Social Dialectology Presentation 3/29
Download
Report
Transcript Social Dialectology Presentation 3/29
Social Dialectology Ch.3
Measuring the Cause of Variation
Defining a Linguistic Variable
Social Factors Related to Variation
Identifying Variation in Spoken and
Written Texts
Various Views of Language Variation
Earlier Explanations
Dialect Mixture:
Implies the coexistence in
one locality of 2 or more
dialects which enables a
speaker to draw on one
dialect at one time, and on
the other dialect(s) on other
occasions.
Free Variation: Refers
to the random use of
alternate forms within a
particular dialect.
Labov’s Variationist
Theory
Language involved
‘structured heterogeneity.’
Language contained
systematic variation which
could be characterized and
explained by patterns of
social differentiation within
speech communities.
Terminology of Dialectology
Linguistic Variable: Any single feature of language that could be realized by
choice; can be phonological, lexical, morphological, etc. Variant is a term for different
ways the feature is used.
Hypercorrection: When the lower middle class uses more of an elite form than the
high-status group. It reflects their desire to distance self from working class.
Overt Prestige: Use of linguistic variants to show higher social status.
Covert Prestige: Working class speech that conforms to local values and norms
instead, in order to mark solidarity.
Ethnolect: A variety of language that differs from the general patterns of wider
society, based on a sense of identity through ancestry, religion, and culture.
Vernacular: The least self-conscious style of speech used in relaxed, informal
situations. This style shows more regular rules of variation.
Fieldwork Methods:
Measuring Causes of
Variation
Sociolinguistic Interview
Participant Observation
Anonymous Surveys
Field Experiments
Sociolinguistic Interview
Samples representative of
population
In context (avoid observer’s
paradox)
Informal personal interview
Interviewee leads in teaching about
“local ways and attitudes”
Participant Observation
Researcher works in setting
gathering data
Insider/outsider status
Example: Labov uses it to study
language of gangs in NYC as well
as Philadelphia neighborhoods
Anonymous Surveys
Random sample
15 minutes on phone
Used to supplement other methods
Case study #1
Children in New England (p. 77)
Brief interviews from formal (ex:
classroom recitation of a story) to informal
settings.
Girls use more –ing than boys
‘Model’ boys use more –ing than “typical”
boys
Case Study #2 Martha’s Vineyard
Methods: 69 taperecorded interviews. Labov
assigned a number to each of
4 possible responses and,
using averages, created an
index of linguistic use of
feature according to age
group.
Variations:
– 2 diphthongs [aI] & [əI]
– Scores increase as one
scans down the column
– Reduced levels of
centralization in one group
Age in years Index Score
for (aI)
75+
25
61 - 75
35
46 - 60
62
31- 45
81
14 - 30
37
Case Study #3 NYC Dept. Store
Methods: Labov
pretended to be a
customer at three large
department stores
used by different
classes. He recorded
264 salespeople
saying “fourth floor.” as
well as their gender,
race, age.
Postvocalic /r/ variations
62% Saks
51% Macy’s
20% Klein’s
Variations: →
Deliberate Usage
Case Study #3: NYC Lg Study
Variations: (th) variable pg 88
– Most non-fric forms occurred in casual
speech for all groups.
– Decreasing frequency through more
formal style.
– Sharply stratified char btwn the WC and
LMC.
Case Study # 3: NYC Lg Study
Variations: Postvocalic (r) pg 89
Methods: Extensive interviews recording
continuous speech, short passage, word list, word
pairs
– A fine stratification
– Casual Speech level: only UMC shows
significant degree of r-pronunciation.
– All groups increase from informal to formal
styles.
– LMC shows greater increase in the use of [r],
until the word list and minimal pair styles.
Overtake UMC.
Case Study # 4 Class Differences in
Norwich
Methods: Detailed
socioling. interview with fifty
adults, ten school children,
to generalize about norms
of city.
Variations:
– Sharply stratified.
– Gap btwn norms of MC
and WC.
– Males: Covert Prestige
– Females: Overt Prestige
MMC
100%
LMC
98%
UWC
30%
MWC
13%
LWC
3%
(the GA slave
class)
Case Study # 5: Class Struggles in
Cane Walk
Methods:
Interview recording using phonetic
spelling for a Creole that’s only
spoken.
Variations:
– WC: Used standard variants only 18 % of
the time.
– LMC: Used it 83% of time.
Social Factors?
What are the social
implications that
affect the variations
in these case studies
Break up into 5
groups and come up
with one social factor
for each case study
gender, class, age
personality
– Aggressive
– Cooperative
mood
– Tense
– relaxed
formality
SES
ethnicity
occupation
geographic local
school norms
residents vs. seasonal res.
attitude
identity
hypercorrection & covert /
overt prestige
standard vs. creole usage
Outline and Label the possible
variations on this map of the US: