Network Structure and Linguistic Change

  • James Milroy
  • Lesley Milroy
Part of the Modern Linguistics Series book series


[T]he Belfast research design here depends on the idea of norm maintenance, which we have operationalized in terms of social network, and within this model we have distinguished between relatively weak and strong network links. In any real community individuals and groups will vary in the relative intensity of ties, and this is what makes it possible to compare them in these terms. But behind this there lies an idealization which predicts that in a community bound by maximally dense and multiplex network ties linguistic change would not take place at all. No such community can actually exist, but the idealization is important, because it also implies that to the extent that relatively weak ties exist in communities (as in fact they do), the conditions will be present for linguistic change to take place. This perception was partly borne out even in the inner-city research. We noted that very few individuals had markedly low network strength scores, and furthermore that these individuals tended to use language much less close to the core Belfast vernacular, with a much lower use of the ‘close-tie’ variants (such as [A] in words of the (pull) class). The idea that relative strength of network tie is a powerful predictor of language use is thus implicit in the interpretative model we have used throughout: it predicts, amongst other things, that to the extent that ties are strong, linguistic change will be prevented or impeded, whereas to the extent that they are weak, they will be more open to external influences, and so linguistic change will be facilitated.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Andersen, H. (1986) ‘Center and Periphery: Adoption, Diffusion and Spread’. Paper delivered to the Conference on Historical Dialectology, Poznan, Poland.Google Scholar
  2. Ash, S. and Myhill, J. (1986) ‘Linguistic Correlates of Inter-ethnic Contact’, in Sankoff, D. (ed.) Diversity and Diachrony ( Amsterdam: Benjamins ) pp. 33–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boal, F. W. (1978) ‘Territoriality on the Shankill-Falls Divide, Belfast: The Perspective from 1976’, in Lanegran, D. A. and Palm, R. (eds) An Invitation to Geography, 2nd edn ( New York: McGraw Hill ) pp. 58–77.Google Scholar
  4. Cohen, A. (ed.) (1982) Belonging ( Manchester: Manchester University Press ).Google Scholar
  5. Downes, W. (1984) Language and Society (Bungay, Suffolk: Fontana).Google Scholar
  6. Granovetter, M. (1973) ‘The Strength of Weak Ties’, American Journal of Sociology, 78, pp. 1360–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Granovetter, M. (1982) ‘The Strength of Weak Ties: A Network Theory Revisited’, in Marsden, P. V. and Lin, N. (eds) Social Structure and Network Analysis ( London: Sage ).Google Scholar
  8. Kroch, A. (1978) ‘Toward a Theory of Social Dialect Variation’, Language in Society, 7, pp. 17–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Labov, W. (1972) Language in the Inner City ( Philadelphia, PA: Pennsylvania University Press).Google Scholar
  10. Labov, W. (ed.) (1980) Locating Language in Time and Space ( New York: Academic Press ).Google Scholar
  11. Labov, W. and Harris, W. (1986) ‘De Facto Segregation of Black and White Vernaculars’, in Sankoff, D. (ed.) Diversity and Diachrony ( Amsterdam: Benjamins ) pp. 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mewett, P. (1982) ‘Associational Categories and the Social Location of Relationships in a Lewis Crofting Community’, in Cohen, A. (ed.) Belonging ( Manchester: Manchester University Press ) pp. 101–30.Google Scholar
  13. Milroy, J. (1981) Regional Accents of English: Belfast ( Belfast: Blackstaff).Google Scholar
  14. Milroy, J. (1992) Linguistic Variation and Change: On the Historical Sociolinguistics of English ( Oxford: Blackwell).Google Scholar
  15. Milroy, J. and Milroy, L. (1985) ‘Linguistic Change, Social Network and Speaker Innovation’, Journal of Linguistics, 21, pp. 339–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Milroy, L. (1987) Language and Social Networks, 2nd edn ( Oxford: Basil Blackwell).Google Scholar
  17. Rogers, E. M. and Shoemaker, F. F. (1971) Communication of Innovations, 2nd edn ( New York: Free Press).Google Scholar
  18. Trudgill, P. (1986) ‘The Apparent Time Paradigm: Norwich Revisited’. Paper presented at the 6th Sociolinguistics Symposium, University of Newcastle upon Tyne.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Limited 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • James Milroy
  • Lesley Milroy

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations