Transcript LING 432-532 – Sociolinguistics – Spring 2011 Wardhaugh Ch 5 Slide 1 Calendar Wardhaugh Ch 5 Also will discuss Milroy & Milroy article on Tuesday.

LING 432-532 – Sociolinguistics – Spring 2011
Wardhaugh Ch 5
Slide 1
Calendar
Wardhaugh Ch 5
Also will discuss Milroy & Milroy article on Tuesday (notes from
me up by Saturday)
Quiz 1 on Thursday
Particularly “the observer’s paradox” - how does Labov resolve
this? Listen to NPR clip William Labov - NYC
LING 432-532 – Sociolinguistics – Spring 2011
Slide 2
Wardhaugh Ch 5
Wardhaugh – Chapter 5
SPEECH COMMUNITY
Theoretical dilemma defining “speech community” as a social construct
A group composed of members that share something socially in common
(region, politics, etc.)
Group may be temporary, and is also more than its members (they come and go
but group still exists)
Have preconceived expectations of behavior (including linguistics) about
members of a group = stereotypes (The blender is broke)
Labov defines it as not by linguistics elements but by “participation in a set of
shared norms” (see page 120) – top-down approach (community defined by
investigator)
Discuss Conn 2005 New Ways in Analyzing Variation (NWAV) presentation
about Philadelphia
LING 432-532 – Sociolinguistics – Spring 2011
Wardhaugh Ch 5
Slide 3
Wardhaugh – Chapter 5
SPEECH COMMUNITY
Discuss Conn 2005 New Ways in
Analyzing Variation (NWAV)
presentation about Philadelphia
LING 432-532 – Sociolinguistics – Spring 2011
Slide 4
Wardhaugh Ch 5
Wardhaugh – Chapter 5
SPEECH COMMUNITY
Theoretical dilemma defining “speech community” as a social construct
Milroy discusses that not all sociolinguistic variables have the same evaluation
in different speech communities – (r) in NYC vs. England
Gumprez uses linguistic community instead (see definition on p. 122)
Somehow connect the social with the linguistic and capture the concept/belief
that we as native speakers have when we speak a variety of a language
Hymes discusses difference between participating in and being a member of
speech community (see page 123-24)
Question regarding nativity – does a community member have to be native to
that community to participate in the speech community? (Horvath study)
LING 432-532 – Sociolinguistics – Spring 2011
Slide 5
Wardhaugh Ch 5
Wardhaugh – Chapter 5
SPEECH COMMUNITY
What do we do about heterogeneous speech communities like London
example? Or even Portland?
The concept of belonging to a group is relative - Do you speak English,
Western US English, or North Portland English?
Community of Practice - (Eckert and McConnell-Ginet) - see definition p.
122 - group of people coming together to do something – more of a bottom-up
approach (community defined by group members)
LING 432-532 – Sociolinguistics – Spring 2011
Slide 6
Wardhaugh Ch 5
Wardhaugh – Chapter 5
SPEECH COMMUNITY - NETWORKS
Dense = if you know and interact with people who also know and interact
with the same people (all people in your network are connected)
If not, then Loose
Multiplex = if people in the network are tied to
each other in multiple ways (you work, live
with, hang out with your brother/sister)
Social networks connected to social class
(James and Leslie Milroy)
Discuss Milroy & Milroy, 1992
LING 432-532 – Sociolinguistics – Spring 2011
Wardhaugh Ch 5
Slide 7
Milroy & Milroy
SPEECH COMMUNITY – NETWORKS vs. Socioeconomic Class (SEC)
Their Belfast study
Variables?
Findings? P. 12
Weak ties vs. strong ties (Labov Martha’s vineyard study)
What’s the difference between social network analysis and SEC analysis?
Guy (1988) discusses micro- vs. macrosociological levels (p. 17).
Also, Labov seems to use network as methodological tool rather than
anlaysis tool – EXPLAIN
LING 432-532 – Sociolinguistics – Spring 2011
Slide 8
Wardhaugh Ch 5
Milroy & Milroy
SPEECH COMMUNITY – NETWORKS vs. Socioeconomic Class (SEC)