Lecture: Sociolinguistics Professor Dr' Neal R' Norrick _____________________________________ presentation

About This Presentation

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Lecture: Sociolinguistics Professor Dr' Neal R' Norrick _____________________________________

1
Lecture Sociolinguistics Professor Dr. Neal R.
Norrick_____________________________________

Sociolinguistics

Universität des Saarlandes
Dept. 4.3 English Linguistics
WS 2008/09

Organization
Website script, bibliography, PowerPoint
presentation
attendance, quiz, certificates/credits

3
1. Introduction

1.1 What is Sociolinguistics?
Sociolinguistics is the study of language in
relation to society.

Sociolinguistics studies
the social importance of language to groups of
people, from small sociocultural groups to entire
nations and commonwealths
language as part of the character of a nation, a
culture, a sub-culture
the development of national standard languages
and their relation to regional and local dialects
attitudes toward variants and choice of which to
use where

how individual ways of speaking reveal membership
in social groups working class versus middle
class, urban versus rural, old versus young,
female versus male
how certain varieties and forms enjoy prestige,
while others are stigmatized
ongoing change in the forms and varieties of
language, interrelationships between varieties
See Trudgill's "two Englishmen on a train" story

Sociolinguistics also studies
language structures in relation to interaction
how speakers construct identities through
discourse in interaction with one another
how speakers and listeners use language to define
their relationship and establish the character
and direction of their talk
how talk conveys attitudes about the context, the
participants and their relationship in terms of
membership, power and solidarity

Compare
Could I ask you to bring me the paint, please?
Get me the paint, wouldja?
how listeners interpret talk and draw inferences
from it about the ongoing interaction
Sociolinguists describe how language works in
society to better understand society, but also to
investigate the social aspect of language to
better understand its use, structure and
development

1.2 The Sociolinguistics of Society versus the
Sociolinguistics of Language
The Sociolinguistics of Society concerns the role
of languages in societies
societal multilingualism
attitudes toward national languages and dialects
language planning, language choice, language
shift, language death, language education

The Sociolinguistics of Language concerns
language function and variation in the social
context of the speech community
forms of address
speech acts and speech events
language and gender, language and power,
politeness, language, thought and reality
language varieties and change

My treatment of Sociolinguistics of Society will
focus on England, USA
and Commonwealth nations
Main focus on the Sociolinguistics of Language
particularly forms, functions and varieties of
English
Labov and Trudgill as premiere sociolinguists
? hence variation in New York City, Black
English, language and social stratification in
Norwich
Really we'll be doing the Sociolinguistics of
English

1.3 Sociolinguistics within Linguistics
Sociolinguistics as "hyphenated linguistics"
compare
psycholinguistics, neurolinguistics, cognitive
linguistics, computational linguistics
Sociolinguistics as interdisciplinary
roots in dialect geography
anthropology and sociology
philosophy of language
linguistic pragmatics and discourse analysis

Since language is the basic vehicle of social
cohesion and interaction, any linguistics should
be sociolinguistics
As Labov puts it
sociolinguistics is "a somewhat misleading use
of an oddly redundant term
language always exists in varieties
language is always changing
any adequate linguistic theory should be
sociolinguistic
describing variation by speaker, class, region
and time
failure to account for variation and change
should render a linguistic description useless
but Sociolinguistics outside "mainstream
linguistics" till recently

1.4 Saussure's dichotomies and non-socio-linguisti
cs
The Neo-Grammarians (Junggrammatiker) insisted
speakers are unaware of change
and change can not be observed in progress

Saussure inaugurated "modern linguistics" around
1900, distinguishing synchronic and diachronic
linguistics
This useful distinction in the 1900s became a
program for ignoring the fundamentally dynamic
nature of language
Like binary distinctions generally, this
dichotomy privileged one half of the pair, namely
synchronic linguistics

Saussure also distinguished langue and parole
This dichotomy privileged langue, the language as
a system, and marginalized parole, language in
use
this distinction became a program for ignoring
the fundamentally social and behavioral nature of
language

Linguistics as the synchronic study of langue
language as an abstraction without variation by
speaker, region or time
language as a non-cultural, non-social, static,
depersonalized fact independent of context and
discourse

17
"Saussurian Paradox"
If we all share knowledge of the communal langue,
one can obtain all the data necessary for
linguistic description from a single
person--perhaps oneself but one can obtain data
on individualistic parole only by studying
linguistic behavior in the community. The social
aspect of language is studied by observing a
single speaker, but the individual aspect only by
observing language in its social context.

Labov (1972 185-87)
18

"categorial" versus "variationist" views with
regard to language history and description
Phonological room with long u as in pool
with short u as in book
Morphological -ing with velar nasal
ng (-ing) with alveolar nasal n (-in)

1.5 Development of Sociolinguistics in USA
Structuralist linguistic theory in US (like
Saussure)
stressed synchronic study of langue
focused on the system of language

American structuralism also followed Logical
Positivism
Bloomfield insisted on scientific linguistics
linguistic description as mathematical
formal rules
discrete input and output
no variables or "free variation"
But in descriptions of native Amerindian
languages, social factors appeared as part of the
anthropological context

from late 1950's, Chomsky's generative
transformational grammar further marginalized
sociolinguistics
grammar as creative aspect of language and the
center of linguistic attention
restatement of Saussure's dichotomy of langue and
parole as a distinction between competence and
performance
Competence language user's innate knowledge of
grammar, and the only proper object of linguistic
research
Performance disorganized, error-ridden talk not
amenable to systematic description
the speaker was "an ideal speaker-listener, in a
completely homogeneous speech community, who
knows its language perfectly" (Chomsky 1965 3)

These idealizations
banished variation from linguistics
removed talk from society and local context
made language an abstraction
But Ethnography of Speaking recognized
language functions and speech events
linguistic behavior, social function, context
Communicative competence versus Chomsky's
grammatical competence

Dialect geographers (or dialectologists, areal
linguists) continued to describe systematic
variation by region
Sociological research on language and society
Fishman on language contact, societal
multilingualism
Goffman, Sacks on language in social interaction
From mid 1960's Sociolinguistics of language
Weinreich, Labov
Urban dialectology, Black English Vernacular
Linguistic Pragmatics, conversation analysis
Interactional Sociolinguistics

1.6 Development of Sociolinguistics in UK
Linguistic theory in UK never really followed
Saussure philological tradition and applied
linguistics in language teaching and anthropology
Dichotomies of synchronic and diachronic, langue
and parole not systematically observed

Malinowski
phatic communion as social meaning
context of situation basis of meaning
Firth
context of situation central to meaning
meaning central to language description
conversation as key to understanding language
Halliday
interpersonal meaning alongside ideational
Language as a social semiotic
Trudgill social stratification and variation
Sinclair, Crystal, Quirk et al.
conversational organization
transactional analysis

26
2. Linguistic Variation

Variation through time stages or periods of a
language
Old English 449-1150
Middle English 1150-1500
Variation in space regional dialects
English as spoken in Norwich, Norfolk,
New England, New York City

Variation by group sociolects (social dialects)
English as spoken by upper working class women in
Norwich,
by saleswomen in New York department stores
Variation by situation register
English as spoken in television sports reporting
as written in business letters
in personal e-mail

variation even occurs in the speech of a
particular person from a particular place in a
particular group and situation
so varieties often differ by high versus low
probability for specific items (this indicates
necessity of counting!)
variety set of linguistic items with
characteristic social distribution

Varieties may differ in any kind of linguistic
item pronunciation, word choice, word form and
syntax
Working class men in Norwich tend to pronounce
thin and thing the same way in conversation
BE speakers say tube, while AE speakers say
subway
White rural speakers in the Midwest U.S. say She
come home yesterday instead of the standard She
came home yesterday
Black vernacular speakers say I aks her did she
know him, while standard speakers say I asked her
if she knew him

Sociolinguistic Variables are particular items
known to reflect particular social contrasts
Presence or absence of 3rd person singular -s in
constructions like she goes versus she go
Presence or absence of r in pronunciations of
words and phrases like theater theater is the
idea of

Again we find patterns of variation
from group to group
from one speaker to the next
from one style to the next in the group
(again indicates necessity for quantification)

2.1 Class and style
In sociolinguistic studies, class is determined
by rating status characteristics like occupation,
education, residence, and income on numerical
scales
Styles reflect different degrees of formality and
awareness of speakers about how they're speaking
versus what they're saying
Most formal is word list style, next reading
style, then careful style as in an interview, and
finally casual style
A particular sociolinguistic variable will
display class stratification across social
classes and styles, as shown in diagrams like the
one below

33
Labov (1972 239) ing
34

In every style, class members differ predictably
In every class, style shifting occurs predictably
the same variable distinguishes classes and
styles
a single signal has no fixed value
a single variable may mark
a casual middle-class speaker
a careful lower-class speaker

Syntactic, morphological and phonological
factors
monosyllabic verb sing
indefinite something
present participle suffix ing
at the end of a phrase
preceding a vowel
preceding a consonant
She tried to find something
She tried to find something in town
She tried to find something she liked

2.2 Variation and change
Some variation leads to permanent change
one variant gains acceptance and others disappear
The "embedding problem"
describe the matrix of social and linguistic
behavior (changes and constants) in which
language change takes place

37
Linguistic factors

Universal constraints on change (based on past
changes)
front vowels tend to rise
stop consonants tend to lose voicing
Local changes may affect the whole system, e.g.
change in diphthong /ay/ leads to parallel change
in /aw/
Social factors
group member with high prestige provides model
pressure from outside group encourages solidary
behavior

2.3 Prestige and stigmatization
Change begins as irregular fluctuation below
level of conscious awareness
no stylistic stratification
When variation comes to conscious awareness, due
to association with certain groups or speakers,
one variant gains prestige, another is
stigmatized
Pronouncing "aitches" versus "dropping aitches"
in words like hotel and house

General axiom of sociolinguistic structure
uniform agreement in subjective reactions to a
variable correlate with regular stratification
one finds stylistic stratification
speakers use more prestige variants in careful
styles than in casual styles
hypercorrection
speakers insert prestige variants where they
don't belong (where prestige speakers don't use
them)
pronouncing "aitches" in words like honor, hour
and if

2.4 The actuation of change
"The actuation problem"
What sets change in motion?
Social factors account for change in a general
way, e.g.
A. Pressure from new group produces greater
solidarity in original group, and members signal
this through distinctive behavior, including
speech patterns
B. Commuters accommodate speech patterns to focal
point, usually a major city, and introduce
patterns at home
C. "Linguistic missionaries" return from living
in focal point city with high status and new
speech patterns

Linguistic factors may favor certain changes
regularizing a pattern
like /ay/ causing parallel change in /aw/
but even taken together they can't predict that
change will occur or in which direction
even knowing the linguistic and social matrix
doesn't explain why one specific feature changes
and another doesn't

pronunciation of vowel in words like craft
changed from æ in OE to a in ME
back to æ in EModE
back to a in the 18th Century (in southern
England, but not in America or northern England)
speakers in southwest England drop -r in posh
pronunciation, careful speakers in NYC are
reintroducing the sound
historically stigmatized constructions like the
comparative and superlative forms funner and
funnest become standard in the course of a single
generation (in AE)

2.5 Variable rules
Language as a system of rules
Constitutive rules versus regulative rules
Assume full forms are stored in memory and
reduced in speech, e.g. by rules for contraction
She is ? she's
we have been ? we've been
and by rules for deletion
we've been ? we been
last time ? las' time

Phonological rule for final consonant cluster
simplification, as in las' time
C ? F / C ___ C
Read delete a consonant following a consonant at
the end
of a word, if the next word begins with a
consonant.

Some dialects allow consonant cluster
simplification even if the next word begins with
a vowel, as in las' of all, so we could write
C ? F / C ___
This rule fails to say that deletion is far more
likely before a consonant than a vowel - in every
dialect so we need variable rules, relating
differences in application to differences in the
environment, as in
C ? ltFgt / C ___ ltCgt
Read delete a consonant following a consonant
at the end of a word, more often before a
consonant than a vowel.

In addition, the rule is far less likely if the
consonant to be deleted represents the past tense
suffix -t,d, as in
liked laykt
seemed simd)
This suggests a revision of the rule as
C ? ltFgt / C ltgt ___ ltCgt
Read delete a consonant following a consonant
at the end of a word, more often if there's no
morpheme boundary between the consonants, and
more often before a consonant than a vowel.

Further, deletion is more likely for speakers of
Black Vernacular than for white speakers, and
more likely for younger speakers than for older
speakers.
Labov itemizes such constraints on variable rules
in tables includes both internal linguistic
factors and external social factors

48
Labov 1972 222
Thus variable rules can describe the behavior of
a sociolinguistic variable for a whole speech
community.
49
3. The social motivation of language change
(Labov 1972b)

Till Labov, no one had tried to explain language
change
When linguists described change, they cited
internal (systematic linguistic), not external
(social) factors
Linguists claimed language change was
imperceptible, its origins obscure to speakers
and linguistics alike (Saussure language as
mutable and immutable)
Linguists claimed language change proceeded from
above, from higher classes to lower classes

But according to popular belief, vernacular
speakers cause language change, or language
deterioration, through lack of education,
laziness, unclear thinking
Double negation She never saw nobody try it
aint for am not, arent, isnt, hasnt, havent
I aint going, she aint seen them, it aint me
so-called language experts see change as
corruption
any deviation from standard is undesirable
standard language is pure, better, more logical
than dialects

Labov's questions
What causes language change?
Internal versus external factors in change?
Who propagates language change?
Does it really proceed from above?
How can language change be imperceptible if
people talk about undesirable features and
changes in progress?
Is language change dysfunctional or does it have
positive influence?
Why do some groups maintain stigmatized features
after centuries of condemnation?

3.1 Social motivation versus free variation
A case study of Martha's Vineyard, Massachussetts
In structuralist and generative phonology, sounds
(phonemes) written in / / to show variation is
irrelevant
Audible differences count as "free variation"
Labov writes sounds in ( ) to show variation has
social significance
Apparent "free variation" increasingly tied to
groups and attitudes as analysis progresses

Case study Martha's Vineyard
Island off Massachussetts coast, separate from
mainland
Clear social structure natives versus summer
residents
Variables (r) as elsewhere in New England
Diphthongs (ay aw) with clear local pattern

54
Geographic
Occupation
55
Group/age
56

Note quick rise, esp. in (aw) variable, for
younger speakers
table comparing four 15-year-old students

Interviews include questions to determine
attitudes about
Martha's Vineyard and staying on the island.

centralized diphthong marks identification as
native islander rather than as "Yankee" (of
English descent)
58

Labov describes the stages of language change as

Apparently, pressure from outside causes language
change as a mechanism of group identity.
Immediate group status plays primary role, not
status within culture as a whole, i.e. not from
above as such
Internal factors may play a role in spreading
change change in (ay) stimulates parallel change
in (aw)
Members of language community aren't explicitly
aware which features are in flux (though they may
identify someone's speech as "fishermen's talk"
or "dockworkers' talk")
But linguists can see change in progress it's
especially clear in diagrams calibrated for age
differences

