DOCSLIB.ORG

UNIT on Language Oppression Final Revision 1/10/03

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
UNIT on Language Oppression Final Revision 1/10/03 http://www.socialjusticeeducation.org Tools for Building Justice, January, 2003 UNIT on Language Oppression final revision 1/10/03 Session outline: 1. Introduction and photos After a brief introduction on languages and the domination of English in the United States, students brainstorm the meaning and effect of the command: “Speak English!” What is the implied message about one’s own speech? Photos are distributed and discussed, and students brainstorm resistance and alliance interventions to discrimination against people whose first language is other than English. 2. Silenced Voices Students examine the mistreatment of immigrants whose first language is other than English, developing a base from which to construct a picture of language oppression in the United States. 3. English Only Students examine the mistreatment of children of immigrants and indigenous people whose first language, or ancestors’ first language, is other than English. The class then defines language oppression and explores institutional forms of English-Only discrimination in the United States 4. Monolingual Culture Students review facts about language oppression in the United States. The session concludes, optionally, with a speakout from students whose first language is other than English or students, acting as a “school board,” modifying current school practices and structures to promote a multilingual school with access for “todos nosotros”all of us. 5. Todos nosotros means all of us Students act as a “school board” to modify current school practices and structures to promote a multilingual school with access for “todos nosotros”all of us. Preparation for the unit If you have more than one or two students whose language of origin is other than English (bilingual students or monolingual students whose language is other than English), several options are indicated at the opening of session 1 (“bilingual introductions”) and the closing of sessions 3 and 4. Following option a, you will continue to session 5; following option b, you will conclude with session 4. You will have to assess the comfort and safety level for the non-English students and the resources you have to translate their words appropriately into English, not making them responsible for translation. Review the process entirely with these students prior to the unit, in confidentiality; use the “bilingual introduction” and “speak-out” options only with their agreement. Unit on language oppression 1 Session 1: Speak English Aims • To introduce the unit on language oppression • To identify and discuss day-to day conflicts affecting people whose first language is other than English Skills Students will: • Identify facets of the domination of the English language usage in day-to-day life • Identify negative effects of the conditioning of children to “speak English” only • Analyze depictions of conflicts involving English language domination and suggest resistance and alliance responses to conflicts Preparation If you have students who speak existing languages other than English (bilingual students or monolingual students whose language is other than English) and you have the resources to translate their words into English, ask them prior to beginning this unit if they would be comfortable, with support from you, with introducing the unit by welcoming students to it in their non-English languages. If they agree, proceed with option a; in all other cases, proceed with option b. You will need photographs for the group discussion Session Description After a brief introduction on languages spoken in the United States, students brainstorm the meaning and effect of the command: “Speak English!” What is the implied message about one’s own speech? Photos are distributed and discussed, and students brainstorm resistance and alliance interventions to discrimination against people whose first language is other than English. Session Outline 1. To Begin: Bilingual Introduction 10 minutes 2. Language 10 minutes 3. Speak English! 15 minutes 4. Photographs 15 minutes 5. Conclusion 5 minutes Agenda 1. To Begin: Bilingual Introduction 10 minutes a. (Option) Begin by having students who speak languages other than English and who have volunteered to do so introduce the unit by offering a simple welcome to all students in their own languages. Have remaining students simply listen to introductions for a few moments without translation. Have students consider, silently, what it might mean to them not to understand the language being spoken. Then, ask them to notice, silently, any urge to demand that the speech be translated. Then provide brief translation. Unit on language oppression 2 Have students think for a few moments about what it is like, in fact, to welcome other languages into the classroom: • Have students who conducted the introduction volunteer how it felt to them to be welcomed to speak in languages other than English; • Then have other students talk about what it was like to have other languages welcomed in the classroom. b. (Option) Begin by having students observe the classroom. What signs are there, on the walls, in the textbooks, in students and teachers’ interactions with each other, that English is the language spoken here? What would be different about any of these things if other languages were present and welcome? Close with the question: • Why have a multilingual culture? How would it benefit students in this classroom, at this school, and in the larger world to be able to live in a multilingual society? 2. Language 10 minutes Introduce the unit on language oppressionon how people may be discriminated against in the United States based upon languagereminding students of agreements. Explain that throughout the unit you will use “monolingual” to refer to people who speak one language fluently and “bilingual” to refer to people who speak at least two languages fluently. Continue with the following questions: • What are some examples of languages other than English spoken in the United States? Include examples from Europe, Latin America, the Caribbean, Pacific Islands, the different parts of Asia and Africa, the Middle East, Australia and the North American continent itself. • What is the dominant language used in the United States? Give as many examples from daily life as you can, quickly and briefly, that show English is the taken-for-granted language to be used. • Give brief, one-sentence opinions, referring to U.S. history, about why English seems to dominate. Acknowledge that in many or most countries and cultures one language may as a matter of course be dominant. The problem comes when other languages, and speakers of other languages, are discriminated again. Review responses to the last questions and continue: • How large a role in English-language predominance in America, if any, was played by: o military conquest o occupation or annexation, or o exclusion of languages other than English by “English-only” laws or other means? 3. Speak English! 15 minutes Unit on language oppression 3 Have students prepare for visualization, sitting comfortably, closing their eyes or looking at the floor, &c. Reminding them of the heart exercise, invite them to think of themselves as young children, “hearts.” Ask them to imagine silently, in turn: • the first moments in which they began hear and understand words and sentences • the first moments in which they began to use words and sentences • the people who taught them their first words • how the latter responded when the first words came • what it was like to begin to hear, understand, and speak with others in the home • what it was like to begin to hear, understand, and speak with others outside the immediate home • how the earliest language learned from home, whether a language other than English or a variety of English, still affects them Continuing the visualization, inform students that you will be giving a command in a stern voice. Invite them to notice silently what thoughts or feelings arise when they hear the command. Repeat the command “Speak English!” in an imperative, measured voice several times. Allow a few moments of silence. Bring students out of the visualization to answer the following questions: • How did it feel to hear this voice? (Try to use feeling-words to answer). How might it make you feel about yourself? • What was the voice implying that you were not doing, or were doing wrong? • What was it telling you to do? • Suppose you were raised in a home where people you were close to regularly spoke with a regional dialect or “accent” of English: e.g. “Midwest” or “Southern” or “Appalachian” or “Texan” English. What would the command be telling you about the way you are speaking? About the people you were close to? About what you are supposed to do? • Suppose you were raised in a home where people regularly spoke a language other than English, e.g. Japanese, Tagalog, Spanish, Navajo, Italian. What would the command be telling you to about the way you are speaking? About what you are supposed to do? Write the words “language” and “culture” on the board, circling them and connecting them with a line. Have students build a word map to define culture, loosely, including following items: • one’s background or community • one’s heritage, or the history of the people they come from • part of one’s identity • the ways people live together, or • the ways they do things Close by asking students: • What connections can you draw between the first language one learns to speak and the culture one comes from? • What might be lost about language and/or culture when one language is made to be dominant or exclusive over other languages? Unit on language oppression 4 • How might this classroom be affected by suppressing the use of languages other than English? What might be lost by the students who speak those languages? By the students who don’t speak those languages? 4.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Variation in Form and Function in Jewish English Intonation
    Variation in Form and Function in Jewish English Intonation Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Rachel Steindel Burdin ∼6 6 Graduate Program in Linguistics The Ohio State University 2016 Dissertation Committee: Professor Brian D. Joseph, Advisor Professor Cynthia G. Clopper Professor Donald Winford c Rachel Steindel Burdin, 2016 Abstract Intonation has long been noted as a salient feature of American Jewish English speech (Weinreich, 1956); however, there has not been much systematic study of how, exactly Jewish English intonation is distinct, and to what extent Yiddish has played a role in this distinctness. This dissertation examines the impact of Yiddish on Jewish English intonation in the Jewish community of Dayton, Ohio, and how features of Yiddish intonation are used in Jewish English. 20 participants were interviewed for a production study. The participants were balanced for gender, age, religion (Jewish or not), and language background (whether or not they spoke Yiddish in addition to English). In addition, recordings were made of a local Yiddish club. The production study revealed differences in both the form and function in Jewish English, and that Yiddish was the likely source for that difference. The Yiddish-speaking participants were found to both have distinctive productions of rise-falls, including higher peaks, and a wider pitch range, in their Yiddish, as well as in their English produced during the Yiddish club meetings. The younger Jewish English participants also showed a wider pitch range in some situations during the interviews.
    [Show full text]
  • Student and Educator Beliefs on an English As a Lingua Franca Classroom Framework
    Student and Educator Beliefs on an English as a Lingua Franca Classroom Framework By Florence Pattee A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of The Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in TESOL University of Wisconsin- River Falls 2020 BELIEFS ON AN ELF FRAMEWORK 2 Abstract The ways in which students use English to communicate has evolved. Many students around the world now use English to communicate as a lingua franca with other non-native speakers. In order to meet the needs of their students and help them achieve their goals, teachers need to be aware of not only how their students are using English but the beliefs about English language learning that they are bringing into the classroom. Further, teachers must be aware of the extent to which their own beliefs are aligned with those of their students. This study of 86 students at four language centers in Malaysia, along with their 18 instructors, investigated the extent to which student beliefs align with an English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) framework, and the degree to which teachers share those beliefs and are aware of them. Students were asked to respond to 15 statements about their beliefs on the role of culture in language learning, frequency of error correction, native-speaker models and interlocutor beliefs. The teacher survey similarly asked teachers to respond to 10 statements about their beliefs and their awareness of student beliefs, while setting up three direct comparisons between what the students believe and what the teachers think their students believe. The study found that teacher beliefs largely seemed supportive of an ELF approach.
    [Show full text]
  • Index of Linguistic Items
    Cambridge University Press 978-1-108-42359-5 — The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language 3rd Edition David Crystal Index More Information VI INDEX OF LINGUISTIC ITEMS A auto 322, 330, 493 classist 189 -eau(x) 213 auto- 138 c’mon 79 -ectomy 210 a indefinite article 234–5, 350 aye 346 co- 138 -ed form 208, 210, 216, 223, 224, 237, short vs long 327, 345, 371 cockroach 149 346, 350 verb particle 367 B colour 179 -ed vs t (verb ending) 216, 331, 493 a- 138, 335 contra- 138 -ee 210, 220 -a noun singular 212 /b-/, /-b/ (sound symbolism) 263 could 224 -een 358 noun plural 212 B/b 271, 280 counter- 138 -eer 210, 220 -a- (linking vowel) 139 babbling 483 cowboy 148 eh 319 A/a 271, 280 back of 331 crime 176 eh? 230, 362 AA (abbreviations) 131 bad 211 curate’s egg 437 elder/eldest 211 -able 210, 223 barely 230 cyber- 452 elfstedentocht 383 ableism 189 bastard 263 Elizabeth 158 -acea 210 be 224, 233, 237, 243, 367 D -elle 160 a crapella 498 inflected 21, 363 ’em 287 -ae (plural) 213 regional variation 342 /d-/, /-d/ (sound symbolism) 263 en- 138 after (aspectual) 358, 363 be- 138 D/d 271, 280–1 encyclop(a)edia 497 -age 210, 220 be about to 236 da 367 encyclopediathon 143 ageist 189 been 367 danfo 495 -ene 160 agri- 139 be going to 96, 236 dare 224 -en form 21, 210, 212, -aholic 139 Berks 97 data 213 346, 461 -aid 143, 191 best 211 daviely 352 Englexit 124 ain’t 319, 498 be to 236 De- 160 -er adjective base ending 211 aitch 359 better 211 de- 138 familiarity marker 141, 210 -al 210, 220, 223 between you and I 206, 215 demi- 138 noun ending
    [Show full text]
  • BROZOVSKY-DISSERTATION-2020.Pdf
    Copyright by Erica Sharon Brozovsky 2020 The Dissertation Committee for Erica Sharon Brozovsky Certifies that this is the approved version of the following Dissertation: Taiwanese Texans: A Sociolinguistic Study of Language and Cultural Identity Committee: Lars Hinrichs, Supervisor Madeline Y. Hsu Mary E. Blockley Ian Hancock Casey A. Boyle Taiwanese Texans: A Sociolinguistic Study of Language and Cultural Identity by Erica Sharon Brozovsky Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of The University of Texas at Austin in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy The University of Texas at Austin August 2020 Dedication 獻給我的爸爸媽媽 To my parents Acknowledgements This dissertation would have been impossible without my participants, so it is to them that I owe the most gratitude. Thank you for your candor and for opening up your lives to me in so many ways. I feel honored to be the keeper of your stories. In the summer of 2013, my future advisor, Lars Hinrichs, said to me, “You should go to grad school; you’d be good at it.” As a directionless recent graduate, that was enough convincing for me. You taught me that most advising sessions should just be chill conversations over beers, but also pushed me when I needed it. Thank you for believing in me when I was an imposter-syndrome-ridden baby grad student and for your help in shaping me into the scholar I am today. To the rest of my committee members, without your guidance I would be lost. Ian Hancock, I am grateful that you shared with me your wisdom, your humor, and your library.
    [Show full text]
  • Manglish by Just Going Through This Book
    8.8mm lee su kim The classic bestseller now in a brand new edition For Review only Aiseh! Malaysians talk one kind one, you know? You also can or not? If cannot, don’t worry, you can learn & Got chop or not? stephen j. hall No chop cannot. how to be terror at Manglish by just going through this book. The authors Lee Su Kim and Stephen Hall have come up with a damn shiok and kacang putih way for anybody to master Manglish. Nohnid to vomit blood. Some more ah, this new edition got extra chapters and new Manglish words. So don’t be a bladiful and miss DOCUMENT AH CHONG & SONS out on this. Get a copy and add oil to your social life. – Kee Thuan Chye, author of The People’s Victory Now back after 20 years with brand new words, expressions and idioms, this hilarious classic remains packed with humour, irreverence and loads of fun. It bids all Malaysians to lighten up, laugh at ourselves and revel in our unique, multicultural way of life. MANGLISH MANGLISH Forget about tenses, grammar, pronunciation, and just relek lah … Aiyoh. Manglish or Malaysian English is what Malaysians speak MALAYSIAN ENGLISH when we want to connect with each other or just hang loose. Borrowing from Malay, Chinese, Indian, Asli, British English, AT ITS WACKIEST! American English, dialects, popular mass media and plenty more, our unique English reflects our amazing diversity. Like a frothy teh tarik or a lip-smacking mouthful of divine durian, Manglish is uniquely Malaysian. Those two, tak ngam lah! Manglish is an entertaining, funny and witty compilation of commonly used Malaysian English words and expressions.
    [Show full text]
  • Language Variation and Innovation in Teesside English
    Language Variation and Innovation in Teesside English Mari Carmen Llamas Submitted in accordance with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy The University of Leeds School of English September 2001 The candidate confirms that the work submitted is her own and that appropriate credit has been given where reference has been made to the work of others. Acknowledgements This study was funded by a White Rose Scholarship through the Universities of Leeds and Sheffield. I gratefully acknowledge the support of the scholarship which allowed me the opportunity to undertake the present research. 1 would like to thank Clive Upton, at the University of Leeds, and John Widdowson, at the University of Sheffield, for acting as supervisors throughout the completion of this research. Particular thanks go to Paul Foulkes and Dominic Watt for constant support and advice. I also wish to thank Lesley Milroy and Judy Dyer for the interest they have shown in the work and the guidance they have provided in interpretation of the results of the study. My thanks also go to Mark J. Jones, Louise Mullany and Ghada Khattab for countless favours. Many other people are owed acknowledgement and thanks for their assistance throughout the course of the research: these include, Ann Williams, Paul Kerswill, Bridget Anderson, Jason Jones, Anne Fabricius, Paul Johnston, Peter Stockwell, Dave Britain and Jane Stuart-Smith. The assistance and encouragement provided by Geoff and Jenny Braddy, Val Magee and Jean Christie are also gratefully acknowledged. Finally, my thanks go to Sarah, Mark, Paddy, Rayees, Beck, Joe, and Helen. Abstract This thesis presents a study of socially-conditioned phonological variation in a hitherto unresearched urban variety of British English.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction
    Introduction For the process of learning languages or a specific language, it is very important that the learners should concentrate more and more on language varieties such as; dialect, accent, idiolect, the way of pronunciation, using grammar and the other varieties parts of that language. Knowing of varieties help learners to go through the details of the other language in a very appropriate manner and way. When we want to see between the speakers of any language, there is variation in the way they use their language. This variation is demonstrated by linguistic differences in terms of sound (phonetics) and structure (grammar). There might be only slight variations between forms of a language – such as minor pronunciations of words or a slight changes of grammatical structure that do not inhibit intergroup communication. Sometimes there are differences between the speech of men and women, different social classes, and differences between age groups. People will identify some of these features as marking the "best" or most "beautiful" form of the language, other features will be considered nonstandard or undesirable. Some of these differences may impede intelligibility and intergroup communication. The study of language variation guides language development activities. For example, when developing a writing system it is desirable for it to be useful and acceptable to the largest number of speakers of the language. Therefore, it is important to identify the most unifying features of the language. Natural languages exhibit a tremendous amount of variation. This variation manifests itself in all aspects of the structure of languages, in the ways languages convey meaning, and in the ways they are used.
