In this unit, we look at two different explanations for linguistic change and the phenomenon of hypercorrection ( or the absence of hypercorrection) as a possible index of such changes. Traditionally, hypercorrection has been defined as "a misapplication of an imperfectly learned rule, as in the hypercorrect case marking of 'whom did you say is calling?'" (Labov 1972; 126). However, in the article we are reading this week by Labov, he extends that definition by applying it to socioeconomic class status. Labov illustrates how lower-middle-class speakers in New York "go beyond the highest-status group in their tendency to use the forms considered correct and appropriate for formal styles" (126) through an analysis of the variables (r), (eh), and (oh). Interestingly, Labov found, in a test for subjective reactions to (oh), that the lower-middle-class participants had a more negative response to the lower-prestige forms of the (r), (eh), and (oh) variables. In a test for participants' perception of their own production of these variables, Labov found that they perceived themselves to use the higher prestige forms of each variable. Labov asserts, "The great fluctuation in stylistic variation shown by the lower middle class, their hypersensitivity to stigmatized features which they themselves use, and the inaccurate perception of their own speech, all point to a high degree of linguistic insecurity for these speakers" (132). Labov suggests that the combination of upper-middle class New Yorker's more consistent usage of prestige forms of the variables in question and hypercorrection of these variables by lower-middle-class New Yorkers is promting a gradual linguistic shift in New York English.

Trudgill presents an alternative account of linguistic change through an anaysis of variable East Anglican present-tense verb forms. He asserts that, "If contact between the local dialect and Standard English lies at the root of the variability we find in modern East Anglican English, we would then expect to find at least spasmodic, individual occurrences of hypercorrect forms on the part of East Anglian speakers, especially perhaps those with less education" (105). However, unlike Labov's study on hypercorrection, Trudgill's study found a lack of hypercorrection by East Anglian speakers. Thus, Trudgill offers a historical explanation for the variability in East Anglian present-tense forms. He assserts that, in a dialect mixture situation, "where, unusually, more than one variant survives, it is usual for the two or more surviving variants to be subject to reallocation" (110).

READINGS:

• Labov, William, "Hypercorrection by the Lower Middle Class as a Factor in Linguistic Change," Sociolinguistic Patterns, pp. 122-142.

• Trudgill, Peter, "Language Contact and Inherent Variability: The Absence of Hypercorrection in East Anglian Present-Tense Verb Forms," The Sociolinguistic Reader, pp. 103-112.

DISCUSSION:

The notion of hypercorrection as an index of dialect esteem is controversial in sociolinguistics. Why do you suppose this is? What are the ramifications of a theory that asserts women or people of lower socioeconomic status try to emulate men and people of higher socioeconomic status? What do you think about this theory? What do you think about Labov's and Trudgill's explanations for linguistic change through contact and dialect mixture?