Milroy (1985) - Linguistic Change, Social Network and Speaker Innovation

Linguistic Change, Social Network and Speaker Innovation
Author(s): James Milroy and Lesley Milroy

Source: Journal of Linguistics, Vol. 21, No. 2 (Sep., 1985), pp. 339-384
Published by: Cambridge University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4175792 .
Accessed: 02/06/2011 19:03
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. .
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of
Linguistics.
http://www.jstor.org
J. Linguistics 2I (I985), 339-384.Printedin GreatBritain
Linguistic change, social network and speaker

innovation'
JAMES MILROY
Department of Linguistics
Universityof Sheffield
AND LESLEY
MILROY
Department of Speech,
Universityof Newcastle upon Tyne
(Received9 JanuaryI985)
I. INTRODUCTION
Thispaperis concernedwiththe socialmechanismsof linguisticchange,and

we beginby notingthe distinctiondrawnby Bynon(I977) betweentwo quite
differentapproachesto the study of linguisticchange. The first and more
idealized,associatedinitiallywith traditionalnineteenthcenturyhistorical
linguistics,involves the study of successive'states of the language',states
reconstructedby the applicationof comparativetechniquesto necessarily
partial historicalrecords.Generalizations(in the form of laws) about the
relationshipsbetweenthese statesmay then be made,and morerecentlythe
specificationof 'possible'and'impossible'processesof changehas beenseen
as an importanttheoreticalgoal.
Thesecondapproach,associatedwithmodernquantitativesociolinguistics,
involveslessidealizationof the database.An importantobjectiveis to specify
HOwlanguagespass from state A to state B in terms of both the social
processesinvolvedand the effect on linguisticstructureof a given change.
The major goal is to develop a theory which is sensitive both to the
constrainedand regularnatureof changeand to its relationshipwith social
structure.
Some sociolinguistshave borrowedquite heavily from older scholarsnotablyBailey,who has triedto applya 'wave' modelto contemporarydata
(Bailey, 1973). Similarly,Labovhas assessed,in the light of recentfindings,
the theoreticalapproachesof nineteenthcenturyhistoricallinguistics;in one
article,he compares'lexical diffusion'models of changewith those which
claimthatchangecomesaboutas a resultof the operationof regularphonetic
[i]
We acknowledgewiththankshelpfulcommentson a previousdraftof this paperby John

Harris,DickHudson,BenRampton,PeterTrudgillandNigelVincent.Versionsof different
parts of it were read at the SociolinguisticsSymposiumin Liverpooland the Societas
LinguisticaEuropaeameetingin Manchester,bothin September1984.Helpfulcomments
werereceivedfromparticipants
at bothmeetings.FinancialsupportfortheBelfastresearch
on which parts of the paperare based was receivedfrom the Social ScienceResearch
Council(grantsHR3771,HR5777).The secondauthoralso receivedgenerousfinancial
supportfromthe SimonFund,duringhertenureof a SeniorSimonResearchFellowship
at the Universityof Manchester,I982-3. This helpis gratefullyacknowledged.
339
JAMES MILROY AND LESLEY MILROY
laws. Conversely, the present can be used to explain the past, i.e. to shed light
on historical linguistic problems (Labov, 1974a; Milroy & Harris, I980).
What seems to be well established now is that variability of a structured
and regular kind is characteristic of normal language use and is a key to
understanding mechanisms of linguistic change. At the phonological level
change appears to affect contextually defined subsets of phonological classes
in a (generally) regular way, spreading through the community in waves in
a manner controlled by extra-linguistic factors such as the age, sex, social
status and geographical location of the speaker. Except where the ongoing
change originates with a high-status group and is more or less consciously
adopted by others, spontaneous speech appears to be affected earlier than the
speech characteristic of more careful styles.
These general principles have emerged fairly clearly from the work of
Labov carried out over the last two decades (see Labov, 1972) and are
confirmed elsewhere. To exemplify the quantitative approach, we comment
briefly on one particular study.
Eckert's (I980) account of Souletan, a dialect of Gascon, quite explicitly
attempts to bring together the concerns of traditional historical linguistics
and those of sociolinguistics. She examines the relationships between
long-term phonological changes which affect whole classes of linguistic items,
and the 'competence' of speakers who are involved in an ongoing linguistic
change. Historical, geographical and synchronic variable data are analysed
to illuminate the processes involved in an upward chain shift of the back vowel
system of Souletan; the back chain shift is particularly advanced here and
is still in progress.
Eckert characterises the change in terms of waves, which affect one word
class at a time; as we might now predict, items lagging behind in the shift
occur in the speech of older informants, as stylistic variants. Thus, the item
sulament 'only' occurs with [a] in careful speech, but with the more innovative
[o] in rapid connected speech. Arguing that phonological rules (which reflect
speaker competence) ought to be written in such a way as to reveal this
pattern, Eckert gives a formal characterization of such a variable rule. If the
language choices open to the individual are placed in this broader context,
they may be seen as reflections of 'earlier' and 'later' overlapping states of
a dynamic phonological system. The capacity of a variable rule formalism
to handle linguistic constraints on the implementation of the rule may be seen
as characterizing successive 'waves' of the change. Thus, it is argued,
individual language behaviour is related to historical changes by rules which
are seen as reflecting the competence of a speaker whose range of linguistic
choices is congruent with the waves of change which proceed regularly
through time and space.
In a sense, Eckert's work, like much of our own, straddles the two
approaches distinguished by Bynon, attempting to see how they fit together.
Micro-level studies of this kind which are both 'sociolinguistic' and
340
LINGUISTIC
CHANGE
'historical' appear to support the claims of Weinreich,Labov & Herzog

(I968) that linguisticinnovationsmove systematicallythroughspace(social,
geographicaland historical)affectinglinguisticstructurealso in an ordered

manner. The task of explaininglinguisticchange was, they argued, best
dividedinto five main areas.
These are, first, the very broad problemof UNIVERSAL CONSTRAINTS on
possible changes. As Weinreich et al. note (ioi) this is part of a larger
theoreticallinguisticissue and falls beyondthe scope of quantitativesociolinguistics. Within historical linguistics it has been examined by many
scholarsincludingLass (I980) and Vennemann(I983).
Second,theTRANSITIONproblemconcernsthe'interveningstageswhichcan
be observed,or whichmustbe posited,betweenany two formsof a language
definedfor a languagecommunityat differenttimes' (Weinreichet al., I968:
IOI). As we havealreadynoted,quantitativeanalysishas contributeda great
deal here, showingclearlythat transitionis evidencedby variationbetween
conservativeand innovatoryforms,with the formergraduallygivingway to
the latteras relativefrequencychanges.
TheEMBEDDINGproblemis concernedwithdeterminingregularpatternsin
both the linguisticand the extra-linguisticcontextof change.Includedhere
would be an accountof the phoneticenvironmentsmost favouringchange
and the relativerankingof theseenvironments.Much of Labov'sown work
has addressedthis issue (and see also Eckert,I980). Includedalso would be
the vowel analyses of Labov, Yaeger and Steiner (1972) which follow
Martinet's'chain shift' model. EXTRA-LINGUISTICaspectsof the embedding
questionmaybetackledindirectlybyinspectingthedistributionof innovatory
linguisticformsin speechcommunities.Labovciteshis ownwork,in addition
to that of Trudgillin Norwichand Cedergrenin PanamaCity, as supporting
the generalizationthat wheresoundchangein progressis located,linguistic
variablesdisplaya curvilinearpatternof distribution(often showingup on
a graphas an unexpected'crossover'pattern).Innovatinggroupsappearto
be locatedcentrallyin the social hierarchy,and are characterizedby Labov
as upper-workingor lower-middleclass. (Labov, I980: 254). Moreover,
younger speakersuse more innovatoryforms than older speakers(both
quantitativelyand qualitatively)and again accordingto Labov's analysis,
sexual differentiationof speechoften plays a major(but as yet not clearly
understood)role in linguisticchange.
The EVALUATION problem pertains principallyto social responses to
change'at all levelsof awareness,fromovertdiscussionto reactionsthat are
quiteinaccessibleto introspection'(Labov,I982: 28). Thisembracesnotions
of prestige,attitudesto languages(bothovertandcovert),as wellas linguistic
stereotypingand notions of correctness.
The principal contribution of Labov himself to the EMBEDDING and
EVALUATIONproblemshas been,particularly
in his New York City study,to
providea GENERALmodelof the sociallocationof a linguisticinnovationand
341
of the manner in which it spreads from a central point upwards and

downwardsthrougha speechcommunity.Shortlywe shall look at some of
the problemsassociatedwith this model and indeedin much of this paper
we shall be presentinga critiqueof partsof it.
Until fairlyrecently,Labov had not attemptedto tacklethe fifth area of
investigationoutlinedby Weinreichet al.: this is the ACTUATION problem,
articulatedherein its most challengingform:
Whydo changesin a structuralfeaturetake placein a particularlanguage
at a giventime,but not in otherlanguageswith the samefeature,or in the
samelanguageat othertimes?This actuationproblemmay be regardedas
the very heartof the matter(Weinreichet al., I968: I02).
It is the actuationproblemwhich we discussin this paper; appropriate
strategiesaresuggestedfor addressingit and somepartialanswersareoffered
to the questionsposedby Weinreichet al. Mostimportantly,we tryto explain
why investigatorshave failed to make much headwayin tacklingthe issue
whichwas describedin I968 as 'the very heartof the matter'.
Sucha programmeas was presentedby Weinreichet al. is not necessarily
the best way of organizinga systematicstudyof linguisticchange.Whilewe
do not attempthere to offer a comprehensivecritiqueof the paper, some
difficultiesshouldbe noted.
First, although the five aspects of the problem of change have been
presentedas relativelydiscrete,they do in fact overlap.Whilethis does not
in itself necessarilyconstitutea difficulty,a readingof Labov's I982 article
whichreviewswork on the problemsup to that time shows clearlythat his
interpretationof the issuescoveredby each of the five categoriesis different
from Weinreich's(it was in fact Weinreichwho was mainlyresponsiblefor
the early sections of the I968 paper from which we have quoted in this
section).So whilewe havedrawnfreelyon Labov'sreview,the categoriesare
discussedin termsof Weinreich'sformulationwherethere appearsto be a
discrepancy.Thisdifficultyis compoundedby the fact thatwe ourselveshave
sometimescategorizeda phenomenonratherdifferentlyfrom Labov. For
example,whilehe regardsdiffusionof innovationas part of the TRANSITION
question,we havetreatedit hereas an aspectof ACTUATION.Now it is certainly
clear that no single aspect of linguisticchangecan be discussedcoherently
withoutreferenceto at least some of the othersspecifiedby Weinreichet al.
But sincethe disagreements
whichemergewhenattemptsaremadeto specify
how phenomenashouldbe categorizedare sometimesquiteradical,it seems
reasonableto suggestthat the distinctionsdrawnin the I968 paperare not
final and that they requirefurthercriticalconsiderationif they are to serve
as a comprehensiveprogrammefor the studyof linguisticchange.
We look brieflynow at Labov'sattemptto tacklethe actuationproblem
by first locatingthe innovatorsthemselvesand then examiningtheir social
342
LINGUISTIC
CHANGE
characteristics and relationships within their own (Philadelphian)

neighbourhoods2.
His main conclusionsare as follows.
(i) Speakerswho lead sound changeare those with the higheststatusin
theirlocal communitiesas measuredby a social-classindex.
(2) Among personsof equal status 'the most advancedspeakersare the
personswith the largestnumberof local contacts within the neighbourhood,yet who have at the same time the highestproportionof
their acquaintancesoutside the neighbourhood'(I980: 26I). Labov
thengoes on to comment'Thus we havea portraitof individualswith
the highestlocal prestigewho are responsiveto a somewhatbroader
form of prestigeat the next largerlevel of socialcommunication.'
Both points are relevanthere.Labov presentsin effectone superordinate
locus of change,viz. a centralpositionin the statushierarchy(and here his
modelis implicitlyone dependenton the existenceof socialstratification)and
one morerefinedor micro-levellocus,withina groupof roughlyequalstatus.
The diffusionof changeis accomplishedby individualswho have many ties
withinthe close-knitcommunityand who also havea relativelylargenumber
of outsidecontacts.Our own arguments,whicharriveat conclusionsrather
differentfrom those of Labov, focus almost entirely on the position of
linguisticinnovatorsin localisednetworkswhichare madeup of personsof
roughlyequalstatus.We shallalso discussmorebroadlythe type of network
structureassociatedwith (often rapid)linguisticchangeand are less willing
thanLabovevidentlyis to presenta modelbasedultimatelyon statusor class.
Afterall, theseareno morethan rathercontroversialconstructs(see Halsey,
1978, for an accessiblediscussion)and the universalapplicabilityof such
constructsto theoriesof changeis dubious.
We pass now to a discussionof what is meant by the term 'linguistic
change', highlightingsome problems and ambiguities.Changes in the
realizationof two Ulstervowelsarethenreviewedin somedetail,to exemplify
the principlethat evidenceof linguisticchangemay be found in data which
are variableon historical,geographicaland social dimensions.Using the
networkconceptdevelopedpreviouslyin this researchprogramme(Milroy
& Milroy, I978; L. Milroy, I980), the informalsocial ties of linguistically
innovativegroups are examined,and a model of linguisticchange, based
partlyon our own conclusionsand partlyon work by Granovetter(I973) is
presented.Thismodel,whichsuggeststhat innovationsflow fromone group
[21 A 'neighbourhood'study(Labov'sterm)is distinctfroma surveyin thatno effortis made
to elicit comparabledata from isolated individualssampledin accordancewith some
principleof random selection. Rather, the languageof speakersis investigatedwith
attentionto theirpositionin relationto othersin theirlocal neighbourhoods.
Thus,both
languageandsocialstructuremaybe examinedin verymuchgreaterdepth,at the expense
of some socialand linguisticbreadth.
343
to another through 'weak' networklinks is designedto offer a practical

solutionto an aspectof the actuationproblem;as suchit is concernedwith
SPEAKER
innovation,of whichthe reflexin the languagesystemis a change
whichis alwaysobservedpostfactum.Finally,we suggest(morespeculatively)
that the model is capable of elucidatingparticularproblemsof language
changeand variationwhichso far have seemedquitemysterious.
2.
LINGUISTIC
CHANGE AND SPEAKER INNOVATION
Although the ultimate aims of historical linguistics may be to specify

universalsof change(whatis, or is not, a possiblechangeand, withinthe set
of possiblechanges,the kindsof changethat aremoreor less PROBABLE), the
methodologyof historicallinguisticshas ALWAYS been comparative.
Nineteenth-century
linguistics('comparativephilology')aimedat RECONSTRUCTIONof proto-languages
by comparisonof sisterlanguages,and so the
termCOMPARATIVEacquired,inlinguistics,anassociationwithreconstruction3.
Here, however,we use the term COMPARATIVEin a more generaland literal
sense, without any necessaryimplicationthat reconstructionis aimed at.
Thus, the comparisonof two attestedhistoricalstatesof the samelanguage
is also a comparativemethod.
Sociolinguisticsalso uses a comparativemethod,in that the languageof
differentindividualsor groupsis compared.Thedifferenceis thatthe changes
are observed,or arguedfor, at a micro-levelratherthan a macro-level.
In a sociolinguisticanalysis,the observationof changeis narroweddown
to comparisonsbasedon age and sex of speaker,stylisticvariationand social
grouping;observedsynchronicvariationcan be viewedas the counterpart
ofchangeinthediachronicdimension.Inpractice,thesemicro-levelsynchronic
patternsareusuallysupplementedby 'real-time'observations.Thetestimony
of nineteenth-centuryand early twentieth-centuryobserversof a speechcommunityare used to help to establishthe long-termdirectionof change
(Labov, I972: I63-I7I). Notice that as soon as the methodologyis extended
to take accountof past statesof language,it becomesto that extentthe same
as comparisonof two or moreattestedpast states.Insteadof comparingtwo
past states,we arecomparinga presentstatewitha past state.Theimportant
differencesthatdo existbetweensociolinguisticsand historicallinguistics(as
describedby Bynon, 1977) depend fundamentallyon the fact that sociolinguisticmethodis rooted in the present,whichmeans that thereis direct
accessto therichdetailof variationin speech-communities.
Thus,it is possible
to observeveryfullyboth the linguisticandthe socialembeddingof observed
changes. It becomes possible to specify the constraintsimposed by a
[31 'In using the comparative method we contrast forms of two or more related languages to
determine their precise relationship. We indicate this relationship most simply by reconstructing the forms from which they developed' (Lehmann, I962: 83).
344
LINGUISTIC
CHANGE
pre-existinglanguagesystemon the possibilitiesof changewithinthat system