    [Show full text]
  • Social Meaning, Indexicality and Enregisterment of Manglish in Youth Whatsapp Chats
    SOCIAL MEANING, INDEXICALITY AND ENREGISTERMENT OF MANGLISH IN YOUTH WHATSAPP CHATS Thesis submitted in accordance with the requirements of the University of Liverpool for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy NUR HUSNA SERIP MOHAMAD Department of English School of the Arts September 2019 1 ABSTRACT Manglish, a variety of Malaysian English, has often been stereotyped in Malaysian media (i.e., local newspapers) as ‘improper English’ (Why Speak Manglish, 2007; Manglish-English Dilemma, 2007) or labelled by scholars as a type of ‘poor’, ‘broken’ English (Nair-Venugopal, 2013: 455). In fact, speakers of Manglish have been associated with ‘rural background’, ‘low-status’ in society, as well as ‘uneducated’ (Mahir, and Jarjis, 2007: 7). In recent years, there have been increasing debates on the status and use of Manglish, where it is a preferred variety of linguistic expression and is widely employed within certain contexts. The rise of Manglish has been hardly ignored in various social media platforms. This raises questions on how and why Manglish is employed or chosen as a language to communicate within online settings such as Instant Messaging. Thus, the (social) meanings that underlie Manglish communicative practices deserve exploration. This thesis seeks to contribute to the current discussion in linguistic studies on Manglish among three ethnic groups in Malaysia which are Malay, Chinese and Indian, by exploring how in-groupness and ethnic identity is reflected in the way speaker use Manglish features in WhatsApp conversation. More specifically, it focuses on the use of Manglish through the perspective of indexicality (Silverstein, 2003), social meaning (Eckert, 2003) and enregisterment (Agha, 2003).
    [Show full text]
  • Sounding Appalachian: /Ai/ Monophthongization, Rising Pitch Accents, and Rootedness Paul E
    University of South Carolina Scholar Commons Theses and Dissertations 2016 Sounding Appalachian: /ai/ Monophthongization, Rising Pitch Accents, and Rootedness Paul E. Reed University of South Carolina Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/etd Part of the Arts and Humanities Commons, and the Linguistics Commons Recommended Citation Reed, P. E.(2016). Sounding Appalachian: /ai/ Monophthongization, Rising Pitch Accents, and Rootedness. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/etd/3563 This Open Access Dissertation is brought to you by Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Sounding Appalachian: /aI/ Monophthongization, Rising Pitch Accents, and Rootedness by Paul E. Reed Bachelor of Arts Maryville College 2004 Master of Arts University of Memphis 2007 Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics College of Arts and Sciences University of South Carolina 2016 Accepted by: Tracey L. Weldon, Major Professor Elaine Chun, Committee Member Michael Montgomery, Committee Member Allen Montgomery, Committee Member Erik R. Thomas, Outside Member Lacy Ford, Senior Vice Provost and Dean of Graduate Studies c Copyright by Paul E. Reed, 2016 All Rights Reserved. ii Dedication This dissertation is dedicated to the memory of two great men, Paul Henry ‘Pop’ Reed and Dr. Paul Emory Reed Sr. They both exemplified what it meant to be mountain men. Dad and Pop, I hope you are looking down from your rockers with smiles. iii Acknowledgments When I think of the number of people that have helped me throughout the course of preparing, researching, and writing this dissertation, my gratitude swells.
    [Show full text]
  • 4Th Workshop on Sound Change Accepted Abstracts
    4TH WORKSHOP ON SOUND CHANGE ACCEPTED ABSTRACTS University of Edinburgh Edinburgh, Scotland (U.K.) 20-22 April, 2017 http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/wsc In situ perspectives on retraction- Austinites on Troublemaker Shtreet Wiebke Ahlers Prof. Dr. phil. Alexander Bergs [email protected] [email protected] University of Osnabrueck University of Osnabrueck Within a language community where both the norms of Texan English and African American Vernacular English are still distinct and strongly recognized both by insiders and outsiders of these dialects, a shared phonological variable with little to no recognition amongst speakers may be surprising. Nonetheless, the retraction of /s/ in consonant clusters (as in shtreet versus street) appears to present with the described pattern in the city of Austin. This phenomenon was first recognized by Labov (1984), and later analyzed with regard to phonological processes by Shapiro (1995), Lawrence (2000), Durian (2006) and Rutter (2011). Studies ranging from Ohio (Durian) down to Louisiana (Rutter) and over to Philadelphia (Gylfadottir) indicate a non-regional phenomenon, as first assumed by Shapiro. Gylfadottir (2015) however was one of the first to attempt an evaluation of the phenomenon beyond the phonological scope. She used a corpus-based analysis to show a change in progress for the phenomenon in Philadelphia. The current study aims at providing an Austin- based perspective on the progression of change. Furthermore it evaluates ethnicity as a possible factor. A qualitative analysis of the interviews will extend the knowledge about the metalinguistic trends mentioned by Hinrichs et. al.(2015) in their blog analysis. Methodologically, the present study used a sociolinguistic interview guised as a memory test with visual and textual input.
