Linguistic Society of America

Forty Years of Language Change on Martha's Vineyard

Author(s): Jennifer Pope, Miriam Meyerhoff and D. Robert Ladd
Source: Language, Vol. 83, No. 3 (Sep., 2007), pp. 615-627
Published by: Linguistic Society of America
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40070904
Accessed: 15-12-2015 07:43 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

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.

Linguistic Society of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Language.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 121.240.208.65 on Tue, 15 Dec 2015 07:43:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 SHORT REPORT

Forty years of language change on Martha's Vineyard

Jennifer Pope Miriam Meyerhoff D. Robert Ladd
University of Edinburgh University of Edinburgh University of Edinburgh
This short report presents results from a replication of Labov's study of language variation and
language change in progress on Martha's Vineyard (MV). The original paper was revolutionary
in many respects: it established that the relationship between social and linguistic variables could
be systematically studied, and put forward the construct of apparent time as a means of inferring
diachronic change in progress based on synchronic patterns. By drawing on Labov's methods for
a restudy of MV forty years later, we establish (i) the validity of apparent-time inferencing, and
(ii) the robustness of social indexing for the (ay) and (aw) variables on MV. The results strengthen
both methodological and theoretical principles that have become central to (socio)linguistics.*

1. Introduction. Labov's classic 1961-62 study of sound change on the island of

Martha's Vineyard in southeastern Massachusetts examined the distribution of raised
or centralized variants in (ay) and (aw) diphthongs (Labov 1963, 1972).1 By establishing
a robust correspondence between linguistic facts, social facts, and speakers' attitudes,
Labov's paper set the foundations for what has since become known as sociolinguistics
or variationist sociolinguistics. The methods and results from his study informed
his subsequent work in New York City, with the result that the Martha's Vineyard
study is one of the best-known examples of empirical investigation of language variation
and language change in the entire world.
A significant feature of the Martha's Vineyard (henceforth MV) study was a compari-
son of the distribution of centralized and noncentralized variants among speakers of
different ages. Labov suggested that differences between speakers of different ages
could be seen as synchronic evidence for the processes of language change that had
hitherto been observed only as historical processes. Linguists may differ in the extent
to which they feel social and attitudinal factors are properly the domain of linguistics
qua linguistics; moreover, in certain areas of language that are readily accessible to
conscious attention, notably lexical choice, there are clearly cases of age grading and
other age-appropriate linguistic behavior. But at least with respect to phonetic detail,
there is little dispute that if there is a monotonic relationship between a linguistic variant
and speaker age, then this is likely to be diagnostic of the fact of change and of the
direction in which a change is progressing.
Given the importance of the methods and the conclusions of the MV study to varia-
tionist sociolinguistics and historical linguistics, it is perhaps surprising that so little
attention has been paid to the sociolinguistic situation on the island since then. The
principal exception is the work of Meredith Josey (Blake & Josey 2003, Josey 2004),

* JP thanks the many residents of Martha's Vineyard who made her research possible, in particular Linsey
Lee and Matthew Stackpole at the Martha's Vineyard Historical Society. All three authors thank the University
of Edinburgh Development Trust for funding JP's second field trip, and the University of Edinburgh Faculty
of Arts Research Fund. Parts of this report were presented at the 2003 NWAVE conference at the University
of Pennsylvania.
1 We follow Labov's
practice of referring to an abstract sociolinguistic variable in parentheses. We also
follow his notation of the diphthong variables under consideration here rather than using, for example, Wells 's
lexical sets (1982) of mouth and price. Throughout the short report, following Labov, we refer to the phonetic
dimension under discussion as centralization. Labov 1963 is the first published report of the Martha's
Vineyard study; it was reprinted as chapter 1 of Labov 1972, a more widely available source.
615

This content downloaded from 121.240.208.65 on Tue, 15 Dec 2015 07:43:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
616 LANGUAGE, VOLUME 83, NUMBER 3 (2007)

