Volume 4, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2452-1949
  • E-ISSN: 2452-2147
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



The centrality of style is uncontested in sociolinguistics: it is an essential construct in the study of linguistic variation and change in the speech community. This is not the case in the language-obsolescence literature, where stylistic variation among endangered-language speakers is described as an ephemeral, or “marginal” resource, and where speakers exhibiting “stylistic shrinkage” become “monostylistic”. This argument is invoked in variationist theory too, where “monostylism” is presented as support for the tenets of Audience Design (Bell 1984). This article reports on a study that adopts variationist methods in a context of severe language endangerment. Evidence from two linguistic variables in Francoprovençal demonstrates the presence of socially meaningful stylistic variation among the last generation of fluent speakers, offering counter-evidence to classic claims. This evidence is used to argue that accounts of stylistic variation in language obsolescence are not sufficiently nuanced and should be reconsidered in light of recent research.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Agha, Asif
    2007Language and Social Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y.
    2020 Language change in language obsolescence. InRichard D. Janda, Brian D. Joseph and Barbara S. Vance (eds.), The Handbook of Historical Linguistics, Volume II, pp.447–467. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. 10.1002/9781118732168.ch21
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118732168.ch21 [Google Scholar]
  3. Armstrong, Nigel
    2013 Hyperstyle variation in French: Yet another exception culturelle?InMari C. Jones and David Hornsby (eds.), Language and Social Structure in Urban France, pp.81–92. Oxford: Legenda.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bell, Allan
    1984 Language style as audience design. Language in Society13(2):145–204. 10.1017/S004740450001037X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S004740450001037X [Google Scholar]
  5. 2001 Back in style. Reworking audience design. InPenelope Eckert and John R. Rickford (eds.), Style and Sociolinguistic Variation, pp.139–169. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bert, Michel
    2001 Rencontre de langues et francisation : l’exemple du Pilat. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Université Lumière – Lyon II.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Blainey, Darcy
    2017 Sociolinguistic research and endangered varieties: The case of Louisiana French. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 62(4): 576–595. 10.1017/cnj.2017.30
    https://doi.org/10.1017/cnj.2017.30 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bousquette, Joshua and Mike Putnam
    2019 Redefining language death: Evidence from moribund grammars. Language Learning70(1): 188–225. 10.1111/lang.12362
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12362 [Google Scholar]
  9. Campbell, Lyle and Martha C. Muntzel
    1989 The structural consequences of language death. InNancy C. Dorian (ed.), Investigating Obsolescence, 181–196. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620997.016
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620997.016 [Google Scholar]
  10. Carmichael, Katie
    2017 Stylistic variation and dialect contraction: The case of /ʒ/ and /h/ in Louisiana French. Fleur de Ling: Tulane University Working Papers, Sociolinguistics, 3(1): 72–79.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Carmichael, Katie and Aarnes Gudmestad
    2019 Language death and subject expression: First-person-singular subjects in a declining dialect of Louisiana French. Journal of French Language Studies, 29(1): 67–91. 10.1017/S0959269518000236
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959269518000236 [Google Scholar]
  12. Chen, Matthew Y. and William S.-Y. Wang
    1975 Sound change: actuation and implementation. Language51(2): 255–281. 10.2307/412854
    https://doi.org/10.2307/412854 [Google Scholar]
  13. Chirkova, Katia, Stanford, James N. & Dehe Wang
    2018 A long way from New York City: Socially stratified contact-induced phonological convergence in Ganluo Ersu (Sichuan China). Language Variation and Change30(1):109–145. 10.1017/S095439451700028X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S095439451700028X [Google Scholar]
  14. Clarke, Sandra
    2009 Sociolinguistic stratification and new dialect formation in a Canadian aboriginal community: Not so different after all?In: James N. Stanford & Dennis Preston (eds.), Variation in Indigenous Minority Languages, 109–128. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/impact.25.06cla
    https://doi.org/10.1075/impact.25.06cla [Google Scholar]
  15. Cook, Eung-Do
    1989 Is phonology going haywire in dying languages? Phonological variations in Chipewyan and Sarcee. Language in Society18(2): 235–255. 10.1017/S0047404500013488
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500013488 [Google Scholar]
  16. Dal Negro, Silvia
    2004 Language contact and dying languages. Revue française de linguistique appliquée9(2): 47–58. 10.3917/rfla.092.0047
    https://doi.org/10.3917/rfla.092.0047 [Google Scholar]
