Critical evaluation

Generally speaking, the variationist approach to the analysis of language variation is advantageous in many regards. Language does not emerge within an empty space. It is a contextual concept, as it is a social notion, which people use to express themselves. A person's speech exposes his or her social, economic and geographical background, thus giving insight into his or her personal history while simultaneously resulting from these contextual factors it helps to identify. Variationist sociolinguistics takes these complexities into account, by integrating both social and linguistic categories of language, and focuses on questions concerning, for instance, an utterance's sociocultural setting, its historical context or its current use in society.

However, the main goal of this methodology, as its name implies, is to “present a model of language which [can] accommodate the paradoxes of language change” (Tagliamonte 2006: 4), resulting from the dynamic structure of language. It analyses the interconnectedness of variation, social meaning and the development of the linguistic system itself, thus mediating between diachronic and synchronic approaches to linguistic change.

It is because of this profound linguistic approach and with the help of statistical modelling techniques that this methodology can reveal and record once arcane intricate patterns and offer the analyst keen insight into the dynamic underlying structures of language. The analyst must no longer rely on intuitive judgments, but can base his or her findings on a scientifically sound analysis, which enables him or her to extract "regularities and tendencies [from data] that would not otherwise be accessible” (Tagliamonte, Chapter 20: 398). Furthermore, this methodology provides the variationist with the opportunity to draw comparisons between different language varieties, enabling him or her to disclose, for instance, ancestral connections or universally effective constraints.

Despite the methodology's many conveniences, the methods and techniques of variation theory, not least, distinguish themselves through a constant process of refinement and development as a response to occasionally appearing obstacles encountered in the course of ongoing studies. In that effect, the variationist approach has not been in stasis, but is shaped by a consistently ongoing course towards improvement.

While the methodology itself is generally regarded as a utile approach to the analysis of language variation, there is considerable controversy about the optimum tool for the implementation of the analysis. In her chapter, Tagliamonte is exclusively concerned with the variable rule program Goldvarb X. There are, however, a number of more recently proposed tools, which feature some of the more advanced procedures in statistics such as mixed effects modelling and the like (cf. Tagliamonte, Chapter 20). Among the most notable are presumably R (Team 2007) and Rbrul (Johnson 2009), which unlike Goldvarb are designed for analyzing continuous dependent variables, such as vowel formants, spectral properties or duration measures. This has led to Goldvarb coming under attack from different sides, which view the program as out-dated.

However, although the variable rule program is undoubtedly an older package without many of the bells and whistles of newer applications, it nonetheless draws on many advocates still proclaiming Goldvarb the gold standard, which can, in fact, effect many of the advanced procedures of its competitors through informed use of the variable rule program (cf. Guy 2010).

Created with the Personal Edition of HelpNDoc: Single source CHM, PDF, DOC and HTML Help creation