3.2 Social stratification in New York
Hypothesis any two subgroups of NYC speakers
ranked on a scale of social stratification will
be ranked in the same order by their differential
use of (r)
Retroflex pronunciation of (r) is a change from
above, reflecting pattern of national standard
stigmatizing the traditional r-lessness of NYC
speech
Note loss of r in New York City was also change
from above, borrowing r-less pattern from London
speech in early 1800s

Rapid and anonymous speech events as data
Employees of three large department stores as
test group
Sacks
Macy's
S. Klein
Department stores ranked by pricing, advertising,
wages, working conditions, physical appearance of
store

Method Ask question to elicit answer fourth
floor
Say excuse me to elicit emphatic response
This gives four variants
Preceding final consonant and word final
Casual and emphatic

63
Less differentiation shows greater security as a
speaker Greater differentiation shows less
security as a speaker
64

Compare just white, native born saleswomen

Advantages of rapid and anonymous interviews
Easy access, breadth of data
Disadvantages of rapid and anonymous interviews
Not much differentiation between styles

? Reading aloud and word list needed
66

In follow-up interviews Labov found for the (r)
variable
for a white female Sacks employee
STYLE A B C D
00 03 23 53 retroflex r
STYLE A casual, STYLE B interview,
STYLE C reading, STYLE D word list
for a Jewish male taxi driver
STYLE A B C D
12 15 46 100 retroflex r
for a Black middle class female
STYLE A B C D
00 31 44 69 retroflex r

Cross-over pattern in diagram of multiple styles
and social classes
Second highest class typically displays
cross-over pattern, hypercorrection and
hypersensitivity

3.3 Social variation, language structure and
change
Based on research on Martha's Vineyard and in
NYC, Labov summarizes "Mechanism of language
change"

1. Change from below originates in subgroup due
to external pressure.
2. Change begins as generalization of feature to
all members of the subgroup. The variable acts
as indicator of membership, and it shows no
stylistic variation.
3. Succeeding generations carry variable beyond
the model set by parents (hypercorrection from
below).
4. The variable becomes a marker showing
stylistic variation.

5. Movement of variable in system leads to
readjustments in system, and hence to new change.
6. Other subgroups interpret first change as part
of community system and new change as stage 1.
This recycling stage is primary source for
continual origination of new changes.
7. If the change did not originate in the
highest-status group, this group will stigmatize
the change through control of institutions and
communication network.
8. The highest-status group provides prestige
model for all speakers. The variable now shows
social stratification as well as stylistic
variation.

9. Speakers shift, especially in careful styles,
to imitate the prestige model (hypercorrection
from above).
10. Extreme stigmatization can lead to
stereotype, and the stigmatized form may
disappear.
11. Change originating in highest-class group
(change from above) usually represents borrowing
or influence from outside community.
12. When change originates in highest-class
group, it becomes prestige model for all
speakers. The change is then adopted by other
groups in proportion to their contact with the
users of the prestige model.

3.4 Change and Gender
Women as traditional caregivers have special
influence over propagation of change
Women usually lead in change from above, while
men usually lead change from below.
Women show greater stylistic shifting, esp. to
imitate the prestige model (hypercorrection from
above).
Within a single class, women use more prestige
forms, fewer stigmatized forms.

3.5 Attitudes toward variation and change
Evaluation of variants are uniform across classes
and groups they assign character traits to
speakers and groups, e.g.
New York dialect sounds impolite and tough
Bostonian sounds refined and snooty
Southern drawl sounds lazy and ignorant
Those who use highest degree of stigmatized form
also condemn it most

Pre-adolescents are aware of prestige and
stigmatized forms, they monitor their speech
accordingly they usually settle back into
established class patterns
lower class group know prestige forms, but choose
not to use them they continue to use forms they
know to be stigmatized
covert norms opposed to those of the middle
class attribute positive values to use of the
vernacular

3.6 Language change as positive influence
Language change as deterioration and leveling of
distinctions is only half the story change also
introduces new distinctions and features
Language change must have value for the group,
because it requires extra learning and monitoring
of forms change from below strengthens position
of vernacular
Language change appears dysfunctional only if we
view language as a purely ideational system for
language to serve as a social marker, it must
have variation and undergo change

76
4. Black English Vernacular (Labov 1972a)

Black English Vernacular (BEV) versus Nonstandard
Negro English (cf. Ebonics)
Labov began from failure of Blacks in school,
esp. in reading
BEV as fully elaborated system but also symbol of
conflict
Participant-observer in Black street gangs
(Ethnomethodology)
BEV as regional southern dialect becoming
class/ethnic marker in northern cities
BEV versus Standard American English (SAE)

Phonological differences
1. r-lessness (like New England, New York, the
South)
no post-vocalic r, e.g. in sore, fort
so that sore saw fort fought
but BEV may not pronounce r even between vowels,
as in Carol, terrace which sound just like Cal,
test
and BEV may not pronounce r after th, as in
throw through throat

2. l-lessness (no post-vocalic l)
so that toll toe all awe fault
fought
3. Simplification of consonant clusters
e.g. -st -ft -nt -nd -ld -zd -md
in passed past soft bent bend hold raised
aimed
so that past pass meant men hold hole
Note Consonant cluster simplification can
combine with
l-lessness to yield told toll toe

4. Other consonant variables
Some single consonants are glottalized or lost
completely
seat seed see poor poke pope
Final th realized as /f/ or /v/
death deaf Ruth roof

Grammatical correlates of phonological variables
1. Missing possessives (through cluster
simplification, loss of final r)
Mick book they book you book
2. Missing future markers (through loss of final
l)
you'll you they'll they he'll he
but gonna I'm'na I'ma

3. Missing copula, except with I
you're you they're they he's he
but I'm
4. Missing past tense markers (through loss of
final t d following consonants)
passed past pass fined find fine
but irregular forms remain told/tol'
kept/kep'

4.1 BEV as a separate system
BEV negative inversion
Ain't nobody gone let you walk
Don't nobody break up a fight
Embedded questions retain inversion in BEV
(without complementizers if and whether)
I asked Alvin could he go
She asked us did we know how

BEV loss of r even before vowels, as in our own
and word-internally, as in borrow ( bow)
unlike any white New York dialect, BEV consonant
cluster simplification yields a distinct tense
paradigm
SAE kicks tells kicked told
BEV kick tell kick tol'

Also special BEV tense and aspect forms
Habitual be in she always be messing around
If you be beating on him, he cry
Intensive done in she done left him
Extended time been in I been know you a long time

Contraction and deletion of copula
Where SAE can contract is/are, BEV can delete
them, and where SAE can't contract is/are, BEV
can't delete them
SAE she's the first one BEV she the first one
SAE she's wild, though BEV she wild, though
SAE you're out of the game BEV you out the game
SAE here he's/they're BEV here he/they

Labov (1972 64) concludes
"The gears and axles of English grammatical
machinery are available to speakers of all
dialects."
He explicitly rejects BEV as "dialect mixing"
performance
General Principle of Accountability
any variable form must be reported with the
proportion of cases where the form occurred in
the relevant environment compared with the number
where it might have occurred

Labov accepts categorial challenge of describing
a homogeneous speech community
this makes it necessary to account for community
variation in explicit rules
Labov may be seen as overreacting to formalism of
generative grammar and to claim that BEV is a
separate, creolized language (and hence inferior
to Standard English)

4.2 Variability and variable rules
To describe BEV, Labov invented variable rules
The rule for contracting the copula (am/is/are)
favored by
a preceding pronoun versus a full noun
a preceding vowel or glide versus a consonant
a following verb, esp. gonna
thus contraction is most likely in she's
gonna/they're gonna
far less likely in Ruth's tough/life's tough
and we could assign values to the probability of
contraction for each environment and for
different styles

The BEV rule deleting contracted forms ('s/'re
but not 'm) is favored by
a preceding consonant versus a vowel
a preceding pronoun
a following verb, esp. gonna
thus deletion is most likely in it gonna
and somewhat less likely in they gonna
again we could assign values to the probability
of deletion for each environment and for
different styles

As formulated in Labov's variable rules, BEV is a
dialect of SAE with its own characteristic
constraints on general rules.
Variable rules are integrated into the community
grammar, they operate within general grammatical
categories, so that they must represent
competence (rather than performance).
Thus, the grammar of the speech community as a
whole is more regular than the grammar of any
dialect or member.
Variation is part of competence knowing a
language means knowing what varies, how and when.

4.3 Members versus lames, system versus ideolect
Lames are relative outsiders who act as
informants for linguists and sociologists to
avoid the Observer's Paradox
Observer's Paradox
How can we observe the way people act/speak when
they're not being observed?
When members leave group, they generally orient
toward SAE and away from BEV they lose insider's
knowledge of the group and its folklore, their
intuitions are no longer trustworthy

Labov found for lames versus members of Black
street
gangs
For ing versus in
Lames use 25 ing members use 4 ing
For contraction and deletion of is/are
Contraction about the same lames 65 members
73
But deletion lames 12 members 52
For 3rd person does versus do, doesn't versus
don't
doesn't lames 36 members 3
does lames 13 members 0
In each case the lames were closer to or even the
same as
white SAE speakers.

Linguists themselves tend to be lames vis-a-vis
their own speech community, they are bad
informants on their own dialect
even if some intuitions are correct, we can check
them only by researching the real community
This leads back to the participant-observer
within group to overcome Observer's Paradox (as
ethnomethodology suggests).
Only members are embedded in community, practice
its language skills and folklore

Labov turns to members and their folklore
to defend BEV as systematic and valuable
to find clear examples of BEV unaffected by SAE
Hence investigation of soundings/dozens and
fight stories

4.4 Analyzing narratives
Labov became interested in narrative as community
folklore and as a source of natural BEV speech
unaffected by observer
Narrative as method of recapitulating past
experience by matching a verbal sequence of
clauses to the sequence of events reported.

narrative as a sequence of past tense clauses
sequentially ordered with respect to each other,
minimal narrative as at least two such clauses
So he get all upset.
Then I fought him.
Reversing the order destroys the sequence as a
narrative proper--or changes it into a different
story
Then I fought him.
So he get all upset.

Beyond skeleton of temporally ordered narrative
clauses, other free clauses are typically found
in stories, assigned to specific function
elements
Abstract answers the question What was this
about?
Orientation answers the questions Who, what,
when, where?
Complicating action
Evaluation answers the question So what?
Resolution answers the question What finally
happened?
Coda puts off any further questions about what
happened or why it mattered.

A "fight story" illustrates the central elements
ABSTRACT
A When I was in fourth grade--no--it was third
grade--
There was this boy, he stole my glove.

ORIENTATION
B He took my glove,
C and say that his father found it downtown on
the ground.

100

COMPLICATING ACTION
D I told him that he--it's impossible for him to
find downtown, 'cause all those people were
walking by, and just his father is the only one
that find it?
E So he get all upset.
F Then I fought him.
G I knocked him out all in the street.
H So he say he give.
I And I kept on hitting him.
J Then he start crying
K And run home to his father.

101

RESOLUTION
L And his father told him, he ain't find no glove.

102

Labov identifies the primary sequence with the
most explicit statement of the a-then-b
relation, as
D I told him that he . . .
E So he get all upset.
F Then I fought him.
G I knocked him out all in the street.
H So he say he give.
I And I kept on hitting him.
J Then he start crying
K And run home to his father.

103

Evaluation particularly important
establishes the point of interest
emphasizes its unusual character
demonstrates the teller's involvement with event
reported elicits interest and belief from
listeners

104

EVALUATION
Semantic Explains teller's attitude, suspends
action
D I told him that he--it's impossible for him to
find downtown, 'cause all those people were
walking by, and just his father is the only one
that find it?
Symbolic action Hitting someone after he says he
gives indicates the teller's anger was great
H So he say he give.
I And I kept on hitting him.
External Statement by third person
L And his father told him, he ain't find no glove.

105
5. Developmental linguistics

By contrast with Labov, view of variation as one
property of a language system
Developmental linguistics is a comprehensive
linguistic theory
it includes variation and change as central facts
of language
relates them to language acquisition, language
death, pidginization and creolization
C.-J. Bailey (1973, 1982 etc) sees
sociocommunicational factors like ethnicity,
gender, style etc balancing neurobiological
factors in language development

106

Sociocommunicational factors depend on local
speech community
Neurobiological factors are universal and appear
in language acquisition and loss, pidginization
and creolization, e.g.Marking (or Markedness), as
in
Unmarked /t, d, n/ initial /k, g, ng/ final in
syllable
Marked /k, g, ng/ initial /t, d, n/ final in
syllable
Unmarked terms acquired first, lost last found
in more languages more robust in language contact

107

Usually, marked term predicts presence of
unmarked term, e.g. syllable initial /k/ ?
syllable initial /t/
In Developmental Linguistics
Rules form a panlectal grammar predictive for
language acquisition and change
Categories are gradient,
not just or -
variation is built into rules
gradient morpheme boundary in the rule for
consonant cluster simplification cited above
C ? ltFgt / C ltgt ___ ltCgt

108

says deletion becomes more likely as the morpheme
boundary becomes less clear
from laughed to leftPst Tns to leftAdv to
draft
rules reflect neurobiological influences, they
describe connatural change, versus abnatural
change due to sociocommunicational influence

109
6. Community of Practice (CoP)

Communities of Practice (Wenger 1998)
fishermen on Marthas Vineyard
members of a Black street gang
We all participate in various CoPs
in the family at home
at work
at school
in casual groups and organizations
CoP ways of speaking are the most closely
coordinated
CoP is the primary place for doing gender for
constructing social identity generally

110

Newer research on variation focuses on the CoP
and the social meaning of speech styles (based on
linguistic variables)
By contrast, Labovs correlational
sociolinguistics
uses survey and quantitative methods
examines correlations between linguistic
variability and major demographic categories
(class, age, sex class, ethnicity)
develops the "big picture" of the social spread
of sound change across groups and regions.

111

Later variation studies
describe the relation between variation and
local, participant-designed categories.
give local meaning to the demographic categories,
still focus on some kind of speech community,
examine linguistic variables in their role as
local/regional dialect features

112

Newest research oriented to CoP
views practices and styles, rather than
variables, as directly associated with identity
categories
explores the contributions of variables to styles
takes social meaning as primary
examines any linguistic material with a
social/stylistic purpose (not just changes in
progress)
often explores the style in relation to gender

113

Eckert (1998) shows how adolescents use language
practices to construct their social (gendered)
identity
if CoP (rather than class) defines speech style,
its no surprise that women and men in the same
class display different styles.
re-interpret Labovs findings on Marthas
Vineyard
Fishermen as members of a CoP
use vowel quality to express social meaning
other islanders orient toward the shift to
position themselves socially
female identities and alignment among members of
CoP
Notice repetition, overlap, markers of
agreement, tags, details, dialogue

114

TIPSY
Annie and I always thought
that her and Vance just were great together.
Jean yeah.
used to get s-
Helen they were both good.
Annie yeah.
they were really good.
Jean you could go over there
around the holidays
and get smashed before you left the place.
Helen oh yeah.
Jean we used to have the last appointment,
right? remember, the two of us would go?
Annie yeah, yeah.

115

Jean "want some wine girls?"
"sure we'll have a glass of wine."
you walk out of there you're half tipsy.
Annie you were under the dryers.
Jean well sure.
and he'd be pouring the wine
and we were tipsy
by the time we walked out of that place.
Annie then he moved all the way out at Rand
Road.
Jean near the town show, remember?
Annie yeah.
Jean we went there.
Annie we used to go there.
and then we went on to Union Road,
when he was there.
Jean yeah.
yeah.
we followed him around.

116
7. Ethnography of communication

Ethnography of communication (or Ethnography of
speaking)
studies uses, patterns and functions of speaking
as an activity in concrete social settings in the
speech community
Defining speech community
shared rules for speaking and shared speech
variety
we all inhabit different, overlapping speech
communities

117

Methodology participant-observer description
Etic versus Emic (from phonetic versus phonemic)
Communicative competence versus Chomsky's
grammatical competence

118

7.1 Language functions
Bühler (1933) "Organon Modell" 3 factors, 3
functions

119

Malinowski (1935) phatic communion, interaction,
magic language as instrument in "context of
situation"
Jakobson (1960) 6 factors, 6 functions

120

Hymes (1962, 1964) extends Jakobson,
expands Reference into Topic Setting
(hence referential contextual functions)
splits Sender into Speaker and Addressor

121

7.2 Speech acts and speech events
Speech situation scene (cultural) and setting
(physical)
Speech event within Speech situation, composed
of Speech acts
Speech act minimal unit of speech event
By contrast with turns, pairs, sentences etc

122

For example
speech situation speech event speech act
market place transaction offer
conversation story preface
ceremony prayer invocation

123

Components defining speech events
Participants Addressor, Addressee, Audience
Form dialect, variety, register
Ends purpose of event, goals of participants
Key mock versus serious, perfunctory versus
painstaking

124

Form dialect, register etc
Dialect is "what you speak" based on "who you
are," i.e. where you were born/where you live,
your age, group memberships etc
Register is "what you are speaking" based on
"what you are doing," i.e. the particular
activity and context
Genre poem, proverb, lecture, advertisement
Norms "no gap, no overlap" in conversation,
"speak only when you're spoken to" for children

125
The SPEAKING GRID a schema of the components of
speech

SITUATION setting physical circumstances
scene psychological setting subjective
definition of an occasion
PARTICIPANTS speaker or sender / address or
hearer or receiver or audience / addressee
ENDS outcomes purpose of the event from
cultural point of view
goal purposes of individual participants
ACT SEQUENCE message form and content
KEY tone and manner
INSTRUMENTALITIES Channel verbal, non-verbal,
physical
Form variety of language drawn from
community repertoire
NORMS of interaction
of interpretation
GENRE Textual categories

126

Apply the Speaking Grid to various speech events
written invitation to child's birthday party
internet chat room interaction
talk at work
telephone sex

127
8. Interactional Sociolinguistics

Interactional Sociolinguistics grows out of
Ethnography of Speaking and Sociology of everyday
life, esp. the notion of the participant-observer

128

8.1 Sociology of everyday life
Order at every level of interaction
Garfinkle, Goffman
Through ways of speaking we define ourselves
and our relationships with others
we present a self for ratification in
interaction, and we take a line (or stance)
Goffman defines face as the positive social
value a person claims by the line others assume
he/she has taken we can save face or lose face
in interaction

129

Social interaction is then face work
we have face wants and needs
positive face desire to be liked
negative face desire to be left alone
interaction may threaten our face in various ways
some acts are inherently face threatening acts
(ftas) e.g. requests, invitations
the requester risks loss of face, if addressee
refuses, but addressee also loses face in
refusing

130

8.2 Involvement and Contextualization cues
Involvement is successful ongoing interaction
co-produced by interactants
negotiating selves, relationship and
interactional goals

131

Gumperz defines contextualization cues
ways of signaling our attitudes toward what we
say
prosody (tempo, volume, intonation, hesitation)
repetition
formulaicity
shifts in style
code-switching

132

contextualization cues frame interaction
in terms of our contextual presuppositions
serious/humorous
important/trivial
hurried/leisurely
contextualization cues bracket individual acts or
stretches of interaction
perception of contextualization cues allows us to
draw inferences about other participants and
their interactional goals

133

So Interactional Sociolinguistics studies
prosody
disfluencies
discourse markers
repetition
formulaicity
code-switching
style

134

and their effects on talk in interaction
regarding
construction of identity
power versus solidarity
control
alignment among participants
concern with intercultural and inter-ethnic
communication
effects of sociolinguistic variables on
communication
male/female
old/young
insider/outsider
power/solidarity

135

Consider an example from Gumperz Following an
informal graduate seminar at a major (US
American) university, a black student approached
the instructor, who was about to leave the room
accompanied by several other black and white
students, and said
Could I talk to you for a minute? Im gonna
apply for a fellowship and I
was wondering if I could get a recommendation?
The instructor replied
O.K. Come along to the office and tell me what
you want to do.
As the instructor and the rest of the group left
the room, the black
student said, turning his head ever so slightly
to the other students
Ahma git me a gig!

