Labov’s Principles—1972 Language in Society, Vol.1 No. 1 “ Principles ” 1.Cumulative Principle 2.The Neogrammarian Hypothesis 3.The Uniformitarian Principle 4.Principle of Convergence 5.Principle of Preferential Ignorance 6.The Saussurian Paradox 7.Principle of the vocal majority 8.Principle of subordinate shift

Five principles that are part of a “crucial methodological paradox in the study of everyday language” 1.The principle of style shifting 2.The principle of attention 3.The vernacular principle 4.The principle of formality 5.The observer’s paradox

Labov, “When Intuitions Fail”, CLS 32: Six types of “subjective” (=reflective) questions asked when assessing the linguistic knowledge a speaker may have of a given element (e.g., rule, constraint, or construction) in a language X = the element in question WXY = a sentence (phrase? Larger context?) employing ‘X’ 1.Is WXY English? 2.What kind of English is WXY? Who would say that? 3.What does the sentence WXY mean? 4.What does X mean in WXY? 5.If you can say WXY, can you say WXZ? Or, VXY? 6.The use of X in spontaneous speech with native frequency and native pattern of categorical and variable constraints

Principles at work…Labov, 1996 The consensus principle: If there is no reason to think otherwise, assume that the judgments of any native speaker are characteristic of all speakers of the language The experimenter principle: If there is any disagreement on introspective judgments, the judgments of those who are familiar with the theoretical issues may not be counted as evidence. NEG Q and NEG V The clear case principle: Disputed judgments should be shown to include at least one consistent pattern in the speech community or be abandoned. If differing judgments are said to represent different dialects, enough investigation of each dialect should be carried out to show that each judgment is a clear case in that dialect. wanna contraction

Principles at work…Labov, 1996 continued The principle of validity: When the use of language is shown to be more consistent than introspective judgments, a valid description of the language will agree with that use, rather than with intuitions. [mismatches of intuitions and behaviors] positive anymore, BIN, AIN’T,

But why might intuitions fail? 1.Social intervention 2.Physical collapse 3.Semantic suspension 4.Cognitive interference 5.Pragmatic opacity

Fazlıoğulları, O. (2012). Scientific Research Paradigms in Social Sciences. International Journal of Educational Policies, 6 (1) Guba E.G. & Lincoln, Y.S. (2005). Paradigmatic Controversies, Contradictions, and Emerging Confluences. In Denzin, N.K., Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research. Sage, London, pp.1-28

1. What is your question? 2.Can you make it into a topic? 3. What have others already learned (developing relevant bibliographies)? 4. What are other, related questions (which you might have discovered from what others have said)? 5. What will you need to carry out research (What is your design? What sort of method(s) might you engage?)? 6. What might be any ethical concerns? 7. What sort of data will you look for (related to (5) above)? 8. How will you select, collect, and record the data? 9. What do you want the data to tell you? (If/when you carry the project out, this is how you’ll test your hypothesis) Carrying out the project 10. What are your conclusions? What are residual questions? What might be new questions? Where might such research fit (contextualizing it) 11.How can you share what you’ve learned?