The Sociolinguistics

of the Metropolis

It is a well-known fact that small cities are friendlier than big ones. But are they? Our research on street life indicates that, if anything, the reverse is more likely to be the case. As far as interaction between people is concerned, there is markedly more of it in big cities--not just in absolute numbers but as a proportion of the total. In small cities, by contrast, you see fewer interchanges, fewer prolonged goodbyes, fewer street conferences, fewer 100% conversations. . . Individually, the friendliness quotient of the smaller might be much higher. It could also be argued that friendships run deeper in a smaller city than in a larger one. As far as frequency of interchange is concenrned, however,the streets of the big city are notably more sociable than those of a smaller one.
--William H. Whyte, City. NY: Doubleday, 1988, p. 6.

The speech community as chaos one cannot predict what a person will say a fictional construct the reality is the individual speaker an average value merely the average of individual idiolects

Ten methods for gathering linguistic data in the metropolis

Approach to Demogr. Vernacular informn Sociolinguistic interview Group sessions Participant observation Site studies Rapid & anonymous surveys Written texts Studies of mass media Laboratory experiments Direct elicitation Introspection Variable Excellent Excellent Good Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Excellent Variable Excellent Poor Poor Variable Poor Excellent Excellent Excellent Volume Sound of speech quality Excellent Variable Excellent Variable Poor Variable Variable Variable Fair None Excellent Fair None Poor None None Excellent Excellent Excellent None Control of variables Variable Poor None None Excellent None None Excellent Excellent Excellent

Ten methods for gathering linguistic data in the metropolis

Approach to Demogr. Vernacular informn Sociolinguistic interview Group sessions Participant observation Site studies Rapid & anonymous surveys Written texts Studies of mass media Laboratory experiments Direct elicitation Introspection Variable Excellent Excellent Good Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Excellent Variable Excellent Poor Poor Variable Poor Excellent Excellent Excellent Volume Sound of speech quality Excellent Variable Excellent Variable Poor Variable Variable Variable Fair None Excellent Fair None Poor None None Excellent Excellent Excellent None Control of variables Variable Poor None None Excellent None None Excellent Excellent Excellent

Percent [r] in rapid and anonymous study of three New York City department stores, 1962
% using constricted [r]
80

60

40

Some All

20

0 Saks 1962 Macy's 1962 Store S. Klein 1962

Source: Labov 1966

Percent [r] in rapid and anonymous study of three New York City department stores, 1962 and 1986
% using constricted [r]
80

60

40

Some All

20

0 Saks 1962 Macy's 1962 Store S. Klein 1962

% using constricted [r]

80

60

40

Some All

20

0 Saks 1986 Macy's 1986 Store May's 1986

Source: Labov 1966, Fowler 1986

Percent [r] in by age in Saks

Saks 1962
100 80
% using [r]

60 40

20 0 Age

15-30

35-50 Some [r] All [r]

55-70

Source: Labov 1966

Percent [r] in by age in Saks, 1962 and 1986

Saks 1962
100 80
% using [r]

60 40

20 0 Age

15-30

35-50 Some [r] All [r]

55-70

Saks 1986
100 80

% using [r]

60 40

20 0 Age

15-30

35-50 Some [r] All [r]

55-70

Source: Labov 1966, Fowler 1986

Percent [r] in by age in Macys

M acy's 1962
100 90 80 70
% using [r]

60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Age 15-30 35-50 Some [r] All [r] 55-70

Source: Labov 1966

Percent [r] in by age in Macys, 1962 and 1986

M acy's 1962
100 90 80 70
% using [r]

60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Age 15-30 35-50 Some [r] All [r] 55-70

M acy's 1986
100 80

% using [r]

60 40

20 0 Age

15-30

35-50 Some [r] All [r]

55-70

Source: Labov 1966, Fowler 1986

Percent [r] in by stress and position

1962
70 60

% using all [r]

50 40 30 20 10 0 fourth floor FOURTH FLOOR

Saks Macy's Klein

Source: Labov 1966

Percent [r] in by stress and position, 1982 and 1986

1962
70 60

% using all [r]

50 40 30 20 10 0 fourth floor FOURTH FLOOR

Saks Macy's Klein

1986
80

% using all [r]

60

40

Saks Macy's May's

20

0 f ourth f loor FOURTH FLOOR

Source: Labov 1966, Fowler 1986

Overall increase in percent [r] from 1962 to 1986

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Saks Macy's Klein's/May's 1962 1986

Source: Labov 1966, Fowler 1986

Overall increase in percent [r] from 1962 to 1996

100 90 80 70 Tiernan 1996 60 50 40 Fowler 1986 30 Labov 1962 20 10 0

Sa ks Macy's Kl ei n's/May's/Bradl ee 's

1996 1986 1962

Source: Labov 1966, Fowler 1986, Tiernan 1996

Social and stylistic stratification of (r) in the random sample of the Lower East Side of New York City [N=81]
90 80 70 60
Pe rce nt [r]

SOCIOECONOMIC CLASS

The cross-over pattern

higher

50 40 30 20 10 0 Casual Caref ul Reading

Style

9 6-8 4-5 2-3 1 0

lower

Word List

Minimal Pairs

The introduction of constricted /r/ by upper middle class youth in the spontaneous speech of the Lower East Side sample of New York City [N=81]
60

50

Pe r cent constricted /r/

40 Upper middle c lass Lower Middle clas s Working clas s Lower clas s

30

20

10

0 40 and ov er 20 to 39 A ge 8 to 19

Subjective evaluation of (r) in matched guise tests for New Yorkers by age and social class
100

80

Pe rcent positive evalua tion o f (r)

60 8 to 17 18 to 39 40 and ov er 40

20

0 Lower class Lower work ing class Upper work ing class Lower middle class Upper middle class

Percent positive response to (r) on two-choice subjective reaction test in New York City
100 90 80

Pe rce nt positive on two-c hoice test

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 16 to 17 18 to 19 20 to 24 25 to 29 A ge 30 to 34 35 to 39 40 to 49 50 to 59

The metropolis: a speech community with a high degree of social stratification on a uniform structural and evaluative base

Stratification by occupation in white employees at Macys (1962)

60

50

40

30

Some (r-1) All (r-1)

20

10

Floorwalkers

Sales

Stockboys