18 Sociolinguistics and Formal Linguistics Gregory R. Guy 18.1 INTRODUCTION theories of this faculty are inadequate unless they account for this. Sociolinguistics is often seen as having little rele- One contribution of sociolinguistics to vance to formal linguistic theory. Indeed, a formal formal lin guistics is therefore observational and linguist once told the present author that sociolin- descriptive – it turns up facts that theory must guistics ‘is not linguistics’. While such a comment account for. Formal models sometimes flee from reveals a narrow and sectarian view of linguistics, the seemingly disorganized multitude of such it also shows that the relationship between social facts and declare themselves not responsible for aspects of language and formal models of lan- the mess. This is an appropriate initial scientific guage structure is not self-evident – at least, given response to complexity – focusing on a subset of prevailing theoretical frameworks in the field. So facts, idealizing them and ignoring interactions why does this volume have a chapter addressing with other facts. But when disciplines mature to this relationship? the point of achieving some mastery over their The most obvious connection lies in the funda- subject matter, the gains from idealization are mental scientific concern with theoretical ade- outweighed by the concomitant limits on the the- quacy. Chomsky (1964: 29) identifies the lowest ory’s capacity to achieve a more accurate account level of adequacy as ‘observational’ – providing a of reality. At this point a serious science is obliged faithful representation of the data. Formal linguis- to engage with what was previously ignored. tic theories that ignore social diversity – a demon- Linguistics has now reached this phase, and strable characteristic of all languages – do not formal linguistics has begun to recognize the need meet this most elementary criterion, let alone the for a sounder empirical basis, and to seek broader highly valued descriptive or explanatory adequacy empirical testing of theory, which can only be they aspire to. Formalists have glossed over this achieved in the messy world of language use. glaring lacuna by addressing their models to ever- Sociolinguistic studies thus provide a proving narrower social universes, ultimately the ‘idiolect’ ground for theory that is unavailable in the intro- – the grammar of a hypothetical monostylistic spective, intuitive paradigm of theoretical invariant individual. But observation denies even research. this refuge, demonstrating that such an object Sociolinguistic research also points towards does not exist in the world. And even if it did, a what is needed in linguistic theory to achieve formal model that accounted for only this would higher levels of adequacy. Adequate formal models be limited to production, leaving the other two must eventually account for variability – an indi- pillars of the language tripod – perception and vidual’s capacity for stylistic variation, for accom- acquisition – unaddressed, since human beings modation, for performing acts of identity by encounter sociolinguistic diversity in the speech linguistic means – But what are the limits and the of others, and must be able to learn language and landscape of that variability? An adequate formal understand others even when they speak differ- theory must incorporate social information – ently. Hence the obvious conclusion is that the social interpretations of variables and ways of human language faculty acquires, generates, rec- speaking; But what kinds of social information are ognizes and interprets variability, and that formal linguistically relevant? Sociolinguistic work is 55434-Wodak434-Wodak CChap-18.inddhap-18.indd 1 33/22/2010/22/2010 66:11:26:11:26 PPMM 2 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF SOCIOLINGUISTICS developing the outlines of the necessary elements theory – the Constant Rate Hypothesis – that of an adequate theory of language – one that states that changes move at the same rate in all accounts not only for narrow Chomskyan compe- contexts, and are therefore not driven by contex- tence but also, following Hymes (1972; see tual effects. Guy (1991, 1992) applied the Lexical Johnstone and Marcellino, this volume), for speak- Phonology model of Kiparsky (1982a) to variable ers’ sociolinguistic or communicative compe- coronal stop deletion (CSD) in English, deriving tence, their capacity to speak and understand in a predictions of an exponential relationship among diverse and varying linguistic world. Encouragingly, retention and deletion rates in three different mor- this work is meeting complementary develop- phological categories, which has been confirmed ments from the formal side, in theoretical frame- in studies of several English