Linguistic variation, both between different regions and between different social groups, is a complex topic with a plethora of factors worthy of investigation. As Figure A and Figure B show, there are some interesting patterns that develop as a result of these factors. The analysis that follows will consider the ways in which a variety of issues can begin to explain the reasons for such correlation in the data. Specifically, we will consider the ways in which methodological factors, linguistic prestige and the notion of linguistic communities and 'class' all play a determining role. Before proceeding to a full evaluation of the implications the data may have, it is important to first establish exactly what the data shows. Figure A shows the use of the postvocalic "r" by different social groups in New York and Reading. Interpreted based on surface value, it appears that the postvocalic "r" correlates with the higher social groups in New York, with usage rates dropping from 32% in the highest social group, to possibly 0% in the lowest. . On the other hand, the postvocalic 'r' is more prominent among lower social groups in Reading, with 49% of the lowest social group using it, compared to 0% of the highest. In Figure B, the use of vernacular verb forms in Norwich and Detroit is presented in the same type of graph as Figure A. What immediately stands out is that vernacular verb forms are most commonly used by lower social groups in each area , however much more common in Norwich among these groups. Although not commonly evidenced in the higher social groups in both areas, vernacular verb forms in Detroit are slightly more used in the two higher social groups. Both data sets offer a variety of potential lines of inquiry, one of which...... half of the article ...... and is not a single "correct" way to speak or use grammar, and the prescriptive Viewpoints are more about maintaining elitist values ​​than anything else. This may in fact be strengthened by the data in Figure A, as the use of the postvocalic “r” is more common in the higher social groups in New York, but more common in the lower social groups in Reading. Consequently, this suggests that the idea of ​​a “correct” way to talk about a social group is not necessarily a universal vision. In conclusion, the main point reinforced by all these points is that there are myriad complications in language variation, both regionally and across social groups. It is also evident that there are different perspectives and critical viewpoints that can be applied to investigations, making a study of findings such as those in Figures A and B even more interesting and rewarding..