which studied the (ay) variable in one MV town (Chilmark). Blake and Josey's paper
includes a detailed instrumental acoustic analysis that would probably have been im-
practical at the time of Labov's original study, and devotes considerable attention both
to phonological questions (in particular, the extent to which Canadian raising is relevant
to describing MV speech) and to the issue of speaker normalization of acoustic data.
The present short report differs from Josey's work in that it attempts to reproduce
Labov's 1961 survey methods and sampling procedure- in particular his coverage of
the whole island - as closely as possible. There are two motivations for attempting an
exact replication, both tied to the central importance of Labov's original work for the
development of the field.
Close replication provides a rare opportunity to use real-time evidence to evaluate
inferences about language variation and change that have been drawn on the basis of
apparent-time data. A comparison across age groups at a single point in time, of the
sort that Labov carried out in MV, has come to be known as an apparent-time study,
contrasting with studies in real (chronological) time. There has subsequently been
considerable discussion of whether one can reliably extrapolate from apparent-time
studies to infer what must be happening in real time. Our data appear to support Labov's
original conclusions about the validity of using speaker age as a synchronic measure
of ongoing change.
Close replication of Labov's original methods also provides us with an opportunity
to consider his conclusions about what he called the 'social motivation' of phonetic
variation and change. Josey's study suggests that the social situation on MV has changed
in forty years, and that centralized diphthongs are now no longer used to mark close
identification with the island community. Pace Josey, we show that a close replication of
Labov's methods shows that his original conclusion about the importance of speakers'
attitudes to MV in accounting for patterns of variation on the island is still largely
valid.

2. Data collection and analysis.

2.1. Methods for data collection. To achieve the aim of close replication of
Labov's original work, the first author (JP) spent a total of three weeks on MV during
the summer of 2001 and the winter of 2002. She stayed mostly in the island's youth
hostel and frequently hitchhiked to travel from one town to another. She made two
visits, the first for two weeks in August 2001 and the second for a week in January-
February 2002. Speakers were asked to read the word list and reading passage from
Labov (1972:12-13), ensuring direct comparability of our findings with Labov's.
In total, 116 subjects were interviewed on tape, approximately 0.8% of the year-
round population (14,901 according to Census 2000). Labov's sample consisted of
sixty-nine subjects from a year-round population of 5,829, that is, approximately 1.2%
of the population. In other words, the current sample is proportionally comparable to the
original one. In each decennial census since 1970 the population of MV has increased by
approximately three thousand.
Despite this increase in the year-round population, the ratio of summer residents to
year-round locals has also increased enormously in the intervening years. For example,
as we discuss further below, in Aquinnah, Chilmark, Oak Bluffs, and Edgartown,
56-71% of the housing stock is classified as being for seasonal, recreational, or occa-
sional use (Census 2000). Methodologically, this continued boom in summer tourism
meant that the second field trip in winter was particularly valuable for data collection.
It was obviously easier to identify and make contact with MV locals at this time of

This content downloaded from 121.240.208.65 on Tue, 15 Dec 2015 07:43:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 SHORT REPORT 617

the year, and in addition JP found that interviewing MV residents during the winter
was generally easier, with a number of residents going out of their way to help (cf.
Wolfram et al. 1999).
Interviewees' ages ranged from four to one hundred years. They were drawn from
each town and both regions on the island (Up-Island - the westernmost end - and
Down-Island - the more populous eastern end; see Map 1), most occupations (including
fishing and farming, the main occupational groups discussed by Labov), and the three
main ethnic descent lines interviewed in 1962: 'English', Portuguese, and Native Ameri-
can.2 Some of the interviewees are descendants of the old island families, for example,
the Wests, the Nortons, and the Mayhews.

Map 1. Martha'sVineyard showing main districts and Up-Island(including Wampanoagreservation

and Ashing villages of Chilmark)and Down-Island(the more populous townships). (Based on
Martha'sVineyardChamberof Commercemap, http://www.mvy.com/islandinfo/,
sampled 2 April 2007.)

There were two groups that proved most challenging to interview. Fishermen were
difficult to interview on both visits. JP found that in the summer, the insularity of the
fishing community and their social distance from the summer people made it difficult
for her to establish herself as different from the throng of summer visitors. In the
winter, even though the fishermen were not fishing, they were often occupied with
other activities. This problem was partly overcome by a personal introduction to the
Menemsha fishermen by the husband of another subject who had already been inter-
viewed.
The other group that posed an access problem was the Wampanoag Indian commu-
nity. This community is concentrated Up-Island in the Aquinnah region, identified as
'Gay Head' in Labov' s work.3 A large number of the Wampanoag live in Aquinnah
2 We
put 'English' in scare quotes because, although this term was used in the original study and was
not problematicin JP's work, she did find that many 'English' MV residentsidentifiedthemselves as being
specifically of Scottish descent when they found out her own Scottish origins.
3 The
Wampanoagname and the English name are now both used, although in practice JP found that
Aquinnahis more widely used as a name for the adminstrativeregion and by the Wampanoagthemselves.