(Eckert, I980; Labov, Yaeger & Steiner, I972; J. Milroy, I976) and to
suggestand evaluatethe possiblesocial motivationsof observedchanges.
The questionof socialmotivationis not uncontroversial.
On the one hand,
thereis a view, pioneeredby Weinreich,Labov and Herzogand assumedin
this paper,that the studyof socialmotivationsconstitutesan importantpart
of any possibleexplanationof change.On the otherhand, thereis a strong
tradition in language study of separatinglanguages from speakersand
looking for some of the ultimateexplanationsfor change in languagesas
systems. As Lass (I980:
120)
has put it:
Linguistshave, I would maintain,normallytreatedlanguageas if it were

in fact an autonomousnaturalobject(or an autonomousformalsystem):
'languagechanges'- it is not (necessarily)speakersthat changeit...
It is temptingto suggestthat the separationof languagesfrom speakers
is partlya hangoverfrom the nineteenth-century
insistenceon the 'life' of
the languageindependentof speakers- a viewverycommonlyexpressed,e.g.
by Trench(i 888: 224): 'For a languagehas a life as truly as a man or a
tree. . . '.
Although functional explanations(avoidance of homophony, etc., as
discussedby Lass, I980: 64-9o) seemto takespeaker-strategies
into account,
theseandmostothercurrent
explanations(e.g.physiologicalandpsychological
ones) do not normallymake a PRIOR distinctionbetweenspeakerbehaviour
on the one hand,and languageas a formalsystemon the other;theyaddress
themselvesto the explanationof changesobservedin languagesratherthan
explanationof speaker-behaviour.
Some of them are, in any case, seriously
flawed(as Lasspoints out). What is clearis that functionalexplanationsdo
not addressthe ACTUATIONPROBLEMas formulatedby Weinreichet al. Such
explanationsmayaccountforsomeinstancesof, e.g.avoidanceofhomophony,
but theydo not explainwhyhomophonywasNOT avoidedin otherinstances.
In general,theydo not explainwhy a particularchangetook placeat a given
time and in a given languageor dialect,but not in similarcircumstancesin
otherlanguagesanddialectsor at othertimesin the samelanguageor dialect.
If we are to addressthe actuationproblem(whichis 'the veryheartof the
matter'),we must breakwith traditionand maintainthat it is not languages
thatinnovate;it is speakerswhoinnovate.Thereflexesof speaker-innovations
are then observedin languagestates, wherethey appearas systematicand
rule-governedlinguisticchange.
As the best-knownfindingsof sociolinguisticshave tendedto concentrate
on phonetic and phonologicalmatters,it has been possible for some to
dismissthemas superficial,
non-explanatory
andpurelydescriptive(Chomsky,
1975). Evenat the phonologicallevel,however,theseapproacheshavecalled
into questionsomeof the theoreticalpositionsof the dominant(Chomskyan)
paradigm.Partsof the phonologicalmodelproposedin Thesoundpatternof
345
English (Chomsky & Halle, I968), if applied to variation in modern English

phonology, necessarily distort and misrepresent the 'competence' of native
speakers. More suitable phonologies have, in practice, to be constructed and
many of the assumptions of SPE phonology are not borne out in such cases
(J. Milroy, 1976; I98I). Furthermore, the findings of sociolinguistics are not
confined, as is often suggested, to the description of configurations of surface
PHONETIC variants: it is in sociolinguistic work and not, as far as we know,
in other approaches, that we can observe cases of rule change in progress (and
therefore hope to explain such phenomena). We now briefly discuss an
example: the gradual loss of /a/ raising after velars in Belfast.
David Patterson (i86o) attests that /a/ was raised to [E] after the velar
consonants /k, g/, and lists given by Gregg (I964) for the Ulster Scots town
of Larne suggest that this rule applied regardless of FOLLOWINGconsonant.
In present-day Belfast we have attested no cases of raising after /g/, and the
rule is variable after /k/. It is variable to the extent that male working class
speakers can vary between [c]and [a, a] in the same lexical items. Their choice
reflects the application of different rules, rather than application or nonapplication of a single rule. Thus TM (Clonard) has [kig n]: 'can', rapidly
followed by three tokens of [kia n]: 'can', in succeedingutterances.As we shall
see in Section 3, the trend in the /a/ system has been towards backing of /a/
since Patterson's day (conditioned by the following consonant), and in these
post-velar environments the rules are in conflict. The choices open to speakers
in monosyllables may be listed as.instructions, as follows:
(i) After /k/, choose either mid or low, unless /r/ follows, in which case
low must be selected,
(2) If mid is chosen, select low-mid, short [a] before voiceless stop;
otherwise select mid, long,
(3) If low is chosen, select short front [a] before voiceless stop; otherwise
select long, back [a ].
.
Clearly the rule for raising after velars is recessive: it has disappeared after
/g/ and before /r/ (Patterson has care to represent the pronunciation of
'car'), and is otherwise variable for many speakers. For many younger East
Belfast speakers, however, it has actually disappeared. In general, it is the
following consonant more than the preceding one that dictates which
realizations of /a/ are adopted. We shall see in Section 3 that the choice listed
in 3 (above) is somewhat idealized: in fact there are greater and lesser
probabilities of backing in an ordered series (depending on following
consonant), and some environments are more likely than others to allow
back-raising and rounding to [3]. (For other examples of rule-change in
progress, restructuringand merger, see J. Milroy, i984b; J. Milroy & Harris,
1980).
In presenting such a configuration of change it is clear that we are primarily
346
LINGUISTIC
CHANGE
describinga state of languageratherthan the 'competence'of individual

speakers.The speakersthemselvesmay, or may not, have access to all the
possible variants,and (as shown in J. Milroy, i982a), some middle-class
speakersexhibitlittlevariation;individualsmayconvergefor all itemsEITHER
on front[a]orback[a]. Suchspeakersmaybe said- in a linguistically-oriented
dimension- to have 'lost' the rules for raising and backing in different
environments.In a speaker-orienteddimension,however, these speakers
merelydisplaya differentpattern,and we cannotassumethat they everhad
the rules for frontingand backingin their active competence.Nor do we
know whetherthey are awareof themin theirpassivecompetence.In other
cases, speakersmay be observedto vary in their realizationsof the same
lexical items in the same phonologicalenvironments;such speakershave
variablerules.
Thus, when we consider speaker-competence,there are difficultiesin
specifyingwhat a linguisticchangeactuallyis and how it is implemented.At
the macro-level,claims for changehave normallybeen assumedto rest on
an observeddifferencebetweenStateA and StateB, and have not depended
on speakerintuitionor competence(twentieth-century
speakers,for instance,
are not assumedto have intuitionsabout fourteenth-century
states).At the
micro-level,in which observed change depends on variation in speechcommunities,speakerintuition has been assumedto be relevant,in that
speakersmay have access to both recessiveand incoming variants and
know when to use them. Even at this level, however, it seems that
speaker-behaviour
varies,andit is possiblethatindividualspeakershave- to
a degree- differentialcompetence and intuitions. The difficultyis that
linguistic change must presumablyoriginate in speakers rather than in
languages.We thereforefind it convenientto distinguishbetweenlinguistic
CHANGE, on the one hand, and speakerINNOVATION on the other. It is the
originand diffusionof SPEAKERINNOVATIONSwith which we are concerned
in this paper.
Speakerinnovations,like otherinnovations,may be classifiedin termsof
theirsuccessin subsequentdiffusion,as follows:
A speakerinnovationmay fail to diffusebeyondthe speaker.
A speakerinnovationmaydiffuseinto a communitywithwhichhe/she
has contact,and go no further.
(3) A speakerinnovationmaydiffuseinto a communitywithwhichhe/she
has contact and then subsequentlydiffusefrom that communityinto
othercommunitiesvia a furtherinnovatorwho has ties with both the
relevantcommunities.When the resultsof this processare observed,
we tend to label the resultsas 'linguisticchange'.The set of possible
communitiesthroughwhich such a changecan diffuseis in principle
infinite,and althoughlinguisticand socialconstraintson a changecan
(i)
(2)
347
in some instances be specified, the limits of POSSIBLEdiffusion cannot

be precisely stated - either in terms of space and time or in terms of
the possible states of language or society that may favour or disfavour
the change.
It is not suggested in the present state of our knowledge, that the innovators
can be precisely located. The linguistic innovator to whom we refer is as much
an idealization as Chomsky's 'native speaker-listener', and it is our aim to
model the sources and processes of linguistic innovation in more detail than
has been possible in the past. We consider arguments about probabilistic
grammars and the status of variable rules (Romaine, I98 I) to be, in principle,
irrelevant here. For, although much of the data presented in this paper has
been collected from speakers and (necessarily)subjectedto quantification, our
arguments are not based on quantities, but on processes that have been
observed to take place in speech communities. Although such processes may
have been analysed quantitatively, they are not in themselves quantitative
phenomena. By using such methods, however, we may have made some
progress in locating the idealized speaker-innovator.
We end this section by commenting on (I)-(3) above (pp. 347-348). Notice
that speaker innovation is not identical with linguistic change. As (I) implies,
some innovations may not be accepted by a community and hence may not
lead to change. On the other hand, speaker innovation may lead to a change
in one segment or part of the grammar,which then sparks off a chain reaction
that seems to be internal to the language system. Thus, in the English Great
Vowel Shift, it may be argued that ME a was first raised, and that as a
consequence of this, the ME vowels above it in phonetic space were also raised
(or diphthongized in the case of the highest vowel). In such a case, it is possible
that speaker innovation is relevant only to one vowel and that movements
in the other vowels are motivated by the language system. Yet even here it
must be admitted that speakers have been motivated to keep vowels distinct
within the system.
With referenceto (3) above, we must also note that, as the limits of possible
speech communities (like the limits of social networks) cannot be specified,
we do not know that a change observed to have entered a community
(through the activities of certain speakers or groups) is in fact original to those
who are observed to carry the innovation. The apparent innovation may
already have been well established in some other community, and this in turn
may have adopted the innovation from elsewhere. In observing change in a
given community, therefore, we do not know beforehand at what point in
a cycle of change we have entered the community. Although, from a
synchronic point of view, certain individuals and groups may be identified
as innovatory (see Section 3 below) and as responsible for introducing an
innovation to their immediate communities, it is possible that the change
concerned has had a long history elsewhere. We shall see that this is so in
348
LINGUISTIC
CHANGE
the case of changesin the vowels /E/ and /a/ in Belfast- to whichwe now
turn.
3.
REVIEWING
THE EVIDENCE FOR CHANGE IN PROGRESS:

AND
VOWELS /?/
/a/
THE
IN HIBERNO-ENGLISH
If we compare the range of variation in Belfast vernacularvowels with

text-bookdescriptionsof RPit is obviousthatmanyof themhavea startlingly
widephoneticrangeof realizations(J.Milroy,1976; I98I; I982). Realizations
of /a/ rangefrom [?] or above beforevelarconsonants,as in bag, bang, etc,
to /c/, in hand, bad, etc. This is furthercomplicatedby a variation in
vowel-lengthand diphthongization.Briefly,vowelsin monosyllablestend to
be short before voiceless stops and before clusters consisting of
sonorant+ voiceless stop; they are long before fricativesand voiced consonants.Closingdiphthongs([a i]) can also occurbeforevoiced velars,and
centringdiphthongs([a-a][a-e])occur when the vowel is back, long and,
especially, also raised and rounded. The range from front to back is
representedin Table I.
[?-]
bag
bang
Front only
Back only
Front back
[m]
[a:]
[a]
bad
bad
bat
grass
grass
snap
hand
hand
ant
snap
back
Velarenvironments
Fricative& voiced consonant environments(excluding
velars)
Voiceless stop environments(excluding velars); back
variantsattestedonly amongstEast Belfastyouths
back
Table i
Simplifiedrepresentationof phoneticrangeof /a/ in

Belfastvernacular,using key words
The range for /e/, in e.g. step, bed is also wide. Qualitatively,the range
is from [a] to around[e]: similarrules of vowel-lengthapply, with centring
diphthongsof the type [q-a]tendingto develop in long environments(see
Table2).
Sucha widerangein two neighbouringvowelsresultsin overlapping.Some
realizationsof /E/ are like realizationsof /a/, and vice versa. Projecting
backwardsin time, it is possibleto arguethat restructuringhas takenplace
349
Mid
Low
[e:,,e -a, ?'-, ? * ]
[a, w]
wet, went
(Voicelessstop, sonorant+
voicelessstop environments)
bed, bend, best

