Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-14T06:44:08.975Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

2 - The “push” of Lautgesetze, the “pull” of enregisterment

from Part I - Theorising social meaning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2016

Michael Silverstein
Affiliation:
University of Chicago
Nikolas Coupland
Affiliation:
University of Wales College of Cardiff
Get access

Summary

Without question the enterprise of linguistics was decisively transformed, in Leipzig, Halle, and elsewhere, by what flowed from the comparative-historical study of Indo-European and other recognized language families. By the last quarter of the nineteenth century, serious scholars in the discipline sought to base generalizing theories about the nature of language on these results, intending to make the speculative philosophizing of Enlightenment savants disappear in the brighter and better light of empirical generalizations about language change that evidence, in turn, how language must function. By the post–Great War twentieth century, language change itself, once the central focus of linguistics – “diachrony” of linguistic systems, in Ferdinand de Saussure's terminology – came to be viewed counterdirectionally through the lens of “synchronic” structural states immanent in the actualized forms and functions of language. And indeed, for the rest of the century until the current day, the presumption of such immanent structural systematicity in relation to the actualized and experienced forms and functions of language has played the central role in investigating language change. Understood as change of the way forms code denotational meanings of language, it is seen as an inevitable outcome of the universal fact of variation in discursive performance within a language community. The synchronically based reimagination of Neogrammarian Lautgesetze has been in this respect variationist sociolinguistics’ key affordance, both in phonology and, more problematically, beyond.

In light of a Foucauldian genealogy of ideas, I will counterpose a more semiotically and social anthropologically informed view of what is termed “variation” in terms of indexicality – the quality of signs such as phonetic parameters to point to aspects of their context of production and reception – and of variation's enregisterment – the frequently only intuitively felt property of textual (“stylistic”) coherence of indexical and other compatible signs one with another in the flow of discourse that defines an abstractable schema, a subgrammar, for context-appropriate and context-effective modes of communicating. Observe that enregisterment partially structures the norms immanent in any measurable indexical effects in the real-time use of language by filtering such indexicality through the lens of form in denotational code.

Type
Chapter
Information
Sociolinguistics
Theoretical Debates
, pp. 37 - 67
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2016