This content downloaded from 121.240.208.65 on Tue, 15 Dec 2015 07:43:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
618 VOLUME
LANGUAGE, 83,NUMBER
3 (2007)

in an extremely inaccessible area. As a result, the current sample includes only nine
Wampanoags. Table 1 summarizes the characteristics of Labov's survey and compares
it with our data.

LABOV PRESENT STUDY

1961-62 sample 2001-02 sample
region Up-Island 40 52
Down-Island 29 64
descent English 42 88
Portuguese 16 19
Native American 9 9
occupation Fishing 14 9
Farming 8 2
Construction 6 2
Service industries 19 22
Professionals 3 21
Housewives 5 8
Students 14 33
Retired N/A 19
Table 1. Summaryof Labov's social dialect survey of Martha'sVineyard(1961-62) and the present
survey (2001-02).

2.2. Coding and analysis of tokens. The 116 interviews produced approximately
4,500 tokens of (ay) and 2,500 tokens of (aw) (cf. Labov's 3,500 tokens of (ay) and
1,500 tokens of (aw)). All tokens were subsequently coded, based on impressionistic
auditory analysis, for degree of centralization of the onset of the diphthong. For this
auditory coding, we used the four-grade scale devised by Labov: 0 being a maximally
low onset and 3 being a raised and centralized schwa-like onset. The first element of
the diphthongs under investigation was coded for each relevant word and, on the basis
of this, an average centralization score for (ay) and (aw) for each speaker was derived.
Note that Blake and Josey, though the focus of their instrumental study is rather differ-
ent, broadly accept the acoustic validity of Labov's four-tier scale.
Since the impressionistic coding was undertaken by the first author, who was then
an undergraduate honors student at the University of Edinburgh, two independent
checks on the validity of her work were undertaken. First, like Labov in his original
study, we did a spectrographic analysis of vowel quality for a subset of the tokens.
(Spectrographic analysis was what led Labov to collapse an initial six-grade centraliza-
tion scale to the four-grade scale used here.) Specifically, we measured ten tokens each
from ten speakers, using the xwaves signal processing package in the University of
Edinburgh's linguistics laboratories. To minimize problems with speaker normalization,
the ten speakers chosen were all male, ranging in age from twelve to seventy-seven
years. Measurements were taken of the first and second formant frequencies where the
first formant reached a maximum. The values for Fl and F2 for each token were then
plotted as shown in Figure 1. The reader can see that the four degrees of centralization
impressionistically coded by JP emerge as four quite distinct bands in F1-F2 space, so
that Fig. 1 bears an overall resemblance to Labov's Figure 1.3 (1972:16).
Second, as a reliability check, the third author (DRL) did an independent impression-
istic coding of a subsample of all tokens of (ay) and (aw). For each test word that was
checked in this way, approximately thirty-five tokens from thirty-five different speakers
were extracted from the recordings and randomly ordered in separate sound files, one
file per test word. These were then presented to DRL without any identification (i.e.
speaker identification numbers coding for age, occupation, and so forth were stripped

This content downloaded from 121.240.208.65 on Tue, 15 Dec 2015 07:43:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 SHORT REPORT 619

Figure 1. Instrumental measurements of diphthong centralization in subsample of recordings, showing four

degrees of centralization similar to Labov 1972:16.

away), who coded all tokens on the same four-way scale for degree of centralization.
DRL's coding matched JP's exactly in approximately 80% of cases (where an exact
match would be predicted by chance in only 25% of cases). Taking the results of this
reliability check together with the acoustic analysis, we consider that JP's impressionis-
tic coding of the corpus as a whole can be regarded as valid.

3. Results. We first briefly consider several specific but relatively minor factors
that affected the distribution of centralized variants in Labov' s 1962 study, such as
lexical stress and occupation, and report the extent to which the 2002 data replicated
Labov' s findings. We omit any discussion of the issue of Canadian raising, which is
one of the central points of interest for Blake and Josey; we concur with both Labov
and Blake and Josey that phonological context is relevant to the degree of centralization
in MV speech. We then give a more detailed presentation of the distribution of central-
ized variants as a function of speakers' attitudes toward life on MV and as a function
of speakers' age. These are the two aspects of Labov' s original study that have had
the greatest impact on the subsequent development of sociolinguistic methods and
theory.
3.1. Style and lexical stress. Labov reported that the (ay) and (aw) variables were
relatively constant in different interview conditions, that is, (ay) and (aw) centralization
showed no significant sensitivity to changes in speech activity or speaking style. This
was generally true in the 2002 data as well. There were a few speakers whose reading
style produced fewer centralized diphthongs than their casual speech.
Labov also found that stress increased the degree of centralization in his data. The
2002 corpus shows no correlation between the degree of centralization and the stress
on the word. Indeed, as Labov noted (1972:20), this is a nonobvious rule and in metro-

This content downloaded from 121.240.208.65 on Tue, 15 Dec 2015 07:43:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
620 LANGUAGE, VOLUME 83, NUMBER 3 (2007)

politan varieties the opposite effect can be observed. The effect of stress in 1962 does
not seem to have persisted as an entrenched feature of MV speech.
3.2. Lexical considerations. In the 1962 data, Labov found some words that were
associated with greater centralization than others with a similar phonetic structure. He
proposed that lexical confusion might play a role, for example, sliding being potentially
confused with sledding (1963:291).
Lexical effects were considerably attenuated in the 2002 data. The only robust trend
noted was for the word like to be subject to less centralization when it was used as a
hedge (Holmes 1995), as in It was, like, so hot. We can only speculate on the cause
of this effect. One possibility is that the hedge has metropolitan, urban associations for
speakers, and as such the distinctively local option of a centralized onset is subcon-
sciously resisted. A second possibility is that the hedge is more strongly associated
with and used by younger speakers, and indeed the data presented in 3.5 suggest that
there has been a retreat from centralized onsets of (ay) (but not (aw)) among the younger
speakers in the 2002 sample.
3.3. Occupation and ethnic descent. The 2002 data showed that there was most
centralization among the fishermen (indeed, Labov hypothesized that the change had
started among this group). The 2002 data indicated that the gap between farmers and
fishermen had closed (though for both (ay) and (aw) there continued to be more centrali-
zation in the fishing community). In the intervening years, farming has become increas-
ingly unprofitable on MV (our sample of farmers was quite small); there are, for
instance, no longer any dairy farms on the island and the remaining farms have tended
to diversify in order to cater to summer tourists (one farm, for example, offered farm
tours and tractor rides during the tourist season). If the desire to stress an affiliation
with MV and to differentiate oneself from tourists and visitors continues to be satisfied
by high levels of centralized onsets (as Labov suggested), then the changes in the nature
of farming in the last forty years might have increased the instrumental and affective
impact of centralization for farmers too.4
We have relatively little to say about the intersection of ethnicity and centralization
in 2002, partly because of the very small sample of Wampanoag speakers (mentioned
above). The findings from 2002 show highest rates of centralization for both (ay) and
(aw) - especially (aw) - among the nine Wampanoag speakers who were interviewed,
and very little difference between speakers who identified as being of English or Portu-
guese descent. We can only speculate as to why the Wampanoag speakers might now
be using centralization more than the other groups. One possible reason is the precarious
state of the Wampanoag nation on MV. Population statistics show their numbers are
in decline; the identity of those who remain is strongly tied to MV, and they are very
protective of their tribal lands and their status as a heritage population on the island.
It is possible that these factors favor increased use of centralized variants.
3.4. Attitudes and orientation to Martha's vineyard. As every introductory
linguistics student knows, Labov suggested that the evidence of increased onset centrali-
zation on MV was a response to the influx of summer tourists who were beginning to
arrive in significant numbers in the 1960s. He based this argument on several observa-
tions.

4 Farmers
may derive directeconomic benefits both from stressingaffiliationwith MV and from differen-
tiating themselves from the visitors, in addition to any indirect benefits they derive from enhanced self-
esteem; see Dubois & Horvath 1999.

This content downloaded from 121.240.208.65 on Tue, 15 Dec 2015 07:43:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 SHORT REPORT 621

The first was that (ay) centralization was more pronounced in the speech of the
Chilmark fishermen: because the fishing lifestyle represented the most salient opposi-
tion to the service industry and the summer visitors, this centralized variant of (ay)
was a suitable index for marking localness. The centralization of (aw), which in the
1960s was most advanced among the Wampanoag population, also appeared to be a
candidate for identifying oneself as a local Vineyarder, but Labov suggested several
social reasons why this marker might not have advanced throughout the Vineyard
speech community as much as the (ay) variable had.
The second fact was the strong association between attitudes toward life on MV and
the speaker's use of centralization (Hazen 2002 also discusses orientation to local
identity as a factor in variation and change). This was shown to be particularly true
for Vineyarders with strong positive feelings about the island. Our real-time data show
that this remained the case in 2002. Table 2 shows that speakers who expressed negative
attitudes toward living on MV had lower rates of centralization; speakers with positive
attitudes toward MV had the highest rates of centralization for both (ay) and (aw).

orientation to MV CI (ay) 1962 CI (ay) 2002 CI (aw) 1962 CI (aw) 2002

positive 0.63 1.12 0.62 1.35
neutral 0.32 0.59 0.42 1.03
negative 0.09 0.11 0.08 0.56
Table 2. Centralizationof (ay) and (aw) accordingto speakers'expressed attitudes,or orientation,
to Martha'sVineyardin 1962 and 2002 compared.(Numberof speakers2002: 40 positive,
69 neutral,7 negative.)

