Sociolinguistics LING 200 Spring 2006. Overview Language vs. dialect Language variation –variation...
-
Upload
ashlie-woods -
Category
Documents
-
view
225 -
download
0
Transcript of Sociolinguistics LING 200 Spring 2006. Overview Language vs. dialect Language variation –variation...
Overview
• Language vs. dialect
• Language variation– variation in different subareas (phonology,
syntax, etc.)– variation conditioned by different factors
(region, socioeconomics, gender, age, etc.)
• Language and cultural identity, attitudes about language
Idiolect
• Language at the individual level– “I need you to be a helperous one.” (request for
favor)– “He’s just repeaterous of the same bad animal
things that he does.” (talking about the cat)– “I think I’ll be jeanerous today.” (getting
dressed for work on a Friday)
• -erous: ]{N,V}__]Adj
Dialect (linguist’s definition)
• Mutually intelligible varieties; e.g.– English spoken in Seattle, English spoken in
Newcastle, UK
– Sahaptin spoken in Toppenish WA and Sahaptin spoken in Pendleton OR
• Not dialects of same language:– W. Germanic (English) spoken in Seattle and W.
Germanic (Dutch) spoken in Amsterdam
– Sahaptian (Sahaptin) spoken in Toppenish and Sahaptian (Nez Perce) spoken in Coeur D’Alene ID
Some sources of confusion re ‘dialect’
• Language/dialect socioeconomic development– indigenous people vs. industrialized societies
• Politically distinct linguistically distinct. – 200+ countries vs. 6000+ languages– ‘Chinese’: languages spoken in same country,
mislabeled ‘dialects’– Spoken in different countries, mislabeled
‘languages’:• Czech, Slovak• Serbian, Croatian• Norwegian, Swedish, Danish
Some sources of confusion re ‘dialect’
1. There are degrees of mutual intelligibility: what is criterion: 100%? 90%? 50%– Birmingham, UK vs. Seattle, WA
2. Asymmetries in intelligibility – Danish speakers find it easier to understand
Swedish than vice versa.
Difficulties with mutual intelligibility definition
3. ‘Is intelligible with’ is not transitive
Dialect continua:
Inuit (Eskimo family)
egi Iñupiaq Inuktitut Greenlandic
Iñupiaq speakers can understand Inuktitut, Inuktitut understand Greenlandic, Iñupiaq intelligibility of Greenlandic much less
Language variation
• Some factors contributiong to variation– geography (region)– socioeconomic class– gender– age
• Types of variation– lexical/morphological– phonological– syntactic– etc.
Regional variation
wicket “next wicket please”
hydro “our hydro was really high last year”
local “if you do not know the local of the party you wish to speak to”
washroom = restroom
skidoo = snowmobile, snow machine
grade ones “The grade ones have not gone to recess yet.”
head “The headship search has just been announced at U. Alberta Linguistics.”
Some Canadian lexical items:
Regional variationPhonological differences between American, Canadian English: 1. “Canadian Raising”
Canadian US
cow [kw] [kw]
ice [ys] [ys]
eyes [yz] [yz]
scout [skwt] [skwt]
light [lyt] [lyt]
lied [lyd] [lyd]
/w/, /y/ [w], [y] / ___ voiceless
Regional variationPhonological differences between American, Canadian English. 2. Borrowed words with <a>
Canadian US
pasta [pæst] ("It Hasta be Pasta")
[pst]
Mazda [mæzd] [mzd]
taco [tæko] [tko]
avocado [ævkædo] [ævkdo]/ [vkdo]
Takla (< [tht’t] [tækl] [tkl]
Babine (<Fr.) [bæbin] [bbin]
• Socioeconomic factors; as defined by (e.g.)– occupation (white collar, blue collar)
– education (college?)
