these groups.
They all simply ‘lack the knowledge which is necessary to run any kind of game in the vernacular culture’, as Labov (1972c: 84) points out. Thus, ‘language is one of the most striking and salient emblems of lame status’ (Labov 1972c: 108). This reveals that the speakers of AAL have developed a language ideology which excludes, segregates and denounces individuals whose Black English (BE) language variety is closer to Standard English (SE) than to the BE spoken in the vernacular culture. Labov’s research results in the following insights:
Categorical or semi-categorical rules of BE are weakened to variable rules by the Lames;
variable rules that are in strong use in BE are reduced to a low level by the Lames.
Pragmatics and politics 169 Whenever there is a contrast between SE and BE, the language of the lames is shifted dramatically to SE. In many cases, this leads to a close alignment between the Lames and white non-standard vernaculars.
(Labov 1972c: 98) However, as Labov points out, these ‘lames’ are quite often consultants of linguists and anthropologists, because these ‘marginal men ... are detached from their own society far enough to be interested and accessible to the language, the problems and preoccupations of the investigator’. As consultants they cannot but give ‘an inaccurate or misleading account of the vernacular culture’ (Labov 1972c: 110). It is evident that this is an important insight for anthropological, linguistic and pragmatic research:
[A]n accurate description of a language will demand some knowledge of the social structure of its users. We must be able to find our way through the various intersecting patterns of the normally heterogeneous society if we are to locate the most uniform and consistent forms of the grammar, since an understanding of variation requires a realistic assessment of the invariance that accompanies it.
(Labov 1972c: 108) This knowledge is only gained by studying the speakers’ actual use of language in social interactions.
The deficit versus difference hypothesis controversy resulted in innovative methodological tools and theoretical as well as practical insights which are extremely important for present-day research on endangered languages and efforts to revitalize them. Projects that aim to document and revitalize endangered languages require descriptive competence and sociolinguistic – or, if you like, ethnographic and pragmatic – expertise to gain insights into why a language is endangered and what effects this process has on the speakers’ attitudes towards their language. This knowledge puts linguists engaged in these endeavours into the position to decide whether there are chances to reverse language shift in progress that will otherwise lead to language loss. The attitudes of speakers of endangered language are very much shaped by their own language ideologies and by those of others (see Senft 2010c). In the next subsection of this chapter we will have a closer look at language ideologies and their implications for research in pragmatics.