  17. Dorian, Nancy C.
    1973 Grammatical change in a dying dialect. Language49(2): 413–38. 10.2307/412461
    https://doi.org/10.2307/412461 [Google Scholar]
  18. 1989 Introduction. InNancy C. Dorian (ed.), Investigating Obsolescence, 1–10. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620997.004
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620997.004 [Google Scholar]
  19. 1994a Stylistic variation in a language restricted to private-sphere use. InDouglas Biber & Edward Finegan (eds.), Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Register, 217–232. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 1994b Varieties and variation in a very small place: social homogeneity, prestige norms, and linguistic variation. Language70(4):631–696. 10.2307/416324
    https://doi.org/10.2307/416324 [Google Scholar]
  21. 2010Investigating Variation: The Effects of Social Organization and Social Setting. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195385939.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195385939.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  22. Drager, Katie, Kaleialohapau‘ole Bethany Chun Comstock and Hina Puamohala Kneubuhl
    2017 He nui nā ala e hiki aku ai: Factors influencing phonetic variation in the Hawaiian word kēia. Language Documentation & Conservation Special Publication, 13: 65–93.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Dressler, Wolfgang
    1972 On the phonology of language death. Chicago Linguistic Society Papers8:448–457.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Dressler, Wolfgang and Ruth Wodak-Leodolter
    1977 Language preservation and language death in Brittany. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 12: 33–44.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Duraffour, Antonin
    1932 Phénomènes généraux d’évolution phonétique dans les dialectes francoprovençaux étudie d’après le parler de la commune de Vaux (Ain). Revue de Linguistique Romane8: 1–280.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Eckert, Penny
    2012 Three waves of variation study: the emergence of social meaning in the study of sociolinguistic variation. Annual Review of Anthropology41: 87–100. 10.1146/annurev‑anthro‑092611‑145828
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-092611-145828 [Google Scholar]
  27. Gal, Susan
    1978 Peasant men can’t get wives: language change and sex roles in a bilingual community. Language in Society7(1): 1–16. 10.1017/S0047404500005303
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500005303 [Google Scholar]
  28. 1984 Phonological style in bilingualism. InDeborah Schiffrin (ed.), Meaning, Form and Use in Context: Linguistic Applications, 290–302. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Gardette, Pierre
    1941Géographie phonétique du Forez. Mâcon: Protat.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. 1950–1956Atlas linguistique et ethnographique du Lyonnais. Paris: Éditions du C.N.R.S.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. 1983Études de géographie linguistique. Paris: Klincksieck.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Gilliéron, Jules and Edmond Edmont
    1902–1910Atlas linguistique de la France. Paris: Champion.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Grinevald Craig, Colette
    1997 Language contact and language degeneration. InFlorian Coulmas (ed.), The Handbook of Sociolinguistics, 257–270. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Harrison, Michelle and Aurélie Joubert
    (eds.) 2018French Language Policies and the Revitalisation of Regional Languages in the 21st Century. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Hoenigswald, Henry M.
    1989 Language obsolescence and language history: matters of linearity, leveling, loss, and the like. InNancy C. Dorian (ed.), Investigating Obsolescence, 347–354. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620997.027
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620997.027 [Google Scholar]
  36. Holloway, Charles E.
    1997Dialect Death: The Case of Brule Spanish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sibil.13
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.13 [Google Scholar]
  37. Johnson, Daniel E.
    2009 Getting off the Goldvarb standard: Introducing Rbrul for mixed-effects variable rule analysis. Language and Linguistics Compass3(1): 359–383. 10.1111/j.1749‑818X.2008.00108.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00108.x [Google Scholar]
  38. Jones, Mari C. and Ishtla Singh
    2005Exploring Language Change. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Kasstan, Jonathan R.