Recently, Meredith Josey (2004, Blake & Josey 2003) has argued that (ay) centralization
has lost its iconic status as a marker of localness on MV. Following the analysis of
(ay) centralization in the speech of sixteen male Vineyarders from Chilmark, Blake
and Josey found 'a lower degree of /ay/ [centralization] in the Chilmark community
than that observed by Labov' (2003:476). They argue that Vineyarders no longer have
such a vested interest in distinguishing themselves from the summer people, and that
as a consequence centralization has lost its former iconic status on the island and is
therefore in retreat (Blake & Josey 2003:479-80).
Clearly, the results we have presented here differ from Josey' s: we have shown that
a strict replication of Labov' s methods demonstrates that onset centralization is alive
and well for (ay) and, especially, (aw). We have also shown the same kinds of correla-
tions with attitudes toward MV that Labov found in his original study. Indeed, the
information gathered during JP's field trips suggests that the antipathy toward the
summer people that Labov documented was still very much present in 2002, and that
the symbolism of centralization remains much the same as when he conducted his
research. We return to consider the discrepancy between our findings and Blake and
Josey' s in 4.
3.5. Age of speaker. Labov' s method of using differences in the degree of centrali-
zation among speakers of different ages as a basis for extrapolating to generalizations
about change in progress has come to be known (since his subsequent study of New
York City, reported in, for example, Labov 1972) as the apparent-time construct.
In the 1962 data, he found there was an increase in the degree of centralization among
younger speakers in his sample. In addition, he was able to compare the results for his
older speakers with the degree of centralization documented in the Linguistic Atlas of
New England (LANE, Kurath et al. 1941; Labov 1972:4, 11), and both of these facts
led him to propose that the variation observed was a reflex of ongoing language change.

This content downloaded from 121.240.208.65 on Tue, 15 Dec 2015 07:43:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
622 LANGUAGE, VOLUME 83, NUMBER 3 (2007)

Nevertheless, this conclusion was tentative since the 1962 data also showed an appar-
ent retreat from centralized (ay) and (aw) onsets among the very youngest speakers
sampled. As Labov notes, 'the fact that the amount of centralization for the very old,
and the very young speakers, is at a minimum, shows that the effect of age cannot be
discounted entirely, and it may indeed be a secondary factor in this distribution over
age levels' (1963:294). In other words, the pattern of increased centralization among
speakers in their thirties might reflect age grading rather than change in progress (Labov
1994, Sankoff 2006). The LANE data would have been compatible with this explanation
as well, since the LANE results were based on a sample of four informants, aged fifty-
six to eighty-two. Hence the low levels of centralization in the LANE data and in the
oldest speakers of the 1962 sample might have reflected a stable pattern of age grading
rather than ongoing change.
Subsequent work within the variationist paradigm, however, has shown age grading
to be comparatively rare; moreover, such patterns are generally associated with variables
that enjoy a degree of social awareness. The (ay) and (aw) variables do not seem to
be above the level of conscious awareness on MV. JP's attempts to elicit accent stereo-
types from the Vineyarders she interviewed failed to elicit comments on either (ay) or
(aw), though other characteristics of the accent were mentioned.5
Nevertheless, given the subsequent significance of the Vineyard study in identifying
apparent time as a measure for synchronically observing the processes underlying histor-
ical change, we feel that a review of the distribution of centralized onsets in (ay) and
(aw) found in our real-time restudy of the MV speech community has the potential to
shed light on the extent to which apparent-time studies reflect only age grading and
the extent to which they genuinely reflect change in progress.

Figure 2. Overall centralizationof (ay) and (aw) in Martha'sVineyardplotting speakersaccordingto

year of birth (x-axis) and degree of centralization(y-axis). Labov's 1962 study (solid lines)
comparedwith 2002 study (dashed lines) allows direct evaluationof real-time
robustnessof Labov's generalizations.

The results are shown in Figure 2. The patterns observed by Labov forty years ago
characterizing different groups within the speech community are very similar: the same
peak in onset centralization among speakers born between 1917 and 1931 can still be

5 That
is, Vineyardersare not like Niedzielski and Preston's (2000) Michiganders,who are under the
illusion that they 'have no accent'.