136

the student frames his two utterances in
different ways
his presuppositions about interaction with the
instructor differ from those about interaction
with the other students
code-switch from Standard American to
Afro-American Vernacular English
appropriate contextualization cues (prosody,
formulaicity, lexis) align student first with the
instructor, then with the students, AAVE aligns
him directly with other black students.

137

8.3 Conversational Style
Tannen (1984) sees involvement as a scalar
factor, partially determined by social variables
gender, age, background, profession, class
High-involvement fast, no pause or overlap,
joint production
Low-involvement (High-considerateness) slow,
long pauses, no interruption

138

High versus low involvement style
type of speaker
passage of talk
type of discourse
New Yorkers exhibit higher involvement than
Californians
talk between friends exhibits higher involvement
than talk among strangers
women exhibit higher involvement than men,
storytelling exhibits higher involvement than a
report
Style differences are heard as social (class)
differences

139

high involvement between co-narrators
James we were in this
we were in a peat bog
Lois uh
James in Ire- in Ireland.
eh no it wasnt in Ireland
it was on the Isle of Skye
Lucy no, we were on the Isle of Skye
James sorry, on the Isle of Skye
Lucy right next to the west coast of Scotland
James we were right on the north-
right in the north
Lucy new years eve
James new years eve
Lucy freezing cold
James freezing cold

140

Lucy in the middle of nowhere
just nothing
James and we got stuck in this terrible bog.
laughs and jus-
as far as the eye could see
it was just bog
and we were like walking through it
and it was quite late
Lucy and it was late
and it was becoming dark
about five oclock
Emma aw
Lucy and it was really really cold
and we were on our way home
after a long walk . . .
Note particularly overlap, joint production,
speaker change, repetition

141

Tannen womens and mens styles of involvement
systematic study of male versus female
involvement
men and women engage in cross-cultural
communication
Women higher involvement
closer together
more eye contact
more understanding checks
more attention signals
shorter gaps
more overlap
shorter turns
more frequent speaker change
more egalitarian
less appeal to expert knowledge

142

Men lower involvement
farther apart
less eye contact
fewer understanding checks
fewer attention signals
longer gaps
less overlap
longer turns
less frequent speaker change
Less egalitarian
more appeal to expert knowledge

143

Mens and womens conversational styles clash
causing systematic misunderstandings in everyday
interaction
attention to stylistic differences and
realization of their effects, reframing and
meta-talk about differences can smooth interaction

144
9. Conversation

9.1 Conversation Analysis
Conversation Analysis (CA)
from ethnography and the Sociology of everyday
life (Garfinkle, Goffman)
order at every level of interaction, at every
point in the system
Where others had seen conversation as too messy
for analysis,
Sacks found it highly systematic at the
micro-level

145

Turn-taking system
to avoid gaps and overlap
to determine who speaks next
Adjacency pairs as basis of organization
first part question
second part answer
Preference structure describes differences in
form and frequency of possible second pair parts
first part invitation
preferred second part acceptance
dispreferred second part rejection

146

preferred responses are more frequent and shorter
A Please come to my party on Thursday.
B Okay.
A Please come to my party on Thursday.
B Uh, Thursday, gee, thats a bad day for me.

147

Conversational repair
system for handling problems, for clarification
and correction
Self-repair
I saw Judy last Tuesday- sorry, Monday.
Other-initiated repair
A I saw Judy last Tuesday.
B Uh, Tuesday?
A Oh, yeah, I saw her Monday at the party.
Other-repair
A I saw Judy last Monday.
B You mean Tuesday.
A Yeah, I saw her at Nancys.

148
Sequentiality
Insertion sequence Nan what time do you get
to work? Aaron Friday? Nan yeah. Aaron
oh, between seven thirty and eight, quarter to
eight. Nan well, I might not be there the
second you get to work
149

Double insertion sequence
A Where can I catch the Saarbahn?
B Do you know where Landwehrplatz is?
A Is it just over on Mainzer Strasse?
B Yeah.
A Then I know how to get there.
B Well, thats where you catch the Saarbahn.
Recurrent pairs, sequences, exchange types,
preferences, repair, cues and signals all work
together to create coherence in conversation

150

9.2 Conversation as a type of discourse
Conversation is a special speech event or
discourse type
characteristic cohesive devices
coherent structure
Understanding checks y'know, right?, huh?, tags
Attention signals m'hm, uh-huh, wow, really?
move, turn, pair, exchange pre-sequence

151

Sue Hi. greeting
Jill Hi. greeting
Sue So, how have you been. question
Jill Not so well really. answer
Sue Oh I'm sorry to hear that. response
Jill How about you? ques

Write a Comment

User Comments (0)

About PowerShow.com

Lecture: Sociolinguistics Professor Dr' Neal R' Norrick _____________________________________ PowerPoint PPT Presentation