    2015 Variation and change in Francoprovençal: A study of an emerging linguistic norm. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, University of Kent.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. 2019 Emergent sociolinguistic variation in severe language endangerment. Language in Society48(5): 685–720. 10.1017/S0047404519000472
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404519000472 [Google Scholar]
  41. Kasstan, Jonathan R. and Daniela Müller
    2018 (l) as a sociolinguistic variable in Francoprovençal. International Journal of the Sociology of Language249: 99–118.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Klingler, Thomas and Amanda LaFleur
    2007 L’enquête PFC en Louisiane. InSylvain Detey and Dominique Nouveau (eds.), Bulletin PFC N. 7, PFC : Enjeux descriptifs, théoriques et didactiques 2007, pp.331–340. Toulouse: Université de Toulouse II.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Labov, William
    1971 Some principles of linguistic methodology. Language in Society1(1): 97–120. 10.1017/S0047404500006576
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500006576 [Google Scholar]
  44. 1972Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. 1984 Field methods of the project on linguistic change and variation. InJohn Baugh & Joel Sherzer (eds.), Language in Use: Readings in Sociolinguistics, 28–53. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. 2001Principles of Linguistic Change. Volume 2: Social Factors. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Meyerhoff, Miriam
    2017 Writing a linguistic symphony: analysing variation while doing language documentation. Canadian Journal of Linguistics62(4): 525–549. 10.1017/cnj.2017.28
    https://doi.org/10.1017/cnj.2017.28 [Google Scholar]
  48. Mougeon, Raymond and Edouard Beniak
    1989 Language contraction and linguistic change: The case of Welland French. InNancy C. Dorian (ed.), Investigating Obsolescence, 287–312. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620997.023
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620997.023 [Google Scholar]
  49. Müller, Daniela
    2011 Developments of the lateral in Occitan dialects and their Romance and cross-linguistic context. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Universitat de Tolosa – Lo Miralh.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Palosaari, Naomi and Lyle Campbell
    2011 Structural aspects of language endangerment. InPeter K. Austin and Julia Sallabank (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Endangered Languages, pp.100–119. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Pooley, Tim
    2000 Sociolinguistics, regional varieties of French and regional languages in France. Journal of French Language Studies10(2): 117–157. 10.1017/S0959269500000168
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959269500000168 [Google Scholar]
  52. Pope, Mildred K.
    1952From Latin to Modern French with Especial Consideration of Anglo-Norman. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Rickford, John R. and Penelope Eckert
    2001 Introduction. InPenelope Eckert and John R. Rickford (eds.), Style and Sociolinguistic Variation, pp.1–18. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Roche, Gerald
    2020 Abandoning endangered languages: ethical loneliness, language oppression, and social justice. World Anthropologies122(1): 164–169. 10.1111/aman.13372
    https://doi.org/10.1111/aman.13372 [Google Scholar]
  55. Roesch, Karen A.
    2012Language Maintenance and Language Death: The Decline of Texas Alsatian. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/clu.6
    https://doi.org/10.1075/clu.6 [Google Scholar]
  56. Romaine, Suzanne
    1989 Pidgins, creoles, immigrant, and dying languages. InNancy C. Dorian (ed.), Investigating Obsolescence, 369–384. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620997.029
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620997.029 [Google Scholar]
  57. Satyanath, Shobha
    2015 Language variation and change: the Indian experience. InDick Smackman and Petrick Heinrich (eds.), Globalising Sociolinguistics: Challenging and Expanding Theory, pp.107–122. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Schilling-Estes, Natalie
    1997 Accommodation vs. concentration: Dialect death in two post-insular communities. American Speech72(1): 12–32. 10.2307/455606
    https://doi.org/10.2307/455606 [Google Scholar]
  59. 1998 Investigating ‘self-concious’ speech: the performance register in Ocracoke English. Language in Society27(1): 53–83. 10.1017/S0047404500019722
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500019722 [Google Scholar]
  60. Schmidt, Annette
    1985Young People’s Dyirbal: An Example of Language Death from Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Stanford, James N. and Dennis Preston
    (eds.) 2009Variation in Indigenous Minority Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/impact.25
    https://doi.org/10.1075/impact.25 [Google Scholar]
  62. Stanford, James N.
    2016 A call for more diverse sources of data: Variationist approaches in non-English contexts. Journal of Sociolinguistics20(4):525–541. 10.1111/josl.12190
    https://doi.org/10.1111/josl.12190 [Google Scholar]
  63. Thomason, Sarah G. and Terrence Kaufman
    1988Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics. California: University of California Press. 10.1525/9780520912793
    https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520912793 [Google Scholar]
  64. Tuaillon, Gaston
    1967 Principes pour distinguer français et francoprovençal. Revue de Linguistique Romane, 31: 292–296.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Wolfram, Walt
    2002 Language death and dying. InJack K. Chambers, Peter Trudgill & Natalie Schilling-Estes (eds.), The Handbook of Language Variation and Change, 764–787. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Zulato, Alessia, Kasstan, Jonathan R. and Naomi Nagy
    2018 An overview of Francoprovençal vitality in Europe and North America. International Journal of the Sociology of Language249:11–29.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error