Theorists Flashcards
(6 cards)
Labov (1966) - New York department store study
What Labov found was that a small part of a population begins to pronounce certain words that have, for example, the same vowel, differently from the rest of the population.
This occurs naturally since humans cannot all reproduce exactly Social the same sounds. However, at some later point in time, for some reason, this difference in pronunciation starts to become a signal for social and cultural identity.
The linguistic variable (r) was an indicator of social stratification in New York.
Overall, the employees with higher socioeconomic status (working in higher class stores) pronounced the rhotic /r/ more frequently than the employees with lower socioeconomic status.
- He asked them to repeat it so the pronunciation - to see whether it was subconscious and whether attention was brought to it and altered
Trudgill (1974) - Norwich study
British linguist Peter Trudgill investigated the speech of residents of Norwich, England. He was interested in the pronunciation of particular variables in different socioeconomic status groups and different speech styles.
One variable was (ng) with its standard and prestigious velar variant [ɪŋ] and the non-standard variant [ən] in Norwich.
The results mirrored those found by Labov in New York City: The higher the socioeconomic status of the speaker, the more frequently (s)he used the standard variant.
Bernstein (1971) Restricted and elaborated codes
– Rather than distinguishing between Standard English and Regional Dialect, a distinction which carries an inherent bias towards the former, Bernstein wanted to look at language variation in a different way
– The Elaborated code has a more formally correct syntax, having more subordinate clauses and fewer unfinished sentences. There are also more logical connectives like “if” and “unless”, as well as more originality and more explicit reference
– The restricted code has a looser syntax, uses more words of simple coordination like “and” and “but”, there are more clichés, and more implicit reference so there are a greater number of pronouns than the elaborated code
– An elaborated code arises where there is a gap or boundary between speaker and listener which can only be crossed by explicit speech.
– A restricted code arises when speech is exchanged against a background of shared experience and shared definitions of that experience - the speech is context dependent
– Whilst the elaborated code is used to convey facts and abstract ideas, the restricted code is used to convey attitude and feeling.
– The elaborated code is the one which, in the adult language, would be generally associated with formal situations, the restricted code that associated with informal situations.
– In the earlier articles it was implied that middle-class children generally use the elaborated code (although they might sometimes use the restricted code), whereas working-class children have only the restricted code.
- But Bernstein later modified this viewpoint to say that even working-class children might sometimes use the elaborated code; the difference between the classes is said to lie rather in the occasions on which they can use the codes
Milroy (1987)
Milroy’s Belfast Study examines the role of social networks in language variation, demonstrating that members of a speech community are connected through networks that may be relatively closed (high-density) or open (low-density).
Network Density and Linguistic Norm Enforcement
• Closed networks: A speaker whose personal contacts all know each other belongs to a high-density network. These networks function as norm-enforcement mechanisms, ensuring linguistic homogeneity and reinforcing non-standard vernacular usage.
• Open networks: A speaker whose contacts do not all know each other belongs to a low-density network, where there is less linguistic regulation and a greater likelihood of accommodation to external norms.
Correlation Between Network Strength and Linguistic Variation
Milroy measured Network Strength Scores and analysed the distribution of linguistic variables, including (th) in mother and (a) in hat, both of which had standard and non-standard realisations. She found a strong correlation between high Network Strength Scores and the use of vernacular or non-standard phonological variants.
• Gendered Variation and Social Networks:
• Men exhibited higher frequencies of non-standard forms due to their membership in tight-knit, high-density networks.
• Women generally used more standard forms as they tended to participate in less dense social networks.
However, in certain cases, this pattern was reversed. In the Hammer and Clonard areas, women showed an unexpectedly high frequency of the non-standard (a) variant. Milroy attributed this to economic and social pressures:
• With 35% unemployment, men in these communities were forced to seek work outside, leading to a loosening of male social networks.
• Women, particularly young Clonard women, all worked together, forming dense and multiplex networks (i.e., their social ties overlapped in multiple domains—work, social life, and residence).
• The tight-knit female networks functioned as linguistic norm-enforcement mechanisms, leading to high levels of vernacular retention.
Covert Prestige and Social Identity
Milroy’s study underscores that network density, rather than gender or class alone, determines the retention of local dialect features. Tight-knit networks promote covert prestige, reinforcing vernacular norms as markers of in-group identity.
This framework applies to other instances of language variation and change, such as the spread of Multicultural London English (MLE). While past generations of working-class London children may have belonged to closed networks, social changes—including high levels of immigration, media influence, and shifting youth identities—have led to the development of new linguistic norms, showing how network structures shape phonological variation.
Cheshire (1982)
Jenny Cheshire used long-term participant observation to gain data about the relationship between use of grammatical variables and adherence to peer group culture by boys and girls in Reading.
She studied the use of:
- The use of ain’t rather than auxiliary have
- Non standard -s inflections
More likely to use non-standard forms if a part of non-conformist social groups - e.g. those expressing antisocial behaviour
Similar findings when boys against boys and when boys against girls were compared, showed clearly that those who conformed to the conventions of the group also used the linguistic standards of the group - and that conforming boys conformed most of all.
In short, the language of the group was an integral part of the group.
Ekert - (1992 + 2000)
Her research shows that the parents’ socioeconomic class does not affect teens’ speech patterns as much as the groups they hang out with.
Eckert classifies these two groups as “Jocks” (school-authority-centered) and “Burnouts” (blue collar job seekers seeking autonomy).
• Jocks: Used more standard language (academic, aligned with school norms).
• Burnouts: Used more non-standard language (slang, phonological features) to reject authority and school norms.
• Conclusion: Language use reflects our sociocultural climate and group affiliation, with jocks aligning with mainstream values and burnouts expressing rebellion through their speech.
The article ends with a call for greater focus on ethnological variables to show how social factors can affect these patterns.
