In the preceding chapter I attempted to apply variable rule analysis to a specific test case, variation in the relative marker system, to see if there was any justification for the claim that the Cedergren–Sankoff program can demonstrate a convergence between formal rule schemata and quantitative data. The results of the analysis were indeterminate and difficult to interpret, but they were indicative of problems in Labov's theory of variation and change. My data might be thought to be in some sense atypical and consequently my findings to be atypical also, but I will argue that this is not the case. In this chapter I focus on the empirical and ontological status of some of the so-called decisive solutions which have been proposed in sociolinguistic theory to show that there are indeterminacies as well as inconsistencies in a number of these analyses. I take up first Labov's (1969) analysis of the copula in BEV as a case in point. I mentioned in Chapter 2 that it was in this paper that Labov argued most forcefully for a program of empirical research which would produce decisive and correct solutions. I will demonstrate that the analysis Labov presents is not necessarily the ‘right’ one based on the quantitative data.

Labor's analysis of contraction and deletion of the copula in BEV

Labov decided to treat contraction and deletion of the BEV copula as two separate rules which were ordered so that contraction preceded deletion.