This content downloaded from 121.240.208.65 on Tue, 15 Dec 2015 07:43:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 SHORT REPORT 623

observed in 2002. The overall rate of centralizationin the speech community seems
to have increased in the last forty years, but it is equally clear that all age groups of
speakershave moved in step with each other.
This resultis consistentwith otherreal-timestudies of linguistic variation(a number
are reviewed in Labov 1994, Bailey 2002, and Sankoff 2006). The general finding is
that, for variablesthat lack any strong social index (normallybecause they are below
the level of conscious awareness),inferencesof changein progressthathave been drawn
on the basis of apparent-timedata have provedvery robust.However, as Blondeauand
colleagues (2003) have shown, the apparent-timeconstructcannot provide a reliable
measureof the rate with which a change is progressingthrougha speech community,
since it seems that a change in progress may pick up momentumonce started.
At this point it is worthwhileto consider the details of the (ay) and (aw) variables
separately (Figure 3). Here we can see that the acceleration of the change has not
affected the two variablesequally.

Figure 3. Centralizationof (ay) and (aw) plotted separately,accordingto year of birth.(Labov's 1962 study
comparedwith the present 2002 study.)

While in the original study, centralizationof (ay) and (aw) largely patternedalike
(thoughLabovnotes thatthereseems to be more (aw) centralizationamongthe Wampa-
noag speakers),in 2002 centralizationhas evidently become a characteristicassociated
with (aw) more than with (ay). This is demonstratedin two ways. First, it is shown in
the very much higherdegree of centralizationof (aw) thanof (ay) amongall age groups
comparedwith Labov's 1962 data. Second, it emerges in the very differenttrajectories
for (aw) centralizationand (ay) centralizationamong speakersin our study born since
1977. It seems possible thatthe centralizationof (aw) has takenover fromcentralization
of (ay) as being the strongestindex of MV identity in the last forty years. Note that,
since Blake and Josey considered only (ay) in their study, the apparentdecrease in
degree of centralizationthat they report could be due in part to this change among
younger speakers.
4. Discussion. The resultsin 3.5 provideconfirmationof Labov's originalsugges-
tion thatfindings based on apparent-timestudies can be used to draw inferencesabout
linguisticchange in real time. Since this conclusion largely agrees with the conclusions
of much otherwork over the past forty years, we offer this simply as furtherevidence
for what most people already assume, and do not discuss this further.But the results
presentedin 3.4 on the link between social attitudesand language, though they also

This content downloaded from 121.240.208.65 on Tue, 15 Dec 2015 07:43:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
624 LANGUAGE, VOLUME 83, NUMBER 3 (2007)

support Labov's original interpretation of his MV study, require a closer look. Our
results appear to contradict Blake and Josey's recent findings and conclusions and it
is important to try to understand why. There are two sets of issues, one of interpretation
of the social data, and one of methodology.

4.1. The social situation on martha's vineyard. Josey states that most of the
island is now 'middle class', citing the low rates of unemployment on the island
(Blake & Josey 2003:490). It is true that Census 2000 shows the median household
income for MV as $50,000 per year in Edgartown and $42,000 on the rest of the island
in 1999. Household income alone, however, is not a good indicator of relative social
class. The same census also records that 7.3% of the total population in Dukes County
was below the official poverty line. And $42-50,000 a year says nothing about the
cost of living on MV.
A particular issue is the cost of housing. In 2000, sixty-one percent of the housing
stock across the island consisted of vacation or seasonal homes, meaning that affordable
year-round housing is in short supply (Census 2000). Even well-established locals
comment on this: Jimmy Morgan says, 'When I was married in 1950, the average guy
could buy a piece of land and build a home' (Morgan 2001). Nix sums up much of
the resentment, saying:
To the nouveau rich, the trust fund babes, the famous, the privileged, the connected, the Washington
and Hollywood stars and the wannabes, the Vineyard is a playground, a toy. . . . [Yet] many year-round
Vineyarders work up to four jobs in order to get through the year Many are forced to live in trailers
or tents . . . [or] a run-down house with countless other strangers. . . . [Their] children don't have a clue
whether they will go to the same school in the fall that they left in June ... All the towns are imploding
under a siege of over-development, exploding and unrelenting growth, and off-the-wall real estate prices.
(Nix 2000:221-22)

