Cover not available
Article published In:
Historiographia Linguistica
Vol. 33:3 (2006) ► pp.335–355

L’abandon progressif du fonctionnalisme dans les travaux de William Labov

 | Katholieke Universiteit Leuven – campus Kortrijk
This paper traces the gradual abandonment of a functionalist perspective in labovian sociolinguistics. In an introductory point, the influence of French functionalism on William Labov, via Uriel Weinreich, is discussed. In the central part of the paper, Labov’s changing attitude towards functionalism is analysed, by distinguishing between different meanings of ‘functionalism’ and ‘functional’. It is shown how Labov gradually rejects the functionalist inspiration that was important in the beginning of his career. The reasons for this change in perspective, and its consequences, are examined. It is concluded that the rejection of the functionalist hypothesis does not affect the core of Labov’s work, which focuses on the correlation of social and linguistic structures. However, it leads to a very different conception of the nature of language variation and change.

Article language: French

Published online: 27 February 2007
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hl.33.3.04ver
References (54)
Références bibliographiques
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. New York: Henry Holt & Co.Google Scholar
Bolelli, Tristano. 1979. “La scuola linguistica sociologica francese”. Studi e Saggi Linguistici 191.1–26.Google Scholar
Bréal, Michel. 1897. Essai de sémantique : Science des significations. Paris: Hachette.Google Scholar
Bühler, Karl. 2001 [1934]. Theory of Language. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Calvet, Louis-Jean. 1999. “Aux origines de la sociolinguistique : La conférence de sociolinguistique de l’UCLA (1964)”. Langage et société 881. 25–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam & Morris Halle. 1968. The Sound Pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Coseriu, Eugenio. 1958. Sincronía, diacronía e historia : el problema del cambio lingüístico. Montevideo: Facultad de Humanidades y Ciencias, Universidad de la República.Google Scholar
Desmet, Piet & Stijn Verleyen. [À paraître]. “Move to Synchrony : Late nineteenth, early twentieth century”. The Cambridge History of Linguistics éd. par John E. Joseph & Linda R. Waugh. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Figueroa, Esther. 1994. Sociolinguistic Metatheory. Oxford: Pergamom.Google Scholar
Fishman, Joshua A. 1997. “Uriel Weinreich (1926–1967) : A sociolinguistic appreciation”. The Early Days of Sociolinguistics : Memories and reflections éd. par Christina Bratt Paulston & G. Richard Tucker, 307–313. Dallas, Tex.: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Fontaine, Jacqueline. 1994. “La conception du système linguistique dans le Cercle Linguistique de Prague”. Cahiers de l’Institut de linguistique et des sciences du langage 51.7–18.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris. 1979. “Formal vs Functional Considerations in Phonology”. Studies in Diachronic, Synchronic and Typological Linguistics : Festschrift for Oswald Szemerényi on the occasion of his 65th birthday éd. par Bela Brogyanyi, 325–341. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hassler, Gerda & Gesina Volkmann, éds. 2004. The History of Linguistics in Texts and Concepts. Münster: Nodus.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1963. “Efforts towards a Means-Ends Model of Language in Interwar Continental Linguistics”. Trends in Modern Linguistics éd. par Christina Mohrmann & F[rederick] Norman, 104–109. Utrecht & Anvers: Spectrum.Google Scholar
Joseph, John E. 2002. From Whitney to Chomsky : Essays in the history of American linguistics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1972. “Explanation in Phonology”. Goals of Linguistic Theory éd. par Stanley Peters, 189–227. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
. 1982. Explanation in Phonology. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koerner, E. F. K[onrad]. 1973. Ferdinand de Saussure : Origin and development of his linguistic thought in Western studies of language. Braunschweig: Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koerner, E. F. K. 1987. “Aux sources de la sociolinguistique”. Linguisticae Investigationes 101.381–401. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1988. “Meillet, Saussure et la linguistique générale”. Histoire Épistémologie Langage 10:2.57–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002. “William Labov and the Origins of Sociolinguistics in America”. Koerner, Toward a History of American Linguistics, 253–284. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. 1963. “The Social Motivation of a Sound Change”. Word 191.273–309. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1965. “On the Mechanism of Linguistic Change”. Georgetown Monographs on Language and Linguistics 18.91–114. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
. 1966. The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
. 1972. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
. 1974. “Language Change as a Form of Communication”. Human Communication : Theoretical Explorations éd. par Albert Silverstein, 221–256. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
. 1982. “Building on Empirical Foundations”. Perspectives on Historical Linguistics éd. par Winfred P. Lehmann & Yakov Malkiel, 17–92. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1987. “The Overestimation of Functionalism”. Functionalism in Linguistics éd. par René Dirven & Vilém Fried, 311–332. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1994. Principles of Linguistic Change. Vol. I : Internal Factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
. 1997. “Resyllabification”. Variation, Change, and Phonological Theory éd. par Frans Hinskens, Roeland Van Hout & W. Leo Wetzels, 145–179. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001a. Principles of Linguistic Change. Vol. II : Social Factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
. 2001b. “How I Got into Linguistics, and What I Got out of It”. Historiographia Linguistica 281.455–466. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Labov, William, Malcah Yaeger & Richard Steiner. 1972. A Quantitative Study of Sound Change in Progress. Philadelphia: U.S. Regional Survey.Google Scholar
Lavandera, Beatriz. 1978. “Where Does the Sociolinguistic Variable Stop ?”. Language in Society 71.171–182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malkiel, Yakov. 1967. “Uriel Weinreich, 1926–1967”. Language 431.606–610.Google Scholar
. 1968. “Uriel Weinreich, Jakob Jud’s Last Student”. Romance Philology 221.128–132.Google Scholar
. 1976. “From Romance Philology through Dialect Geography to Sociolinguistics”. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 91.59–84.Google Scholar
Martinet, André. 1952. “Function, Structure and Sound Change”. Word 81.1–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1955. Économie des changements phonétiques : Traité de phonologie diachronique. Berne: A. Francke.Google Scholar
. 1964. “Structural Variation in Language”. Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Linguists éd. par Horace G. Lunt, 521–532. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
. 1993. Mémoires d’un linguiste : Vivre les langues. Paris: Quai Voltaire.Google Scholar
Milroy, James & Lesley Milroy. 1985. “Linguistic Change, Social Network and Speaker Innovation”. Journal of Linguistics 211.339–384. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Murray, Stephen O. 1994. Theory Groups and the Study of Language in North America : A social history. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 1998. Language Form and Language Function. Cambridge, Mass. & London: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Normand, Claudine. 2004. “Saussure versus Whitney”. Hassler & Volkmann, eds. 2004, 327–334.Google Scholar
Sturtevant, Edgar H. 1947 [1917]. Linguistic Change : An introduction to the historical study of language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Swiggers, Pierre. 1986. “Le Cercle linguistique de Prague et les courants structuralistes. À propos de la notion de ‘fonction’”. Le Cercle linguistique de Prague : Ses activités, ses prolongements éd. par Nadezhda Stangé-Zhirovova & Jan Rubeš, 69–103. Bruxelles: Faculté de Philosophie et Lettres, Université Libre de Bruxelles.Google Scholar
. 1988. “Le problème du changement linguistique chez Antoine Meillet”. Histoire Épistémologie Langage 101.155–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verleyen, Stijn. 2004. “Le concept d’économie dans la théorie linguistique d’André Martinet (1908–1999)”. Hassler & Volkmann, eds. 2004.365–377.Google Scholar
. 2006 [à paraître]. “La phonologie générative diachronique (1962–1975) : Du formalisme initial à la réappropriation de la tradition”. Histoire Épistémologie Langage 29/2.Google Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel. 1953. Languages in Contact. New York: Publications of the Linguistic Circle of New York.Google Scholar
. 1963. “Four Riddles in Bilingual Dialectology”. American Contributions to the Fifth International Congress of Slavists, vol. I1, 335–359. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel, William Labov & Marvin I. Herzog. 1968. “Empirical Foundations for a Theory of Language Change”. Directions for Historical Linguistics éd. par W. P. Lehmann & Y. Malkiel, 97–195. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Whitney, William Dwight. 1867. Language and the Study of Language. New York: Scribner, Armstrong & Co.Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Austin, Patrik
2021. Theory of language: a taxonomy. SN Social Sciences 1:3 DOI logo
Terkourafi, Marina
2011. The pragmatic variable: Toward a procedural interpretation. Language in Society 40:3 ► pp. 343 ff. DOI logo
Verleyen, Stijn
2009. Les avatars d'une dichotomie saussurienne : synchronie et diachronie dans les théories modernes du changement linguistique. Travaux de linguistique n° 57:2 ► pp. 133 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 3 august 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.