Language variation, whether between different regions or different social groups, is a complex subject with a plethora of factors worth studying. As shown in Figures A and B, some interesting patterns develop as a result of these factors. The following analysis will examine how various questions can begin to explain the reasons for such correlation in the data. Specifically, how methodological factors, linguistic prestige, and the notion of speech community and “class” all play a contributing role. Before making a full assessment of the implications the data may have, it is important to first establish exactly what the data shows. Figure A shows the use of post-vocalic “r” by different social groups in New York and Reading. Interpreted in surface terms, it appears that the post-vocalic "r" correlates with the higher social groups in New York, with the percentage of usage falling from 32% in the highest social group to 0% in the highest social group the lowest. In contrast, the post-vocalic "r" is more prominent in lower social groups in Reading, with 49% of the lowest social group using it, compared to 0% of the highest social group. In Figure B, the use of vernacular verb forms in Norwich and Detroit is shown in the same type of graph as Figure A. What is immediately apparent is that vernacular verb forms are more commonly used by groups social inferiors in each region, but much more. common in Norwich among these groups. Although not common in the higher social groups in either region, vernacular verb forms are slightly more numerous in Detroit in the two highest social groups. Both datasets offer a variety of potential avenues of investigation, one of which...... middle of article ......e is not a single "correct" way to speak or use grammar, and this prescriptive way views are aimed more at maintaining elitist values ​​than anything else. This can actually be reinforced by the data in Figure A, in that the use of post-vocalic "r" is more common in higher social groups in New York, but more common in lower social groups in Reading . Therefore, this suggests that a social group's idea of ​​a "correct" way to speak is not necessarily a universal view. In conclusion, the main point reinforced by all of these points is that there are a plethora of complications in linguistic variation, both from a regional level perspective and across social groups. It is also evident that there are multiple critical perspectives and viewpoints that can be applied to investigations, making a study of findings such as those in Figures A and B all the more interesting and enriching..