Trabajo Laobov

Compare and contrast, making clear the strengths and weaknesses of both approaches, traditional dialectology and the quantitative approach pioneered by Labov. Refer to specific works in your answer.

Before starting to answer the question i think that it would be interesting to know which are the principles of Labovīs theory:

we could say that for Labov language is heterogeneous,not only in structure but also in its use. Because of the principle of this theory , that is based

in variations. Labov and his followers were called Variationists. for them variation is not random or free, but is has a pattern that it is highly regular.

These patterns cannot be understood without looking outside langue (the abstract, autonomous system of language) to parole (speech behavior) & to

the social world at large. Variation analysis must then be at least socially realistic, if not socially constituted ,since language is inescapably a social

phenomenon. To Variationists is central the definition and description of linguistic elements, these linguistic elements may be extracted from context

and compared for analytical purposes. Descriptions are to be (initially) rich and full rather than spare and idealized.For contemporary language, high-

quality recorded natural data should be the norm; elicited, introspective, experimental, and attitudinal data are secondary; and these different data-

types require different types of analysis or interpretation. Data from a range of styles are needed to establish limits and norms of speech behavior;

while data from a range of different social speakers are needed to map social distribution. A typical sequence for variationist analysis should be, first

they establish which forms are alternate with one another , they delimit the environments in which this alternation occurs, and classify the factors

within those environments exhaustively. After that they propose hypotheses for contextual factors which might constrain the variation.They compile

a data set that allows for investigation and confirm the alternations and co-occurrences predicted by he hypothesis and finally they compare the

frequencies or probabilities with which the different variants co-occur with the different factors. Typically, place primary emphasis on internal

linguistic factors, and only secondary importance on external social explanations

After trying to define the Labovīs method we should start considering the two approaches that we have to compare. we should starts with the one

called traditional dialectology. The study of the dialects started more than a century ago. The first studies wanted to draw uo a linguistic atlas of the

social distribution of different dialect forms. Such research was motivated by the desire to counter a mainstream view in historical linguistics at the

time that all sound changes were regular and exceptionless, with these they tried to show the widely distributions of dialect forms. ther tried to

demonstrate that linguistic changes were often irregular and did not affect all words equally.Early dialectologists were particularly interested in

lexical variation that are different words used to refer to the same thing in different places . The information collected for this dialect atlas has been

an invaluable resource even to present-day dialectologists, providing a valuable snapshot of the variety of different dialect structures used at a

particular point in time. For this research, they used a very special type of speaker. what they call NORMS. The subjects of this studies are rural

non mobile males, they use a limited sample, using only one style of speech. they treat all elements as if categorical. in the 1960īs with Labov there is

a rise of interest in urban dialects as object of study.

Talking about the history of this method we could say that from the beginning of the 19 th century dialectologists have been working systematically

on regional variation in language. Employing paper and pencil, and later tape recorders, researchers recorded differences in pronunciation,

grammatical construction, and lexicon in the speech of rural inhabitants. Often, after decades of research, a monumental publication was produced

which contained hundreds of dialect maps on which lines (called isoglosses) indicated the geographical limits of words, grammatical structures, and

sounds. Dialectologists employ two major techniques of data collecting, both of which involve \'direct probes\' to elicit dialect forms. Some of the

earlier dialectologists used postal questionnaires mailed to selected individuals (eg, teachers); others used the \'on the spot phonetic transcription\'

method, by travelling from one rural community to