Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T07:55:41.317Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some principles of linguistic methodology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2008

William Labov
William Labov
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Current difficulties in achieving intersubjective agreement in linguistics require attention to principles of methodology which consider sources of error and ways to eliminate them. The methodological assumptions and practices of various branches of linguistics are considered from the standpoint of the types of data gathered: texts, elicitations, intuitions and observations. Observations of the vernacular provide the most systematic basis for linguistic theory, but have been the most difficult kinds of data for linguists to obtain; techniques for solving the problems encountered are outlined. Intersubjective agreement is best reached by convergence of several kinds of data with complementary sources of error.

Type
Articles
Information
Language in Society , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , April 1972 , pp. 97 - 120
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1972

References

REFERENCES

Black, M. & Metzger, D. (1965). Ethnographic description and the study of law. (AmA 67 (6) Pt 2, 141–65.)Google Scholar
Reprinted in Tyler, S. A. (ed.) (1969), Cognitive anthropology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. 137–65.Google Scholar
Bloom, L. (1970). Language development. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. New York: Henry Holt.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, L. (1927). Literate and illiterate speech. In American Speech 2. 432–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broadbent, D. E. (1962). Attention and the perception of speech. Scientific American 206. 143–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, R. (1970). Psycholinguistics. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Brown, R. (1971). A first language. Mimeographed.Google Scholar
Carden, G. (1970). A note on conflicting idiolects. Linguistic Inquiry I. 281–90.Google Scholar
Chen, M. & Hsieh, H. (1971). The time variable in phonological change. JL 7. 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, C. & Wang, W. (1970). Phonological change of middle Chinese initials. In Project on linguistic analysis 2. 10Berkeley: University of California.Google Scholar
Chao, Y. (1934). The non-uniqueness of phonemic solutions of phonetic systems. In Hamp, E., Householder, F., and Austerlitz, R. (eds), Readings in Linguistics II. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1961). Some methodological remarks on generative grammar. Word 17. 219–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1966). Topics in the theory of generative grammar. In Sebeok, T. (ed.), Current trends in linguistics 3: linguistic theory. Bloomington, Ind.: Ind. University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1970). Remarks on nominalization. In Rosenbaum, P., and Jacobs, R. (eds), Readings in transformational grammar.Google Scholar
Cook, S. (1969). ‘Language change and the emergence of an urban dialect in Utah’. Unpublished University of Utah dissertation.Google Scholar
Elliott, D., Legum, S. & Thompson, S. (1969). Syntactic variation as linguistic data. In Binnick, R. et al. Papers from the fifth regional meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Department of Lingustics, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Gauchat, L. (1905). L'unité phonétique dana le patois d'une commune. In Aus romanisehen sprachen und literaturen: festschrift heinrich morf. Halle: Max Niemeyer. 575–232.Google Scholar
Gleason, H. A. Jr (1961). Introduction to descriptive linguistics (2nd edition). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Gleitman, L. (1971). The child as grammarian. Mimeographed.Google Scholar
Goidanich, P. G. (1926). Saggio critico sullo studio de L. Gauchat. In Archivio Glottologico Italiano XX. 60–71.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. (1964). Linguistic and social interaction in two communities. In Gumperz, J. and Hymes, D. (eds), The ethnography of communication. (AmA 66 (6) Pt 2) Washington, D.C.: American Anthropological Association. 137–53.Google Scholar
Harris, Z. (1965). Transformational theory. Lg 41. 363–401.Google Scholar
Heringer, J. T. (1970). Research on quantifier-negative idiolects. In Papers from sixth regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago. 287–96.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. S. (1968). Quantifiers in English. FL 4. 422–42.Google Scholar
Kuhn, S. M. & Quirk, R. (1953). Some recent interpretations of Old English digraph spellings. Lg 29. 143–56.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1963). The social motivation of a sound change. Word 19. 273–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reprinted in Scott, C., and Erickson, J. (eds), (1968) Readings for the history of the English language. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. 345–79.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1970). Linguistics and natural logic. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, L. & Crockett, H. J. Jr, (1966). Speech variation in a Piedmont community: postvocalic r. In Lieberson, S. (ed.), Explorations in sociolinguistics: sociological inquiry 36:2. Reprinted as Publication, 44 I.J.A.L. 1966.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1966a). The social stratification of English in New York City. Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1966b). On the grammaticality of everyday speech. Paper given before the Linguistic Society of America, New York City, 1966.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1969). The logic of non-standard English. In Alatis, J. (ed.), Linguistics and the teaching of standard English to speakers of other languages or dialects. (Georgetown University Monograph Series on Languages and Linguistics 22). Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 1–44.Google Scholar
(Reprinted in Williams, F. (ed.), Language and poverty; perspectives on a theme. Chicago: Markham, 1970. 154–191.)Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1970 a). Proposal for continuation of research on sound changes in progress, submitted to National Science Foundation (NSF-GS-3287).Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1970 b) The study of language in its social context. In Studium generale 23. 30–87.Google Scholar
Labov, W., Cohen, P., Robins, C. & Lewis, J. (1968). A study of the non-standard English of Negro and Puerto Rican Speakers in New York City. Cooperative Research Report 3288. Vols I and II. New York: Columbia University. (Reprinted by U.S. Regional Survey, 3812 Walnut St, Eisenlohr Hall 202, Phila., PA 19104.)Google Scholar
Mitchell-Kernan, C. (1969). Language behavior in a black urban community. Working paper No. 23. Berkeley, Cal.: Language—Behavior Laboratory, University of California.Google Scholar
Morgan, J. L. (1969). On arguing about semantics. Papers in Linguistics I. 49–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nida, E. (1949). Morphology (2nd edition). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Osthoff, H. & Brugman, K. (1878). Preface to Morphological investigations in the sphere of the Indo-European languages I. Trans. W. P. Lehmann. In Lehmann, W. P. (ed.) (1967), A reader in nineteenth-century historical Indo-European linguistics. Bloomington, md.: Indiana University Press. 197–209.Google Scholar
Pike, K.Phonemics. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Popper, K. R.The logic of scientific discovery. New York: Basic Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Postal, P. (1968). ‘Cross-over constraints’. Paper given at the Winter 1968 meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, New York.Google Scholar
Saussure, F. (1962). Cours de linguistique générale. Paris: Payot.Google Scholar
Shuy, R., Wolfram, W. & Riley, W. K. (1967). A study of social dialects in Detroit. Final Report, Project 6–1347. Washington, D.C.: Office of Education, 1967.Google Scholar
Stockwell, R. P. & Barritt, C. W. (1961). Scribal practice: some assumptions. Lg 37. 75–82.Google Scholar
Trudgill, P. J. (1971). The social differentiation of English in Norwich. Unpublished Edinburgh University dissertation.Google Scholar
Wedge, G. & Ingemann, F. (1970). Tag questions, syntactic variables, and grammaticality. In Papers from the Fifth Kansas Linguistics Conference. 166–203.Google Scholar
Weinreich, U., Labov, W. & Herzog, M. (1968). Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. In Lehmann, W. and Malkiel, Y. (eds.), Directions for historical linguistics. Austin, Texas: University of Texas. 97–195.Google Scholar
Wolfe, P. (1969). ‘Linguistic change and the Great Vowel Shift in English’. Unpublished University of California (Los Angeles) dissertation.Google Scholar