dialects (cf. Santa works such as Optimality Theory (OT) and Ana, 1992; Bayley, 1994). usage-based phonology. Some of the formal models in sociolinguistic The other side of this relationship is the impor- work have pioneered in areas where other formal tance of formal linguistics to sociolinguistics. theories have feared to tread. Sociolinguists have Sociolinguists have, unfortunately, sometimes been at the forefront of work on interlingual adopted a reciprocally sceptical view of the rele- issues, notably the formal models of code-switch- vance of formal theory to their subdiscipline. ing proposed by scholars such as Poplack (1980), Ironically, their reasons for doing so are similar to Myers-Scotton (1993) and Nishimura (1997). formalists’ reasons for neglecting sociolinguistic Formalists have done little work on linguistic results: the models of formalists are diverse, structure above the level of the sentence, but messy and constantly in flux. The impression that sociolinguists have proposed formal models of outsiders sometimes have of formal linguistics is discourse level phenomena such as narrative reminiscent of T. S. Eliot’s famous poem, Prufrock: structure (Labov and Waletzky, 1967), conversa- ‘In the field, the theories come and go, talking of tional turn-taking (Sacks et al., 1974) and thera- Michelangelo; there is time for a hundred visions peutic discourse (Labov and Fanshel, 1977). Thus and revisions before the taking of the toast and the relationship of sociolinguistics to formal tea’. If theories are ephemeral, focus on irrelevan- theory comes full circle, with sociolinguists not cies, and change a hundred times before tea, an only following up the analyses suggested by empirical researcher might be wise to avoid formal models but also testing and revising them, making them a central concern of a study that and proposing new ones. might take years to complete. Of course, as this volume makes clear, sociolin- Despite sometimes holding such attitudes, soci- guistics has become a very broad discipline that olinguists cannot avoid theory when they analyse encompasses a considerable variety of interests data. Whenever they formulate a hypothesis, or and approaches, and not all of these will have the even identify a variable, they are relying on some same level of engagement with formal linguistics. model of events, some ‘theory’ (perhaps implicit) Studies of language policy and planning, or lan- of the structure of language. When Labov famously guage endangerment, are marginal to the con- studied coda /r/ in New York City (1966), he made struction of formal models of language, whereas a formal claim to the effect that /r/-less and /r/-ful sociolinguistic research that examines detailed pronunciations of words like source, car, beer contextual constraints on phonological or syntac- alternated in the speech of New Yorkers, and that tic variation is intimately involved with analysing the alternants counted as lexically equivalent even linguistic structure. But subdividing sociolinguis- though they were phonologically and socially dif- tic interests into those that engage with formal ferentiated. This analysis rested on theoretical theory and those that do not is not necessarily constructs such as phoneme, word, equivalence, simple or clear. Consider work on language con- difference and phonological alternation. In gen- tact. The Franco-Norman conquest of England in eral, theoretical models suggest to the sociolin- 1066 is a sociohistorical fact with no direct con- guist what things might be interesting to nection to linguistic theory. But the massive bor- investigate. A great deal of sociolinguistic research rowing of French and Latinate words into English has been devoted to investigating and testing that ensued has complicated English phonology in hypotheses derived from theoretical models. ways of considerable interest to formal linguists. And much sociolinguistic work seriously Much theoretical work in phonology addresses engages with the construction of formal models. problems of this sort, such as how to associate Bailey (1973) proposed a contextually-driven certain phonological patterns with specific subsets theory of variation and change, in which change is of the lexicon. Similarly, code-switching was first hypothesized to begin earliest and proceed fastest studied by sociolinguists interested in the social in maximally favourable contexts. Kroch (1989b) phenomenon of alternating languages in bilingual tested this model against data on syntactic change communities. But it has attracted much formal and disproved it, proposing instead an alternative theoretical attention, due to the insights it offers 55434-Wodak434-Wodak CChap-18.inddhap-18.indd 2 33/22/2010/22/2010 66:11:27:11:27 PPMM SOCIOLINGUISTICS AND FORMAL