(Fricativeand voiced
consonantenvironments)
Table 2
Simplifiedrepresentationof phoneticrangeof /?/ in Belfastvernacular,

usingkey words
at some time in the past and that, for example, the /a/-/c/
distinction may
have been neutralisedbeforevelars,with bag and beg havingbeen possibly

identical.However,restructuring(with transferfrom /a/ to /?/ and vice
versa) cannot be adequatelydemonstratedfrom the present-dayevidence.
Althoughsomespeakershavedifficultyin disentanglingpairslikepack/peck,
speakersareawarein most casesthat [E]realizationsbeforevelarsare tokens
of /a/, whereas[a] realizationsbeforevoicelessstops are tokens of /?/. As
raisingappliesto /a/ beforevoicelessand voicedvelars,itemslike back,bag
areoftenrealizedwith [c]. Howeversincelow realizationsof /E/ applybefore
ALL voicelessstops (includingthe velar),itemslike neck,wreck(withvelars)
tend to be realizedwith [a]. This resultsin an apparentflip-flop,and the
followingexamplesare typical:
'The back [bEk]of my neck [nak];
'Will you pay by Access [EksEs]card or by cheque[tfak]';
'Jet [tat] - lag [E 9]'.
Thereare two overlappingsystems,informallystatedas follows:
Velar
/a/-[E]/VoicelessStop
/?/+ [a]/The complexity of such systems, together with the range of socially
motivatedvariationthat occursin the realizationsof the vowels, presenta
considerablechallengeto our abilitiesto identifythe directionof changein
progress,but the sheeramountof variationprovidesmany clues. First, we
considerthe regionaland social rangeof realizationsof /?/.
(i) Raisingof /?/
FigureI showsthe resultof a quantitativeanalysisof /?/ realizationsin two
Belfastouter-citycommunities(Andersonstownand Braniel)and a smaller
town(Lurgan)situatedI 7 milessouth-westof Belfast.ThesymbolT indicates
a followingvoicelessstop or sonorant+voicelessstop cluster;C$ indicates
that the vowel is in the stressed syllable of a polysyllabic word (this
350
LINGUISTIC
70 -
CHANGE
ANDERSTOWN (n = 1104)
60 50
40
30
2010 _
0
TC$D
a
70 -
TC$D
TC$D
e:
TC$D
?
TC$D
TC$D
E:
TC$D
TC$D
BRANIEL (n= 800)
60
50 _
40
30
20
10
0
TC$D
TC$D
TC$D
70-
TC$D
LURGAN (n=1484)
60
5040
30 20
10
0
TC$D
a
TC$D
TC$D
TC$D
TC$D
:
6eW
TC$ D
e
Figure i
Percentage distribution of /E/ (bed, bet) variants by following environment in outercity Belfast (Andersonstown, the Braniel) and Lurgan. (After Harris, 1983: 157.)
35'
environment tends to favour short realizations); D indicates following

fricative or voiced consonant (excluding /r/). Notice that the lowest short
realization, [a], is not favoured, but that in Lurgan short and low realizations
in short environments (T, C$) are more favoured than elsewhere (see also
below), and that long realizations [ae:,?'] in these short environments are rarer
in Lurgan. The inner-city figures (Ballymacarrett, Clonard, Hammer) in
Table 3 clearly show some contrasts with the outer-city figures. Before
Men 40-55 Women40-55 Men 18-25 WomenI8-25

T
C$
100
68
IOO
56
C
H
97
97
8I
75
84
98
73
67
B
C
H
73
8i
76
56
67
68
78
75
76
50
6o
52
Table 3
Percentage low realizations of /?/ in typically 'short' phonetic contexts in
three inner-city Belfast communities, Ballymacarrett(B), the Clonard (C) and
the Hammer (H)
voiceless stops, a low short realization ([a], [2]) is categorical for many male
speakers, while the women more often prefer higher and often lengthened
realizations. Thus, for typically low vowel environments, as in wet, went
females often have [w?:t, w*-:nt]for 'vernacular' [wat, want]. In this respect
the inner-city female pattern is similar to that found generally in these higher
status outer-city communities.
These variable data give us a basis for examining processes of change, since
they suggest initially that either the higher or lower variants are innovatory,
or - more properly - that the direction of change is either raising or lowering
of /?/.
In fact, an examination of historical documentation (real-time evidence)

suggests that the direction of change is towards raising. Moreover, it appears
that mid realizations are gradually appearing in environments (such as
pre-voiceless stop) where low realizations were once the norm. It also appears
that as the low variants are replaced by higher ones, the relevant vowels are
lengthened and sometimes diphthongized: thus, as the rules are applied,
conservative variants such as [rant, rent]: 'rent', are replaced by [rE nt]
(raising and lengthening) and [re.ant] (diphthongization). (For a discussion
see J. Milroy, 1976). The options open to speakers for the realization of /c/
.
352
LINGUISTIC
CHANGE
beforeVoicelessStopor beforeConsonant+ VoicelessStopmaybe described

as follows:
Choose eithermid or low;
If low, realizeas short;
(3) If mid,realizeas long;
(4) If mid-long,realizeas monophthongor diphthong.
(i)
(2)
This is of coursean idealizedand simplifiedaccount,and the aim of listing

suchoptionsis descriptiveonly. We do not claimthat we know the ordering
of rules,and if we do wish to orderthem,it is possiblethat LENGTH should
precedeHEIGHTor thatlengtheningandraisingaresimultaneous.Nor is there
any implied claim that all individual speakers have the same rules or
rule-order- far from it. For the great complexitiesthat do exist when
speaker-variation is studied, see now Milroy et al. (I983), Harris (I983).
Acceptingthis as a broaddescriptionof the currentstate, we now examine

some real-timedata in orderto confirmthe directionof change.
Pattersongivesa list of fivewordsof the /s/ class,whichwerethen(i860)
pronounced in Belfast with low realizations: wren, wrestle, wretch,grenadier,
desk.These few examplesare enough to show that the low realizationwas

thenmorewidespreadthantoday:wrenand deskdo not satisfythe Voiceless
Stop or Sonorant+Voiceless Stop conditionin monosyllables,and are now
categorical[e:]or [j -a] environments.Even the disyllablewrestle is unlikely
to appearwith [a], as the rule for raisingand lengtheningbefore [-s] now
almostalwaysoverridesthe tendencyto lowerand shortenin disyllablesand
polysyllables.4Items like wretchand grenadierare now variable. Staples
(I898) and Williams(I903), additionallygive quite detaileddescriptionsof
the vowel in the city, whichallow us to infer that low variantshad a much
widerdistributionthen than they do today. The completelist, taken from
thoseearlywritersallowsusto seethatthelowvowelappearedin environments
whereit wouldnot appearnow - for example,beforevoicelessfricativesand
voicedstops(HarrisI983: I60). Thedistributionin presentdayBelfastis quite
different,as is shownby Table3 and FigureI. In conservativeworkingclass
speech,low variantsare maintainedin 'short' environments,very much as
in the nineteenthcentury:but low realizationshave been almost entirely
replacedin long environmentsby mid realizationsof /c/. More prestigious
and less conservativespeakersare less likelyto use 'low' realizations,even
in shortenvironments.
It is evidentthat over the last hundredyears or so mid realizationshave
been spreadingat the expenseof low realizations.Mid /?/ has now almost
totally replacedlow /E/ in 'long' contexts (pre-voicelessstop, pre-sonorant+voiceless stop, and in polysyllables).Low status inner-cityspeakers
[41Itemslike wren,wretch,wrestlewerehistoricallyaffectedby loweringafter/w/, and still
appearin manyIrishand Americanvarietieswith a low vowel.
353
(males)sometimesstill have categoricallylow realizationsin short environments,butin themoreprogressiveouter-cityhousingestates,thevowelis now

categoricallymidfor somespeakers.Interestingly,thedistributionof variants
in Lurganis moresimilarto that of the inner-cityareasthanthat of the outer
areas (a patternthat appliesalso to other vowel and consonantvariables).
This relativelyrapidlinguisticchangein Belfasthas accompaniedits rise in
populationfrom about 120,000 in I 860 to nearlyhalf a millionin the early
yearsof this century,and Belfastmay be takenas an exemplarof linguistic
changein fast-growingcommunities(whileruraltownsandvillagesadhereto
older patterns).The characteristicNETWORK structuresof these different
types of communityare also relevantto the mannerin which changemay
come about, in so far as urban growth tends at first to weaken strong
pre-existingruralnetworks.
Wemay supplementour observationson /?/ by consideringevidencefrom
present-dayUlsterdialects.Theseare dividedinto two distincttypes.Ulster
Scots dialects are found in East Ulster in a belt extendingfrom around
Colerainein theNorth,throughmost of CountyAntrimandmuchof County
Down (whichis south of Belfast- see map). Most of Ulster to the west of
this belt is English-basedor mixedScots-English.Present-dayBelfastdialect
is often describedas an intrusionof this Mid-Ulstertype into the Scottish
easternbelt.Now, thelongmidvariantsof /?/ areoverwhelmingly
associated
withpresent-dayUlsterScotsdialects(Gregg,I972) and arecharacteristicof
moderncentral Scots dialectsgenerally(an exceptionis very conservative
Galloway Scots, on which see J. Milroy, I982b). Traditional Mid-Ulster
English, on the other hand, is characterized by lower realizations in all
environments (Harris, I983: I8I). The pattern of distribution in these dialects
is remarkably similar to that of nineteenth-century Belfast vernacular as
described in Patterson, Staples and Williams. We may infer that this pattern
is a residue of some earlier English vowel pattern that has not been well
identified or described by historical linguists. There is sixteenth-century
orthographic evidence (discussed by J. Milroy, I984b) that suggests some
distribution of low vowel realizations for /?/ in London English of the period:
it seems possible that this pattern of lowering of historic short vowels has been
overtaken in recent Standard English and Central Scots by a pattern of raising
and (in the latter case) lengthening. The Mid-Ulster dialects may therefore
have preserved to a great extent an older general English vowel pattern, and
they may help us to project knowledge of the present on to the past.
The historical and geographical evidence then both suggest that the low
realizations of /E/ (conservative English in background) are giving way in
a linguistically ordered way to the long mid realizations characteristic of
present-day Scots. It is clear that this change carriesprestige in Belfast in terms
of social class hierarchy and status, as it is the more prestigious groups that
tend to adopt it and the more 'advanced' (generally female and younger)
group who introduce it to the conservative inner-city communities (which are
354
LINGUISTIC
cO
CHANGE
Rathlin
Island
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~North
<
YB~~~~~~allymena
Lrn
<
Lurgan*
Map representing'core' Ulster Scots areas of north-east Ulster (shaded areas): adapted
from Gregg (1972).
characterizedby dense and multiplex network ties that tend to resist

innovationandmaintainconservativeforms).Thetensionbetweeninnovative
and conservativesocial mechanismsgives rise to a identifiablepatternof
gradualdiffusion,whichmaybe representedas a historicalshiftfroman older
of modernScots.As we
English-typepatterntowardsa patterncharacteristic
haveimplied,themannerin whichthechangeproceedsis conditionedby both
social and phonologicalfactors.We now turnto a descriptionof changein
/a/, with whichthe /e/ systemcan be compared.
(ii) Backing of /a/
As we have indicatedabove (p. 349), the range of realizationsof /a/ in
present-dayBelfastvernacularis considerable- from [e]through[a]and [a]
355
to back raised and rounded [3]. Again, as for /?/, patterns of lengthening and
diphthongization are present, with long vowels being associated mainly with
back realizations and with the higher front realizations before voiced velars
(see Table I). In what follows, we are concerned only with backing and
retraction, and we therefore largely exclude the pre-velar environments (in
which backing is not found).
Table I also shows that back realizations are favoured by following
fricatives, non-velar voiced stops and non-velar nasals (on the rules for
preceding velars, as in cab, carrot, see p. 346 above). Nasals favour backing
particularly strongly. Middle-class urban speakers (J. Milroy, i982 a) tend to
narrow the extreme range described above and in some cases converge on a
point somewhere in the middle of the range, around [a] (but see below). The
widest range is found mainly in the speech of inner-city male speakers.
Furthermore, it is the MALES of Ballymacarrett (East Belfast) who use the
backed variants most and who show evidence of spreading the backed
realizations into VOICELESS stop environments (as in that, wrap), where short,
front variants are expected. If there is evidence of change in progress towards
backed variants of /a/, it will therefore be male speakers who are leading it,
rather than the females who lead the change towards raised /?/.
Historical documentation suggests that /a/ backing is a recent trend. The
elocutionist Patterson (i86o) does not comment on /a/ backing at all. On
the contrary, his remarks suggest that the Ulster tendency was towards
fronting and raising and that the most salient Belfast feature was fronting
and raising in velar environments.
In some places [presumably in the north of Ireland: JM, LM] the short
sound of e is improperly substituted for a, in almost every word in which
it occurs; in Belfast, however, this error is almost exclusively confined to
those words in which a is preceded by c or g, or followed by the sound
of k, hard g or ng.
(Patterson, i86o: I5)
A very few of Patterson's spellings may indicate that /a/ backing and
rounding had been observed sporadically in -r and -l environments: he has
form for 'farm' and canaul for 'canal'. However, examples of this kind are
so few that they indicate only a slight tendency (possibly confined to some
pre-sonorant environments), which is not enough for /a/ backing to be
discussed as a stereotype. The item car appears in Patterson as 'care', in which
the now highly recessiverule for fronting and raising after velars is clear. Items
like hand, band, in which [o] is now stereotypically expected, are given simply
as han, ban, etc. Frequently, however, items that now have low and/or back
vowels, are given with [E]: these include rether for 'rather' (a rural Scots
residue), e for a in single nasal environments in polysyllables such as exemine,
Jenuary and in nasal cluster environments such as demsel, exemple, Entrim
('Antrim'), slent, bendy '(bandy'), brench.
356
LINGUISTIC
CHANGE
WhereasPatterson'saccountindicatesa systemgenerallyinclinedtowards
front-vowelrealizations,Staples(I898), writingnearly40 yearslater,reports
a 'low backwide'vowelbeforenon-velarnasals,in e.g. man,hand,land.Since
Patterson's time -/r/ environments have become categorically back
realizations.Otherwise,the figureson present-dayvariationconfirmthat
since then it is nasal environmentsthat have subsequentlyled the change,
closely followedby fricativeand voiced stop environments.In East Belfast,
as we have noted above, backing is spreadingeven into voiceless stop
environments,and this is most clearlyattestedin young men (those in our
samplewereaged I8-20).
THUS,ALTHOUGH RAISING AND LENGTHENINGOF f/? AND BACKING OF /a/
ARE BOTH CHANGES ASSOCIATEDWITH MODERN CENTRAL SCOTS, THE FORMER
IS AT PRESENT LED IN BELFAST BY FEMALESAND THE LATTER BY MALES. It is
clear from patternsof stylistic variationthat (as we might alreadyhave

inferred)the two changeshavedifferentprestigevaluesattachedto them.As
Table4 indicates,thebackingof /a/ tendsto be resistedby speakersin careful
Men (40-55)
IS
SS
3.03
3.58
Men (40-55)
IS
SS
2.79
2.79
East Belfast(Ballymacarrett)
Women(40-55) Men (I8-25)
2.89
I.75
2.58
3.43
West Belfast(Clonard)
Women(4-55)
Men (I8-25)
2.36
2.33
1.77
I.85
Women(I8-25)
I.89
2.IO
Women(I8-25)
2.36
2.6I
Table 4
Incidenceof retractionand backingof /a/ by age, sex and conversational

style in two Belfastcommunities,calculatedby an indexscorerangingfrom
o (minimum)to 4 (maximum).IS, interviewstyle; SS, spontaneousstyle
'interview'style(whereasraisingof /F/ is MORElikelyin carefulstyles).Thus,
men seem to be principallyassociatedwith a change that speakersdo not
consciouslyview as beingof high prestige,whilewomenare associatedwith
one adopted by speakers in their more carefully monitored styles (for
furtherdiscussionof these figures,see Section6 below).
Ourreal time evidenceconfirmsthat the movementin /a/ is phonetically
from frontto back.This meansthat sporadicfront-raising(foundmainlyin
West Belfast) in words likeflat, trap ([flet, trep]) must be seen as residues and
not as innovations.The belief of many casual observersthat raisingbefore

velars(and very occasionallybeforevoicelessnon-velarstops) are attempts
357
to imitateconservativeRP ('ReceivedPronunciation',as described,e.g. by