– income
Socioeconomic conditioning variation
Socially conditioned variation in NYC
• Background– Rhotic vs. non-rhotic dialects of English:
• [str] (rhotic), [st] (non-rhotic)
– NYC has both rhotic and non-rhotic dialects• Some within-speaker variability
• Rhotic dialects are more prestigious in NYC, used by speakers belonging to higher socioeconomic classes
Post-vocalic [r] in NYC (vs. Reading)
NYC Reading social class
32% 0% upper middle
20 28 lower middle
12 44 upper working
0 49 lower working
NYC Findings
• Effects on pronunciation by register (formal/polite vs. normal/casual/conversational)
– Careful pronunciations contain more post-vocalic [r] than casual pronunciations (perhaps more self-monitoring during careful speech?)
• Post-vocalic [r] borrowed from one group (customers) to another (salespeople)– speaker awareness of prestige features, effect of use (or
lack thereof) on others’ perceptions
– speakers at middle and lower levels of social scale in NY are more aware of prestige features
Variation in 3sS -s
class Detroit, MI Norwich, UK
upper middle 1% 0%
lower middle 10 2
upper working 57 70
middle working 87
lower working 71 97
% verbs without –s: ‘he go’
Grammaticization of register
• Formal/polite vs. less polite:– Spanish tú (vos) vs. usted – Japanese, Korean honorific morphemes
• honorific suffixes which honor the subject (benefactive, etc.)
– Korean -si (added to verbs)– Korean -k*eso (added to nouns)
• register/politeness suffixes which indicate social rank/distance between speaker and listener
– Korean -yo (added to verbs)
Some honorific morphemes in Korean
plain honorific
-[i]/[ka] -[k*eso] subject
[o-ta]
come-declarative
[o-si-ta]
come-hon-decl
‘to come’
[o-a]
come-pres
[o-a-yo]
come-pres-pol
‘is coming’
[mk-ta]
eat-declarative
[t-si-ta]
eat-hon-decl
‘to eat’
Korean[uri tonse-i neil o-a]our yo.sibling-sub tomorrow come-pres‘Our little brother/sister is coming tomorrow.’ (talking to friends)[uri tonse-i neil o-a-yo]our yo.sibling-sub tomorrow come-pres-pol‘Our little brother/sister is coming tomorrow.’ (talking to respected
individual)[uri halmni-k*es neil o-sy--yo] our grandmother-hon.sub tomorrow come-hon-pres-pol‘Our grandmother is coming tomorrow.’ (talking to respected individual)[uri snse-nim-k*es neil o-sy--yo] our teacher-hon-hon.sub tomorrow come-hon-pres-pol‘Our teacher is coming tomorrow.’ (talking to respected individual)(-nim is an honorific title reserved for kings, gods and teachers)
Effect of gender on language variation
• Some standard vs. nonstandard forms– -ing vs. in’
• Who’s playing? vs. Who’s playin’?
– single vs. double negative• I don’t have any money. vs. I don’t have no money.
– negative auxiliary ain’t (< am not)• I haven’t done anything wrong. vs. I ain’t done nothing wrong.
• Women tend to use more standard forms
Effect of gender and socio class
male female
upper middle class 6.3 0
lower middle class 32.4 1.4
upper working class 40.0 35.6
lower working class 90.1 58.9
% double negatives, Detroit
Effects of gender on language variation
• Other differences between men’s, women’s speech:– intonation (women have more pitch variation)– lexical (adjectives, intensifiers)
• That’s so gorgeous.
• That looks nice.
– use of tag questions (‘isn’t it?’) (women use more)
Grammaticization of gender
• Male and female forms of lexical items in Yana, a Native American language
• Hokan language family
• Extinct in early 20th century
‘Male’ and ‘female forms’ in Yana
hearer
male female
speaker
male male forms
female forms
female female forms
female forms
Male vs. female forms in Yana
male female
‘eat’ moi- moi-
‘inside’ iiwuulu iiwuulu
‘man’ iisi iisi
‘place’ phati phathi
‘snow’ phatsa phatsha
2. Predictable differences. Root > 1 syllable, ends in short vowel:
Devoice final vowel, aspirate final stop in female