Reading Working Papers in Linguistics 4 (2000) - The University of ...

J. MARSHALL
these close-knit ties are an important mechanism of language maintenance.
Although loose-knit networks are difficult to use as an analytic tool at
the operational level, they are important concepts at the theoretical level
(Milroy 1987:199). They acknowledge Granovetter’s (1973) notion of ‘weak
ties’ and their importance as links between micro-groups. The strength of a tie
is related to the amount of time, emotional intensity, intimacy, and reciprocal
services which characterise it. A multiplex tie would thus be relatively strong.
Weak ties between non-overlapping groups provide important bridges for the
diffusion of innovations. Granovetter suggests that no strong tie can be a
bridge.
The Milroys make a distinction between innovators and early adopters
of an innovation. They refer to other studies (linguistic and non-linguistic)
which show that innovators are marginal to the group adopting the innovation.
It is the very weakness of their ties that allows the marginal member to bring
in the innovation. They do not strongly experience the norm-enforcing effect
of the group, whereas they are more likely to be susceptible to outside
influence. The question of why these individuals choose to have weak ties is
left unanswered. Early adopters, on the other hand, are central to the group,
have strong ties within it, and conform highly to group norms. As a general
condition, they propose:
Linguistic change is slow to the extent that the relevant populations are well
established and bound by strong ties, whereas it is rapid to the extent that weak ties
exist in populations (Milroy, J. and L. 1985: 375).
Their conclusion is that innovations are transmitted from one group to
another by persons having weak ties with both groups. Furthermore, where the
proportion of weak links in a community is high, linguistic change is likely to
be rapid. It is also necessary to distinguish between innovation, which is the
act of one or more speakers, and change, which is the reflex of a successful
innovation in the language system.
4.3 J. and L. Milroy 1992
In a later paper (1992), the Milroys point out that a conflict model is necessary
in order to explain the process of linguistic change. They posit that linguistic
variation and change are best accounted for by a framework that emphasises
competing social values, and in this paper they attempt to integrate the social
134