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

Agha, Asif. 2007. Language and Social Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Andersen, Henning. 1973. “Abductive and deductive change.” Language 49, 4: 765–793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austin, John L. 1975. How to Do Things with Words, Urmson, J. O. and Sbisà, Marina, eds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1972. An attempt at a theory of phonetic alternations. In Stankiewicz, Edward (trans. and ed.), A Baudouin de Courtenay Anthology: The Beginnings of Structural Linguistics. Bloomington and London: Indiana University Press, 144–212. (Originally published in 1895.)Google Scholar
Benveniste, Emile. 1962. Pour l'analyse des fonctions casuelles: le génitif Latin. Lingua 11, 1: 10–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1926. A set of postulates for the science of language. Language 2, 3: 153–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1927. Literate and illiterate speech. American Speech 2, 10: 432–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. New York: Holt, Reinhart & Winston.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1939. Menomini morphophonemics. Travaux du Cercle linguistique de Prague (Special issue: Etudes Phonologiques Dédiées à la Mémoire de M. le Prince N. S. Trubetzkoy) 8: 105–115.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1991. Language and Symbolic Power. Thompson, John B. (ed.), Raymond, Gino and Adamson, Matthew (trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Brunot, Ferdinand. 1966. Histoire de la Langue Française des Origins à Nos Jours. Tome 1. De l'Epoque Latine à la Renaissance (nouvelle edition). Paris: Armand Colin. (Originally published in 1906.)Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, and Halle, Morris. 1968. The Sound Pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Coupland, Nikolas. 2014. Language change, social change, sociolinguistic change: A meta-commentary. Journal of Sociolinguistics 18, 2: 277–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dorian, Nancy C. 2010. Investigating Variation: The Effects of Social Organization and Social Setting. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckert, Penelope. 2000. Linguistic Variation as Social Practice: The Linguistic Construction of Identity in Belten High. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope. 2012. Three waves of variation study: The emergence of meaning in the study of sociolinguistic variation. Annual Review of Anthropology 41: 87–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckert, Penelope, and McConnell-Ginet, Sally. 1992. Think practically and look locally: Language and gender as community-based practice. Annual Review of Anthropology 21: 461–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckert, Penelope, and McConnell-Ginet, Sally. 2003. Language and Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garvin, Paul, L. (trans. and ed.) 1964. A Prague School Reader on Esthetics, Literary Structure, and Style: Selected and Translated from the Original Czech. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Gilliéron, Jules. 1921. Pathologie et Thérapeutique Verbales. Paris: Champion.Google Scholar
Goddard, Ives. 1987. Leonard Bloomfield's descriptive and comparative studies of Algonquian. Historiographia Linguistica 14, 1/2:179–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1974. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1979. Footing. Semiotica 25, 1: 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1981. Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph. 1957. Essays in Linguistics. Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology, no. 24. New York: Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph. 1966. Some universals of language with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Greenberg, Joseph (ed.), Universals of Language, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 73–113.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph. 1969. Some methods of dynamic comparison in linguistics. In Puhvel, Jaan (ed.), Substance and Structure of Language. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 147–203.Google Scholar
Gumperz, John. 1968. Linguistics, III: The speech community. In Sills, David L. (ed.), International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. New York: Macmillan and Free Press, vol. 9: 381–386.Google Scholar
Gumperz, John, and Hymes, Dell (eds.). 1964. The Ethnography of Communication. American Anthropologist 66, 6, part 2.
Gumperz, John, and Hymes, Dell (eds.). 1972. Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., McIntosh, Angus, and Strevens, Peter. 1964. The Linguistic Sciences and Language Teaching. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Hastings, Adi, and Manning, Paul. 2004. Introduction: Acts of alterity. Language and Communication 24, 3: 291–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haugen, Einar. 1953. The Norwegian Language in America: A Study in Bilingual Behavior, 2 vols. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haugen, Einar. 1956. Bilingualism in the Americas: A Bibliography and Research Guide. Publications of the American Dialect Society, no. 26. University: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Henderson, Eugénie. 1952. The main features of Cambodian pronunciation. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London 14, 1: 149–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hockett, Charles F. 1954. Two models of grammatical description. Word 10, 3: 210–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hockett, Charles F. 1958. A Course in Modern Linguistics. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Hockett, Charles F. (ed.). 1970. A Leonard Bloomfield Anthology. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Hockett, Charles F. 1977. Logical considerations in the study of animal communication. The View from Language: Selected Essays, 1948–1974. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 124–162. (Originally published in 1960.)Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1931. Prinzipien der historischen Phonologie. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague 4: 247–267. (Reprinted in French translation, “Principes de phonologie historique,” in Selected Writings of Roman Jakobson, vol. 1. Phonological studies, 202–220. The Hague: Mouton & Co., 1962.)Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1957 [1971]. Shifters, verbal categories, and the Russian verb. Mimeograph. Cambridge, MA: Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures, Harvard University. (Published in Selected Writings of Roman Jakobson, vol. 2, Word and Language, 130–147. The Hague: Mouton & Co., 1971.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1960. Closing statement: Linguistics and poetics. In Sebeok, Thomas A. (ed.), Style in Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 350–377.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1964. Thèses présentées au Premier Congrès des philologues slaves. In Vachek, Josef (ed.), A Prague School Reader in Linguistics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 33–58. (Originally published in 1929.)Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1909. Progress in Language, with special Reference to English, London: Swan Sonnenschein & Co.; New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1946. Mankind, Nation and Individual from a Linguistic Point of View. London: Allen & Unwin. (Originally published in 1925.)Google Scholar
