Slide 1

LING 432-532 – Sociolinguistics – Spring 2011

Style

Schilling-Estes – Style

 Style shifting can be thought of as

intraspeaker variation

 Recent work and attention to this element of ling variation leads to 2 points: (p. 378)  Speakers do not shift style merely, or primarily, in reaction to elements of the speech situation but rather are quite active and highly creative in their use of stylistic resources  Not only are speakers

not

bound to elements of the external situation as they shape their speech, but they use their speech to help shape and re-shape the external situation, as well as their interpersonal relationships and, crucially, their personal identities.

Slide 2

LING 432-532 – Sociolinguistics – Spring 2011

Style

Schilling-Estes – Style

 ATTENTION TO SPEECH MODEL, Labov  This model shows a stylistic range directly related to speaker’s attention to speech as identified by different elicitation tasks  Range from most informal/unselfconscious = vernacular to most formal/self-conscious = standard  Designed to get range of style during sociolinguistic interview  Certain paralinguistic cues to help identify casual speech (laughter, speech rate increase, pitch, volume, breathing rate)  (most casual) Casual speech (narrative, talking to 3rd party); careful interview style, semantic differentials, reading passage, word list, minimal pairs (most formal)  This style shifting directly reflects interspeaker variation with respect to social class as a factor (see charts on pp. 380-81) - see Bell quote on p. 379

Slide 3

LING 432-532 – Sociolinguistics – Spring 2011

Style

Schilling-Estes – Style

 ATTENTION TO SPEECH MODEL, Labov  Hypercorrection of LMC hard to explain in terms of style shifting more of a socially motivated phenomenon rather than a style thing - DO YOU AGREE WITH THIS?

 Not all variables show the same stylistic variation with respect to attention to speech because not all variables are evaluated the same stereotype variables will show erratic behavior with respect to style  LIMITATIONS:  Not all paralinguistic cues indicate more casualness (laughter);  There may be performance issues with reading styles that do not mean attention to speech (Philly butch lesbian breaking the rules)  Speakers are REACTING to attention to speech causing style shift - may not be accurate (no speaker agency)

Slide 4

LING 432-532 – Sociolinguistics – Spring 2011

Style

Schilling-Estes – Style

 AUDIENCE DESIGN, Bell (see handout)  Speech Accommodation Theory (SAT) - Giles, States that people will converge linguistically toward their interlocutor (convergence) - can also have divergence for other social reasons  Audience Design states that “speakers adjust their speech toward their audiences if they wish to express or achieve solidarity with audience members; they adjust away from their audience if they wish to express or create distance.” (Wolfram and Schilling-Estes, 1998, p. 227)  Directly addressed participants = ADDRESSEE  Ratified (sanctioned to participate in conversation) but non-addressed participant = AUDITOR  Non-ratified non-addressed but known to speaker = OVERHEARERS  Presence unknown and unratified = EAVESDROPPERS

Slide 5

LING 432-532 – Sociolinguistics – Spring 2011

Style

Schilling-Estes – Style

 AUDIENCE DESIGN, Bell (see handout)  Non-person factors also affect style shifting (from SPEAKING) such as Setting and Topic  Above were RESPONSIVE shifts - Below is INITIATIVE component (speaker as agent rather than respondent)  Speakers may wish to shift from present audience to absent audience the non-present group that the speaker identifies with is REFEREE GROUP  Attributes speakers accommodate to could be 1-3 on p. 387  Personal characteristics of addressee  General style level of addressee  Levels of ling variables of addressee  Rickford and McNair-Knox found increase in AAVE features when interviewed by African American versus white person

Slide 6

LING 432-532 – Sociolinguistics – Spring 2011

Style

Schilling-Estes – Style

 AUDIENCE DESIGN, Bell (see handout) - LIMITATIONS  Still very responsive rather than initiative focused  Other ways to achieve solidarity without convergence

Slide 7

LING 432-532 – Sociolinguistics – Spring 2011

Style

Schilling-Estes – Style

 SPEAKER DESIGN MODEL, Eckert  Social constructionist approach (create identities through language)  Style shifts not seen as reaction to audiences or addressees or formality, but as a means of projecting one’s identity  LIMITATIONS include the loss of unidimensionality that the other approaches have; includes too many different types of variables at once; also can really only supply a post-hoc explanation for what triggers style shift (not control over trigger if speaker is 100% initiative and not responsive)  Also, if speech styles are individualistic (created each moment by individuals) then where do they get their meaning from which speakers draw on to create these identities when they shift styles?

Slide 8

LING 432-532 – Sociolinguistics – Spring 2011

Style

Schilling-Estes – Style

 Questions for future research  Need to contrast large-scale interspeaker variation mapped onto individual intraspeaker variation (can only figure out what is happening by locating the individual within the society they are shifting in) meaning of style shifting comes from individual as well as larger groups  How the meaning/evaluation of different variables affect the intraspeaker variation

Slide 9

LING 432-532 – Sociolinguistics – Spring 2011

Style

Schilling-Estes – Style

 Carol Meyers in Philadelphia (Hindle, 1980) shows different shifts for different variables - why?