Blake and Josey mention the recent establishment of the Children's Plot Program,
which gives priority to children from established Vineyard families in buying land, as
an example of what they term the 'psychosocial' security of islanders today (2003:
480). However, given the comments just quoted, and given that special action groups
such as the Island Affordable Housing Fund are also being formed, we think it is equally
plausible to see the Children's Plot Program as an indication of a community seeking
to respond with a wide variety of measures to an increasingly urgent threat. Blake and
Josey also argue that 'today [tourism] is understood as what virtually sustains the
local communities . . . Vineyarders no longer appear to locate themselves strongly in
opposition to tourists from the mainland' (2003:479). JP, however, met many people
on her field trips who were concerned about the high cost of living on the Vineyard,
and the role played by the super-rich summer residents in artificially raising the cost
of living. Attitudes toward tourism reflected in publications geared for local consump-
tion range from the humorous (the tellingly named volume of home-drawn cartoons
circulating on the island in 2001 entitled Summer people, some are not) to the apocalyp-
tic: To restore the rare treasure that was Martha's Vineyard, we ... must . . . stop
pandering to tourists, stop endangering species, including our own' (Anne W. Simon
in a 1994 article in the Vineyard Gazette, quoted in Delisle 2001:58).
In summary, although it is probably true that an economy based largely on
large-
scale summer tourism has brought a certain kind of prosperity that is reflected in income
figures and changing patterns of employment, we see no reason to believe that this
prosperity has necessarily brought significant changes in the attitudes of the year-round
residents - or indeed in their overall economic well-being. There is no reason to expect

This content downloaded from 121.240.208.65 on Tue, 15 Dec 2015 07:43:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 SHORT REPORT 625

that the significanteconomic changes of the past forty years would necessarily affect
the extent to which MV speakers identify with the island community. This in turn
meansthatthereis not really anythingvery surprisingaboutour replicationof Labov's
original findings of a correlationbetween social attitudes and linguistic markersin
individuals'speech.

4.2. Methodological issues in eliciting variation. Still, we are left with the
puzzle of why Josey's actualresultsdivergefrom ours. It seems likely thatthis is partly
a problemof 'steppingin the same river twice'- as Bailey (2002) points out, in some
ways it is never possible to study 'the same' communitytwice, and even differences
in the interviewermean that 'same' is never absolute.We believe that the differences
between our results and Josey's can be attributedto sometimes subtle differences in
the way the two studies were carriedout.
Specifically,we can pointto at least fourdifferencesthatmighthave had a significant
impacton the kind of data elicited: the range of speaking styles, the geographicaland
social coverage of the island, the perceived social identity of the fieldworkers,and, as
alreadymentioned,the fact that Josey studied only (ay) and not (aw). With regardto
the first point, we have alreadynoted thatJP adheredmore closely to Labov's original
range of data-collectionmethods, whereas the speech samples in Josey's study come
from 'sociolinguistic interviews' (Blake & Josey 2003:459) about which no detail is
given otherthanthatthey were conductedin quiet rooms in the speakers'homes. Since
the methodologicalemphasis of Blake and Josey's paper is on acoustic analysis, we
have no way of knowing whetherthe actualsource of the speech tokens analyzedmay
have had an effect on the results.
The second factor is much more plausibly at the heart of the discrepancybetween
our findings and Josey's. Josey's study was essentially restrictedto speakersfrom one
community, Chilmark,whereas our study, to the greatest extent possible, involved
an exact replicationof Labov's sample, interviewing speakersthroughoutthe island.
Moreover,Josey establishedcontactson MV by workingin the springandearly summer
as an au pairwith a long-standingMV family in Chilmark,and her host family 'served
as the entree to an extended network of local Chilmark families and individuals'
(Blake & Josey 2003:454). It seems likely that working and living, during the early
partof the touristseason, with a family who can afford an au pair may have provided
Josey with different contacts from those that JP made when hitchhikingaroundthe
island, sometimes in the middle of winter.
Third and more speculatively, it is possible that the two fieldworkersrepresented
ratherdifferentfigures to the people they interviewed,and as a consequencemay have
elicited differentnorms.Josey's contactswith a well-to-do family may have given her
a ratherdifferentperceived social role from JP's status as a studenthitchhikerfrom
abroad.A relatedfactor is that Josey's GeneralAmericanaccent may have triggered
accommodationtowardnoncentralizedvariants,whereasJP's Britishaccentwould have
been less likely to have this effect.
Finally, it is possible that Blake and Josey's focus on (ay), to the complete
exclusion of (aw), may have affected their conclusions. If, as our results show,
centralizationof (aw) is increasing while that of (ay) is decreasing, then from a
purely phonetic point of view Blake and Josey's finding of an overall decrease in
centralizationis readily reconciled with our data. However, we reiterate that we
find no evidence for their more general conclusion that centralizationhas lost its
status as a markerof MV identity.

This content downloaded from 121.240.208.65 on Tue, 15 Dec 2015 07:43:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
626 83,NUMBER
VOLUME
LANGUAGE, 3 (2007)

Without casting any doubt on the validity of Blake and Josey's conclusions for
THE SAMPLE OF SPEAKERS AND SPEECH TOKENS THEY STUDIED, We WOUld argue that
our methodology makes our study a more valid point of comparison with Labov's
original study from forty years ago. Everything about the community, the speakers,
and the speech material studied by Josey makes it plausible to believe that she has
drawn conclusions from a sample that is likely to be skewed toward 'mainland'
phonetic variants. The conclusion that centralization is no longer used as a marker
of Vineyard identity is therefore to be treated with caution. Rather, we believe our
close replication of Labov's procedures confirms three points.
First, the social significance of (ay) and (aw) variation on MV is still very similar
to what it was forty years ago. Second, the apparent-time construct can be used
as Labov proposed, for synchronically drawing inferences about diachrony, change
in progress. And third and most generally, we have confirmed Labov's basic insight
that phonetic variation and change can have social motivations that are susceptible
to systematic study.

REFERENCES
Bailey, Guy. 2002. Real and apparent time. The handbook of language variation and
change, ed. by J. K. Chambers, Natalie Schilling-Estes, and Peter Trudgill, 312-32.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Blake, Renee, and Meredith Josey. 2003. The /ay/ diphthong in a Martha's Vineyard
community: What can we say 40 years after Labov? Language in Society 32.451-85.
Blondeau, Helene; Gillian Sankoff; and Anne Charity. 2003. Parcours individuels et
changements linguistiques en cours et dans la communaute francophone montrealaise.
Revue quebecoise de linguistique 31.13-38.
Census 2000. Data from US Census Bureau for Dukes County, Massachusetts, fact sheet.
TM-P063. Median household income in 1999: 2000 (Massachusetts by 5-Digit ZIP
code tabulation area). Accessed at http://factfinder.census.gov, 26 September 2006.
Delisle, Eniko. 2001. Summer vacations on Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket. Times of
the Islands (Summer 2001) 4.54-59.
Dubois, Sylvie, and Barbara Horvath. 1999. When the music changes, you change too:
Gender and language change in Cajun English. Language Variation and Change
11.287-313.
Hazen, Kirk. 2002. Identity and language variation in a rural community. Language
28.240-57.
Holmes, Janet. 1995. Women, men and politeness. London: Longman.
Josey, Meredith. 2004. A sociolinguistic study of phonetic variation and change on the
island of Martha's Vineyard. New York: New York University dissertation.
Kurath, Hans (ed.) 1941. Linguistic atlas of New England. Providence, RI: American
Council of Learned Societies.
Labov, William. 1963. The social motivation of a sound change. Word 19.273-309.
Labov, William. 1972. The social motivation of a sound change. Sociolinguistic patterns,
1-42. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Labov, William. 1994. Principles of linguistic change, vol. 1: Internal factors. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Morgan, Jimmy.2001. All I ever wanted to do is go fishing. Vineyardstyle (Holiday 2001),
22-27.
Niedzielski, Nancy A., and Dennis Preston. 2000. Folk linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Nix, Theophilus R. 2000. The other Vineyard. On the Vineyard 3 (July 2000). Martha's
Vineyard: Simon Press.
Sankoff, Gillian. 2006. Age: Apparent time and real time. The encyclopedia of language
and linguistics, 2nd edn., vol. 1, ed. by Keith Brown, 110-16. Oxford: Elsevier.
Wells, J. C. 1982. Accents of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

This content downloaded from 121.240.208.65 on Tue, 15 Dec 2015 07:43:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 SHORT REPORT 627

Wolfram, Walt; Kirk Hazen; and Natalie Schilling-Estes. 1999. Dialect change and
maintenance on the Outer Banks. (Publication of the American Dialect Society 81.)
Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.

Linguistics& English Language [Received 11 October2006;

Universityof Edinburgh accepted 12 March 2007]
14 Buccleuch Place
EdinburghEH8 9LN
Scotland
[jhmpope@hotmail.com]
[Miriam.Meyerhoff@ed.ac.uk]
[Bob.Ladd@ed.ac.uk]

This content downloaded from 121.240.208.65 on Tue, 15 Dec 2015 07:43:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions