1 / 23

Chapter 3

Chapter 3. Social Dialectology ‘us’ vs. ‘them’. Funny…?. Speech Community: Defined. Some kind of social group whose speech characteristics can be described in a coherent manner. SC: Key Elements. Social group “INs” & “OUTs” Shared ‘norms’ Shared language(s) Shared linguistic values

wylie-rice
Download Presentation

Chapter 3

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Chapter 3 Social Dialectology ‘us’ vs. ‘them’

  2. Funny…?

  3. Speech Community: Defined Some kind of social group whose speech characteristics can be described in a coherent manner

  4. SC: Key Elements • Social group • “INs” & “OUTs” • Shared ‘norms’ • Shared language(s) • Shared linguistic values • Of interest to someone… • (cf. “If a tree falls in the woods…”)

  5. Perceptions of Speakers • Members of SC may not be aware of any linguistic ‘glue’ holding them together • Solidarity factors may include: • Social • Cultural • Political • Ethnic

  6. Fischer (1958): …people adopt a variant not because it is easier to pronounce but because it expresses how they feel about their relative status versus other conversants’

  7. Labov (1972) Language contains systematic variation which can be characterized and explained by patterns of social differentiation within speech communities

  8. Wardhaugh (2000): “The variation we see in language must partly reflect a need that people have to be seen as the same as certain other people on some occasions.” …Wardhaugh…

  9. Vocabulary I • Sociolect • Ideolect • Informant • Field method • Observer’s paradox • Linguistic Variable (c.f. Marker…)

  10. Social Variation • Caste societies • India • Old Japan • Old Europe • Modern Western Society • Similarities? • Why study linguistics of social class? • Attempts made to quantify class…

  11. Dave’s Soapbox Stereotypes: • Useful: Tendencies of a group • Dangerous: Assumptions about individuals

  12. Vocabulary II • Vernacular • Inherent variation • African American Vernacular English • Ebonics • Prestige • Hyper-correction • Linguistic Insecurity • Minimal pairs (source/sauce not minimal pair for me…)

  13. Application • How would you try to place individuals according to their social position in the SC Upstate community? What factors would you consider to be relevant and how would you rate each? What class designations would seem appropriate? • Consider: What did Fischer & Labov do? • Optional: Where would you place yourself?

  14. Homework • Identify a research project you could carry out this semester. Include: • Research Question • Hypothesis • Implementation Strategy Review the studies in text… Simplify and extrapolate - Use the box on page 78 as a guide… • Read: 92-95; 102-112; (skim 95-102)

  15. Field Methodologies • Rapid Anonymous Surveys (Targeted Elicitation) • Labov’s NY Department Store • Sociolinguistic Interviews • Labov’s Harlem Gangs • Telephone Surveys • Written/Electronic Surveys • Not discussed in the text…

  16. Contributing Factors (partial…) Socio-economic class Style/Register Gender/Sexuality Race/Ethnicity

  17. Labovs in the Making… Your research designs…

  18. Jocks, Burnouts, & Others • Jocks ≈ College Prep≈ Target ‘Prestige Dialect’ • Burnouts ≈ Blue Collar Futures ≈ Target ‘Local Dialect’ • Others ≠ Solidified Substratum Cf. comment on stereotypes… What’s surprising about this?

  19. Upper Class • Relatively small group • Hard to access • Minor differences b/n U & UM classes • U class characterized by • Prosodic & lexical features • Linguistic security (vs. insecurity) • U vs. UM = status… M vs. W = class

  20. AAVE Features • Omission of s in third person singular • Zero possessive • Zero copula • Pronominal appositive • Multiple negatives • Cluster simplification (phonological)

  21. Language & Identity • Relate Ch 3 studies to Upstate, SC • In what ways does dialect reflect: • upward mobility • (socio-economic class) • desire to move away • solidarity (in Marxist terms) • How does geographic location relate?

  22. Law Detecting Prosecuting Defending Business Marketing User-behavior Education 1st Language 2nd Language General Pedagogy Computers Voice recognition Usability Linguistics in Action

  23. For Tomorrow Chapter 6 184 – 196 (Sections 6.1 – 6.3)

More Related