Social Dialectology Ch 3 l Measuring the Cause

Social Dialectology Ch. 3 l Measuring the Cause of Variation l Defining a Linguistic Variable l Social Factors Related to Variation l Identifying Variation in Spoken and Written Texts

Various Views of Language Variation Earlier Explanations l 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. l Free Variation: Refers to the random use of alternate forms within a particular dialect. Labov’s Variationist Theory l Language involved ‘structured heterogeneity. ’ l Language contained systematic variation which could be characterized and explained by patterns of social differentiation within speech communities.

Terminology of Dialectology l 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. l 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. l Overt Prestige: Use of linguistic variants to show higher social status. l Covert Prestige: Working class speech that conforms to local values and norms instead, in order to mark solidarity. l 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. l 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 l. Sociolinguistic Interview l. Participant Observation l. Anonymous Surveys l. Field Experiments

Sociolinguistic Interview l Samples representative of population l In context (avoid observer’s paradox) l Informal personal interview l Interviewee leads in teaching about “local ways and attitudes”

Participant Observation l Researcher works in setting gathering data l Insider/outsider status l Example: Labov uses it to study language of gangs in NYC as well as Philadelphia neighborhoods

Anonymous Surveys l Random sample l 15 minutes on phone l Used to supplement other methods

Case study #1 Children in New England (p. 77) l. Brief interviews from formal (ex: classroom recitation of a story) to informal settings. l Girls use more –ing than boys l‘Model’ boys use more –ing than “typical” boys

Case Study #2 Martha’s Vineyard l 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. l Variations: – 2 diphthongs [a. I] & [əI] – Scores increase as one scans down the column – Reduced levels of centralization in one group Age in years Index Score for (a. I) 75+ 25 61 - 75 35 46 - 60 62 31 - 45 81 14 - 30 37

Case Study #3 NYC Dept. Store l 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 l Variations: → Deliberate Usage

Case Study #3: NYC Lg Study l 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 l Variations: Postvocalic (r) pg 89 l 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 l Methods: Detailed socioling. interview with fifty adults, ten school children, to generalize about norms of city. l 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 l Methods: Interview recording using phonetic spelling for a Creole that’s only spoken. l Variations: – WC: Used standard variants only 18 % of the time. – LMC: Used it 83% of time.

Social Factors? l What are the social implications that affect the variations in these case studies l Break up into 5 groups and come up with one social factor for each case study l gender, class, age l personality – Aggressive – Cooperative l mood – Tense – relaxed l formality l SES l ethnicity l occupation l geographic local l school norms l residents vs. seasonal res. l attitude l identity l hypercorrection & covert / overt prestige l standard vs. creole usage

Outline and Label the possible variations on this map of the US: