Transcript ELL217 Sociolinguistics

Sociolinguistics
Social Class & Style
Dr Emma Moore
1
Contents


What are the concerns of sociolinguists (and
how do they differ from those of
dialectologists)?
How do sociolinguists define their ‘sampling
environment’?
–
–

2
Studying social variation
Studying stylistic variation
What research issues do sociolinguists need
to think about?
Regional dialectology

The relationship between dialectology and
sociolinguistics
–

Both concerned with recording “real language”
Traditional dialectology
–
Linguistic archaeology?


3
Preserving older stages of the language
Preserving traditional, rural dialects
Criticisms of traditional dialectology
Representativeness
 Location
–

Relatively formal
Survey methods
–
4
1-2 informants per locality
Context
–

NORMs
Sample size
–

–
Social factors
–

Rural only
Ability to explain variation
 Dialect mixture
Questionnaires and
interviews

Co-existence of one or
more dialect in a single
area
Free variation
–
Random use of
alternative forms
From dialectology to variationist
sociolinguistics
Representativeness
 Location
–

Social factors
–

Different social styles
Survey methods
–
5
Representative sampling
Context
–

Social class, age, gender,
ethnicity
Sample size
–

Urban (and rural)
Informal
interviews/”naturally”
occurring speech
Ability to explain variation
 Structured heterogeneity
–
–
Systematic variation based on
social differentiation
Requires us to measure
relative differences in language
use
Sampling: The speech community

6
Traditional Dialectology
boundaries

Sociolinguistic boundaries
“Sociolinguists use the concept of speech community to
delimit the social locus of their account of language use.
Because sociolinguists’ treatment of language focuses
upon its heterogeneity, they seek a unit of analysis at a
level of social aggregation at which it can be said the
heterogeneity is organized”
(Eckert 2000: 30).
Defining the speech community

Speech community = a community based on
language use (see Hudson 1996)
–
Shared language use (Lyons 1970)

–
Shared interactions (Bloomfield 1933; Gumperz 1962)

–
Communicative competence
Shared attitudes and values (Labov 1972)

7
But… how do we know that interactions are meaningful?
Shared rules (Gumperz 1968)

–
But… how do you delimit languages/varieties?
Evaluating language based on community knowledge
The speech community and social
groups

How speakers position themselves and their
language use
SPEECH COMMUNITY
Young
Black
Old
WC
Middleaged
White
MC
Male
8
Asian
Female
Understanding a speech community
(Labov 1966)

Labov (1966) New York City
–
Goal: to show systematic variation based on




Pilot study: NYC department stores
–
9
Social class
Attention paid to speech
Linguistic context on a variant
Studying the incoming prestige use of postvocalic
/r/
Studying social status…

10
Social class status based on prestige of
department stores
Studying attention to speech &
linguistic context
Unconscious
response
Eliciting tokens of /r/
A: “Where is ….?”
B: “On the fourth floor.”
A: “Excuse me?”
B: “The fourth floor.”
Token of (r)
before a
consonant
11
Careful
articulation (more
attention paid to
speech)
Token of (r) word
finally
NYC results
More /r/ in more statusful
department stores
12
NYC results
More /r/ in
more
careful
speech
styles
13
More /r/ word-finally
What Labov’s study tells us about the
speech community

Members of a speech community share
social evaluation of variables
–
Variables used according to place in the hierarchy

–
All speakers are conscious of community prestige
norms

14
Use is stratified by social class status
Speech shifts to prestige norms when it is being
observed
More on social class…

How do you measure social class?
–
–
15
Use of indices: occupation, education, houseprice, income
Behaviour: activities, dispositions, selfidentification
More on style…

Stylistic continuum
–
Formal to informal styles
Word list
Reading
Careful (interview)
Casual (friends)
16
Style
UWC
LWC
Casual
M
000
000
004
031
F
000
000
000
M
000
020
027
017
F
000
000
003
M
000
018
081
095
F
011
013
068
M
024
043
091
097
F
020
046
081
M
066
100
100
100
F
017
054
097
<
<
<
000
067
<
MWC
Formal
<
LMC
Reading
<
MMC
Word List
<
17
Trudgill (1974: 94) The (ng) variable in Norwich
The reoccurring salience of class &
style
077
088
<
100
Types of variable


Variables which show style shifts are referred
to as markers
Other types of variable
–
Indicators

Show social variation, but rarely stylistic variation
–
–
Stereotypes

Highly stigmatised markers
–
18
e.g. /a:/, /a/, /α:/
e.g. negative concord
But are patterns always so linear?

19
Interesting intersections of class and style
Hypercorrection?

The cross-over effect
–
The linguistic insecurity/sensitivity of the LMC

20
Apparent in more formal styles
What are the LMC in NYC responding
to?

Overt prestige
–
“The prestige associated with a variant that
speakers are aware of and can talk about in terms
of standardness, or aesthetic and moral
evaluations like being ‘nicer’ or ‘better’”
(Meyerhoff 2006: 37).

But do speakers only respond to overt prestige?
–
21
How do we explain why speakers use other variants?
‘Hidden’ prestige

Covert prestige
–
“A norm or target that is oriented to without the
speaker even being aware that they are orienting
towards it. Evidence of covert prestige can be
found in mismatches between speakers’ selfreport of using one variant and actual use of
another variant” (Meyerhoff 2006: 37)

Trudgill (1972): mismatch between what speakers say
and what they do
–
22
/tjun/ vs. /tun/ in Norwich
The problem of observing what
speakers do…
The Observer’s Paradox (Labov 1972)
Sociolinguists are interested in how speakers
behave when they’re not being observed; but
they only way to find out how speakers
behave is to observe them.
23
Solutions?




24
Rapid, anonymous surveys (Labov: NYC
Dept stores)
Telephone surveys (Labov: Philadelphia)
The Sociolinguistic interview (Labov:
Martha’s Vineyard; Trudgill: Norwich)
Participant observation (Labov: Harlem;
Eckert: Detroit)
Ethics…

Surreptious recordings
–
What do informants need to know?




25
Purpose
What the data will be used for
Who will have access to the data
Freedom to change their mind about participation
Summing Up…



Sociolinguists use the concept of the ‘speech community’ to
define the scope of their research
Linguistic variation has been shown to be stratified according to
social status and style
Explanations consider the relative prestige of variants
–

Sociolinguistics have to consider the methods they use
–
–
–
–
26
Overt vs. covert prestige
Defining social class and style
Linguistic constraints
Observer’s paradox
Ethics
References
Hudson, Richard A. (1996) Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: CUP.
Labov, William (1966) The Social Stratification of English in
New York City. Washington, DC: Center for Applied
Linguistics.
Labov, William (1972) Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press.
Trudgill (1972); reprinted as: Trudgill, Peter (1998) “Sex and
covert prestige”. In: Jennifer Coates (ed.) Language and
Gender: A Reader. Oxford: Blackwells, 21-28.
Required Reading: Meyerhoff (2006: pp.22-38, 155-183)
27