Study smarter with Fiveable
Get study guides, practice questions, and cheatsheets for all your subjects. Join 500,000+ students with a 96% pass rate.
Sociolinguistics isn't just about describing how people talk—it's about understanding why language varies across communities, contexts, and identities. When you study these foundational scholars, you're learning the theoretical frameworks that explain everything from why New Yorkers drop their r's differently based on social class to why teenagers in suburban Detroit develop distinct speech patterns. These aren't just names to memorize; they represent competing and complementary approaches to the central question: how does social life shape language, and how does language shape social life?
On exams, you're being tested on your ability to connect scholars to their key concepts and methodologies. Can you explain the difference between communicative competence and linguistic competence? Do you know why social networks matter as much as social class? Don't just memorize who said what—understand what problem each scholar was trying to solve and how their approach differed from others in the field.
These scholars established sociolinguistics as an empirical science by demonstrating that language variation isn't random—it correlates systematically with social factors like class, age, and context. Their methodology relies on large-scale data collection and statistical analysis to reveal patterns invisible to casual observation.
Compare: Labov vs. Trudgill—both used quantitative methods to study urban speech, but Labov emphasized social class stratification while Trudgill explored how local identity can override prestige norms. If asked about why speakers might resist standard forms, Trudgill's work on covert prestige is your go-to example.
These scholars argued that understanding language requires examining it in its natural social context. Rather than isolating variables, they focused on how meaning emerges through interaction, cultural knowledge, and community membership.
Compare: Hymes vs. Gumperz—Hymes developed broad frameworks for analyzing what speakers need to know to communicate appropriately, while Gumperz zoomed in on how meaning breaks down in cross-cultural interaction. Both rejected the idea that grammar alone explains communication, but Gumperz's work is more directly applicable to analyzing specific conversations.
These scholars examine how language doesn't just reflect social categories—it actively constructs them. Identity isn't fixed; speakers use linguistic resources to position themselves and negotiate belonging in communities.
Compare: Eckert vs. Tannen—both examine how identity shapes language, but Eckert's communities of practice approach sees identity as locally constructed through shared activities, while Tannen's genderlect framework treats gender as a more stable category influencing style. Eckert's approach is more influential in current sociolinguistics because it avoids essentializing social categories.
These scholars investigate how social structures—particularly the relationships between speakers—shape language variation and change. Language doesn't just vary by class or gender; it spreads and persists through the connections people maintain.
Compare: Milroy vs. Wolfram—both study how community structure affects language, but Milroy focuses on network density as the mechanism maintaining variation, while Wolfram emphasizes cultural identity and attitudes toward specific varieties. For questions about why some dialects persist despite stigma, Milroy's network theory provides the structural explanation.
| Concept | Best Examples |
|---|---|
| Variationist methodology | Labov, Trudgill, Cheshire |
| Communicative competence | Hymes |
| Contextualization and interaction | Gumperz |
| Communities of practice | Eckert |
| Gender and language | Tannen, Cheshire |
| Social networks | Milroy |
| Dialect documentation and attitudes | Wolfram, Trudgill |
| Style and identity construction | Coupland, Eckert |
Both Labov and Trudgill used quantitative methods to study urban speech variation. What key difference exists in how they explained why speakers use non-standard forms?
How does Hymes's concept of communicative competence challenge Chomsky's notion of linguistic competence, and why does this distinction matter for sociolinguistics?
Compare Eckert's communities of practice approach to Tannen's genderlect framework. Which treats identity as more fixed, and which sees it as locally constructed?
If an FRQ asks you to explain why a stigmatized dialect persists in a community despite pressure to adopt standard forms, which scholar's framework would you apply and why?
Gumperz and Hymes both rejected purely grammatical approaches to language. How do their specific contributions differ—what does each help us analyze?