Two factors may be responsible for the rapid changes Labov (1996) re-
ported. One is that our urban centers have been magnets for immigrants. Many
cities, such as Los Angeles, have seen their populations more than double since
- The influx of new residents, the majority for whom English is a second
language, would create a dynamic linguistic environment that is conducive to
linguistic change. In addition, the American economy has grown significantly
since 1970. Real GDP in 1970 was $3,771.9 billion; by 2003, this figure had
jumped to an astounding $10,398 billion (U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2004a).
We can make such numbers more personal, perhaps, by considering the na-
tion’s median price for homes as a reflection of the increase in wealth. In 1970,
the median price of a home nationally was $24,400. In 2001, the most recent
year for which data are available, the price was $174,100. In the West, which
saw dramatic population growth during this period, the numbers are even more
striking: $24,000 and $214,400, respectively (U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development, 2004).^3 One result of such affluence is what James
Twitchell (2003) referred to as the “opulux culture”—America’s infatuation
with designer labels, custom kitchens, and German luxury cars. Another, how-
ever, is a concomitant increase in sophistication and cosmopolitanism, two of
the more salient factors associated with rapid dialect change.^4
Although change is a natural part of all living languages, there is cause
for concern. The Usage Notes in earlier chapters detailed many features of
nonstandard English, yet for a growing number of young people, the prob-
lems they face owing to their use of nonstandard English are more severe
than any we have discussed. Their language exemplifies what linguists call
restricted code,language that is impoverished with respect to syntax, vo-
cabulary, meaning, and the ability to communicate beyond the most rudi-
mentary level. Restricted codes today seem unrelated to race or SES. The
following example came from a white, middle-class 10th-grade student in a
history course who was asked to summarize how a congressional bill be-
comes a law:
232 CHAPTER 7
(^3) By April 2004, the median home price in California had more than doubled to $453,590 (San Jose
Business Journal, 4 May 24, 2004).
The increase in wealth represented in these numbers does not mean that everyone is better off today
than in 1970. They actually tell much of the story of the shrinking middle class. In 1970, the average an-
nual income was $15,000 (Puget Sound Regional Council, 2001, p. 2); in April 2004, the average annual
income was $27,455 (U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2004b, p. 1). Thus,
whereas home prices (based on 2001 data) have increased 7.1 times, income has not even doubled. The
situation is worse for people living in California, where home prices have increased an astounding 18.6
times. All things being equal, the average worker in California today would have to earn $279,000 to
have the same buying power that he or she had in 1970.