DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 444 350 FL 026 339

AUTHOR Boberg, Charles, Ed.; Meyerhoff, Miriam, Ed.; Strassel, Stephanie, Ed. TITLE A Selection of Papers from NWAVE [New Ways of Analyzing Variation](25th, Las Vegas, Nevada, October 1996). University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, Volume 4, Number 1. INSTITUTION Pennsylvania Univ., Philadelphia. Penn Linguistics Club. PUB DATE 1997-00-00 NOTE 432p.; Papers presented at the Annual New Ways of Analyzing Variation Conference (Las Vegas, NV, October, 1996). AVAILABLE FROM PWPL, 619 Williams Hall, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6305 ($12). PUB TYPE Collected Works - Proceedings (021) -- Speeches/Meeting Papers (150) EDRS PRICE MF01/PC18 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS Black Dialects; Code Switching (Language); *Dialects; English (Second Language); Ethnic Groups; Grammar; Immigrants; Language Minorities; *Language Research; Lexicography; *Linguistics; Phonetics; ; Pronouns; Pronunciation; Second Language Instruction; Second Language Learning; Sociolinguistics; Syntax; Uncommonly Taught Languages IDENTIFIERS Acadians

ABSTRACT This issue includes the following articles: "Towards a Sociolinguistics of Style" (Alan Bell, Gary Johnson); "Engendering Identities: Pronoun Selection as an Indicator of Salient Intergroup Identities" (Miriam Meyerhoff); "A Majority Sound Change in a Minority Community" (Carmen Fought); "Addressing the Actuation Question for Local Linguistic Communities" (Lisa Ann Lane); "Typologizing the Sociolinguistic Speech Community" (Otto Santa Ana and Claudia Parodi); "Symbolic Identity and Language Change: A Comparative Analysis of Post-Insular /ay/ and /aw/" (Natalie Schilling-Estes, Walt Wolfram); "The Geolinguistics of Sound Change in Progress: /1/ Vocalization in " (Barbara M. Horvath, Ronald J. Horvath); "Urban Sound Change beyond the Cities: The Spread of the Northern Cities Chain Shift" (Matthew J. Gordon); "Dialect Contact, Focusing and Phonological Rule Complexity: The Koineisation of Fenland English" (David Britain); "Sociolinguistic Coherence of Changes in Standard Dialect" (J. K. Chambers); "Adaptive Sociophonetic Strategies and Dialect Accommodation: /ay/ Monophthongization in Cherokee English" (Bridget L. Anderson); "Phonetic Realization of Final Engma in Taipei Mandarin" (Fu-Dong Chiou); "Frequency Effects in Variable Lexical Phonology" (James Meyers, Gregory R. Guy); "Variation in the Nativization of Foreign [a] in English" (Charles Boberg); "Rule Inversion in Dialect: A Sociolinguistic Investigation of [r]-sandhi in Newcastle upon Tyne" (Paul Foulkes); "Optimality and the Syntax of Lectal Variation" (Rakesh M. Bhatt); "The Truth about Codeswitching in Insular Acadian" (Ruth King, Terry Nadasdi); "Empirical Analysis of Anti-Immigrant Metaphor in Political Discourse" (Otto Santa Ana): "Is There an Auithentic African American Speech Community: Carla Revisited" (Lanita Jacobs-Huey); "Yorkville Crossing: A Case Study of the Influence of Hip-Hop Culture on the Speech of a White Middle Class Adolescent in New York City" Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. (Cecilia A. Cutler); and "Modeling Contact-Induced Language Change" (Naomi Nagy). Tables, figures, charts, graphs, and references are included in individual articles. (KFT)

EEO E DOCUMENT: POOR PRINT ORLI

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics DISSEMINATEPERMISSION TO THIS REPRODUCE MATERIAL ANDHAS BEEN GRANTED BY Volume 4.1 (1997) Cllexand46nisTO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESOffice of Educational INFORMATION ResearchU.S. DEPARTMENT and Improvement OF EDUCATION A Selection of Papers from NWAVE 25 originatingreceivedMinor from changes thehis persondocument have been or organizationhas made been to reproduced as CENTER (ERIC) ------Pointsimproveofficialdocument of reproduction view OERI door positionopinionsnot necessarilyquality. cr stated inrepresent this Charles Boberg, Miriam and the PWPL series editors Edited by: Meyerhoff, Stephanie Strassel BEST COPY AVAILABLE': 3 Working Papers University of Pennsylvania in Linguistics A Selection of Papers from NWAVE 25 Volume 4.1 (1997) Charles Boberg, Miriam Meyerhoff, Stephanie Strassel and the PAVPL series editors Edited by: 4 5 AboutFrom the the PWPL Editors series Table of Contents vii PhoneticAdaptive realizationsociophonetic of finalstrategies engma and in dialectTaipei accommodation:Mandarin Fu-DongBridget/ay/ monophthongization L. Chiou Anderson in Cherokee English 203185 Towards1. a sociolinguistics of style Addressee effects 1 Frequency4. effects in Variable Lexical Phonology Theoretical issues 215 Engendering identities: Pronoun selection as an indicator of AlanMiriamsalient Bell intergroup andMeyerhoff Gary Johnsonidentities 23 RuleVariation inversion in the innativization a British English of foreign dialect: [a] in AEnglish sociolinguistic JamesCharles Meyers Boberg and Gregory R Guy 229 A2. majority sound change in ,t minority community CarmencommunityDefinition Fought and perception of the speech 39 Optimality and the syntax of lectal variation PaulRakeshinvestigation Foulkes M. Bhatt of [r]-sandhi in Newcastle upon Tyne 271259 AddressingTypologizing the actuation the sociolinguistic question for speech local communitylinguistic LisacommunitiesOtto Ann Santa Lane Ana and Claudia Parodi 7357 EmpiricalThe truth aboutanalysis codeswitching of anti-immigrant in insular metaphor Acadian in political OttodiscourseRuth SantaKing andAna Terry Nadasdi 317299 Symbolic3. identity and language change: A comparative NatalieanalysisSocial Schilling-Este ofdialectology post-insular c /ay/and andWalt /aw/ Wolfram 83 5.Is there an authentic African American speech community: AAVELanitaCarla revisited Jacobs-Huey 331 UrbanThe geolinguistics sound change of beyonda sound the change cities: in The progress: spread of the Barbara/1/ vocalization M Horvath in Australia and Ronald J. Horvath 109 Yorkville Crossing: a case study of the influence of Hip Hop Ceciliainculture New onA.York theCutler Cityspeech of a white middle class adolescent 371 Dialect contact, focusing and phonological rule complexity: NortherntheMatthew Koineisation Cities J. Gordon chain of shiftFealand English 141125 Modeling6. contact-induced language change NaomiLanguage Nagy contact 399 Sociolinguistic6 coherence of ;hanges in a standard dialect J K.David Chambers Britain BEST COPY AVAILABLE 171 iii ivContents of Previous Volumes 419 (PWPL)TheAbout University isthe an occasionalPWPL of Pennsylvania series series produced Working by Papers the Penn in LinguisticsLinguistics TheguistsrummentClub, forcurrent of thewith previouslythe graduate anUniversity PWPL ongoing studentunpublished series affiliationof Pe ofeditors nnsylvania.ganization work, with are theorAlexis of work Department. the Dimitriadis,Linguisticsin progress, Depart-by Laura lin- It aims to provide a fo- BanuaziziCharlesPapersThisSiegel, volume wereClarissa Boberg, did selected is most theSurek-Clark Miriam resultof and the Meyerhoff,reviewed ofleg andthe work combinedAlexander for of and collectingcontent Stephanie effortsWilliams. under the of Strassel.papers,the many direction people.and Atissa the of maytheexpertSpecialPWPL responsibility be. proofreading, editorsthanks arecarried of due andthe outto amazingseries Hikyoung the productioneditors post-its. Lee or for theAll of her authors,remainingthe production actual as errors volume.the help,case are Publication in the University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Lin- Thevidedoncopyrightguistics the PWPL at papers (PWPL)the is editorsend retained should of does eachcan beby notbe paper. sentthe contactedpreclude author(s)directly submissionat to theof the individualfollowing authors, of papers addresses: papers.at the elsewhere; address Comments pro- all U. working-papersPhiladelphia,University619Penn Williams Working of HallPAPennsylvania Papers @babel.ling.upenn.edu 19 :04-6305 in Linguistics VolumesForinformation more information,of the at PWPL the end please are of available thisconsult volume). our at $12web Multi-issue persite: copy, subscriptionspre-paid. (See and http : //ling. up enn. echipapers/pwpl.html !Th 8 organizationscopies of previous to set issuesup an exchange are also available.of publications We invite with us.other student AnalyzingFrom the Variation) Editors was ho:;ted by Guy Bailey and Jan Tillery of The 25th annual meeting of NWAVE (New Ways of orFoulkesdialectdata on differences t/dasks deletion. whether in Bobergthe In nativizationinsertion uses structuralis aof purely foreignwhether phonology phonological [a] in to process it, too, is sociolinguistically stratified. English, and variation, explain Bhatt conference,theandselection University Means: of participants papersaof selection Nevada, that expressedwerepapersLas Vegas presented, from somein NWAVE October along interest the1996.24 inlines(PWPL putting of (N)Wavesv. out3.1). a As in that PWPL volume, these papers are not conference During the onanddemonstratesanalysis.language code-switching King & variationNadasdi the use in ofexamine withinCanadian Optimality the syntactic framework Theory and in syntacticof critical French. Santa Ana examines semantic constraints discourse sociolinguisticsgreaterimpossible.proceedings.limitations, or lesser Consequently, we extent hope thethat interests th,;the papersselection of the selected Editors of papers faithfully and reflects of the reflect Penn to a the Practical program. constraints However, made notwithstanding a full proceedings these speakers.transferperspective and in usepapers of byAAVE Jacobs-Huey features and to Cutler, who The traditionFinally, situations of language contact have long been a of work on AAVE is non-African American given a new examine the broadMeyerhoffeffectsplenary range address of critically research by Bell, examinesin which revi.iws NWAVE the recent use of participantswork accommodation identifying are engaged. addressee theory to in the sociolinguisticThe papers are arranged thematically. The first paper, a variation of discourse particles. becomebycentralmaximallysociety, Nagy's interest an paper.this important comparable. paperof If,sociolinguistics, as provides componentit seems, a templatelanguage and in thisthe for traditionstudycontact making of is is language setfuturerepresented to again studies in community.ofaccount speechAngelessociolinguistics: for addresseecommunityChicano Fought effects.community,the deals definitionin Denmark, with Lane gang and looks perceptionandmembership atSanta the construction ofAna thein the &speech Parodi Los of a Next are four papers relating to one of the classic concerns StephanieMiriamCharles MeyerhoffBoberg Strassel location.investigationexemplar.schematize the structure of speech communities using a Mexican This last paper also exemplifiesWolfram the increasing & strength ofof post-insuLir speech communities to hilling-Estes' paper extends a new their sociolinguisticwithdialects:usedresearch sociolinguisticspecial inthese social emphasis include dialectology. methodology Honon the ath A intersection & numberto Horvath approach of papers (Australianof the geographical study at NWAVE of English, regional and 25 theory), Gordon (Northern Cities shift in sociolinguisticandEnglish),Michigan), Chiou Anderson (phonological Britain (The (Cherokee variation Fens in communities thein Mandarin). UK), Chambers in North (CanadianCarolina), Much sociolinguist.cs is involved in the application of research to general questions of theoretical volume,linguistics. Myers Greg & Guy's Guy worktest formal has been phonological central to this models1 area.0 againstIn this BFST Copy AVAILABLE vii viii 11 Towards a Sociolinguistics of Style' recognizeselsinU Penn the Working thatpatterns style Papers of operates speaking in Linguistics on across the full whole range of discourses and Volumecon- 4.1 (1997) linguistic lev- 1. Introduction Allan Bell and Gary Johnson genre,individualside,versations a channelwide astalks range well and are ofasaudience. taken factorsin the into phonology that accountincluding may affect or syntax. the purpose,On The second, variationist approach to style is much more different ways an the 'social' topic, whichmeansdoesThe basic not couldthat always principle speakers have talk been of have inlanguage chosen the alternatives same insteadstyle way is or thatofon a all an'this occasions. way'. choicesa 'that way' individual speaker Speakers Style andwasstrictlycountries haspioneered definedbeen in followed bythe on Labov subsequentboth and thein developedhis social New30-odd and in years. linguisticcountless York City study Variationist sociolin- studiesdimensions. in many (1966, 1972) It talkguisticsways in different of overspeaking the ways past can in carry different different situations, and these The study of style has had a chequered career in sociolin- 20 years, but is now attracting more interest social meanings. different turethesion,usuallyguistics inalternation termsfollowedhas usually of particular ofa tightlyworkedspecific demographicdefined with phonological micro approach parametersaspects variants. to ofthe social It linguistic struc-such as gender has also dimen- theirsentedtheagain work assessment from in donea variationists.plenary by in Johnthe paper published Rickford That to NWAVE renewed version & Faye ininterest (1994: McNair 52):can -Knox,be dated as from pre- 1991. We concur with Andor `maximalist'ethnicity. on the other, approach a much to more both rigorous linguistic attempt and social to control phenomena. So on the one hand we have a very broad-brush, both variationWithofintegration productive respect seems of to researchpast totheory offer findings development, agendasmore and potential thanthe establishment virtually stylistic for the any ticularthe worksocial the it andquantitative reports linguistic on is rigour invariables. part with an attemptthe Our qualitative approach to blend breadth.in the this two, paper in par- and proachesThe work tothat the we study describe of stylc below in sociolinguistics.has just such a goal. The first, ethno- otherGeneralizing area in sociolinguistics. grossly, we can distinguish two main ap- frameworkIn2. guistica paper approachpublished which has to in hadstyle. some currency since then as a sociolin- The Gist of Audience Design 1984, Audience DesignBell proposed developed that thestyle Audience Design cangraphic1974Yencompasses express approach--associated themselves the differently many especially ways in indifferent which with Dellindividual Hymes speakers (e.g. situations. This mainshift1. occurscontentions primarily can be in summarized response to thus: the speaker's audience. Style is what an individual speaker does with a language Its Linguistics,ofsearch, the New Science Zealand Victoria & Technology English UniversityWe acknowledgeProgramme in fundingof Wellington. conductedthe the study support Allan reported in of theBell the Department belowis New grateful Zealandas part ofto Foundation for Re- 2.3. tic toSpeakersStyleinfeatures theirrelation derives audience. with design to other itsparticular meaningtheir people. style social from primarily groups. the association for and in of response linguis- years.the Department for its hospitality12 (not always funded) over a period of U Penn Working Papers in Linguistics, Volume 4.1, 1997 4.2 guageAudience repertoire, design monolingualapplies to all and codes multilingual. and levels of a lan- Towards a Sociolinguistics of Style Bell & Johnson U Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) 5.6. VariationSpeakerswhichsingle existsspeaker on have the between stylea derives fin3-grained dimension speakers from abilityandon within the echoes to'social' thedesign speechthe dimension. theirvariation of style a differentTable 1 interviewers Grid for interviews with 4 informants each talking to 3 MM MFINTERVIEWERS PM PF 7. ciationmeaningStyleaudiencefor a range shifting of members.and topics of direction differentaccording or settings of addressees, shiftto with topic from typical or theas setting wellunderlying audience as derives for mem-otherasso- its INFORMANTS Pine Pania Paul Jen 8. Asbers.a`initiative' well change as the in dimension, the'responsive' situation where dimensionrather the than style of resulting style, shift itselfthere from isinitiates the such a PFPMMFMM Duncan SallyLeeKay 3rd2nd1st 2nd3rd1st 2nd3rd1st 2nd3rd1st 9. group.groupwhichInitiativechange. thecan stylelinguistic be used shifts tofeatures are express in essenceassociated identification referee with adesign, withreference by that Ethnicity: Maori Pakeha (Anglo) Gender: MaleFemale entedvised.(Bell into The peoplepress), basic ratherand premise the than last of to three audiencemechanisms in particular design such is ascritiqued that attention. style and is Style ori- re- These nine points nave been enlarged upon elsewhere We3. now turn to report on a study which was explicitly Designing Research on Style designed to creativefocusesateinterpersonal speech onuse the of community, language person.and intergroup resources such relations. as distantoften from dialects, beyond or the immedi- In initiative style shift, the individual speaker makes It is essentially a social thing. stretches those It marks NZyeartestland Englishout project Foundationseveral Programme(just of completed) the for Audience Research, at Victoria Design Science University & Technology which was funded by the New Zea- hypotheses. It is a three- of Wellington. The under the fromInitiativemensionresources their 'stylization'style inunderlying novel shifts directions. derive association(1981), their Withand forcewith the Bakhtin types responsiveand their ofwe persons maydirection simply or groups. of'style'. shift call this di- projectductedidentitiesferently examines with to through different each and language.of seeks fouraudiences, tospeakers. explain and Athe how set ways ofthey four speakers present The language sample consists of three interviews con- informants aged their own talk dif- Refereesalongaudiencestyleinteraction even with are design butthirdin an their whoapproach persons to absence..are be soin who to salientneed blending This are of for not isserious a the physicallyspeakerthe area quantitative rethinking. wherethat present they we influenceAndwith believe at anthis the wereinterviewersin their each twenties structured (Table were 1). by interviewed gender in succession The informant and interviewer samples and ethnicity, so that each of them by a set of four on,qualitativeis and of this the paper. second main goal of the project we are working 3 4 Towards a Sociolinguistics of Style Bell & Johnson U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) Pakehacontainedandfirst thirdby man. the a by Maori2 ThusMaori the Pakehafor male woman, example, interviewer,man. Maori The the Maorifourth man,second possible manPakeha by was the combination womanMaoriinterviewed woman, and of third,interviewers'.informantsviewthe cross-ethnic cross-gender on their interview own combinationwas gender was identity the issue and gender,of itsethnic contrast relations and Similarly, the primary topic of discussion in the focussing the with the characteristicsprohibitive).ticalitiesinterviewers of a andfourth were informants successiNheld as constant was e interview intentionally as possible: with eachexcluded informant (the prac- were While gender and ethnicity were varied, other speaker jeopardizedterviewers.repeatedidentity in interviewsthe New whole Zealand. project,involving requiring the same location set of informantsof fresh speakers and in- This was an ambitious research design, particularlyRecording in failure its or speaker withdrawal could have NewAge:erations'Social Zealandall eight class: standing. origins:speakers all were weremiddle in class,their early university to mid educated. 20s. all were New Zealanders of several gen- andloggedeach.potentialdesign. re-recording They under for have disaster. topicinterviews been headings. Thetranscribed in interviews order to in maintain full, averaged timed, the over andintegrity theiran hour ofcontent the long However, all 12 interviews were completed despite this The sample amounts to over 13 In addition, we tried tostrangersDegree keepInterviews ;ispects of to familiarity: each wereof theother. conducted setting constant. in the informants' own homes. all informants and interviewers were 4.totalhours count of taped of some interviews, 140,000 aboutwords. 650 pages of transcripts, and a The Discourse Features NoionInterviewers third (neither parties too were formal present.asked nor to too dress casual). in a similar and 'neutral' fash-The attempt to hold factors constant extended to interview saltence-finalfeaturesThe and linguistic interactive often tags analysisknownsuch glue as Iasthroughout wethink pragmatic will and report like our markerstypically thatconversational on wecovers scatter a subset like encounters. the discour- of sen- the neededterviews,todesign be sacrificed asfor e.g.well. style by Thetoresearch. topicone the elicitation need example to ensureof maximally of comparability the different informal methodologyacross speech the had in- Three standardized questionnaires were designed, one for Amonglandsuch`addressee-oriented'1995) byas these isn'tJanet in particular.features it, Holmes and so therepragmatic forth.Theand is chiefMaria Theya subset markersyoufunction Stubbehave sometimes been of(e.g. thesestudiedknow, Stubbe known features tag in & Newquestions asHolmes seems the Zea- to topics,salientterviewintervieweach readingof at thedesign particular consisted three tasks was interviews and times. ofto fourothermake components:conducted tasks.aspects A basicof with the principle eachinformant's informant. of the identity in-Each So the set topic for the second inter- free conversation, set sharedcontinuingbe TAGinteractive, experience questions, attention for or thethe knowledge. speakertodiscourse what to is particle seekbeing reassurance said,EH and or Highconfirmation of the Rising listener's Termi- of The four features we shall look at here are: Y'KNOW, 215 percent of Maorithe population. are the indigenous `Pakeha' isPolynesian the term forinhabitants New Zealanders and now ofmake up some theyintroduction,nal intonations are characteristic the (HRTs). other of two NZE, invite although more discussion,not exclusive partly to it. because The particle EH functions syntactically very much like While Y'KNOW and TAGs need little (somemainly 80 percent British of origin the population). who colonized the country from the 19th century1.6 5 6Y'KNOW or TAGs. EH also occurs in other varieties of Eng- 1_7 GuernseyTowardslishat least in a Sociolinguisticsthe Canadian Channel Islands(e.g. of Style Gibson (Ramisch 1976) 1989). and the dialect of Bell & Johnson The leading U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics originalurn YOU kaupapa KNOW of they've making still sure got our to keepchildren up with are gettingthat Volume 4.1 (1997) toEH Maoriofstudyshortly. also the ofcarriesPoriruamen TranscriptEH (pseudonyms in considerable social NZ 1English dialectcomes used), social tofromsurvey date and meaning,the is(Holmes, gives interviewMeyerhoff's a which sense Bell between &bothwe(1994) Boyce will of the analysis thecome 1991).two data (ITranscript = }MT) 2 taught the best they can yeah Kay: clustering of tones veryticlein general, butsimilar. an and intonation This also intonation in particular pattern, is howeverofbecoming EH and its itsfamiliar discourse usage, in Englishfunction in- is The High Rising Terminal (HRT) is not a pragmatic par- K:K: yeah/beenI remember jumping oh off I was this about bridge eleven or twelve and um we'd/=into this um oh into the water below it and it was quite a publication.ternationally,Transcriptleading study 1 both is by through David Britain usage, (1992), and because again onof theresearch Porirua and data. It is in common usage in , DuncanEHwhere the clustering K: a lagoonover=bombedstrong to goingcurrent the this road out GUY!taking BRIDGE!to the andall open thesplashed and SEA!water I was himandout swimming //and\thereso he wasstartedum backPd dive=racing /yeah\\ //( \\ ) overlappingcontinuationunclear speech speech of turn or latching K: /=andmyagainst toes he the had jumped current just touched off to the the roadtheother GROUNDI=/ bridge side of and the hit lagoon me on and my urn /=yeah=/ kaupapa:kohanga reo: philosophy,language nest principles (preschool immersion class) K: justPARALYSED!SHOULDERS! thought YOU andIKNOW couldn't jarred all move=/my I can SPINE! do is andtry andI was float try /=God=/ /=and all I th- I D: Rangitanehangafirstingpapa we areo ofbitdid fromwhat andof Heretaunga a we businessPonekekohanga ei got (yeah)and backnowreo then is EHto and all the erand aboutthen oneto they're the a because few urn losing fromurnreal it's ko- kau- the becom- los- //thenrescuedurnand Ifloat was he me foundandgoing and just outblewhelp lie I was\backmeup thehelp youand kid me relaxknow [inhales] and andI Dadcouldn't try and came and um move floatout and and forand D: =althoughforing ourwhat children it's a lotthe of YOUreal the meaning peopleKNOW= in of there it //(YOU EH they KNOW) work it's\ /nun \\ tweenTranscript the two 2 is Maori a danger-of-death women, narrative from the interview be- about two days and then I was fine rewardstimesblimmin you outhard don't of man it blame //but and um\them they we're getEH stuff 'causetrying all they'reto for (and it andgetting then)= some- no /nim\\ wetributionspeechqualitative consider ofand these towhy,analysis be features. aand complementary ofalso where But how then the wefourfeatures want features tooccur move co-occur--or on-line on to Initially we will present quantitative findings on the dis- approach, that is a more during whatoth- 18 D: never=tha- thatbe many sort of rewards thing EH for erthe with people kohanga working reo inthere it but will 7 erwisewith each other. J U- 19 Towards a Sociolinguistics of Style Bell & Johnson U Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) countsofinterview these of thefigures length. features, for We tokens: withcan make no some By way of orientation, we present allowance for amount of talk or observations on the strength in Table 2 the raw 4.5. EHNoteHRTsbyMaori occurs Kay that manare the overwhelmingly there common MaoriDuncan, is woman.a kind exceptalthough of complementarybyin there theLee theare some speech of the Pakeha man. distribu- tokens 1. Y'KNOWassociatelittlePakeha identity man isit withthe Lee meaning, feature women's in expository althoughof style choice, rathermode. research especially than It appears men's. to carry would tend to for the womanLeetionSally of the HRTs two uses and last notY'KNOW features Y'KNOW. for and the Pakehanot HRTs, man and 2. hasHRT,Butusing forsome and theKIND othershe Pakeha hasOF individualistic remarkablywherewoman the Sally other few preferencese.g.the three Y'KNOWs. default use SORT (She OF.) feature is the always also whatOne5. ofto thecount. main The problems main issue with is what discourse do we count as Quantitative Analysis variables is deciding potential but Table3. 2 Number of tokens of 4 addressee-oriented pragmatic areTags used are more infrequent. by Pakeha but thanthere Maori. is an indication that different interview- theyfea- notisspeechHere actual in terms we producedoccurrences have of word quantified by count. ofthe pragmatic particular Thisall four produces speaker, features an over features such as HRTs or EH? and amount indexof speech for the feature, the amount of ersturesInformantBy in the speech of 4 infor, nants talking to 3 InterviewerTo Y'KNOW Number of tokens TAG EH HRT multiplieddividedwhichactuallygenerally consists by thecloseby in 10,000. numberdoublesimply to the digits, ofaverage thewords numberso amounteasyproduced toof grasp.occurrencesof by informant The multiplier of 10,000 yields indexes Andthe speaker, 10,000 andwords then is speech ofper the in- feature DuncanmanMaori PMMFMM PaniaPinePaul 1339869 200 204816 325356 length.terview,5.1. so it represents in some sense a normalized EH by Informants interview KaywomanMaori MMMFPF JenPinePania 298639 01 230 405016 copywritersprescriptivists,guisticThe pragmatic markers to createsatirizedparticle of English social eh by is withincomedians,caricatures one of New the (Bell andmostZealand. utilized1992). It isby high-profile sociolin- Both the Newcriticized byadvertising LeemanPakeha MMPFPM PaulPineJen 21010621 .8 43 01 17 97 ZealandextentEH with stereotypewith the men speech ratherand ofthe than Maori research women. rather findings than associatePakeha, andthe to a variable lesser Pakehawoman PFPM PaulJen 26 5 41 00 3159 MaoriIn InTable fact man 3his EH Duncan-84 index is used while by tokens talkingMaori in speakers, withall (see the Table Maorioverwhelmingly 2 male for raw interviewer is tokens). by the Sally 2, 0 MF Pania 8 2 0 55 9 similar10 to the index for young Maori males in Porirua 2 study Towards a Sociolinguistics of Style Bell & Johnson U Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) Table 3 EH Index in speech by Informants to Interviewers To Interviewers 5.2. HRTs by Informants By Informants MMPine MFPania PMPaul PFJen markerhesitancywhichTheform High is of a Risingaorinteractivestatement. high doubt, rise,Terminal but solidarityquestioningOne NZ interpretation involves researchers and pattern, affectan intonation haveis but (Britain that used interpreted its onpatternuse1992). a indicatestone itin asgroup the a This LeeKayDuncan MMPMMF 46 02 26 4 19 0 01 featureBritain'syounger is stereotypically Pakeha findings women. were associated thatThe HRTsresearch in areNew partly used Zealand confirms mainly mainly bythis. younger withDavid some(Holmes, EH, Bellbut at & a Boyce much lower1991). frequency Kay the Maori -only 5woman tokens. also By con-uses Sally PF 0 0 0 wetheyHRTstospeakers a present lesseroccur, are (i.e. sensitive unfortunatelyextentbeing our particularlygroupby to Maori.the ofstill genre speakers), lack common or thistext sub-categorization. particularlytype in narratives. of the speech by The women, inanalyses which and The research has also shown that markermanlutelytrast, in the none nearlyof Pakeha group at fourall, identity speakersandhours there of primarily recordeduse is only virtually of1talk. token ethnicity no fromEH. (Maori), Sally Lee the uses andPakeha abso- sec- We can see thus how EH is functioning mainly as a alsoestHRTslowest, level possibly ofwith and HRTs. with women,the Maori.Leeothers the particularly are Pakeha in between. man Pakeha, uses very seems considerably confirmed, the and In Table 4 Sally the Pakeha woman uses by far the high- So the identification of bothlinedassociationondarily with in the of our ofgendersummary previous linguistic (Maori offindings, featuresaudience men). and with design with group popular above. usage stereotype. which we out- Turning to the shifts which informants make in different This pattern of usage fits the It also accords him.Maorimen.terviews, Sally So woman, Duncan, we the can Pakeha and see the fewer that womanMaori HRTs to theman,uses aretwo fewest uses used men most tomore who Paul HRTs toalso the women Pakehainterviewedto than man, to Who are HRTs used to? Tracking the shifts between in- Pania the theDuncandifferentinterviews, Maori the amounts male, asMaori hypothesized less ofman withEH uses with Pania EHin different audience themore Maori often interlocutors. design, woman, in interview the least Inspeakers particular, withwith PaulPine use Table 4 Hal- Index in speech by Informants to Interviewers To Interviewers EHparallelledthe(degpitewith Pakehawith Pine her thebyman. mostthe PakehaKay MaoriAt like thea veryfemaleinterlocutor man,Maori much andinterviewer woman lowernone (Pania informant. withlevel usingthe Jen ofMaori one frequency,the She token Pakehawoman), uses of thissomeEHwoman less isher- MMPine MFPania PMPaul PFJen anprincipleself). interpretation of audience of EH design as a marker as outlined of Maori above. These are the kinds of fine-grained shift which is the core identity, particularly It conforms with By Informants SallyLeeKayDuncan MMPFPMMF 3134 6 7290 602362 3880 6 22 for men. BEST COPY AVAILABLE 11 12 23 Volume 4.1 (1997) holdsmoreTowards tofor the aKay Sociolinguistics two the women Maori woman,who of Style interviewed although her frequency to her. The same pattern Bell & Johnson Jen the PakehamographicallyU. Penn maleWorking interviewer, distant Papers the in quite Linguisticsinterlocutorin strikingly so. the speech of Paul the In the baseline in- mantstylewePakeha have accordingLee woman some produce confirmation tois theirclosehis only audience to thatappreciable that to for thePine HRTs. the Mdori man. But questions remain: why does the Pakeha male informants are shiftinglevel their of HRTs to Paul, the So again, infor- thedemographicallyterviewMostis Pakeha inappropriate withnotably, woman, Lee theappropriate.his accommodationwhich Pakeha index in tomaleterms Hethe informant,has ofMaori as her an she ownEH manthe herself uses none at all. Paulindex uses ofzero 14linguistic EHto Sally behaviourhigh EH useris viewerPakehawoman? Jen? malewomenaren't interviewer, more and used not to in the particular Pakeha tofemale the And whyif HRTs are particularly identified with Pakeha inter- viewtion.29. Paul than in his fact informant has a good does. deal higher level This can reasonably be interpreted as hyper-accommoda- The interpretation of hyper- of EH in the inter- inter- usageSo5.3. far, of so EH tidy and (more HRT or in less). these Let same us turn now to the EH by Interviewers interviews. Here it needs to interviewers' accommodationdealThiscauseview. ofwas Paulof prolonged themarked was ethnic receives clearly nervousin distinctionvarious nervoussupport giggling ways, betweenfromin conductingatbut quiteother especially inappropriate facets it, throughof this a him and the informant. presumably be- points of good talk.werebothbeagainst remembered participantsinterviews, usage thatof andclaiming some thesethe ofinterviewers wereequal these not rightspragmatic ordinary provided to speaking features. conversations time. withThe kind of talk they provided also necessarily militated much less of the In particular, These thebaseshiftingPaul's interview. to interview ato quite a lower high with EH levelDuncan level, of andusage.the Maorithe Looking Pakeha man, shifting withat the the numbers, from Maori a zeroman we So we can observe that there is mutual accommodation in thetalkboth kind of Y'KNOW a kindof rapport which and with interviewersHRT the by informants and are large not that tendusually will to occurencourageproducing. in a themflow ofto On the other hand their role as interviewers is to establish thancouldPakeha anyone in fact woman else.say that But receives they alongside are almost shifting that as we half much have way with to to note meet indexes that each Sally of other. 35, The Maori male informant Duncan receives more EH the 14 havespitemodaterelax totheand displayto comparativelytalk. the informant Thatthis linguistically. is, the littleare pressures probably speaking on greater thetime interviewer the than interviewer vice toversa, accom- will de- Table 5 shows that the interviewers use more EH than the Table 5 EH Index in speech by Interviewers to Informants By Interviewers wayandthis?Maoriinformants the withIn man onusgeneral the (cftalking thatinformants. Tableterms is onto we3) Pinethem withcan heto refer the interactMaori oneit to male exceptionintheir a positive interviewer.role in of the andDuncan interview solidary Why the is It appears that in order to do this, they To Informants MMPine MFPania PMPaul PFJen communitymakesocial use meanings of for the that feature it function, brings which with to someit. is available extent without in the regardNZE speech for the There is an indication that more EH is used the more de- LeeKayDuncanSally MM PMMF PF 10 06 352528 2914 0 935 24 BEST COPY AVAILABLE 13 14 25 Towards a Sociolinguistics-of Style' Bell & Johnson U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) toourtive,demographic.and encourage interpretation9. just reticent, her talk, isthe that leastand the this talkativeinterviewers explains of the theworked four high informants.particularly usage of EH hardAnd to Why?!well, we think this is audience related, but not Sally is a slow, hesitant speakernot uncoopera- Table 6 HRT Index in speech by Interviewers to Informants PineBy Interviewers Pania Paul Jen creasesher,Pakeha as it aswere woman the against demographic interviewer the demographic usesdistance least associations increases,(9) to Sally, soof Paul thatthe thefeature. Jen Pakeha the Notice that the level of EH from the interviewers in- To Informants Duncan MM MM 0 MF 5 10PM PF speech.interviewerstoman be nextcounter (14), are to and whatusing Pania one a feature thewould Maori which expect woman does from notmost audience appear (35). design:Thisin her seems own the It is indeed counter to the demographic associations of and interviewers do not do much of that. Nevertheless the pattern LeeKaySally PMMF PF 5 2212 70 90 senteddence.hocEH, attemptbut our we analysis thinkto rescue the here interpretation the largely framework in terms just in of offeredthe demographic face is of not contrary just character- an evi-ad- It also raises an important point. While we have pre- Pakehademographicsasof Paulfor Ellagain theman, Pakeha an of usingindex the male informant. ofmore interviewer7 to of Sally this He the featureforuses Pakeha HRT zero is woman,HRTs exactly to andthe Lee same10 the to the more distant the tionaltheirthat.istics, speech accommodationpurposes, community in this to case one'sin ordera successfulaudience to accomplish is interview.in fact muchtheir You conversa-wider will than seeIt includes speakers making active use of the resources of mants'Duncaningenuine these own the interviews.about productionMaori this man. interviewer, of HRTs inhis Table informants 4by far and the their most interaction HRTs Relative usage to informants is in line with the infor- So this pattern may reflect something well.quantification,ofeventuallythat their we This speakerinterpretin.;are canfound now be even theydoingregarded thoughhad what to in do as ittwoRickford doesasbest lights:they wenot explored &can fit McNair-Knox ourwhat hypothesesthe appears style patterns(1994) in very the either as commonsense aresameaddition, used structure to therelative Pakeha as usage usage woman, by to interviewers interviewers and least (Table to(Table the 6). 4) has exactly the Pakeha man. In oneupcanwhateverflexibility even beof theseen if explanation tomainit as conflictsinterpret post-hoc issues thewith seemsfor rationalizing meaning any your most attempt own appropriate.of thetheorizing.of at whateverpatternsa framework Or Thisthat happensalternatively, occur,seems to usingto turn it for regular- be quantificationaboutWe6. believe the style the does ofquantification speakers not tell us within everything just theseoutlined thereinterviews. tells is to us know a good about deal a Qualitative Analysis But such To5.4.izing show style that shift. our interpretations are not purely ad hoc, look at Ta- HRTs by Interviewers tionspeech.ferentiatedablesspeaker's may do When not tellstyle chunk just us andin somethingoccur a ofwhere certain speech. as featuresthey stretchabout They occur the toof occur bein language.speaker's thecounted on-line course style, within ofin atheabout conversa-an flow undif- of Linguistic vari- their thatble 6, HRTs which generally presents occurthe interviewers' in narratives usage or at of least HRTs. a flow Now of recall talk, BEST COPY AVAILABLE 15 patterns16 of identity expression or audience design. Individual to- 2 '( kensTowards of the variablea Sociolinguistics may have of heightened Style significance in Bell & Johnson the flow lengthU Penn and Working in great Papers detailfor in Linguistics over an hour on Volumeethnic 4.1 relations (1997) in Y'KNOW, with on-linewithof the other interaction, throughout variables or the in they ainterview way may which cluster of isthe significant. together four features, with partly So for the 12 interviews, we have graphed the occurrence each other or with a 5-10Newsensitive-topicspeakersfollowing tokensZealand. would ineach Hea run,contexts, otherproducesuse and HRTs directly. even Lee frequent in uses thenarratives occasional a clusteringsrun of or Y'KNOW. narrative-like pair of texts or It is striking that where the other of 2 ICKNOWs in particularlyviewtogetherthesee to differentif seeingthere or to be aresee wherefeatures, in anyif complementary tokens individualnoticeable so thatcluster different tokenspatterns ordistribution. scatter. offeatures the Secondly, feature tend tooccur, in either order more occur to of co-occurrence between competenceWhengender the Maori insame the interviewer), Maoriquestion language came Lee up(in uses in Interview Sally'sa cluster interview, 3, of with 12 theY'KNOW. same- For example, when discussing the issue of their own she pro- takingtweenpragmatic thenearly two features 3Maori sides throughout men, of tape. Duncan The interview. anddifferent Pine. This sectionsIt is is 86 Interview minutes of the inter-1 be- Figure 1 tracks thi: occurrence of tokens of the four long, HRTtoviewsduced food from whena andseries Sally. thehygiene of question HRTs. arosea Exactlyof sensitivity string the of same Y'KNOWto Maori happened customs in both in inter- Thirdly, like Y'KNOW, HRTs tend to cluster, but more from Lee, and of relation in especiallyfeaturesanalysisthereview are domarked in occur, the are lastin zerohowever. the quarter figure. TAt)s ofEH inthe makesthis interview, interview. a slow and start, Thethere but other is increasesa certain three We can see what we already knew from the quantitative Itreallyiarpairs is with noticeable than only the multiplesalthough be feature, examined that Duncan this in will the tends multiples bespeech no to surprise.hold of do Duncan backoccur. EH use Tothe of of thoseMaoricourse this man. can ethnicfamil- tokenquently.amountlara at late of 9We minutes,clustering starter, also have withsecond of totokens. some wait and forclustering, Thesubsequent HRTs pattern to but for tokensbegin Y'KNOWit occurs occurringfirst from 17moreis simi-min- fre- kensspeakingidentitytestinginto across a markermuch tohis Pinethe interlocutor more first untilthe Maori20regular some minutes out male way beforelevel interviewer, ofinto of committingthe theeach interview, variable. interview. he himselfscatters before to just use 3 ofto- It is as if he is Even in settling this weeralizationssimilarutesand can fashionsee the atabouttokens a forglance the allare qualitative interviews,that mole CAGs scattered. occurrence enablingare rare and us of to scatteredthe make features. some through- First, gen- The occurrence of tokens on-line has been graphed in a variablyEHcussionethnically tokens. of with markedhis grandmother's 'Maori' particle. topicsfamily, With Pine the Maori man, it is a dis- There are not many runs of EH, but they occur in- tangi (funeral) that triggers a run of reo (Maori language), out,tionmost with tended interviews. no obvious to indicate. It on-line is clearly Its patterning. relative the default lack feature, of social as associationsthe quantifica- is Secondly, tokens of Y'KNOW are scattered throughout MaoriPakehaanditems culture,usually borrowed man, etc.trigger however, into They athe tokenoften aboutEnglish co-occuror Maori twodiscourse. ofissues with ER Whileuseit is ofvery Maorispeaking noticeable lexical to the on Maori issues are discussed frequently in this interview, theinterviewsshown the Pakeha Set in of Topicit themanbeing four sectionsLee the features. especially most of severalevenly Y'KNOW interviews.distributed is a primary throughout expository the in- However there are particular concentrations of Y'KNOW It is clear that for non-Maori,andtheidentity on-line Y'KNOW. marker.graph This that Duncan Duncanreinforces does produces notour useview little it toof EH, claimEH but as Maorinessa anlot ingroupof HRT to a but to establish solidarity with other Maori. theparticle. set topics In the indiscussion interviews of gender 2 and and3, he ethnic expounds issues, his which views were at 2 BEST COPY AVAILABLE 17 18 29 Towards a Sociolinguistics of Style Bell & Johnson U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) a In7. conclusion, we would argue two things. Conclusion First, we need corn- differentshowsinterpretationsqualitativeplementary up usages things enrichesqualitative we bythat woulddifferent our are and interpretations. not reach quantitative informantsevident based in onlyanalyses.quantification, in these on quantification. interviewsAt very such least, onas the It may even change the It t 3 conversation.amineanalysis.necessarilysame topic. how But individual Talklump there is things isan alsotokens on-line together,a time are phenomenon. operatingto keepand thatthings on-line Whenis separate,a needfulin wethe count,flow and part ofex- we ofa 3ti posalsnowandence thewantand so identity referee thatto consider audience functionsdesign, modifying andof ofresponse referee language. the designand original initiative, are regarded as operat- Secondly, we would argue for a complementarity of audi- In this sense we would audience design pro- of the relational e. ofwhentor.ing what inWhat audienceparallel, is wegoing can ratherdesign on observe is than seemsstill refereefromlargely not ourto design eitherhold, interpretations ourbeingin terms post-hoc an ofoccasional the explanation fac- above is that audienceidentity, 44. referee(forare example, increasingly function why (e.g. taking more in the accountEH clustering is used of theseof to EH). Sally) Approaches or of an to style facts. Certainly, we be- of the 3 = u. a - audiencelieve a sociolinguistics and the referee, of and style the will quantitative be found with in the the fusion qualitative. vAU4 W Bakhtin,References M.M. (1981). The Dialogic Imagination. Austin: University of Figure 1. On-line occun ence of tokens of four addressee- ori- Bell, Allan (1992).(1984). "Hit"Language and miss: style referee as audience design design." in the dialects ZealandSocietyTexas Press. 13: television 145-204. advertisements." Language & Communica- Language in of New 30 (Duncan)ented pragmatic to Maori features male interviewer, in speech Pine. of Maori male informant 19 Bell,20 Allan (in press). "Back in style: Re-working Audience tion 12: 327-340. Design," to 31 Bell & Johnson Towards a Sociolinguistics of Style appearVariation in John (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Rickford & Penelope Eckert, eds., Style and (PWPL)The University is an occasional of Pennsylvania series produced Working by Papers in Linguistics the Penn Linguistics Britain,Gibson, David Deborah (1992). (1976). "Linguistic "A thesis change on inEH." Unpublished andtion.rising Change Vancouver: terminals 4: 77-104. in University New Zealand of British English." Columbia. Language intonation: The use of high MA disserta- Variation elsewhere;PublicationDepartmentClub, all inof copyrightthisthe Universityvolume is retaineddoes of Pennsylvania.not by preclude the authors submission of the of papers the graduate student organization of the Linguisticsindividual Holmes, Janet, Allan Bell & Mary Boyce (1991). ogy).ectin New report Wellington: Zealand to the FoundationEnglish: Victoria A University, Social for Research, Dialect Linguistics Investigation"Science Department. & (Proj- "Variation and Change An Ethnographic Technol- papers.PleaseVolumes see of our the web Working page for Papers additional are available information. for $12, prepaid. Hymes,Labov, Dell William (1974). (1966).(1972). Foundations The Social in Sociolinguistics: Stratification of English in Approach.City. Washington, Philadelphia: D.C.: University Center for of Applied Pennsylvania Linguistics. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: Press.New York Uni- The PWPL Series Editors Alexis Dimitriadis Ramisch,Meyerhoff, Heinrich Miriam (1989). (1994). "Sounds pretty ethnic, eh? - a pragmatic par- 367-388.ticleversity of Pennsylvania Press. in ." Language in Society 23: Vc:riation of English in Guernsey/Channel ClarissaAlexander Surek-Clark Williams Laura Siegel Rickford, John R & Faye McNair-Knox (1994). "Addressee- and topic- Islands.spectivesDouglasinfluenced Frankfurt Biber on style Register &am shift: Ed Main: ward(New Verlag Finegan, York/Oxford: Peter eds., Lang. Sociolinguistic Per- a quantitative sociolinguistic study," in Oxford University Editors for this Volume StephanieMiriam Meyerhoff Strassel Charles Boberg Stubbe, Maria & Janet Holmes (1995). ZealandvariationPress).`exasperating 235-276. English." in the use expressions': Language of pragmatic & AnCommunication devicesanalysis in of a social sample 15: 63-88. and of stylisticNew "You know, eh and other and the PWPL series editorsHow to reach the PWPL RoyalPOAllan Box BellOak 24-495 (Dr.) (Postal) GaryKelburn1 Grove Johnson Road U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics UniversityDepartment of Pennsylvania of Linguistics 619 Williams Hall AucklandAucklandRoyal702 Manukau Oak 3, New3, New RoadZealand Zealand (Courier) grjohnson@soLWellington 5, otago.ac.nzNew Zealand http://www.ling.upenn.edu/papers/pwpl.html working-papers ging.upenn.eduPhiladelphia, PA 19104-6305 [email protected] 3`) 21 33 U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) as an Indicator of SalientEngendering Identities: Pronoun Selection Intergroup Identities (aw)VARIABLE +OfficeDOMAIN conservative Bridge+ innovative Game [fronted, raised] Don1 Hindle's (1979) study. of the speech of Carol Myers provided a The Problem Miriam Meyerhoff Table 1: Carol Myer's use(ay)(ohr)(ow) of conservative vs innovative forms of + conservativeinnovative + innovativeconservative [raised][fronted] (andphonologicalrepertoire)withinnumber one a ofspeech of significantHindle Hindle's changes community showed otherwere findings ) major veryeflectedand for within contributions the in Myers' studyan individual of stylistic wasvariation to speaker'svariation offer both an clearly that community-wide thetwofour variables. socialchanges domains inThe progress (ay)(adapted raising in thefrom isPhiladelphia aHindle change 1979: for speech which138, community Philadelphia in Hindle noted that there is a qualitative difference between 170ff) oroperational herinnovativeinformal speech definitionsetting phonological showed Myers' of reflexes formality), speechforms, of whilemore such inconservativethat the in most her mostformal community relaxed setting, showed the most reflexes of discriminations he mentoiswomen. accommodation"beare more the He leaderslike concluded the while [speech(1979: "[this] the 145),of] otherssuggests the "[Carol people are that Myers]changes she is adjusts her speech what may be going on talking to" (1979: being led by beforeoneCarolmade,norms. vernacular Myers'and voicelessHowever, despite social change, consonants), despitethe situation, fact(ay°) thethat ( the Hindle finehe Myers raising proved phonetic was usedof aleft sensitive more with conservativea puzzle.observer For of the diphthong in BITE innovativetheseaccommodationPhiladelphia-ness,171). shifts. forms He notes misses are but notthat the areonly Myers' "expressive"also an an indexbehavior index of (1979: ofa seems lack gender; 171)of to formality indicatethey function constitute and of However, he also notes that this passive notion that of phonologicalvowelpeersexpectationinnovative, would changes vernacularthatvariants favor inthe progress.the more at formsproduction home relaxed Since at and the and of thisoffice.with moreinformal expectation friends, This innovative environment was and contrarywas the borne most among to outthe variants of see-sawing"anadolescents.171). identification patterns Eisikovits that ofis activelyvariation found usedthat in teenageherin social interviews girls interactions" Half a world away, Edina Eisikovits (1987) found strange, exhibited the kind with (1979: closelyfor other for changes potential in motivations progress (see for Tablethis reversal. 