Gimson, I980) is also shown to be wrong by quantitativeand diachronic
evidence.The quantitativeevidenceshowsthat the frontingand raisingrule
in Belfastvernacularis virtuallyconfinedto velarenvironmentsand cannot
applyto wordslike bad,hand,stab (whichare front in RP). The diachronic
evidence shows that, for a century or more, the trend has been towards
retractionand backing.
Theevidencealso indicatesthatthe rulefor backingdiffusesgeographically
from East to West Belfast(see Table 4). Scoresfor /a/ backingare higher
for East Belfastmales than for any other groupsstudied,and the rangeof
environmentsin which backing operates is extended to voiceless stops
amongst younger East Belfast males. It appearsto be inner East Belfast
(Ballymacarrett)
that providesthe modelfor working-classspeechin the city
(L. Milroy, I980); this is discussedby Harris(I983) in termsof a 'labour
aristocracy' representedby the (relatively) fully employed protestant
populationof East Belfast.
Both /a/ backing and /?/ raising are relativelyrecent phenomenain
Belfast(but see below),and both are associatedwith a backgroundin Scots.
Patterson'saccount of Belfast shows characteristicsof conservativerural
Scots lexicaldistribution,much of whichappearsto have been residualand
is now obliteratedby restructuring.
Howeverlengtheningand raisingof /e/
andbackingof /a/ aremodernScots.Gregg's(I972) accountof UlsterScots
givesoverwhelmingly
backrealizationsof /a/ anddescribes/c/ as oftenlong
in realization(contrastthe veryshortlow realizationsin conservativeBelfast
vernacular,such as [stap,t3at]for step,jet). Similarly,/a/ backingseemsto
be a verygeneralmodernScots feature(Lass, 1976).East Belfastadjoinsthe
Ulster-Scotsregionof North Down (wherebackingis strong),whereasWest
Belfast points south-westdown the Lagan Valley, the speech of which is
Mid-Ulster with less Scots influence;furthermore,immigrationto West
Belfast is recent and is largely from a Mid- and West-Ulsternon-Scots
hinterland.Presentday quantitativestudiesin Lurgan,a smallcountrytown
south-westof Belfastin the Lagan Valley,confirmthe existenceof an /a/
systemwith little backing(front vowels have been noted in that area even
before[r]and finally),whichis quite similarto Patterson'si86o accountof
Belfastin this respect(Pitts, I982).
Finally,we mustnote that if we take a generaloverview,thesetwo vowels
appearto be movingaway from one anotherin phoneticspace,ratherthan
in the samedirection(as we would expect,e.g. in a chain-shift).We are not
in thispaperprimarilyconcernedwiththe embeddingof changesin language
systems(and argumentsbased on this could suggestthat one change- /-/
raisingis slightly more recent in origin than the other), but we may
commentthat if data for individualspeakersand homogeneousgroupsare
examined,the overallpictureof vowelsmovingawayfromone anotherdoes
not appearso prominentlyas it does when we focus on the languagerather
358
CHANGE
LINGUISTIC
than the speaker.Speakerswho have [6] raisingtend to have more fronted

realizationsof /a/ (thesespeakersareoftenfemale),andthosewhohavelower
reali"ationsof /?/ aremorelikelyto have[a]backing(thesespeakersareoften
male). Thus, an account based on what speakersactually do looks very
differentfrom a generalizedaccountof changein the languagesystem.
In the next section,we move from an accountof the languagesystemto
a discussionof speakersand theirsocial role in phonologicalinnovations.
4. SOCIAL NETWORK STRUCTURE
ANALYSIS OF /a/ AND /6/
AND SPEAKER INNOVATION:
AN
In additionto the variablesof age, sex and statusdiscussedin Section3, a

furthersocialvariableassociatedwitha speaker'sDEGREEOF INTEGRATIONinto
his closeknit communityappearedto affect the probabilityof his being
linguisticallyinnovativewith respectto choice of vowel variants.
Generallyspeaking,it seemsto be truethat the closerthe individual'sties
to a local communitynetwork, the more likely he is to approximateto
vernacularnorms (see L. Milroy, I980, for details). Following some welldeveloped anthropologicalfindings, we have suggested that a closeknit
network has an intrinsic capacity to function as a norm-enforcement
mechanism,to the extent that it operates in opposition to larger scale
institutionalstandardisingpressures.One corollary of this capacity of a
closeknitnetworkto maintainlinguisticnormsof a non-standardkindis that
the LOOSENINGof such a networkstructurewill be associatedwith linguistic
change (L. Milroy, I980: I85; Gal, 1979). It is the implications of that
corollaryon whichwe concentratehere.

A major point emergingfrom our earlieranalysisof language/network
relationshipswas that the variableNETWORK needed to be consideredin
relationto the variableSEX OF SPEAKER. Indeed,as Gumperzhas remarked
(I982: 71), the networkvariableis in generalclosely associatedwith many
others,includinggenerationcohort,geographicallocation,and socialstatus.
Thus,ournexttaskhereis to pickout brieflytherelevantpartsof our analysis
of the social distributionof innovatory realizationsof /a/ and /?/, as
identifiedin Section3.
Firstof all, realizationsof /a/ and /?/ arestronglyaffectedby the variable
SEX OF SPEAKER.Thus, althoughincomingvariantsof both vowelsappearto
have originatedin the same hinterlandScots dialect, each has assumeda
diametricallyopposedSOCIALvalue in its new urbansetting.
Raised variants of /6/ are, in the low status inner city, associated
particularlywith women and with careful speech styles. They are also
associatedgenerallywith slightlymore prestigiousOUTER city speech,and
data collectedby surveymethodsconfirmsthat the higherthe statusof the
speaker,the morelikelyhe is to use raisedvariants(see Milroyet al., I983).
Differentlevels of use accordingto SEX OF SPEAKERare particularlyevident
359
in Ballymacarrett, where it appears to be YOUNGER FEMALE speakers who are

most strongly associated with the incoming raised variants.
The incoming variants of /a/ show an almost perfectly converse pattern
of social distribution. High levels of backing are associated with males
(particularly Ballymacarrett males, although levels in other inner city areas
are still quite high) and with casual styles appropriate to interaction between
peers. The most extremely backed variants do not appear at all in outer city
speech. Interestingly, the sex differentiation pattern across the three inner city
areas is not as consistent for /a/ as it is for /?/; there is some indication
that the young Clonard WOMENare increasing their use of backed realizations
when compared with other female groups (see Table 4). They also use these
variants MORE than their male counterparts although they follow the expected
sex differentiation patterns with respect to other phonological variables (see
Section 6 below for a discussion of the Clonard pattern).
In summary then, it appears that incoming variants of /a/ are associated
with core Belfast vernacular, while incoming variants of /?/ are associated
with careful higher status speech.
If we look at the relationship between speaker choice of variant and
individual network structure, the picture becomes even more complicated.
With respect to both vowels, choice of variant shows a correlation with
personal network structurein some subsections of the inner city communities;
but the details of this correlation are quite different for each vowel.
The vowel /a/ is particularly sensitive to variation according to the
network structure of the speaker; but WOMEN appear to correlate their choice
of variant more closely with their personal network structure than do men.
This means that among women a relatively large amount of /a/ backing is
more likely to be associated with a high level of integration into the network
than is the case among men - a relationship analysed by Spearman's Rank
Order Correlation (L. Milroy, I980: I55). Although, as we have noted,
women are much less likely than men to select back variants of /a/, this
generally lower level of use does not prevent individual women from varying
their realization of /a/, within the female norms, according to their social
network structure. Thus, the DEGREEOF FIT between phonological choice and
network structure may be seen as an issue quite separate from the ABSOLUTE
LEVELOF USE of a particular range of variants. We may thus argue that /a/
functionsfor womenas a NETWORK MARKERto a greaterextentthan it does

for men; by this we mean that there is for them a higher correlation between
choice of variant and network structure,a tendency to select relatively backed
variants being associated with higher levels of integration into the
community.
When we look at the relationship between choice of /?/ realization and
individual social network structure, we find a pattern emerging converse to
the one described for /a/; recall also that the incoming variants of the two
36o
LINGUISTIC
CHANGE
vowels showedan almostconversesocial distributionwith regardto status,

sex of speaker,and speechstyles.
Most importantly,thereappearsto be no tendencyat all for womento use
/s/ as a NETWORK MARKER in the sense describedabove; but there is a
significantcorrelationbetweennetworkscoresof MALEspeakers(particularly
young male speakers)and choice of /f/ realization.A tendencyto select
relativelyLOW (conservative)variantsis associatedwitha relativelyhighlevel
of integrationinto the community(see L Milroy, I980: 155 for details).
This complexrelationshipbetweennetworkstructure,sex of speakerand
languageuse is summarisedin Table 5. However,our interesthere is in a
Changeled by
High correlationwith
networkstrength
/a/
Males
Females
/E/
Females
Males
Table 5
Contrastingpatterns of distributionof two vowels involved in change,

accordingto sex of speaker,relativefrequencyof innovatoryvariantsand
level of correlationwith networkstrength
generalizationwhichwe are now able to make concerningon the one hand
the relationshipbetweenlanguageand networkstructure,and on the other
the socialidentityof the innovatinggroup.IN THE CASEOF BOTH /E/ AND /a/
IT IS THE PERSONSFOR WHOM THE VOWELHAS LESSSIGNIFICANCEAS A NETWORK
MARKERWHO SEEMTO BE LEADING THE LINGUISTICCHANGE. It is as if absence
of this language/networkrelationship(a relationshipthat fulfilsa cohesive

socialfunction)enablesa particularsocialgroupto adopttheroleof linguistic
innovators.This appearsto be the case regardlessof whetherthe innovation
is evaluatedby the widerurbancommunityas beingof high or of low status.
For althoughit is clearthat /e/ raisingis diffusingon a muchbroadersocial
front than /a/ backing,the generalizationstill seems to hold true that it is
those personsin the innercity for whom the vowel functionsless clearlyas
a network marker who are the principal innovators into their own
communities.
It is importantto note thateventhoughbackedvariantsof /a/ arestrongly
emblematicof vernacularspeech,they are neverthelessspreadingto higher
statusgroupsin thewidercommunity.Butthisdiffusionis beingimplemented
in a manner very different from that affecting /?/. We have noted that
[?]
raisingis characteristicboth of low-statusfemalespeechand moregenerally

13
36I
LIN 21
of higherstatusspeech.The diffusionof [E] raisingon this wide social front

is confirmedboth by linguisticsurveydata and by more detailedouter-city
communitystudies.
Whenwe look at the social distributionof variantsof /a/ (on which see
J. Milroy,i982 a) wefindby wayof contrastthathigherstatusBelfastspeakers
avoid both extremefront AND extremeback realizations,as they converge
aroundCardinalVowel 4 in the middleof the phoneticrange.However,a
veryinterestinggroupof young,male,middle-classspeakerscan be identified
in the sample of speakers studied in the survey. They also show the
characteristicmiddle-classtendencyto convergearounda limitedphonetic
area,with relativelylittle conditionedvariation.However,phonetically,the
point at whichtheyconvergeis furtherback thanthat characteristicof older
middle-classspeakers.
It appearsthereforethat the mechanismof diffusionassociatedwith each
of t;hevowelsis different.Raisedvariantsof /?/ are apparentlyspreadingin
a linguisticallyorderedway,with'long' environmentsaffectedfirst.Formany
outer-cityand middle-classspeakers,a raisedvowel is alreadycategoricalin
all environments.Althoughbackedvariantsof /a/ appearto be diffusing
historicallyand laterally(throughthe low statusinner-citycommunities)in a
linguisticallyorderedmanner parallel to the processes affecting/E/, the
mechanismof diffusionupwards(socially)throughthe communityis quite
different.Whatseemsto be involvedhereis a 'drift' phoneticallyto the back
of the characteristicmiddle-classrealization.
The datapresentedheresuggestthat socialnetworkstructureis implicated
in processesof linguisticchangein at leasttwo ways.First,a strongcloseknit
networkmay be seen to functionas a conservativeforce,resistingpressures
to changefrom outsidethe network.Those speakerswhose ties are weakest
are those who approximateleast closely to vernacularnorms,and are most
exposedto pressuresfor changeoriginatingfrom outsidethe network.
Second,a detailedsociolinguisticanalysisof [?] raisingand [a] backingprocesseswhichhave a commondialectalpoint of originbut have takenon
very differentsocial values in their new urban context- suggeststhat the
VERNACULAR speakersassociatedmost stronglywith the innovationare in
eachcase thosefor whomthe vowelfunctionsleastprominentlyas a network
marker.It is as if a strongrelationshipbetweenthe networkstructureof a
given group and choice of phonetic realization of a particularvowel
disqualifiesthat group from fulfillingthe role of innovatorswith respect
to that vowel. Conversely,it may be the case that dissolution of the
language/networkrelationshipwith respect to a group of speakersis a
necessaryconditionfor that groupto fulfilthe role of linguisticinnovators.
Both of these observationssuggest that since the variable NETWORK
STRUCTURE is implicatedin a negative way in linguisticchange, a closer
examinationof WEAK networkties would be profitable.For it mightwell be
362
LINGUISTIC
CHANGE
that it is speakerswho lack strongnetworkties or are loosely attachedto

closeknitgroupswho are characteristically
linguisticinnovators.
The problemis that a generalweaknessof social networkanalysisis its
superiorabilityto handleCLOSEKNITties as opposedto weak,diffusetypesof
networkstructure.This difficultyarisesfromthe fact that personalnetworks
are in principleunbounded;the numberand strengthof ties whichbind an
individualto others are not, in the last analysis, definable.However in
closeknitterritoriallydefinedgroupsit is possibleto treatpersonalnetworks
AS IF they wereboundedgroups(see Milroy, I980: Ch. 3) whereasin socially
andgeographically
mobilesectorsof societythisis not feasible.Ourownwork
has reflectedthis in that it has concentratedon the functionof closeknitties,
observedwithina definedterritory,as an importantmechanismof language
MAINTENANCE. Yet, it is evident that a very large number of speakers,
particularlyin cities, do not have personalsocial networksof this type. We
havesuggestedthat,in Britishsocietyat least,closeknitnetworksarelocated
primarilyat the highestand the loweststrata,with a majorityof sociallyand
geographicallymobile speakersfalling betweenthese two points. (But see
Kroch, M.S., for an interestingstudy of a closeknitupper-classAMERICAN
network).Significantly,Labov and Kroch have noted that in the United
Stateslinguisticchangeseemsalwaysto originateanddiffusefromsomepoint
in this centralarea of the social hierarchy- neverfrom the highestor the
lowest social groups (Labov, I980; Kroch, I978).
Thus,despitethe difficultiesof studyinglooseknitnetworktiesin the outer

cityusingthemethodsadoptedin theinner-cityareas,a searchfor someother
meansof followingthroughtheirevidentassociationwith linguisticchange
seemedwell worthwhile.5This cannot be accomplishedby analysingstatisticallyrelationshipsbetweenlanguageand network,as was possiblein the
innercity communities,simplybecausethereis no obvious way of characterisingquantitativelylooseknituniplexties whichextendovervast distances
and are often contractedwith large numbersof others. Indeed, such an
undertakingmightbe neitherpossiblenor desirable,giventhe verydifferent
role fulfilledby the closeknitgroupsat eitherend of the social hierarchyin
maintainingpolarisedsets of linguisticnorms.It is certainlynot clear that
quantitativeexaminationof the looseknitnetworkscontractedby a majority
of speakersin the centreof thathierarchywouldbe particularlyilluminating.
[5] The initialdifficultieswerethe practicalones whichmight be predicted.We found that
networktiesof outer-cityindividualsin thekeynetworksectorsof kin,friendshipandwork
oftenstraggledoverextensiveareas.Conversely,tiesof neighbourhood,
whichwerecrucial
in the innercity, often seemednot to be significant,sincepeoplefrequentlyhardlyknew
theirneighbours.Thus,in the innercity, whereties weredenseand territoriallybounded,
it seemedreasonableto studycommunitylinguisticnormsusinga networkmodelwhich
was itselfpartof a theoryof languagemaintenance.But it was not at all clearwhatkind
of hypothesiswe mightderivefrom a comparablestudyin the outer-cityareas- or even
whatmightconstitutea comparablestudy.
363
I3-2
We thereforeproceed to examine the relationshipbetween looseknit

networktiesandlinguisticchangein quitea differentway. First,a theoretical
model of the socialfunctionof 'weak' networkties is presented;second,we
look at the social characteristicsof innovatorsin general,and on this basis
suggesta new model of linguisticinnovationand diffusion.
5.
WEAK TIES AND INNOVATIONS
The discussionin this section depends heavily on a suggestivepaper by