    [Show full text]
  • FL 006 934 Duplication Or HC-$1.95
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 107 156 FL 006 934 AUTHOR Jacobson, Rodolf o TITLE The Bilingual's Two Languages:Duplication or Compartmentalization. PUB DATE 2 Mar 75 NOTE 29p. EDRS PRICE MF-$0.76 HC-$1.95 PLUS POSTAGE DESCRIPTORS Biculturalism; *Bilingual Education; *Bilingualism; Bilingual Teachers; *Educational Alternatives; Educational Innovation; Educational Policy; Language Planning; *Language Programs; Second Languages; Spanish; *Spanish Speaking; Teaching Methods ABSTRACT This paper describes the positions taken by culturalists and by language sociologists with regard to bilingualism, and discusses the implications of their positions fot bilingual education. The former emphasizes duplication of the two languages, the latter their compartmentalization. The first position may not justify a carefully planned bilingual program; the second may prove too rigid for a fluid society. A conciliatory solution is suggested which makes extensive use of skillful code-switching, and which avoids compartmentalization and redundancy while in essence being a full bilingual program. An innovative program at the University of Texas as San Antonio is cited as an example of such a bilingual bicultural program. (Author/AM) "The Bilingual's TwoLanguages: Duplication or Compartmentalization" Rodolfo Jacobson, Ph.D. University of Texas San Antonio, Texas 0. Introduction 1. Two philosophies of bilingual education 2. Implications for bilingual education 3. Two types of bilingual educationprograms 4. Critical assessment and the conciliatorysolution 5. Conclusion NT OF HALTH .J14 n NEE FARE %APO iNSIslutt OF (u1.1CA !ION . to pt p;40 A t.,1 E .410 ROM ,t n :AOr. 0R,CIN C' OPINIONS 4 A IC E. t i"TE Or Iv r,0 .r,p PO, .t r f ;), "The Bilingual's Two- Languages: Duplication or Compin.tmentalization" Rodolfo Jacobson, Ph.
    [Show full text]
  • Llamas 1999.Pdf
    A NEW METHODOLOGY: DATA ELICITATION FOR SOCIAL AND REGIONAL LANGUAGE VARIATION STUDIES Carmen LLAMAS Abstract This paper presents a new method of data elicitation for use in large-scale regional language variation studies, and for use in sociolinguistic studies of a given area. The methodology was devised and designed to fit the requirements of a national collaborative venture, the Survey of Regional English (SuRE).1 It was then expanded for use in a sociolinguistic study of Teesside English currently being undertaken by the author. 1. Introduction Many and varied methods of eliciting data for analysis of language variation exist and research is continually being undertaken in the field. Recent and ongoing projects offer detailed knowledge and insight into linguistic variation and change in Britain (e.g. the British Dialect Grammar survey by Cheshire et al. (1989), in Milton Keynes by Kerswill and Williams (1997), in Milton Keynes, Reading and Hull by Cheshire et al. (1999), in Tyneside and Derby by Docherty et al. (1997)). However, researchers wishing to compare their findings with those of another study are faced with individual projects which have different aims and employ different methodologies. This makes direct comparisons of studies potentially problematic (see Foulkes and Docherty (1999) for further discussion). Given the possible process of dialect levelling (cf. Williams and Kerswill (1999), Watt and Milroy (1999)) and the spread of current vernacular changes in certain phonological and grammatical features in British English, the availability of studies which are regionally disparate but directly comparable would be enormously advantageous. Knowledge of current regional and social lexical variation in the British Isles is extremely sparse, with few studies being or having been undertaken.
    [Show full text]