Language and Identity

1. Language and Identity

2. Identity • We all have multiple identities. This is revealed through language use. • Agency: the amount of control one has over how s/he presents her/himself to the world • Agentive: parts of our identity we have control over (punk, jock) • Non-agentive: race, gender (traditionally, but that is changing)

3. Identity and Ideology • “Because the dominant ideology of a culture encodes only some behaviors as natural, and powerful, not all identities are created equal.” • Symbolic capital: prestige based on way one presents her/himself; those who conform generally have more symbolic capital • What are practices that our society designates as “good or prestigious? • Symbolic violence: the consequences for those who don’t or aren’t able to conform

4. Dialect and Identity • Certain pronunciations or grammatical constructions can mark an individual’s class or geographic origin • Isoglosses: an idealized geographic boundary between the use of one linguistic variable or feature and another (not actual territorial boundaries; just variations in speech) • Ideolect:the language of the individual • “It is only through perception by others, in an oppositional relationship, that group identities can be formed. Like language itself, identity needs an audience to make it meaningful” (176).

5. Code-switching: when one has access to more than one linguistic system and moves between them in an effort to promote solidarity or distance with her/his interlocuter

6. Naming • Different cultures represent relationships through their naming practices • Women and children taking the man’s surname • Confirmation names (Catholic), bestowing of Hebrew name (Judaism) • Icelandic surnames end in “dottir” or “son” (Jon EinarssonGunnarJonsson and Anna Jonsdottir) • Asymmetry/Asymmetrical: refers to speakers’ rights to talk in a certain situation or the power differential determined by use of titles (“your majesty,” “aunt/uncle”) • This (formal/informal modes of address) can be used to manipulate social distance

7. Social Relations and Grammatical Form (namely, pronouns) • Pronouns can encode relationships • Deciding to use formal or informal pronouns: • How well you know the person • How in/formal the environment is • Whether you want to show solidarity with or distance from the person • Invoking “we” can give speaker more authority • Invoking “us” and “them” can create solidarity and/or boundaries. Do you consider yourself as part of a social group that fits into our society’s us/them schema? Does this influence your behavior?

8. Vocative: special form used in the context of “calling” someone or something (entity) • Generally added through some sort of suffix or prefix or slight change or pronunciation • In English, we don’t have this, but we have the particle “O” (as in, “O Romeo Romeo, wherefore art thou Romeo”)

9. Theories of Style Shifting • William Labov: • There are no single-style speakers • Style (from formal to informal) correlates to the amount of attention paid to speech • Formal context = more than minimal attention paid to speech • Vernacular = unguarded use of speech • Department Store Study: • Saks • Macy’s • Klein’s • Prestige variety = post-vocalic ‘r’

10. Audience Design: Alan Bell argued attention paid to speech is not enough to explain style-shifting. Instead, he argued, speakers take into account their audience and alter their speech accordingly. • Accommodation: designing speech toward perceived expectations of audience. In addition, might be a device used by speaker to make her/himself understood

11. Limits on audience design theory, pointed out by Schilling-Estes • Speaker design theory: language changes according to how speaker wants to be perceived, may not relate to needs of audience. • Style shifts according to attention paid to language • Style shifts according to perception of audience • Style shifts according to how speaker wants to portray self

12. Code-switching v. Crossing • Crossing: speakers of one group sometimes use speech patterns of another group in an attempt to identify with them • Different that code-switching in that code-switching involves two linguistic systems “owned” by that speaker

13. Labov’s 3 Linguistic Variables • Indicator: speech variation that is obvious to those external to a group • Marker: language variation that is subject to style-shifting because it has been evaluated socially (in-group) • Stereotype: language use associated with a group is so well known and has attracted such negative attention that it’s consciously avoided my in-group speakers • “Out-group awareness very much determines that status of a form as indicator, marker or stereotype.” It is through difference that realization of local identity through language becomes available to speakers.