Johnstone, Barbara. 2013. Speaking Pittsburghese: The Story of a Dialect. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnstone, Barbara, Andrus, Jennifer, and Danielson, Andrew E.. 2006. Mobility, indexicality, and the enregisterment of “Pittsburghese.” Journal of English Linguistics 34, 2: 77–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, Robert D. 1969. Historical Linguistics and Generative Grammar. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1971. Historical linguistics. In Dingwall, William O. (ed.), A Survey of Linguistic Science. College Park: University of Maryland Linguistics Program, 576–642.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1973. Abstractness, opacity, and global rules. In Fujimura, Osamu (ed.), Three Dimensions of Linguistic Theory. Tokyo: TEC, 57–86.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 2003. The phonological basis of sound change. In Joseph, Brian D. and Janda, Richard D. (eds.), Handbook of Historical Linguistics. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 313–342. (Originally published in 1995.)Google Scholar
Kuryłowicz, Jerzy. 1927. ə indoeuropéen et ḫ hittite. In Taszycki, Witold et al., Symbolae grammaticae in honorem Ioannis Rozwadowski. Cracow: Drukarnia Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, vol. 1, 95–104.Google Scholar
Kuryłowicz, Jerzy. 1945/1949. La nature des procès dits “analogiques.”Acta Linguistica [Hafniensia] 5, 1: 15–37.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1963. The social motivation of a sound change. Word 19, 3: 273–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. 1966. The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1972. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1981. Resolving the Neogrammarian controversy. Language 57, 2: 267–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. 1994. Principles of Linguistic Change, vol. 1, Internal Factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 2001. Principles of Linguistic Change, vol. 2, Social Factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 2006. The Social Stratification of English in New York City, Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lavandera, Beatrice. 1978. Where does the sociolinguistic variable stop?Language in Society 7, 2: 171–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martinet, André. 1949. La double articulation linguistique. Recherches structurales: interventions dans le débat glossématique. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Copenhague 5: 30–37.Google Scholar
Martinet, André. 1955. Economie des changements phonétiques: Traîté de phonologie diachronique. Bern: A Francke.Google Scholar
Mathesius, Wilém. 1964. On the potentiality of the phenomena of language. In Vachek, Josef (ed.), A Prague School Reader in Linguistics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1–32. (Originally published in 1911.)Google Scholar
Meillet, Antoine. 1893. Les lois du langage: I, Les lois phonétiques. Revue Internationale de Sociologie 1, 4 : 311–321.Google Scholar
Meillet, Antoine. 1995. Pour un manuel de linguistique générale. A cura de Fiorenza Granucci. Atti della Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Memorie, ser. 9, vol. 6, no. 1. Rome: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei.Google Scholar
Milroy, Lesley. 1980. Language and Social Networks. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Morpurgo Davies, Anna. 1998. Nineteenth-Century Linguistics. Lepschy, Giulio (ed.), History of Linguistics, vol. 4. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Passy, Paul. 1890. Étude sur les changements phonétiques et leurs caractères généraux. Paris: Firmin-Didot.Google Scholar
Reid, T. B. W. 1956. Linguistics, structuralism, and philology. Archivum Linguisticum 8, 1: 28–37.Google Scholar
Ross, John Robert. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. PhD dissertation, MIT.
Sapir, Edward. 1925. Sound patterns in language. Language 1, 2: 37–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sapir, Edward. 1932. Group. In Seligman, Edwin R. A. (ed.), Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences. New York: Macmillan, vol. 7, 178–182.Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward. 1949a. The concept of phonetic law as tested in primitive languages by Leonard Bloomfield. In Mandelbaum, David G. (ed.), Selected Writings of Edward Sapir in Language, Culture, and Personality. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 73–82. (Originally published in 1931.)Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward. 1949b. Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World. (Originally published in 1921.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1879. Mémoire sur le système primitif des voyelles dans les langues Indo-Européennes. Leipzi[g]: B. G. Teubner.Google Scholar
Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1916. Cours de linguistique générale. Bally, C. and Sechehaye, A. (eds.). Paris & Lausanne: Payot.Google Scholar
Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1922. Recueil des publications scientifiques de Ferdinand de Saussure. Bally, C. and Gautier, L. (eds.). Lausanne: Payot.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 1992. The uses and utility of ideology: Some reflections. Pragmatics 2, 3: 311–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 1994. “Relative motivation” in denotational and indexical sound symbolism of Wasco-Wishram Chinookan. In Hinton, Leanne, Nichols, Johanna, and Ohala, John J. (eds.), Sound Symbolism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 40–60.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 2013. From inductivism to structuralism: The “method of residues” goes to the field. History and Philosophy of the Language Sciences. http://hiphilangsci.net/2013/09/11/from-inductivism-to-structuralism-the-method-of-residues-goes-to-the-field.
Silverstein, Michael. 2014a. In praise of “exceptionlessness”: Linguistics among the human sciences at Bloomfield and Sapir's Chicago. History and Philosophy of the Language Sciences. http://hiphilangsci.net/2014/11/26/in-praise-of-exceptionless-linguistics-among-the-human-sciences-at-bloomfield-and-sapirs-chicago.
Silverstein, Michael. 2014b. The race from place: Dialect eradication vs. the linguistic “authenticity” of terroir. In Lacoste, Véronique, Leimgruber, Jakob, and Breyer, Thiemo (eds.), Indexing Authenticity: Sociolinguistic Perspectives. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 159–187.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 1972. Sex, covert prestige and linguistic change in the urban British English of Norwich. Language in Society 1, 2: 179–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Twaddell, W. Freeman. 1935. On Defining the Phoneme. Language Monographs no. 16. Baltimore, MD: Linguistic Society of America/Waverly Press.Google Scholar
Vachek, Josef (ed.). 1964. A Prague School Reader in Linguistics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Wang, William S. Y. 1969. Competing changes as cause of residue. Language 45, 1: 9–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, William S. Y. (ed.). 1977. The Lexicon in Phonological Change. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel. 1954. Is a structural dialectology possible?Word 10: 388–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel, Labov, William, and Herzog, Marvin I.. 1968. Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. In Lehmann, W. P. and Malkiel, Yakov (eds.), Directions for Historical Linguistics: A Symposium. Austin: University of Texas Press, 95–195.Google Scholar
Wilbur, Terence H. (ed.). 1977. The Lautgesetz-Controversy: A Documentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Wolfram, Walt, and Schilling-Estes, Natalie. 2006. American English: Dialects and Variation, Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×