We spent the last week in Vienna at ICLaVE|12 – a big conference about research on Language Variation and Sociolinguistics. Here is a glimpse about the most interesting talks, trends, hot topics and some personal highlights. By the way, the topics were quite hot also due to the temperatures constantly above 30 °C.
First, since we would like to make linguistics accessible & understandable for everyone, let’s briefly talk about variation and varieties. In linguistics, variation can be defined as a spectrum of differences from a given standard. On the variation spectrum, these differences – also termed variants – can cluster to form varieties. This might sound quite plain, but in fact language variation is very difficult to detect and define. The notion of variation departs from that of standard, or norm. Let’s try to make this all more accessible through an example.
Take y’all, a pronoun widespread in English spoken in the Southern US. Dictionaries regard y’all as informal and regional. Instead of „y’all ready?“, a US English dictionary imposes a certain pressure on speakers to say „are you ready?“. Thus, the dictionary represents the standard; but language doesn’t give a duck about dictionaries. Language spoken out there, outside of dictionaries, grammar books and the ivory towers, hardly ever coincides with any norms. This means that variation is to be found everywhere in language. Which leads us to the question whether it even makes sense to hold it as a valid category in linguistics. But that would take us down a rabbit hole which we are not going to dive in today.
Varieties falling out of grace
In variationist linguistics, the trend has been shifting away from research about single varieties. The latter are notoriously tricky to delineate scientifically. Instead, most talks focussed on specific variants, i.e. traits of variation. These variants can be interesting from several angles (social indexicality, dynamics of the linguistic system, etc.).
A fair number of talks took on a perceptual perspective on language attitudes and representations of linguistic variation. This topic fits nicely together with Citizen Science approaches, which were treated in a dedicated panel. Another series of talks looked at the role of „place“ in (variationist) linguistics. This connects to landscape research, which we are going to explore at our ILANSCO conference in September 2024. In her inspiring talk „The place of ‚place‘ in sociolinguistics“, Katie Carmichael presented her research on variation and place-attachment in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.
Katie stresses the importance of factoring in place as a major variable in sociolinguistics. Human beings constantly attribute meanings to the space in which they are or were physically embedded. These meanings often change overtime, and are important correlates of language use. Think of dialect speakers priding themselves on belonging to a specific area. Place-attachment is often expressed through language use which, in turn, is a powerful means to express and shape one’s identity. And, to cite Katie, if sociolinguistics is not about identity, then what is it about?
Together with colleague Paul Reed, Katie is finalizing a book on language and place. The book is due to come out in late 2024. We are looking forward to reading it and establishing synergies within the thematic scope of ILANSCO and beyond.
As in most linguistic domains, there is a prevalent focus on methodological topics. Thus, research is becoming more and more data driven. The development and use of algorithms is an integral part of it. Consequently, everyone interested in sociolinguistics can profit from acquiring basic knowledge about statistical methods as a prerequisite for cutting-edge research.
Data vs. Theory
Many researchers presented their own open-access data collections. Open Science is gaining momentum in the variationist community, too. However, many studies still require more high-quality data. Gaining access to the appropriate resources – in terms of funding, but also of labs and instruments – can be a matter of luck. Data repositories tend to be scattered across universities, national and private institutions. The discussions after several talks highlighted how spoken language data from languages with few speakers are especially scarce.
Due to the emphasis on applied methods and data, talks on theory were exceptions – but their quality was exceptionally high. Patrick Wolf-Farré presented his outline of a theoretical model of identity. His project aims to tackle a long overdue problem in (socio)linguistics. Identity-centered research in linguistics sometimes lacks a sound terminological and theoretical basis. Some other times, it is outright avoided due to fear of contamination with psychology and all things non-linguistic. Patrick instead pleads for a serious interdisciplinary engagement with identity. His intention echoes with Katie’s quote above.
Ferdinand von Mengden is currently working on a book about emerging grammar and recontextualization. Ferdinand compellingly argues that, even in so-called usage based approaches, structuralist views are still widespread. He observes that context is generally considered as a side factor for understanding linguistic behavior. Ferdinand pleads for a ‘recontextualization’ intended as a „symbiotic relationship between the sign and the environment of usage“ (Mengden 2024). Accordingly, context is a necessary ingredient of language which allows for communication with inherently vague, variable and ambiguous signs.
And together with Toke Hoffmeister, Philipp presented their cross-linguistic framework for analysing speakers’ representations of linguistic variation. We have the strong feeling that the research domain should join efforts for a unified theory that can integrate several research perspectives on Language Variation.
Next to talks, the conference also featured a poster session. In her poster, Cristiana presented insights into her research on the diaspora variety of Russian in Israel. She looks at both linguistic and metalinguistic indicators of variation from Modern Standard Russian. Cristiana’s aim is to reconstruct the multidirectional contact situation of Israeli Russian, laying the foundations for a typology of diaspora varieties.
The most captivating talks
There were many more talks in parallel sessions that we couldn’t attend than the ones we heared. Needless to say, our selection is very subjective.
From the papers with a focus on computational methods, Mason Wirtz and colleagues‚ and Matthew Sung and colleagues‚ papers were quite impressive. Wirtz‘ group has an original take on statistical methods applied on traditional dialectologist data. They tried to operationalize occupational complexity as a factor for individual language variation. Sung tried to calculate dialect typicality and showed maps of the Netherlands with areas where dialect speakers apparently speak most characteristically.
Matthew John Hadodo took us on a journey to Istanbul with his talk about the enregisterment of Istanbul Greek. It was fun to learn about associations and metalinguistic stereotypes that are connected with this variety. The combination of qualitative and experimental methods was very convincing.
Overall, we find that the most memorable talk was by Nicolai Pharao and Erez Levon. Their study design is exceptionally innovative. They used a collaborative map task, and instructed an actor to test the influence of facial expressions on articulation and the effect of embodied affect. During the task, the actors behaved either cooperatively or uncooperatively. Participants‘ facial expressions were recorded with cameras and analysed computationally.
We had a lot of fun at ICLaVE|12 and are already looking forward to the next edition in Lausanne in 2026!