Today

1. Today • Individual differences and speech style • Address Forms (Brown and Gilman) • Interspeaker and intraspeaker variation (Bell)

2. Key terms Within-speaker variation: changes a speaker will effect to register a change in sociolinguistic setting (e.g., interlocutor-related, setting-related, topic-related, etc.) Terms of Address or “address forms”: words designating the person(s) a speaker is talking to. (typically two types, names and second person pronouns) -- note: in some languages (e.g., Thai, Javanese), first person terms must change with choice of second person forms; noun and verbs forms sometimes change, as well Terms of Reference: words designating the person(s) a speaker is talking about. Dispensation: permission to reduce social distance by changing term of address (e.g., permission to use FN, where previously TLN was used)

3. Key terms Power Semantic: Dimension associated with status: pronoun choice is related to each interlocutor’s perception regarding the ability of one member of the pair to control the other’s behavior, or differentiation in status; governs the nonreciprocal use of pronouns (V --> T, T --> V) --checked first Solidarity Semantic: Dimension associated with shared fate or intimacy: pronoun choice is related to each interlocutor’s perception that they share a position in life or experience (particularly where this relation is highlighted in the present discourse), intimacy, or equality in status; governs the reciprocal use of pronouns (T --> T, V --> V) --checked second Semantic: a pragmatic dimension governing the positioning of emphasis of social role relationships in discourse

4. Brown and Gilman (1972) “Pronouns of Power and Solidarity” power:non-reciprocal: more powerful gives T, receives V -age differential -parent/child -employer/employee -nobility/peasant solidarity: reciprocal, expresses common-ground, shared fate: associated with mutual T

5. Brown and Gilman (1972) Reciprocal Tu/Vous: French (tu/vous) German (du/Sie) Latin (tu/vos) Swedish (du/ni) Russian (ty/vy) Greek (esi/esis) Italian (tu/Lei) English (thou/you)

6. Brown and Ford (1961/1964) Naming and dispensations Naming: FN or TLN : decision made according with an intimacy-acquaintance scale FN: “first name” TLN: “title + last name” Dispensation: permission to reduce distance and use FN 1. dispensations typically may not be reversed, with 2 exceptions: + anger: disruption in relationship + wrongful assumption that dispensation was given

7. Two-dimensional semantic • first, check power semantic • addressee receives (in green): V V T V T T

8. Two-dimensional semantic • second, check for solidarity • addressee receives (in blue): T V T V T T

9. Two-dimensional semantic • how are conflicts resolved? V vs.T V vs. V T vs.T V vs. V T vs.T V vs.T Red: points of conflict between two semantics. there are two places where “V vs.T” occurs

10. Bell (1984) • Styledefined—speakers do not always talk the same way on all occasions—they utilize alternatives or choices available in a larger linguistic repertoire. • Speaker Style: • “intersects with the “social” dimension of variation” (minimalistic view) • affects all levels of linguistic analysis: • phonological: intervocalic (t) voicing in NZE • syntactic: that-complementizer • discourse: tag questions “isn’t it?”, “don’t?”

11. How “Style” has been understood Style discretized: Bell calls for a critical reanalysis of the idea of style as a “discrete variable”, suggesting that social scientists may have confused the code with the factors that affect the code. “Language doesn’t covary with style. Style is an axis of its own.” Labov’s “Attention to speech” as “micro-style”, a narrow conception of style a. Where did this idea come from? -- Mahl, 1972 1. speaker’s aural monitoring (using “white noise”) 2. facing interviewer b. What was his intention? -- theoretical construct, not just methodological construct

12. Style in linguistic structure Need a framework that will account for both intraspeaker and interspeaker variation, as well as the role of linguistic attitudes. • Romaine has articulated this relationship: “Socially diagnostic variables will exhibit parallel behavior on a stylistic continuum: that is to say, if a feature is found to be more common in the lower classes than in the upper classes, it will also be more common in the less formal than the most formal styles, with each social group occupying a similar position in each continuum.” (p. 151)

13. Style in linguistic structure What is the nature of the interrelation between the two dimensions, social (or interspeaker) variation and intraspeaker variation? • Key tenets of the audience design theory: 1. “Variation in the style dimension within the speech of a single speaker derives from and echoes the variation which exists between speakers on the social dimension.” The Style Axiom • “Variation on the style dimension within the speech of a single speaker derives from and echoes the variation which exists between speakers on the "social" dimension."

14. Bell (1984) 2. “Style is what an individual speaker does with a language in relation to other people” ratified = acknowledged, approved Figure 5: Persons and roles in the speech situation.

15. Bell (1984) Because social variation “comes first”… It is predicted that … 1.) some variables will have social variation alone (indicators) 2.) some social and style (markers) 3.) but never style variation only.