Granovetter(1973), who sees 'weak' ties betweenindividualsas important
linksbetweenmicro-groups(small,closeknitnetworks)andthe widersociety.
Perhapsit is best at this point to graspthe nettle, and attempta definition
of what is meantby 'weak' and 'strong' ties, for this contrastcannoteasily
be characterizedquantitatively.Granovettersuggests the following: 'the
strengthof a tie is a (probablylinear)combinationof the amountof time,
the emotionalintensity,the intimacy(mutualconfiding)and the reciprocal
services which characterise a tie'
(I 36I).
Note that by this measure multiplex
ties - i.e. thosewithmultiplecontent- wouldbe countedas relativelystrong;

the notion of multiplexitywas an importantbasis of the networkstrength
measuresused in the Belfastinner-citystudies.
Granovetter'sdefinitionis probably sufficientto satisfy most readers'
intuitivesenseof whatmightbe meantby a 'strong' or 'weak' interpersonal
tie, correspondingas it (approximately)does to an everydaydistinction
betweenan 'acquaintance'and a 'friend'.It is certainlysatisfactoryfor our
purposehere.
Granovetterremarksthatmost networkmodelsdealimplicitlywith small,
well-definedgroupsWITHIN whichmanystrongties arecontracted(cf. p. 363
above).His fundamentalargumentis thatweaktiesBETWEENgroupsprovide
bridgesthroughwhichinformationand influencearediffused,and thatweak
ties are more likely to link membersof DIFFERENTsmallgroupsthan strong
ones, whichtend to be concentratedWITHIN particulargroups.Thus, while
strong ties give rise to local cohesion, they lead, paradoxically,to overall
fragmentation.
Only weak ties can form a bridge between cohesive groups, for the
followingstructuralreason(whichGranovetterexpressesas a hypothesisand
initiallysupportsby aprioristicargumentratherthan by adducingempirical
evidence):
If we considertwo arbitrarilyselectedindividuals,A and B and the set S,
consisting of C, D, E ... of all persons who have ties with either or both of
them,the strongerthe relationshipbetweenA and B, the morethe networks

of each are likely to overlap.Extensiveoverlap,whichwill inhibitthe flow
of NEW informationbetweenA and B, is predictedto be least whenthe A-B
tie is absentand to increasein proportionto its strength.This relationship
betweennetworkoverlapandstrengthof tie resultslargelyfromthe tendency
364
LINGUISTIC
CHANGE
for strongties to involvemore time commitment;for exampleif A spends

a large proportionof his time with B, it is likely that this time investment
will bringhim ultimatelyinto contactwith the individualsC, D and E who
initiallyformedpart of B's network.Conversely,the networksof A and B
arelesslikelyto overlapif the tie betweenthemis weak,and so we mayderive
the more general(and for our purposemore important)principlethat links
BETWEEN
closeknitgroups are normallyWEAKties betweenthe individuals
who havecontractedthem.Theseweakties betweennon-overlapping
groups
provideimportantbridgesfor the diffusionof innovations.
Examiningvariouslikelyand unlikelyconfigurationsof strongand weak
ties, Granovetternotes that individualsvaryin the proportionof eachwhich
they contract.While not all weak ties functionas bridgesbetweengroups,
all bridgesmust, Granovettersuggests,be weak ties. For the sake of the
argument,a bridgeis definedas the ONLYroutethroughwhichinformation
flowsfromA to B, or fromanycontactof A to anycontactof B (seeFigure2).
G
A--------BI
K
F
Figure 2
Weak ties;
A bridge between two networks. ----,
,strong ties.
Granovetter'sinterestis in exploringthe interpersonalmechanismswhich

connect small groupsto each other and to a largersociety, and his model
predictsthatinnovationandinfluencewillflowthroughweaktiesratherthan
strongones. It is the relationshipbetweenstrengthof tie andnetworkoverlap
whichleads him to suggestthat NO STRONG TIE CAN BE A BRIDGE. And while
it must be acknowledgedthat in practicethereis likelyto be more than one
link betweengroupsof any size, the principlethat these links are likely to
be weakis of greatimportancehere.Weakintergroupties, by Granovetter's
argument,arelikelyto be criticalin transmittinginnovationsfromone group
to another,despitethe commonsenseassumptionthat STRONGties fulfillthis
role (see for exampleDownes (I984: 155) who suggeststhat networksmay
be importantin developinga theoryof linguisticdiffusion,but assumesthat
it is strongties whichwill be critical).
AlthoughGranovetter'sprinciplemightat firstseemcounter-intuitive
and
paradoxical,a littlethoughtconfirmsthatit worksout wellempirically.First
of all, it is likely (in the networksof mobile individualsat least) that weak
ties are more numerousthan strongties. Second,it is clearthat manymore
individualscan be reachedthroughweak ties than throughstrong;consider
365
for examplethe numberof contactsmadeby a salesmanin the courseof his

business,duringwhichhe buildsup an elaboratestructureof bridges.Consider also the elaborate bridges set up by participants at academic
conferences,whichlink the cohesivegroupsassociatedwith eachinstitution.
It is via these bridgesthat new ideas pass from one institutionalgroup to
another.Conversely,informationrelayedthroughstrongties tendsnot to be
innovatory;as Granovetterremarks,'If one tells a rumourto all his close
friendsand they do likewise,manywill hearthe rumoura secondand third
time, since those linked by strong ties tend to share friends' (1366). But
it is evidentthatgenuinediffusionof the rumourwill takeplaceif eachperson
tellsit to acquaintanceswithwhomhe is onlyweaklylinked;theyin turnwill
transmitit to a largenumberof non-overlapping
groups,so thatthe 'retelling
effect' will not occur.
It has often been noted (see, for example,Turner,I967) that a closeknit
networkstructurewill usuallynot survivea changeof location,andit is clear
in generalthat socialor geographicalmobilityis conduciveto the formation
of weakties. Moreover,a mobileindividual'sweakties arelikelyto be much
morenumerousthan his strongties. If a man changeshis job, he is not only
movingfromone networkof ties to another,but establishinga link between
eachrelativelycohesivegroup.Thus,mobileindividualswho arerichin weak
ties, but (as a consequenceof theirmobility)relativelymarginalto any given
cohesivegroupare, it is argued,in a particularlystrongposition to diffuse
innovation.Note thatthiscontentionis in linewiththetraditionalassumption
by historiansof languagethat the emergent,mobile merchantclass were
largely responsiblefor the appearanceof Northern (and other) dialectal
innovationsin EarlyModern(Standard)English(see, for example,Strang,
1970: 2I4 f.; Ekwall, I956; Baugh & Cable, I978: 194); if it is correct,
Granovetter'sprinciplethat the overlapof two individuals'socialnetworks
variesdirectlywith the strengthof theirtie to one anotherhas considerable
implicationsfor any theory of diffusion. (Strengthof tie is of course a
continuousvariablealthough'weak' and 'strong'tieshavebeentreatedhere
as if they werediscrete.)It mightappearthat this relativelyclearhypothesis
could easily be supportedor disconfirmedempirically;but unfortunately
networkor sociometricstudiescannot easilybe used directlyas a sourceof
corroboratory(or disconfirmatory)evidencesimplybecausetheir research
designusuallyentailsrelativeneglectof weak ties. Thus, for example,when
personsareaskedto nameothersfromwhomtheyhavereceivedinformation
(or friendship,as in Labov's'lames' study)the numberof permittedchoices
is usuallyrestrictedso that the namingof weak ties is effectivelyinhibited.
Even if the researchdesignpermitsidentificationof personswith weak ties
to specifiedothers, as did our own (see Milroy, I980, for details), it is
extremelydifficultto study those ties just because they ARE weak and
perceivedas relativelyunimportantto EGO.
366
LINGUISTIC
CHANGE
Fortunately, empirical evidence to support Granovetter'smodel has

emergedfromelsewhere- notablyRogers'and Shoemaker's(I97I) studyof
the diffusionof aroundfifteenhundredinnovations.Somegeneralprinciples
can be extractedfrom this large body of empiricalevidencewhich tend to
supportGranovetter'scontentionthat innovationsfirst reach a group via
weak ties.
A distinctiondiscussedin somedetailby theauthorsis betweenINNOVATORS
and EARLY ADOPTERS of an innovation. This distinctionturns out to be
importantwhetherthe innovationis agricultural(the introductionof hybrid
seedcorn to an Iowancommunity);technological(machineryto engineering
firms);educational(new methods of mathematicsteaching);or concerned
with publichealth (introducingthe habit of boilingcontaminatedwaterto
Peruvianvillagers).Thereis evenan earlylinguisticstudyof the introduction
of lexicalinnovationsto an oilfield(Boone, I949). All of these studies,and
verymanymore,confirmthe principlethat INNOVATORSare marginalto the
group adoptingthe innovation,often being perceivedas underconforming
to the point of deviance.
The EARLY ADOPTERS of the innovationare, on the other hand, central
membersof the group,havingstrongtieswithinit, andarehighlyconforming
to group norms;they frequentlyprovidea model for other non-innovative
membersof the group.Afterits adoptionby thesecentralfigures(frommore
marginalpersons),an innovationis typicallydisseminatedfrom the inside
outwardswith increasingspeed,showingan S-curveof adopterdistribution
throughtime. Whileit is clearthat linguisticinnovationsdifferin a number
of respectsfrom, for example,technicalinnovations(see Trudgill,I983: 63,
for a discussion),theydo not appearto be DIFFUSEDby mechanismsmarkedly
differentfromthosewhichcontrolthe diffusionof innovationsgenerally.For
linguisticinnovationsalso show this characteristicS-curveof distribution
throughtime (see Chambers& Trudgill,I980: I76-I8i; Bailey, I973).
Bearingin mindthe norm-enforcingcharacterof a groupbuilt up mainly
of strongties, and its consequentlack of susceptibilityto outsideinfluence,
we can see why innovatorsare likely to be personswho are weaklylinked
to the group. Susceptibilityto outside influenceis likely to be greaterin
inverseproportionto strengthof tie with the groupand by implicationalso
in inverseproportionto susceptibilityto norm-enforcingpressurefrom the
group. Thus, where groups are linked by many weak ties they will be
susceptibleto innovationpartlyfor this (social)reason,and partlybecause
innovationis for structuralreasonsunlikelyto be transmittedvia a strong
tie (see pp. 364-365 above).
Personsat the centreof a norm-enforcinggroup (i.e. personswho share
strong ties within it) will, as a corollary, not be susceptibleto outside
pressures.Becauseof the investmentin time and commitmentneeded to
maintainthese strong ties, they will almost certainlylack opportunitiesto
367
form many bridges(weakties) with othergroups.Thus, typically,for these

variousreasons,innovators(as opposed to early adopters)will be persons
marginalto theircommunity,with many weak ties to other groups.
It appearsat firstto be difficultto explainhow thesemarginalinnovators
could diffuseinnovationssuccessfullyto centralmembersof the group;but
two relatedpointscan help us here.First,in view of the verygeneralfinding
of sociolinguisticresearchthat the prestigevalues attachedto languageare
oftenquitecovertanddifficultto tapdirectly,wemaysuggestthata successful
innovationneedsto be evaluatedpositively,eitherovertlyor covertly.Thisis
of coursea necessarybut not a sufficientconditionfor its ultimateadoption,
and is bindingon non-linguisticinnovationsalso.
Second,wemaysurmisewithGranovetterthatsinceresistanceto innovation
is likelyto be greatin a norm-conforminggroup,a largenumberof persons
will have to be exposedto it and adopt it in the earlystagesfor it to spread
successfully.
Now weak ties are, in a mobile society, likely to be very much more
numerousthanstrongties, and someof themarelikelyto functionas bridges
to the groupfrom whichthe innovationis flowing;thus an innovationlike
the Cockney merger between /v/:/6/ and /f/:/0/ reported in teenage
Norwichspeakersby Trudgill(I983: 73) is likely to be transmittedthrough
a great many weak links contracted between Londoners and Norwich
speakers.Quite simply, before it stands any chance of acceptanceby the
centralmembersof a group,the links throughwhichit is transmittedNEED
to be numerous(cf. Granovetter,I973: 1367).
Returningto our firstpoint, we assumethat some kind of prestige,either
over or covert,is associatedwith the innovation.In other words,Norwich
speakers,whetherthey aremarginalor centralto theirlocal groups,in some
senseview vernacularLondon speechas desirable- moredesirablethan the
speechof othercities.6Again,followingthroughthe argumentspresentedin
this section,we suggestthat personscentralto the networkwouldfinddirect
innovationa risky business;but adoptingan innovationwhich is already
widespreadon the edges of the group is much less risky. Thus, instead of
askinghow centralmembersof a groupare inducedto acceptan innovation
frommarginalmembers,we can viewthis as a sensiblestrategyon theirpart.
In orderto adopt an innovationwhichis seenas desirable,theydiminishthe
risk of a potentiallydeviantactivityby adoptingit from personswho are
alreadylinkedto the group,ratherthan by directimportation.
[6] The merger between dental and labio-dental fricatives has been noted in the speech of
Sheffield adolescents also. By the reasoning which we are using here, we must assume first
that weak ties exist between Sheffield adolescents and London speakers and second
(crucially) that London speech has some kind of prestige for Sheffield speakers. Although
we cannot at this stage enumerate the factors which give rise to covert attitudes of this kind,
it seems reasonable to suggest that for reasons of (for example) local loyalty, combined
with perceptions of relative autonomy, not all cities will share them.
368
LINGUISTIC
CHANGE
We are now in a position to relatethe substantivepoints emergingfrom

this discussion to earlier argumentsconcerningthe relationshipbetween
social networkstructureand linguisticchange.It is clearthat the link noted
earlierbetweenthe dissolutionof closeknitnetworksand the susceptibility
of a groupto linguisticchangefits in with the observationsof Granovetter
and Rogers and Shoemaker.Further, we showed that the groups most
stronglyassociatedwiththe diffusionof the innovativeraised/?/ andbacked
/a/ variantsappearedto be those verygroupswho tendedleast to use these
phonologicalelementsas 'networkmarkers'.It is likelythat the sociallocus
of the innovationsis, at leastin part,a consequenceof the use a givengroup
is making(or failingto make)of them as networkmarkers.
If wereturnto Labov'sdiscussionof theactuationproblem(seepp. 342-343
above),it is clearthat the modelelaboratedheredoes not entirelyagreewith
his accountof the individualswho actuatelinguisticchange,i.e. introduce
an innovationto a definablegroup.Recallthat they aredescribedas persons
who have high prestigeand a largenumberof ties BOTH INSIDE AND OUTSIDE
the small local group. They do not sound at all similar to the typical
innovator,describedby Rogersand Shoemakeras underconformingto the
point of deviance.
One seriousdifficultyappearsto be that thereis apparentlyno easy way
forempiricalstudiesof linguisticchangein progress(particularly
phonological
change)to makethecrucialdistinctionbetweenINNOVATORS(whoaresocially
marginal) and EARLY ADOPTERS (who occupy a central position in the
network).We can only trackan innovationthroughhistorical,geographical
and social space,finallylinkingit with a specificgroup.It is not clearhow,
without being able to pinpoint the time of the first introductionof an
innovation to a community,we could identify this group confidentlyas
innovatorson the one handor earlyadopterson the other.Butit is important
in principleto distinguishbetweenthe two groupsand it seemslikely that
phonologicalinnovationwill alreadyhave begunto diffusethroughoutthe
groupif it is sufficientlywell establishedto be observable.We shall shortly
discussthis questionin relationto the groupwhichappearsto be leadingthe
changeto /a/ backingin the Clonard,Belfast.
Most probably,the personsdescribedby LabovareEARLY ADOPTERS. But
thereis still a problemin that it is not at all clearhow theirgroup-internal
ties could be strongwhen they have simultaneouslya largenumberof such
ties (relative-toothers)and a high proportionof ALL theirties outside the
group.Onedifficultyin assessingLabov'sworkfromthe perspectivewe have
adoptedhereis thathe seemsto relyfundamentallyon theexplanatorypower
of the notion of the PRESTIGEof the innovators,payingless attentionto the
contentor structureof INTERPERSONALLINKS. We have argued,on the other
hand, that although a successfulinnovation needs in some sense to be
positivelyevaluated,generalizations
canbemadeaboutthesocialmechanisms
controllinginnovationanddiffusionquiteindependentlyof theprestigevalue
369
attached to any given innovation (see the discussion of /a/ and /?/ in Section
4 above). Despite these difficultiesarising partly from differencesin theoretical
orientation, the persons described by Labov do in fact correspond reasonably
closely to Rogers' and Shoemaker's account of highly conforming individuals
with strong ties inside the group who serve as models to others. What is clear
is that the marginals who are identified as typical innovators are precisely the
kind of individuals to whom Labov, in the best tradition of small-group
studies, is likely to pay little attention. In fact, they closely resemble the
famous 'lames' of the Harlem study, who belong centrally neither to the
community youth networks nor to other networks outside the community.
They are marginal to both, providing a tenuous link between them.
We thus emerge with a model of linguistic innovation and diffusion which
at first sight seems counter-intuitive, although we have tried to suggest at
various points that it agrees reasonably well with historical and sociolinguistic
observations. Specifically, it is suggested that at the small group level
linguistic innovations are transmitted across tenuous and marginal links.
Thus, for the very reason that persons who actuate linguistic change may do
so in the course of fleeting, insignificant encounters with others occupying a
similarly marginal position in their social groups, direct observation of the
actuation process may be difficult, if not impossible. What we most probably
CANobserve is the take-up of the innovation by the more socially salient EARLY
ADOPTERS.
At the macro-level, societies undergoing social processes which entail social

and geographical mobility and the dissolution of closeknit networks (processes
associated with industrialization) provide the conditions under which
innovations can be rapidly transmitted along considerable social and
geographical distances (see Trudgill (1983, Chapter 3) for a relevant study
of geographical diffusion).
Bearing in mind the difficulty of studying directly the early stages of an
innovation, we proceed now to assess the usefulness of the model developed
here. Specificproblems associated with innovation and diffusion are discussed,
first at the level of small groups and then at the level of larger national
communities.
6.
WEAK TIES AND LINGUISTIC
CHANGE:
A MICRO-LEVEL
EXAMPLE
The possible explanatory value of a theory of weak ties can be considered

in relation to observed patterns of language variation. In certain cases, these
patterns are difficult to explain in terms of the usual assumptions about
linguistic diffusion, viz. that it is encouraged by frequency of contact and
relatively open channels of communication, and discouraged by boundaries
of one sort or another, or weaknesses in lines of communication (see, for
example, Labov (I974b) for an empirical study which links the location of
dialect boundaries with a trough in north-south links).
370
LINGUISTIC
CHANGE
In Belfast,two instancesstand out which are difficultto explainin this

apparentlycommon-senseway. They are (i) the social configurationof the
spreadof /a/ backingfrom the protestanteast of the city into the Clonard,
a West Belfastcatholiccommunityand (ii) the city-wideyoungergeneration
consensuson evaluationof variantsof the (pull)variable(as againstgreater
variabilityin the older generation).Details of these variables,referredto as
(a) and (A),aremost easilyaccessiblein Milroy& Milroy(1978),and details
for /a/ are also givenin Table4 (above,p. 357) and Figure3.
(a) index score
350
300
250
200
150
--
1
Men
40-55
-H
H
l
Women
40-55
Men
18-25
Women
18-25
Figure 3
Backing of /a/ in Ballymacarrett, the Clonard and the Hammer.
Thebackingof /a/, as we haveseen,is led by EastBelfastmales:thismuch

is indicatedby Table4. However,as the significanceof the detailsin Table
4 is difficultto interpret,we discussthembrieflyherein the lightof the general
argumentof this paper. Figure 3 is a diagrammaticrepresentationof the
spontaneousstyle patternfor all threeinner-citycommunities;it shows the
'cross-over'patternthat tends to characterizechange in progress(Labov,
1972a). The change appearsto be carried,not by West Belfastprotestant
males (as might be expected), but by the younger FEMALE group in the
CATHOLICClonardcommunity.This is the groupthat exhibitsthe cross-over
pattern.
It may be objected,however,that thereis a moderatelyhigh incidenceof
backingamongst older Clonardmales, even though this group shows no
stylisticdifferentiation(on which see below). But it is the young Clonard
femaleswho REVERSETHEGENERALLYEXPECTEDPATTERNS.Amongstthem,the
city-widefemalepattern(awayfrom /a/ backing)is reversed:the incidence
of /a/ backingin thisgroupis higherthanin olderandyoungerfemalegroups,
higherthan in the olderClonardfemalegroup,and - surprisingly- higher
than amongsttheir youngermale counterpartsin the Clonardarea. When
measuredagainstother groups,these young womenappearto be reversing
a trend.
WhenSTYLISTICpatterningis additionallytakeninto account,it is clearthat
37I
this young female group is the only Clonard group with significant stylistic
differentiation on the East Belfast model (see Table 4). Their usage is
innovatory in West Belfast in that the social value attached by them to the
variants is the same as the social evaluation evident in the East Belfast data,
but not well established in the west of the city. Thus, while superficial
consideration of the figurescited might suggest that the young Clonard female
pattern is modelled on older Clonard males, such an explanation would not
account for reduction of /a/ backing in other groups, nor would it account
for the use of (a) as a stylistic marker by the Clonard girls.
The social barriersthat inhibit contacts between working-class communities
have been well described (see for example a discussion of this work in
L. Milroy, ig80) and it is clear, as Boal (1978) has shown, that the intercommunity conflict in Belfast has strengthened these barriers. In fact, the
major traditional sectarian boundary in West Belfast is now marked
physically by a brick and barbed wire structure, which is described by the
military authorities, apparently without intentional irony, as 'The Peace
Line.' The puzzle is, that an East Belfast pattern can be carried across these
boundaries, evidently by a group of young women whose physical movements
and face-to-face contacts have been constrained from a very early age. It is
clear that the diffusion of patterns of /a/ backing from east to west, progressing in a linguistically and stylistically ordered manner, is a continuation
of the long term shift in the Belfast vowel system (together with the social
values attached to it) described in Section 3. That this shift is continuing
apparently unhindered across the iron barriers, both physical and psychological, which separate protestant East and catholic West Belfast, is a fact
for which up until this point we have not felt able to propose any principled
explanation.
The continuation of the change may now be considered in terms of the claim
that INNOVATORS who are marginal to a group introduce innovations, to EARLY
ADOPTERS who are central figures within that group. The innovation is likely
to be transmitted by means of weak, rather than strong, ties.
In addition to scoring high on /a/ backing - a score reflecting both
quantitatively and qualitatively the speaker's choice of realization - the
Clonard girls scored extremely high on the Network Strength Scale, which
was designed to measure relative centrality of position in the closeknit group.
Hence, they resemble Rogers' and Shoemaker's EARLY ADOPTERS rather than,
strictly, INNOVATORS.
As described in L. Milroy (I980), the girls were all in employment and were
all associated with the same rather poor city-centre store. This store was
located in North Street, a shopping area on the sectarian interface which
served both protestants and catholics, mainly those living west of the river
(the girls' male counterparts contrasted sharply with them in being unemployed and scoring low on network strength).
We need to emphasize at this point that when we argue, with Boal, that
372
LINGUISTIC
CHANGE
there are few ties betweenworking-classgroups in Belfastwe mean more

properlythat thereare few STRONG TIES such as those of kin, friendshipor
work, particularlyacrossthe sectariandivide.But thereare plenty of weak
ties(to whichwe havehithertopaidlittleattention)between,on the one hand,
West Belfastcatholicsand protestantsand on the other, betweenEast and
West Belfastprotestants.Some of the settingsin whichthey regularlymeet
are(as reportedby informantsin the innercity study)shops,hospitalwaiting
rooms, social securityofficesandjob centres.The Clonardgirlsworkingin
the shop would be extremelywell placed to adopt innovationstransmitted
by personson theedgeof theirnetworkwho in turnprovidedweaklinkswith
othercommunities.We havealreadyarguedthat if an innovationis to stand
anychanceof adoption,theseweaktieencounterswouldneedto be frequentthat is, they wouldneed to be with a largenumberof back [a]users.It may
be surmised,giventhe numberof serviceencountersin the shop in any one
day,thatweak-tieencounterswithback[a]userswho transmittheinnovation
will greatlyexceedin numberstrong-tieencounterswith non-back[a]users.
Hence the capacity of innovation-bearingweak ties to compete with
innovation-resisting
strongties.
If we havea theoreticalperspectivesuchas the one developedhere,which
explicitlypredictsthat an innovationwill be transmittedthroughweak ties,
perhapsin casual serviceencountersperceivedby participantsto be of no
affectivevalue, the back [a]diffusionproblemdissolves.The problemarises
in the first place only if we assume that strong ties must be involved in
diffusionof innovations;forin thatcase,a searchfor an explanationin casual
encountersin waitingrooms,shopsanddole queueslooks likethe worstkind
of ad hoc-ery.
The secondpuzzleconcernsthe (pull)variable,whichis associatedwith a

small number of lexical items alternatingbetween the two phonological
classes/u/ and /A/ - examplesarepull, push, took, shook,foot. Thecomplex
historyof this subset(see J. Milroy I980 for details)is apparentlyreflected
in greatinstabilityamongall but the youngerinnercity speakersboth with
regard to the specific lexical items assigned to one or another of the
phonologicalsets, and with regardto the social value assignedto the [A]
variant.Thus,forexample,somespeakersexplicitlystigmatized[A] realizations
of itemslikepullandpush,whileothers,in so faras theyusedan [A] realization
for readingthem on a word list, apparentlyconsideredformslike [pAl] and
wereparticularlyfrequentin the
[pAJ] to be 'correct'.Overall,[A] realizations
Clonard,especiallyamongthe olderwomenand even in carefulstyles.
Whenwe turnto the youngergeneration,the picturechangesradically,as
can be seen from Figure4. What this diagramreflectsis a processof lexical
diffusion,wherebyitemswhichalternatebetween[A] and [u]realizationsare
graduallystabilisingin the /u/ set. But the few items which continue to
alternatehave assumedveryconsiderablesociolinguisticsignificance,the [A]
realizationsbeing perceivedas stronglysymbolicof Belfastworkingclass
373

(A)
75
25
Men
40-55
Women
40-55
Men
18--25
Women
18-25
Figure 4
Distribution of the (pull) variable (% of [A] variants are shown) by age, sex and area
in inner city Belfast.
languageandculture.As such,they areconsistentlyusedby youngmen very

muchmore than by young women,as Figure4 shows.
The puzzleis of coursehow youngpeoplelivingin the closedcommunities
of Ballymacarrett,
Clonardand Hammer,whosecontactwith othersoutside
their areas has been only of a very tenuous kind, have come to reach
cross-communityconsensuson the social value to be assignedto the two
variants of the (pull) variable. Paradoxicallytheir parents, who formed
friendshipsmuch more freely across sectarianand communityboundaries
(untilthe beginningof the civil disordersin I969), still showedconsiderable
variationboth in the use and the evaluationof the variable.This variability
was apparentlyin the first place partly a consequenceof the different
phonologies of various hinterlanddialects. Yet, the process of lexical
diffusionand the absorptionof the (pull)variableinto the regularsociolinguistic structure of Belfast's urban dialect continued unhindered,
apparentlyunaffectedby the inabilityof the youngergenerationto contract
any strong interpersonalties across the sectariandivide. For it is these
youngsters,and not their parents,who show dramaticagreementon the
form whichthese sociolinguisticpatternsshouldtake.
Althoughthereis stilla greatdealto explainaboutthechangingdistribution
of a complex phono-lexicalset like (pull), the question of how city-wide
consensuson its use andevaluationwasreachedby theyoungerspeakersdoes
not now seempuzzling.Like the diffusionpatternof /a/ backing,the (pull)
problemdissolvesif we accept that weak ties are the normalchannelfor
diffusionof innovations.
374
LINGUISTIC
CHANGE
Having discussedthese details of change and diffusion in present-day

Belfast,we turn in the next section to the place of weak ties in long-term
languagechange.
7.
WEAK TIES AND LANGUAGE
CHANGE:
A MACRO-LEVEL
EXAMPLE
It is well knownthat in the courseof historysome languageshave changed

moreradicallythan others.In the Indo-Europeanfamily,certainlanguages,
such as Lithuanian,are acknowledgedto be highly conservative,whereas
others(e.g. English,Dutch,French,Portuguese)havedivergedverymarkedly
from theirancestralforms.Furthermore,in the historyof certainlanguages
there have been periods of rapid change and periods of slow change. A
comparisonof the socialandculturalconditionsobtainingin periodsof slow
and rapidchangeshouldcast light on the social motivationof changes.
Many argumentshave been adducedto accountfor large scale linguistic
changes;for example,substratumtheoriesand accountsof lexical,syntactic
and phonologicalborrowing.Culturalfactorshavealso beendiscussed,such
as languagecontactfollowingconquestand settlementof alien speakers.In
recentdecadesmuchattentionhasbeenpaidto pidginizationandcreolization
(Todd, I974), and pidginlanguagesare of course the paradigmaticcase of
linguisticinstability;they can changevery rapidly.As argumentsbased on
substratum,conquest,etc., are not uniformlyapplicableto all situations,it
maybe thata moregeneralcondition(in linewiththe argumentof thispaper)
can be proposed,that will encompassthese variedsituations.This can be
statedas follows:
LINGUISTICCHANGEIS SLOWTO THEEXTENTTHAT THERELEVANTPOPULATIONS
ARE WELL ESTABLISHEDAND BOUND BY STRONG TIES, WHEREAS IT IS RAPID
TO THE EXTENT THAT WEAK TIES EXIST IN POPULATIONS.
We can seek supportfor this hypothesisby comparingtwo languagesthat

have changedat very differentrates.
Amongstthe Germaniclanguages,Icelandicand Englishprovidea sharp
contrast in rate of change and degree of variation.WhereasEnglish has
changedradicallysincethe twelfthcenturyand has at all recoverableperiods
exhibited gross dialectal variation, Icelandic has altered little since the
thirteenth century and reportedly shows very little dialectal variation.
Icelandicmaintainsa fullinflexionalsystemfor case,number,gender,person,
tenseand mood; phonologicalchangehas beenslight,involvingtwo mergers
of low functionalyieldand veryminorconsonantchanges;phoneticchanges
include diphthongizationof long vowels and some allophonicchanges in
consonants and vowels, but it is not clear how far these had already
progressedin the Middle Ages (some fifteenth-centuryspellings already
indicatediphthongizationof certainlong vowelspresumablysometimeafter
375
the changes had occurred). Change in English, on the other hand, is quite
radical - amounting to a typological change from a highly inflected to a
weakly inflected language. There are also many phonological changes,
word-order changes and partial relexification from Romance and Classical
sources (for a brief history see J. Milroy, I984a).
Notice that the geographical isolation of Icelandic (although relevant)
cannot be a sufficient explanation for its long-term conservatism. If geographical isolation were the most important factor, we should expect the dialects
of Icelandic to have diverged considerably. Iceland is comparable in size with
Britain, but the centre of the country is glaciated, and settlements are
scattered around the coastal areas. The climate and terrain are such that in
the Middle Ages little communication was possible in the winter months
(conventionally October to April). According to the Icelandic sagas, the
journey to the main assembly at Thingvellir could take weeks. In Hrafnkels
Saga, the hero's journey from eastern Iceland to the west is described, and
the writer comments:
Sui6r6r Fljotsdal eru sjautjaindaglei6ir a'Dingvdll
(South from Fljotsdal it is a seventeen day journey to Thingvellir).
Hrafnkel's rival, Saimr,had an even longer journey:
Ok f6rsk honum jvi seinna, at hann aittilengra lei6
(And his journey was so much slower in that he had a longer route).
A theory of change based mainly on the separation of communities would
surely predict that varieties would diverge rapidly in these conditions. Our
hypothesis on the other hand predicts that if widely separated communities
maintain the same linguistic forms, ties between them must in some sense be
strong, and evidence from the Icelandic family sagas (c. 1200-1300)
seems
to bear this out.
Iceland was colonized in the late ninth and tenth centuries by independently
minded Norwegians, some of whom had settled in the Orkneys, Shetlands
and Hebrides prior to their emigration to Iceland. There was little social
stratification in the Icelandic Commonwealth: there was no aristocracy, and
the feudal system had no effect until after the annexation of Iceland by the
Norwegian crown in the late thirteenth century. Although Christianity was
accepted officially in IOOO,the temporal power of the Church appears to have
been less than elsewhere. In Icelandic writings, the early missionaries are
represented as thugs, and the status of priests seems for some time to have
been hardly better than that of farm-servants. In short, institutional power
seems in general to have been weak enough to allow informal kinds of social
organization to flourish.
The thin population was widely distributed, but an early form of quasidemocratic government evolved. The country was divided into districts, and,
in these, assemblies were held at which attempts were made to settle disputes
376
LINGUISTIC
CHANGE
andpronouncejudgmenton wrong-doers.Everyyear,the nationalassembly

(theAlthing)washeldat Thingvellir,nearReykjavik,andpeoplewouldtravel
verylongdistancesto this.Accountsin the sagassuggestthatthisinstitutional
was not very successfulin settlinglegal disputes,and it was
superstructure
certainlyunableto carryout punishments.In orderto get redressfor offences,
peoplewerein practicewhollydependenton the supportof theirfamiliesand
friendsand those who had obligationsto them.It was veryimportant,in the
absenceof stronginstitutionalpower,that strongties shouldbe maintained
with those who mighthelp in a time of need.
The assemblieswere,in practice,a meansof maintainingstrongties across
long distances,and the sagas furthershow the great importancethat was
attachedto personalidentity,kin and friendship.When a new characteris
introducedby the saga-writer,a paragraphor more is typicallydevotedto
naminghis parentsand grandparents(and sometimesdistantancestors),his
brothersand sisters,his wife and family (and sometimesother relatives).
Whena strangerappearsin the story,he is oftenquestionedabouthis name,
his home, his relativesand his status.WhenSaimr,in HrafnkelsSaga, meets
a stranger(whomaybe ableto assistin a law-suit),he askshis name,whether
or not he is a local leader(godordsmadr)
or farmer(bondi),who his brothers
are,and so on. The stranger'srepliesgivemoreinformationthanthe modern
readermightthinknecessary.In HrafnkelsSaga, the strangertells Saimrthat
his brother'snameis Pormo6, that Pormo'6rlivesat Gar6aron Alptanesand
thatheis marriedto Dordis,whois thedaughterofD0rolfr,sonof Skalla-Grim,
from Borg.This kind of exchangeof informationis typicalof the saga; it is
also typicalof communitiesthatdependon maintainingstrongnetworklinks.
Similarexchanges,the purpose of which is to declare identity, political
affiliationand personalrelationships,were reportedby informantsin the
Belfastproject(L. Milroy,I980: 55); theseinformantswereattachedto strong
territoriallybased social networks.
The conservatismof Icelandicand the relativelack of variationin that
languagemaythereforebe attributedlargelyto the greatpracticalimportance
attachedto maintainingstronglyestablishedkinandfriendshipnetworksover
long distances and through many generations. As in the low-status
communities described by Lomnitz (I977) and discussed by L. Milroy (I980:
70 ff), the patternsof exchangeand obligationimposed by such network

structuresensurespracticalsupportin time of need. Such a social structure
(basedon informallinks)could flourishin medievalIcelandbecauseof the
inabilityof pan-Europeaninstitutions(the Churchand the feudalsystem)to
establishtheirpowerfully.Oneof the resultsof this informalsocialstructure
is the impositionof linguisticnormson its members(in commonwith other
norms). Hence the failure of the language to exhibit much change or
variation,despitethe difficultiesof distanceand terrain.
The history of English, which is dramaticallydifferentfrom that of
Icelandic,canhardlybe unaffectedby populationhistory.Inearlytimes,there
377
is a history of repeated incursions. Danish settlers in Eastern England in the

ninth and tenth centuries found Old English (Anglo-Saxon) well established,
whereas the contemporary Norwegian settlersin Iceland found an uninhabited
country. The numerous Scandinavianplace-names of Yorkshire, Lincolnshire
and elsewhere strongly suggest that Danish-speaking communities survived
in these areas for some time. If so, the ties contracted between the Danes and
the English could not, for social and linguistic reasons, have been strong in
the first place. The communication that must have taken place in the course
of trade and farming seems to have been carried on in an Anglo-Danish
contact language. This is indicated by the nature of the language that emerges
in the Middle English texts of these eastern areas (e.g. The Peterborough
Chronicle, I 137) which is an Anglo-Saxon-based language with gross inflexional loss, absence of grammatical gender, and partial reflexificationfrom
Danish and Norman French. On the other hand, the English of the West
Midlands around 1200 - an area largely unaffected by the Danes - provides
a startling contrast. The Ancrene Wisse, for example, is morphologically
conservative (in that gender and case inflexions are largely retained), and
Danish loanwords are very rare. Thus, we appear to have relatively rapid
change in areas where pre-existing strong networks are disrupted and where
influence through weak ties is made possible: on the other hand we have a
conservative language in areas of the West Midlands where Anglo-Saxon
institutions remained more stable, and where neither Danish nor Norman
influence was initially strong.
The success of the Norman Conquest imposed a tight and organised
administration on much of the country; rule was more centralized, and class
divisions more fully institutionalized by the feudal aristocracy. While Iceland
remained a yeoman democracy, England acquired an institutional system of
social stratification.
One of the effects of stratification is the creation of social distance between
sectors of the population. Two developments in English may be a general
consequence of social distance and weak ties. The first is the character of
relexificationfrom Norman French. There is a rapid development of English/
French synonyms of the type child/infant, love/charity, board/table,
stool/chair: the French synonyms tend at first to be limited to more formal
social contexts. The second development is the use of the polite pronoun of
address, which was marked for status and social distance: it was used
asymmetrically and non-reciprocally by inferiors to superiors. Brown and
Gilman (1972) estimate that the non-reciprocal polite plural pronoun entered
most European vernacularsbetween I I00 and
I300,
with French very
advanced in this respect. In Icelandic, this development is relatively late. It

is unknown in the sagas of the Icelanders (c. I200-I300)
for use between
Icelanders, although Icelandic adventurers (around I300) are occasionally
represented as addressing some European monarch with the polite pronoun.
378
LINGUISTIC
CHANGE
It is not untilchivalricsagason non-Icelandicthemesappearin thefourteenth

centurythat the non-reciprocalpolitepronounbecomesreasonablycommon
in literature(oftentranslated).As far as we are aware,thereis no indication
that, at this date, nativeIcelandersused it amongstthemselves.
A finaldevelopmentin Englandthat tendedto encouragethe break-upof
strongties and the developmentof weak ties was the rise in the importance
and populationof London.Londonbecamethe seat of the Court,the main
commercialcity and the centre of the wealthiest part of the country.
Immigrationto London(Ekwall,1956;Strang,I970: 2I4 f.) was frommany
areas,but largelyfrom the East Midlands(resultingin a gradualchangein
the dialectfrom southernto East Midlands).The rapidinflexionalloss that
diffusedthroughoutthe ME periodcan be seen, not only as a resultof the
influenceof weaklyinflected(E. Midland)dialectson stronglyinflectedones,
but as a productin Londonof the contactsituationitself,in which'mergers
expandat the expenseof distinctions'(Herzog,quotedin Labov, I972: 300).
In thirteenth- and fourteenth-centuryIceland, there were no such
developments.Icelandersin searchof theirfortunehadno largetownto settle
in; they tendedto go abroadfor a time and then returnto theirruralhomes
in Iceland.In such conditions,strongnetworksremainedto a largeextent
intact.
Thus,the contrastbetweenEnglishand Icelandicseemsto be an exemplar
of the contrastbetweensocialconditionsthatencourageweakties and those
that encouragestrongties. Rapidchangesin Englishseemto havedepended
ontheexistenceofindividualsandgroupswhoweresociallyandgeographically
mobile and whose strongnetworkties wereweakenedor brokenup by this
mobility.A high degreeof social distanceseemsto have resulted.Icelandic
society, on the other hand, dependedin earlier centurieson the strong
networkstypicalof rurallife. Hence, despitethe difficultiesof climateand
terrain,socialnetworksprovedto be a cohesiveforce,not onlyin maintaining
social norms,but also in maintainingthe normsof language.
We have discussedthe case of Icelandicand Englishin orderto support
the generalizationstated on p. 375 above that 'linguisticchangeis slow to
the extent that the relevantpopulationsare well establishedand bound by
strongties,whereasit is rapidto theextentthatweaktiesexistin populations'.
Cases of conquestand colonizationare taken as relevanttypes of weak-tie
situationsfor the reasonthatrapidchangeis oftenassociatedwithsuchcases.
Nigel Vincent(personalcommunication)drawsour attentionto a possible
Romanceanalogue.Sardinianis generallyregardedas the most conservative
of the Romancelanguageson a numberof counts, and this state of affairs
canplausiblybe correlatedwiththefactthataftertheperiodof Romanization
(3rdcenturyB.C.), such incursionsand occupationsas therewerehad only
a marginaleffecton the social organizationof the inhabitantsof the island,
and even then only in peripheralareas(see Blasco Ferrer,I984). Sicily,by
379
contrast, has a long history of conquest and colonization by Greeks,

Normans, Lombards and Arabs, and linguistically Sicilian displays a good
deal of innovation and stratification (see Varvaro, I98I).
However, our generalization is intended to encompass any situation where
contacts between people lead to the establishment of many weak ties. It
therefore includes, in principle, situations where warlike incursions are not
of major importance. Two further broad and overlapping types of contact
spring to mind. One is the peaceful in-migration of populations who speak
other languages or dialects. This might help to account for change in the
maritime colonial languages of Western Europe (as against those of the
interior), as metropolitan centres are characterized by some ethnic and social
diversity; this is also clearly relevant to rapid change in large post-Industrial
Revolution cities, in which much of the in-migration from the hinterland is
by speakers of different dialects of the same language. The second type is
sustained commercial and cultural contact (which leads in extreme cases not
only to simplification but to 'language death'). These types of contact would
seem to be relevant to cases like Danish (an old established maritime and
colonial language closely related to Icelandic, but which has undergone rapid
change); the history of that country has been characterized by quarrels with
neighbouring states, but also by sustained commercial and cultural contact
with these states. Therefore, we do not consider incursion and conquest to
be a necessary condition in itself for rapid linguistic change. The correct
generalization must account more broadly for the spread of speaker innovations through weak ties.
8.
CONCLUSION
We have here presented a model designed to explain why linguistic change

seems commonly to take place in some social conditions but not in others.
Specifically, we have tried to show as explicitly as possible that innovations
are normally transmitted from one group to another by persons who have
weak ties with both groups. Further, at the macro-level, it is suggested that
in situations of mobility or social instability, where the proportion of weak
links in a community is consequently high, linguistic change is likely to be
rapid. Social groups who characteristicallycontract many weak ties - and in
Western society these could consist of persons who belong neither to the
highest nor to the lowest social groups - are likely to be closely implicated
in the large scale diffusion of linguistic innovations.
These claims are supported by empirical observations. For example, it has
been noted that innovations seem to hop from one centre of population to
another, along main lines of communication such as roads and railways
(Trudgill, I983: Chapter 3). This is to be expected if we assume first that they
are carried by persons from community A who have weak ties with those in
community B, and second that ties contracted in these contexts are likely to
380
LINGUISTIC
CHANGE
be numerous.Our argumentshere also fit in with Labov'sfindingthat the

locus of changeis alwaysat somecentralpoint in the socialhierarchywhere,
we have suggested,ties are weak.For this reason,an accountbasedon weak
ties seems to be at a higherlevel of generalitythan one based on class or
status.
Nor does the evaluativenotion of PRESTIGE(overtor covert)havea central
partto play in the modelpresentedhere.Labovis correctin his observation
thatlinguisticinnovationsmaydiffusebothupwardsanddownwardsthrough
the social hierarchy;some appearto originatewith high and some with low
status groups.Conversely,a comparisonof the diffusionmechanismsand
distributional
patternsof /a/ and/E/ in Ulstershowsthatelementsoriginating
from the same (rural)dialect can take on, apparentlyarbitrarily,entirely
differentsocial valuesin theirnew urbancontext.
We assume(althoughanydiscussionis beyondthe scopeof thispaper)that
perceptualand acousticfactors,as well as a rangeof moregenerallinguistic
constraints,will sharplylimitthe classof possibleinnovations(cf. Weinreich
et al., I968: IOO; Labov, I982: 27; Comrie,I98I: 195). But withinthe limits
set by this largerclass of constraints,the notion of prestigedoes seemto be
importantin explainingwhy one particularlinguisticelementis a realistic
candidatefor innovationwhile others are not. We have suggestedthat the
workingclassof East Belfast,who formeda kindof labouraristocracy,were
particularlystronglyassociatedwith the UlsterScots hinterlandfromwhich
thecontemporary
urban/a/ and/?/ changeshaveoriginated.Thisassociation
helpsexplainwhy thesephonologicalelementsand not, for example,others
associatedwith mid-Ulsterdialects,have been successfullyintroducedand
diffused.But sincethis topic also lies beyondour scopehere,we simplynote,
withTarde,thatwe needto learnwhy,if a hundredinnovationsareconceived
simultaneously,ten will spreadwhile ninetywill be forgotten(I903: 140).
It has also been necessaryto distinguishsharplybetween INNOVATION
(whichis the act of a speakeror speakers)and CHANGE, whichis the reflex
of a successfulinnovationin the languagesystem.Presentday sociolinguistics
(althoughsensitiveto social phenomena)is in fact stronglyorientedto a
'system' approachand has often not made a sufficientlysharpdistinction
betweenthe linguisticbehaviourof speakersand the effectof that behaviour
on the languagesystem.
Finally, by making a furtherdistinctionbetween the INNOVATORS of a
linguisticchangeand the EARLY ADOPTERS, we have suggesteda principled
reason for the difficultyexperiencedin observingthe introductionof an
innovationinto a community.This may be seen as the earlieststage of a
linguisticchange- at least from the point of view of the communitywhich
is adoptingit. Weinreichet al. have describedthis actuationof a changeas
'the very heart of the matter'. However, since innovators tend to be
marginalindividualsat theedgesof networkswhodiffuseinnovationvia weak
ties with others, the personswhom investigatorsactuallyidentifyas being
38I
stronglyassociatedwitha changearemostprobablythe moresociallycentral

early adopters.
It is importantto note the limitationsof the claimspresentedhere.We are
attemptingto shed light on the actuationof a linguisticchange,noting that
thereis not necessarilya one-to-onerelationshipbetweeneven a successful
speakerinnovationand the changein the languagesystemwhichreflectsit.
A singleinnovationmay triggeroff a seriesof changesin a chainshiftwhich
can thenbestbe explainedby examiningtheinternalorganisationalprinciples
underlyingthe language system. It is assumed that an appropriatelyexplanatoryaccountof languagechangemustsupplementthe modelpresented
herein at least two importantways.
First,it must specifythe psycholinguisticand linguisticconstraintswhich
limit the class of candidatesfor innovation.Second,it must accountfor the
regularand orderlymannerin which successfulinnovationsare diffused
throughoutthe system,so that eventuallythey are perceivedas instancesof
linguisticchange.
REFERENCES
Bailey, C.-J. (1973). Variation and linguistic theory. Washington D.C.: Center for Applied
Linguistics.
Baugh, A. C. & Cable, T. (1978). History of the English language, 3rd ed. London: Routledge
& KeganPaul.
BlascoFerrer,E. (I984). StorialinguisticadellaSardegna.Tiibingen:Max NiemeyerVerlag.
on theShankill-Fallsdivide,Belfast:theperspectivefromI976.
Boal,F. W. (I978). Territoriality
In Lanegran,D. A. & Palm,R. (eds),An invitation to geography. 58-77.
Boone, L. (1949). Patternsof innovationin the languageof the oil-field.American Speech 24.
31-37.
Brown,R. & Gilman,A. (1972). Pronounsof powerand solidarity.Reprintedin Giglioli,P. P.

Languageandsocialcontext.Harmondsworth:
Penguin.252-82.
Bynon,T. (I977). Historical linguistics. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Chambers,J. K. &Trudgill,P. J. (I980). Dialectology.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Chomsky,N. (1975). Language and responsibility.Sussex:HarvesterPress.
Chomsky,N. & Halle,M. (I968). Thesoundpatternof English.New York:Harperand Row.
Comrie, B. (I98I). Language universalsand linguistic typology. Oxford: Blackwell.
Downes,W. (I984). Language and society. London:Fontana.

Eckert,P. (I980). The structureof a long-termphonologicalprocess:the back chain shift in
SouletanGascon.In Labov,W. (ed.).Locatinglanguagein timeandspace.179-2 I9.
Ekwall,E. (I956). Studies on thepopulation ofmediaeval London. Lund:LundStudiesin English.
Gal, S. (1979). Language shift. New York:AcademicPress.
Granovetter,M. (I973). Thestrengthof weakties.AmericanJournalof Sociology 78. I360-I380.
Gregg, R. J. (I964). Scotch-Irishurban speech in Ulster. In Ulster dialects -a symposium.
Holywood,Co. Down: UlsterFolk Museum.I63-I9I.
Gregg,R. J. (1972). TheScotch-Irishdialectboundariesof Ulster.In Wakelin,M. (ed.),Patterns
in thefolk speech of the British Isles. I09-139.
Gumperz,J. J. (I982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Halsey,A. H. (1978). Change in British society. Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
Harris,J. (I983). Linguisticchangein a nonstandard
dialect.UnpublishedPhDthesis,University
of Edinburgh.
Heilmann, L. (ed.) (1974). Proceedings of the Eleventh International Congress of Linguists.
Bologna:II Mulino.
Kroch,A. S. (I978). Towardsa theoryof socialdialectvariation.Language in Society 7. I7-36.
382
LINGUISTIC
CHANGE
Kroch, A. S. (I979). Dialect and style in the speech of upper class Philadelphia. Mimeo:
University of Pennsylvania.
Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguisticpatterns. Philadelphia: Philadelphia University Press.
Labov, W. (1974a). On the use of the present to explain the past. In Heilmann, L. (ed.),
Proceedings of the Eleventh International Congress of Linguists. Ii ii-I 135.
Labov, W. (1974b). Linguistic change as a form of communication. In Silverstein, A. (ed.),
Human communication: theoretical explorations, Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Labov, W. (I980). Locating language in time and space. New York: Academic Press.
Labov, W. (I98I). Resolving the neogrammarian controversy. Lg 57. 267-308.
Labov, W. (I982). Building on empirical foundations. In Lehmann, W. P & Malkiel, Y. (eds),
Perspectives on historical linguistics. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 17-92.
Labov, W., Yaeger, M. & Steiner, R. (1972). A quantitativestudy of sound change in progress.
Report on NSF Project No. 65-3287.
Lanegran, D. A. & Palm, R. (eds) (1978). An invitation to geography (2nd ed.). New York:
McGraw Hill.
Lass, R. (I976). English phonology and phonological theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Lass, R. (I980). On explaining language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lehmann, W. P. (I962). Historical linguistics: an introduction. New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston.
Lomnitz, L. (1977). Networks and marginality. New York: Academic Press.
Milroy, J. (1976). Length and height variations in the vowels of Belfast vernacular. Belfast
WorkingPapers in Language and Linguistics I. 3.
Milroy, J. (I980). Lexical alternations and the history of English. In Traugott, E. (ed.), Papers
from the International Conferenceon Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 355-62.
Milroy, J. (I98I). Regional accents of English: Belfast. Belfast: Blackstaff.
Milroy, J. (I982 a). Probing under the tip of the iceberg: phonological 'normalization' and the
shape of speech communities. In Romaine, S. (ed.), Sociolinguistic variation in speech
communities. London: Edward Arnold, I982. 35-47.
Milroy, J. (I982b). Some connections between Galloway and Ulster speech. Scottish Language
I (Winter issue).
Milroy, J. (I984a). The history of English in the British Isles. In Trudgill, P. (ed.), Language
in the British Isles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 5-3I.
Milroy, J. (I984b). Present day evidence for historical changes. In Blake, N. F. & Jones, C. (eds),
Progress in English historical linguistics. Sheffield: University of Sheffield.
Milroy, J. & Harris, J. (I980). When is a merger not a merger?: the MEAT/MATEproblem in a
present-day English vernacular. English World-WideI. 199-210.
Milroy, J. & Milroy, L. (1978). Belfast: change and variation in an urban vernacular. In Trudgill,
P. (ed.), Sociolinguisticpatterns in British English.
Milroy, J., Milroy, L., Harris, J., Gunn, B., Pitts, A. & Policansky, L. (I983). Sociolinguistic
variationand linguisticchangein Belfast. Report to the Social Sciences Research Council, Grant
No. HR5777.
Milroy, L. (I980). Language and social networks. Oxford: Blackwell.
Patterson, D. (i 86o). Provincialismsof Belfast. Belfast.
Pitts, A. (I982). Urban influence in Northern Irish English: a comparison of variation in two
communities. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Michigan.
Rogers, E. M. & Shoemaker, F. F. (1971). Communicationof innovations(2nd ed.). New York:
Free Press.
Romaine, S. (I98 I). The status of variable rules in sociolinguistic theory. JL I7. 93- I19.
Staples, J. H. (I898). Notes on Ulster English Dialect. Transactionsof the Philological Society.
357-387.
Strang, B. M. H. (1970). A History of Engish. London: Methuen.

Tarde, G. (1903). The laws of imitation (translated by Elsie Clews Parsons). New York: Holt.
Todd, L. (I974). Pidgins and creoles. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Trench, R. C. (I888). On the study of words, 20th ed. London: Kegan Paul, Trench & Co.
Trudgill, P. (ed.) (1978). Sociolinguisticpatterns in British English. London: Arnold.
Trudgill, P. (I983). On dialect. Oxford: Blackwell.
383

Varvaro, A. (I98I). Lingua e storia in Sicilia. Palermo: Sellerio.
Vennemann, T. (I983). Causality in language change. Folia Linguistica Historica IV/I. 5-26.
Wakelin, M. (ed.) (I972). Patterns in thefolk speech of the British Isles. London: Athlone.
Williams, R. A. (1903). Remarks on Northern Irish pronunciation of English. ModernLanguage
Quarterly6. 129-I35.
Weinreich, U., Labov, W. & Herzog, M. (I968). Empirical foundations for a theory of language
change. In Lehmann, W. & Malkiel, Y. (eds), Directions for historical linguistics. Austin:
University of Texas Press. 95-195.
384

Milroy (1985) - Linguistic Change, Social Network and Speaker Innovation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Milroy (1985) - Linguistic Change, Social Network and Speaker Innovation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Linguistic Change, Social Network and Speaker Innovation

Author(s): James Milroy and Lesley Milroy

J. Linguistics 2I (I985), 339-384.Printedin GreatBritain

Linguistic change, social network and speaker

Thispaperis concernedwiththe socialmechanismsof linguisticchange,and

We acknowledgewiththankshelpfulcommentson a previousdraftof this paperby John

JAMES MILROY AND LESLEY MILROY

'historical' appear to support the claims of Weinreich,Labov & Herzog

geographicaland historical)affectinglinguisticstructurealso in an ordered

JAMES MILROY AND LESLEY MILROY

of the manner in which it spreads from a central point upwards and

characteristics and relationships within their own (Philadelphian)

JAMES MILROY AND LESLEY MILROY

to another through 'weak' networklinks is designedto offer a practical

CHANGE AND SPEAKER INNOVATION

Although the ultimate aims of historical linguistics may be to specify

pre-existinglanguagesystemon the possibilitiesof changewithinthat system

has put it:

Linguistshave, I would maintain,normallytreatedlanguageas if it were

JAMES MILROY AND LESLEY MILROY

English (Chomsky & Halle, I968), if applied to variation in modern English

In presenting such a configuration of change it is clear that we are primarily

describinga state of languageratherthan the 'competence'of individual

JAMES MILROY AND LESLEY MILROY

in some instances be specified, the limits of POSSIBLEdiffusion cannot

THE EVIDENCE FOR CHANGE IN PROGRESS:

If we compare the range of variation in Belfast vernacularvowels with

Simplifiedrepresentationof phoneticrangeof /a/ in

JAMES MILROY AND LESLEY MILROY

[e:,,e -a, ?'-, ? * ]

bed, bend, best

Simplifiedrepresentationof phoneticrangeof /?/ in Belfastvernacular,

have been neutralisedbeforevelars,with bag and beg havingbeen possibly

BRANIEL (n= 800)

JAMES MILROY AND LESLEY MILROY

environment tends to favour short realizations); D indicates following

Men 40-55 Women40-55 Men 18-25 WomenI8-25

In fact, an examination of historical documentation (real-time evidence)

beforeVoicelessStopor beforeConsonant+ VoicelessStopmaybe described

This is of coursean idealizedand simplifiedaccount,and the aim of listing

Acceptingthis as a broaddescriptionof the currentstate, we now examine

desk.These few examplesare enough to show that the low realizationwas

JAMES MILROY AND LESLEY MILROY

(males)sometimesstill have categoricallylow realizationsin short environments,butin themoreprogressiveouter-cityhousingestates,thevowelis now

characterizedby dense and multiplex network ties that tend to resist

JAMES MILROY AND LESLEY MILROY

clear from patternsof stylistic variationthat (as we might alreadyhave

Incidenceof retractionand backingof /a/ by age, sex and conversational

not as innovations.The belief of many casual observersthat raisingbefore

JAMES MILROY AND LESLEY MILROY

to imitateconservativeRP ('ReceivedPronunciation',as described,e.g. by

than the speaker.Speakerswho have [6] raisingtend to have more fronted

AND SPEAKER INNOVATION:

In additionto the variablesof age, sex and statusdiscussedin Section3, a

corollaryon whichwe concentratehere.

JAMES MILROY AND LESLEY MILROY

in Ballymacarrett, where it appears to be YOUNGER FEMALE speakers who are

functionsfor womenas a NETWORK MARKERto a greaterextentthan it does

vowels showedan almostconversesocial distributionwith regardto status,

Contrastingpatterns of distributionof two vowels involved in change,

of this language/networkrelationship(a relationshipthat fulfilsa cohesive

raisingis characteristicboth of low-statusfemalespeechand moregenerally

JAMES MILROY AND LESLEY MILROY

of higherstatusspeech.The diffusionof [E] raisingon this wide social front