1), Hindle looked more Eisikovitsmoretheyof style were non-standard shifting talking was also we to wouldeachsyntacticpresent other expect. (the (the intergroup Asintragroup illustrated condition), forms, but in condition) theydiscussions usedboys inwhere showed Table 2, the when they used audience at NWAVEI am grateful25, University to Gillian of Nevada, Sankoff, Las Janet Vegas Holmes, for comments Howard Giles and the usedoppositefewersituation non-standard non-standard pattern. of an The interview forms forms.boys when increased with However, they Eisikovits. werethe teenage frequency talking in the more formal with which they Tabisupportedand for discussion her helpby the withof Wenner-Gres the the ideas tape:, developed in Foundation, Bislama. here. Fieldwork grant Warmest #5742. in thanks to Sharonwas U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics, Volume 4.1, 1997 24 35 Engendering Identities Meyerhoff speaker'sU. Penn accommodation Working Papers to inor Linguisticsdivergence from (a) a Volume 4.1 (1997) social identity 7080 mulln-s past neg. demonstrate)of whichthe addressee the issociolinguist most that salient the sociolinguist infersfor the (butaddressee, does asserts notor demonstrate)(b) a social the role(but does not 6o -50 - have deletion convergencesociolinguisticspeaker identifies or divergencestudy their thataddressee demonstrateinvokes most the with. any notion Nor of underlying attitude or does the averageaccommodative tr:5 40 theirsocial identification of the speaker that would behavior (Greenwood 1996 is a notable motivate or direct exception). be both a30- 20-l0- Notwithstanding,CAT)seen1982, and (Giles accountedGiles et andtheal. 1973,for.variationCoupland Bourhis is 1992, presumed, and Niedzielski Giles in 1977,this andway, Thackerar Giles to to etappear) This use of communicative accommodation theory (or al. 0 intragroup intergroup Girls speak: and domain intragroup intergroup Boys dismissivehasthesociolinguisticsthat some last are serious minuteclearlyof calling critics.hastofalsifiable giveit very a theory Williamthe often orimpression since predictive.been Labov, CATa hand-waving that foris Moreover, not instance,the framed investigator device hasits in terms beenused has at use in multipleTableintervieweradolescents 2: Use (intergroup) ofwhen non-standard talking (adapted with syntactic friends from Eisikovits (intragroup) 1987: negation and deletion of }cave) variants (past among Sydneyside and with an49-51). tense, sociolinguisticsaccommodation"explained" all observed research? forever patterns Ordestined instead, in their to is bedata. a deus ex machina in This paper addresses the followingsociolinguistics able to question: is termsfinds of a accommodation qualitative difference theory. in Going the teenagers' Eisikovits attempts to account for this unexpected data in back to her interviews she conversations with provideaccommodationlanguageweight precisely and precision the principles sorts to itsof principlesempirical are the heart evidenceand ofclaims? the CAT co-construction needs to lend and I believe that there is avariation role for CAT in the study of and change, because I believe that interviewerclearlyher.norms.was She strategy showed concludes than ofthe a divergence farthatmale:." "[t]tle (1987: fromfemale 55), her informantsand own, that the boys' greater identification female, middle-classwith in this study the behavior female tokendivergencepractice.rigorousinterpretation plays application and a ofconstructive show social of that accommodationidentities. the role selection in I establishingargue, theoryof atherefore, particular in andsociolinguistic definingfor linguistic a more a I will examine in detail a case of communicative investigatorincorporatevariationcome to mind. bleed themexplains Orderlyinto into untidy these patterns anomalies of oras exceptions.being the result Unable of to Similar studies throughout the variationist canon readily a systemic account of variation, sociolinguistically stratified thethe limitsmeansaccommodationrelationship of impossible, the differentbetween theory the theories the moretrick, interlocutors. rigorously suchand the as limitsit inis, sociolinguistics lies of the in recognisingnumbers. is by no The task of applying the 36 3EST COPY AVAILABLE 25 26 37 Engendering Identities Meyerhoff U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) monthscreoleThe2 data spokenof is fieldwork drawn in fromthe in .Republic urbanrecordings and of village of Vanuatu, conversational communities made Bislama,during in northern nine the The Data yumiyu(1) save tekem from long plen Ambae mif- Elsina (Santo, F30yr): youbecause and youI took know from the Ambae plane we- Two,andmannerVanuatu.in divergence currentthat in speakerThe which sociolinguistics data can Iidentity believe willand shouldbe notionsused -- be isto used ofnotillustrate interspeaker byin sociolinguisticdefinition two things: antithetical analysis.one, the to another theoretical notion much used accommodation herestablishexample addressees, the (2) orientation shows. Janette, Lolanis forstruggling a usesstory thetoshe remember inclusiveis about tothe formtell, event. but yumi one toof But in practice there is some confusion about this, as quantitativeobservedtheory-internalsocial identities in methods. speakers' property in conversation The linguistic of process language, strategies. need of reflecting but not rather simply andcan be beconstituting assumed empirically as a J:L:(Malo,(2) F26yr): yeslong yes naet? Lolan (Malo, F31yr), Janetteit was (Malo, night? F30yr), Madelin referstheand speaker exclusive to the andspeaker distinction some and third the in party, addressee the 1 but p pronouns, not (and the perhaps addressee, i.e. mifalasome while other refers yumi third to Bislama, like most Oceanic languages, marks an inclusive J:mihem lukmi ya tinghem yumi se stap ya long saed blong opening atIit[and) think wasthe I openingwhen sawit was him we of were the theretelephone party). 1st (excl.) miSingular Pluralmifala 1 a,L: bringanbae blong of elda nohaos no blong telefon? eldersurn,house? the bring & buy3 for the Id2nd(incl.) hemyu olgetayufalayumi J:M:L: bringanbae blong eria elda no,wea? yu yu no bin kam elderstheno,where? bring you & weren't buy for there the area ThisTable is 3: shown Singular in exampleand plural (1), pronoun where contrasts the speaker in Bislama corrects today herself Technically, inclusion and exclusion are truth conditional. isLisette also widelyi karh used metaphorically, a fact that is not commented on The confusion here arises because the inclusive form yumi Lisette came thewhen same she interisland remembers shuttle that her plane.2 addressee once accompanied her on in 31990).the A "bringdescriptive In other and buy" words, grammars is a whetherfundraising of Bislama or notevent, the (Tryon often addressee for 1987, church was anor school. Crowley actual 38 community),where2 Examples they taken livetheir (Santo, fromsex and my theage. database urban identifycommunity; speakers Mato, by a pseudonym, the village 27 dinnerFamilies28 for make a small food, cost bring from it everyone'sto a central contributions. gathering and people buy their 39 Engendering Identities Meyerhoff U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) recently in work speakerhonorarymetaphoricallyco-agent intends participationor co-experiencer whento signal using to them.that the ofthe inclusiveWe an speaker cannotevent, pronoun issay prepared exactly to yumi can be used metaphorically what the extend byMcConnell-Ginetsocial,Vanuatu Greenwood or publicsociety, (1996), 1995), domains, that Bucholtz but two areas ofalso gender'(1996), the demonstrated most and It is absolutely clear, from even cursory contact Fought (this volume).membershipimportant in a family identities in with meaningandvumilike thisthis, is to effectofbut blur the it the canistwo enough intergroup be variant>, clearly to say boundaries mifaladerived that theand from between effectyumi. the ofThus, to some constitutes a perlocutionary differencesinterlocutors, inmetaphorical Forisclan. reflectedclosely women, Gender tied in is myin to linked particular, physicalidentification very maturation closely social of speakers to identity biologicaland child-rearing, as as asex woman "female" or "male"). in Vanuatu (as and this role is very extent,interlocutorstheact, addressee akinevery to metaphorical dubbing recognizeactively or identify naming.usethe strategyof withyumi Whether the as speaker,involving or a suspension of is an open question. The answer this use of yumi makes whether all the interactionalwithsalienceis not sex) as of open genderhas domains beento (generallycontestation discussed(religion, also social as recognizingfor it a isgrading, number in North its economicclose power, of socialAmerica. The relationship and isbelief ofbetweenimportancea moot the speech pointthe tospeaker's act. thefor interactants, this and paper, the addressee's particularlyalthough interpretations it if there are mismatchesof the effect play-acting, as it were is surely of some familyalsoRubinsteinand controlovertly group (1978),of commented landmembership andJolly reproduction) on(1987, by is my 1991), informants. in and Vanuatu Kciit by(1995), In the village community I worked in, the also directly commented on by Molisa significance(1983), of and it was thewithHowever, second respect [- inclusionto you] inclusion (Miihlhiiusler is both of the a referentialaddressee. & Harre property The 1990, first and isNoyer [+ an you] empathetic 1992). and The difference between yumi and mifala lies in their value decision- membersare"Down-coastal"area often discusses of reified the community. the and communities, salience maintained Rubinstein'sof the throughand distinction the (1978)fact that work family distinct naming patterns. between "Up-hill" and in the same groupings making,psychologicalmetaphoricaltheproperty family, even (e.g. whenetc. or people etc.).affective present; Thistalk orientationguests aboutmeans are "feeling" that invitedtowards when toleft the yumifeel outaddressee. like ofis usedpart I ofinwill a way, it is a clear indicator of a speaker's Evenreflectedthewhen incommunity, someoneinteractions in the metaphorical was or how thatexplaining towere pollinate use starkly how of yumi tovanilla, intergroupbehave as an I foundaround contexts, women e.g. The salience of sex and family membership are inclusion device. older men in directly in the termsargue3. ofthat communicative what we are accommodation.observing is a strategy best described in The Identities Ni-Vanuatupeculiarityhighlightedmyvillage outsider community of by statuswomen how the andpeopletopic freely would despite of addressedused conversation. sometimes the the fact inclusive me. use AsThis the example yumi was inclusive byto (2) meno formmeans to a that my stranger status was showed, despite contextualisingyears,thatandResponsible parametrizeare we most have sociolinguistics relevant seen theirvariation a findingsrenewed to the within speechhas inemphasis detailedaalways community community onbeen social this, carefulalong or withitself. ethnographic dimensions researchersto In describe recent differentbe customary. rights andThis However, responsibilities is manifested Ralston in of rather women(1992) different notesand men publicthat are the believedroles opposition in Vanuatu, to and the workobservations, on adolescents' perhaps thespeech most 4familiar 0 exemplar being Eckert's BEST COPY AVAILABLE (e.g. Eckert 1989, Eckert and 29 30changescolonialbetween inphenomenonof women's"man:culture:public" pre- in andmany post-colonial Pacific and "woman:nature:private" cultures. social Jollystatus (1987) in Vanuatu. discussesis a post- 41 Engendering Identities Meyerhoff U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) markedtheyextendcontrastiveeach wentother, the by toinclusive aof someprepositional their effort experien,:es.form to to phrase.avoid me, and it.Men In NPsometimes, (3), were possession Livai much startsas shownlessin Bislamato likely say in (3),'the tois even when the conversation topic was highly Eckertspeech,index'arguedintercultural and socialthat and McConnell-Ginet much Holmescommunication identities sociolinguistic (to byappear) building (1992)and neatly variationsocial andor illustrates maintainingpsychology. Cameron is actually this (1996) them Ochs anwith attempt through(1992),respecthave to place(3)that ofavoids ...', but the stops,need to choosing use a pronoun to recast at all. the utterance in a way Livai (Ma lo, M24yr ): onlymeaningkindsvariablesto lexical be of inferredexamplesassociated variablesthat have by because,with thatassociativea distributional havea raised, as semantic she meaning. fronted points correlation meaning (aw). out, Holmes thereWhat with providesisit aindexesno particular inherent both can and phonological tolonghem be piesisufficiently no yaolsem pies salient blong in most - conversations that, as (2) showed, Thus, the intergroup boundary between the genders seemed thisit isn't place like [our] place problematizedinclusionaresemanticsocial being category. cuesindexed. is contested byas Atothe Thisvariab!ewhen speaker byprocess indexing the aslike weaddressee, becomes yumi, sawis going in however, (3). onas andwe providessawwhat inidentities (2), clear or particularly clear when distinctivenessrequiredaddress(truth-conditionallywhen talking their some interlocutoramongst betweenequally more) strongthemselves relevant intergroup andwomen intergroup a woman identity could distinctions addressee. tooverride override So,other the as ill ingroup terms. Conversely, men and donethroughouttheprocess salience through can the ofchoicebe conversation, groupconceptualized of pronoun.identities. so within I the willThe negotiationthe show topic framework how remains thisof identities negotiation constant is In this section, I will examine an extended negotiation of of the model of highlightyumiexampleother it outgroup.was (4)a distinction shows, generally when between when men thedidthe conversationlocaladdress family me with groups had the shifted and inclusive some to 4pmchangescommunication on inMondays, how proposedthe market Wednesdays in isMeyerhoff run. Previously, and Niedzielski market had (1994). started at In example (5), Vosale and I have been discussing recent and Fridays and run for haomi(4) no nao save... yumi save go Obed (Maio, M18yrl: howI don't we know... should do it marketvillagedays,councilapproximately which ishadwomen very decidedcreated lucrative, 24who hourssometo took allow and problemsat their marketalonger time. produce andhoursto The start some newlythere.meant any opportunities time Onelectedmore theon money. those one regional for the hand,three On longblong [pies save blongkasem olgeta]wan sainting if wepeople[the want place uphill] to that get belongssomething to thefrom Vosalethechoice(of other up starts ofhand,to pronoun30 out longerhours) by in addressing hourssleepingresponse meant to andme my an withworking eveninvariable yumi, more at usebutthe exhaustingof a genericstint y_u.trestle tables. changes her That4. speakers' social identities are negotiated across situations and The Negotiations Cameron'spractices5'you'. Ochs (1992) both (1996) reflect introduces point and constructthat "index" this is socialto a refer process identities to the of fact that co-construction(cf. Butler is 1990). linguistic with different interlocutors is widely accepted in the realms of BEST COPY AVAILABLE 31 32well-taken and should be assumed in the discussions following. 43 Engendering(5) Identities Vosale (Ma lo, F31yr) and Miriam: Meyerhoff andherU. addresseewho Penn doesn't Working is an make outsider Papers her livinginwho Linguistics she by knows selling food at the market. doesn't have a garden Volume 4.1 (1997) karemgoV: longbae ol yumigaren ting karemi kam long ol ting haos... ya bringgowe to(incl.) theeverythingand garden have then to you're home... bring at everything market y_11inclusiveHowever,of generically,inclusiveness form, I miss yli, though the calquedof significance yumi. directly In her of fromnext this turn, naturally it lacks the inherent connotations English. Bislamaand replydoes use with the lessVosale accommodates M:wanV: mo deafta wan tu naetyu stap long maket yes,long bewan yu de stap mo longwan maketnaet forbutayes, a day day you but and and getyou're a a nightas night muchat market too money as for behavior,whatofto myundertaking webehavior sharethis isthis and is a aaccommodativemore replies set ofpragmatic with communicative the gesture sameclaim thanis tonorms. assert form I used. The effect the shared group merelyGiven that my olsembe saposyesyu karembekopra, yumikopra vatua... katemsemak bigwan kopra copra,dryifyes we andiseh (incl.)in ... copra's hot cutair thecopra same saliencemeidentity with assertedof yumi. and inclusiveness byIt seemsher use that of inherent the inclusive in our vumi. shared gender Shortly after this, however, Vosale reverts to addressing she is again trying to affirm the identity. M:fomaetsaposyumi taosen be yu smokemilong kasem no wansave tu long deibagkasem longhot eamaket 4000youif there'sbut might [vatu in onetwo notpayment] daybags get at the market Again,thirdintergroupof the Itime, replyconversation. orVosale in interpersonal a way uses thatIt isthe confuses uncleardistinction yumi which whatthe in interpersonal our Iindicates think conversation the that most the is. salient group For a dimension yuyumiV: save wan savekasem de kasemlong maket, faef, fohernia tacsen weoneyou (incl.) daycan atget? gocanmarket, get 5,yeah 4000... sharedmembershiphypothesis,aresuggests not one, shared that andshe and for perceives forones. meaccepts a thirdthe Vosale mostis thattime, most now salientshe I salient reply isappears dealingidentities non-inclusivelyto the to with give conversationin the someoneup which is who a conversation her initial yumistapbeM: yumi wan bitimyu deiyugo pei wango blongwetem naet wankopra dei... thanwestaydo (incl.) afor you day [a goget abag night with more of] andyour copra money a friends? day...... arevisionviews process(1981) our attitudes and knowninteraction Weber asin 'bookkeeping'theand as light anCrocker intergroup of disconfirming (1983). has encounter.been In thisdescribed information case, This the byincremental consequence through Rothbart alesaposV:ol fren i gat mifala blong tu o triyu...fo i go fastaem yes... well,ifyes... four there'll of us (excl.) be 2 or go 3 aheadothers is thataretheconsistently madestarttopic. Vosale of salientFor example switchesuses the (circumstances mifala,rest (5), toof theandthe both exclusive tapeeven when under (approximately when speaking whichform, other Imrfala, intergroup notedin generalities45 thatminutes),to wind evencontrasts upasmen she at aleoli olimifala kam i stap we long olgeta long Naone Ban Vosale starts out using the inclusive vumi, the form theyatwell, comeNaone we behind (excl.)Ban wait for them adjusteventuallydivergencemight heruse linguistic theleads from inclusive herthe behavior tosocial redrawforms space accordingly. withher shemap me).6 has of Mymappedour systematicconversation out for linguistic us and both to appropriate for a conversation between two women, even though44 33 6 In34 subsequent conversations, inclusive forms were used again. 45 Engendering Identities Meyerhoff U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) theMy5. apparentlygoal in this evanescent paper has linkbeen between to pin down speakers' with identities some confidence and their The Conclusions Bucholtz,Bourhis,References Richard Mary 1996. Y. and Geek, Howard the girl.Giles Paper presented at the 4th ethnicityintergroup and distinctiveness. intergroup relations. In Howard London. Giles 119-135. (ed.) Language, 1977. The language of dresslinguisticreliablevariables style. data, variablesbehavior. I thathave this possess argued canas What it be can thatsome Idone hopefor "reliable inherentnon-linguistic with I have as data", shownmeaning.much in variables thisconfidenceis that Icase, have by such meansusing tried for as to Cameron,Butler, Judith Deborah 1990. 1996. Gender The Trouble: language-gender feminism interface:and the subversion challenging of AprilBerkeleyidentity. 1996. Language London Routledge. and Gender Conference. UC, Berkeley. identitiesappear)linguisticindicate through has the variable made very convergent the tocreative negotiatepoint that orway divergent and the in constructinvestigation which behavior. speakers social of Holmes theseand may personal sorts use(to ofa Crowley, Terry 1990. From Beach-la-mar to Bislama: The emergence of practice.a(eds)co-optation. national Rethinking London/NY: language In Victoria Language Longman. in Vanuatu. Bergvall, and 31-53. Gender Oxford: Janet BingResearch: Oxford and Alice theory Freed and University methodologicallymeaningful.significancevariables is essentialof, I havee.g. realistic, phonological, triedin order as to well showto strengthenas variables being that thistheoretically that our areclaims not desirable. inherentlyabout the Thus, there is a place for communicative accommodation kind of work is Eckert, PenelopePenelope 1989. and Sally The whole McConnell-Ginet woman: Sex and gender meaning,inPress. variation. constructing Language Variationselves: snapshots and Change of language, 1. 245-268. gender 1995. Constructing differences measuredthatourwithinstrategies analysesthe the principles practiceagainst of of accommodation variation. patternsof accommodationsociolinguistics, However, depends it areand onis importantknowingonly it can substantive directly a togood remember assist deal when aboutin of variation. Interpreting apparent Eisikovits, Edina 1987. Sex differences in inter-group and infra -group andandinteraction(eds) class Language Gender from among BeltenArticulated. in Australian adolescents. High. New In and Kira York: In New AnneHall Routledge.Zealand andPauwels Mary Society. 469-507. (ed.) Bucholtz WomenSydney: languagethewell general as itself. paying social attentionand communicative to sometimes norms subtle of the semantic interlocutors, cues in as the offer Giles,Fought Howard this volume and Nikolas Coupland 1991. Language: Contexts Consequences.Australian Professional Pacific Grove, Publications. CA: Brooks/Cole. 45-58. (eds) 1988. Communicative and interactionsociolinguistics.simplyactively be (co-)constructed.where a last identity Itditch focuses save and Communicative interspeakerourof messy attention data, relations accommodation on which the are pointsit sodisputed often needin an isor not in In return, accommodation theory has much to Giles,Coupland, Howard, Nikolas Donald and M. Howard Taylor, GilesRichard Y. Bourhis 1973. Accommodation:theoryCommunication (special edition) 8, 3/4. of interpersonal Recent accommodationdevelopments. through Language Towards a speech: and linguistssociolinguistics, to apply butits principlesin order for with it torigor, avoid and this not fate, hindsight. it is up to Greenwood, Alice 1996. Floor management and power strategies in Aliceadolescentsometheory CanadianFreed and conversation. (eds) practice. data. Rethinking Language London/NY: In Victoria Language in Society, Longman. Bergvall, and 2. Gender Janet77-97. Research: Bing and 177-192. 413 BEST COPY AVAILABLE 35 36 4'7 Engendering Identities Meyerhoff U Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) Hindle, Donald Morris 1979. The Social and Linguistics,of Phonetic UniversityVariation. ofUnpublished Pennsylvania. PhD, Situational Conditioning Department of social factors traditionally used in studies of An important secondary question, though, sufficientmajority soundfor anis whether the Jolly, Margaret 1987. The chimera of equality in Margaret colonialism17, 2. 168-183. 1991. and The dccolonisation politics of in difference: Melanesia. Mankind.Vanuatu. feminism, In Gill change,inhasexplanation sociolinguistics. been such an as increasingof age, sociolinguistic gender, As focusEckert and on variation(1991:213) socialthe use class, of in ethnographic observes:this are community. "The use of techniques There Kent, Robert K. 1995. Judgment in the Supreme Court of the of&Intersexions:Bottom Unwin).Vanuatu, ley, 52-74. Luganville,gender, class, Santo. culture, Case ethnicity. no. 18 (Sydney: of 1994 (JohnAllen Marie dc Lepervanche, Jeannie Martin Republic (eds) thediscoverethnographynon-traditionallinguistic community the form." social in the in Eckert'sgroups, question,study of categoriesown variation and work to hasandexplore allows showndivisions thetheir the researcher importance to social categories, namely the categories particular torelation to of Meyerhoff,Molisa, Grace Miriam Mera and 1983. Nancy Blai Niedzielskik Stone. Suva: Mana Publications. Languagecreolization:Noel vs andObed Communication. Toto). 19 April 14,1995. 4. 313-330. an interpersonal and 1994. intergroup Resistance account. to wasnew.differentAndadolescent evidence Mendoza-DentonAs early gangs. "jocks" thatas TheLabov's gangand use "burnouts"1995membership 1972of community-specific explores study (e.g. canin theEckert play role an 1987, of categoriesmembership Eckert is not Harlem, for example, there important role in 1991). in Niedzielski,Milhlhausler, Peter and Rom 1 larre 1990. Pronouns and People: The accommodation.Oxford:linguistic Basil Blackwell. In Nancy construction of socialand and personal identity. H.,ward 1 t. Goebl, P.H. Nelde, Z. Stary and W. Giles to appear. Linguistic thesociolinguisticcommunity'ssociolinguistic social studies structure. in which the external factorsbasis are selectedof tradition, on variation. rather than on observationHowever, of the there are still many Noyer, RobertAutonomousofWolck contemporary (eds) Contact Morphological research. Linguistics: Berlin: De an Gruyter. international handbook Rolf 1992. Features, Structure. PhDPositions dissertation, and Affixes in 2.2.1. Social Groups Ochs, Elinor 1992. Indexing gender, In Alessandro Duranti and Charles UniversityGoodwinWorkingDepartment Papers(eds) Press. of RethiokingLinguistics in 33 Linguistics. i -358. Context. Cambridge: Cambridge and Philosophy, MIT: MIT themselvescategoriesAmong the andcameLatino others. up young again In many adults, and ways again several the asmost non-traditional ways intriguing of identifying of these, Gang-related Groups social Rothbart,Ralston, CarolineMyron 1981. 1992. Memo' The ystudy processes of women and social in the beliefs. Pacific. In David The IntergroupL.Contemporary Hamilton Behavior. (ed.) Pacific. Cognitive Hillsdale, 4, 1. 162-175. Processes NJ: Lawrence in Stereotyping Erlbaum. 145- and gangmemberandgangs.important certainly member (alsoFirst arethe butgang-banger,of mosttheall, he severalrelationshipsknows salient gangsterthem."students in the non-gangmedia, wereor cholo/chola). describedis themembers category to But me have of as gang to the It was clear from looking at equally "not a Rubinstein, Robert L. 1978 Placing the Self on Malo: An account of dissertation,the181 culture Bryn of Malo Mawr Island, College, New Bryn Hebrides. Mawr, Unpublished PA. Ph.D. Cheshire 1982. and"knows"typeseveral a of little ofcontext. everyone these about cases Everyone them.else that in Thisknowthe at usual specializedthis means smallsense, something school,i.e., use knows of specific forknow theirexample, means in name this Thakerar, Jitendra Psychological48 N., Howard Giles and Jenny and linguistic parameters of speech 37 40something like "have a connection with," or "sometimes spend 49 U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) CambridgeAdvancesaccommodation in University the Socialtheory. Press. Psychology In C. 205-255. Fraser of and Language. K.R. Scherer Cambridge: (eds) A Majority Sound Change in a Minority Community Weber,Tryon, Darrell Renee 1987.and Jennifer Bislama: Crocker an introduction 1983. Cognitive to the national processes language in the Australianofrevision National of stereotypic University. beliefs. Journal ofVanuatu. Personality and Pacific Linguistics, D-72. Canberra: The 1. Introduction Carmen Fought University619 Williams of PennsylvaniaHall Social Psychology. 45. 961-977. studyfromhaveMany comestudies of thevariation from importantof speakers the in studyminority theoretical of ofAnglo majority communities, developments ethnicity communities, in however, urban in sociolinguistics settings. particularly is making The mhoffPhiladelphia, @ ling. upenn. PA 19104-6305 edu groupManysociolinguisticincreasinglyin the havesociolinguistic sound reported significant questionchanges that studies ischaracteristicminority contributions whether focusing groups minority of on todo the themore notgroups majority participate than have onecommunity. any ethnic role field. A logical in the andto(1994:157)same Harristhea national locallocal soundvernacularsuggests pattern changes that ofdevelopment ethnickoine as Anglo minorityformation speakersat all, speakers but within (Labov are insteadare the 1966; not nonwhite oriented 1986; Bailey and Maynor 1987). And Labov Labov ofbetweenlocalgroups. western dialect However 15 Los andfeatures Angeles.32 there years by minorityare of Many someage who ofspeakers, studies them mostly attendthat such live do as Westsidein show Poplack a single the 1978.Park useregion (a This study will focus on a group of Latino young adults of (whichmonolingualconductedhadpseudonym), learning I also orspeakEnglishthe disciplinary local natively) speakers, continuation problems with and the schoolin atbilingual both the forregular English studentsspeakers. high and who school.TheSpanish have sociolinguistic interviews in English with data the I CaliforniamainwhichpresentedLos questionAngeles.is a hereAnglovariety focus I Dialect willof theonly address dialectplay on theany isknown English whetherrole in as the ofChicano the theseChicano features youngEnglish. adults, English of of the The 38 U Penn Working Papers in Linguistics, Volume 4.1, 1997 51 A Majority Sound Change Fought U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) whotimethe grewwith." gang. up as friends of the gang members, or who want to An example of someone in this categoryIt is often Reina, applies who to people who have family in gangs, be in highcategoryintersecting school that withstudents. one it, would is Ithe knew assumecategory that ata of Westside parent or mom. Distinct from gang-related identity, although priori to be important among Park there would be This is not a sometimes at the abouthasmembersanotherwho a brothera stoppedtime area thatwhen in her of theshe she theand Culver isn't was city.her "from almost brotherCity In the anywhere,"gang. shot whennarrative byShe theymembers told clearly Reinawere a revealing ofdriving indicatingtells a rival the through storygang gang that studentsmayantoschool class.individual be whoitself, additional But had thewhichmuch babies, mom categories moreallows identity and students there at was is anwith infant babies care to center frequently than I expected. Though there Westside Park that I was not usedable as part of a description of continue going suchisshe affiliatedgroupimportant is as not thisknown herself with one. subset as the aHer wanna-bes,gang gangof narrative the member. and people issuch appearsinvolved And who as Davidyet know in in through Appendix gang-related gang her members A.brother, incidentsAnother isshe the and Chuck, who are not to In3.observe, order theseto address were the the most question salient. of whether these speakers are /u/-fronting in English whoin,ganggangs. i.e., have,members, initiated In and many wantbutinto hang places,the to gang.have, around young no with association adults them are whatsoever by with the In contrast to people who know gangsters, there are those and hope to be jumped default not gang nativeAngloessentialparticipatingcentury Californiancommunity. to and know in fromsound speakerssomethingHinton the changes et1950's. with al. about 1987 characteristicdialect They thecompared materials Englishlooked ofa sample fromofCalifornia,at theseveral early majorityof young in vowelit the is memberscategorymember.makecommunity. a becausechoice of I "gang However, determining that status" choice all is the as whetherwould muchspeakers nevera orpart Inot interviewed presentof they the linguisticwould itself have inbe identity theirahad gang to stress this point because I believe that the social speakersdatathevariants, vowels were onefrom collected.in of the Los which study Angeles isMy hadthe own alsofrontingshifted interviewsshow in of California evidence/u/. They with offound sinceyoung the variablesthatthe Anglo earlyall of theboundariesthemselves.constructed group. comes by the from non-gang those outside members, as well as asit isfrom for those the cholos inside Linguistic behavior aimed at maintaining group Latinomentionedcollectedsalient. young intokens Hinton adults, of fouret I al.,did peripheral witha preliminary /u/-fronting vowels analysis in being English: particularly in whichlil, /u/, I To check for Jile presence of /u/-fronting among the 2.2.however,traditionalThe students alsoin behavior who includes have and therejected more taggers, law-abiding. the known gangs Themainlyare non-ganggenerally for creating group, more Non-gang Groups andtookgenerated F2) 1e,measurements for by each an vowelAutocorrelation of the token. first and analysissecond formant of speech frequencies samples, (F1 There wasfor a great 32 of deal the of speakers. variation Usingin the locationspectrographic of /u/ data I perceivedconnectiongraffiti,gangs. who in with arethe oftenthecommunity gang anti-social. members as completely Nonetheless, or gang activities,separate taggers from haveand aretheno whileofvariation.individualon Ramon's theAvery F2 Ramon(Figure speakers axistokens among (Figure2)are can shows so be thefar 1) usedno frontspeakers.shows significant to as illustrate a to high overlap A fronting comparisonlevel the with extremesof at /W- hisall. /i/fronting, Some ofspace, this of two 52 BEST COPY AVAILABLE 41 42 5° A Majority Sound Change Figure 1: Ramon English Vowels Fought U Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Figure 2: Avery English Vowels Volume 4.1 (1997) 2200 1950 1700 f2 1450 1200 950 700 150 2700 2450 2200 1950 P2 1700 1450 1200 950 700 200 f1 whilevisualexample, all appraisalof overlappingAvery's of tokens differences with remain /a./ in inF2 well the space. back,F2 ofI will none/u/ followwith of them,a thisfull quickforscale tracts.todiagonallycloseness normalize For to opposedeach /i/ for and speaker, differences infrontness the Ivowel took inrelative thespace,the sizesmean to they /a/. of of cantheSince their be used/i/ and together /a/ are speakers' vocal individual /u/ CaliforniaRamon,isquantitative the striking are Anglo analysistaking fact community. that part of theat in least variable.a sound someIn contrast change of the withLatinothat characterizesthe speakers, results of e.g., the Not to be overlooked in the general discussion, however, torelativetoken fronted.studythe frequency)ratios frontness.had shownone ofmean This /u/-fronting, large gives for variations u-to-i a measure relevant closeness, in ofdegree be.. the ause anddegree among one (as forpeople u-to-a the preliminary opposed who changesnonwhitestudies observablementioned speakers indo earlier, the sometimes majority these community. participatedata support in thethe same claim sound that In the main part of the analysis, I begin by looking only at speakerscoefficientbetweenfor 34 of ofthethe isthis speakerstwo.78, community. pfronting < in.001), the measures study.Iand have significant Theincluded (the chart Pearson variation twoshows Anglo acorrelation correlationamong speakers the Figure 3 presents these values graphed against each other 54 andthe most preceding favorable palatals. contexts The for /u/-fronting fronting: preceding variable involvesalveolar stopsboth 43 44on the chart (Helena and Richard, in boldface) to serve as 55 Volume 4.1 (1997) A Majority Sound Change Noe hkiatirg (AO *dos 1 Fought U Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Rgue 4: /tHroreng and &dal Sate 08 075 08 075 Sti 6 .111163 SA Mena Q7 Erb Veneta Rii..aw Amos Mona *Ma Q7 Fla Biol so to Rohm DAV 086 Cru:k II Artois FIAY rolt U. . Jaws fn a Disif 0 065 C hris Jos fay Pte loss Mita e tidE 06 Oris Jaws Samar 0 -Ilk .14161 LL04E ..trizo awls 6-1115ft B MW -Al- LL 0.55 Siro6:1 II &VI-E Coca so 0 Q55 Atria MN03 ftilla I SUM al Speaker 05 I 0.5 0 i] 8 OWNociil Cless Awry We 671 , ( regular = Latinobo Speaker d =Anglo Speaker 045 Awry Raw 1 0 Wadcing ClassJ Low hie and Ihe In ProjecaLosdnacene 045 1 1 iI Q4 I I , ../ reference points for04 /u/-froming075 in the majority community. The 085 nss 1.C6 u4122ralice 1.15 1.3 i 1.3 l 1.45 1.3 monolingual.is 075 Though the data willthat not some be presented of them in aredetail bilingual in this and some of themQ85 are 016 1.05 li4 F2ratfos1.15 1.35 1.45 1.55 evaluationThethosespeakers distribution who that frontof which appear /u/ generally the speakers in most. the coincides tpperThosesound right likein wellthe theyquadrant lower with have leftmy offronted front ownthe graph theauditory/u/s. least. are canrestspeakerpaper, beof Iassumedthe foundwas paper, monolingual no to correlation whenmean thesignificant (in levelbetween English) of at significance /u/-the or .05frontingbilingual. is Here, as in the level. and whether the unspecified it Before4.1.4. identifying the social factors that correlate with this BilingualsSocial Categories and Monolinguals and /u/-fronting 4.2.onlabeledFigure the basis for4 shows social of factors theclass. same relevant Their /u/-fronting social to the class community, chart ranking with suchwas the determined as speakers Social Class whether Onevariable, of the I mostwould salient like tolinguistic mention facts an interestingabout this group negative of speakers result. 5E; BEST COPY AVAILABLE they46occupations, live in a houseetc. The or speakers apartment, in the their lowest own class or theirare labeled parents' "low 5 Fought A Majority Sound Change Hague /t =1i rg aid Gin &Iglus least?U Penn To Working answer Papersthese questions, in Linguistics it is necessary to look at factors Volume 4.1 (1997) Milo Raritn X othersuch than as gang social status. class that figure prominently in this community, Q75 Si Jilt Mem *a Ma 0 Figure4.3. 5 shows the relationship of gang status to /u/-fronting. The Gang Status Q65Q70 ,..fita0 Etta x0 MI iiimis v,* ch fr. Clisy 0 foundsocialpattern inclass. is the in Ganglowestsome membersways part of reminiscent the and chart, those while of affiliated that the which highest with was the /u/-fronting seengang are for a QE0 Ctris II Tay Xt- Mr1a thevalues result occur is mainlyhighly insignificant people who at havethe 001 no gang level. affiliation, Once more, and NLLz ass &rctci rai Jig3 SI B Osar A however,connectiongang member, there toare hasthe some verygang, salient high shows exceptions./u/-fronting, very low Amanda, while values. Roberto, a CulverThe possibly City with no A gall mambo,.GANG not STATUS cC - not"former" unexpected gang membersresult given are their spread different across histories, the range which of values, I do not a Q45 Awry ti a L-M3----Hit, .0 AmorgamO .0) pap Immix, 'MOWnal or 'MAW nag lintywill gangsm rnorrbat. cc paps lessMarinahave since time and becomingto Rita discuss are still moms.in detail technically here. Igang simply members, want to but mention participate that In sum, Figure 5 shows a strong 0/0 I 1.05 1.15 aX Stew 1A5 ../ 1.55 exceptionsaffiliatedrelationship individuals noted between above fronting gang(e.g., Amanda)status less andthan remain. /u/-fronting, other speakers. with But gang- the income"075 since this is the community term for them. The chart ass Q95 Ike F2 ribs 1.Z 5.5.1. InteractingInteractions Social Among Factors Social and the Factors Role of Gender tendencyshowsoppositeend, aand correlation for theend the working ofmiddle the between chart. classclass A speakers/u/-frontingand t-test low of toincome the fall and means_ at social speakersthe higher-fronting for class, middleto fallwith at class a the outdistributiontendencies,The certain analysis striking ofbut of/u/-fronting no social exceptions.single factors amongfactor Furthermore, so thesehas far been hasspeakers shownable withoutto manyexplain leaving clear the the "exceptional" speakerssignificanceversuslowestSylvia working stronglyandpart Veronica level.of classthe contradict socio-economicBut and heavy a lowlook this hi/-fronters, income atpattern. Figure scale? speakers Why, given 4 What reveals forthat meetsare example, they thatmiddle-class fall some areat the the .05 theseconsistentexampleindividuals particular recurrence with were respectindividuals different of theto the same for were normalization. each speakers anomalous social that factor, Several one in some wouldas opposed way, expect to studies, such as thefor if speakers like David and Chuck doing in the group that fronts the 47 48lookingEckert 1989 for interactions and Labov among 1990 variables.have stressed If instead the importanceof ofexamining 59 U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) A Majority Sound Change looking at Fought [Rgse & hi4Vording In %%taw Inpatterneachthe the social speaker next of factorsvariation section as, ine.g. ofisolationemerges "athe gang-affiliated, paper, inwe which takeI will their gendershow working intersections, that men class -plays a crucial role. and women male," a 126 havedifferentlyin awhich different linguisticin twoordering communities. constraints of social constraints, on a rule parallel might to be ordered the way 0.75 Q7 CO s.. VIN0673 pijna Mask' .-,lc Hamm ri statusspeakers and separated their social by sex,class. and The labeled speakers to show both Figures 6 and 7 show the degree of /u/-fronting for who "know" gang their gang 065 am eta MC CU cagy ED members are labeled as "gang-affiliated," and taggers, as discussed C11 e Q6 as differenceearlier,low income are had included speakersno statistical with were the significance. combinednon-gang asgroup. "working Working class", class since and this U. 0.55 Mite Glass/Gap Status la Females 5.2. Women 1113IC Maids Cl ala Gang Members working Cam Gang Members As can be seen in Figure 6, for women non-gang affiliation is the 0.45 a5 %ha El CDaaC WagWaking WON Gam Clesa Cam Gong NoGang MotionAffiliation I strongest social variable affecting fronting. Note that I am not CD Waking Cs Non-Gong appearsub-groupreferring in tothe of the uppernon-gang general right speakers.category quadrant "gangThe of the women status", chart, with except but no to forgangthe specific ties all Sol, who 0.4 0.75 995 Q95 1.05 1.15 125 1.45 1.55 hasFigurewomendegreebe a heardvery 4 of werehigh appeared tofronting front fromratio /u/. lowerfortothan have Interestingly,only Helena, socio-economic a one negative ofthe the AngloSylvia effectmeasures, groups, speaker. showson fronting buta an Many can even generally. clearly of higher these factor which in gang,Magda clearly and Reina, pattern who with are the gang-affiliated women who are but gang not themselves U4 F2 ratios members. in a /u/-fronting,womenVeronica,correlation as afor group, at whileinstance, p < social.007. gang lives class status inwas the showed not Projects. a significant a highly However, for the Social class status does have an important secondary role, determiner of significant non-gangsocialstatusgang-affiliated statuscontributing women, leads women,who to to alla alower show socialhigh levelsomelevel class of ofis /u/-fronting. /u/-fronting,crucial, with Grouping middle class the In sum, then, social class does not affect /u/- fronting for degree of fronting. But for while lower though.differencefallstatushow highermuch Forfall justat isthey onthe significant.the thefront.bottom gang-affiliated chart. Gang of As th.Though members inchart. the women, case Thosethe with of numberssocial with Amanda,lower middleclass socio-economic are determinesit classsmall,is possible status the thatfactorsseemed are in highly thisanomalous way statistically yields before correlations can significant, be seen with to andfit the the thelinguistic pattern. speakers variable who somefor middle non-gang class women. gang members It should to alsofront be as noted much that as or women more than 0 BEST COPY AVAILABLE like 49 50 01 A Majority ,Sound Change Fought U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) Figure 7: /ubfronOng In Men 0 080 1 ramco :parron CD I 0.700 75 Roust W 085 . 111 . mono Wiry 0 Tony AIMS 1 1 060 SorrJie Chris II CsJesus Cli Sas I. T Clasa/Gla ag Status la Was o 0.50055 I CE13 WorkingPaddle Mitts CassClan Gloss Gang Gang AffIliaton Mambos Members eA38 a c u 0.45 Avery CDEl WM. Wonting Gina Clan Non-Gang Non-Gang Waldrop Oar Gang AlIlliatan "a Eoc2, "E r Q 2 0.40 0.75 0.65 0.25 1.05 u-a F2 ratios 1.15 1.25 1.15 1.45 1 1.55 oc c; 5.3. Men .94 a,a Figure7,seentheIn showinglooking effect from 6, particularly of a next the simplegender men at the correlation isonly, as malealso regards looks clearly speakers, with thesuperficially delineated, groupthe it linguisticwill of becomehighest verythough variable. different fronters.evident it cannot Figure from thatThe be groupfactorgroup,socialtop 6 women showsbutclass. except not aBut /u/-fronters,for significantfor allwomen Richard, of the ascorrelationfor top athe example, group. 6 Anglo men withOn are werespeaker. the /u/-frontingfrom mixedother the The hand, with middle socialfor respectnon-gang men classclass as to a arewomen.statusisfronting the tied does highest toAll regionsocialnot the fronters,have non-gangofclass. thethe Thechart;butsame thosestatusnon-gang strongfor men,in women theeffect men however, working whoforwere men are theclassin alsothat thenon-gang group, middleithigh had like/u/-factorfor class Roberto, fall at the middle or low end of the /u/-fronting scale. 51 52 63 A Majority Sound Change Fought U Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) regardingvariable. theThe ordering effect of gangof social affiliation correlates is much of stronger the linguistic for men. There are other ways in which men and women differ middlelabels, thisclass... means the upper working class and lower theirFigureappearsGang-affiliated social 6); in class. thisthe topcould womenHowever., part be ofhad attributed Figure nonemore of7or to(comparable theless the male fronting fact gangthat todepending there Amandamembers are noon in nitygroupsIn frontinginan ofprogress". earlier Loswith includes Angeles sectionhighest However, women Labov andwe findlowest in (1994: from the that socialChicano both the62) group notesmiddlestatus English thatwith class "the thespeaking backgrounds highest commu- and disfavor the changes occupational /u/- members,group,aremiddle two David classgang-affiliated in the andmale lower Chuck. gang part speakers membersThese of the two chart. who in speakers the belong sample. pattern to the However, with the theregang Generally, then, the men and the women show orderings middle class theofstrongvery gang variable low effect status, socioeconomic thanof whichnon-gang social showed class, statusbackgrounds. acan strongeron only/u/-fronting. be statisticalThis understood is Yet correlation even completely the with partly due to the effect theyrepresentationareof these mirror correlate two imagessocial ofwith the factor /u/-ofordering each fronting.groups other. and (social interactionsFor Diagram women,class and ofA non-gang gang socialgives status) factors a status that as visual betweenexplanationssocialwhen itclass. is men taken andfor in women. theconjunction differences In particular, with in the the othernon-gang ordering factors status of of constraints gender has a veryand In conclusion, I would like to suggest some possible withofdetermineswithincorrelates /u/-fronting. relatively the groupconsistentlywhether lowFor of the/u/-fronting. thewomen men, speakerwith gang connected a Withinhighexhibits affiliation degree the to a thehighernon-gang correlates of gangs, /u/-fronting. or lowergroup, socialconsistently degree socialclass But "burnouts"),buthighis not parallelimpact for working on asto reportedfrontingthat ofclass adolescents forby men. Eckertall women,Why? (1987:106-108). in Itthe and may Detroit for be middle that area She the ("jocks"class notessituation men, that and 6.class determines the degree of /u/-fronting. Implications membership:social pressure related to gender can conflict with social category beGirls friendly are still and expected docile... to Boys, be 'good' on the in other wayshand, -are to traditionalOnedistributionsound intriguing change curvilinear result in progress of pattern. this I in esearch In California, the studies is the showsfact of "untargeted" that a pattern/u/-fronting, of sound social a in the Latino community that does not fit the genderconservativethemselves...expected'tough' norms, tourban be Just physicallycorporate normsburnout as the and jock powerfulgirlssocial conservative boys are norms are andcaught caught able gender and betweento between 'tough'defend norms. leadchange the donechange, on asmajority summarized communities, in Labov the (1994:156): interior social classes associatedIn the study more of /u/- with fronting middle in Losclass Angeles, membership use of andthe variablenon-gang is is class adolescence.youngermostUnitedThe pattern advanced States. speakers: now Furthem In theseemsvowel youngcourse Lore, clear,systems oftheseadults changeat leastinnovators are and fromforfound youth cities below, are among in foundin latethe classnon-gangstandardsmembershipspeakers. membership. status,that and pressure gang-affiliatedand This also makesthem with to it the speakers. beeasier conservative"good" for For even etc. women, dovetailthose norms women the of well societalmiddle withwho Non-use associated more with working locatedamong in"interior the class groups" hierarchy....In - that is,terms groups of social64 centrally class 53 are54 from the lowest socio-economic backgrounds to use language 65 A Majority Sound Change Fought heU goes, Penn 'Oh, Working I'm sorry, Papers I'm in sorry' Linguistics and then he left. But like, be- Volume 4.1 (1997) societymiddlewhynorms female associatedclass. gang withmembers the middle !night classfront group,/u/ if they and were also fromsuggests the However, societypressures men to be "tough," to defend themselves and this is maximally true of Latino byIfore used some, I would, to likelook um....gangs." like aBefore gangster...before. I think I w- I- And told- I theyused usedto get to chased,tell me forexpresssortsphysically, the of women, theirqualities, etc. disassociation Sinceeven it mayamonggang bemembership from men more the who difficult gang have emphasizes linguistically made for Latino a exactlyclear than men choice these it tois ReferencesBailey, Guy and Natalie MaynorSociety (1987).16: 449-73. Decreolization? Language in non-gangenoughthenotassociated combinationto be to gang override men with members. ofare "toughness," thetheir from pressure class When the status theto workingthese sound pressure and men non-gang"tough." class, are on alsotheir However, membership middle speech class,patternswhen is another group Eckert, Penelope (1989).(1987). Theinthe variation.Variation, wholerelativeFifteenth woman. values Language101-110. Annual ofSex variables.Conference Variationand gender Proceedings and ondifferences Change New Ways of1:245-68. of Analyzing Appendixis greater, and A: results Reina's in less harrativeu/-fronting. Eckert,Hinton, PenelopeLeanne (1991). et Change,al. SocialCaliforniavariants. (1987). polarizationSan It's InDiego, English. P.not Eckert justCA: and theAcademic the(ed.), Valley choice New Press, Girls:of Ways linguistic 213-32. A of study Analyzing of Sound Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual whichCause"Me(Brackets: and brother,we my wentcomments brother, the to goolder by dropwe brotherthe almost off interviewer. his ?] got girlfriendThe sha- older "hh": shot. atone. soft work.[CF: And laughter.) Oh,[CF: we really?]stopped Mhm, Labov, WilliamWilliam (1966). (1972). The Language SocialEnglishCity.Meeting Washington, Stratification Vernacular.inof the InnerBerkeley D.C.: ofPhiladelphia:City: English LinguisticsCenter Studies infor NewU. in AppliedSociety, ofthe York Pennsylvania Black Linguistics.117-127. Press. from,thatSantaat a redhad youMonica light. the know, gun It stopped was stoodCulver in Santaus,by City. myand Monica, side,they andgot then offkept somethe asking car. gangsters And me ifthe Ifrom wasone nd I told him hh I wasn't from Labov,Labcv, William (1994). Principles of Linguistic Change Volume 1: William (1990). TheInternal2:205-54.course intersection of Factors. linguistic ofCambridge, sex change. and social MA:Language Blackwellclass inVariation the Publishers. and Change respecttheythatgoes,anywhere. you justmy'You wannastopped,sister.' knowAnd theyget Hewhat? and notgoes, already th- Ather. and 'You're-least Don't knew they dowereyou'remy nothing brother. like, the `Naaah,one- to Then my I'm sister.' mynah, the brother it'sone And all if you don't respect me, at least Mendoza-Denton,Labov, William and Norma Wendell (1995). Harris Gang (1986). affiliation De facto and segregation linguistic variation of black chrony,andamong white Amsterdam highvernaculars. school and Latina Philadelphia:In D. Sankoff,girls. Paper John ed., Benjamins,presented Diversity at and1-24. NWAVE Dia- beforerespec-wereyouright, go, about it's they you're just cool, toleft don't shoot,disrespecting it'shh onetellcool.' but anybodyof like Andthe my myguys then sister.thisbrother got they're happened.' off And told and like, they 'em, asked 'We're justAnd you for left, know, gonnamy num- dis- let they- they and hh 3861Poplack, N. Poppyseed Ln, #B bilinguals.XXIV inShana Philadelphia. Language (1978). in Society 7: 89-103. Dialect acquisition among Puerto Rican ber!give hhh you And my they number got me after mad! you And tried I- toand shoot I said, me!' 'I'm hhh not And gonna then 55 [email protected], CA 91302 67 U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) behavior. This Addressing The Actuation Question for Local Linguistic Communities* Lisa Ann Lane ethnography,includepapersocialaddress hopesbehavior the to actuationsocial demonstrate to then networks question be reflected that and for by social local in linguistic linguistichistory, it is linguistically external evidence expanding our data sets to fromcommunities. possibleethnology, to exploredQuestions1. by concerning linguists. language contact and change have long Introduction Notably, the Neogrammarians investigated been In2. order to address the actuation question, we must Framing the Actuation Question first identify exceptionsthe(1968)contact regularity seminal wasin the ofone predicted soundarticle such change notfactor. regularity, only and bridged theand factors proposedhistorical contributing that linguistics language to and Weinreich, Labov and Herzog's linguisticdistributionsourwhat main it is goal normwe areofis fornotlinguistic to aonlystudy. specified to variables,Asgain sociolinguistsgroup an ofwhich individuals, constituteand but a understanding of the frequency dialectologists, linguistic also toshared problem;transitionlanguagesociolinguistics,dialectology, change"andproblem; (5) the (1968:181):five (3) actuation the"empirical embedding (1)problem. the principals constraints problem; The actuation for(4) problem; the problemevaluationtheory (2) the ofis it also laid forth, for the emerging field of theircommunitygainotherand anlocalized external understanding words, use use"social askingtheir of adenotational into conceptsdenotational why why and theof how groupness" codeindividui2.s code change in indexes a certain (Silverstein happens in changinga local way, and what it1996c). In and how internal processpropositionthethen" ofhow change? thatdoes linguisticchange (Weinreich, proceed, change Labov and is andwhatchange Herzog factors in social are theoreticalinvolved behavior, in the It is agreed that linguistic change and social behavior are linguistic question which asks, 1968:186). "given the sociologyhighlyworkingmeans toinfluenced those definitionof language: involved. by of Silverstein's a local linguistic (1996a) community, understanding In the interest of time, I offer the following condensed which is of the notacceptedoftendoeslinked due notreflects and to necessarilythat chance that languagechanges one alone sheds result inis ( socialWeinreich,always light in linguistic onbehavior changing, the Labov other. change, or and &identity. While Herzog that linguistic socialthis change change is Since1968:112), it is definedA whichoflocal people aslinguistic a whogeo-linguistically s..are community a coherent localizableshall denotational be broadly group code constitutes a perduring community we need1988-89, to understandThis and research a National what was causes fundedSci,-nce change by Foundation a Fulbright and how Grant Doctoralit during Dissertation the academic year proceeds from identificationmodesinternal of structure normativity and ideology.which, relating in turn, to communication,specifies shared guidance,viewsResearch1993-1996. on language insightImprovement I would and and suggest societylike Grant to ions. thankand (nr. his SBR-9313170) Michael tireless Silversteinecouragement, during for the sharingongoing years his Additionally, I wish to thank Therefore,recommends,linguistica local linguistic change recognize "mustcommunity, that be historicizedchange we must, is an in ashistorical local terms problem. as to what To effectively examine and understand linguisticwhen change in examining local linguistic Silverstein (1996b) communities, originalWilliamshortcomings sociolinguistic Labov arefor minehis guidance alone. and suggestions in developing the U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics, Volume 4.1, 1997 68 interviews. Any misstatements, errors or 58linguisticthe particular linkages of social formation are, and how the norm is affected and informs those 69 formations" Addressing the Actuation Question Lane U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) whichlocalized(Silverstein, the understandinglocal 1996b). linguistic of community the social operates.and linguistic Through situations detailed in To a ;complish this, we must develop a 4. ThyboronCommunity & Dialect Emergence in socialstudy.relevantdata,analyses we networks formtrendsof socio-demographic, a localized,and and internal social community subgroups ethnographic internal in the understanding andcommunity social network underof the It is important to identify the various subgroups (i.e., the pattern behaviors), the trends in 4.1.inusingMy a findings local an interdisciplinary linguistic are based community. on approachdata from to an understand eight year and research detail projectchange Data Collection The research that I have exploredemographiclinguisticandpopulation material questions community. shifts, orientationand ethnographicandof social historical of andthe profilecommunity linguisticevents, of as the transformation well members community, as the toideological thewewith localmay the By developing such an historical socio- 27sociolinguisticofdialectconducted Thyboron,include in the socialdocuments small, interviews; network recently the profiles;life 32developed, cycleethnographic demographic of single-industrya unique, interviews, data contact on community allof induced which3,797 Denmark. The data collected include: 75 3.(whetherpossibility in of progress pinpointing or competed). factors which lead to linguistic changes Localizing the Actuation Question and ispresentedduecompilationresidents detailed to time duringtoday.in constraints,Laneof a Athesocial (1997a). comprehensive developmental history only a from small exploration years1500-1996. subset of 1890-1955; ofof thethe datacommunity andcan thebe Unfortunately, linguisticrecognizeIn addressing change the potentialthe to actuation be confined problems question, to theif we possibility bias our of assumptions telescoping orof the Community it is also important to community,knowledgesignificanta social history, I factors exploredthat operational how cohort during effects those lead changes. to varying types of Comparing the demographic and social network models to a contactI determined resultant dialecttimes of intensive changes, and emerged Given the in this theapproach.socialexpanding. questionlinguistic context, However, Whileof norm, the this actuationfrom withoutsuch may the an appear ofconsiderationapproachsingle change, to perspective be prevents because an of entirely its usit ofinherently restricts from the appropriate analysisaddressing the bound type of localresultedsocial dialect changes in the of Thyboronsk.emergence and linguistic and accommodation,more recent transformation which, in of the turn, behaviorchange.theof data directional which Rather, and socialchange we and we may change needsystem may consi,ler to also may activelyinternal take duetake ato a recognizeconsequencesvariety varietya priori of of assumptions thatforms. forms, justof This linguisticlinguistic as social aboutview linguisticrelatedThe4.2. economic to thenorm emergence and and demographic the localand direction social history constructs of transtormation of Thyboron and ideology. areof thedirectly local The Emergence of Thyboron and Thyboronsk By Sturtevantbeenothers.of linguisticproposed (1927); bychange numerous Mathesius is not scholars novel, (1911); itincluding: Labovmerely (1981); echoes Bloomfield amongthat which (1933), many has fortheexaminingcommunity andcommunity the andactuation mayunderstanding members, fluctuate of change, we over thebegin both impact time, tosocially understand theof macro-levelcentral and linguistically. theideologies motivations changes formed on While the strength of the ties of individuals to their ri 0 59 60fromduring generation the community's to generation, emergence just are as likely some to of be the passed linguistic along '71 Addressingmarkers arethe Actuation Question likely to be passed along from generation Lane to orientationU. Penn Working to ThyborOn Papers andin Linguistics to the dialect of ThyborOnsk. Volume 4.1 (1997) More (socialvarycommunitygeneration. over and/or time, and linguistic) theif we degree are toarise, of use we of sociolinguisticmust understand In other words, since both the degree of affinity to a understand and predict why changes markers may the larger specifically,internallyexhibitthat of being differences definedwhile a Thyboronboere, they groups in share the based distribution a fierce on'those age pride whoand of sex. variablelive in Thyboron', featuresin their across they local identity, However, all of the linguistic localbelinguisticaffectedsociocultural understood linguistic by changes our context ifcommunity environment one of isvariousin orientedwhich in typesandlight the as affect individuals ofofto itsthesociocultural itmultidimensional present in return. operate. situation shifts The We can historyare best resulting in the all features,residentssocialaof matter Thyboronsk. andstill of stilllinguisticdegree share The than residents' whatchange quality. can in sociolinguisticeasily Itprogress. be share a large set of highly localized is likely that we are witnessing identified as theIt dialect is hoped that differencesthe are more Thyboroninand the perduring development residents. modes of of norrnativity. community mores and identity by the The development of the dialect of Thyboronsk is mirrored Wh.1t is especially remarkable about thatpredictionfortunatelikely due tothattiming set"the allforth numberof explanations this in Weinreich,research of factors may[of Labovwhich theoffer actuation andinfluenceus a Herzogchance problem] to to change: it is (1968:186)refute the be everyperiodemergenceresultsThyboronsk five ofof 1890contact years.dates is theto back 1970,phenomena.shallow to the time lastpopulation decadesdepth of grew of its the history at an average and the ofvarious 53% This intensive population growth was due to Thyboron's physical and social 1800's. During the Let5.advanced us now in turnthe near to a future brief willexploration be after theof somefact." of the similarities The Sociolinguistics of Change massiveplateaued,Thyboron.economic internal remainingemergence at of approximately the new fishing 2,600 harbor inhabitants. and industry in Since the early migration, encouraged1980's the by populationthe physical curve and has By the Thyboronandgroupsin differences the linguistic ofresidents. residents: in ideology behavior (1) the and ofyounger social a few behavior groupinternally of whichadult defined are groups For present purposes, we will only be considering three females; (2) the evidenced of community.ofinmid 1970's,Denmark,fish. 1900's, Thyboron Thyboron then one has ofhad remained the become world's primarily the top fifth producers alargest single-industry and fishing distributors harbor fishing Despite the decline of the fishing industryAll othersince businesses the either service or rely on this analysesbyfemales.younger Hojrup Guidedgroupof (1983a, the ofsocial by adult b)ethnologic historyand males; Pedersen and andand network ethnographic(3) (1994), the datamiddle I conducted for models group Thyboron proposed detailed of adult (cf. tospeakswellnessindustry, to ofmeaningthe fishing permanency that for theytheir of too theown are local livelihood. dependent population,the aging Economic upon whichprofile the economic iswellness related of the community and the possible similarparticularLane1996a), 1997a). orientations socio-historical only members to the events withinevents. at a The similargenerational life-stage life stages, groupat which hence experience group As I have detailed elsewhere (cf. Lane 1997a, b; crucial to withthat elsewhere,Thyboronobsolescencethe population andto of seek they the has localemploymentgenerally declined. identity do The notand and majority movedialect. educational back of (cf.younger Lane 1996a,adults leaveb; As a result of the failing local single-industry economy, opportunities community.effectgroup'smemberswithin which collective ThyborOnexperience These those orientationgroups events basedsocio-historical thereby may on to the have the define residents' events, onevents generationaltheir and, isown orientation in contrastive turn, differences to to the and the important1997a, b, c). Those residents who do remain in ThyborOn express similarities 72 and BEST COPY AVAILABLE differences in their ideological 61 collaborative62identified: experiences.Group 1: 65+ Three years groups, old; Group labeled 2: 140 through to 65 years3, were old; Addressing the Actuation Question Additionally there is a clear U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 2. No diphthongization (i.e. breaking) of Common Volume 4.1 (1997) becomesdivisionandnumberdivision Group based weaker and translates 3: type16 on as to sex.,of we 40 intomale whichmoveyears a tofairly female old.fromis mostsegregated Groupsocial absolute community relations differ depending2 to Group 3. for Group 1 and where the This GroupisScandinavian the non-localizedThyboron 3 females, short form this /e/.('Standard [c],form 'I'. variably Danish') competes form, [jar]. Of particular indexical value Presently, among the with thoroughonstratified; one's generational discussion but I refer of grouping.you why to Lanethis (1997a). Time and socio-historical events have impacted Unfortunatelysmall group time of people prohibits are a so the degree The 3. weakenAs Jakobson to fricatives (1952) in noted, post rootb positions-> p, g -> u.D. In Thyboronsk, a number of Danish voiced stops (i.e. d -> youngestto resultbehaviors,oppositewhich of malesgeneration, thesesex, that and whilechanges of femalesfavoring Group maintaining will operate 3, samebe briefly sexsome explored as we interact more frequently with the in thenetwork same networks. ties. traditional network pattern The linguisticnote that the glidesconspiredotherdetermined)vowel, soundwhich and to -changesregressively furtherin (i.e. some d lenite->cases and 6-> phonotacticdeleted w/j/null, (apparently assimilated to the preceding the weakened stops to b -> p requirements w/j/null,lexically youngerexhibitingcounterpartsnon-localized women appear appear to to linguistic linguistic behaiorbe lagging more behind innorm, somebe leadingcases, andthe change towards a more and their typical male of the generational middle classtheg ->assimilated fricative ul of -> weakened w/j/null). pair to the[v] precedingandstops, [f] were vowel, becoming a glide By extension, the liquids and also included among the regressively and 5.1.generation,Let us briefly or Group consider 2. three of the phonological Linguistic Patterns - Old and New rules and a short 4. Innovativeandin asthe v/f [hesn] second -> w/j/null). forms orpart [hElsn] aroseof a diphthong such ('Standard as: (a) (i.e., ellers, Danish' form is r/1 -> w/j/null 'otherwise', morphologicalcommunityphonologicallist of lexical itemsrules and/or arewhich morphosyntactic relevant are central because to thethey Thyboron allegiance, and they ramifications.have Furthermore, raised in Labovindex (1981) local linguisticimportant dialect. The lexical, form[class]);('Standard (b) to/v, Danish' 'twelve', form asis [ve7.1]);[to17] ('Standard (d) synes, is [tA17]); (c) vejr, 'weather', Danish' form as 'believe',Danish'[walla] is diffusion),linguisticaboutthese four the change relationship itemshence support (Neograrnniarianthe level of interesting the (4. individualawareness regular points speaker and the ramifications of the at whichsound the change linguistic or lexical to the type of Table 1 offers some phonetically [sons]);as [Eiw7s] among or [bw7s] others. ('Standard for the three subgroupstranscribed of examples of changeindexical in progress nature of is the taking affected place, forms 1. followedPalatalization by a minusof stops low in vowel: word initial position within the denotational code. when thesecompletedUnfortunately,Groupto linguistic the 2 data females, and, features(these theas such.coding quantitativeGroup from regression of the data analysesset these and other3 males, variablesresults and is justGroup will being be 3available in January have yet to be applied females. C[+ stop] -> C[+stop, + palatal] / V[-low] 63 641997). 75 VI 1 In considering Table 1, we note that despite the ..0 Lt) ....,.. 0-CLIC -0.V., -a.) J compressed subset of data, we are able to locate trends Whilein the there are differences ;.f7:1 Pi ci . a) ..0 ,...0 75 1-3 a.) IPLI) :8- numberbetweenlinguistic of the behavior shared three features. groups' of the residents. linguistic This is a crucial point in that we behavior, there are also a ... "ot) c.,..V3 0ri) 04 rr.,cs EI- A.c .....,= co .n ...... , ..... L3 '0 domainflowwitness of thatofchange any the onedenotational (i.e. group the variability of code residents is perduring, (nor of features) is not the sole is fixed as those who and that the ebb and t"A r6 CLI numbersubscribe of to forms age-grading which index may predict).a group member's participationThere continues in to be a C7 0= CIE t'D .... 50.cf) Thyboron.the larger social Examples grouping, of this the are local seen linguistic in the forms for: 'do', community of 'I', U r.I. .4 .,.. ,-_-...2. c^,F.; La 13 ---.:c.)eon t wbo -.....0 ...)4 0 .2.. w ,..., Cii,.., gro ;,,--, -Is_ ,. 'with',5.2. 'otherwise', 'twelve', and 'believe'. The Actuation of Linguistic Change in CI3 Thyboron ,r, 00. ..=4) ".' th e -- In differencesaddressing the exhibited actuation among question, the we internally turn our attention to the defined groups of ,... 2 : in to!) ., g"Ci 4.1R .... .- -4 4-, ' community members. As sociolinguists, we are able for to 0 ....T. 4 4-4 1 Eg...8 example,immediatelyGroupsexWe andnotice 2 the age;and thatpinpointforms Groupthat linguistic thefor: 3 the females;Group 'self, suspecteddifferences 'I', 3 males share featuresand that withwhen both it comes to the most'with', 'otherwise', and 'weather'.exist along the lineslinguistic of both changes in, the cNa wI..o. -- 4)al4.) pu ,...... (., 4cou) ao 'Standardnon-localized Danish' forms forms), (i.e. it iswhat the Groupcould 3be females who lead in labeledthis as the most number of 0 ILIo ''.. E :r) 7) , 1.0 ..., -.. E ii = 1..4s suchtype offorms. dialect change, These differences are certainly of interest, namely in exhibiting the highest and together description eti) <-74 I.. directionmaywith bethe presented results of the ofchanges the quantitative in progress. analyses, If we, as a completesociolinguists, of the synchronic state of Thyboronsk and the wish cENao an :_, cco.-. CO^ o g.... to address the actuation question, as this paper proposes, we need to as Vo.,U06. o at 0 c.0 0 .-- 0 0 .. -c0c6.- 0%0c -,_. O 0 cal c Uct < affectdistributedpose thesuch following change?in this way, and what is going on in research question: Why are the features the community to of csi ii,o c-; 30 2 -8 4 BEST COPY AVAILABLE change from a perspective As discussed, we begin by exploring the question which explores all the possible pressures 7"' Addressing the Actuation Question U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) whichemergencefrom a themacro-social of pressures level at the as micro-socialbeing potential level. catalysts to pressures are interpreted by the local The way in linguistic the constructsThemen socialand women's constructs because social Thyboronwere networks influenced was, arose byand thein stillThyboron. industrial is, a community'sexaminationlocalizedpressures socio-historical take, residents, into can how only the and profilebe internal whatunderstood of formthemodes community. theirafter of normativity, onereactions has developed to external a I would like to offer a synopsis of an interdisciplinary the ties,thatprimarilysingle-industry exhibitwith the develop dramatic exception economy. and asymmetry, ofmaintain the Men immediate andsocial favoring women networkfamily. same would tiessex effectdemographicsocio-economicinterdisciplinaryinteractions events, and pressures, socialapproach macro cognition, andproffersthe microebb all aand meanscombinesocial flow changes,to of tounderstanding historicalproduce discursive a andcohort why which results in the actuation of change. The 4. embargoesconstructsDuein 1970's,Thyboron.to the andand local when ideologiesquotaThese economy's macro-social systems, external were drasticallypressuresstrength, maintained pressures, translated altered until such lifethe intoas oil traditional iscertainlythesethe worse social changes thanseems changes the are like bite. occurringreflected a mouthful, Inin 'ThyboronI hope you exist, will agree and why that andthe barkhow In order to accomplish the aforementioned task in the linguistic change. While this theforNamely,changestranslated economicwide spreadresidents into and socialincreased occupational had changesto consider opportunities security.of thelooking 1960's Additionally,for elsewhere women and 70's and, in material orientation to Thyboron. remaining time, I offer the following points: 1. therecommunityBy the despite late 1800'sbecause terrible we ofconditions canthe bondstalk aboutand that natural keptThyborOn the disasters. people as a 5. ebbMaterialThyboron'sin turn, and into flowand youngest changes ideological in their generation.in degreethe orientations social of pattern strength will behavior naturallyof more of bondingtheThe residents physical, them fa( togethereconomic ed, created in orderand a socialsense to survive. ofstruggles, community which by theirhasversuspressuresand gone inherited lesspride out. localized from ofThe social beingwithout youngest affinity.understanding a whichThyboronboere, generation demand of the are an importance awarenessbalancing with In Thyboron, the tide the of 2. directlyTheThewhichthe economic Thyboron result impacted occurred was and residents thethe demographic in emergencevarious the localfrom types booms of1920linguistic aof shared accommodation toexperienced the community. denotational late 1960's, by The culmination of these five points, as wellwhichthe as non-local much disfavor social, highly economiclocalized norms. and linguistic norms of theirconceptsnorm,1972). sense which of of groapness" further "...:ontrastive strengthened (Silverstein self-identification" the 1996c), residents' similarly, "social(Labov changemomentsdefiningthe detailscycles are moments are ofnecessarily most socialnot likelyjust in behavior. the theomitted, to life points occur, of When presentsthe when but community individual because both us with they are cyclesa are converge, social and linguistic cohort effect increated. These the focal 3. Basedthe fishing on the traditionallyindustry, a parallel highly stratification stratified nature between of 67 points68Orientation for group to theseidentity, focal they points are definesalso the membership cause IBEST COPY AVAILABLE of change. in . -the Addressing the Actuation Question Lane U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) generations.community and structures internally relevant subgroups, such as These notions are necessarily complex and shedmicro-societal interesting data and from important ethnologic lightand social network research on the sociolinguistic that socialthesechangemultidimensional. factors history depends at aon more ourThe abstractability possibility to level understand of of addressing social the history. interaction the actuationBy viewing of all of in all its reflexes from a more abstract and providemeansintegratedsituation. a for framework andaddressing empirically for the exploring actuation informed linguisticquestion perspective change which from offers an us a Locally historicized, linguistically external evidence for local linguistic displaysocialandmultidimensional language network the most change. patterns similarities perspective, are more in we linguistic similar understand to behavior traditional why and with localhow the societynorms,Group We witness in Table 1 that the Group 3 men, whose Referencescommunities. displaylinguistic32 women the (and attitudes most other non-localized areolder more Groups divergent linguisticfemales, not presented from behavior.whose traditional herein). social The patterns, Group networks, personal ideologies, However, we and Hojrup,Friedrich,Hojrup, Thomas Paul Thomas (1971). (1983a). (1983b). dirigering.International Journal of American Linguistics 37:164-187. Copenhagen: Statens Byggeforskningsinstitut."Dialectal variation in Tarascan phonology."Det glemte folk.`The concept of life-mode: Livsform og central- A form- exhibitfeaturesofWhilemust linguistic recall it this iswith true that featuressee-sawing the that sociolinguistic other the which Group groups. effect, are 3non-local, pictures womenas they are aretheymaintain leading not still black share featuresin the and important number white. with Similarly, the Group 3 men Jakobson, Press.PreliminariesEurope."specifying Ethnologia mode to ofSpeech analysis Scandinavica Analysis. appliedRoman, 1.1-50. to Gunnarcontemporary M. Pant western and Morris Cambridge, MA: MIT Halle (1952). 6.featuresincorporationhighly localizable with other of the (i.e.,indexical newest non- local)value Thyboronsk, linguisticwhile they communities.which move shares towards more the Lane,Labov, Lisa Ann (1997a, Dissertation,DeclineControversy."William The Language University 57.2:267-308. of Chicago. of a Dialect: (1981). forthcoming "Resolving Thyboronsk February). the (Danish). EmergenceNeogrammarian and Ph.D. acrossandFriedrich dialectological register (1971) within and variability Mathesindividual us are (1911)dialects. linked have toAlthough synchronic shown Summaryvariability that variability historical can Lane, Lisa Ann (1997b, forthcoming April). "'We Just Don't Do That LanguageProceedingsNetworksAnymore.' and and fromSociety Social the Fourth Annual Symposium About Patterning - Austin. Transformation." Dialect Change Austin: The University of throughIn SALSA IV, Social shownbe indexa key above membershipfactor where in diachroni( the in internallyvariable and synchronicreflexes defined of subgroups; linguistica sound change change,variability also as is Lane, Lisa Ann (1997c forthcoming February). Dialects."LinguisticTexas Press. Behavior: RASK, International An Integrated Model of Change in "Social Change and indicatevariabilitytoalso keep a changestable in alongmind element in progress.withthat andthenotable ismere However, inherent concurrent existence inthe language. existencesocial of variability changes of linguistic candoes be not an It is important Lane, Lisa Ann (1996a).Press.kommunikation/ACommunication. New Volume International 6. Odense, Journal DK: ofOdense Language University and "Creating and Balancing tidsskrift for sprog og Identities: inindicator ethnographically of change in informed progres. empirical studies of macro- and The multidimensional model employed herein is grounded 69 70 ClearinghouseGenerational Markers on Languages of Social and Linguistics.Transformation," in ERIC 8' Washington, Addressing the Actuation Question Lane Lane, Lisa Ann (1996b). microfiche20.1:64-87.Dialects,"DC. Database distribution. in M. of Ching,educational et al., documents for electronic and "A Multidimensional Model of Change in eds., The SECOL Review. DepartmentClub,(PWPL)The University is an of occasionalthe of University Pennsylvania series of Pennsylvania.produced Working by Papers the Penn in LinguisticsLinguistics the graduate student organization of the Linguistics Pedersen,Mathesius, Inge Vilem Lise ([1911] (1994). Press,Readerphenomena 1-32. in Linguistics. of language," in J. Vachek, ed., A Prague School "Linguistic1964). variation and composite life Bloomington: "On the potentialityIndiana University of the papers.elsewhere;PublicationVolumes all ofin copyrightthisthe Workingvolume is retained doesPapers not areby preclude availablethe authors submission for of $12, the prepaid.individual of papers Silverstein, Michael (1996a). Waltermodes,"sociolinguisticUrbanization: de Gruyter, life,"87-115. in R. Parker, Y. Sunaoshi and R. Ide, in B. The Case of the Nordic Countries. Nordberg, "Indexical order and the dialectics of ed., Sociolinguistics Berlin: of Please see our web page for additional information. The PWPL Series Editors Silverstein, Texas,AboutForum,eds., Language SALSADepartment 266-295. III and -- SocietyProceedingsof Linguistics - Austin. of the TheMichael third Texas annual (1996b). Linguistics Symposium "Contemporary Transformations of Austin: University of ClarissaAlexander Surek-Clark WilliamsAlexis Dimitriadis Laura Siegel Sturtevant,Silverstein, E.HMichael (1917). (1996c). UniversityChicago.Local Linguistic of Chicago, Communities." 1996. Lecture, The University of Linguistic Change: An Introduction to the "Language and Culture." Lecture, The Editors for this Volume Miriam Meyerhoff Charles Boberg Weinreich, W.P."EmpiricalChicagoHistorical Lehmann Press. Studyfoundations & of Y. Language. Malkiel for a theory eds.,Uriel, ofDirections language for change," Historical and MarvinChicago: Herzog University (1968). inof and the PWPL series editorsHow to reach the PWPL Stephanie Strassel The Department of Linguistics Press,Lingusitics. 97-188. A Symposium. Austin: University of Texas U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics UniversityDepartment of Pennsylvania of Linguistics 619 Williams Hall [email protected], University1010 E. IL 59th 60637of ChicagoStreet http://www.ling.upenn.edu/papers/pwp1.html [email protected], PA 19104-6305 8 2 71 U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) the Sociolinguistic Speech Community Otto Santa Aria and Claudia Parodi Typologizing evaluationDecontextualizedexerciseswereto comparesought andof out. alternatinga humorous pair Levels sentence of formal ofvariables. narrated formality pairs and informalNextwere skits were wepresented, letters.asked the again interviewees to that weretested pm-recorded. with role-playing We lastly asked a test COMMUNITYWe1.. propose a comprehensivewhich can be applied hierarchical to fieldwork model research of SPEECH in both Introduction and the Mexican Setting basedlinguisticgroupsdataseries we onof of found: questionsboth evaluationMexican local different on (vernacular)Spanish amonglanguage variable speakers,different use and useand non-local groups patternsjudgments. ofMexican among From differentSpanish. all and different patterns of these speakers, this thistourban ourstandarddescribe ranges research.and non-urban Spanish Mexicanfrom provincial dialect domains.Spanish. di:;tribution andWeThe focus regionalMichoacan in on contemporary dialect Mexican Bay° contact is Spanish theMexico in region order toas of theMoreover,thefindings social Zamora evaluationsome indicate region. individuals that patterns more demonstrated than of language one speech no variationapparent community awarenessat all. comprise These of isof Zamora,Mexicothe western travelingthe altiplanopivot northpoint of and fogMexico. oursouth. study. It One is aroundZamora of the thecities is amidway regional of the pointBay° hub Michoacan has coastline on the Pacific Ocean and is part critical.In3. our model, the shared evaluation of linguistic A Speech Community Typology marked linguistic features delimit variables is speech 2.townsof by10,000agriculture one numbering orpeople, two and families smallcommerce.less than villages of 40,000fanners. Circling and people, even Zamora smaller communities are ranchosa set of of smallerinhabited about Our Project and Findings Figurecommunitiesexclusivecommunities.embedded 1. groupingsThese can be features, seen of individualto however, be arranged speakersdo not in mark sets as schematized outof multiplymutually in Socially grouping of speakers. In our proposal, speech inprotocol,ZamoraMexicanOur Labov investigation region Spanish(1984)which Itofis from included inMichoacdn.involved keeping a broad sociolinguistic gathering withsample This the ofdata multiple 5035 interviews, wasnativehours methodscollected speakersof vernaculara battery laid with of outthe of a Figure 1: Speech communities schematic Atconversation,Thedifferenttests times to investigate levelsboth but authors of in formality, factlanguage interviewed we followed and use a in seriesa differentcovertlysingle of informant,language structured genres attitudeas to guidelines. well sample tests.interviewsas ata gave the impression of being informal devisedconversation.attemptedwider range to investigate of the informant's other knowledge interactional of responses.Spanish We also A sequence of genie, formalityto and attitude tests were draw the individual interviewee into varieties. group linguisticcenterdistinguished of thehierarchy modeland defined thatis the reflects inspeaker's terms the of recognitionsocial binary hierarchy [t] features. that therein whichAt isthe a In this model each speech community of Mexico is Subjunctive constructions were tested, hypothetical constructions U. Penn Working Papers8 in Linguistics, Volume 4.1, 1997 BEST COPY AVAILABLEhe/she74 has a position. Recognition that there is a social hierarchy, asTypologizing expressed in the language, Speech Community is manifest in the use and evaluation Santa Ana & Parodi of U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Table 1: Speech community typology Volume 4.1 (1997) necessarilyevaluatedhierarchyinterlocutors.socially-marked isby shared reflected the It isway by a given everyinthey the talk.i,Idividualamong way However, people sociolinguists speaker. talk, such and In knowledge the thatthat Bay() people the social eitheris arenot linguistic variables by speakers and their I. Nuclear hierarchy stigma regional standard NucleartheLocalethenot. speaker speaker If Field theField. recognizes speakerspeech does, The secondcommunitythen thatdoes languagethe not, element speaker thenconfiguration reflects isthe is the atspeaker the recognitionleast ofsocial oura is member hierarchytypology;a member of specific of or ifthe of V.IV.III.H. LocaleNationalDistrictRegional + stigmatizedplaceexistThethe way third anda speaker others theirlinguisticelement appropriateevaluate in a is socialitems the and recognition andhierarchy.use place thataffects a theirspeaker We thatthe appropriate see wayspecific in regional theothers social regional use evaluatenorms hierarchy. affects norms at andthe Individuals3.1. who are members of the nuclear speech community Nuclear Field normsregionalcommunicating,thesame same time exist patterns. territory as andgeographical they The theirinteract evaluatefinal appropriate withandelement each socialand isotherinfluence use units,the affectsrecognitionwith since one reference thepeople another. thatway to livingstandard othersWhileshared in configurationtheverynetworknetwork. linguistic local isUsually, interactions. limitedmove hierarchy in weto a a findrelatively handful Thisis speakersnot social a of singlerestricted nuclear network,at the generation nuclear orand extendedand a close-knit itsfield accident, families,whose social but social andhas isolation from widerconverse.knowledgeevaluate community and By placeof this theimplies awe speakermore mean potential restricted in that a social awarenessaccess communities, hierarchy) to the of sociolinguistica wider but scope not the of This typology is an implicational scale. Membership in a vernacularhaveconsequencebeen no the apparent regional of this awareness relatively dialect ofof restrictedthe Spanish standard/non-standard range,which speakers includes, opposition. as will be In the Bajfo case, nuclear prevailingfield individuals social are speakers of a structure for generations. As a of this field mustindividualspeechandsocial speech necessarily relations community who communities recognizesallows acknowledge norms possible v thatdoes ith there thatawareness narrowernot thereareimply stigmatized is scope.of use. a the social For social Cognizance lexicalexample,hierarchy networks items anof speakersmodifydifferentialshown below, their exhibitire use informal/formal speech many of little language to16th conscious accommodate century by pronouns, other or Old unconscious speakers, theirSpanish to and interlocutor, usted, features. andrecognition minimally with These of Such the relation.language (of at least two levels), namely an in-group and out-group requisitespeakers.accommodationin appropriate linguistic They social concordmay in contexts.the acknowledge sensemarking But of onweTrudgill someverbs noted andvariation little(1986) nominal further among phrases these in linguistic speech. social community.I The possibility Evidence exists, of the of speaker's course, forrecognition a wider cross-nationalof these elements speech of judgmentstheextentHowever, breadth of that the they are effectiveof madethe do economicnot by social demonstrateway networkof spheresuch variation. for knowledge in individuals of seems the to From our observations, the key factor that determines which they actively the be ofgenerallythe awareness. sociolinguistic accepted unconscious environment but should experimentally be understood demonstrable to be atlevel the 75 participate.76integration For into the the nuclear economy field ofindividual the in rural Mexico, outside world remains 87 Typologizingminimal. Contacts the Speech with Community the socializing and evaluative social Santa Ana & Parodi U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics These speakers recognize taboo words and variably use Volume 4.1 (1997) institutionsemissions.superficial,tenuousspeech, suchand which Consequently such brief.as schoolingstrongly as Other the passive the contactsaffect or influencework people'sreception with outside of the thesense oflargerof language theradio of home, self and ofand have televisionthe their larger been social world are as(andthemphonologicalstigmatized 'inansina as this befiting forms way' valuefeatures the areforms, social still of that particular usedbut setting. are thereover stigmatized Non-taboo the lexicalis somestandard items.by awarenessstigmatized wider mismo'same' However, field mesmo speakers most of the and socialstandardStigmatizedusage environment distinction mesmo words in'same', between like which manneras opposed stigmatizedhave is nolimited. to taboo standard content, mismo, such will as not non- be In the language use of the nuclear field speakers, we note a words and taboo words. Spanish.theawaremay items remain of the that unknown existence constitute to of the a the hierarchy,locale stigmatized field but features of The life ways of locale field speech communities involve speakers. That is, they are they do not identify all Mexican usage.speakers,standardpronunciations,recognized Examples /f/with byin initialno suchinclude sense position as that afuera velar there of 'outside' certainaspirated is any orwordsproscription hetrar pronunciation are `to used shoe against by horses' of these thisthe nuclear field speakers? Likewise stigmatized thegreaterlinguisticandimposition locale regional social field, features onintercourse world. recognitionthe individual associated This with does of localof the with notthe socialand implysocial the regional widerhierarchy valuesthe automatic speech of represents the community larger use localan communities. At of the pronunciationavoided,recognizedwhichpronounced have according taboo[fwera]as a stigmatized semanticto and the [war].social content, item. circumstance.On the Suchsuch other aswords handputa 'whore',willlexical be itemsusedwill be or [xhwera] and [xherrar] instead of the standard duringsampleaboutvalues.subsistence the adult their full life. contactset economy, Commodityof stigmatized with provides the labor, wider lexical limited which world items only exposurebecame of supplementsthe region.regular to the Inways only our of Locale field individuals are not tacitly knowledgeable their Locale3.2.in field speakers recogniye that the sociallinguistic hierarchy is expressed Locale Field variation, in terms standardnonstandard Localeitems,socializingspeaking isfield not in setting thepeoplea significant regional for are exposure more world. part sensitive toof Schooling,the these full about individuals' set of whichthe proscribed way islife they the history. lexical primespeak opposition.offeatures.the speaking, hierarchy, LocaleThese and butspeakers field demonstrate they speakers areshow aware registerknowledgesome of theirevaluative insecurity limited of some judgmentabout knowledge stigmatized their of ways of the of a acquaintanceeachofprovidewith families outsiders.individual ambivalent which but When asin comprise someonetheanswers. asked locale a whose Intosocial knows ourevaluate life modelnetwork. theimpacts their other,this The fieldownthe notkey speaker. refersspeech, ashere a casual tois they athat set items2ways The thatwhichstigmatized others were speak. partwords of inthe Mexican vernacular Spanish Spanish are of16th the century first settlers lexical of In3.3. this speech community configuration speakers demonstrate District Field theinteractionAmericanRonathroughout Americas. 1973:319). cities, acrossthe Many, non Thesemetropolitan - suchmetropolitan items a, haiga wereareas Newand subsequentlyin Latin asinalansinaWorld America, (e.g. replaced Cardenas are than located betweenin 1967;Latin such as Mexico City. Since there was greater speechLatingenerallyincluderecognition American) community the stigmatized oflexical, a stable standard configuration phonological by set national ofSpanish stigmatized willfield andspeakers. not Mexican syntactic features. necessarily Assignment (and itemsThese possiblyrequire thatfeatures to this arethatall replaceAmericaMexico them,City by metropolitan andthey its are provinces, labeled as these rural items ways areof speech. stigmatized across Latin 88 speakers. Because the provinces did not 77 78thatindividuals they have complete productive control of these features, or generally opt to use non-stigmatized forms 89 over stigmatizedTypologizing forms. the Speech Community Non-standard speakers Santaare Ana & Parodi featuresU. Penn are Working not stigmatized. Papers in Linguistics A mild version of the regional Volume 4.1 (1997) theycontinuehierarchy, never to useand use them, thestigmatized stigmatized forms, forms even that if theyconstitute may believe it, yet theythat District field speakers use the non-standard regional aware of the non-standardprivilegedspeakerspronunciation as place. indicators speakersfeatures The of judgmentmight (fromcasual be nuclear and usedof intimatesuch by to standardindividuals regional) speech. Mexican are usually regrettably Spanish is that They are fully aware of the social hierarchy and their Further,theyinsecuredialect.limitation judge Theyaboutthey themselves and judge showthe do way not theirthemselves as seethat inferior non-standard their they speechspeakersspeak, to range toand speech ofbe from howtheir representative to theynativequite be area secure language.personal judged; of wider to stratatheseacademy"correct""limited" of nationalMexican waytradition. by their of fieldsociety speaking. pronunciationAsspeakers whichpeople This istend at mostis the particularly toand influenced topbe ignorance inof positions the apparent socialby its of oflanguage hierarchy,the inpower certainsingle to ownpubliclocaleelementaryregional small spherefield patterns. businesses,school. speakers. among They non-acquaintances. Socialand are theyinvolved interaction interact in aIn in wider involvesour market sample public activitiesactivity these sphere people withthan District field speakers have attended some years of in a 4.impose their biases oo their hierarchical subordinates. TypologyMichoacan Spanish Elements of the Mexicoeconomicpeople whobeyond classes, represent the Bajfo. yet a they wide may set ofnot social have groupslived in and regions various of Regional Field In phonologicalstandardwhichthis section this Mexican typology we and addressSpanish. morphological is drawn: the mainstigmatized; remnants varieties regional of of the Spanish oldMexican; American upon and Stigmatized Spanish is constituted by lexical, Thethatitems,At3.4. the tiplethey whichregional isspeak not they field useda regionaltend individualsas nota derogation. toaccent, use. are These which aware For individualsBajfo isof calledthe residents, set a of aretiple stigmatized cognizant it [tf.ple]. means school,koine.notcenturySpanish aware They for (seekoine of example, Cardenassimplythe that fact was label thatthese 1967; formed stigmatized them forms Parodi inas are therural 1995:39) censured.formsNew or uneducatedWorld are Native residuesSince during speakers they speech. of the reflectthe 16th are In old Spanish.aregionalmay marked`regional or may accents. However, dialect, accent', not leadIt opposed may whichas the the be individual they individual'sthat to identifyrecognition to believewithlife ofways their one's that areaprovide theretiple of isorigin.are him/her seen other Thisas the unmarked standard Mexican featurespartswords,speakersof Mexicoof anare as older not of usedand district,peculiar stage Latinby our of Americaregionto BajfoLatin Michoacan andAmericaninformants, where national and they areSpanish exemplifyarefields. found stigmatized language, inThe other stigmatized following areasamong the people,with3.5. acquaintances knowledge of and a range contacts of regional from a dialects wider rangecan be of developed. Mexican National Field naidenspeech:phonological`wall', `no fueron asina one', [xhweron] oritemshaiga ansina 'therethat 'they 'this are is', recognizedwent', way',mesma asegun,probe 'the by same', 'poor', 'accordingMexican aigre bia speakers'thereto','air', etc. was', as Regional Mexican Spanish is composed of lexical and pader Ataskednottheyfully the want national infrequentlycognizant directly. to acknowledge speech Someof use the communitythem. nationalregional any They abilityfieldfeatures preferconfiguration, individuals to standard of use their such individualshome forms.consider features, region, They certain whenare may but andcharacteristicspeakerstigmatized,identifying Latin in America.the native rather ofsense Michoacan speakers Whatofthey Labov aredistinguishes of are indicators(1972)a certainalso found Some region. Michoacan of in ofthe other theThe native regional areasfeatures speakers region of features Mexicoare of not a from marked regional pronunciations to be non-standard, but these 79 the80 speakers of the other areas is the use of a specific set 9 .1.of Typologizing the Speech Community Santa Ana & Parodi U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) [leJi]/y/forfeatures. andexample 'milk'. /tP, Some asWecalle exemplified ofheard [kayi] these discursive `street',featues by caballo pocos areforms, the [pokus] [kabaju] following:including a nasal off-glide 'few', weakening of 'horse' and leche close vowels, CardenasReferences Negrete, D. (1967) El espanol de geografiaespanola, linguistica anejo 85. hispanoamericana, Revista Jalisco; contribution a la de filologia Thereafterpatterns,simplyused /s/. is in alsoThus, toconversation forsay the pueswhich'yes'. form 'well Further, [ey] aspeople a then' withsublexical there of isa highthevariably is acknowledgment,a regionrising particular pronounced intonation, have set a ofterm intonational we approval, or [pwesN]..which is have Labov,Labov, W. (1984) "Field methods of the Project on use:andPennsylvaniaW. variation,"Readings Press, in in sociolinguistics, J. Philadelphia.Baugh & J. Sherzer, eds., Language(1972) Sociolinguistic patterns, Prentice-Hall, Englewood linguistic changeUniversity inof schools,regardedmentioned1988) andas earlier, the it isform used a tiple of in speech the(see written also of educatedCardenas texts throughout speakers. 1967, Moreno ItMexico. is taught de The in Standard Mexican Spanish, as any standard variety, is Alba Parodi,MorenoMilroy, L.deC. (1980) Alba,(1995) J. Language G.Origenes (1988) and El del socialespanol espaliol networks, en America, Blackwell. Fondo Econ6mica,Cliffs, NJ, 28-53. Mexico. americano, Universidad de Cultura MexicanfeaturesSpanishstandard standard include:speakersSpanish is hasseseo, athroughout variety certain or ofth,.; features Modernthe lack HispanIc ofthat Spanish. the are opposition world. accepted That Some is, by betweenMexican educated of these /s/ Rona,Romaine, S. (1982) "What is a speech community?," in S. J. Arnold,ed.,Nacional Sociolinguistic London, AutenomaP. 16-24. variationde Mexico, in Mexico.speech communities, Edward(1973) "Normas locales, regionales, nacionales Romaine, y ofvosotrospronounoppositionand the the preposition voiceless ustedesfor betweenthe informalfor hastainterdental formal the `since', second palatal and fricative; informaletc. person lateral yeismo, hasspeech, and been /y/; sinceor lost; the peculiar lackuse ofof theuse the pronoun Trudgill,Santa Ana,P. (1983) 0. (1993) On dialects: "Chicano Social English and geographical and the Chicano perspectives, language filologiauniversalessetting," hispeinica Hispanic en .1a 22, Journal310-321. of Behavior Sciences 15.1, 3-35. america espaiiola," Nueva revista de mostWe5. proposed local to amost typology expanded of speech configuration. communities Our in typologyfive fields from Conclusion is a Trudgill,Otto Santa P. (1986) Ana "Accomodation between dialects," in Dialects in contact,New York Basil University Blackwell, Press, New New York, York. 1-38. mechanismslinguistic(1972)comprehensive shared are linguisticmodel posited of to speechevaluation motivate communities the criterion, model, that whichand utilizes the is notionsan Labov'sattempt of feature;hierarchy; and, standard linguistic stigmatized linguistic features. No other feature; regional Cesarono@BoxUniversity Chavez 951559, ucla.edu ofCenter LosCalifornia Angeles for Chicana Los 950095 Angeles & Chicano Studies individualsspeechcommunity.to describe communities can the It have variousis also into communities. characterize alanguage typology settings thatthe different may of abe non-metropolitan relationshipsextended to thatall 405UniversitySpanishClaudia Hilgard Parodi& Portugueseof Avenue, California Los Department Los Angeles Angeles 950095-1532 92 BEST COPY AVAILABLE 81 82 9 U PennFigure Working 1. The Location Papers in of Linguistics Smith Island and Ocracoke Volume 4.1 (1997) Symbolic NatalieIdentity Schilling-Estes and Language and Change: Walt Wolfram of Post-Insular /ay/A andComparative /aw/ Analysis CarolinaThe1. study over of moribund the past few dialects years on(e.g., the Wolfram Outer Banks and Schilling- of North Introduction* themighttemptedEstes1996, island 1995;apply usWolfram, of to Schilling-EstesOcracoke,to assume receding Hazen, that North dialects. a generalizedand 1996;Carolina, Schilling-Estes Our Wolfram study supportedmodel ofand of dialect dialectforforthcoming)Schilling-Estes the change recessionmost part on has insularhistoricallysimplya DISSIPATION1995; Outerlost Wolfram, orisolated Banks drastically MODEL, Cheek, variety.island erodedin community, and whichThe Hammond inexamination traditional the post-insularHarkers 1996) dialect of Island another supported features state (Cheek ofpost- are an the investigation,differentassumptionsslopedissipation of erosion. model, of the allowing dissipation for minor model changes based in on the a regressionvariety of post-insular we It examine is dialect important, however, to challenge the a situations. quite different Therefore, post-insular in this TRATIONinsulardemonstratecommunity,some dialects MODEL thatSmith recede. there of Indialectmay fact, be recessionwe significant show thatin whichdiversity the moribund features in how actually state post- of language varieties may be characterized by a CONCEN- Island, Maryland. Our examination will 93-19577,intensify rather NEHResearch than Grant dissipate reported No. RO-22749, hereas the was variety partially and dies.the supported William by C. NSF Friday Grant No. SBR- 95 dataRebeccaEndowment from Setliff Smith at ofNorthIsland. Emory Carolina University, State who University. generously shared with us her U Penn Working Papers in Linguistics, Volume 4.1, 1997 Special thanks to 84 Symbolic Identity Schilling-Estes & Wolfram U Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) well-known[A1996; >!] in Schilling-Estes Ocracoke production English of 1996)./ay/ (Wolfram with In thisa raised investigation, and andSchilling-Estes backed we nucleusfocus 1995, on the Several of our previous discussions have focused on the touristmarine-basedThemainlanders economic trade. have economybase set shifts up homesto from one onheavilya relatively the island. dependent on self-sufficient island the upglidingdiphthong,backedcentralizedproduction variant. /ay/. ofnucleus, the /ay/ As backWe inwe andSmithalso shallupgliding compare in see,Island, vestigate /aw/ diphthongit which withmay the thebeis patterning realized realizedOcracoke that parallels with with of raised thea a raised, raisedfront /aw/and marriageasSocial asOcracokers do networks working with mainlanders come extendand other into beyond social morebecomes the contact confines more of the relationships. with outsiders;commonplace, bygenerationalandand/or Rebecca Smith fronted Island. Setliffsociolinguistic nucleus in the as earlywell interviews as1980s, a fronted whilewith glide42 the islanders Ocracokein both conductedOcracoke data are The data from Smith Island are drawn from a set of cross- (2) The Socioeconomic Transformation of Smith Island Theof 1960over populationland 1,000to mass about acres of declines 450 the of inisland loss 1990. significantly, in shrinks less than significantly, froma century. almost at 700 a rate in milesOcracokebeginningdrawn from and in the theSmith 70-plusmainland early Island 199(ts.interviews Delmarvain relation Figure we toPeninsula.have each collected other. Like there Ocracoke, to date, Smith island is located in the Chesapeake Bay, about 10 1 shows the locations of SocialTourismalternativedecline,Traditional networks forcingis meansa occupations minor areislanders of trade, restrictedsustenance. suchand to movethere foras crabbingislanders isoff little the in-migration. islandandwho oystering continue to seek bothinhabitantsSmithwhich Islandis located settled has been20 there miles accessible in from the latter theonly mainland half by boat of the since of 1600s. North its first AlthoughCarolina, Britishislands have historically been isolated from mainland Island and Ocracoke situations, including the nature of the Ato couplelive on theof noteworthy island. contrasts are found in the Smith to (1)transformationeconomiccommunities, The Socioeconomic they are summarized are currently Transformation in undergoing (1) and of (2) Ocracoke below.significant social and change. The characteristics of each island's seekasseveralinteractionalpopulation its workmarine-based decades, on networks the Smith mainland. economy Islandaffecting has Meanwhile,declines, eachlost over community. thus a Ocracoke third forcing of Overits has population the grown past shifts, socioeconomic changes and alterations islanders to theconstructionimplementationbroughtTwo island. and to a half of a centuries pavedof a state-run highway of geographic ferrythat runs service isolationthe length and theare of a sudden end in the 1950s with the quitetourism.steadilyinterminglingbased limited as Regular its ontraditional between Smith interaction Island, marine-basedoutsiders between whereas and economyOcracokers.outsiders the expanding isand supplantedThe islanders differentialservice- by is industry on Ocracoke is characterized by increased permanentmainlandminorityAncestral populationvacation and there, on theand island, other mainlanders as tourists from establish the islanders. vacation (approximately residences 350) becomeon the island. a islandcommunities:questionssociohistorical communities? regarding andHow socioeconomic isthe language process ofchange situations language proceeding lead change us to in ask these obvious two What can a comparison of these two 96visitCurrently, Ocracoke approximately during the 3,000 tourist to 5,000 season, tourists while per 400 day 85 86Howsituations do linguistictell us about and generalized sociocultural models factors of language converge recession? in the 97 Symbolic Identity Schilling-Estes & Wolfram U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) Ocracoke,examiningexplication namely oftwo principles diagnostic /ay/ and of languagelaw/. diphthongs The changevariable and patterning recession? of each of In the following sections, we consider these questions by in Smith Island and Table 1. The Variable Patterning of Raised /ay/ on Smith Island VI. Obstr. Vd. Obstx. Nasal Totals patterningtheseordifferent diphthongs is ways. not reducibleis The changing explanation to ina simple each for community matter their differentialofsociohistorical linguistic in significant diachronic process but circumstance. Instead, our explication Age(3)Older 55+ Males N% 45.887 [AI] 190Tot 26.723 [Al] 86Tot 21.228[AI] 132Tot 33.8138[AI] 408 Tot 2.demonstratesintersect to accounthow linguistic for patterns principles of dialect and change sociocultural and recession. factors The Contrasting Directionality of /ay/ AgrFemalesOlder 55+ (2) %N 13.010 77 3.11 32 7.95 63 9.316 172 raised,indicatedOur previous backed that studiesa /ay/,number have of ofdialect receded traditional recession rather dialect dramatically in Ocracokefeatures, including overEnglish the AgeMalesMiddle-Aged 25-54 (4) N% 35.440 113 5.08 72 15.511 71105 27.069155 256 maycompareEstescourse be 1995; of realized with the Schilling-Estes past the with patterningseveral a raised generations of nucleus/ay/ on (Wolfram Smithas well? Island, andResults Schilling-where of /ay/our 1996). How does this recession AgeFemalesMiddle-Aged 25-54 (3) NN% 66.0124107 162176 75.52 7262 24.82126 106 47.1172 354329 patterningcomparativeofsummarized the raised ofquantitative inraisedvariant Tables /ay/of 1analysis /ay/ and in inOcracoke2. SmithofRaw the percentages diachronicIsland and areSmith givenandfor theIslandsynchronic in incidence Table are 1. YoungAge(5) 13-24 Males N% 70.5111 180 97.5 71 2519.8 120 48.6155 371 providedresultsandRaw Schilling-Estes figures forin our Ocracoke areprevious not and given descriptions Smith for IslandOcracoke, of areOcracoke given since in /ay/they Table (Wolfram have 2. Figure been 1995; Schilling-Estes 1996). VARBRUL AgeFemalesTotals, 12-24 (7) All N% 47961.7 898 6.810 395 20.8116 597 41.8705 1890 comparisonenvironments.patterning2 provides ofa graphicSmith Island display And ofOcracoke the comparative /ay/ raising diachronicprovided in Two of /ay/ noteworthy raising contrasts in prevoiceless are evident and fromprevoiced the men Speakersin Ocracoke (24) (Wolfram and Schilling-Estes % 53.3 7.8 19.4 1995). Instead, it 37.3 TablehardlyIslandshowing 2 and appearsshows a Figure decline a to significant 2.be for a temporary/ay/ raising/backing,increase revitalization in raised as /ay/.beforein Ocracoke, an inevitable Smith First, is the direction of change. Instead of This increase agedtheappears steadily and to younger represent increasing Smith a robust usage Islanders. changelevels for in raisedprogress, /ay/ as among middle- Second is the differential orinring of phonological evidenced by 98 decline, as we have found with raised /ay/ for certain middle-aged BEST COPY AVAILABLE 87 88constraints affecting /ay/ raising in each community. Although the 9 9 Symbolic Identity Schilling-Estes & Wolfram U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) OcracokeTable 2. VARBRUL Results Smithfor /ay/ Island Raising: Raising, Smith Island and contextsOcracoke,backed, raisedand in disfavored Smith variant Island is in favored the raising in is favored prevoiced environment, just as is prevoiced environments in in prevoiceless InputVARBRULOcracoke Probability Raising, Results = .41 VARBRULInput Probability Results = .36 may(Labov/ay/seemsis raisingbackedbe explained1963; relatively inas Chambers Canadianwell by centralized. as pointing raised, 1973).English towhile In Thethe otherand thecontrasting a Smith Island fact that thewords, Ocracoke Ocracoke variant raised /ay/,number of U.S. varieties constraint orders raised variant AgeYoungerMiddle-AgedOlder Group: = .63 = .32 = .51 OlderAgEYoungMiddle-Aged = .38 = .59 = .52 peripheral(Wolfram[4whilephonetically could Smith be vowelsand more Islandconsidered Schilling-Estes likemay raised [A display >'], nonperipheral./ay is /, mirror located1995)located image thatin in peripheral theWeperipheral constraint phonetic have vowel proposed andorderings space space, non- of Vd.NasalFollowingVI. Obs. Obs.= .56 = Segment:.71= .33 VI.Vd.NasalFollowing Obs.Obs. = .30 = Segment:.67.41 varietiescentralizedmorein terms frequent suchof [al] the as in issonority Smith moreprevoiced Islandfrequent hierarchy; position English in the thus, andinprevoiceless Canadianraised, backed environment English. in There is another way in which Smith Island differs from Ocracoke but raised and VI is FigureChi-Square 2. The per Patterning cell = .221 of Raised /ay/ over Time Chi-Square per cell = 1.356 highlightedcountlessraisedOcracoke and withbackedcomments in performances respect [A >'] byto /ayoutsiders of /. Wethe dialecthave and notedislanders. (Schilling-Estes that in Ocracoke, 1995, is a symbolic icon and the object of It is also 100 thediscussunnoticed,1996). opposite below, In despite patterning Smith the realization its Island, dramatic in terms however, of of increase/aw/ social with raised saliencein a islandfronted /ay/ in speech. theglidegoes two displaysvirtually As island we I60 80 2,7 53.5 66 a Smith island VoicedSmithVoiceless Island. wherecommunities: everybody Fronted talks /Pv/about serves it. In asOcracoke, a stereotype /aw/ in is Smith a marker Island, but it in their rL 2040 37.236. 32.2 Ocrocoke.VoicelessOcracoke. not3.discussions a stereotype, of island and speech.few islanders comment on Older0 Age Group Middle Young Voiced OcracokeOur incipient and Smithqualitative Island andaddresses quantitative several analysisissues central of /aw/ to the in SmithThe Patterning Island of /aw/ in Ocracoke and 100 89 comparative90We are obviously investigation concerned of dialect with change cross-dialectal in moribund comparison dialects. of 101 Symbolic Identity Schilling-Estes & Wolfram U Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) furtherchanges concerned in /aw/ and with /ay/ how in Smiththese twoIsland diphthongs and Ocracoke. compare We with are a.Figure 3. The Positioning of /aw/ and /ay/ in Ocracoke diphthongaleachin the other consequences synchronicallysubsystem of of the English. differentialand diachronically And finally,symbolic we statusas are part interested ascribed of the to RO, 39-year-old2703 male 2200 1700 F2 1200 703 ZO representing/aw/ and /ay/ threein these generations two communities. of speakers from Smith Island and Thus far, we have extracted data on /aw/ for 10 speakers 403300 ofinitialseven /aw/, attemptsrepresentative we posited to delimit speakers that possible variants from variants our of Ocracokethe of the nucleus nucleus sample. might and In glide ourbe 0a d-non-pertc-perfcmxmce (v0) (vd) cfe-nc^1)6d. al-Pert. 603an dimensionscategorized and that glides might be categorized as fronted, non- along the raised-unraised or fronted-unfronted * ow (v0 0 ow (nos) OEIX 6c 703 contingentGivenfronted, that or upon theabsent fronting the (when fronting of law/ the of glidetheis realized nucleus of /aw/ aswhich is a considered monophthong). pulls the toglide be o aw (11) am (nos) \ 01V NO 903803 frontedthatalongled variants withus glide. to it (Labov, ofHowever, the /aw/ Yaeger preliminary nucleus and Steiner would spectrographic 1972), always we accompany might analysis expect has a call this assumption into question. We are even x 00 et 1000 fronted,ofquestioning binary as classifications well the categorizationas the salience such as ofof raised/unraised, variantsthese distinctions of the andnucleus for fronted/non- islanders, in terms b. BB, 18-year-old male 2200 1700 F2 1200 700 203 andthesesincespectrographic non-fronted noeither clear of patterns theseglides analysis. two seemsin terms dimensionsHowever, relatively of the the/aw/ clear.have distinction nucleus yet emerged with between respect in fronted our to 2700 .1 303 andspectrographic in Figure 4,analysis partial are vowel given charts for two are speakers given for from two Ocracoke; speakers In Figure 3, par dal vowel charts based on our ai0, ot,(vd) 603 yearmalefrom -old Smithand femalean Island. 18-year-old and The a 15-year-old two male; Ocracoke the two speakers Smith Islanders are a 39-year-old are a 41- female. Points represent mean 0 ow (v1) 0 00 an703 areF1including andgiven F2 forvalues prevoiceless several for several different (e.g. tokens typeshouse, of ofeach phonetic vowel. environments,Measurements out), prenasal (e.g. down, -x81 oe ow (I)000 9C0 /i/,/e/,/m/,brown)production and and word-finalof /a/)/aw/. are given ((e.g. as how, anchor now). points Other for vowelssituating (e.g. the 91 92 .1.4 5:0°3 Volume 4.1 (1997) cokerSymbolic whose Identity vowel chart is given in Figure 3a reveals fronting The spectrographic analysis for the 39-year-old Ocra- Schilling-Estes & Wolfram of FigureU Penn 4. Working The Positioning Papers in Linguistics of /aw/ and /ay/ in Smith Island theagedIncidentally, /aw/ men nucleus in our this and Ocracoke speaker glide in samplealso prevoiceless happens who shows toand be prenasalhigh one usage position. of the middle- levels for a. 2703 1K, 41-year-old female 2203 1700 F2 1200 703 200 exaggeratedraised1996) lay/; discussions /ay/ raising of "performance" is highlighted inspeech. Schilling-Estes' Although we(1995, might in fact, he is Rex O'Neal, the speaker whose d 403303 byreflectionmaintain a complete ofthat his spectrographic Rex's generalized fronting fronting analysis of the of of /aw/ backhis vowelnucleus vowels, system isas simplyindicated by a Erik aw (vT) Thomas,far back the causes fact that us to the question law/ glide this in assumption. word-final Theposition back-gliding of is quite 0 ow (nos) (17) 70) word-finalextensiveSmith Island /aw/ front isthat categoricalgliding we have of /aw/forso farall in speakersexamined, other environments. in evenOcracoke those and Thiswith oe ow (nos) 0 a oe 800 903 speakerplottedsuggests inwith that Figure /aw/respect 3bhas toshows undergone /aw/ .tgliding fairly an allophonic intypical Ocracoke. pattern split. The for trajectory a younger of The 18-year-old Ocracoke speaker whose vowels are 1030 environment,unglided.his glide except in prenasal position, where /aw/ is sometimes Interestingly,is backward regardless of the following phonetic this speaker is atypical of younger b. DE, 15-year-old female F2 703 203 sampleislandislanders /aw/ who in variant,terms shows of significant he/ay/ is raising.one of usage theDespite few levels youngerhis for lack the of speakers distinctive the distinctive in /ay/our 2700 2200 1703 1200 403300 symboliclosingpatternvariant the of(about statusdistinctiveretentionkeeping 40 ascribed percent). /aw/is to one Wethe/ay/ manifestationhypothesizetraditional and /aw/ in Ocracoke that Ocracoke.of the this differential selective Those [AI but 1a a ai a 3W 30 preserveseekingway to toraised, the project mainland backed their back-glided /ay/,status while as islanders glide-fronted through language may variant [au]. /aw/ readily gives 0 ow (A)owaw (nos) (8) 700 fronting,4.Islanders The first particularlyis speaker,indicated a in41-year-old thethe representativeprenasal female, environment, indicatesvowel charts butsome notin nucleus Figure much The positioning of the nucleus and glide of /ay/ for Smith 00 o ow 00(=blend) 800 900 however,raising of is theclearly nucleus. evident, The even fronted in environments trajectory where of her a frontedglide,104 BEST COPY AVAILABLE 93 94 105 Symbolic Identity Schilling-Estes & Wolfram U Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) uponitnucleus appearsYaeger, nucleus is notthatand evident, glidefronting,Steiner fronting for(1972). as example, may not in prevoiceless position. Anothersuggested, possible for explanationexample, in for Labov, this be phonetically contingent Thus, relativelyfollowingof its salience non-salient excerpt in Smith from/ay/ diphthong. Island,JK's sociolinguistic especially For example, in interview.contrast consider with In the thisthe The role of /aw/ in linguistic demonstration is indicative lack of glide-fronting for expectedbecauseIslandapparent has such incongruenceone. led aspeakers variant mayto seize be moreon a phoneticallynoticeable There are two cases in which JK, the speaker is that the social marking of /aw/ in Smith than a phoneticallyunnatural variant, in Figure 4a, raisedtranscription.case/aw/passage, compared of /ay/ /aw/JK would is and discussingwith be /ay/ her represented ownin herthe use. mother's conversation The as [al, phonetic if it had isproduction givenoccurred in of broadin each this Glide-fronted /aw/ is represented as [m']; nucleus- glidedOcracokeadoes backwarddemonstrates not produce speakers trajectory /aw/clearly represented vowels in fronted word that in glides. Figureare different First, 3. Second, from in prevoiceless &id prenasal environments -final position, as it did for the the /aw/ glide shows /aw/ is back- when JK (3)passage. JK: andhouseWell, broad [hrals],my mother as brown it can was [brrain], be. from But Tylerton.you theyshe know, I just stillsay, as saysum, flat tokensglideexample, of is thesegiventhose intokensof Figure her mother. relative 5. The to positioning JK's ordinary conversational of the nucleus and her ownfor JK:FW: saysIdownYeah,Justhouse likelike [haus]don'tmmhmm.[drain], knowand I would.down Theybrown about [dasay [braUn]. n].downit down I don't [drain]. [drain] know thereI ifknow she ... Figure 5. Demonstrating Smith Island F2 and Mainland /aw/ FW: Now she would say, just like this: Would she say houseabout house[haus]? [haus]. I know about that. 2703 2203 170J f 1200 700 203 303 JK: that'ssayUhhuh. house how Yep. [haus],Tylerton And Ibut say says I housesay that. [hags]. I can Ipick heard up her aI house [hoe's]. Cause -407- an an seemsdon'tI say know like pie [pa'].they how sayuse Andto say maybe theit, up long that's at Rhodesuh right, /ay/ butPoint, it's likeit It's like a long /ay/ or something [a']. Like --an- 703 JK:FW: No,theyYouI'min no, gothere. saying.. can't pieI can't [pai].I necessarilycan say just it. pick copy it up.it, but I don't you evencan hear know it. if - 9C0 1000 variantproducing that typifies different Smith variants Island of speech. /aw/, includingHowever, she fails in her The conversation shows that JK is quite proficient in the glide-fronted 95 96thatattempts she canto produce hear them. different Most /ay/ likely, variants, her evenability though to demonstrate she insists 10") Symbolic Identity Schilling-Estes & Wolfram U Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) speechthat/aw/variants JKand isof its aware /aw/middle-aged variant but that notrealizations. glide-fronted /ay/ islanders is indicative The /aw/ such conversation ofis as morea greaterherself prevalent also awareness than indicates olderin the of heme,told [brwin]understood how that I man,pocketbooksaid 'pocketbook'. it. I Andsaid, inhe "Have here?" went He back Hewentyou couldn't seenback therea understand brown and there and got agedchartislanders isspeaker given such inas in Figureher terms mother. 4b, of showsher /aw/ a pattern production; similar sheto the indicates middle- The younger Smith Islander, DE, whose partial vowel DE:FW: Did you point to it and say, "See? See what color he Yeah.is?"said, "Is this yours?" I said, "Yeah." I tried to talkI said brown [braun]. it I yetgeneralizedfrontedtoHer it categorizeis nucleus not and clearlyglide-fronting raisedappears the fronted. raising variant more for Atof raised whichlaw!,thisthe /aw/point, exceptthan is nucleuspart wethe in areofmiddle-aged word-fmal the uncertainin SmithSouthern position.Island whetherspeaker's, Vowel as a frontedspeaker variantscited above, of /aw/ manipulates fairly readily, the glide-frontedindicating greater and non-glide- awareness The young speakers in this interview, like thecouldn't 41-year-old say it good; he still couldn't understand me. sincesuchCanadianretrogradeShift aitor categorization appears as English movement, a centralized to (Chambers be istheas relevantin trajectory raisedvlartha's 1973). to variant theVineyard ofW.:, thesocial are whichglide not Englishmarking rathereven represents (1963) sureofthan /aw/, that the or a /ay/,discussionsof feature.Island/ay/ and variants islandersinterviews, By of contrast, /aw/ thando like asnot wellthosethere thisseem as oneis oftoobservations relatively beand/ay/. able the There to one little demonstrate by in are outsidersovert (3) a in numberdiscussion the the about Smithraised of this of mainlandnoticeablepositionislander of/aw/ to produces theislanders variants, nucleus anda whilebacked outsiders.which the glidefront-glidedmakes for Smith /aw/ variant inIsland demonstrating is prevalent /aw/ so Like the middle-aged Smith Islander, the 15-year-old ostentation."throughtheirspeech.variant awareness [s']In what other which ofPreston words, theis becoming [31] these variant speakers more either and are through morenot able directprevalent to demonstratecomment in their or (1996) refers to as "definition by thatConsider,sometimesin took other place contexts. for leads in example, the In mainland fact, DE's her townreportglide of frontingof Salisbury, confusion is so Maryland. concerningprevalent Thethat /aw/ it to real -life cross-dialectal misinterpretation. inexample,is that1996)Schilling-Estes' is indicatesuniqueRex O'Neal, about greater examination the their speaker height /ay/ vowelof forof performance the the whileOcracoke nucleus ignoring speechofdialect /ay/ /aw/. in(1995,studied speech For Conversely, Ocracokers are quick to demonstrate what it two(4)respectively,conversation Smith Islanders atin the(4) timetakes (LAE of place the and interview. between DE) who the fieldworker were 13 and (FW) 15, andLAE: We say down [din] and south [swle] and all that; performancesthreetideperformance on /ay/'s, the soundthanspectrographic phrase, in side', non-performance It's also hoi measurements contains toide onspeech. an the /aw/ reveal sound Although vowel that soide inhe his additionis 'It's notstock highable to DE:LAE:FW: Down Yeah, [daUn] like that. arid sound [saund]. Onetowe say don't time it. sayI was it thein the way Salisbury you talkI Mall, don't and know I had how' this forconversationactuallyperformances.to seize /aw/ less inon Rex's the glide-frontedduring In feature performance fact, his sociolinguistichis of than performance/aw/ hisand glide-fronting production non-performance interview. production of /aw/ Measurementsin his inspeech of ordinary speech/aw/ are is 108 store,brown and [brEein] I left pocketbook.it in there, and And I wentI went in in there the shoe and 97 98given in Figure 6. 109 Symbolic Identity and Non-performanceSchilling-Estes & Wolfram U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) Figure 6. Ocracoke law /: Performance 2700 2203 1703 F2 1203 700 203 303 hesitantscoresof the small (3.149) to draw sample indicated any of definite speakers in our conclusions and VARBRUL the high at Chi-squarethis analysis, point. What perwe cellare is a 5034W clearrapidlyis drasticallyfrom expandingour analysis receding in thus Smith without far, Islandwith however, fanfare isconsiderable inthat Ocracoke glide-fronted fanfare. while /aw/ it is 7C0600 Table 3. The Variable Patterning of Glide-Fronted /aw/ awow NO(nos) a. Raw Figures: Ocracoke aw (5)avAperforrnave tnas> j 0331003 Age Group No. Front/Tot.Prevoiceless% Fronted No.Front/Tot.% FrontedPrenasal No. Front/Tot. % Fronted Total basedcontrast on 10 between Smith Island Ocracoke and andseven Smith Ocracoke A preliminary quantitative analysis of Island as dramatic as that speakersglide-fronted reveals /aw/ a Middle-Aged Older 14.8%12/818.9%7/79 23.9%11.5%16/676/52 28/14813/13118.9%9.9% Figurefrontingpresentindicated raw 7.in by Thethe figuresour two internal quantitative communities.and VARBRUL Ector analysis group A graphic of is /ay/. analysis results for /aw/ glide- following environment,comparison isIn givenTables in 3 and 4, we environments Younger 3.7%3/82 0.0%0/73 3/1552.0% whichbecauseIsland,indicate is there particularly that are glide-fronted very between few examples `awl old isand increasing of middle-aged The results of our preliminarylimited to pre voiceless and prenasal prevoiced /aw/. dramaticallyquantitative on Smith analysis speakers but also b. Raw Figures: Smith Island Prevoiceless Prenasal Total towardbetweenchange /aw/-fronting middle-agedin progress. appears and younger to represent speakers. a Conversely, there has been a rapid robust, rapid language declineThus, in glide-the move Age Group Older No. Front/Tot. % Fronted 0.0%0/69 No.Front/Tot. % Fronted 3.0%1/40 No. Front/Tot. % Fronted 1/1091.0% incidencetofronted ismake that /aw/ of ofa the changeonglide-fronted factOcracoke. that in progress taw/At this than point, toward older we are not middle-aged Ocracokers display a higher speakers.increased One possibility fronting was quite sure what Middle-Aged Younger 64/12650.8%62/93 58.0%40/6932/36 104/19594/12953.3% abandoned in the face of competition from mainland /aw/. In light 99 100 66.7% 88.9% 72.9% t SymbolicTable 4. Identity VARBRUL Results for /aw/ glide-fronting Schilling-Estes & Wolfram 4.U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Conclusion Volume 4.1 (1997) VARBRULApplicationOcracokeInput Probability Results: = glide fronting= .07 ApplicationSmithVAPBRULInput Island Probability =Results: glide fronting= .30 differentatIslandThe first examination English glance, in terms hasto ofbe ofshown lay/ (1)somewhat theirand that /aw/ statuscross-dialectal similar in withinOcracoke may their variantsturn English respective out thatto and appear, vowel be quite Smith Middle-agedOlderAge Group:. = .62 = .75 OlderAgeMiddle-aged Group: = .02 = .74 systemvoweltheevaluationchange status configurations, systems, affecting of of /ay/ the we andlinguisticthe see variants,/aw/ differences(2) thewithin changes directionalityand thein (3) takingperipherality, Ocracoke the socialplace. of and the embeddingWithat Smithleast respect for Island /ay/.and to linguistic YoungMaleFemaleSex: = = .19 .65= .36 FemaleSo;Young == .84.76 orderingwithRaisedSmith respect /ay/ ofIsland constraintsin to Ocracoke peripheralityraised /ay/affecting is located is non-peripheral.most /ay/ in likely raisingperipheral explains in This the vowel two differentialthe space, varieties.differential while status NasalFollowingVoiceless = .56 Environment., Obstruent = .46 FollowingMaleNasalVoiceless = .24 = .61Environment Obstruent = .44 Raising/ay/expectedlay/ nucleus-raisingraising and continuation seems Martha's to and be Vineyardof a/aw/ retrogradethe glide-fronting Southern raising. movement, Vowel It appear may Shift, just be to like thatbeSmith part Canadian varieties Islandof the We were also struck by the fact that, whereas Ocracoke Chi-square per cell = 3.149 Chi-square per cell = 1.359 perhapsgradeundergoingout inmovements ascommunities a death defense by than againstconcentration like those Ocracoke. the undergoing outside are more language deathprone variants toby initiate dissipation that retro- win The differential social marking of /ay/ and /aw/ in OcracokeFigure 7. and Smith Island ICY) The Patterning of Glide-Fronted law/ Over Time in Ocracokeprogression hasand of been Smithchange. shown Island The to recessionbealso somewhat seems of to /ay/irregular, have backing/raising an botheffect in on terms the in 6080 Ocracoke regularmoreof its socially way.change On unobtrusive slope Smith and Island, its marker phonetic raised /aw/ /ay/ conditioning. seems is increasing to be recedingMeanwhile, steadily and the in a a.02 2040 4143_2_ 0-- Smlln Island themorestraightforwardly, movement obtrusive oflaw/ its in showsnucleus;a phonetically no andclear it naturalpatternappears manner.in that the thedirectionality However, glide may the be of Older0 Age Group Middle Young bequitefronted a difference unexpected, independently in phonetically.the stylistic of the nucleusamanipulationWe suggest phenomenon further of changing that therewhich dialect will is 112 101 ness.features102 Ocracokers based on theirindicate symbolic "definition role and by theirostentation" level of forconscious- /ay/ but 113 Symbolic Identity Schilling-Estes & Wolfram U Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) Thus,not for thelaw/, symbolic while Smith meaning Islanders of dialect apparently features show has the importantconverse. FoundationQuantitative GS-3287. Study of Sound Change. National Science gereddissipationimplications dialect model forsituations. stylistic of dialect Dialectmanipulation death recession is notin dialect inapplicable Smith change Island to andall seems endan-death. to Our examination of /aw/ and /ay/ demonstrates that the Schiliing-Estes,Preston, Dennis Natalie(1996). (1995)."Whaddayaknow? "Production, The Perception, Modes of and Folk Patterning: Linguistic `Performance'Awareness."Working Papers Language Speech in Linguistics in Awareness an Endangered 2.2:117-131. 5:40-74. Dialect Variety." Penn impressedleadingwhichbe characterized the to dialectwith a sort byhow actuallyCONCENTRATIONof rapidly `survival gains raised ofin /ay/strengththe or anddialect INTENSIFICATION, glide-frontedas it fittest.' loses speakers, We /aw/ are in Schilling-Estes, Natalie (1996). The Linguistic and Sociolinguistic Status Universityof /ay/ in ofOuter North Banks Carolina English. at Chapel Ph.D. Hill. Dissertation, The Natalie and Walt Wolfram (1994). "Convergent ratherprogressing.fastOcracoke the than changes are extended fading;Dialect toward for contactendangerment Smith glide-fronted with Island, speakers due we /aw/ areto of the impressedand other loss raised dialects of withspeakers /ay/ howmay are Wolfram, Walt, Adrianne Cheek, and Hal Hammond (1996). "Competing Normsweren'tExplanationVariation andLeveling Selectiveand and Change inAlternative a VernacularAssimilation:Mixing 6:273-302. Regularization English Variety." Outer Patterns: Banks Language Were/ and Smithlinguisticlead to Island, the swamping compressed we were may not lead intensification aware to a rapidthat post-insular loss of of structures,features. dialects just could as Before we confronted the case of dialect intensification in ofData,Southern LanguageSchwenter, Theory, /3/," and and and Information, Analysis. J. Solomon, Stanford, 41-68. eds., CA:Sociolinguistic Center for the Variation: Study in J. Arnold, R. Blake, B. Davidson, S. as suggestIslandersalonebecomeevidenced in sothat thisthat indistinctive Smith theglide-frontedbelief excerpt IslandersDespite as inthey (3),/aw/ themovedfirmly other is apparent expanding comments towardsbelieve awareness indeath.that fromtheir their Weinterviewscommunity, of dialectwere Smith not is Wolfram,Wolfram, Walt Walt and andNatalie Natalie Schilling-Estes Schilling-Estes (1995). (1996). "Moribund "On Dialectsthe Social OcracokeandResistance the Language Brogue." of Phonetic Language Endangerment Change," 71: 696-721. Canon: in J. Arnold, The Case R. Blake, of the B. same,popularbecoming the opinion more diluted they and as may scholarlyit dies. actually belief, differ. the more things seem the Sometimes, however, contrary to Wolfram, Walt and Natalie Schilling-Estes (1997). Hoi Toide on the OutertheDavidson,Variation: Study Banks: of S. Language Data, Schwenter,The StoryTheory, and of and Information,andthe J. OcracokeAnalysis. Solomon, 69-82. Stanford,Brogue. eds., Sociolinguistic ChapelCA: Center Hill, for Cheek,References Davina Adrianne (199)). Harkers Island lo/ and the Southern Norm: A Microcosm of Languages in Contact. M.A. Thesis, Wolfram, Walt, Kirk Hazen, and Natalie Schilling-Estes (forthcoming). UniversityPublicationDialectNC: The UniversityChange of of Alabama the Americanand of NorthPress. Maintenance CarolinaDialect Society.Press. on the Tuscaloosa, AL: Outer Banks. Labov,Chambers, William J.K. (1963). "The Social Motivation of a Sound Change." NorthLinguisticsWord Carolina 19:273-307. 1 8State : 113-35 University, Raleigh. (1973). "CaLadian Raising." Canadian Journal of NorthRaleigh,Department Carolina NC of State27695-8105 English, University Box 8105 Labov, William William, (1994). Malcah Principles Yaeger, of Linguisticand Richard Change: Internal factors. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell. Steiner (1972). A 103 [email protected]@unity.ncsu.edu104 115 speakersU. Penn Working collected Papers so far. in The Linguistics data consists of approximately 79Volume 4.1 (1997)codedusing the The Geo linguistics of a SoundBarbara Change M. Horvath and Ronald J. Horvath /1/ Vocalization in Australia Progress: in Languagefuture.analysiswords for of Coderbut eachthe data speaker; and we willhave the be data only reporting have beenon begun the variable rule those results in the A1. preliminary Goldvarb analysis of a sound change in progress Introduction /1/, inat NORTHERNTERRITORY basedNWAVEAustralian on data 24 English, (seecollected Borowsky the in Adelaide, and Horvath South Australia. 1997). The report was vocalization of was reported In that report WESTERN QUEENSLAND SocietypatternsOptimality (Borowsky and Theory in a paper and is Horvath delivered 1996), at thewe furtherAustralian argued that what used to explain the variable linguistic Linguistic AUSTRALIA AUSTRALIA SOWN strugglevariationists between have calledfaithfulness inhei ent constraints, variability e.g., can bethat represented consonant as /1/ a remain a consonant, and markedness constraints, ...d. NOW scum, WALES particularlywants to syllable harmony constraints. The overall aim of the Ill vocalization project is to study the 0 Ads d. VUC"."* lA .11, Yale, Italsousual is particularlyto linguistic take a special and important social look atpatterning to the examine geographic of the this geographical patternschange in of progress variability. spread but of o 1) 200. (CO 4\00-773 500.61n 403 600 ROO IdleTRIMI tilift a '6.St6ANIA 2 aim,bestwidespreadlanguage minimalhowever, change belief geographical is larger in if Australian than variation that; English we throughoutwant studies to demonstrate that the there country. is thatno orOur the at only to present counterexamples to the Hoban ofinsightsstudy lessonsstudylanguage of intohasthe learned change.geolinguisticsbeenthe role extendedfrom Tothat theaccomplish patterns ofpilot in sound a numberstudy, of thischangegeography we task, of have ways:will the play redesignedyield /1/ invocalization interesting the spread the data as a result of MelbourneSydneyHobartMountNumber Gambier(H) (S) of (M)speakers (G) by speech locality: 28274639 Gambier;havenowenvironmentscollection havestudied thedatainstrument are: mapand from Brisbane, haveshows five to collected include newthe Sydney, locationcities /1/ data Melbourne, inin of Australia.inmany thesemany more Hobartfive more citiesphonological places.and and Mount Wethe The cities we Brisbaneexcluded(Approx. (B) for 79 varietytokens of per reasons, speaker e.g., (79x171=13509); noise masking speaker, 175 tokens word Total 17131 Tablesize 1of shows the circles the structure represents of the the relative sample116 size and of the the number, population. of U. Penn Working Pooers in Linguistics, Volume 4.1, 1997 BEST COPY AVAILABLE omitted110 by speaker) 117 Geolinguistics of a Sound Change Horvath & Horvath U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) Table 1. Sneaker Sample Workin: Class FemaleGender 10G 11-1I SE M 529 Yrs and below 5 8 geography.take account of developments in both sociolinguistics and Middle Female Male 59 16263 13521 453 35 Table2.fivedataset; 2 cities shows there with the are annumber a overall total ofof rate tokens13,334 of vocalization(words tokens containing in the of dataset just /1/) over fromin 20%.the all Geographical Patterns of /1/ Vocalization WorkingTOTAL Class FemaleGender 29G2 H5 30 Yrs and over 3S M20 3 224B highestSouthcanHowever, be Australia,depicted percentage as the as 'Percentwhere an of implicational vocalizations our vocalized pilot study array, /1 followed /' was row with conducted) shows, in turn the by havingfive Hobart, cities the Mount Gambier (in Middle Female Male 1774 11321 1552 19745 9041 Tablevocalization.Sydney, 2. OverallMelbourne Statistics and Brisbane with the least amount of callgeographical the approach aspects `geolinguistics' of the variabilityTOTAL after that the we suggestion have observed. made Weby In this paper we will would like to concentrate on the numbertokens of G35921197 2127H545 4952109S 3663073M 2433B181 Total278413,334 unanalyzedDialectresearchersourChambers approach geography anddata like Trudgillwithand Orton hopedprimarily the in (1980). earlyEnglandthat regional used workWe and beginmaps indialects Kurath byto brieflywould in New emergecontrasting England. from dialect geography by display relatively percentvocalizedvocalized /1/ /1/ The linguistic coding of the dataset is given in Table 3(a); 33.32 25.62 23.47 11.91 7.44 20.88 conformsincouldwouldthe terms maps: be emerge located. of withi.e., something that thethat Explanation practiceseither would like a singlesuggest of settlement forregional theisogloss where patterns geography history. orsome bundles would dialect of thenthe of isoglossesboundarysame be found era - This approach inbutnotthat explainingthe the inwere columngeneral preceding coded thetheselabelled but orlinguistic followingwhchare 'Linguistic the have variability.factors consonants been Factors'that left Ofwe outwere course, assumethere here, are e.g.,we play some assume whether some or voiced or voiceless, factors thatrole Labov'sincludingtheof 1930's,'60's linguistic footsteps camesampling '40s analysis. aand variety haveand '50s. data focussedSince of collection criticismsthat on time, single methods sociolinguists of speechdialect as well localities geography, asfollowing methods and With the advent of sociolinguistics in in beofreportfactorsthe themaintained. results variation,and end for up the accounting we purposes can see forofwhether looking the variation. the at implicational the the Goldvarb analysis will be that only some of these geographical structureIn this preliminary analysis can Williams.outsidespeechtohave discover all community. ofbut Insociolinguistics the abandoned this social paper Geolinguistics and geograpical we linguistic withvill arguethe patternsseems variationwork for theofto thehavein return their geographer been of geographydeveloped Cohn of variation in a single determination madefrequencyimplicationalfeature), the distinction 3-valued of a variable. (presence/variable/absence between The 2-valuedlatter are (presence/absencemore exactingof a feature) because In an early paper on implicational analysis, Fasold (1973) tables where a numerical value represents and n-ary of athey the to dialect studies with the proviso that the BEST COPY AVAILABLE reinstatement needs to 111 require112 that the numerical values, in this case percentages, maintain 119 Geolinguistics of a Sound Change Horvath & Horvath U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) Table 3 a /1/+dorsalLinguistic: Factors Linguistic Factors x Speech localit Ex. G 78 Percentage VocalizedHS A/ 48 51 MB 33 33 dorsal+syll /1/ milkpickle 56 20 3 0 24 4 0 00 WI re)(71 VI 21. M -.. ...v-)C.. Z .1, t-4 -.. 00 00 00 16 0* ') ." t-0' %. 12 -;:t3 r-C2 .-.1-1-'w diphthong+Nhigh/back V+N boilcool 4854 2952 2933 2817 19 ]V4 , , .2 N-. VI . '0'- . eno Sce, 70..n -. aitnen N A0C.1 t..- high V+/1/ field 46 43 32 2118 136 VD .-.. CDcel CO1/40 C.1 InCO .1/4-. .-.z.-... Nis/1/##C clustered hulkfeel sorry 4143 35 2830 1715 7 N.c) M-.000 cot--0C2. etQen r-.,-.oo -,cr,r- -NLe.,;*ces N....%0 VQM oV'Mt'.2 0....Mv-) long V+/I/ hall 37 11 9 >1/4 . .-... CT '1,0 M....*00 ON .1/40- 7,5 centralN##pause V+N foalfeelgirl 343534 322631 2319 128 58 co.5 RP., ',.v..)00in --.....c)...,0I en-.c.400 en...."..00 N"1..,VDrq 4D'7ae..... in...... -- enON...... 0as N...,NIVD .cr.....,rrelun t:CT1/40 frontback V+/1/ V+N cool 3133 2011 272614 914 11 3 Nenr-vINNen.-.,c,,,o.---, \.-.,VI CO V'0en 0N .0'on ....-...... -. /1/coronal+syllshort is syllabic V+/1/ /I/ fillhorriblebottle 2829 3010 1626 910 103 .41,9, e,1;:t7 -e 1 -(N inr---, r-(NI.o es1Tr0 --et in-,r- ,c0tz- hin.o enr- mid V+/I/ sell 26 20 21 7 6 ... en en.--. .-.* CN..cr rq CNVD - . - . . CD 19 3 1/411v, 0 '1/4 P0r- --- ..-.r- ...... VIeo-.- - . . . V).I.-Z.4. v., .* M..... Nislow codaV+N Malsmall 2219 29 19 21 64 91 1..-.001/40,...,---00.,..o-,...., -NC h -... -.,-, Q-- oNo0,-.incoorn-.-ct CI.in coPi en Nr. ! '736 /1/##V bottle CI- 19 8 12 6 ...... - ...,.. Ali-labiallow/front V+N Nilehelp 1415 4121 2813 42 21 1 7-I... >.54+as +IX ..._.._ T..71 4) + + /1/+coronallabial+syll /1/ feltpeople 1112 103 15 23 3 .°:7-a 113.. 2cn . Q 4.1.EtlEnuC.f. +8 gi, :E °4 'b..t, 11.o ='' '5$ ...-.' ) 1 3."-. >t, +C 7 11> ° ..tc 0 (Miller 1991:178)eproauctbthty measure: ...... 1 - number of errors/number of cells a .0 :c i 2 i 8 Measured across only and with120 ±5% tolerance: 1- 8/115 =.93 113 114 121 Geolinguistics of a Sound Change Horvath & Horvath U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) implicationallyfactors,underlinedtable.an tolerance.implicational the reproducibilityand even forordering. the with overall themeasure as rate yet is ofunanalyzed a vocalizationrespectable list .93, butof givenlinguistic that that5% The cells that do not fit the implicationalThis means pattern that not are only are the five cities ordered Table 3(a) is an n-ary implicational In ci .... -. or,c, -.ct CA (NI alignment is maintained even when we unpack the conditioning 11'. c VD.0 rqc4 L7-3unvD tZ:vD C-0.6.-+-. ""c4et un Chet 00qD on ..Ch "c:1-. factors on /1/ vocalization to a quite delicate scale. Table 3(b) gives 2Cci w r-CI v) -- sc, VD 4 25vn C2.,:t ai..-. Z--, Qmt -.V implicationalthe number of tokensarraywith that athe reproducibility percentage figures of .93. represent. Table 4 shows that the social factors also form an Once again, it E0 vnon C; -- ,c.... 4; Cl cA.--, C)et CT c4 r- -.-7 is unlikely that all of these factors will be selected by Goldvarb as but 00 r- VD =1:-.1 significant in accounting for the variability of /I/ vocalization, g -...eq -... ule4 r--- 0,)rA --CD .,r;-, Nr-.. C4on_.,./ ...... un (-4,... 00...... --CD fromit is nevertheless Mount Gambier the vocalize case that more the than implications do speakers standspeakers from Hobart, un kin -. socialSydney class and or so gender. forth, no matter what the social category isage, (gPN WICh ch-. ooCD vl0, - Crsr- COvD -....'ctCh rnCh c4 oo ooNr vi!r ul PN O--VI ;"45cA r-vls.et t:,r- CD't-- 6-. CDun ilicrn i7-1eV c)t: -"00 4unrn Table 4. Social Factors x Speech Localit S B c.0 m Social Factors GI Percentage of Vocalizations 111 I MI rnlh CI CD Incn ..WI C)vn oo00 ettin ... r- r- rnvl 29 or below 37 31 26 15 9 JD .g 00'EL':un.... --::ch 0,:71.-ch N.C'R cr,olCA "'a et7.1. vDrn rn00 --..0t: :1500 c2un female 36 27 28 14 9 .Ti rq rq et I- un CA c4 rn en working class 35 2125 31 11 8 1.0.) .-^ Nt r.D ,tt vD CA 30 or over 29 14 7 .=.. i::0CD (VIcsi 6100CV ;3..C, *CR,.C) -'fit00 ioorA-A un00 "i rnr- on00 NCD CToo male 31 24 18 10 5 .m.uv k..d g rn i2cr, r4 cv et .ct -- -. C1 -. rn 10 Reproducibilitymiddle (5% to class erance): 27 22 14 1 - 2/30 = .93 9 2 ,. .c.) CCI ..... +a" Table 5 is an implicational table in which we extract a ..::..,..,c4 2 + (4 w>, :,,. '.... + + 45 0 '-'co 0 .'"".... c/a 0ww Tabletheoretically 3(a). coherent dimension from the linguistic Sproat & Fujimura (1993) have shown in factors on an -a C .- ..; ...... - 0 "ri eg + -.. ,_....1 a g > a,u w .0 v;0 > -3 >-.4K -.. + ...-- .:.°j5 _ + articulatory study that English laterals are complex segments U .-: c < c c indicatecontainingvariability; that two some Ns gestures, are kind vocalized of a coronalplace assimilationmore and oftena might account dorsal one. Table 5 whenwould in the context of than they are in for the BEST COPY AVAILABLE 115 theback116 context sounds of (dorsal front consonantssounds (coronal and back consonants vowels) and front vow42 3 Geolinguistics of a Sound Change Horvath & Horvath U. Penn Working Papers in linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) Table 5. Backness-FrontnessDimensionLinguistic Dimension x Speech Locali FactorsLinguistic G H S M SpeechTable 7. Locali Type of /V: Clustered,Type of Syllabic/1/ or Coda x Percenta e of Vocalizations BACK dorsal+syllV+/1/high/backN+dorsal /1/ 785654 Percentage of Vocalization 204852 3 05133 242833 3316 Reproducibility (±5% tolerance):CodaSyllabicClustered 1-1/15 = .93 294119GI HI S IM1 B 351910 j2128 1015 6 93 coronal+sy_1111/ 3114 11 1314 29 31 Reproducibility (5% tolerance):FRONT /1/+coronallow/front V-t /V 1 11 3/30 = .90 10 J. 15 Table 8. A exSpeech Localit29Age and below 37G IPercenta e of Vocalizations 31H I 26S I M I 15 B9 ScreechTable 6. Localit Following Environment/1/##X (Word final /1/) x S M B Reproducibility: 30 and over 1 29 21 14 11 7 PauseConsonant 3543GIBPercentlIge of Vocalizations 2(,35 8 2330 1811 96 mostchangeto sociolinguistics important in progress. contribution and But that this is anotheraddition we can kind is expect not of theevidence of only geolinguistics. or even the We have at least gained something from adding geography of language Reproducibilitythe linguistic factors;(±5% tolerance): /1/sVowel voc.tlize everywhere more when followed Table 6 shows another linguistically coherent subset of 19 I12 6 geography,"andplausibility"GeographicalChambers they predict and ofparticularly any dispersionsTrudgill "...a hypotheses concerning correctly can about be sorejectgeographic the chaotic orderliness Bailey's asmodels to statement challengeof oflanguage." diffusion thatthe fruitful interchange of hypotheses with people)ismostwhenby clustered a consonant oftenandfollowed least in (as every by when inthan amilk), speechvowel. itwhen is followeda Tablelocality codafollowed (as7 shows(withby in bywhen feel). oneathat pause itThese exception)vocalization and facts least when differ occurs of all/1/ is syllabic (as in say:moreastreating(1980: either "As detailed 205). "...the 'given'a reaction spatialinter-personal or assumed to dimensionthis particular to behavioural be of merely language conceptualisation a studies."context, contact aHe andbackdrop ofgoes change... space, on toa Colin Williams chides work in sociolinguistics for for frequentlyconsonantfrom(1996)Southend, our earlier usingvocalized.when Colchester reportthefollowed sameA onGold and Adelaidebycliita Norwichvarba vowel study where andin just England syllabicA/ recently was bycategorically/1/s completed Miriam were most Spero in a collection instrument found the an andstructuregeolinguisticsnumberexplicit examine ofspatial of geographers languages how (is) perspective." the the geographical analysis..." have (1984:9). andsought of "The distributionstructure Letto mostanalyze us now of fundamental thepatterns languagelook variability at andour (...)task resultsspatial of from the of Tableinterestinggoodandfollowing 8syllabic indicatorshows in order: any that(.554); that ac-ount clustered the vocalization agethis o.. factor factor(with cross-dialectal isaholds group probabilitya sound in is all changeclearlycomparison. speech of .776), in going localities,progress coda Finally, to (.661)prove in a all understandingvocalization of of N how in Australianlanguage changes. English further contributes to our speech124 localities. BEST COPY AVAILABLE 117 118 125 Geo linguistics of a Sound Change Horvath & Horvath orderU. Pennis as follows:Working (AdelaideusingPapers in Linguistics evidence from the pilot study) Volume 4.1 (1997) bysystem.model,In3. geographers this sectiontraces The second,tochanges we understand discuss thefrom culturalthree change.larger of tothe smaller most common cities within models an urban used A Geographical Interpretation hearth model, focuses upon the The first, the hierarchical Mt.(Southwhereimplicational Gambier, Australiaa change Hobart, pattern in begins this Sydney, appears case) in aandMelbourne, specificsimilar spreads to speech the toand other cultural last locality speech Brisbane. hearth localities.or region The Figure 3 divides Australia into a rapidly growing model posedperipherymodel,whichspeech it here focuseslocality spreads to is the which upon inmore which changesof widely.slowly the an three innovationspreading growingThe modelsthird older frommodel, first best core. the appears accountsthe rapidly coreperiphery and growing The question for the from core;Clearly,andperipherygrowing the in slowly/I/fact, that partsvocalisation theincludes ofgrowing changethe older Brisbaneis oldernot is core, spreading core Southand Perth(Southeastern Australia from (Australia's the and periphery Tasmania.Australia). Sun toBelt) the spreading from the most slowly purposes,hierarchicalpatterns of we the model can geographical think gi :en of thethe variability Australian urban system. Figure 1 is a highly urban system as consisting of three stylised representation of N. For our of the Australiansnoted,South Australiamost who studies wouldand inspread factnot doimagineto theshow rest that of inAustralia.innovations general innovations begin in in These results, would not meet the expectations of most As we have levels: 2.1. justpopulationsFourTwo over capitalprimate 1,000,000 of overcities three peoplev. ith million populations (Brisbane, people) betweenAdelaide, 250,000 Hobart, and cities (Sydney and Melbourne with Australiaoverpotentialbelow. time Wemove forand nowadding space. down turn to the toour urbana abilitydiscussion hierarchy to account of geolinguisticsrather for language that up fromandchange its 3. GambiersmallerManyPerth and country populations isCanberra). the onlytowns country thanthat arethe town nothigher reported capital order citieson cities. here. and have Mt. EnglishitThere4. has developedare studies several to so conclusionsregard far. the Sydney that we dialect can draw as the from the project as Conclusions There has been a tendency in Australian model for all of expectsecondfromSydney, Sydney, toorder see 2. Melbourne,thecapital Australia's following cities 3.only and patternBrisbane, globalthen on to 4.city,the country Adelaide, implicational and Melbournetowns, 5. Hobart, we would to and the 6. If /I/ vocalisation were spreading down the urban hierarchy scale: 1. shownAustralianvariabilityoneaccepted thatcannot SydneyEnglish;by of justscholars Australian isstudy notthe and the hierarchythe English. ordinarylead primate dialect of Australians cities for this model sound is change In fact there and know about the alike. is a distinctWegenerally have and doMt.reportedThehierarchy. notGambier. majority follow that The Clearly, important theof hierarchical the model asstudies thechanges involving numberschange of change/spreaddo modelmove on change the downis figurenot down ofherethe innovationshow, urban as the a thestrawman. hierarchyurban data have hypothesesagain,anddifferentadvantage again we speech and toaboutcan studyingprogressing localities:begin whether the and through same to what the degree linguistic system again to as we see innovationsthe change beginning again sound change in a number of investigate innovationsthe linguistic path of and discussedandbegin. Melbourneit is commonly above togetherusing believed the are stylised the in Australiaspeech representation localities that Sydney of where the orAustralian changes Sydney Figure 2 presents the same implicational ordering changefactgeographicalto that is controlled there characteristics is a by geographical markedness constrain dimensionwhat to the degree variability What we want to focus on in this paper, however, is other contextual considerations andthe pathwhether of change. andvariables like social of the andthe Gambierurban system. and Adelaide. The frequency The graphically of /I/ vocalization represented is highest implicational in Mt. 119 evidencevocalization120 from our of /I/Adelaide in Australia. data to claim that /1/ vocalization In addition to having sufficient is a 127 Geo linguistics of a Sound Change Horvath & Horvath changegeographicU. Penn from Working below analysis asPapers sociolinguists has indicatedin Linguistics understandthat it is also Volume 4.1 (1997)that concept,geographically our a changeoughtThisappearinghierarchy leads fromto be but inbelow,reinstatedus both ratherto further ai.e., countryseems in dialect discussion to town have studies. and originated of Adelaide, how we in thinkthe We have used the term geolinguistics to describe an it is not proceeding down the urban South Australia capital city. geography brieflyapproachtheto sociolinguistics field characterize to of the sociolinguistics. study geolinguistics and of 2) linguistic its relationship in two variability. ways: to dialect Geolinguistics adds a modern conception of geography to Our current understanding of this 1) its relationshipgeography. We will now Labov'sandvariationprojectvariation geographic. is earliestthat to along takesview work.By the intogeolinguistics linguistic lines acountBy sociolinguistssocial threewe structure,mean as structures: an thehave approach analysiswe been mean developing to of taking language into since linguistic, social, linguistic change.scaleareage,account interested constrain contribute Recognizinghow socialin variation investigating to anstructures, the understandingand equal change. how importanceespecially the By concepts of geographical linguistic gender,of geographic of social variation structure, classstructure and andwe place, space and - 5 (g1 j contributemeans that in 'geography important ways matters', to conditioning i.e., that place, language space change. and Let us once again compare geolinguistics with dialect scale 0) patternsmapspast(Tablegeography. and will 9). of what This needvariation We couldtable suggestto reflect shows andbe six butthat the only importantis we sociolinguisticnot twowill yet. positions: need differences to look analysis betweento geographic and them The table suggests that what was in the the U- fob /1/showGeographymodels in widelyin whatbefore matters scattered ways; we and canin speech further it claim is uplocalities work tothat future theon we thepatternswork hope vocalizatiodialect into geolinguisticsaddress are explained. the ques- n toof dimensionclearlytionassociates,geography in showsdetail. in studies thatBailey, by geolinguisticssuch of Wikel sociolinguistic people and asis their rapidly variation. associates becoming or anDavid important Britain The current work linking sociolinguistics and Trudgill, Kretclunar and his 128 BEST COPY AVAILABLE 121 122 129 Geolinguistics of a Sound Change 46 Horvath & Horvath U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) pEoTa g92. lz 7ci 2 zw "lig c..)aS 3"R .0 - rA -8 References cc.)a) itn B T 1;,.. >-, aic-;czc_v: cd c .-v,-. >,g E.9 .2gto Bailey, Guy, Wikle, Tom, Tillery, Jan and Sand, Lore. (1993). patterns of linguistic diffusion," Language Variation and "Some 8.'1,4 7.; .0 2 .7 '). A ti 7, .E5 o=c. ) . 9. iiTo V)ec.) Change 5:359-390. nE 8 5 ..12%) Borowsky, Toni and Horvath, Barabara. 1997. "/1/ vocalization in E ,...o '''67 0 . ,.._,.a. U cE ...... ' >co c. ' i-.n0 ..=.... 00 0 gp.to inAustralian F. Hinskens, English: R. vanthe studyHout ofand a Wetzels,sound change L. (eds), in progress," Change ..c,ucca) ha 2 're uV) Ag 80 toc ..... Cl.) ed7 C4 r,, caaCr - 'i"ct10:.) t)CI 0 ..._.,- = =.... °9, .= 0no = co CO Borowsky, Toni and Horvath, Barbara. and phonologicallanguage change," theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Paper presented 1996. "Inherent variability at the annual tt,..O 4.o=Ca,,, 4 0,0 tr., ..,. T' .G.4-s -- >4)0 >, a) 0E -g -''...... 040 - st .= uCs 7c) >= Chambers, ACT,meetings Australia. of the Australian LinguisticJ. K. and Trudgill, Peter. (1980). Society, Dialectology. Canberra, 0a,) 0 ofg i- v e 0 V) tA. = -E. 8C 2C., CZ 011 ed (...) 0 u _Ls L- E Fasold, Ralph W. (1973). "The concept of 'earlier-later': more or less Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 0 < e . e a. ....,. CY c c.') ."'. "vv = c 2 4,4 ..0 7 a al 57 .0 Newcorrect" ways in Charles-Jamesof analyzing variation N. Bailey in and English. Roger W. Shuy eds., Washington, 0 o- =to 0 -6 0 .0...... Poc.5.) =20 0:1 c)),,CO Kretzschmar Jr., William et al. D.C.: Gerogetown University Press. (1994). Handbook of the linguistic pp. 183-197. ...se QCCIela) 'C "2 .., o clC.) Ca 0 L.° la 8OD TO Universityatlas of the of middle Chicago and Press. south Atlantic states. Chicago: o8.cn 0 u) c'd 0 =n ..... 0tan z,....a a) -73-, = Miller,Kurath, DelbertHans. (1949). C. (1991). A word Handbook geography of ofresearch- the eastern design United and States.social Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. 5 .0 110., .A ks t -0 ,,67 80cn1) .... colco Or; 0e.t., t).aet -:7z.01" ...la-- a) Orton, H. et al. measurement (5th ed). Newbury Park: Sage. (1978). The linguistic atlas of England. London: ) ; 3 el E .czi , cil ezpCP 7 Cd=n Nccz CS .. 7ea0 w vim, , = 0a) Sproat, R. and Fujimura, 0. (1993). "Allophonic /1/Croom Helm. variation in English 93 0 = 9 -8 a) t-) - >4) 16,-, . 'E. 0.at on0 and its implications for phonetic implementation," ... auu >,col-.Ew toa- a)0 -g co ....7,-, a) E MO _ o 3a) E -.oa)VI:.12 tic Williams, Colin H. (1984). "On measurement and application in geo- Journal of Phonetics 21:291-311. North :.:) E la .ot > i;,at T g a. e a=; ,,,,?,-.- c....,ti > cn -> = ,-; Staffordshirelinguistics". Polytechnic. Discussion Papers in Geolinguistics (8). )>al V.1 I-% ;L. .7 C.)IX E:: 4 .,t >4 BarbaraDepartment M. Horvath of Linguistics DepartmentRonald J. Horvath of Geography 5.))a ..tX12404 >.a.0ral 0 4t, "4 0C'');z4w Z0'1-.tt:i.A.' 0W i-e wW oa C..) 25 co) c.) 4t o40 4'ta AustraliaSydneyUniversity NSW of Sydney2006 UniversityAustraliaSydney NSWof Sydney 2006 5Vur: (,)..4 . ,.. e4z ..t 01u .17 WIggo,-.>wr.. 0z " [email protected] [email protected] 0 123 124 131 U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1(1997) The Spread of the NorthernUrban Cities Sound Chain Change Shift Beyond the Cities: madetheWhen basicquite the evidentmovement changes by are theirof therepresented portrayal NCS is ain inclockwise diagrams this way, rotationlike it appears Figure with 1.that the It is important to keep in The1. complex rearrangement of vowels known as the Northern Introduction Matthew J. Gordon phoneticactualityprovidesmind,vowels however, linked rathera murk very into complex simplifiedby that a consideringcomplete the and neat and murky circuit. abstractedpattern evidence phonetic presented picture that details. the of in whatdirections Figure are in The present paper explores a little corner of this 1 forofsurelyCities influencemodern the ranksChainformer, sociolinguistics. acrossamong Shift, evidence both orthe simply mostgeographical of theThe intriguing the shift shift Northern has andis phonological remarkablebeen phonological Cities documented Shift for discoveries space.its (NCS), broadas far As appearsvowels:inavailable (n).Figure tothe 1.to be highthe participating shifting front (I), vowels the in amid broaderare front not limited range(e ) and of to the variation those mid mapped centralThe focus is placed on these vowels, because each I will concentrate here on the movement of three than phonologicaleastclaimingincludingthough as New most Chicago, thatEngland space, research as themany Detroit, and impact has a; as farbeenBuffalo six is west also vowelsfocussed andasgreat, the Rochester. are withMississippion affected. a recentfew large reports River, cities In terms of These specificallybymodelvariationis commonly briefly to describe raises aboutaddressing acknowledged questionswhether the someNCS chain about bychanges,of researchers.the shifting the implications forand -es the driving paper of the concludes the current shift, is Thean appropriate nature of this representationshownvowels and the of changesthe shift. they are reportedly undergoing are in Figure I 1 which provides a fairly standard The2.findings data in presented these terms. here are taken from an on-going research Project Description developedLabov,smallerfocusquestionsproject on communities.inYaeger how Michigan.relatedby examini..; the and to shift Steiner theThe thespreadsdiffusion goal speech(1972) of beyondthe of of and theproject large Labov NCS,urban urban is towith (1994),centers populationsinvestigate specific wereinto Standard accounts of the shift, like TheFig. relationship1: The Northern of the Cities vowels Shift affected (after Labovby the NCS1994) and providingPennsylvaniaprojectinand the very communities little a more attentionpromises detailed that has tolie map help beenbetween of given the thegeographic to cities.the status distribution of the NCS of that is currently underway fill some of these gaps by at the UniversityThe TELSUR of whichinonearesuggestedthe which operatingdirectionsadopted in movementturn to, from asresearchersmay inpart historical triggerwhich of of one a chainthat others theyvowel linguistics the shift. appearin triggerschanges a sort and to ofmovement aredescribesbe chain coordinatedchanging reaction. ina situation another, have andThe The chain shift model is residentssamplingonthe theNCS status andeach.speakers ofother the fromvowel NCS two outsidepatterns. small the towns major of citiesapproximately and does 3,500so by The present project also seeks to provide information The towns were selected because they find apparent relatedness of the 132individual elements in the shift is U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics, Volume 4.1 (1997) theythemselves126 are traditional in a sociolinguistically small towns in interesting many respects position. (and While this 133 Urban Sound Change Gordon U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) members),aspectbusiness.thesesized of citycities their they and for identityare the shopping, both residents located entertainment, of roughly the towns 20 milestravel and infrom frequently some a mid- cases to Both towns have easy access to Interstate 94, the is often emphasized by community contradictthesesufficientshiftingstill claims,available evidencebothin (e) and inaccounts, items both in has fact locations.involves not asto been itsome appears backing,offered extent that to though the bothsupport data variants the eitherseem lowering are toof In the present study the overwhelming majority of equalDetroit).andinmain western one routenumbers in Michiganlinkingeastern of men ChicagoMichigan (approximately and womenand (approximately Detroit, in 120 each thoughmiles of two60from one miles age isChicago) locatedgroups from In each location sixteen speakers are sampled with Databeenandaddition,tendency backed, onreported the hasseveral relative analso by apparent tokensbeenboth frequencies observedLabov of compromise (c) (1994:192)were ofwith the found respectable three tendency andto shifted be Eckert both frequency.that variants loweredhas(1991). also Inof herelengthyunscriptedcollected(16-20 are yrs. wordtaken through speechand list from 40-55 (containing wasrelatively the yrs.). supplementedinterview-style informal242 items). by interviews,speech the reading of nine though of speakers a rather this The primary speech data were The data discussed (e) are presented in Table 1. Table 1: n=946).Frequency of shifted (e ) variants (total fromfuturefansvowels the of researchwest formantwere Michigan coded plans frequency on includetown the basis beingmeasures some of investigated. auditoryinstrumental can rest judgments, assuredTokens analysis ofthat though ofthe mythe number:% of shifted:all (e): 77.923.5[e >] 222 % 16.1 4.9 te46 % [e7]6.01.8 17 % Total30.1 285 % 3.1.3.vowels. TheVowels (e) Variable with Variable Trajectories thespeakers,percentageThis 946 table tokens, whichgives of the the wastotal frequency 946. number So information forof (e)example, tokens for examinedwe each see variant that across out as of a9 I found 222 that were backed, and this vowels,indicatedTurning toI in wouldthe Figure question like to at beginhand which by examining is whether thethe evidencedirections 1 are the only ones taken by shifting indicatesrepresentsherenumber we the 23.5%ofsee overall(e) that items of this the rate thatvowel total. of wereshifting was shifted shifted for thisin just any variable over direction), 30% (i.e of the andthe The last column in the table backingliterature.onlyrelatedformulation one to tendency forthe whichmid of front tothe different be NCS,(e primary ). Labov,routes for thishave Yaeger vowel, been and discussed in Steinertheir original in (1972) the Of the three vowels being consideredThus, while here, Labov (e) (1994)is the now seems to hold the shiftingSo,thetokensexpressedtime. 222Table The (2S5, casesfor frequency1 as this indicatesand ofa percentagevowel;backing these of that figures eachhowever, represent backing of of arethe the foundit77.9% totalthreeis also the numberin showsshiftedp.eferredof the the bottom shifted that variantsof innovative alternative row is (e.g. also direction of tokens). describedwherediscrepancynear a the lowthe initialmovement front represents lowering [x]. of a(e diachronic tendency) as one of developmentlowering to something in the shift Labov (1994:196) suggests that this is being replaced by a conditionedtrajectorieslike to explore are phonologically. possible the possiblity and merit Toward thatfurther thethis consideration. variantend I have trajectories are As a first crack at such further consideration I would appeared.compiled synchronicthebacking difference rule. Chicago Eckertof lowering versus (1991), versus Detroit on thebacking distinction. other ishand, characteristic suggests ofthat a Unfortunately, 127 intoTheselists128 6of listsgroups the appear lexical based as items onTables the in type2(a-c). which of The consonantshifted words variants arethat broken clomfollows lad 5 consonantsshiftedUrban Sound vowel. are Change voicelessAs indicated and by voiced the headings, stops, the categories voiceless Gordon and of pre-nasalpercent,U. Penn and environmentWorking November Papers asis inwellclearly Linguistics as smell,the most favorable one help, and else). The Volume 4.1 (1997) for Voicelessvoiced fricatives, Stops (n=13) the lateral /1/ and nasals.Table 2(a): Distribution of backed variants of (e ) whichtheenvironmentitems.backing, vowel may with can lead on 93be accoustic toinfluencedtokens the perception occurring grounds by the ofsinceinaddition increaseda wide the spectralvariety Phonetically, backing might be of predicteda nasal formant centralization. of profilelexical of in this Voiced Stops (n=13),threatenedpepathletic electionyetpreterite (2) separatelet (2) sweaterneglect (2) exceptiontendencyAstimes.in for a single the seems and backing item, is tonot well,be reallybefore due which primarily indicative appeared to of its witha commonphonological a backed occurrence This raises the possiblity that this item is a lexical /1/, the high frequency of this vowel 41 trend. Voiceless Fricatives (n=20)definitelypregnantalready (2) Ethelredcredit (2) (2) freshmansaided (4) (2) leftsaysinstead (3) mightTrudgillforbackingWhile other bethis of(1974)). explaineddialects /emay / is be quite ofthe in English commoncase,articulatory I should(e.g. before termsNorwich also /1/ andasnote assimilative, hasas that, described been in reported with In this phonological environment backing general, by Voiced Fricatives (n=25)westlessever (2) (3) questionseverywrestling (3) semestereveryone (3) (2) everythingtest (2) (4) theVoiceless vowel approaching Stops (n=14) the back position of theTable velarized 2(b): /I/.Distribution of lowered variants of (e) Lateral /1/ (n=58) celebrateseveraleverywhere developmentweathernever (6) (2) elsewhateverseventeen (2) (3) feltseventy textbooksMexicanbetter Mexicoconnected (4) secondkept (2) Texasmet (2) Nasals (n=93) wellhelp (41)(8) itself (2) smelldependent dependstell VoicelessVoiced Stops Fricatives (n=4) (n=8)aheaddefinitely edlessons rednephews resttread elementarysentencepensFriendvillecentral (2) expensespentpercentgenerallyDecember (2) tendencypercentagelentFrench (2) themfriendsenseNovember (2) (9) Voiced Fricatives (n=10)everythingeverysemester (2) (3) nevereverybodytest (2) togethereveryday everyone (2) thatseemsThe backedcategorization to provide variants some inoccurWendy'sthen theseindit (7) most ationtables frequently of is a obviouslypattern. before rough nasals but and still /1/ wenttrend (30) whentwentieth (9) twenty (11) Thus it appears Latera twelvebell /1/ (n=7) wellfell (2) personnel tell (for example we often hear schwa-like pronunciations in friend, 136 129 Nasals130 (n=3) offenses ten then 137 Urban Sound Change Gordon U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) Voiceless Stops (n=1) Table 2(c): Distributionvariants of of(e )lowered + backed byweTurning3.2. Figurefind thatour 1. attentionhereIn addition too therenow to totheis anothermore lowering variation vowel, tendency thethan high indicatedis front /1/, by The (I) Variable predicted VoicelessVoiced Stops Fricatives (n=0) (n=3)upset schwa-likeandthat(e)variation sometimesdiagram, class. variant.Thisfor this thesethe similarity vowel (I) two class directionsalso extends is exhibitsvery aresimilarto the acombined fondness relative to that to forfrequenciesseen produce backing with athe of Thus, in terms of directionality, the Voiced Fricatives (n=4)dresseverybody guesseverything (3) left samethe variants as for Table as shown 1. in Table 3, the format of which is the Table 3: n=1,108).Frequency of shifted (I) variants (total LateralNasals /1/ (n=4) (n=5) help (2) helping well (2) number:% of all (I): [P] 4.7 52 % 1.3 14re] % 3.0[g ]33 % Total 8.9 99 % this2(b)) vowel can be is contrasted lowereddefensive occasionally with that of beforethe lowered nasals tokens. and /1/, While The distribution of the backed tokens of (e) (Table remember ten went this Asis% you relativelyof shifted:can see, uncommon only 99 tokens as compared out of thewith 1,108 the shifting coded werefor The first thing to note about the shifting of (I) is that it 52.5 % 14.1 % 33.3 % (e). likeenvironmentforInterestingly,tendency backing, 'Texas, is muchnamely Mexico,for what lowering less was before and common one andkept voiceless of resultsthe with in leastthese stops,anin commonpronunciations[x]-like items is the than quality.mostenvironments is backing.common of items The quiteinnovativeappearsconsiderablyshifted, similar which variants lowerto gives that that of seenan the overallthe for (I) 30% (e)class shifting rate are at distributed whichrate of thejust in(e) under a variable pattern 9%, shifted. Despite their . Thus, as relative it did with theinfrequency, (e) the re-examinationconditioningitemsbackedsuggestion the before vowel lowering of thosevoiceless is preceded ratherreh.: Livelystops, than by either backingfewsince cases an in is /1/all where strengthened anbut In threethis or avowel /w/,of by these each isa that this env irionment may play a role in onewithaccountingvariable,third that (e) of ishowever, theboth for shifted over lowered the half tokens. next and(52.5%) most backed, commonof all which shifted (I) was varianttokens. was the backing tendency Straight lowering was pretty rare predominates shown by one with Unlike the(I) patternalsodistributionaccousticallyof which provided is discernable might of or inthe articulator'Table bevariants expectedyet 2(c), for that lythoughthese assimilativewere items. withboth solowered consequence.few tokens and backed no clear is to promote backing as The an changegivenappearing that according in this just 14 to cases,standard a finding accounts that of is the somewhat NCS. surprising is supposed to be the principal direction of 138 bt.S1 COPY AVAILABLE 131 132 139 Urban Sound Change Gordon U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) Voiceless Stops (n=24) Table 4(a): Distribution of backed variants of (I) Table 4(c): variantsDistribution of (I) of lowered + backed Voiced Stops (n=8)bigsixbit (2) stitchesitdid (2) didn'ttriplittle (17) kidspity Voiceless Stops (n=6)littlechicken strictclippings equip grips Voiceless FricativesMadrid (n=7)ifcommission (2) listdifferentmiddle (2) district enlisted VoicelessVoiced Stops Fricatives (n=13) (n=3)Christmasdid (4) differencefigure withkids (7) sibling LateralVoiced /I/Fricatives (n=4) (n=7)livingdeliver (2) his live (2) lived LateralVoiced /1/Fricatives (n=6) (n=1)buildbusiness children (4) village Nasals (n=2) sincebuilt Table 4(b): Distribution of lowered variants of (I) childrenfinished will willed Nasals (n=4) dinner When we look at the lexical gym in distribution of the (I) since the Voiceless Stops (n=7)strictadmit committee (3) fit pretty accountedbeconditioningsituationvariants, mostskewed common is which for quiteby has 17the messy emerged.isbeforeof frequency presentedthe and 24voiceless Backing tokens.no of obviousin the Tablesstops, of single thispattern though 4(a-c), vowel item, of this phonologicalwewaslittle, result find found which may to For this item as well as VoicedVoiceless Stops Fricatives (n=2) (n=1)fifthdid kids environmenttoothers arethe too liquidlike few live, followingconsonant tokens list, trip,to the thatestablish andvowel. precedes Madrid, any thereal the vowel pattern,backing may be due As for the lowering in the (I) class (Table 4(b)), there thoughrather than I might the LateralVoiced /1/Fricatives (n=1) (n=0)will noteAccousticallyagainvoiceless(viz.addition the wefringe, possible tomight stop the in lowering tokensthreelook influenceand tocases Virginia)had a makesperceptual nasalsof of lowered nasals sense wepreceding explanation seein on(I) nasal thisthatthat the preceded environments 4for vowel. of this the finding. a7 nasal pre- as tendency. Once In Nasals (n=3) 140fringe in Virginia 133 the134 nasal formant interacts with Fl to create the perception of a 141 Urban Sound Change Gordon U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) lowereda conditioningIt was vowel.andfound backed role mostTherefore, once (Tablecommonly more this 4(c)) dataenvironment before appears are analyzed.voiced to may be stops equally turn as out inopaque. to kids play and The distribution of the variant of (I) that is both one.the combination variant was more commonTable than 6(a): the Distribution lowered of backed variants of (A) adjacentvariantsthatthosesibling, seem tokens butliquidsfor to this thewere be seem (I)mayconditioning produced class haveto promote may been by also athe an singlethis bedistributionidiosyncrasy, shifting operating speaker. as evidenced ofhere. as the all by The factors Thus,13other of VoicelessVoiced Stops (n=2)(n=34)upcupsbucks (8) cutsbut (13) muchbuttons (7) touchcouple followingbuildtheinitems appearance the and casesuch village. nasals ofas straightof gym, are this influential dinnervariant lower andng. in here clippingssince, just raises as and they the strict seemed possibility as well to beas that Also, the use of this combination variant in VoicedVoiceless Fricatives Fricatives (n=3) (n=4)mustclub stuffstudies us (2) Theaccording3.3. final variable to standard to be discussed is the mid central (41) which The (A) Variable de:,criptions undergoes backing and Lateral 11/ (n=1) colorsgovernor love other Tablerecorded.andinrounding the one 5.present thatin the study, NCS. butThis as expected with (I) variantand (e) hasa lowered been observed variant Frequency data on this variationis both lowered and backed have also been is provided in Nasals (n=12) runfunbunch Table 6(b): Distribution of lowered variants of (A) somefunnycome (2) youngerhundredcoming oncedone Table 5: [Al n=1,000).Frequency of shifted (A) variants (total [A;] Total VoicedVoiceless Stops Stops (n=0) (n=4)cut indestructible up (2) number:% of allshifted: (A): As Table 5 shows, shifting of this vowel is not very 62.2 5.6 56 % 25.6 2.3 23 % 12.2 1.1 11 9.0 90 % VoicedVoiceless Fricatives Fricatives (n=4) (n=6)stuff (6) ratethevariation,common, very predominantinnovative similar occurringas well totokens. directionasthat into shownjust thatLowering 9% ofof bychange, (eof ), (I). thein is the1,000the occuring (A)finding tokens class in that wasover backing roughly 62% of is Also similar to the (I) examined, a NasalsLateral (n=9)/1/ (n=0) brother cousins husbands mother twicea ranking as common close toas thatthe combinationseen for (e) of lowering and and unlike that of (I) where backing, 135 136 drunk fun (4) once one (3) 143 Urban Sound Change Table 6(c): Distribution of lowered + backed Gordon tendenciesU. were fairly uncommonPenn Working when the Papers (e) vowel in Linguistics appeared Volume 4.1 (1997) Voiceless Stops (n=3)couple (2) cut variants of (A) By4.before way nasals. of conclusion I would like to Some Implications consider briefly the VoicelessVoiced Stops Fricatives (n=0) (n=3)stuff us (2) Northernimplicationscoordinatedthein this argument Citiespaper of series pattern are thesethat supposed of of changes change. to isbe certainly participating made in less a chaincompelling shift, the findings for thevariation Whilethey the display vowels discussed interpretation of the constitutes a VoicedLateral Fricatives /1/ (n=0) (n=1)mother shiftinghighthedescribedby changes vowel /e/. here. affectingwas dragged /I/ and down /e / forminto thea drag vacancythe chain in which the appearance If the primary direction of movementFor example,for the /I/ Labov of alternative (1994:195)trajectories suggests that leftlike by the those Nasals (n=4) funny As we turn to the It xical distribution of the variants of lunches once some changes,muchclasspush is less chainbacking, the obvious. movements where however, the /A/ of /e/classits andconnection retreats /A/ appear to to maintain tothe /e/ change is Similarly, when described as backing (1994:195), be linked in a its distance Themade.byattempts(A) the whichmost Thepaucity to frequent first isfind presented of concerns conditionig evidence. environment the distributionpatterns for thisare ofhampered the backed variant. in Still,Tables a few observations can be 6(a-c), variant was before once again somewhat our preservethesescenariofrom vowels.the canapproaching not explain tel the items lowering (Labov tendencies observed for It should also be notedperceptual that, distinctions as mostrather elements than serving to but this in a bilabial,wordsupthesevoiceless and cases asmuch. an stops;a consequence(26explanation We ofhowever, might the exthat itof plain should thewould lip be roundinghold noted for that many for the the other majority adjacent items of 34) were found in just three items, but, the perceived backing in these thevoweldistinctions.tendenciestraditional low space front thatThe/x/ but islowered occupied also by variants fronted not only ofvariants by/e/ unshiftedapproach of /a/. variantsan area of chainof /e/ and shift are/A/ may supposed actually to do, endanger some the Similarly,lowering onrelatedtendencypropensitynasals. the list inincluding maythe was causal strengthen observed couple. manner club thefor that argumentandthe the (e)bunch. chainvariation. that shift these model changes posits. are Backing of this Thisvowel was also quite frequent before finding is interesting given that This shared a similar seemsitemswhichthesome lowered and toplaces sense weakenfronted variants inthem tokenswhich the acoustically chainof ofthe /A/ /3/. case shiftmay for argument,closeachieve the toconnectedness anboth there [al-like unshifted is, quality of these/a/ While the directional ambiguity of the NCS changes I think, makesbackedshiftHowever,(A), parade variantsthe there connection when alsoseems we occur consider to to be quitethe a little (e)the commonly variationdatarain loomingon thebefore seem other over nasals. a variantslittle sincethe chain less both of the straight lowered and the lowered plus This elementsloweringvowels.variationbe argued is The orbolsteredhas that both pattern been what under bygeneralized allows thisthese certain evidence forfindings. conditions theseto three showsitems phonologically which to is undergo that are nota pattern backing,yet related fully of It might, for example, 144 direct, because, BEST COPY AVAILABLE as we recall from Tables 2(a-c), these 137 understood.138 The parallel in the behavior of these vowels is 145 Urban Sound Change Gordon thanexceptsincemade the forgreater in combination all the three by case the backing of relative of (I), lowering straightis frequenciesmore and commonlowering backing. of the than is shiftedmore lowering common variants, and, Still, the finding DepartmentClub,The(PWPL) University isof an the ofoccasional University Pennsylvania series of Pennsylvania. Workingproduced Papersby the Pennin Linguistics Linguistics the graduate student organization of the Linguistics comeindicatenotthat mean these to theyresemble theychanges areare drivenparticipating area chain related by when parallelism in in some limiteda chain phonological and shift.aspects only of incidentally way,the whole does this It may instead will be papers.elsewhere;Publication all in copyrightthis volume is retaineddoes not by preclude the authors submission of the individual of papers variationtheanyconfirmedpicture simplifiedevent, available theby furtherdatapattern todiscussed researchNorthern of Figure here of Cities 1 course andsignal speakers. consider remains a need the toto lookfullbe seen. rangebeyond of are observed. Whether suggestion In PleaseVolumes see of our the web Working page for Papers additional are available information. for $12, prepaid. The PWPL Series Editors Eckert,References Penelope (1991). linguistic variants," in P. Eckert,ed., New Ways of Analyzing "Social polarization and the choice of ClarissaAlexander Surek-Clark WilliamsAlexis Dimitriadis Laura Siegel Labov,Labov, William William, (1994). M. Yaeger Principles and R. Steinerof Linguistic (1972). Change,A Quantitative Study ofInternalSound Sound Change, Factors. Change 213-32. Oxford: in Progress. Blackwell. Philadelphia: U.S. Regional Vol. 1: Editors for this Volume Charles Boberg Trudgill,Program Peter in Linguistics(1974). Norwich.Survey. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. The Social Differentiation of English in and the PWPL series editors StephanieMiriam Meyerhoff Strassel [email protected] Arbor, Frieze of MI Michigan Building 48109-1285 U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics HowDepartment to reach ofthe Linguistics PWPL 619 Williams Hall http://www.ling.upenn.edu/papers/pwpl.html [email protected], PA 19104-6305 University of Pennsylvania 146 139 U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) research on Complexity:Dialect Contact, the KoineisationFocusing and of Phonological Fen land English David Britain Rule Kerswillresearchaftercompleteddialect the quite onmigration changes,the rightly new took dialect forstates place." the of(1994a:70-71), most Milton He part has Keynes beenthree onemost orin more contact has consisted of "post-hoc southernof England, the few, inobservation his of generations Research1. on koineisation, the linguistic processes provoked Introduction by scenariothroughto England.concentrate the which mouths A comparison beganon theof youngover process 300 ofchildren a years range of ago, ofthat data in city. the sources, Fens from In this article, I look at koineisation in a dialect contact of koine formation, as spoken of eastern Ellis proposedthatconsiderabledialectcontact the contact,precursor abetween parallel period has of speakersorigin ofbeenmodem time. for busying of IsraeliBackArabic diverse in sociolinguistsHebrew. was 1959, a koine Ferguson There resulting have suggested been an dialects. Blanc (1968) for quite a from emergenceleast,demonstrates(1889) is right barely of through thata complete, stable the to koineisationform a recentlyyet over for others 200collected process, years appears corpusago. for tosome have(Britain variables at Despite the long led to the 1991), labourersoverseaskoineisationincreasing Hindi andnumber as their andthe of keydescendantsBhojpuri-based studies process which leading in Fijihave,varieties (Siegelboth for example,to 1987),the emergence consideredMauritius of spoken by indented therefore,periodfocusnewfeatures dialect ofquickly, we timein areprogress, development. over whilestill ablewhich others and to hence see dokoineisationWhy, sothe begin much crystallisationthen, to more do assesshas some slowly? been theof some constraintsunderway, We dialectwill look on linguistic forms (Bernardcolonial(Mohan(Domingue 1971, English1969, 1971), Bhatia Dillard varieties South 1988), 1975, Africa asTrudgill well (Mesthrie as 1985, to the 1986). development1991) and Trinidad of post- Trudgill's (1986) book Dialects in Contact, an account of in North America and Australasia community,specialanswerto social, this nature but question. asparticularly wellof the as In evidencedialect the linguistic next contact section,that explanations it is in I a thekoineised Fenland in our variety. attempt In will discuss the rather speech to thethescenariosas role well topic, linguistic as around anparticularly analysis accommodation the world, of onkoine new has development triggeredplaystown indialects new more in dialect a recent(Kerswill formation, research 1994a, on number of contact suchstillwhichTheSection followingfocusing a hastime 3, Ibeen brieflydifference today.two koineised sectionsdescribe Section for present the 6at attempts dataleast evidence sources 200 to years, address ofused two another in variables, whythe analysis. whichthere one the emergence of the koineised forms. is simplificationunderstandingand1997;1994b, the dialects Scholtmeijer1996; (the Kerswillof of increasethe newly like!) 1990, and settled in Williams outcomes grammatical1992). reclaimed We1992; of now regularitykoineisation, Simpson,areas have (Britain and a forthcoming), much decrease namely 1991, fuller 2.We finally conclude in Section 7. Dialect Contact in the Fens inputvariantsin intermediate)formal variants); in complexity);the dialect forms. and themix); cilevelling reallocationcation of (the interdialect (the eradication refunctionalisation (linguistically of marked of We know much less, however, about the intermediate populationratherofsituatedThe Norwich. Fens sparsely about (see density Compared 75Figure populated miles less 1) directlythan with are region, aa the fifthlow-lying north rest of many ofofthat London, Southern area ofparts England of ofandeastern England which 50 as miles aEngland whole.have it iseast aa stages of the koineisation process itself. This is because, as U. 148Penn Working Pipers in Linguistics, Volume 4.1, 1997 The area142 has a rather unique geomorphological and demographic 1.0 Dialect FigureContact, 1:Focusing The location and Rule Complexity of the Fens Britain U Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) 011126,-,,.., erosoul ..---w e. GI.si._ ,41,?....silo.,.. 4Peor-di: .0. OPw453;imilairwirapillil'OR_a*. fib 44E! 601.441IrePtm. of (NoahTin Wuh Sea) 111 / of The Fens with Zwordrameev.offlIva %Go1Npip 0410.IP 0.%. swamp gWermehrbooPa.(PIP eballb ip weba. 411, VemPii, a 4. waratoo. IIIPIND gkeos. 411'esp London '0IP,.. - -IIIeft,41117pwwPlo foo 04110 1.al.IVINIPObemi..wwabspeg:efir IMMO ..... woo...-._111%, Ser we up 44 peo * Illpareo..011.4° --"aliper,orm-gego.."01 12.g" rat 1.fiPam.T. 11. 1111P gilew mariblard sOi O Ini°6Pahldlineg nor Figure 2: The Fenland is 1650 preient cbr: noastEoe 150 143 144 151 Dialect Contact, Focusing and Rule Complexity Britain U Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) onthancentury.history. a atfew present. Figure Theislands northern Most2 of shows higher of coastline the the ground Fenland Fen lay land and uppopulation toin 12the miles early at that further seventeenth time lived in small communities on south theAnglianlocalthrough distinct level, the and Fenland theeastern Midland area (01-tonactsand dialects. aswestern an& Tillingimportant Following varieties 1969). boundary reclamation, In addition, between however,at a moreEast spoken by the in- floodingconsistedthislivelihoodhence northern intoo of summer, undrainedcoastline.of many more small The marshland continuous southern Fenland which flooding two-thirds communities was in subject winterof the was andFenland to directly tidalwas unstable for permanent settlement. The overall migrantscollected(Ortonanalysisprocesses &of both Tillingthe inof the koineisation17thof thelate1969) and Survey 1980s 18thand discussedof ofuncoveredcenturies myEnglish own in would81-speakerDialects a number be datasubject corpusof for examples, thisto of the dataarea Section 1 above. An heavilynorthernrelated1607 toandpopulated, coastlinethe 1613 success (Darby witnessed settlements, of 1974).efforts major to the hold flooding most the stablewater in 1439, back.and 1550, relatively Even 1570, the The mid-17th century proved to be a major turning point (1986).typicalstraddlesdemonstrating ofSome athe major ofkoineised thenot transition transitions only linguistic that zone, include: the butvarieties variety that it described isspoken also in in bymany the Trudgill Fensways partareasmajorcommissionedin of drainage work this wascentury. andto completed begin reclamation A workpreviously by on thewere Fenland late barely notthe 17th complete drainage. passablecentury, until Much butmarshland the in of someearly the history of the F ens when Dutch engineers were tenseTheto the realisationpresencerealisation `-ed'east. forms or of absenceof and/au/: vowels `-ing' [e:] of to/hi: informs the unstressed absent west, are to realised[eu] the syllables: to west, the with east.present [r] past to particularlytotheevolved drainage, Fenland's into in fertile demographicthe those Fens arable central saw land.structure Fenlandquite The rapid wasimpact areas considerable. demographic whichof the hadreclamation Subsequentpreviously growth, on varieties.firstly, the Absent levelling from of the marked central featuresFenland variety,from the but immigrant typical of Asthe west,far as but koineisation [a] to the east. is concerned, we can observe, camebeenrelativelyLincolnshire), less from accessible both few thoughcameeast and (Norfolk) frommost the demographicsusceptiblefurther and afieldwest to evidence flooding.(Peterboroughthan the suggestsThesurrounding influx and that for more detail about dialects to the east are: Thedistinction. preservation of a 'nose' [nuuz] / 'knows' [nituz] polderlandsdialectbroughtdemographiccounties contactinto of the growth the Fensscenario Netherlands andin the settlersimilar late (Scholtmeijer 17thorigins). to andthat 18thTheseen 1990, mixturecenturies much 1992). laterof suggests varieties in the a (see Britain 1997:19-20 Theshortenedthecat doconjunction presenceabsence he'll form bite ofof ofyou', derivesthird'do' 'because conjunctions,where, person from if as you presentthe Trudgill do'.grammaticisation as intense (1995)'don't s. stroke(Trudgill explains, of the a citedtransitionthatwestern the isoglosses Fenssides zones todayof theinare are BritishFens the the /u before site I nglish. of reclamation one Probably of the most is thereflected important two most in the dialect often fact The lack of intercommunication between eastern and A/ (`cup', 'butter') and the /a - a:/ centralPresent Fens in northern are: and western varieties, but not usual in the 1974: 96). (`castle', 'last') boundaries, which run north-east to south-west15 2 3EST COPY AVAILABLE 145 146 153 Dialect Contact, Focusing and Rule Complexity Britain U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) fourThe[e] forms o'clock'.use of of 'while'/ei/ in words meaning such 'until': as 'take' 'don't and 'make'.come while Readregionalpresumably1986). 1933, features Ellis Bernardsince presentcites the 1969, thelevelling in data neighbouring Dillard gatherer process 1975, from or hadGordon immigrant the eradicated central 1983, dialects Fenland Trudgillmarked (cf. town positions:variantsIn 1986),addition, to or serve in we the cannew cases seesocial descriced examples or contextual below, of the newfunctions reallocation lexical (see or ofallophonicTrudgill input of differingthedialectWisbech, home proper' fromofa Mr pure the(1889:253)Little, speech, ordinary who by claimed and literary which that that IEnglish''the mean, the fen town of country(1889:254). language had 'verygenerally but Similarlittle little is thesetsofThe ME north-west reallocationmatching a in words neither of of the suchnorth-western Fensinput as would 'bath'variety. and have Whereas south-eastern'plant' a short into varieties [a] lexical vowelforms to differenceseast-westemphasisingsentiments werewhich both expressed existedthe role (and theby Miller undrainedstill exist) and SkertchlytoFens either played side.' (1878). in hindering All of the above features communication,differentiate east from west, and the quite radical linguistic thatsomequiteconsistentlyin each wordsfront) interdialect and[a:],have [a: in a Ithelonger speakerin others,central (although has thoughFens a different speakers initthese isthis often lexical region use the [a]set casestill in words, and south-eastern varieties would /ai/twoEnglishthe andof fact these the thatlong interdialectal koineised both before involve features:Fenland [y] ongoing form draining,the of reallocated changes /A/. allAs evidencewethat will were see, suggests underway For the rest of this paper, I wish to look in more detail at [ai] [ai] forms of despite that in northernTheeachsimilar centralclass. US. to Fenland that Cent! found hasalised anin Canadaallophonic[ai] onsets and distributionare many found parts before of of /ai/ the whichcrystallisingdialectthe dialect demonstrates form contact a very distinct quickly,which this koineised differential followed while form. the reclamationrate Iother firstly of focusing, was present focusedmuch and the one new slower insecondlyevidence draw centralthedistribution,consonants,voiceless reallocation onsets consonants I haveto of different claimed and phonological open(Britain ones 1997), [ai] environments beforeis the result voiced inof /a/ and estern open onsets of /ai/ and eastern morpheme boundaries. This Kerswillsecondcontactparallelsask why situations dialects1996). webetween should onon variable expect the oneother suchrates hand, (Payne a of difference.with focusing 1980,the InofChambers doingnew dialects so, I variable acquisition of 1992, in intermediateFinally it has forms interdialect of the inputfeatures, variants: features which are phonetically the central Fenland. 3.interdialectalIn order to assess [Y] have the focused extent into the which central Fenland Fens, we are able to Sources of Data Raising and Like many varieties subject to koineisation, Fenland English was varietiesandIt has, south tofor [A].the example, north and an west intermediate have [u], and [y] tofor the /A/: east the ofdraw oral'More upon recordings, recent a number changes, some of sources,traditional however, some have dialectological, comewritten, largely others others from in thetheanalysed south, forth from once considered by folk linguists to be relatively standard-like, 147 /r/,London, and148 the including merger of/1/ /f/ vocalisation, and /8/, and labio-dental non-initial /8/ approximant and /v/. [u] forms of155 Dialect Contact, Focusing and Rule Complexity Britain U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) picture,within a albeit more patchy modern in variationistthe case of the framework. earlier and They traditional Fenland English. By comparing give us a data chartthesources,This development the ofprogress the past of of /ai/ 170koineisation and years /A/ inof inthese this datavariety. sets we will be is a dialect survey of theThe traditional earliest source we have at our disposal is Ellis (1889). type, based on able to listsforminformation wereof spontaneous sent from to over Ellis transcriptions 1100 by locations a combination of inreading Great ofBritain.passages trained Data and dialect inword the Spalding King's Lynn variablebutreliabilityenthusiasts, in some features) of (suchlocationsthe data Hallamas isThomas (luckily therefore was Hallam) includingsent open to tocheckor considerable theinterested Fenlandthe validity locals. question,for ofsome The the WIsbech West Winch Middleton Natbt thoroughly.(Ortonoutlocal in datathe and Basic collectors' Tilling Materials 1969), work of a and thetraditional Surveyinvestigate ofdialectological English some Dialectsfeatures survey [SED] more of Secondly we have the data from the Fenland localities set Crowland Thomey Outwit Enmeth Downham thedataWarboys311 east largelyfrom of in thesethe ruralCambridgeshire Fens, sites localities, suchcan beas two comparedLittleare of in which, Downhamthe withcentral Outwell localities inFenland. Cambridgeshire, in Norfolk surveyed The SED and to Peterborough Chaneria Little Downham andworkingBetween to the west, class 1987 such Fenlanders and as 1990, Crow ofI landcollected two in broad Lincolnshire. a agecorpus groups: of recordings old (45-66) of and 81 Finally we have 3 corpora of contemporary recordings. Warboys Wayhead Ely Soham data,Winchacrossminutesyoung (16-30)theand of Fens,informalSoham (Britain from in conversation the Spalding 1991;. east (see Most and Figurewith recordingsWarboys second-order 3). In in additionconsist the networkwest ofto 60myto Westto linksown 90I was fortunate enough to find two corpora which I could locationsFigure 3: mentionedPrincilial Fenland in the text. urban centres and other andoutaCorpus,analyse Manpower inmost the inhoused inmid the their Services 1980s.same in 70s. that way All TheCommissiontown's ofas Chatteris themy local 10 own speakers library, Local corpusrecordings. History was werein the recorded overThe town'sProject King's55 as yearsmuseum carried part Lynn old of is a collection of 11 individual recordings made over a number of 15 6 149 150 157 Dialect Contact, Focusing and Rule Complexity Britain U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) recordingsyears between are of 1974 working and class 1985 residents by the ofcurator. Chatteris. Ten Most of thesewere Figure 4: Onsets of /id/ used by a speaker from Emneth in the central Fens Figureice-skater,at least 3). 70 years also old. in his The 70s. other from recording Outwell, was ofnear a former Wisbech Olympic (see 4.5 45 4. 'Fen land Raising' of /ail 2.53.5 23 believedcommonlydevelopmentIn most instances, to known have is linked /ailbegun as thederive:;to a sometimeGreat large-scale from Vowel Middle in set Shiftthe of Englishi.15thphonological (GVS). century ItsThe historical changesGVS(Wells is 0.51.5 01 /s/ Ill /f/ /k/ /p/ /z/ /v/ /d/ In/ /m/ /I/ /a/ # partsuchby1982a: around of as the the 184) GVS,1600 north-east, and (1982a:ME possibly 1 theand 185), GVSii completed became although has not diphthongs in completedin the some south-east andparts to subsequently this of of theday. England UK, As Figure 5: onsets of tail used by speaker from Wayhead in the Eastern following phonological environment Fens openthe onsets and central of these before diphthongised reaching the forms more becameadvanced gradually contemporary more 4.5 45 forms (Lass 1987, Wells 1982a). In the central Fens, speakers of all age groups consistently o 2.53,5 3 onsets,centralisedretain an [ai], allophonic [ai] or evenonsets opendistinction before monophthongs, voiceless similar consonants,to Canadian[a:], before and Raising: voiced open E 1.5 12 environments.whereastheconsonants, west ofto the/o/ andFiguresFens morpheme we 4, find 5 and open boundaries. 6 showonsets the Inin realisationsvarietiesall environments, spoken of tail to the east centralised onsets are found in most 0,5 0 Is/ /t/ /1/ /k/ following phonological environment/p/ /z/ /v/ /d/ /n/ /m/ /1/ /a/ # Fens,respectively.2easternspeakersaccording and from the to phonologicalfollowing myBearing corpus: in segment hmind naturalness pical the central found demographic of (Emneth: insuch the allophony, speech historysee Figure of I of threehave the3), (Wayhead) and western (Peterborough) speakers openenvironments. onsets and eastern raised onsets to different phonological We have good evidence to suggest that `Fenland Raising' herearguedFens, by (Britaintheis a Emnethdialect 1997) contact speaker, that phenomenon,the but Tenland typical Raising'throughout a reallocation demonstrated the of central western towninterestedtai/(1889)has beenwhich of there Wisbech, present in. was is There little notin for the evidence isexample.one nocentral ofreliable theto Fens enable sounds data for usalmostfrom Ellisto judge the 200was central the years. particularly progress Fenland In Ellis of 158 2 Index scores: 0=[0:], 151 152 159 Dialect Contact, Focusing arid Rule Complexity Britain U Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) Figure 6: onsets of /ai/ used by speaker from Peterborough in the Figure 7: onsets5 of /ai/ used in the King's Lynn and Chatteris corpora 4.5 5 Western Fens 4.515 4 3.5 43 AX26E 2 1.52.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 01 0.5 0 Is! Al Al N /p/ N N MI AV Iml AI N communityHowever, an of allophonicWryde near split ;'homey, is found where in Hallamthe centralIs/ reports Fenland [mit] II/ If/ /k/ following phonological environment/p/ iv/ /d/ /n/ /m/ /I/ /a/ # WisbechFigure 8: onsets of /ai/ used by four central Fenland speakers following phonological environment from butFenland [taim] (Ellis locations 1889: of 254). Warboys (informants born between 1883 and In the Survey of English Dialects data, the central 3 allophonicanddistinction,1889) 'sky'. and Locationswithdistinction. Outwell [AY - Ai](bornto thein between east and 1874-1889) west do not show show the suchallophonic an (light' and 'ice', and [ai - oi] in 'time' 25 showOutwellwherewith very those ice-skater,the clear use found allophony.of centralised born in the in Compare easternthe forms early Fenlandtheiris years not realisations limited of King's this simply century, Lynnin Figure to corpus, alsobefore 7, The Chatteris Museum data from the Chatteris men and fi lI- voice), voice) a/ alike.grading,voiceless Figure with consonants. 8 /ai/ shows allophony the index present scores in forthe fourspeech speakers. of young Harry, and oldthe My own data from the central Fens shows very little age 0.5 greaterandlittleoldest, youngest change was as monophthongal born ingenerations. thein 1922, status Wayne, ofIf forms anything,Fenland the become youngest, Raising the distinctionmore betweenin prevalent1972. has the become before oldest The apparent time data clearly show that there has been Harry (66yrs) Tom (52 yn) speaker and age Dave (30 yrs) Wayne (17 yes) voiced consonants, /o/ and morpheme boundaries. 160 153 154 Dialect5. Contact, Focusing and Rule Complexity Interdialectal [y] Forms of ht/ Britain Y U.- A Penn - A Working- n] used Papers by speakers in Linguistics across the speech community.Volume 4.1 (1997) Aroundoccurringcomplex.The origins London The in of wordslargest present-day in suchthesource 16th as of /A/-butcher', century, this in lexicalSouthern certain'cushion', set isBritish butMiddle 'luck' not English English alland of `up'. theare diffuse.'andyoungFurthermore,diffuseness not living inOur other realin theof and central timetheinterdialectal around realisations data Fenland sources the centralform locations,of demonstrate /A/, has Fenland asonly whichwell focused bothtown as remain the the of among moreWisbech,long largely termrecent the wordsang/ong,inCockney,recently ME in this(3 fronting) for[a]).such class example) In asunderwent addition, from'blood' have[u] anda tounrounding few alternative [A] 'flood', /A/ (and class andinand sources. wordssome otherslowering varieties,have Furthermore, (`among', (andtheir such moreorigins ME as a realisationsdataimportantinterdialect provide dialect focusing.in townsevidence distinctions and villagesof thorough in his along 1 search andthe isogloss. detailed(1889:15-17) We analysis therefore and his of Ellis considers the /u - A/ split to be one of the more numberME(see Britain,fl of and borrowings in preparation). have joined the 1AI class: bungalow, yuppie The changes which led to the development6 of were /A/ resistedfrom in vernacular varieties of Northern interdialectalinvestigation.informationrecheckinghave quantitatively of aboutforms dataHe notes sourcesthis[u more,- Yvariable that - byA and,the -his 3]4 thantown main becauseused any of fieldworkerby Wisbechother young of the in and the checkingisHallam, old: mixedarea he under better cites withand /u/[buqgalau]MEEngland[A] area 6 setin andwhich southernand and the [o] retain[jupi:]. southern or varieties [u] [u] The in in area'among', dialectME typically with ui andtransition forboth haveexample.have /u/ either betweenand[u] inBorrowings/A/ [u] the straddlesorthe north, [u:] Northern in with hencethe (1889:249),olderformslabels residents from 'mixed' Marcha 13 of yearor the(252) 'transitional' town.old and boy ChatterisOther and include: acentral 39 (253). year Fenlandnorth old manCambridgeshire locations as well heas Despite the impression one might gain from looking at determinedofaroseFens linguistic (see, following for reallocation example,outcomes. reclamation Chambers ofOne Northerncould possibility and potentially Trudgill and Southernwould have1980:128). be had forms a alexically number in the The contact between Northern and Southern forms which thosetheDialectssomelocations existence publishedinterdialectal (Orton of of Crowlandmapsandinterdialectal realisations. Tilling derived and 1969) fromforms, LuttonWhereas also its and data, provideshave thethe the unfocussed`northern'-type[u] Survey evidence in words nature both such SED ofof as of English changenew`after'in intermediatethe to casediscussed /A/ isof an the dialect. innovation, earlier /a - a:/ This in transition wethisis what could article. appearsin perhaps words Alternatively, to have suchhave expected asdeveloped 'plant' since the andthe tendenciesstill3The underway search have for been(seephonological found.Britain inand preparation), lexical constraints but so on far variant no significant choice is materialised.westwards.conflictsouthern, and possibly lead to themore further prestigious gradual formdiffusion to 'win' of /A/ the north dialect and Neither Instead, of these the data possibilitiessuggest that appear a phonetically to have (e.g.,(1889:4Ellis does76-88) not and use other IPA. detailed Based on discussions his 'Table of of the Dialectal intermediate Palaeotype' formsp290-292), I have established (u/) = [y], (W [y - v], (3) = [3 - A]. the following transcription thattheintermediate norm this interdialectalin the form central between Fenland.form [A] in andthe [u],central namely Fenland [y], has has emerged only very as Unlike in the case of laid, however, the evidence suggests Heequivalents:beregion claims supposed generally that Ellis 'I thatmean...merely (u) the in= [u],soundsuch (u) an is =to extensivetransitional imply by regionthe between use thisof (q)(3) peculiar thatand through(u)...It cannot transitional by the this recently focused from a broad and diffuse range of variants [u - u - 155 samesound156 precise (p) remains action absolutely of the organs the same...orof speech.' that 4 is formed always (1889: 292) 163 Dialect Contact, Focusing and Rule Complexity Britain U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics The data from the Chatteris and King's Volume 4.1 (1997) Lynn archives Figure 9: realisations of AI in the Chatteris speakers of the Chatteris corPus Thefurther results11 illustrate of the theanalysis unfocussed of these naturecorpora of are Finally, my own data corpus, collected in the the interdialect form.in Figures 9, 10 and late 1980s, demonstrates the gradual focusing of the Figure 10: realisations of /A/ in the Outwit speaker of onus central intermediate the Chatteris `money', 'thunder' and `guzzle', realisations such as [Y - A] are [u] variant [Y] [A] (1980)centralcited for easternreanalyse the central village the location SEDof Little data, of Downham.5 Outwell and demonstrate and Chambers [u - y the- n and -transitional A] Trudgill for the [u] [A] `mixed'havingthenature Fens of formseither (andthis dialect(theother variable parts 'boundary'. of use astem of They both England thecategorise ingredient and thedifferent Midlands)forms).6 lects asin 'fudged' forms (phonetically intermediate) or Figure 11: realisations of /A/ in the lcmg's Lynn carps variant transcription51tLittle Downham, of phonetic Warboys, forms Luton between and [u]Crowland, and appears[A]. Stanley The fieldworker Ellis, defines for 2 that there is some fieldworker inconsistency in the Outwell,preparation).locations,deliberate,intermediate only my uses to variantsown reflect one data [v]. [y]the suggestAlthough andpro,iuction j, that ]; it Nelson isthis possible of is different unlikelyFrancis, that this(see theforms difference Britainfieldworker in different 1991, was for in Albeit difference, it has consequences for 61Chamberssubsequent found no and mixedreinterpretations Trudgill lects (1980: (variable 129-137). of use this of data, both ingredientsuch as that forms carried [u] and out [A], by a minor [u] [A] butworkerin no Chambers intermediate inconsistencies and [y] Trudgill's forms) mentioned in analysis my in conversational the results, previous however, footnote. data. Their from presence the field- 16 4 BEST COPY AVAILABLE 157 158 varisait 165 Dialect Contact, Focusing and. Rule Complexity Britain U Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) Figure 12: the use of Id by four central Penland speakers from Wisbech 6. New Dialect Acquisition: Explaining 700O Variable Rates of Focusing SO60 addressThe question is why whichcertain theforms remainder (in this case of `Fenlandthis article Raising') attempts focus to ti8 402010 (interdialectalmore quickly [Y], during for instance). In trying to answer theboth question, the social-psychologicalkoineisation process and than linguistic others 10 0 Harry (66 yrs) Tom (52 yrs) speaker =I ape Dave (30 yrs) Wayne 17 yrs) aFirstlyexplanationswe 'marker' can we draw can(Labov (Trudgilllook on 1972), to the 1986, saliencewith Chambersspeakers of the forms.across 1992, Fenlandthe Kerswill Fens Raising 1996). is showing Figure 13: the use 0: la by four central Fenland speakers from non- regularlygreatmy awarenessown mentioned sample of claimed regional as locally to and be significant ablesocial to variationspot Wisbech of /ai/. It was many informants in speakers by 7000 WBbech central Fenland locations theirabout use /ai/of /ai/that (but distinguished weren't able Wisbech to accurately from elsewhere) pinpoint what (see it Britain was "6° Nobody1997). id,in myon the survey other mentionedhand was a very it as unsalient being a soundfeature altogether. which 40 SO theshowed range regional of variants variation, used despite in the Fens.the huge Trudgill phonetic (1986: difference 51) has in 10 0 HeAnglia,noted writes a andlack 'a Elliswoman of saliency made of Middletona similarof this discoveryfeature [see Figure more over 3] generally amarried century a before.in man East of BM (66 yrs) Brian (48 yrs) speaker awl age Terry (28 yrs) Shaun (16 yrs) Narborough.difficultyspoke(kup) (=differently, [kyp The -woman kyp] so (DB))that called TH and cup (Thomas they (10p) had (= Hallam) [Icsp]never (DB)),noticed had the the that greatest man they in making the woman recognise the distinction' shipvariant between [Y] in andage aroundand variant Wisbech. use forFigure the 12four shows speakers the relation- whose distinguishingenhancedtherefore,clearly(1889:261). isn't bythat for/A/, its the thespeakers usealthough salience area as a from livinglocal 'salientof Fenlandboth identity in thefor east transitionlinguists Raising marker and west. supportsandin zone. the //t/, dialectologists, centralIt on andis thepossible, is Fens, other itself formamongconsistentits hassuburbs the focused. youngeruse remain of `FenlandOlder two diffust. speakers, speakers Raising' Figure and wethose 13, saw for earlier. It particularly Wayne, that the [y] outsideexample, Wisbech shows and the of the central is only evidencehand,elsewhereWisbech lacks of focusingfor saliencefor whom a full of and explanation./A/ an isinterdialectal stillnot usedunsalient in form this suggests amongway. However, weyoungsters need to the inlook Fenland.variant scores of four speakers from other parts 159 linguistic160 explanations for variable rates of dialect acquisition In addition to social reasons, linguists have also sought Britain U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) (PayneDialect1996). Contact,1975, Payne's 1980, Focusing (1975, Trudgill 1980) and Rulepioneering 1986, Complexity Chambers research on 1992, Kerswillthe acquisition Keller the notions of 'focused' and 'diffuse' in their Robert Le Page, in whose work with Andree Le Page and Tabouret-Keller sociolinguistic Tabouret- thewhileof andaccuratelyPhiladelphia onsets theextension in-migrantsof /u:/ acquired English ofand the /Au/ rather work the by and tensing in-migrantsonsuccessfully the second raising and dialect raisingfound, ofacquired the acquisition, onsetof /xi.the In a for example, that of /oi/, nonefronting ofChamberssynthesis thosehimselfansense1985), act of originateof the theclaims identity. patterns group that(Le orThe our ofPage groups his choiceindividual, 1978,linguistic with of socio-linguistic which behaviour from so time as toto he maintains, 'creates for variants represents resemble time he complexity.(1992:successfullysimple 682-687) phonological He acquiredclaims accounts thatrules forms in progress secondfor were this fasterdialectall finding relatively than acquisition inmore terms straightforward, complex scenarios, ones. In Philadelphia, Payne's results demonstrate that the of rule joinOurwishestoidentify thoseabilityanalyse to be groups,those to identified'their do groups, so gainlinguistic is constrained feedback(Le have Pagebehaviour, adequate fromand by Tabouret-Keller them,the accesshave extent andsufficient to havethemto theand the which wemotivation can to 1985: 181). ability to ability plesChamberstensingcategoricalsouthern from and his1992, British raisingphonetic own Labov Englishofresearch shortchanges, 1989). he/of of Oxfordshire. is ChambersCanadian whereas extremely theprovideschildren Hecomplex rule fmds governing acquiringfurther that(Payne while exam- 1975, thethe they tonativeormodify whichin other population our one such behaviour may settings speaking focus to wherebecome either the there samedo more not waslanguage, likeexist, no that uecause ofthese the target new groupsgroupsgroup. Initially, in a new dialect scenario such as that in the Fens, (or only a very small) sociolinguisticsplitmuchare relatively of less southern successful successful principle,England. at acquiring at that davoicing simple 'vowel rules/t/a backing', simple progress i.e., faster the /a than-o:/ I would like to claim that we can look to the same rulethey are haveafreshdialectpermanently,because yet thetocommunities formstronger in in their the network must neworiginal therefore speechties speech(L. community,createMilroy communities. the 1980, groups orJ. Milroyare and Such develop 1992) new the in- migrant groups left them behind, usuallyabsent, withsuggestedapplicationquicklycomplex the intarget ones, theon theFens variety, to basis explainthan to ofinterdialectal new speakers' why dialect Fenland relatively focusing[v]. FirstRaising whereshort-termwe mustfocused the justify contact contact more our is of the principles of second dialect acquisition whichmixturelinguisticThe1997) eauability actsome ofbehaviour as varietiesof focalof the the koineisingofpoints. potential under their Ipeers havecontact, motivations dialect must discussed and be speakers constrained feedbackfor elsewhere joining to analyse fromby such(Britain the other groups.wide the newandadults,inultimately dialectthe Labov case but focusing, muchofalso(1995) the by longerlatter reportofchildren course, the term. thatfocusing acquiring involve Bothchildren issecond beingdialect theirnative dialectconducted first contact. to variety.Philadelphia acquisition However, not Robertsonly and areby ahavingdistinctspeakers, speechgroupings, to and focusalthoughcommunity diffuse. identities a new accommodatory, Children norm andonly distinctions.from beginningin such a diffuse isscenarios likely The to target fact to are be varietythat inlinguis-tically athis position spoken process ofin in develop new social conditionsinfactorsix/mostly thetensing/raising Fens,successfulin new rather which dialect more in rule.acquiring makeformation, complex There the the than koineisationparticularlyare, very in however, complex,the acquisition of processthe lexicallysome sort of importantwitnessed varieties diffused in such thedialectkoinedevelopmentuniversal sparsely development. acquisition (nopopulated of school wider Inand Fensenvironment,peer such those group beganan environment,of norms) newwell therefore, dialectbefore further principles educationto formationimpedes encourage of focused secondwas seem the where a clear target dialect is predominant. 168 161 comparable,162 notwith-standing the time differences involved. 169 Dialect Contact, Focusing and Rule Complexity Britain U Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) Fens.inhibiting If, as factorsour evidence outlined suggests, above, it wasfocused present quite in thequickly area around in the Fen land Raising, as we saw earlier, and despite the thishavingareas is a /u/ arerural in large botharea, and 'pus' school it andis possiblecatchment 'puss', forfor and example.some travel-to-work speakers Because from thetomoreover, 1800,a samemajorposition then syllable, areclamation relatively'of it phoneticmust and have simple naturalnessopedwork focuNed rule,onsets was towards thebeforenearing to allocation positions voicelessthe completion. time of before atconsonantsraised which voicedonsets most in of It is, theareasThedifferentplaces locality with presence with southernproportions will no of /A/ involve variants variantsand of vice the contactof different toversa./A/ go which towithAny schoolvariants. overlapmovementspeakers or workwith withbeyond those in numberFens.focusedconsonants, The byof reasonslinguisticthe morpheme youngest for factors thisboundaries speakers are, which I suggest,in and combineone schwa. urban at toleast centre make in ofpartthe the focusing due central to a Interdialectal [y], on the other hand, is only now being asmayRPsomeof [u],the or well phonemic otherwhile/u/ inclass: moresomeon other sense,even southernsituations occasions those though varieties havespeakers nothaving variants necessarily of [A]who English ofor have /A/[v] matching English)orrealised /A/ some (in of one variant extremely complex: phonologicalthereThe complexity are tendencies, conditioning of thethere of/u thisare alwayssplit, and exceptions. even where For - A/ split: there is little Themycommunity:other data presence widevariant range phonetic inas offrom thementioned ongoing same[u] range to word. [E].change previously, of variants in /A/ variantsin present neigh-bouring noted in the in example: (buck,pudding,bilabials/labiodentalsMany fund, of bosom),the pump, won,yet (e.g. there punch, bush, are bucket). manyfull, put, exceptions woman, hi/ class words have preceding phoneticallythereforeregions:TheBritish lack /A/English diverge.of continues phonological - to open has or reachedandlexical front [a].conditioning in Speakers southern are of exposed to variants which continue to mug,If(rush,bush,Many the vowelpush,bug,gush,of the rug, wool,lush,precedes /u/ budge, class dull,full), /g/ aregull, butfudge, or followed 1d31,againhull). sludge); thereit is by usually are/5/ the exceptionsor principal /A//I/ (e.g. Together,theorvariant no variants significant choice: these in the initial have phonological/n/ class severelyanalyses in this orinhibitedsuggest speech lexical thatcommunity.8 the there focusing is little conditioning of of theThe Fensproximity is linguistically of the area with'northern' no /A/: in the English north-westexception terms, of is 'sugar'. puzzling.recentlyonelowerin particular southern the thatOne vowel Britishonepossibilityvariant, hasin English/u/ theemerged. classis intermediate that whichwords. it isWhy linked is However, =rounding it hasto a emergedchange Laver and now [N], such that it is only beginning(1995), to in a underway is Raisingoriginallyadults71 say 'relatively',do of /au/notfrom acquire(Chambers New because York it. 1992:Chambers non-natives State, 689). attempting Forhad who most a arrivesimilar toEnglish acquire in findingthe people, central the forCanadian acquiring Fens Mr J,as /A/8Research class as is one continuing set, the next to try stage and isfind to separatesome. Having out the initially treated the words of different Fenland(albeit Raising a phonetically as an adult natural would one). equate to having a learn a distinction 163 originsorigins)164 (i.e., and ME run 6a fromfurther ME analysis g from for borrowingsthe effects of and conditioning. words of other 171 U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) Dialectconsiderablesmall Contact, pilot study, Focusingmargin found by and middlethat Rule this Complexity class change girls was in the sample of being led by a Britain process.the crystallisation of [v] a slow and laborious sociolinguistic presentedsecondarycomprises in school Britain only children working (in preparation). he class studied, speakers whereas An analysismy Fen of /u/ will land sample be speechextensiveoutcomesnorms communities at alldialogue of levels contact arewithin and theclearly other processkoineisation. areas of of language contact More detailed investigations of a range required if we are to explain the focusing new linguisticA more fruitful and of different research despite7.SomeWe have the linguistic fact been that able thenorms to original track of koineisation-in-progressthe contact new began variety over crystallised 300 yearsin the ago. quiteFens, Conclusion whichofendeavour(e.g., Fenland pidginisation we must forward.English look. and provideThe language constraints one smalldeath) on cluethe as to will doubtless move thisphonological focusing the direction in normasinquickly. eveninterdialectal has our We evolved. very have [v]early seen are dialectological evidence,only now forshowing example, sources. ofOther Fen features land Raising such evidence that a focused ReferencesBarz, R. K. and J. Siegel, eds., (1988). Language transplanted: the acquirers(1992)differencesdifferential and successfully Payneinrate phonological of (1975, koineisation adopt 1980) simple rule have complexity. rules shown of the that Justnew second astarget Chambers dialectvariety The goal of this article has been to demonstrate that this is due, at least in part, to Bhatia,Bernard, T. J. (1988). R. (1969). "Trinidad "On the Hindi: uniformity its genesis of spoken and general Australian profile," English". in R. K.Orbisdevelopment Barz. 18:63-73. and ofJ. Siegel.,overseas eds., Hindi. (1988). Wiesbaden: Language Otto transplanted:Harrassowitz. the withvarieties,demonstratedmuch simple more speakers phonologicalquickly that, in exposed the Fens rules to more diverse, than readily those diffuse focus with and koineisedcomplex mixed targetrules,forms than complex ones, so it has been Blanc, H. (1968). "The Israeli koine as an emergent national standard," in J.development179-196. of overseas Hindi. Fishman,Wiesbaden: J DasOtto GuptaHarrassowitz. and C Ferguson, eds., Language phonologicallydistinctions.irregular, predictable rule with no exceptions. Much more lexically Fenland determined Raising is outputs a relatively and new phonemic simple it and Britain, D.D (1991).(1997) Dialect"Dialect and contact space: and a geolinguistic phonological study of speechproblemsColchester.variables in developing in the Fens. nations. PhD. Newdissertation. York: Wiley. University 237-251, of Essex, reallocation: fromphonologicallycomplex,newlatter the phoneme. wasincomplete however, undergoing unpredictable, The merger is complexitythe a splitofrule lexically ME whichwhich 6 andis determined made led producedil which to morethe took developmentrule /A/ extreme placeoriginating as the of a in the is a Britain, D. (in preparation). "The /u-A/ transition zone: empirical evidence26:15-46.from`Canadian the East Raising' Anglian in Fens." the English Fens". Language in Society contact,apparentofFenland variants, speech that,and including thein community this c.mplex case, some bythe which contact nature, do/did with location notlects have andwith In/timing a wide at all. ofrange It the is of this linguistic feature have Chambers,Chambers, J. J. J. K. K. (1992). (1989). "Dialect "Canadian acquisition". Raising: Language blocking, 68:673-705. fronting, etc."AmericanLinguistics Speech 18:113-135. 64:75-88. K. (1973). "". Canadian Journal of conspired against those creating a new dialect in the Fens to make 172 BEST COPY AVAILABLe5 Chambers,166 J. K. and P. J. Trudgill (1980). Dialectology. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press. 173 Dialect Contact, Focusing and Rule Complexity Britain U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) Dillard,Darby, H.J. (1975).(1974). "General The medieval introduction: Fenland. Perspectives Newton Abbott: on Black David English," andinCharles. J. Dillard, ed., Perspectives on Black English. 9-32. Mesthrie,Le Page, R. R. B. (1991). and A. Language Tabouret-Keller in indenture: (1985). a sociolinguisticActs of identity: history creole- ofCambridgebased approaches University Press. to language and ethnicity. Cambridge: Ferguson,Ellis,Domingue, A. (1889)C. N. (1959). On "The early Arabic English koine" pronunciation: Language 35:616-630. Part V. London:TruebnerDissertation. and University Co. of Texas, Austin. (1971). Bhojpuri and Creole in . PhD Milroy,Miller,Milroy, J.S. (1992). L.H. (1980). and Linguistic S. Language B. J. SkertchlyVariation and Social and (1878). Networks.Change. The Oxford: Oxford:Fenland: Blackwell. Blackwell. past present.Bhojpuri-Hindi Wisbech. in . London: Routledge. and Kerswill,Gordon, E. P. (1983) (1994a). "New "Babel Zealand in Buckinghamshire? English pronunciation: Pre-school an investigation childrenSocietyinto some of New early Zealand written 26:29-42. records ". Te Reo: Journal of the Linguistic Orton,Mohan, H. P. and (1978). P. M. Tilling Trinidad (1969). Bhojpuri: Survey aof morphological English study. Eastdissertation. Midlands University and East ofAnglia. Michigan. Leeds: Edward Arnold. Dialects: Volume 3: preliminary PhD Kerswill, P. (1994b). Dialects converging: rural speech in urban Norway.Oxford:ofG.acquiring language.Melchers Clarendon accent Stockholm:and featuresN-L. Press. Johannesson, Almqvist in the New & Wiksell.eds.,Town Non-standard of 64-83. Milton Keynes," varieties in Payne, A. (1980).(1975). "Factors"The reorganisation controlling the of acquisitionlinguistic rules: a report".dialectVariation Pennsylvania by out-of-state 1:1-35. Working children," Papers inon W. Linguistic Labov, Changeed., Locating of the Philadelphia and Kerswill, P.P. & A. Williams (1992). "Some principles of dialect contact:evidenceLanguageWarburton from Variation andthe NewR. and Ingham, Town Change ofeds., Milton8:177-202. Working Keynes," Papers in I.1992. Philippaki- Reading:(1996). "Children, adolescents and language change". Read,Roberts, A. (1933). J. and "British W. Labov recognition (1995). of "Learning American speechto talk century"Language178. Dialect in Time Notes and 6:313-34. Space. New York: Academic Press. Philadelphian: in the 18th 143- Labov, W. (1989). "Exact description of the speech community: short a in ChangePhiladelphia,"Department and ofVariation. Linguistic in R Fasold Amsterdam: Science, and UniversityD John Schiffrin, Benjamins. of Reading. 1-57. 68-90. eds., Language Scholtmeijer, H. (1990). "De uitspraak van het Nederlands in IJsselmeerpoldersacquisitionVariation and Change ". Leuvense 7:101-112. Bijdragen 79:385-425. of short a by pre-school children". IJsselmeerpolders. Language de Labov,Lass, W.R. (1990). (1987).(1994). "Where The Principles shape do extraterritorial of of English: linguistic structure Englishes change: and internalcome history. from? factors. London: DialectDent.Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Siegel,Scholtmeijer, J. (1985). H. "Koines (1992). and Het koineization". Nederlands Language van de in Society 378.Kampen:J. (1987). Mondiss. Language contact in a plantation environment: a 14:357- Amsterdam:InternationalV.input Law, and N.recodification JohnVincent Conference Benjamins. and in S.transported on Wright,245-280. English Englishes,"eds., Papers in from S. Adamson, the 5th Historical Linguistics. Siegel, JournalsociolinguisticPress. of theJ. Sociology history of of . Language Cambridge: 99:105-121. Cambridge(1993). "Dialect University contact and koineization". International town". LeLaver, Page, M. R.(1995). B. (1978). "A study "Projection, into the use focusing, of the variable diffusion". (u) among Society pupils for researchfrom different project, schools University in Hampshire of Essex, Colchester. and Suffolk". Unpublished Taeldeman,Simpson, S. J.(forthcoming). (1987). "Oud "Dialecten nieuw, contact eigen inen Telfordvreemd new Filologencongres.overgangsdialecten".Unpublished research 423-434. project. University of Essex, Colchester. Handelingen van het 39. in VlaamseNederlands Caribbean Linguistics Occasional Papers 9: 9-32. 167 Taeldeman,168 J. (1989). "A typology of dialect transitions M. E. H. Schouten and P. Th. Van Reenen, eds., New in Flanders," in methods in 175 Dialect Contact, Focusing and Rule Complexity Britain dialectology:University of proceedingsAmsterdam, December of a workshop 7-10, 1987. held Dordrecht: at the Free Foris. The(PWPL) University is an of occasional Pennsylvania series Working produced Papers by the Penn Linguistics in Linguistics Linguistics Trudgill,Trudgill, P. P.J. J.(1974). (1986).(1985). The Dialects"New social dialect in differentiation contact. formation Oxford: and of BasilEnglishthe analysis Blackwell. in of colonial Cambridge:155-63. Cambridge University Press. Norwich. Departmentelsewhere;PublicationClub, of all inthe copyrightthis University volume is retainedofdoes Pennsylvania. not by preclude the authors submission of the the graduate student organization of the individualof papers Trudgill, PapersnonstandardDialectology.dialects: from the the caseconjunction-formation Victoria: 5th of hiternational Canadian University P.Raising," Conferenceof in Victoria. East in H.Anglian J.34-45. on Warkentyne, Methods English," in ined., F J. (1995). "Granmaticalization and social structure: PleaseVolumespapers. see of our the web Working page for Papers additional are available information. for $12, prepaid. Trudgill, P. J. (1996). "Third-person singular zero: AAVE, East AnglianJahr,dialects,UniversityPalmer, ed., ed., andHistorical Press. GrammarSpanish 135-47. sociolinguistics. persecution and Semantics. in Berlin: the Cambridge: Low Mouton Countries,"in de Cambridge Gruyter. E H The PWPL Series Editors Alexis Dimitriadis Laura Siegel Wells,Department J. C. (1982). of Language Accents ofand English Linguistics I: an introduction. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press. Editors for this Volume ClarissaAlexander Surek-Clark Williams dbritainGreatCOLCHESTERUniversity Britain of Essex C04 3SQ essex.ac.uk and the PWPL series editors StephanieMiriam StrasselMeyerhoff Charles Boberg U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics HowDepartment to reach the of PWPL Linguistics http://www.ling.upenn.edu/papers/pwghtml [email protected], PA 19104-6305 University of Pennsylvania 619 Williams Hall 176 169 177 Sociolinguistic Coherence of Changes in a embedding. U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) (CE) has been a relatively conservative dialect for Standard DialectJ.K. Chambers replacementtheirreplacementyod-dropping own right,of ofserviette dived each withby by dove.2 napkin, their ownThese the histories phonological changes and are complexities. interesting change of in In what follows, I discuss three changes: the lexical in news and student, and the morphological likeFronting,observevariety.most house, of the significantIt which is rousecentury only altersand in or changes howthe so the that last(Chambers onset initfew has progress. of years existedthe 1980, diphthong that One as1989, awe offocused, Hung,have these/Au/ begun inisDavisonstandard words to (aw)- toinfrommightTogether, thefact, theconsiderationsbe appears guardiansexpected they establish to beto of in causetaking thethe a cumulativeculture.final some place section. consternation withoutThe pattern fact public that of or itrapid awarenessleadsevokedoes change notthat comment that it, aslax& midChambers vowel [El of(Meechan words1993). like Another finish, is since (6)-Lowering, and until is in sometimes which the heard high Simultaneous 1996).1 with these phonological changes are 1.1.1. Serviette/NapkinChanges in Standard Canadian English Thoughofviewtimenumerous men from themsome and changessystematicallycasual ofwomen these observations, involving haveranging bybeen examiningin pronunciation recognized age we fromnow their have14 as usetoandchanging the over by lexical wherewithal a 80large for in somesamplea large to variants. TheDialect responses Topography for this lexicalsurvey, itemviz.: came from twoAt meals,questions people on the are sometimes given a cloth to wipe their Burlington,conurbationsLakeGoldenurban Ontarioregion Horseshoe Hamilton, in of from southern Scarborough, (Chambers Oshawa St. Ontario. Catharines to Toronto,1994) The and surveysDialect Mississauga, Welland. Topographythe western This Oakville, 250 tipof kmthe of Niagara Falls, including the Atfingersfingers meals, on. on. peopleWhat What do are doyou sometimes you call call it? it? given a paper to wipe their Americanscross-sectionthanstrip one-sixthis the across most of of 1,015populousthe 's border people, regionIn population. the made Niagara of upCanada, of The Falls-Buffalo 935 survey the Canadians home sample region. of and more is 80 a In this article, I examine some of the variables which are AmericanfromwasansweredTwo generally Americanor three servietterespondents recognizedgenerations English, for both at inthe as questions.which oneNiagara of the the bonierThestandard ways use said of term the napkin isword napkin. in serviette 95% of ago, most Canadians would have in which CE differed The variants.itsinferencessnapshotundergoing history, In offrom andmostchanges. the apparent-timethe progresscases, shifting The some macro-survey of patterns thedistributionreal-time change of evidencemethod currency aboutin each thegives is case, for ratealso useach of allowingavailable. a change,kind of the of 92%theirhonorable,fromminor answersto the Frenchones: second to unbrokentowelette, the la (aboutfirstserviette. question history,finger the paperIn cloth, (aboutScotland,though one). dish the variously(The rag, cloth the andother wordfinger-wiper) so answers on.) were Serviette is a British term. It originated as a loanword spelled (servad/ has a long, and 1ThewillThe amountshow change in of may the change becomefinal is sec perhaps a push-chaintion, surprising, according but its to coherence, both Meechan as I is explicable from its social changesand2The Humanities Dialect as well Topography inResearch my presentation Council project of atis Canada.NWAVsupported at by the Social Sciences I discussed severalthe otherSahara, Las Vegas, 173 (1996)vowels. and Clarke, Elms & Yuussef (1995), lowering all the front lax U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics, Volume 4.1, 1997 couch,in 172October is discussed 1996. Onein detail of them, elsewhere the replacement (Charnuers 1995). of chesterfield by 179 U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) servatSociolinguistic and server Coherence in Warrack of Changes 1911). In England, its history is Chambers serviette,object thanand, forsecond, the cloth that theobject. decline But these has been slower for the paper, figures are gross from a the respondents as an shorterlistunfashionablenessfashionfashionable of and non-U and less loanword words"latterly honorable: was in in an hasevident England influentialaccording come when in to the discussion tobeRoss 19ththe considered (1956)OED, century of placedupper-class but it on it becamevulgar." a fell out of (U)hisIts replacementgroups,undifferentiatedsociolinguistic as becomein viewpointFigure mass. clearer. When because we break they the treat Figure 1, like all the other figures in 1, the social dynamics of the respondents into social this article, divides lexical andclothserviette lower-class or paper holds (non-U) hand-wiper. its place words. there The as variant the most term popular is table wordnapkin, for with Notwithstanding its status in England's haute couture, the respondentsandwiththe 935 the Canadianoldestyoungest are (octogenarians grouped respondents(teenagers) by decades. and inon a the fewFgurethe serviette is, needless to say, its Golden Horseshoenonagenarians) by age,right. on the1 plots left the ascendancy of In between, the onecomediaper.table of necessarilyfrom the linguistic England specified butvestiges might because of well the in haveScottish England come presence a plain napkin is a The general use of serviette across Canada could have from Scotland, as in Canada mirrornapkin; image. the figure for the decline100 of thefromCanada-U.S.a century.Canadian the earliest By study, the border,times. time Avis's ofit wasthesurrey first already (1954) concrete losing of a evidence currency; of its this use is in not Whatever its source, serviette prevailed in the first half of small sample along the 9080 napkin ( cloth) thansurprising, stable ones.since Avis'susage resultssurveys at pick mid-century on changing were featui-esas follows: rather serviette napkin21% 10%both 6070 Thecomparison decline of with serviette the Golden and the Horseshoe rise of napkinresponses is obviousabout 42 inyears a 69% % 50 3040 e l later in 1992:3 cloth serviette16% napkin80% both 34% 2010 It is clear, first, that the American word, napkin,paper is supplanting 37 60 0 00 0 0% Cr% C4 cy. 3Thesenapkinserviette/paperthat answersfigures and napkin/finger amalgamate such towel as countpaper thetowel a:,responsesserviette countserviette, as according napkin. and answers In to all,headwords, theresuch wereas tableso 50 or double answers such as CanadiansFigure 1Use of differentof napkin ages for in the the clothGolden object Horseshoe. and iV0 r-e) Crs Age the paper object by es1 headword.different answers but over 90% had either serviette or napkin as the 180 173 174 Sociolinguistic Coherence of Changes Chambers U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) theoldesteach use of to the ofyoungest thequestions word with asked,napkin. a fairly shows steep(I have adecade-by-decade similar no explanation upward trendincrease for from the in The trajectory of the two lines on the graph, one line for 'dew',know'u'to...there markand 'nooz'that is'ew' their one Americans spellingsfor differenceshibboleth 'news'. afterinvariably They fromof pronunciationt, also Americans:d, andbelievesay n.'coon' Canadians that whichthe for the 'tune', CanadiansBritish 'doo' do notuse pronunciation of think they for Horseshoetherecursanomalous nametrend in bothof responsesrespondents, the questions.) clothdata, byhand-wiper.but theit the Serviette 10 result -year In cannot -olds.evidentlythe 70-year Clearly,be accidental span they of are the because bucking Golden it is not the majority usage for any age lost ground first as particularlytheirdo these English things. likely differs Consequently to insettle sound on thesefrom when sounds.American they want English, to stress they are how usagegroup,general-purposewiperword for whereas serviette whilepeople fortheover took thedictionary,new 40. onpaper Forword a specialized manyhand-wiper Gagenapkin of Canadianthese meantmeaning it older a Dictionary clothas a paper one. (1997),finger-A new remains the majority people, then, the markerlinguisticconstitutesClarke of(1993), context"Canadian a stereotypical citing (p. linguistic 86) Pringle, and Canadianism identity"calls it "an (p. apparently 87). in the North highly suggests that "glide retention American salient point30alreadydistinctiondefines and where outdatedyoungerserviette made they for thesimply useby younger gapitsthe middle-agedaswordbetween "a readers. paper napkin the Figurenapkin," readers.almosttwo 1words shows thusexclusively That narrowsembalming that dictionary for for peopleto both thethe is 100 90 new clothinobject.forms, theor paper. speech Thebut thereplacement of few the who people of use serviette bornserviette in by the napkindo 1930s, not tookrestrict that place is, it thetoabruptly either ones The process of change is most dramatic for the cloth a.c 706080 student change,thembornwho60-year-olds arein replaced thenowthen, decade in appears intheir serviette the before, 60s. survey. to beThy; withthe the change70-year-olds, 1940s,napkin. between the The formative is mainthem greatabout and locusyears the 30%for ofpeople thisthe of 92 50 4030 England,manyThe1.2. merger parts the of ofnorthern the /u/ English-speakingand U.S., /ju/ afterand Canada. coronals world, is nearing completion in Yod-Dropping including middle-class 2010 0 depriveyod-retentiontheCanadaspecifically it of than special in CEsome interest pronunciationbut other this in places.a change discussion Twoof may /ju/ ofcommentators be changes more takingsignificant claim place in The generality of tIlis linguistic change would normally after coronalsis a that Figure 2Absence of yod in pronunciations of news 800 er. 40, Age 6 and student by 182 prestige feature in CE. Thus, according Pringle (1985: 190): 175 Canadians176 of different ages in the Golden Horseshoe. 183 Sociolinguistic Coherence of Changes I must say that these opinions are not corroborated Chambers by my inconsistencies between the samples. Avis polledU. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) students and orst[ju]dentsexperience. increaseshowneven nuns. in forbut FigureI They have studentsthat are itnever2, has whichalsoor beennUttsheard not shows a over anyonemajority thatnewsnot extol yod-droppingfeature teachers the for at or parents corroborated by my survey data as pronunciation least the 70 is on the parentsacquaintancesnumbersnight-schoolScargill across & do Warkentyne mainlytheshow country. significant (but surveyednot Chambers exclusively) representation high school in the studentsfor Kingston both area. students in Toronto (profiled surveyed older, educated 1979: 172). The and theirvariants, changerespondentspercentageyears of that this appears ofsurvey and yod-dropping it andinchesto be presumably nearing higher is completion. for the younger For people ones. under The trajectory of change in Figure 2 is very mild. The relatively high longer than that. for the It is a oldest 40, respondentsthethreesuggesting innovative decades that tocovereddove the supply dived/dove form. by the the past surveys, variability tense with of was diveroughly stable in twothroughouthalf differentchoosing The Dialect Topography of the Galen Horseshoe asked the yod-droppingtworetainedthe80% pronunciations words of its the converged.yod respondents. is somewhat still of increasingboth Although wordsAnulonger at the occurthan the slope presentnews without of did, the time, yod but for itafter also more that shows people over 40, the word student line shows that than the sentences: TheYesterday submarine he tointo the the floor quarry. of the sea. pronouncingis,that even it is for a minority people students born pronunciation as inst[juldents the 1920s. andeven news for theas n[ju]s70-year-olds, , they would that If Canadians were i n the habit of 'putting on airs' by Themildsentence),claim decisive reasonsupport to use and forresult for dovedived asking that is withwith indistinction, forthe inanimates.animate predominancetwo responses with subjects The 9.3% responsesof is dove: onlyansweringthat someonly(as provided in 8.2% thatspeakers the way. onlyusedfirst tothesurely 1.3.be Dialect both do so common Topography when answering and proje.:t.unmonitored. the They language-survey do not. Yod-dropping questionnaire appears for Dived/dove divedannoticeablehas undergraduatein tipped both insentences decisively casual linguistics observations but in 74% favor usedstudent offor dove dove. a toldfew in Thisyearsboth.me changenow. For has instance, The century-long competititon between the two variants last year that she been Thecentury"lawlessRev.oldest form A. variables of later, Constableand the vulgarpastthe in two tenseCE. Geikie innovation" forms In of 1857, the complained dived verb ten (Chambers andyearsdive dove appears aboutbefore were 1993). the Confederation, to stillformbe More onecontending dove of than the as the aa subject,thetalk,"doubted dove she sub.dovethatresponses saidlike dived forbringed wasfor the theused inanimate) twoand by sentences goed.anybody. according (he.dove"It just tosounds forthe theage like baby The new dispensation is evident in Figure 3, which plots animate of the Avissurveywith one(1954) results: another with roughly equal numbers as indicated by these dived 38% dove 59% both 3% underdove,respondents.significant and60, about adoption 90% of of respondents dove takes underplace 30with use the it. 50-year-olds,For people Figure 3 shows that more than 82%the ofgraph all respondents shows a relatively use flat trajectory. The ScargillChambers & Warkentyne (1979: 175) (1972) students adults 533948 494745 12 6 thestages.curve,people1920s change suggestingTheborn and totwo in 1930stheirdove theoldest thatwas1940s. groups wellwe inconsistency Theare advanced appear viewinggraph to looks insuggests be thetheir transitional. likechange formative that the theytop Although yearstheof are an aware S- in its final These figures appear somewhat erratic, 184 pi-obably because of 177 of 178the its novelty and perhaps sensitive to its 'correctness'. 185 Sociolinguistic Coherence of Changes 100 Chambers school students in Silsbee, Texas, also preferU. itPenn in significant Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) 9080 e. dov Theproportions: importance of this development in the AmericanTexas students South (Bernsteinwill be 1994) dived27% dove 73% >0 70 01. discussed in the final section. 0 C/3 60 2. Aggregating the Changes e 40r 50 30 pronunciationphonologicalsufficientSeveralWe have others lookedto provide variables might at only a useful have(see a few approximationnotebeen cases 2).discussed of But change these of aswhat in fewwell, progress appears cases including in toare CE.be a changes as well as additional lexical and 2010 0 millennium.headlongchanges.above to rush provide to remake a simultaneous standard CEimage at theof theapproach progress of ofthe the FigureOne clear4 aggregates conclusion the that variability emerges we from have Figure discussed 4 is the theFigure Golden 3Use Horseshoe. of dove nat dived by Canadians of different ages N 4 in forisindividualawarecoherence empirically a sociolinguistically that ingroupof the thesound. groupresults change. In if areother significantthe In more phenomenonsociolinguistics words, revealing change, the more underlying than the we you the more have aggregateresults those coherentlong forresults been dataany it unanimously,formHorseshoe used onrepresents theas these American an figures American side for ofthe incursion the American Niagara in CE. sampleborder Dove is the The ascendancy of dove over dived in the Goldeninalmost the retentionthesmoothesmightbecomes. anomalous otherwise Figureofout yod the behavior 4appearinvagaries emphasizes student ofto of thebe by idiosyncratic disparate octogenariansthe some striking speakers data diagonaldevelopments adoptingIn effect,after trend losingnapkin, the suchin figure whatit the asin Dialect Topography show: inanimate subjectanimate subject dived 42.5% dove 97.5%95 perspective.relevanceisdivednews, exactly oror dove.the thein minor the sameThose larger influence there effects scheme as are ofin subjectstillthe of thepreviousvisible changes in figuresbutFigure 4the their data animacy on choices of is put into theitsoriginatedBut currency United dove asStates.is until a Northern recently Now it form haswas spread mainly(Davis not in& onlytheMcDavid northeastern into 1950: quarter270), and not a General American form. CanadaHistorically, but also Texas A & ofit trend.)regressionfigureshaped, Obviously,completely broadanalysis, at thethe we empty. resultleft would and is be (Ifnarrowingnot gratified weexactly got gradually by linear:a resultsuch it a rightward. isrobustlike megaphone- this positive In in a The diagonal thrust leaves the lower-right half of the fact, intoM the students American show South. "almost Bernstein universal (1994) preference...for reports that dove," and high 179 the180 70-year-olds have a range of about 55% (20%-75%) but the 187 Sociolinguistic Coherence of Changes Chambers U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) youngerteenagersspeech people. have of older a range people of only is 15% (83%-98%). In other less predictable than the speech of words, the veryincrementsorderly youngest progression, along people the age in continuum.the societysometimes While the poles of the continuumthe very oldest and the with smalland socially manageable differ by as much 100 9080 embeddingintervalsseldomas 70 points, is structured differ byand more lucid. than ten. Finally,The linguistic changes result such mayas these be cataclysmicare often in the but direction its of the intermediariesrepresented here in decadesocial 6070 instance,nowconcludedAmericanfavor seems of we variables. froman simplistic.have American this a prototype thatSeveral In CE variant. the is commentators, for replacementbecoming aIt change is, in Americanized. fact, that of myself divedtheis unmistakeably Northern included, by That variant.view have in dove, for % 50 3040 adoptingnot.conclude,AmericanHowever, dove wethen,varieties alsoas that the discovered are Texas past making tenseEnglish that exactly formTexas in 'Americanizing'? oftheEnglish the same verb. and change otherAre Obviously aswesouthern CE to by 2010 American,tostandard some extent:language New England,varieties in North andsuch America. Canadian as Southern The remain old American, regionalisms identifiable Northern remain by the What is happening is the development of a continental are 0 00 el) 6r- ON tN 0\ peopleregularizingpresence from of undercertain various the influence of increased mobility that brings features. But a numberregions of features into face-to-face contact with doveFigure /dived 4Variable by Canadians use of servieue/napkin, of different ages inyod-dropping the Golden Horseshoe. and 0 Age 4 incursionthechangeAmericanunprecedented merger that into features, ofis Northernthespreadingfrequency. low but back standard itrapidly Often does vowels thisnot inspeech thealways/o/regularization Unitedand that /a/.do is States spreadingso.This favorsFor change right instance, Northernfrom now is CEan is a thesesound changesonechange as a dynamicrecord from, process. say, If the we 1920s had only and a a static comparable view of Figure 4 also demonstrates the liberating effect of viewing Americanpronouncesholdsfewand agenerations, largeas the English, region cot only and it standardoftheappears caught the new western continental that thevariety same.CE States will of Itstandard. English losewillincluding thebe aindistinction feature California.the world of itNorth nowthatIn a recordInstead,linguisticundoubtedlychange from when in theupheaval CE we1990swespeculate insee mustthe would changesthat have individuals surely beenas a continuous havedisoriented livingto conclude process through and confused. thatembedded such the a these years was cataclysmic. We would continentalaccurateforbids'Canadianized'? to it,standard say but thatmore We that CE could, importantis isreshaping Americanizing though it many weis not probably middle-class accurate. as it will adjusts Neither not.varieties Modestyto theis in Will we then say that the Northern U.S. accent has it in the social fabric, we recognize that they are taking place as an 188 181 North182 America. 189 Sociolinguistic Coherence of Changes Chambers U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) Avis,References Walter S. (1954) "Speech differences along the Ontario- border." In J.K. Chambers, ed. (1975) Canadian Scargill, M.H & Henry Warkentyne (1972) "The survey of Canadian Aristocracy.English:Enquiry ainto London: report." the Identifiable EnglishHamish Hamilton.Quarterly Characteristics 5: 47-104. of the English Bernstein, Cynthia (1994) "Dreg usage among high school students in eds.English:AlabamaSilsbee, Centennial Origins Texas." Press. Usageand 138-43. In Structures. Greta Studies. D. Little Toronto:PADS & 78.Michael Methuen. Tuscaloosa: Montgomery, 67-77. U of DepartmentWarrack, Alexander of Linguistics (1911) Chambers Scots Dictionary. Edinburgh: W. & R. Chambers. Chambers, J.K. (1979) "Canadian English." In J.K. Chambers, ed., The LanguagesA.B.'homogeneous House, of Canada. eds., speechPapers Montreal: community',"from Didier. theJ.K. Fourth 169-206. in AnnualMurray MeetingKinloch ofand (1980) "Linguistic variation and Chomsky's Toronto,[email protected] Ontario of TorontoM5S 1A1 Chambers, J.K. (1993)(1989) "'Lawless" Canadian and raising: vulgar fronting, innovations': blocking, Victorian etc." AmericanUniversitythe Atlantic Speechof Provinces New 64: Brunswick. 75-88. Linguistic 1-32. Association. Fredericton: Chambers,Chambers, J.K. J.K. (1994) "An introduction to Dialect Topography." EnglishviewsCanada. of World-Wide Canadian Amsterdam: English." 15: Benjamins. 35-53. In Sandra 1-26. Clarke, ed., Focus on (1995) "The Canada-U.S. border as a vanishing Clarke, Clarke,pronunciation:Linguisticsisogloss: Sandraed., 23:Focus 155-66.a survey chi Canada. of palatal Amsterdam: glide usage." Benjamins. In Sandra 85- (1993)the eviden,:e of chesterfield." Journal of English "The Americanization of Canadian Clarke,Davis, Sandra, Alva L.,Ford & Elms Raven & A.maniI. McDavid Youssef (1950) (1995) "Northwestern "The third dialect Ohio: a transitionandof108 English: .Change area." some7: 209-228. Language Canadian 26: evidence." 264-73. Language Variation Hung, Henrietta, John Davison & J.K. Chambers (1993) "Comparative . 67onsociolinguistics .Canada. Amsterckm/Philadelphia: of (.1w)-Fronting," in John S. Clarke, Benjamins. ed., Focus 247- Pringle,Meechan, Marjory (1996) "'One of us says milk and the other says melk':Greenbaum,Ianpresented (1985)Lax atvowel NWAVE lowering -25, Las in Vegas. Canadian English." "Attitudesed., The English to Canadian English." Language Today: In SidneyPublicPaper 190 Ross, Alan S.C., & Nancy vlitford. (1956) Noblesse Oblige: An Attitudes to English. Oxford: Pergamon Press. 183-205. 183 184 191 U Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) /ay/ Monophthongization in Cherokee Adaptive Sociophonetic Strategiesand Dialect Accommodation: English* wasofHallcommunities English learned(1955) developed evenand and used sourcepropose outin languagerelation of that the a various moreto transfer expansive situations features. in which the Native American language. pan-lectal variety Leeclunan and English 1. Introduction Bridget L. Anderson Althoughguisticeasternvarieties research someUnited have sociolinguistic now Statescommunity. been havereceived investigated, situations littlecomparable involving attention Southwesternsituations in This study is a preliminary investigation of a language from the lin- the Developingutilizesituations.insights assimilative into varietiesMore the specifically,sociolinguistic features, of Naive such an American investigation dimensionsas those Englishadopted of languagehow fromoffer these local, unique contactgroups non- hearthundredhavecontact beenof situationthe years in Great close in between isolated, Smokycontact twoMountainswith mountainous very each distinct other of Western Graham for linguistic at least North County groupsthe Carolina. past in twothe who Nativetures American unique to contactthe Native communities, Al erican English and, at variety,the same time, 1. such as those fea- ofAppalachian English, comparable whites of theto what area isspeak described a Southern in general Highland by Wolfram variety roundingcanstransfer,which situate have is non-Native particularly themselvesdeveloped American diagnostic associolinguistically contact in terms communities of how Native and Ameri- other result of source-to-target language with respect to sur- tainandearlyCountyEastern Christianregion, in primarilythis Band by (1976) centuryJoseph of spoke theand Hallwhen Cherokee more their (1942). a shiftparticularly, ancestral ThetowardNation Snowbird language bilingualism forwho the reside Cherokee ofSmoky Cherokee inin Moun-CherokeeGraham of the until roundingNativelanguageaccount American non-Native the learning effects groups. American situation,of source-language communities. and dialect interference, competition from sur- Previous studies of Native American varieties of English Such an investigation must take into the English variant,Grahamand[ta:p] English theforCounty, themonophthongization began. two focusing ethnic An investigation ongroups the patterningofwill /ay/ yieldof as the ininsightsof contactride a diagnostic [ra:d] into situation theand vowel mecha- type in assimilatedWolframin the Southwest 1980, dialect 1984), (Craig features indicate 1991; of surrounding thatLeap these 1977; varieties non-NativeWolfram utilize et American al. both 1979, the Thisoutshift.nismssimilation. the variableThe of South languagemonophthongized isand expected is contact, a prominent to languagevariantbe a featurefairly of assimilation,/ay/ diagnostic of is Appalachian widespread variable and language through-English. of as- paper.thisWolfram, study, Erik theirI wishThomas, insights to thank and into myNatalie the colleague analysis, Schilling-Estes, at and North their Carolina forcomments their State help on University, with this In Walt addition, Erik Thomas spent many hours working through the 2. CarolinaThe Cherokee Situation in Western North forinformants,invaluabledata their with time,assistance me. assistance members Ipatience, also withwish ofwith and thethe to the thaqkSnowbirdkindness.VARBRUL fieldwork. Natalie andThis analysis Schilling-EstesQualla work was Boundaryand fundedKevin and communities, WallbyKirk National forHazen his Finally, I wish to thank my sandSouthernNeely years. (1991:15) Appalachian estimates Mountains the Cherokee for at toleast have the been past living four thou-in the Furthermore, she notes that in the early part of the FridayScience Endowment Foundation at Grant North Number Carolina SBR State 96 University. 19216331 and by the William C. U Penn Working P.tpers in Linguistics, Volume 4.1, 1997 BEST COPY AVAILABLE wasnineteenth186 one of centurythe largest the Indianestimated nations 20,000-member north of Mexico. Cherokee One-fourth nation 19 Adaptive Sociophonetic Strategies Anderson U Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) "Trailto 1830one-half ofto Tears"what of the is 16,000 nowdied Oklahoma during Cherokee their in people what tragic hasforced relocationbecome to march known (Neely west as the in ofone-eighthperson total mustNative American demonstrate American Indian thatancestry. ancestry. he or Nativeshe Full-bloods, is "certifiably" American of activistcourse, andare of at least makeeludethousandof 1991:22).the upthesurviving Cherokeesthe forced This Eastern membersevent,removal, hid Band inof thecourse, ofandof theGreatthe it Cherokee isCherokeeconsiderably Smokytheir descendants Mountains Nation.situated altered in in thewho Western order lifestyles now to About one thewasUnitedfederallyscholar significant only StatesWard atrecognized, about Churchillqualified decline twenty ofracially (1994)as thepercent "full-bloods." number notesdefined (Churchill that of Nativefederally inBy 1900 1990,1994:92). Americans about recognized this one-halfproportion in full- the of In spite of JacksonNorthandin Western Carolina.Cheoah Counties North mountains and, Carolina fifty of miles Graham on tothe the Qualla County. southwest, Boundary There in the is of alsoSnowbird Swain a small and The Eastern Band consists primarily of Cherokees living fourth91.4maintainedbloods percent to among full-blood a largeof American Snowbird percentagerange (NeelyIndians, Cherokee of 1991:7). full-bloods. the adultsSnowbird were Community legally three- has Perhaps the high percentage of full-bloods in the Snow- In the mid-1970s, WesternmunalCherokeenumber lands Northof County. Eastern in Swain,Carolina The Cherokees Jackson, Eastmi(Neely Cherokee,1991:24).Band who holdslive and in 56,572 the Graham Tomotla acres Counties of area com- inof havecessfulbirdancestry.language Community more in maintaining traditionalistmaintenance, is the its reason Native thanancestral peoplethe American community language. with minimal values, Full-bloods has alsosuchNative been as tendAmerican native suc- to Most adults over age forty in Snowbird are bilingual, andofThe2.1. the itSnowbird isthree this Cherokee community Cherokee group!, thatare consideredis residing the focus in toofWestern be the the present mostNorth study.traditional Carolina, The The Sociolinguistic Situation thirdcentmatedwhile1975:2). ofof theto thethe have significantly NorthThetotal less tinyCherokee-speaking Carolina than Snowbird higher10 percentCherokees, populated Community native population but Quallalanguage it comprises contains in Boundary thespeakers East only (Neelyis (King6.9 esti- per- nearly one- culture,ism"WesternSnowbird and and North "conservatism," group their Carolina ispercentage distinctive in their terms of from nativeassimilation of Nativeother Cherokee groups American to encroachingspeakers. of Cherokees "traditional- white in The Snowbird Community comprises only a small per- speakers.maintainingBoundary1991:147). Fifty athe large miles Cherokee number to the language northeast of full-bloods seems of Snowbird toand be native disappearing in the language Qualla rap- The Snowbird Community is unique in its success in residentEasterncentageSnowbird of BandNorth Eastern Community, live Carolina Cherokee,.on the however,Cherokee Oualla Most Boundary. comprises ofand the 5.2 9,000 percent only members 6.9 of percent Graham of all The 380-member of the "traditional"havethespeakers.idly. Snowbird Bothmade The groups a Cherokee group Communityhigh have percentage effort Indians. had indicatesto extensive maintain ofThe ancestral Quallathat contact their the Boundarylanguage Snowbirdcultural with white speakersgroupidentity Cherokee has as a English in minoritysus).7,217-County's inmember totalrelation population white to Qualla population (Neely Boundary 1991:38),of Graham Band making membersCounty them (1980 and a smallthe cen- Snowbird has the highest percentage of full-bloods of any "whitehighfewboth percentage "white Indians,"look and Indians." or "act"of people what like Consequently, one withwhite of minimal people.my informants Snowbird Cherokee referredCherokees ancestry to areas a Snowbird, however, has who 193 Eastern"standard" Cherokee for self-identifict.,tion community (Neely as 1991:7). an American Indian is that a The government 187 Boundarymuch188 more group. homogeneous Snowbird group Cherokee, than the awl more efore, acculturated do not face the Qualla Adaptive Sociophonetic Strategies Anderson U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) full-bloodcansame values, intraethnic Cherokee,which competition seem and to haveanglicized between a strong "white Indian" traditionalist Native Ameri- connection with being a values of 3. /ay/The History and Status of Monophthongal peoplemaintainingQuainformants llawith Boundary only indicated their minimal Cherokees,ancestral to me Cherokee matlunguage to bethey "realancestry. consider and Indians." other Several themselves, important Perhaps one factor that has aided Snowbird Cherokees Snowbird culturalbut not in ThedimensionsCherokeeGregoryone monophthongization of the 1993). Englishmost unique salientIn anthere to investigation a featuresof contactare /ay/ several as situation in of[ra:d] linguistic how that this must and be of Southern speech (Bernstein and ride and [la:t] light is variable patterns in sociolinguistic considered. tions,themtraditionshas from includingvirtually is tourism, the nothegeographical tourism, Quallawhich affectsBoundary. due isolation in many large Snowbird which Native part hasto American isthe served unique depressed to reserva- protect econ- is situated. in that it middle-agedthesecondFirst, phonological it considerationis important and oldersystem to speakers is determineof the Cherokee, history in thewhat and theSnowbird the statusfirst language of /ay/ relationship of /ay/ is to Community. A in the white of most someEighty-fiveomyclearedsissippi. andof which ruggedfor percent industry are terrain among of andGraham of the fanning the only countyCounty virgin(Neely is undeveloped1991:37). Cherokees forests, in Only one other North Carolina county has less land in which forestsit east of the Mis- centagecontactwhatdle-agedof /ay/ iscommunity.of in the bilingual speakersthe synchronic English speakers, Inwho addition,language sociolinguistic learned it is sincelearning importantEnglish Snowbird distribution model in to school. for ofolder consider the status has a high per- thisAnd variable fmally, and mid- descendantsatelyCherokeethethis Cheoahcounty following actually continuetownship of the purchased Cheoahremoval to of reside the Cherokeeand (22).from on continue their the state nation,ancestral to in reside thewhich homeland, weeks on the this immedi-Cheoah land,once The Snowbird Cherokee are amongsonsourcelingual and current languagein Kaufman Cherokee speakers? to (1988:37) the and target English, indicate linguistic interference In a community where most adults over age forty are language is to be expected. Thoma- that in the case of language from the bi- referred2,249comparativekeehave acresEnglish conducted to asof the speakersscatteredpurposes, Snowbirdsociolinguist of tractsI havedifferent area concentrated isalso interviewsof agesconducted Graham in the inwith County. awhatarea. few twenty-five Forisinterviews commonlyThus preliminary far,Chero- with I withsyllabicinterference.nological,shift, epenthetic interference nucleus phonetic, Although combinations[y], will orsuch Cherokeesyntacticinterference most as [aye] likelysuch has asand nobe [al], clear-cutstructuralthat[ayo], vowel rather do cases combinations occur than of tauto- is, pho- lexical (Huff mountainleastthesecontactCherokees someinterviews population white assimilationfrom communities.demonstratesthe of Qualla Graham to the Boundary thatlanguage County. both and Cherokeenorms members of groupsthe surroundingof the exhibit white at In this study, I will attempt to Evidence gleaned from followingphthongalsource1977:23). language, vowel-glide[a:] Thus, in although the there source sequence is it-I is phonologicallanguage. not patterns tautosyllabic. Huff formodel (1977)Cherokee: for upgliding observes the There is also, however, a phonological model for mono- /a/ plus in the of featuresnentquantifymonophthongal feature ofthe Southern degreeof Appalachian /ay/, of speech asassim in [ra:d]in ilation English general. ride through andand one[fa:t] a quantitative of fight, the most a promi- analysis salient anywords,formvowel vowel will,yields combinationwhen except therefore, a /a/ surface /a/ precedes and, ofbe form/a/realizedmost +/a/ /i/significantly,of or orin[a] /i/ /a/the in+ occurringepentheticsurfacethe underlying/i/, fromin in [y] theas + [a].formunderlying vowel. In of other the A the underlying 196 BEST COPY AVAILABLE 189 source190 language the resulting surface form is [a], but when 197 [a] is Adaptive Sociophonetic Strategies Anderson U Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) thecombined surfacesource with formlanguage vowels will be ofother realizedCherokee than /i/as oraprovides vowel-glide /a/ in the models underlying sequence. for formboth So, quently,mants(1983:73) is asrealized indicates a short most diphthong. that often/ay/ for as He seventya furthermonophthong East notes Tennessean that /ay/ and, less fre- is typi- infor- /ay/epentheticmonophthongaldescribes in the [y]surrounding a pattern+ vowel. [al andof white-glide vowel-glide weakening contact sequencescommunity. for his data involving Hall from (1942:43) the [a]Smoky + The next consideration, then, is the history and status of Countylight,callylish monophthongalfor is for alllargely /ay/age indicatesand monophthongal social before that groups voiceless current-day offor the /ay/ consonants,region inSmoky all (75). following Mountain as in write Eng- or My data for the white contact population of Graham phonetic voicelessthongizedencyphoneticMountains, in /ay/ environments.generalenvironments, indicating in voiced Southern thatenvironments Hethe /ay/ speech notes,pattern is most inat didbut fact,that often tonot timeretainthat holdrealized althoughwas thetrue diphthongtoas for monoph-[a:] the Smoky in ten- all in ments.arewhiteenvironments.eralized categorical residents So themonophthongization. current monophthongizersTabulationsof Graham contact County of model the of /ay/indicate /ay/is variableone ofthat thesefor nine informants lifelong in all phonetic environ- expansive and gen- thephoneticMountain(1961) word twiceenvironments foundEnglish, and tokens wheretokens of (Hall monophthongal[as] of [d] 1942:43).and in [d] Macon in Western [a:] County, was North preferred which Carolina borders in all for Kurath and McDavid Cherokeeersmiddle-agedmodel began of intotheusing and initialAnglo-American formal older language speakers.education learningsociety. Beginning in an Theseattemptsituation in schools 1880, of manywhite emphasized Quak-of the Another important consideration is, of course, the contact to acculturate the wordCarolinaGeorgiaGraham1930s, might County, inandprovided both that prevoiced forprevoiceless by the the words LAMSAS and diphthongalnineprevoiceless andoffice might. at/ay/ environments the wasThe University alreadydata for in ofa the therelic indicates /ay/ was monophthongal in Western North Anglo-AmericanhavewereCherokee servednot local culture as the toculture (Neelytheagents area. and of1991:29). transmissionvalues andThe gaveteachersfor monophthongal little of attention these schools to The Quaker schools closed when the Bureau of Indian They are not expected, therefore, to /ay/. constraintmonophthongizationpalachianform in this order English area. for Wolfram followingspeakers of /ay/. and andphonetic inChristian their they studyenvironmentsdetermined (1976:64) participated found the for linguistic thatthis in Ap-fea-the This CherokeeboardinginAffairs the early (BIA) schoolsinformants 1900s. gained as Neely control"dictatorial,"who (1991:29) attended of the Cherokee asthe characterizes did boarding several educational school of my onsystem the BIA-run older the turementsthatSouthernordering to /ay/be in pause was the fallsspeech Smokymonophthonga >in voiced lineand Mountain iswith obstruentin the I regiontraditional > voiceless of Western constraint obstruent. North pattern for ontrast to Hall's (1942)in all following observation phonetic environ- Carolina. time.attitudesQuallaweredid Anot Boundary. fluentfe-: and speak middle-aged were in EnglishCherokee severely and and indicated beaten older for informants to speaking me that intheirCherokee my parents, at any Students were taught to adopt white cultural Cherokee, chose not to teach their chil- study who who isWilliams mostphoneticice,classic he often (1992:14)exampledoes environment monophthongal, not of goalso the into contends ongeneral a the discussion and,patterning Southernthat although /ay/ of inpronunciationof the Appalachian the he effect variable.does ofutilize offollowingEnglish Pederson [a:s] the for offromschools.dren transmission Cherokeethe Again,South, for allsobecause monophthongaltheythe teachers also of theirare were not experiences/ay/. expected white and to Snowbird Cherokee attended an all-Indian BIA few ofhave themin thebeen were boarding agents day Thanks to William A. Kretzsclimar, Jr. for providing the list manuscript. 191 Snowbirdschool192 for students the elementary who wished grades to attend until 1965high school were (Neely 1991:31). forced 199 Adaptive Sociophonetic Strategies Anderson U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) Boundaryto leave the or area out ofto attendstate. Understandably, boarding schools many older either on the Qualla Snowbird themthis group out of held the jobs,region such for as extensive welding periodsand of boiler-making, that tookSnowbird speakers in time. It is impor- /ay/residentseachlocalschool, monophthongizers, other.white chosewhich teachers.Again, notwas to wein Studentsattendand operation do onenot high informantexpectwere until school. allowed these 1965, referred Theteachers towas speakSnowbird torun one to byCherokee have of two these beennon- to day thebothtant,ers Snowbird also,groups attended to attendedkeep School the inpublic mind closedhigh school thatschool in themiddle-aged in withmid sixties,their white and younger Robinsville. neighbors after speak- GrahamQuallateachersmonophthongization Boundary County's as "the Yankee."Robinsvilleclosed for and /ay/ In SnowbirdHigh 1954would School the have studentsboarding (Neely been thebegan 1991:31) school language attending on where thelearn- Using4. the preceding sociolinguistic background as a CherokeeMonophthongal English /ay/ in Appalachian and framework, ofspeakersing frequency model. within of Snowbird.contact with There white are Graham striking County differences residents. in terms Finally, it is important to consider the different groups of I kee,nowwhitespeaker andconsider externalthe groups: external the reference incidencelow-interaction reference group of group/ay/ consistsCherokee, of Appalachian of high-interactionfive males whites. and four Chero-The monophthongization in three fe- typicallythosenity.ilydivided on Cherokees Cherokeesinteraction the have Cherokees not thatwho frequency worked fall have in underthis outsidehad with study theminimal the the categoryinto surrounding community twocontact groups"low-interaction" with orwhite based intermarriedwhites. commu- primar- They are malesent,eraland rangingmonophthongizationfollowingvoiceless in phoneticobstruent,age from environments: 24 percentagesword to 90. boundary Table forliquid, 1 the+gives vowel nasal,dime the groups (asvoicedraw in figures eye byobstru- sev-ap- Boundarytorangingwith 94. whites. All in ofagewoman the from speakers who 37 to is in 83included this and group,six in men this except ranging analysis for inthe onlyage one from for pre- 31 Speakers from this group include seven women Qualla pointment),dosignificantlyance low-interaction final wordposition higher boundary (asspeakers. percentage in Oh, + consonant my).In therate data for (as monophthongizationunder in lie investigation, down) and utter- high- than Table 1 indicates that high-interaction speakers have a tendedkeemarriednetworksliminary as theirelementary other primarily comparativefirst Cherokees. language school. within purposes,All and the speakers did Snowbird not have learnin thismaintained Community English group spoke until regular and theyChero- have social at- agesobstruents,followinginteraction are clearly environment word speakers much boundary lower were of liquid, +monophthongalfor consonant, monophthongization followed and by for voicelessnasal. /ay/ most Raw and oftenpercent- voiced in the in the follow- whites.theirmore jobsextensive Speakers and, contactin comprising some with cases, thethis throughsurrounding group consists marrying white of threemonolingual females, Cherokees classified as "high-interaction" tend to have community in patevowel.ing environments in the monophthongization of word boundary of /ay/, + pause but not and nearly word toboundary the extent + Low-interaction Cherokee English speakers also partici- Low- ceptionlingualagesranging from white ofin 22 theage towomen, sixteen-year-old from 83. Three 16 and to of allearly the speakers student, men50's, inand in thishave thiseleven group primarilygroup, men with ranging held the jobs ex- in married mono- consonantvoicedthongizationinteractionof their obstruents, high-interaction environments. Cherokees with followedthe following show counterparts by the pre-nasal environmentshighest or and incidencewhite pre-word ofcohorts. voiceless of boundary monoph- and + servicewhich brought and wage them labor into jobs. contact Additionally, with local severalwhites, ofsuch the as men forest in 200 193 194 201_ Adaptive Sociophonetic Strategies Anderson U Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) withevenizers aslight following of /ay/. evidence Only environment oneof diphthongal speaker, of voiceless a forty-seven /ay!, which obstruent. year-old occurred male, twice has Appalachian whites are nearly categorical monophthong- The age VL Obst. Bound + VowelWord Bound + Con.Word Bound + PauseWord ternalenvironmentscatesrange thatandof the whiteexternal speakers at speakersleast factor since in this groups,in the this group early regionis provided (thepart have oldestof this inbeen beingTablecentury. ungliding 2.ninety) inindi- all The results of a VARBRUL analysis, including both in- InteractionCherokeeSpeakerGroups Low- 98a: 76ay a: 0 27ay a:7 ay15 a:0 ay7 Pre-liquid+vironments: consonant, following nasal, word voicedboundaryenvironment and + voicelessvowel, is not and includedobstruents, word boundary as worda constraint boundary+ pause. Internal constraints consist of the following phonetic en- English n=13 170 56.3% 38 6 0% 18 14 31.8% 5 6 0% 11 Liquid Nasal lid. Obst. InteractionCherokeeEnglishHigh-n=14 25.0% 73.7 % 35.3 % SpeakerGroups a: ay t a: ay a: ay Appalachian 122 81.7 % 2 11 0 25 0 21 InteractionCherokeeEnglish Low- 0 35 38.5 % 56 51 50.5% 50 Table 1-continued. Incidence of /ay/ MonophthongizationWhite for n=9 98.4 % 100 % 100 % 100 % InteractionCherokee High-n=13 14 NA 0 37 Monoph. 17 69 20 Threeandrunbecause ofhigh-interactionSpeaker VARBRUL. it was Groups thrown ExternalCherokee out as constraints Englisha knockout speaker consist constraint groups. in the initial of low-interaction n=14 9 100 % 0 89 68.5 % 0 90 77.5 % 0 tweenANOVAmonophthongal group tests, affiliation given /ay/ over in Table(high-interaction, low-interaction 3, indicate thatspeakers. low-interaction, the correlation be- The data indicates that high-interaction speakers favor Results of and Table 1. Incidence of /ay/ Monophthongization forWhite Three n=9 100 % 100 % 100 % white)favorenvironmentsat the and pmonophthongization, <.001 monophthongization level. of voiceless followedand of voiced /ay/ by is nasalsobstruentsstatistically and wordmost significant boundary strongly The VARBRUL weightings indicate that the following 202 Speaker Groups (continued on the next page). 195 + consonant.196 Clearly, the following environments of word 203 Adaptive Sociophonetic Strategies Anderson EnglishU. Penn by WorkingWolfram Papersand Christian in Linguistics (1976:64). The Volume 4.1 (1997) constraint order TableSocialInput 2. Probability=.60 Factors:VARBRUL Probabilities (Chi-Square/ Cell=.334) syllableoffor othera Cherokee word words,in boundary the English sourcesince when /y/suggests language, is thebeing anext disyllabic interpretedit wordfollows starts thatas the onset interpretation at the end with a vowel.upgliding in the of the next In VLLinguisticLow-Interaction Obstruent=.62 Factors: Cherokee=.34 High-InteractionVD Obstruent=.56 Cherokee=.66 andronmenttarget this language is of the word expected is boundary expected pattern +to vowel. ofoccur interference. mostCherokee Both Cherokee English speaker groups show evidence frequently in the envi- is a CV language, clearly of Nasal=TableWord .44 Bound. 3. ANOVA + Pause= tests .13 of significance of monophthongization Word Bound. + Vowel=.07Con.=.42 monophthongalphthongalispotentialfavor monophthongization explanation except [a:], when although for I& monophthongal is over high-interactionfollowed low-interactionsource by [a:]languagevowels in speakers Cherokee other interference. than /a/ or In Cherokee, [a] speakers. One is mono- English Sourceof between/ay/ and speaker group affiliation SquaresSum1.588 of 2freedomdegrees of .794SquareMean 26.47* /i/ themaintainsinidentifying thesource underlying thatlanguage a phonological phoneme form and then in(Huff the interference subjecting target 1977:23). language thisis the phoneme withresult a ofphoneme to Weinreich (1968) bilinguals the pho- from boundary*p<.00totalwithin I + pause, with VA RBRUL weighting of .13, and word 2.5941.006 35 .030 nologicaldistinctionsdifferentiation,notesond language that rules this fromof production.type thewhich the firstof sourceinterferenceoccurs language More languagewhen specifically,when may speakers to reproducingresult sounds transfer inRomaine a in process theit in target(1995:53) lan- phonological of over-its sec- monophthongization.boundarysuggested + vowel,by the analysis?with VARBRUL The fact thatweighting Cherokee of .07,English disfavor speak- What, then, are possible explanations for the patterns guage.speakersin both monophthongal show transfer in [a:]their and English diphthongal by ungliding, [aI]. orIn deleting Source language interference may play an important role this case, /a//i/ monophthongizersers,notedisor mostsyllable earlier, reasonably boundary although of attributed/ay/ followed Cherokee in the to environmentby sourcehas either no clear-cut languageanother of a followingvowelcases interference.particularly of or tautosyl- aword pause As low-interaction speakers, are not typically explanationtovowel-glideorwhen matchIi/, itin follows whichthe sequence accountscorresponding lal,case unless itinvolving foris interpreted I&both pattern is epenthetic followedthe inCherokee asthe by [y]source a andvowel English thus other is monoph- upglided than the Cherokee /a/ plus a language. This boundaryvoicedmonophthongizationglidelabic vowel-glidesequences obstruent + pause such sequences> > nasal word inas Cherokee [aye] > boundary wordsuch do asboundary occur.English [ay],+ vowel) Thecombinations (voiceless + constraint consonantis a reversal obstruent of order >vowel- ofword thefor > environmentthongizationgalboth [aI], realizations the of of process word /ay/ of andboundary theof dialect thevariant, upgliding + assimilation vowel. monophthongal of /ay#/ also withsurely [a:] aand mustfollowing diphthon- play an Although source language interference can account for voicedtraditional204 obstruent Southern > voiceless white obstruentpattern and described the pattern for Appalachian of pause > BEST COPY AVAILABLE 197 English.important198 Monophthongal role in the monophthongization [a:] is a pervasive ofphenomenon /ay/ in Cherokee of the 205 Adaptive Sociophonetic Strategies Anderson U Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) Cherokeesmountaininterspersed white have with contacthad private white community. trams neighbors of land Since since owned reservationthey by purchased whites, tracts Snowbird their are monophthongizationwhiteout the contact South (Baileycommunity regardlesset al. where 1996); of speakers itfollowing is certainly show environment. prominentnear-categorical in the Al- peciallywage-labortendedlands Graham afterfor industryhigh-interaction the County removal. work with speakers whites. who have a high public Middle-aged to younger Cherokees at-schools, and Cherokees involved in Monophthongization, es- frequency generalthoughcontactent socially, monophthongalphonetic model particularly process, of monophthongization [a:] prevoiceless toin non-Southerners.Smoky monophthongizationMountain in all Perhaps Englishphonetic theis environ-isnow current sali- a interactionhavetheingof contact analysiswhite a VARBRUL dialectwith Cherokees support whites, norm. thisrating receivedcould The explanation. ofdifferences be .66 aovert VARBRUL for assimilationHigh-interactionmonophthongization; between weighting speaker of the Cherokees surround- groupsat almost low- in similateaffectedments and tothe the variable dialectsaliency levelsnorm of prevoiceless ofof theCherokee contact monophthong-ization Englishcommunity. speakers who have as- andanalysishalf groupthe figurealso affiliation. demonstrates of their high thz- interaction significance counterparts. of monophthongization The ANOVA Tabulations for the two speakers from Qualla Boundary, a aspologistIn5. "persistent",her socio-cultural Sharlotte and Neely this study term(1991) of canthe describes Snowbirdalso be usedthe Community, Snowbird in a Cherokee anthro- Conclusion description of tionparticipationmarriedBIA-runspeakers to the couple dialectlearnedboarding in bothmonophthongal normsCherokee agedschool 83,of on thea:;also Qualla [a:]theirwhite support may first Boundary.contact represent languagethe explanation community. The overt and woman, attendedassimila- that Both thecate- the toalwaysthe occupationbe community's removed been people ofon their linguisticthe of Trail ancestralpersistence. of situation. Tears homeland. Thisin The1830 is evidentSnowbird Sinceand in Native theirin theirpeople Americans refusal have continued workedrizedhadgorized little as for asa need high-interaction athe low-interaction topark interact service with forspeaker, speaker, whites. many foughtyears. wasHowever, a Hehomemaker in hadWorld the a man, much War and catego- higherI thus and usesillustrateskeesofcould three toin not maintain theirlocal legallywhat own white seems purchaseits names. menancestral to bewho Thisland the languagepurchased situationatprimary that time, and strategy isthe significant they land enlistedthis for community the because theChero- help it other characteristics onlyHisizedconsiderationincidence wife,the16.7 variant percent however,of monophthongization all as followingof monophthongal realizedher tokelis. phoneticthe variant [a:]than environments, in asdid 66 monophthongal hispercent wife. theof Taking his man tokens.[a:] real- into in theirEnglishassociatedHigh-frequency limited speakers' with participation cultural limitedCherokee autonomy. interaction in English the monophthongization speakers with whites show is morereflected of assimila- Low-frequency Cherokee /ay/. in dotionCherokee not of thefall English analysis.in line withmust The theconstraintalso typical be taken hierarchies Southern into account constraintof Cherokee in an pattern explana- English in The constraint hierarchies for monophthongization in Thesementnottionlanguage typically to where patterns the contact interference upglidingdisplay suggest norm monophthongal awould andmixedof monophthongal dialect be alignment, expected assimilation [a:] in ain combinationthe[a:], working but even they the source language. linguistic environ- together to of source do zationwhichphthongalin Cherokee prevoicedover prevoiceless [a:] English inand prevoiceless prenasal where environments. n environments ionophthongization environmentsprevoiceless They favor are, is environments. spreading inmonophthongi-is fact,slightly reversed through- favored Research has shown that mono- thepersisttionaffect significantly of the inthis cultural variable group larger tradition is norms also majority indicative ofand the to ofcommunity.be Graham adaptiveof Snowbird's County's in The their dealings with linguistic situa-ability both to Appalachian 206 199 200 9 t .4 Volume 4.1 (1997) Adaptivewhite population. Sociophonetic What Strategies appears at first glance to be an overt as- Anderson Leap,U Penn William Working L. ed. (1977). Papers Studies in Linguistics in Southwestern Antonio: Trinity University. . San contact-inducedprecludeespeciallysimilative substrata! inphenomenon, the languagecase effects of high-interaction ofandchange source may necessarily languageeven beCherokees-does utilizedtransfer. reflect languageasNor such- does not Neely,Leechman, Sharlotte Douglas (1991). and SnowbirdRobert A. Cherokees:Hall, Jr. Athens:AmericanPidgin English: University Speech Attestations 30: of 163-171.Georgia. and Grammatical (1955). "American Indian People of Persistence. Peculiarities." importantpervasivealignmentchange as culturalexternal isit occurredone wayand dialect social ain group theru,rms distinctions. contact can and, be community.atboth the adaptive same time, in regardmaintain to This mixed Pederson,Romaine, Lee Suzanne (1983). (1995). East Tennessee Bilingualism. Folk Oxford:Speech. Inc.Peter Lang. Blackwell Publishers,New York: Verlag ReferencesAnderson, Bridget, Jessica Sander, and Walt Wolfram (1996). Cherokee Weinreich,Thomason, UrielSarah (1968). and Terrence Languages Kaufman in Contact. ( 1988). Mouton Language editionCaliforniaCreolization, 1953. Press. andNew Genetic York: Linguistic Linguistics. Circle Berkeley: of New University York Press. [First Contact, Publi- of Bailey, Guy, Tom Wikle, Jan Tillery, and Lori Sand (1996). "The Conse- quenceslegeciolinguisticEnglish Station, inof theCatastrophic TX.Assimilation. Great Smoky Events: Paper Mountains: Anpresented Example A at Continuum fromSECOL the 52.Ameri- of Col- So- Wolfram,Williams, Walt,Cratis Donna D. (1992). Christian, Southern William Mountain L. Leap, Speech. and LanceBerea: cation(1979).College No. 2].VariabilityPress. in the English of Two Indian Communities PotterBerea Bernstein, Cynthia and Elizabeth Gregory (1994). The Social Distribution andniferAnalysis.can JulieSouthwest." Arnold, Soloman.Selected Renee Sociolinguistic PapersStanford: 131ake, from CSLIBrad NWAV Variation: Davidson,Publications. 23 at Data, Stanford.Scott Theory, Schwenter, Ed. Jen-and Wolfram, Walt (1980). "Dynamic Dimensions of Language Influence: TheforandRobinson, Applied itsCase Effect of Linguistics.American andon Reading Philip Indian M. and Smith Writing.English." (eds.) Washington, Howard Language: Giles, SocialDC.: W. Center Psycho-Peter Craig,Churchill, Beth Ward (1991). (1994). "American Indians Indian Are Us? English." Monroe, English Maine: World Common Wide CourageMemphis,of Glide ShortenedPress. TN. /ai' in LAGS. Paper Presented at SECOL 50. Wolfram, Walt and(1984). Donna "Unmarked Christian Tense(1976). in Appalachian American Indian Speech. English." Arling- ton:Americanlogical the Perspectives. Center Speech for 59: Applied Oxford: 31-50. Linguistics. Pergamon Press. 377-388. Huff,Hall, JosephCharles S.(1977). (1942). The "The Phonology Phonetics of Qualla of Great Cherokee. Smoky unpublished Mountain NewSpeech."12: York: 25-61. American Columbia Speech University Reprints Press. and Monographs, No. 4. NorthDepartmentRaleigh, Carolina NC of English27607State University Kurath,King, Duane Hans, (1975). and Raven A Grammar I. M.:David, and Dictionary Jr. (1961). of The the Pronunciation Cherokee Lan- of guage.DepartmentMaster's Unpublished Thesis. of Linguistics. Ph.D.dissertation.University of North University Carolina of at Georgia. Chapel Hill [email protected] 208 Englishgan Press. in the Atlantic States. Ann Arbor: University of Michi- 201 202 209 U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) The Phonetic Realization of Final Engma in Taipei Fu -bong ChiouMandarin' spoken.franca.differentmillionlanguage AfterChineseNowadays, Chineseof the 51 mainlanderselite.years languages) people With of promotion, under the (from who Nationalist the spokevarious age Mandarin of Mandarin 50provinces, Chinese should is now as camebe speaking a widely ablelingua one to Taiwansince1. hasChinese been froman immigrant Hokien andsociety Canton for theprovinces past 400 began years to The Linguistic Situation in Taiwan Taiwanesespeakgraduallysuch Mandarin. as business,Hakka (and even However,and family, bythe most indigenous etc..Taiwanese Hakka), The use Austronesian isespecially ofstill minority widely in languages, domainslanguages,used by receded over time. A recent estimate of the peoplegraduallyisoutnumberedimmigrate only gradually a smalltransformed to thisthe island aboriginalperceivedisland into with across themselvesAustronesian limited the South natural to peoples.China be Taiwanese.resources, Sea. Since They Taiwan Owingit soon was Chinese-dominant society, where 2.population1993,13% mainlanders,chap. structure 2 for more in 12% Taiwan detailed Hakka, is discussion).as 1.7%follows: aborignes 73.3% Taiwanese, (see Huang Spain,TaiwaneseNationalistattentionto its convenient the of Ming peoplenumerous Party dynasty, geographical hadof powerfulChina been the ruled Tsingtook countries.location, by overdynasty 4 different Taiwan Before and Japan. alien1945 from when regimes:Then, Japan, the in it soon attracted the TaiwanforTaiwanese),As overa result is two different asof decades, wellcontact fromas ofthe with Pekingthe Mandarin separation languages Mandarin, which from in particularly TaiwanhasPeking developed Mandarin (mainly due toin Taipei Mandarin theMandarintheirdefeated1949, then government official bythe entered Communist Nationalist language, the and linguistic theirChinese. ChineseJapanese. official repertoire They fled brought to of Taiwan Taiwan, along after withreplacing them language. As a result, being Taipei,doeslinguisticthe 1985,not where appear drift though many(as homogeneous willsee people be shown are though.exposed in this Except paper).to a mainlysubstantial for This langauge substratum influence of Taiwanese (Kubler footnote 4) as well as to autonomous the capital, Mandarin- ese,'Huangwere and6 1993:million 15% 20). peoplespoke At least Hakiza,3in Taiwan 80% of though (Chenthe population 1979:Japanese 18, spoke aswas quoted Taiwan-still the In 1945, before the 5th regime took over Taiwan, there by otherhavelanguagetheyspeaking parts to master ofspeech of Taiwan education it community in orderlearn and Mandarinto government,inbe various competitive after domains, non-nativethe in age social most of 6 peoplespeakersenter elementary school. Mandarin being the mobility. when only in mywho' My responsibility. readthanks an goesearlier to version Sharon ofHarris, this paper. Alan Lee and Professor G. Sankoff All the remaining errors are masterofcommonnativeFor having those language,Mandarin. prejudiceoffailed the lowerto mastery succeed Theseis tosocial say people of in strata,that Mandarineducation, theirspeak for whom ais hence version not Mandarin that having essential. A lower status is the result of Mandarin failedis to not a differences.areChangchou2 When mutually Chinese and intelligible Chuanchou first immigrated except dialects for to minor ofTaiwan, Southern they Min were Chinese, speaking which the Since they have been the dominant population phonological and lexical for 3 HakkaAlongsidemoving means these "guest", a reflection of the fact that they have been about several two Chinese provinces languages, in China throughout there were dozens of history. 9111 Taiwanese,Canton)hundreds were of and years, outnumbered, called and the since Southern thethey somewhat Minbegan dialect to latecomersidentify they spoke (Hakka Taiwanese. from U. Penn Working Pc1pers in Linguistics, Volume 4.1, 1997 themselves as Austronesian204constituted languages2% of the population.spoken by various tribes of aborigines 211 which Final Engma in Taipei Mandarin Chiou U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) describedthat has longin Kubler been 19854) that is farther away from that referred to as Taiwan Mandarin (as spoken (2) Consonants of Taipei Mandarin m f1 ts t9 is canreferredbylevellingua native only of tobefranca speakersnative-like asregarded Taipei when (especially asMandarin.'competence. needed. an imperfect and Taiwan its speakers Mandarin, never reach in Taipei), and this will be L2, as it is only used as a however, the kt k't' 1E1111 n h ts' 9t9' ts'z spokenthat the in scope Taiwan. of the data in this paper is Taipei Having made this ,listinction, it should be pointed out Mandarin is(3) a Taipei Mandarin rimes ai ei au ou an ern alJ languageLike3. all other with Chinese a syllable languages, structure Mandarinas in (1). Initialis a monosyllabic consonants Engma Realization iiu isua Asuoietie mentioned above, Taipei Mandarin iaiuai uei iau iou uanie nire n ternintin uat)iaig is rich tioi)uoi) in can(3).endingsinventory;6be be either Theany cansegmentinterest /i/, vocalic only herebefrom endings /n/ is (2)or on 4. except canthe All bephonetic possible hy.either /i/ realizationrimes or /u/; are consonantal shown of final in /ii/ or /u/; the nucleus draws from the vowel Medial segments can well,Taiwanmaintainssubstratumfollowing Mandarin that influencesreasons. the and, absence Firstly, fromby implication, Taiwanese Taiwanese.of syllable doesin Kubler finalTaipei have -4 (1985: Mandarintheand -irk -vig 93-4) ending asin is among these. This is incorrect, however, for the conditioneddata,engma(1) the in actual a byTaipei certainrealization Mandarin factors. shows rime. variation As will (13 be seen from Mandarin Syllable Structure (Cheng 1973: 11) n or 0) that is the at-apt).consonants,-14,(Cheng least Secondly, the& Cheng realization does Taiwanese 1977:have of phonetic chap. -vi) never or 2), -ernrealizations andhas in thealthough Taipei -an similar it doesit has not syllabic have -1), which, when combining with initial ending; therefore,Mandarin should enough to tone final rime Thirdly,have(andChinese nothing a subsequentas Dialects, the to data do 2nd.with lossin Hanyu ed.ofTaiwanese the1983) Fangyan-n rime)show, phonological has theGaiyao beenloss ofvery(Outline the common -1) rimeof of Mandarin as well (Chen structure. 1991), initial medial micleus vocalicending consonantal ending soundthereforethepatternsuggestingamong change ofother besound that considereddialects in Taipei progress,change. Mandarin aUnless independentstable couldevidence variable be of undergoing suggestsPeking rule, variationor Mandarin a potentialthe same or of final engma in Taipei Mandarin should otherwise, 6Taiwan"° ItThespoken5 shouldIt questionshould should in be Taipei, be pointed ofbe borne howTaiwan but outmanyin in mind, Mai Taiwalithat phonemic darin. whath.)wever, in Kublergeneral. vowels that refers Taipei there to areMandarin as in"Mandarin Mandarin is not in isjust 4.TaiwaneseOne of the influence. contributions of sociolinguistics is the resolution of The Data proposalsleft open here.of a vowel See Cheng system (P.173), of 6, 5 and Lin 2 (1989) respectively. and Wang (1993) for 212 BEST COPY AVAILABLE 205 206change,the perennially a question vexing that question has bewildered of the implementation historical linguists of sound for 213 supporteddecades.Final Engma The by, in amongclaim Taipei that otherMandarin !.ound things, change the notion can of be variable observed rules is Chiou precededMandarinU Penn Workingby lexicon retroflex Papersthat initials. begins in Linguistics /i/with is singled/e/, out as a factor as while A/ has to be Volume 4.1 (1997) ruleA(Labov analysisbyclassical in all English', 1969), possible, programvariable which where related rule based can the that factors. beapplication on seenis probabilitywell as studiedsound of the theoryschange isrule the is /t,d/ conditionedindeveloped progress. deletion by With the help of a computer application.opposedopposedof the topreceding all toOf backthe all otherthe vowels) vowel other 5 vowels, 5factor have vowels, a asgroup very suggested the highmostthat percentage frequentby the outcome vowels of rule u/. Frequencies of /x, front vowels (as a, ii/ are implementeddataCedergrenvariable the probabilistic rule. and as Sankoff a variable effects in rule,1972, of constraints a onepilot can study easilyon was the estimate operationconducted, from of in a To realize whether final engma in Taipei Mandarin is alsothetogetherofrelativelyare 901 word,the possible tokens. backall positionlow, these factors,vowels asAs 5none insuch, vowels the as /o,of itintonationalMandarin them wouldas a conditioningexceeds be is notphrase a tone5 too in andourfactor.languagemisleading tonecomplete Position value with to data areput noin thearefactorswerewhich considered:word, coded some that position fromcondition 300 preceding atokens inspeaker the rule (iA_intonational vowel, application,of Taipeiphonetic following Mandarin.' phrase realizationsthe segment,following and In its determining tone ofposition 5 engma) factors value. in (4)this.considerationsconsonant We therefore could have outweigh the following grammatical 5 factor groups:ones in cases like Factor Groups clusters in the syllable, and thus prosodic mostprecedingnasal.theAs brieflystructure: plausible mentionedvocalic (C)(G)V(G)(N), factors element in to (1), examine. and a Mandarinwhere its following As G canstands syllable be segment forseen is glide roughly from are and (3), the ofN Since our interest ccnters around the nasal ending, the (iii)Position(ii)(i) Preceding Following vowel: segment: i, It, t(coronal a, o. consonant),q(pausecoronal c(non- orconsonant), filled pause). hl, v(vowel other than /i/), in the word: f(word-final), i(word- intoaconsonantW.preceding pause Following2 groups: (or vowelsexcept filled corona] segments pause). forof engma-endingengma,and Thenon-coronal. vowels21 initial rimesof consonants A, cani, e, onlyv, a, are o,be groupedu, /i, u/, v, oro, can theoretically be either any (v)(iv)Position Tone value in theof theintonational syllable: phrase:1 (55), 2f(phrase-final), (35),4i(phrase-internal).internal). (53). 3 (324), e/ onewould word be virtually (andSee eg. an Labovimpossible exclamation (1967), to Labov come word &by, toCohen sinceboot) (1967), there in the isLabov, onlywhole Cohen, Among the 8 potential following vowels, however, /i, pointeddefinitionis found, out, oflies the the in variation variablethe linking in in most of question the cases, feature inwhere (5).[coronal]. nasal realization Having defined the factor groups, we need to give a As should be (1980),Robins &etc. Lewis (1968), Wolf' tm (1969, 1971), Fasold (1972), Guy (5) engmaDefinition of the variable: the phonetic realization of in a 1 Taipei Mandarin rime. In Goldvarb UniversityMarchtheory.8 See Cedergren 16, 1996.of Pennsylvania &TheThe Sankoff informant, data are(1974)in hertaken HC midfor Wei, from discussions 20's is the awho female recoding is of a MAprobabilitybilingual of student an interviewspeaker at the I carriedout on Adeletionrepresentsapplication, first run 0. /n/of Goldvarbrealization, clearly indicates that engma represents hy or in a few cases realization, while total 0 214 Goldvarbfairof Taipei size forMandarinprogram. a relatively and Taiwanese. 300 tokens are to be considered a accurate input to Cedergren & Sankoff's 207 208correlatedrealization with preceding vowels, with diversified is a variable rule, as it is especially degrees215 of strongly Final Engma in Taipei Mandarin Chiou U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) (300applicationrule application: from Cheng of 24%. and 301 from Lin) are 'v 79%, i 57%, a 11%, o 2%, Encouraged by the result, more tokens coded from two more with a total ofthissuggesting available in order that todata. overcomemore These than the together300 problem tokens areof unbalanced desirable in cases suggest strongly that in a distribution like 2%,informants,mrule,"Cheng45%,a o 0%, however, 11%,apparently with and oa 7%, total similarthe has withgeneralapplication a results slightly a total ordered are of applicationdifferent obtained:27% tendency for behavior Lin 'srof (i.e.,81%,21% toward1r i 70%, > i > aa > and It 45%, i for Cheng. this singleofvariable (6)rule feature application, rule wheretoo.I2 itsthe constraining feature jcoronal] factors accounts could befor the Factor Weight for Rule Application tied to this degree combinedwello) for supported. preceding set of voweldata Below, will factors thobu discussed. applicationwith regard tooutcome rule application of the As Cedergren & Sankoff (1974) demonstrate, the is No.ofInformantGroup Tokens Factor Weight300CR Cheng Weight301CL Lin 300WeightHC Wei Weight901Combined relationshiptheWhatinput) inputapplication really is analogousdata. between counts (6) weight shows isactual to therefore that (that thu application of results performancethe weight of of the athat variable and is determinedcompetence. analysisrule and byof is calculated according to the 1: a 0.2540.8690.918 0.1070.9670.993 0.2750.8950.949 0.2310.9070.947 combined.relativelyour data. Note that since /a/ and /o/ in It appears from (6) low application, thatthese factor group two factor group 1 showback 1, vowels preceding are 2: t 0.5700.5820.2670.346 0.5450.8200.4620.653 0.1790.5720.5040.607 0.3660.4290.5530.603 backapplicationofvowel, 2,engma. coronalvowels is the The (i.e., /a, mostconsonants twoo/ -n disfavor importantnon-backrealization and it. Amongvowelsfactor non-conoralor total in Iv,the deletion),deciding factors ones thein whileshow factor realization the a groupsimilar two i/ strongly favor rule 3: cf 0.5440.4710.342 0.4620.5230.088 0.5350.325 0.433 0.4820.5110.267 factother(though that 3 thesefactors less acute) have somepattern fluctuation as non-back which vs. might back vowels.be due to The the three factors have far lower frequencies, 4: 4f 0.4400.769 0.5040.480 0.4900.529 0.4700.622 Lininterviewat" Both the is University ainformants, native carried monolingual outof CL Pennsyl%on Lin April & speaker5. ania 1996 who &of March Taipeiare in 26,theirMandarin, 1996 mid-20's. respectively. and so is Cheng, are also female MA students The 5: 23 1 0.3400.4710.6850.315 0.3880.3640.6440.568 0.4820.5410.4610.509 0.3710.4550.5100.607 belongpassiveCheng,nasal knowledge toexceptending. this kind thatSpecifically, of of Cheng,Hakka totalOf and deletion,naving'her Taiwanese. 64 outbilingual which of 300 is toapplications, some extent 15 quite involve a total drop of the 10 out of 12 applications parents, for factor /a/ has some question12 Note of ht/how has many even phonemic heavier vowelsweight (andthan whata coronal are they?) vowel there /i/. are The differentresearch.social factorsfrom the or other any othertwo. Whetherinternal onesthis behaviorawaits more is correlated data and withfurther 216 209 210leastsuggestsin Mandarin in cases that may likeit patterns stillthis. be with left open,coronal behavior vowel, of and /v/, not however, back vowels, strongly at 217 Final Engma in Taipei Mandarin Other than these two immediately neighboring factors, Chiou ReferencesU. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) theall[coronal]application.question) other intonational prosodic is do the Thusnot decidingfactorsphrase seem the entire (i.e.,toand factor correlate positiontone outcome in the value significantly applicationin appearsthe of word, the toof positionwith suggestthe variablethe in rulethat syllable in Chen,Cedergren, Chung-Yu Henrietta. (1991). "The nasal endings and retroflexed initials Language,performance 50: 333-55. as a and David Sankoff (1974). statistical reflection of competence." "Variable rule in The5.rule ofphonetic engma realization inof Taipei final engma Mandarin. in a Taipei Mandarin Concluding Remarks Chen, Shau-Shin (1979). Taiwan Renkou de Bianchian yu Taipei:BianchianJournalPeking Lian-chingMandarin:of Chinese PublishingLinguistics,instability Co. Vol. 19, No. 2: 139-71. (Demographic and social change of Taiwan). and the trend of changes." Shehuei precedingresultsofrime the is rule illuminated vowelscenters aroundand by afollowing vas the iable single rulesegments) feature analysis. [ coronal], The application and the show that significant constraining are factors tied to the (viz., Cheng, RobertChin-Chuan L. and (1973). Susie S.A ChengSynchronic (1977). Phonology Taiwan of Chinese.Yuyin The Hague: Mouton. Jiegou ji Biauyinfa (Phonological Structure andFujianhua de Mandarin fluctuation>precedingwhichfeature a > o) could[coronal] is vowel found. suggests arguably factoras In well, thatthe begroup, following withmorerelated athe datastrongly toambiguous segment aare coronal neededordered exception vowel beforepattern lit. aof Inmore /x the /, factor group, the > i Guy,Fasold, Gregory Ralph (1980).(1972). "Variation Tense Marking in the ingroup Black and English. the Va.:Co.Romanization Center for of Applied Taiwanese Linguistics. Hokkian). Taipei: Student Book individual: the Arlington, consonantsaccurateabewhich predominantly significant, is anotheralways suggesting CVhaveparallel structure heavier finding. that inweightlike a Other mono-syllabicMandarin, than factors non-coronal fewer are language not found ones, with to picture can be delineated. However, factors are coronal Huang, Shuan-Fan (1993). LanguagecasePublishing(Language, of final in Time Co.Societystop and deletion." Space.and Ethnic New In Consciousness).York:W. Academic Taipei:Press. Yuyan, Shehuei yu Tzuchiun Labov (ed.) Locating CraneYishr necessaryshouldHowever,involved only in forsince soundbe suggestive,a betterthe change. data analysis notHere,are final. even on factors tone is not playing a role. The analysis also suggests still limited, that more tokens that havethis lowerobservation are Labov,Kubler, WilliamCornelius (1967). C. (1985). "Some The sources Development of reading of Directionsspeakersa Case Study of in non-standard ofElementary Language Contact.English. English." Champaign, In A. Frazier Ill.: (ed.) Taipei: Student Book Co. Mandarin in Taiwan:problems for Negro National New similarnotwellconsiderations,frequency considered as inother social possible here. socialclass The andfactors till educational ee speakers(such asas background age,style, sex, speech class, to rate)allow etc.) are usas from the same informant. considered here are too Due to practical Labov, William & P. Cohen (1967). "Systematic WilliamCouncilandvariability non-standard of Teachers of the Englishrulesof English. in thecopula." grammars Language,45: of Negro speakers."715-62. (1969). "Contraction, deletion, relations of standard and inherent In work,to factisalsospecualte a a stable,amake considerationchange on possibleinternally-conditioned inthe progress. possible ofthe speakers assessment effects from ofprocess, of different whether or age whether groups may social factors. In further engma-variation it is in Labov, William, P. Cohen, C. Robins & J. Lewis ProjectIinthe & New Non-standardII. literacy Philadelphia: York reportsCity. English Cooperative U.S.8. ofRegional Negro Research andSurvey. Puerto Report Rican 3288. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University. (1968). A Study of Speakers Vols. 218 211 212 .A.-91 -L. 1.9 FinalLin, Engma in Taipei Mandarin Yan-Huei (1989). Autosegmental Treatment of Segmental dissertation. Chiou (PWPL)The University is an occasional of Pennsylvania series produced Working by Papers in Linguisticsthe Penn Linguistics Wang, Jenny Zhijie (1993). The Geometry of Segmental Features BeijingUniversityProcessesDelaware. ofin TexasChinese at Austin. Phonology. Doctoral Mandarin. Doctoral dissertation. University ofin elsewhere;PublicationDepartmentClub, all inof copyrightthisthe Universityvolume is retaineddoes of Pennsylvania.not by preclude the authors submission of the the graduate student organization of the Linguisticsindividualof papers Wolfram, Walt (1971).(1969). OverlappingA Sociolinguistic Influence Description in the English of Detroit of Negro onGenerationSpeech. OE Grant Washington, Puerto 3-70-0033(508). Rican D.C.: Teenagers Center Washington, for in Applied Harlem. Linguistics. Final Report D.C.: Center for Second PleaseVolumespapers. see of our the web Working page for Papers additional are available information. for $12, prepaid. 619University Williams of Hall Pennsylvania Applied Linguistics. The PWPL Series Editors Alexis Dimitriadis chioufd@Philadelphia, babel. PA ling. 19104-6305 upenn. ee I u Editors for this Volume ClarissaAlexander Surek-Clark Williams Laura Siegel and the PWPL series editors StephanieMiriam StrasselMeyerhoff Charles Boberg U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics HowDepartment to reach the of PWPL Linguistics 619 Williams Hall http://www.ling.upenn.edu/papers/pwpthtml [email protected], PA 19.104 -6305 University of Pennsylvania 220 213 221 U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) James VariableMyers and Lexical Gregory PhonologyR. Guy Frequency Effects in firmedinis thatandthe varioussome itin predicts several psycholinguistic derivational anstudies exponential (e.g. classes; implications Guy relation 1991,this prediction among 1992,have been Santathe has deletiontested Ana been in1991), con-ratesMyers The19921. variable proposes version that of variable Lexical Phonologyphonological developed processes in Guylike English1991, Variable Lexical Phonology Monomorphemicpredictspredictions(1996). Inthat theinvolving frequency present forms lexical paper, should but frequency. notwe affect inexplore the the class rate a further of CSDRegular set in of the pastimportant class tense of As will shortly become clear, Variable Lexical Phonology EnglishdifferentCoronalfinal /t/ words.Stop rates or Id/ Deletion Deletionof Variable as application represented can (CS Lexical apply D), in invarious which Phonologyboth Figure postlexically variably morphological 1, explains deletes and these classeslexically.clustered differ- of is well-known to have therthesequencytinueforms. dialect topredictions, Moreover, isbe controlled. strongly of English the we affected model Afterbriefly and showwe bypredicts consider havemorphological how discussedthat the an deletion resultsanalysis classour found rates dataof even CSD shouldthere when in com- ano-con- fre- bearing on es.enceslarthewhere Thus pastdeletionin termsthe tense highfinal rule,of forms the deletionstop both contrasting likeis withinunderlying, ratelaughed in the derivationalmonomorphemic lexicononly is due acquire and to histories multiple postlexically. the words final of exposures the clusterlike class- lift, tar- to Regu- psycholinguisticPhonologyresultsplementtheoretical not the only model, resultsphonology. provide models ofbut our also novel ofown havemorphological supportstudy. interesting We for will the processing consequences concludeVariable thatLexicaland thefor . rule,theygeted they are by have thereforeCSD low through deletion only affixation subject rates. to at a thepostlexical end of the application lexicon. of the Since 2. Frequency Effects Figure 1: English Coronal Stop Deletion 'frequencythatfrequency.We begininformation byeffects'There explaining about is are substantial in a factword's the among basis evidencerateforms oftheof ouroccurrence best-attested frompart predictions ofa number a speaker's findings concerning of sources knowledgein the of that word. its frequency So-called Ca [-son]C Chambersbeenstudyunpredictable,words foundof lexicalare 1973, toproduced be access Whaleyit a mustcrucial or and recognizedbe1978). retrieval. factorindicated Because affecting (classic in the frequency workslexicon.the speed include information This with meansForster For example, frequency has which thatand is This model has significant implications for several areas Coronal[-cont] themselveslinguisticexistencefrequency ofconstituentseffectsare frequency stored can in be the iseffects used anlexicon. indication as in a diagnosticthe behavior that thoseof some One debate in which frequency effects have played an lexicality: constituents class of the 222 ricalof linguistic tests. One theory, of the and most thus, important should beconsequences subject to stringent of this model empi- U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics, Volume 4.1, 1997 216inflection.important role concerns the mental representation and According to the view taken by Steven Pinker and processing of 223 Frequencyothers, regularly Effects inflected forms, including the regular past tense Meyers & Guy foundU. Penn that Working the phonetically-motivated Papers in Linguistics lexical rule frequency words like Volume 4.1 (1997)of English vowel rule.informs lexicon;the Thus lexicon,that thewill only regularly butbe the discussed rather stem inflected are laugh in derived this isword paper,(as from laughedassumed are the not stems is in not storedVariable as wholes Lexical byfound a regular in the tiallymistakereductioninvariant the than variable applies lexical in lower analogmorerules frequency (seereadily of thefor words 'lexical examplein higher like exceptions' Kiparsky mistook. Such frequency effects on variable phonology are essen- 1982). familiar with 'Variable irregularlyPhonology).regularlyBybee (e.g. inflected inflected Bybee forms 1995)forms like andare found storedothers are whoas indeed wholes have stored maintainedin the as lexicon. wholes. There On the other side of the debate are researchers such as JoanBy contrast, ifionomorphemic forms like lift and that even frequencyrulesdifferencesexceptionality,' affect words. inhigher rates as frequencyofit mightapplication. be words called, at leads a higher to rate In particular, variable lexical lexically-specific than lower toClintonis nostored past out-Republicaned past tense tense 'rule' forms. as such; the instead,Republicans, novel are inflected formed forms, by analogy as If frequency effects can be used as a diagnostic of lexical in showthatgicalfrequency Monomorphemic statusa robust effect of frequencythe on word-final CSD forms, shouldeffect, /t/ beingtherefore withand /d/.higher stored depend frequency in theon If the Variable Lexical Phonology model is correct, Specifically, we expect the morpholo-lexicon, will words like the lexicon,effects.morphemicregularity, these formsThepredicts two and contrary areviews irregularlythat not they, makestored claim, to,), distinctin that willthe regular lexiconshow predictions. frequency formspredicts are thateffects. stored only in mono the riflected forms will show frequency The claim that past showingfrequencyandlike notpriest. stored,a wordshigher By contrast, should like rate passed of show Regulardeletion and no lower frequency past frequencytense effectforms, words at than lower frequency words being derivedall: like kissed higher Pinkerpsycholinguisticscreen (1991), and were subjects literature. asked were to utter shown the pastverb tense stems form on aas computer These predictions have been tested repeatedly I n one typical experiment reported in quickly as in the These3.should predictionsshow equal rateswere oftested deletion. on recordings of the Methods conversational forms.cy(stemfrequencypossible. effect frequencies Pinker onWith past the and irregulartensespeed werecolleagues formsof of response vetcourse thanthereforebs, controlled).subjects lowwas concludedfrequencyfound were However,for faster regular thatpast subjects to tenseno pastread frequen- forms tense werehigh werefemaleandspeech one coded speaker).of female two as deletedworking-class (approximately Tokens if trained of words informants listeners 75% ending of could the inin Philadelphia,/t/-tokens not or /d/-final came onefrom clusters hear any evidence male the thederivingtion mental suggest these lexicon, formsthat whereit on-line,too canfrequency beand exploited not effects retrieving to reside. address them this directly debate from about Two properties of the variable rule of Coronal Stop Dele- of codedpre-consonantal,glidereflex,the stop; sequence. forincluding they morphological were Tokens pre-vocalic,a glottal coded were stopasclass: alsoretainedor or pre-pausal. Regular codedan affricate if thefor past; phoneticstop derived Monomorphemic, had environments:any from a stop- Finally, tokens were audible lexicalmotivatedthatindicatethe processing are frequency. subjectregular processes, of topast inflection.Forthis tense which example,rule. inflection Second,CSD Phillips appears withit is (1984) knownthe to be,segments, found thatare influenced phonetically- that /t/ phonet-and /d/, by First of course, English happens to adjectiveformspast.which thatincluded left involve was strong included a suffix, past in tense suchthe Monomorphemicforms as left like (past found; tense class). and of Semiweakleave; theThe Semiweak class consisted of those irregular past tense moreically-motivated frequent to less sound frequent changes words. diffuse through the lexicon from 224 BEST COPY AVAILABLE Similarly, Fidelholtz (1975) 217 218high frequencies that are known to have inordinately high deletion As is standard in studies of CSD, certain words with very 225 Frequency Effects Meyers & Guy U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) Bybeeofandrates Guy and were 1996). 1991, all removed words 1992), with from as thewell the contraction asdata the set. words -n't just (following and went the (following practice In addition, all instances of the words used and These removed words were 4.imatelyinto Results the 20% high of frequency the tokens class. into the low frequency class and 80% lexicalizedsupposedasKucera well. wereand Thesephrases Francis removed, included used (1967), to as and 12 these certaininstancessupposed virtually other to.of localalwaystokens proper hadappeared to names, be removedin the such Because we were using the standard frequency counts of TableThe basic 1: Variable data are Coronalshown in Stop Table Deletion 1. (Philadelphia) as muchallnames,butLakehurst, 17 were compounds,lower such clearly which thanas Maryland, thatofhave such higher of a as friend,frequency boyfriend;were frequency andnot of removed.it the 0was inin frequency Philadelphia;the not standard Alsoclear of removedwhich boyfriend reference nonlocal should were is HighLowMonomorphemic frequencyfrequency * 573151 1- ktal Deletions 194 28 Deletion % 33.918.5 frequencyweakadjustmentsbe used forms in (40 our wascontained tokens analysis. unfortunately of a5 totaltypes) of tooand 1080 smallwill tokens. not to beexamine Thediscussed class the offurther. effect Semi- of Word frequency in Kucera and Francis (1967) is given as The data set that remained after these Rezular**HighLow frequencyfrequency lot. 220 96 Deletions 18 7 Deletion % 8.27.3 novels,fromcorpusan integer a ofvariety.and one representing although million of written it words. maythe material, numbertherefore Their originalof includingnot instances be corpusideal newspapersof for thatwas the wordcompiled study andin of a A chi-square on the Monomorphemic class finds a significant **x2(1)*x2(1) = = 13.182, .073, p p> < .1 .01 effect laboratorycorpusBuffalospoken available. language,was of Paul used A Lucetoit computerized remainsdetermine at the the State lexical largest version University frequencies and of most this of widely forNewcorpus all Yorkusedthe in words the suchat for cheapest and bussed to 1360 for classandbothof frequencyfinds morphology morphology no such on deletion effect.isand significant frequency. An rates, ANOVA aswhile The well, interactionfinds a whichchi-square significant further between on supports the Regular effects forfrequency the first andfiedquency:in our 401 as data low fortokens set,called.frequency ranging with a andfrequency from tokens equal with ato frequency or below 35above were 35 classi- were A cut-off point of 35 was used to classify tokens by fre- explanationindependentlyclassesconclusion differently. that of is thefrequency worth higher emphasizing. affectsrates of the deletion Monomorphemic This isthat because have an The fact that both morphology and frequency affect been found in and Regular alternative CSD pastchoicethatlowclassified regularthetense herself procedure asforms formshigh by in frequency.the aretheof fact BybeenotKucera thatderived This(1996), anda frequency cut-offFrancison-line. who, pointfrequency ofas 35we was divides will chosenlist see, exactly the argues to set fol- inof Bybee motivates the MonomorphemictotalsRegularsince Monomorphemic finds past thattense forms the forms. Monomorphemic isforms thatFor example,thistend isto merely be a classof chi-square higher a has a on frequency effect.,Regularfrequency class. than significantly the above 226 half. In Bybee's data set as well as ours, this criterion puts approx- 219 220higher proportion .of high frequency tokens than the 227 Meyers & Guy U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) tokensFrequency in the Effects Monomorphemic class that have frequencies above This frequency confound can be reduced by removing logylyingly, model, have Monomorphemic three chances toforms, undergo which variable end forms have only onedeletion, twice inlexi- /t/ or /d/ under- datathethethis highest set highest frequency-capped yields frequency frequency the results found of Monomorphemic in 401 inthe foundthe Table Regular in 2. the The classclass.Regular highest is Doing 399, class. frequency verythis toclose our in to litytwotherechance,cally thatfor andare Semiweaks, namely/t/ threeonce or /d/ pathwayspostlexically, postlexically. will and be just toretained surface one whileThis for is isdeletion Regular Regularthe illustrated same forpasts. at each level in theFigure Monomorphs, 2, where If the probabi- call Table 2: Frequency-balanced data sets Monomorphemic* (max frequency = 399) Total Deletions Deletion % thisofwhilewe p(r) p(r). predict the-- and retention that if the process retentionrate in Monomorphemicoperates rate in independently forms willat each be the This cubed retention rate in the Monomorphemic class Regular past forms will be p(r), level,classcube RegularHighLow frequencyfrequency (repeated fi om last table; max frequency = 401) 332151 9828 29.518.5 Figuretestable(becausewill not 2: degree. merelyp(r)An exponentialis less be smallerthan model1), thanbut ofsmaller that Coronai found by a inspecific, the Regular statistically top Deletion *x2(1)HighLow frequencyfrequency = 6.484, p < .025 Total 220 96 Deletions 18 7 Deletion % 8.27.3 ex.:(after Guy 1991, 1992)Monomorphs lift Semiweak left laughedRegular Monomorphemicfrequency ratios between class. An the ,INIOVARegular class still andfinds the an frequency-capped overall effect of A chi-square test now finds no difference in low and high Li ft / \ f /f/ Byfrequencysquaremains contrast, highlyon on thethe deletion, significantfrequencyeffect ofbut morphology cappedonly(p<.0001). marginal Monomorphemic Evenalone significance moreon deletion interesting, class (p=.0469). ratesstill shows are- chi- L2 ft / \ft f ff I ft / f+t \f datainan higheffect set frequencyis of controlled frequency, forms. for with frequency, 'SD applying frequency significantly affects deletion more oftenrates In other words, even when the overall PL / \ ft ft fI ffI ft ffI ft f#t f 4.1.withinIt is thereasonable Monomorphemic to ask an ,;lass e but not within the Regular class. Exponential Effects more challenging question: Is an givenobservedretention statistical rateretention for validity Monomorphemic rate for by Regular comparing forms.forms these isThis extremely observed observation close rates can to with thebe In Table 3 we can see that the cube root of the observed f f ft f /\ /\ Recallexponential that Guy relation (1991) still claimed found in that this in frequency-controlled the Variable Lexical data Phono- set? 228 221 those222 expected given an estimated value for p(r). The simplest way 229 Frequency Effects Meyers & Guy U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) betweenclass,to estimate 92.1%. the p(r) actual A is chi-square tosurface use the retention surfacetest finds rates retention no for significant the rate Monomorphemic for thedifference Regular Bybee differ from ours. There are two major ways in which the data presented by First, the deletion rates in the dialect she duefrequency-controlledvalue.and toRegular aIn frequency other classes words, effect anddata the alone. tho,eexponentialset, and that therefore are pattern predicted this is foundpattern given even cannot this in p(r) the be waybecauseenvironments,sheexamined restricted to adjust these are themuchher thatenvironments baseexamination is, higher beforedeletion than consonants tendtorate in Regular the ofto dialectthefavor and tokens deletion.pauses.we examined. in non-prevocalic This We was haveSecond, done no dialect we studied, but we dataTable sets 3: Test of exponential hypothesis with frequency-balanced Total R, tentions Ret.% Est. pr tooareincluding can shown boost onlyhere. deletion tokens Again, rates in however, non-prevocalicin our data there set is by environments.no These data effect of frequency.following Bybee and RegMono 438316 291357 *cube root of surface rate 92.181.5 92.193.4* Tablephonological 5: Coronal environments Stop Deletion in Philadelphia in restricted Regular (non-prevocalic tokens only 4.2. CSD in Bybee 1996 observation reported here, that the HighLow frequencyfrequency Total 135 73 Deletions 13 7 Deletion % 9.6 MonomorphemicTheregularlyVariablewhile general the inflectedRegularLexical class classformsPhonology, show; does are a NOTnot, frequency and is stored preciselysupports effectin the whatthe lexicon.in deletionhypothesis is predicted rates that by we have However, formsand onlythen apparentlyin a dialect only with in an environments extremely high that base boost deletion deletion rate, rates The fact that Bybee finds a frequency effect in Regular JoanpastSantathe Bybee corpus tense Ana (1996), forms.(Santa of Los inBybee'sAna Angelesan 1991),examination data Chicanoreports for Regular of a Corona!Englishfrequency forms Stopcollected effectare Deletion presented in byRegular Ottoin in oneinflectedthreatenonstill Regular attemptshigher, theforms suggestsforms claimto aremaintain ismadenot thatnot stored verytheatby the us,extreme in strong. very thePinker lexicon? least, and the others effect that of frequencyregularly position that Regular formsBut does Bybee's finding It does, but only if (analysisTablefrequency 4:4. Coronalby on Bybee the deletion Stop 1996) Deletion rate. in Los Angeles A chi-square test does indicate a significant effect of formspendentareaspects always can reasons, comeover,it..ived time,to however. on-line. take which on unpredictableAmong would other be impossible things,and therefore regularly lexicalized Such a position is untenable for inde- if regular forms inflected Regular (non-prevoL alic tokens only) Ttlal Deletions 11 Deletion % singularberwere that never theobject. stored regularly Similarly, in memory. inflected the Forregular plural example, past form tense glasses forms in speakers must remem- There is even describes a used to 230 HighLow frequencyfrequency 111 58 44 39.618.9 223 evidenceand224 supposed that anto nowimportant display factor irregular in the phonology. lexicalization of regularly231 Frequency Effects Meyers & Guy U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) experimentally-inducedMacWhinneyinflectedare less forms likely (1988) is to lexical be foundshifted speech frequency. that or errors, exchangedin both For inflections instance,naturally if on Stemberger occurring regular forms the forms are of high and remainsthethat exponential are unanswered. quite consistent effect While which withthe presentinspired work byproject it Pinker is not. has andPinker produced his expectscolleagues, only Turning back to our own research, a crucial question results frequency.5.inflectednot negate formsRegardless our assumptionis the defaultof their that case. interest, the on-line however, generation such results do Theoretical Implications of regularly effectSemiweakGuywhichtwo morphologicallyand onare Boyd Coronalstored, past (1990)tense and Stop formsRegularrelevant and Deletion. Guy behave forms,classes: (1991) Bybee as which a were distinct (1996) are able derived.third suggests to show class However, that in their the Monomorphemic forms, phonologicaloffindingsThus language far for we the have production,theory Variable focussed that Lexicalshould but primarily there bePhonology addressedare on general the model implicationsas implicationswell. and Thefor models theoryof ourfor it(360phemicbuthigh is thisapparently versusrate seemsand of 338),deletionSemiweak unlikely.not suggesting because in this classesThe ofclass thatmean frequency. in ifis our frequencies thesedue data solely classesA aremuch tovirtuallyfor behave high larger the frequency,Monomor- distinctly,corpusidentical of Optimalityingmid-1990s,built,of Lexical is has incompatible lost Phonology, Theorypartly considerable because (Prince with upon the itsfavor and which rule-driven currently Smolensky in Variablethe phonological fashionableformalism 1993).Lexical of climatePhonology paradigm level-order- of the ofis As Kiparsky analogy,Semiweakforms,natural both speech, or someformstypes one combinationand are that tokens,processed includes wouldof these. in a speechbelarge needed number production: to determined of Semiweak by rule, how dentandtwoGuy(1993) /d/ fundamentalwell-formedness(1991) inhas different shown, can be assumptions. morphological themodelled constraints, exponential in First, Optimalityratherclasses effectthe than presenceis indetermined byTheory CSD a single or discovered ifabsence byone rule indepen- makes opera- of by /t/ Bybee,References J. (1995) and Cognitive Processes 10:425-455. "Regular morphology and the lexicon." Language canischosenting easy beat differentrandomlymadeto demonstrate, to give levels.whenever rise whichSecond, to a theIt/ we -final exponentialthe will rankingor not Id/ do -final ofeffecthere, these form thatwithout constraintsis this uttered. schemethe use is It Bybee,Fidelholtz, J. (1996) Basedlexical Models diffusion." of Language. In M. Barlow CSLI,J. Stanfordand S. Kemmer University (eds.) Press. Usage-L. (1975) "Word frequency and vowel reduction"The phonology in of the lexicon: Evidence from applicationstheof rules set of or strikinglevel of ordering.Coronal differences Stop betweenDeletion. the lexical and postlexical However, one thing that this analysis cannot describe is Guy (1992) and Myers Guy,Forster, K. I. and Chambers, S. M. (1973) "Lexical access and namingG. exponentialtime,"/English," of CLSVerbal model 11:200-213. LearningR. of morphological and Verbal constraints," Behavior 12:627-35. Language (1991) "Explanation in variable phonology:An Lexicalrulepostlexicalanother:(1996) application discuss Phonology lexical applications some are applications as easysuch a areform todifferences, n.)t.conceptualize of are While 'variable sensitive and frequency theexceptionality,'within presentto frequency, effectsthe frameworkpaper on as revealslexical whilenoted of Guy, G.G.R. R. and(1992) Boyd, S. (1990) 'The development of a morphological class,"Languagephonology,"Variation andLanguage ChangeVariation Variation 3:1-22. and Change and Change 2:1-18. 3:223-239. "Contextual conditioning in variable lexical lexicalearlier, versus it is yet postlexical unclear how distinction Optimality without Theory stipulation. can capture the 232 BEST COPY AVAILABLE 225 226 233 Frequency Effects Meyers & Guy Kiparsky, P. (1982) "Lexical phonology and morphology," in I. S. SocietyYang (ed.) of Korea, Linguistics 13.5-160. in the Morning Calm, Linguistic Club,(PWPL)The University is an occasional of Pennsylvania series produced Working by Papers the Penn in LinguisticsLinguistics the graduate student organization of the Linguistics Kucera,Kiparsky, H. P. and (1993) Francis, W. N. (1967) sityPresent-DayOptimality Press. Workshop, America: Rutgers English. University. Providence: Brown Univer "Variable rules." ComputationalPaper presented Analysis at Rutgers of papers.elsewhere;PublicationDepartment all inof copyrightthisthe Universityvolume is retaineddoes of Pennsylvania.not by preclude the authors submission of the individual of papers Phillips,Myers, James B. S. (1996) (1984) Linguisticofvariable the International t-deletion Theory, inUniversity Workshop English." of To onNijmegen, appear Language in Netherlands. the Variation Proceedings and "The categorical"Word and frequency gradient and phonology the actuation of of sound PleaseVolumes see of our the web Working page for Papers additional are available information. for $12, prepaid. Prince,Pinker, S.A. (1991)and Smolensky, "Rules of language,"P. 1993. Optimality Science 253:530-5. Theory: change."UniversityInteraction Language ofin ColoradoGenerative ( '0:320-342. ms. Grammar. Rutgers University and Constraint The PWPL Series Editors Clarissa Surek-ClarkAlexis Dimitriadis Laura Siegel Stemberger,Santa Ana, 0. J. (1991) P. and PhoneticMacWhinney, Simplification B. (1988) Processes in English of PhDthe ChicanosBarrio: thesis. A ofCross-Generational Los Angeles. Sociolinguistic Study of University of Pennsylvania "Are inflected forms Editors for this Volume Alexander Williams Whaley, C. P. (1978) TheoreticalstoredVerbal116 .in the Learning Morphology,lexicon?" and In Verbal M. San Hammond BehaviorDiego: Academic and 17:143-154. M. Noonan Press, (eds.)101- "Word non-word classification time," J. of and the PWPL series editors StephanieMiriam StrasselMeyerhoff Charles Boberg NationalGraduateJames Myers ChungInstitute Cheng of Linguistics Univasity YorkD.Gregory UniversityD. L. R.L., Guy Ross 5561 U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics HowDepartment to reach ofthe Linguistics PWPL 619 Williams Hall TAIWAN,Min-Hsiung,[email protected] ROC Chia-Yi 621 [email protected] York, Ontario M3J 1P3 http://www.ling.upenn.edu/papers/pwpl.html [email protected], PA 19104-6305 University of Pennsylvania 234 227 235 Variation in the Nativization of Foreign [a] theU. ever.Penn foreign InWorking Southern vowel Papers[a] British does in occurLinguistics in some English' (henceforth BrE), or in tradi- English dialects, how- Volume 4.1, 1997 1. Charles Boberg in English father.resenteding"broad-a"tional vocalized Boston here class as/r/6speech, (words the in phonemewords it like is most likepast /ah/, carandcommonly theand same cart; as In many (henceforth AmE) dance)5 or before a follow- found eitherthese in the will be rep- is found in BrE dialects,' speakersfromDifferent the of universelanguages one language of involvepossible borrow different human words speechsetsfrom of another, sounds.sounds they selected Introduction words to sounds When have gistsllamazation[a] or might somethingisof nativizedthe choose "short-o" close toin assignAmE (/o/) to it of withthiscan got vowelbe the or heard stop.sound to theas [a], thephoneme some It should be noted at this point that when a word phonetic reali- phonolo-found in like Whileusedto ofwordsadapt thein thetheir mosttheare ways fullsoundsown puzzling of inlanguage, complexities whichcontained is the Englisha processtreatment in and the speakers irregularIforeign refer of words to nativize developments,as containing one nativization.` foreign the father andIPA asymbols handful -- of[a], other while native the phonemes words,8 (and, rather by thanextension, to the word the Japaneseromanizationsguagesforeign (e.g.,vowel origami). French [a], of thewritten façade, source with German languages the letter angst, (e.g., in Russian the source Pravda, lan- Owing to a series of sound changes that occurred at Spanish plaza) or in basedbols/e,classes) andley], for onadopted ofetc.historically the a particularThenotational throughout latter continuous language systemrepresentations the subsequent developed orEnglish dialect are phonemeswork inare toTrager identifiedbe of thoughtLabov; and or word Smithby they of slashes asclasses, are(1951) sym- not -- to earlierbutthographytypically either periods represents theof inmost low-front the of history notthe "short-a" thelanguages of low-central English,' of from cat the (1x1)whichvowel English or English[a], the asletter tense, in borrows, the mid- or- erallybacked5be The taken "broad-a"to in asME Southern phonetically stressedAnd, class BrE by came /a/ extension,inprecise before the mostly 18th IPA voiceless infrom century. Australiantranscriptions. ME fricatives This/a/, and which happened New or lengthened fricative-stopZealand most English.gen- and Weinreichfront(1988) "long-a" calls (1968:14) itBloomfield of "adaptation" gate calls Vey/1.3 it(1933:445) "phonic iind A contrasts low-central interference". calls this process vowel "phoneticsimilar to substitution". it with "imitation". Van Coetsem In grant,clusters'5fore Prins command); nasal-obstruent (path, (1972:229) past) see or, Prinssays occasionally,clusters non-prevocalic1972:145. in French to an In borrowingsoriginally was vocalized long (France, vowel in Southern dance, be- imitation.giesbounds"imitation""adaptation", shown of their theyin speakers Table native use the1 phonemicareassign foreign cleiirly a foreign phone,system. examples phonestepping All of to adaptationthe aoutside nativenativization thephoneme; rather phonetic strate- than in /oh/BrEtical is(caught),into derivedthethat 18th of andthefrom Generallycentury. broad-a especially both sources.The class.in those vocalizationin theThe dialects major modern resultscitieswhere phoneme of /o/in the [a:], (cot) /ah/Middle a hassoundof Southern remained Atlantic iden- distinct from 2 MEPrins4../theShift", /a:/endby 1972, afronting, ("long-a")of change the pp. 17th 122-23.whichwhich regularly century. PrinsPrins becameME (1972) says /a/ happened ("short-a") ModEsays was /ey/ bymore regularlyby the the or 16th "Greatless became century.complete Vowel ModE See by ratherpair8Rochester,and In GreatmaAmE, is and like LakestheseBuffalo, pa; father and are:regions andCleveland,a 4few words lather (New interjections, incan Detroit,York, <-ltn>, have Philadelphia Chicagolikealms,/ah/ alba!or balm, /m/. and and and calmMilwaukee). la-di-dal. Baltimore; and palm; In BrE, and the Amounting to no unanalyzed3 Throughout sounds, this paper, or phones, I follow are therepresented convention in square that phonologically brackets with U. Penn Working Psipers in Linguistics, Volume 4.1,236 1997 BEST COPY AVAILABLE 230ing,more the than father-class a dozen words clearly and has showing marginal strong status within the modern AmE 237 phonological condition- Nativization of Foreign [a] Boberg U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1, 1997 smallisidenticalvowel.short-o not father-class sufficient However,of in got, pronunciation making to and formaintain thea it,large short-oora; a in keptmajoritywholly BrE, apartclass afunctional long,of byof AmE lengthbother instead speakers,9distinction alone, are of either a which short be-the centuriesdifferent/wpaischronic, realized 'rahtas/, geographic, nativization hasin English. withproduced a socialbroad-a Tablestrategies a andlarge 1 or illustrates lexical short-o. amountin different Thesome of variationoperation dialects of this variation, over of these the in the way foreign [a] dia- withshort-o,Webster'sCollegiatetween , English so haveDictionary) that vowels.' thepasta, same spelledtranscribes Indeed, stressed with Merriam-Webster's vowel," , and Because possible, /o/ Webster's is spelled by far Dictionary, Tenth Edition all words like llama with (1993; henceforth ary,ernas instantiatedrepresented BrE,the 9th as representededition inin twoWebster's of 1995major in the (henceforth nationalDictionary, Oxford dialects: Concise the and OED). "standard" "standard"English Diction- South- AmE, Of the nine possible combinations that arise from three choice.eignandthe largerthe relicsWhen class, of they /ah/the nativize classwill be ci representedforeigneated in words AmE here containingby as the AmE merger /o/. the[a] ofletter than /o/ English Im/ or /ey/The gives availability English of speakers vowels thata sound more like a for- intrayedtionstrategies tion1556, to inthe and the thisin geographic twoaficionado,difference table, dialects, we canvariationbetween borrowed seven observe aretornado, between from wellapparent Spanish instantiated. borrowed BrE diachronic and in 1845, fromAmE varia-orSpanish por- be- In addi- then,/ah/thesign, sound, the theycould foreign have in emerge which to vowel decide casefrom to Britishwhether Englishnativization speakers toshort- go as by or assign/mpa the long-a, spelling 'rwta it to or broad-ast, to and withgo as-by a and Americans to short-o /o/. A word like apparatus, phonologicalAmE,explainriesrowedtween in volcano, or,age.from a pairin environments Random BrE,Italian like borrowed tomato,pasta, lexical from frombut from variation are 1874,Italian 1604, separated and in and seems1613, canasta, potato,by and theseveral from romano,only from centu-1948, way 1565. bor- into in 1908: both pairs contain identical 9broad-avowelshort-a, Certainly system. and imp not/ar/, the'reyta so casethat s/, itfor is with BrE,part ofwherea long-a,the phoneme the /ah/ or, of /ah/.in father some and dialects,' the /0/ of In BrE, by contrast, it is phonetically identical with eitherple,whosetionariesFinally, Pakistani, lx/pronunciations while giveor /o/ invariantpanorama,this in AmE. table are pronunciations, Aonlynot plaza few fixed shows words,and in pistachio eitherwords like there dialect. Amish,for canare which manybe caveat, said the words withdic- er- For exam- Innotbother vowelsthe having Northern are normallyclearlydescended, New distinct need unrounded toLabovin dialect beboth based and(1973:30) quantity he fronted onstudied, at andleastargues as thequality,in two AmE. balm-bombthat distinctive phonemicthe latter contrast features.vowel distinctions between English predictable/geylaassignmentsituationrata /and and looks gala,in/gola interms each chaotic.can/ are of dialect,be allgeneral realized possible which conditions within it AmE. is all the governing threeOn purpose the vowels: surface, foreignof this /gala thispaper [a] /, In fact, much of the variation may be Asymbolwordsrepresented note with inis the), a non-frontmarginalGuide the father to distinctionvowelPronunciationWebster's -class are words allbecauseCollegiate transcribed (p. are 33a) itgiven depended Dictionary, explains withwith /o/either on that(the 10thlength /o/ fatherWebster's ed. or alone. /ah/.(1993). and While foreign [a] bycompiled,[a],to uncover. Webster's a database with and of the hundreds the pronunciations OED, of as words well prescribed ascontaining the source for the AmE language variable and BrE" wasand In order to study variation in the nativization of foreign torestEasternSoutheasternbother the of clear AmEmay New distinction be withU.S.,England, kept respect or apart by betweenat both leastboth by lengthlength historically, io/ah/ the andand alonemembership /o/.advancement followsin New of BrEYork the in rather New /ah/City classEngland. thanand andthe data" The for otheranalysis dialects was limited was not by available necessity at to the these time dialects, of writing. as dictionary Fur- 238 lish.12 Apparatus Webster's and gives data /o/ can as have a possible /ah/ in Australianvariant for and data New in AmE Zealand as well.Eng- 231 232speakersthermore, impractical. the quantity of data required made elicitation from native 239 NativizationTable of 1:Foreign British [a] and American examples of different nativization Boberg U.able Penn foreign Working names Papers that indo Linguistics not appear in dictionaries. Volume 4.1, 1997 Foreign outcomes (ace. to Webster's and the OED). BrE /ey/ basaltBrE ix/ tomatoBrE /ah/ sultsdomainthe[a] representsEnglish of aof multivariate English lexicon one of phonology. theand (Varbrul) most an unsettled significant Thisanalysis paper and sourcesdesigned hithertowill present to of variation in unexploreddetermine the re- non- /ey/AmE ratiopotatonadirnabobvolcanotornado phalanx vase 2.tophonologicalthe one English factors vowel inor predictinganother in AmEthe assignment and relativeof foreign [a] Method weight of a set of phonological BrE. and /m/AmE (rare) cravatcanastacaftanverandahtobacco sultanamoralebanana Theentrysuggests firstresults into step English thatare in shown the for evidenceanalysis eachin Table dependent was for 2. diachronicto An tabulate examination variable an averagein of this variation apparent in each dialect. date of table /o/AmE (rare) paparazzomantramachodachshundfocaccia aficionadokaratefalafelenchiladabra twothewithtivizedTable 4/vowels, /o/ and as are /ey/ /o/ thewhich periodsare most on suggests averagerecent, in AmE awith thetransition there oldest,/w/ isin variation thewhile middle. those between 1 was part of a larger pattern. Foreignfrom one [a] wordsto the other.na- nativizedBetween but the the Ramadanshiatsupasta salamiromanoorigaminirvanalager generalTheTable BrE picture 2:dates Average do is thenot date same.'display of entry quite into the English same linearity for American (Dates given by Webster's and the date of entry of each word into English.14 The database con- SumatrasouvlakiYu loslavian Dictionary.)British nativization[a] NATIVIZED of foreign AS:[a]. DATEAmE n DATEBrE n 200withgoingtains show /xiover against or BrE-AmE 200/ey/; the words another default differences. which 250 iduntification haveshow beenvariation nativizedof the in EnglishAmE; in AmE and letter almostas /o/, The question of foreign [a] Iml/ey/var. (tobacco)(potato) 1/x/, /o,ah/} (Iraq) 1810178417001662 3774172131 1727166217941813 2825835139 thousands,nativization," Source and many then, date ofof concern,, entrythem were in dailynot taken a fewusage,' from words Webster's; including but thehundreds innumer-Oxford Con-or personal namesBrE like /Oil, Yasser AmE Arafat /o/ (lager) and Giuliani; and place names like ciseand" Indoes taco;this not connection commercial give date ofconsider names entry. Liceespecially: Armani, food Mazda, items Saab like andnachos, Yamaha; pasta 240 233 234important16Amman, The difference Hamburg, in the discussion in Milan, linearity Osaka that between follows. and YugoslaviaAmE and BrE (or willindeed be shownChicago!). to be 241_ Nativization of Foreign (a] Boberg U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1, 1997 resentinthatFirst, the the the sample.a resultschange inclusion Second, in in this ofnativization words table the pattern inmay the strategy have databasethat beenis over evident was affected time not may sorandom, by muchnot a biasrep- soas Two aspects of these data should be kept in mind. betweencouldanalysisies was be carried AmEcomparedfor each and out, BrEdialect and using identified. any thewas differences GoldVarb conducted, in program.' nativization so that Athe separatepatterns results The dependent variable in the Varbrul analysis was the forbutfirstthe aeffectis enterscentury later over theassigned or language more.time toof short- gradual with itsor nativization,long-aforeign when [a] phonetically itwhereby has been a intact, inword use Nevertheless, these data support the observation that applications,combinedwasandchoicewhen either'v', betweenorthe withBrEvariation application and /ah/one two when or between nativizationAmEthe value the other /o/,application was ofcoded theoutcomes: invariantas value'a'. A le,thirdwas choices, coded 'a',possibility both soas that'a', 'v' and 'a', but this was alwaysboth 'v' and 'a' were non- /heyvali;leader,aandforeign few /ah,o/. recent could[a] enchiladas This nativization loans.be observation either could /haNal/ today be can /entfa'Imdais orbe mainly /hahva verified a 1/ z/ choiceby in or testingModE, /entja'landa between it but out not on/x/ z/ For instance, Vac lav Havel, the Czech terizedtheand possibility by any of dependent variable (a,m)valueas an were other outcome excluded than against'a', from the the possibility analysis. of 'a',were or at non-applications. 'a' This has the effect of looking at Words in the database that were charac- The analysis was against or posesinglightrowedAges,but notonly of then,of potatoes /entjaleydathis thisthe theyobservation, choicepaper today, would z./. the between they probablychoice the would analysis 4/of be and/ey/."probably /teykowz/ was /o,ah/, This simplified be ignoringsimplification /patoday; 'tahtowz/. by if examin-forwe pur-bor- re- If we had borrowed tacos in the Middle In Thesebasedwerealso limited available,oncriteria an identicalto allowed words so that corpus for the thewhich AmE andinclusion boththerefore and Webster'sBrEof 436 directly analyses tokens. and comparable. OED data Eleven explanatory variables were examined, shown in would be entrybrulessentiallysulted analysis.18 on in nativizationa binarydependent terms wasvariable and suggestive, thereby that satisfycould it could bethe characterized criteria not be forconclu- Var- in While our quick examination of the effect of date of manner(stopvelargroupsTable or 3 were: of withaffricate,not the applicable); place thepreceding factors fricative, of the consonant thatfollowingmanner nasal, make of (consonantup /wthe each /, following group. Theconsonant factor /1/, /r/,20 glide or pause); pause(labial, or other); coronal, liably,inthesive, the tabular not data.as onlywell results In asfororder to maythe investiv to reasons betest skewed the ate already effectvariation by dependence of stated, date not explained ofbut entry or also interaction more becauseby date re- codatokens(primary(following type of (no orforeign consonant secondary); coda [a] (vowel in could the potential inword be final eitheror harmony phrase);position), coda (presencespellingor coda onset)); presentof of the other consonant must be a coda) or ambisyllabic stress for- of entry, a Varbrul analysis of the data collected from dictionar- eign19ness GoldVarb[a] (presence (); foreign 1.6, accompanying "A Variable diacritics Rule or orthographic Application for the Macin- non-English letter se- foreign- ortheyof17 theEModEWords are Great medieval spelled /ad. Vowel By with or contrast, Shift, Renaissance ratherin nativizationthe /ey/than borrowings class by nativization;with generally that /x/ iswould got still in there aotherhave productive by hadwords, means ME /ah/calic,20recherchestosh", The in sincewas alldatabase Englishwrittenmathematiques a final excludes by dialects:or Davidpre-consonantal wordsat EnglishRandthe Universitein and which phonotactics David In a de following SankoffMontreal prohibit inof (1988). isthe not intervo- will categorically produce [x] beforeCentre de 242 processmial18 The dependenttoday. version ofvariables. Varbrul used, GoldVarb 1.6, cannot deal with trino- 235 scenariocoda236 /r/. can have any one of /ey/, ix/ or /ah/ '. at least one Before intervocalic id, by contrast, all variants are possible: 243 dialect. Nativization of Foreign [a] Boberg U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1, 1997 wordquences); was borrowed;source language date of or entry language into English group from(quantized which into the 5. Stress 21 sec.primary (e.g. (e.g. RACHmaninov) RachMANinov) areasloans);modem,five periods, that and 19th had semantic correspondingcentury, been frequently fieldearly (a20th to set medieval, observedcentury of semantic and inrenaissance post-Worldthe or data,connotational or War early II such as 6. Potential harmony 1 another [a] in thethe wordphrase (e.g. (e.g. ex- tabulatravaganza) rasa) scheme).Tablefood items, 3: Factor terms Groups from theestcblished [As or place for Varbrul names).' Analysis (initial 7. Spelling 0a2h no other (e.g. (e.g. (e.g.[a] brahmin) (e.g.pasta) Saab) modus oper- ands) .. GROUP1. Following FACTOR1 DESCRIPTIONlabial 8. Accomp. corthographi foreign- 21 foreign sequencediacritics (e.g.(e.g. llama,façade, blasé, jalapeno) 2. Following place snvc stopnotvelarcoronal applicable or affricate (no foil. C) 9. Source ness 0a Arabicger,no obvious morale, foreignness nan) (e.g. la- ersatz, kvass) manner 1nf /1/nasalfricative language hgf GermanicFrenchHindi, Sanskrit (Ger., Du. or Persianor Scand.) gr glide/r/ (/y, w/) j 1i ItalianLatinJapanese or Classical Greek 3. Preceding manner opIw _pause /I//w/otherpause (C(word-initial) other than /w, 1/) ytsr YiddishTurkishSpanishRussian andor HebrewPortugueseother other Slavic Turkic 4. Coda type cf coda/closedfinal (no possible (following coda: C vowel must infinal position) 10. Date of o1 BeforeOther (e.g., 1500 African, (Medieval) Chinese, Native American) a ambisyllabic/open (following C couldbe coda) be onset) Englishentry into 5432 1500-17991946-present1900-19451800-1899 (Renaissance-Early (19th(early (post-war; century) 20th century) recent) Modern period) stance,have21 Assignment been fit more somewhat thanto semantic one arbitrary category: fields in some was done cases. at my discretion and may sari Rachmaninov Several tokens, couldfor in- be an arts term 11. Semantic Field ca non-foodarts (e.g. Caravaggio,cultural term drama, (e.g. ori- gami,sonata) plaza, sari) beturalor aas personal term.consistent In name;the as absence possible. of arty external standard to refer to, I tried to 244 could be a concrete object or a non-food cul- 237 238 f food item (e.g. cilantro, brat- 245 Nativization of Foreign [a] Boberg U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1, 1997 idea,personal concept name _(e.g. (e.g. éclat, Mugabe, glas- nost,wurst, Schadenfreude) souvlaki) beTo(BrEversa.whether involvedsome Ppws.sta/), extent, the in syllablea moreover, cyclical because structure relationship, nativizationan English conditions short andbecause syllable vowel the vowelit cannotis type unclear or may stand vice (The choice of /re/ will cause a syllable to be closed religiousplace or nationalterm (e.g. name Hanukkah, (e.g. imam,Baghdad,Nasser, mantra) Stalin) Kazakh, Navajo) mutedInanin atheeffectiveopen stressed meantime,by syllable the way openpresence (BrEof anysyllable, dealing effectrfah.sta/of ambisyllabic whilewith of orcoda these the/'mah.sta/).) typechoice codas will ofamongst presumably/ah/ will the allow truly be problems in the future. I hope to find All of the groups suould be self-explanatory, with the otherconcrete object (e.g. lava, llama, tsunami) someGoldVarbopennumber syllables.of which offound tokens. were several instructive,Three "knockouts", of them while (`not othersor applicable'categorical in 'following In its construction of cells from these factor groups, reflected a small results,24 possibledas,ofbles,willing the in in followingexception which towhich tackle the the syllable,ofthe following following # problem 4, 'coda fi omconsonant consonantoftype'. syllablesdistinguishing both syllabifies with closes ambisyllabic true astheopen the syllable sylla- onset co- In this group, I was not relatedcategoricallyWordsplace', to 'pause'inone this fact: have inclass, 'following/m/ 'a', cannotsuch because as manner' occur bra, /bra:/ coupin and final d'etat,/spa:/'final' position violateinéclat 'coda (n=18). and English type') spa, Goldvarb also found that, in American English, becauseinsyllable.22containing ina wordan open /ntr/ like theWhile syllableis mantraforeign not the a possibleforeignby is[a] equallyvirtue aid [a] actsEnglish of inobviously beingas a theword onset, inonset finallike in a a ofwordbra closedposition, the is likefollowingobviously syllable pasta,and that thewereborrowedphonotactics.whole'a' case alwaysrepresented factor offrom theappeared Yiddishgroup, 'spelling' by so because afterfewor Hebrew group,tokens a preceding there that(n=9).25this were meant /w/ no Finally, (n=9)tokens three of `aa' factors they were thrown out. In eliminating the and in words in the shortseemsanPpw.sta/which open vowels dividedregularly andand therpms.ta/in on stressedsecond hashow I&are to a open inbothclosedtreat BrE, syllables possiblethese syllable. is muchcases: syllabifications,would morea constraint rule problematic: out theagainstthe first first Phonological theory inHowever,corpus his discussion and Jensen only of (1993:70-72) word-internalthree of 'A', makes codas, no appealing mention onlyof to leaving only one factor, ambisyllabicity the princi- 'a'.26 ments,ambisyllabicitythesyllabification;we second, could by giving sincerepresent but appears both/st/ a maximal is thisa atoclosed possible asreconcile fpws.sta/.onset syllable Engish requirement these However,and onset.conflicting a maximal would An to appeal myrequire- rule onset; out to knowl- 24havetionbetweenple Varbrulof ofa maximalshort ambisyllabicity: closed cannot onsets.syllable operate and "if when ashort nonfinal one vowel or more syllable implied factors isin closed, Giegerich'sproduce categorical owel." (p. 70). Moreover, he reverses the causal relationship it tends to defini- 22ambisyllabicityedge,(1992:171-72). For there a discussion is no should set of ofambisyllabicity beclear appealed principles to and that when determines it should when not.' in English, see Giegerich (4/9).(8/9);25priateresults; In BrE,Yiddishor such excluded preceding factors or Hebrew from must /w/ the origin,eitherwas analysis. almost behowever, combined categorical had wit!. no effectin others its favoringon where appro- of 'a' nativization 24u laxof)23 Giegerich avowel.", permissible (1992:172)which onset would (cluster, says cei ".1 tainlyand consonant if itinclude immediately is ambisyllabicthe /s/ follows of pasta if a it stressedin is (part BrE.239 kenshas26 240A to offactor be excluded group in the containingbefore corpus, a Varbrul 3/3 only in BrEoneanalysis factorand is2/3 ispossible. incalled AmE a hadsingleton and (Of the 3 to- 'a'.) The 247 NativizationWith all of of the Foreign knockouts (al and the 'spelling' group excluded, Boberg TableU. Penn 4a: Working Results Papers of 1-Level in Linguistics Binomial Varbrul Analysis of AmE Volume 4.1, 1997 bothsubsequentperformed. `precedinga 1-level Theanalyses; and manner' 1-level a step alland resultsup/step others 'potential are weredown shown harmony', retained. Varbrul in Table were 4. On the basis of this analysis, two factor These decisionsanalysisdropped were from groups, dataappl. (initial val. 'a'scheme, against "knock-outs" and "singletons"Input 0.653; (415Chi-sq./cell cells; No 0.9253; Convergence L.L. -199.760) at Iteration 20; and `v' as non-appls). excluded; /1/factorwerethatdirect also constrained groupspreceding favorscomparabililty. for 'a' /w/both in by bothheavily athe desire dialectsAmE or to categoricallyand (see BrE Table runs, favors 4),thereby though 'a'; ensuring not as 'Preceding manner' had already shown maintain an identical set of preceding Foll.Group . labialFactor 0.5200.532Weight TotalApplic./0.600.59 Input&0.670.68Weight nificantholdheavilyotherharmony' no foreignasfurtherin /w/.either showed [a]interest; the in no BrEthe discernable mt,ceover,phrw.e or the AmE('1') it pattern:favored wasstep-up not in'a' run.selected bothbut another dialects, as an- Beyond these findings, the group seemed to 'Potential [a] in sig- placemannerFoll. corona!nasalfricativestopvelar 0.6520.3420.3950.462 0.580.670.510.52 0.620.780.490.55 foreignness'therthe`potential worddialect.' ('2') harmony'and had 'source no was effect.language' not selected groups by werethe step-up simplified; run for the ei- In addition to these changes, the 'orthographic Like 'preceding manner', mannerPrec. /1/Inotherinitial C 0.4950.6990.4520.4960.478 0.590.510.710.570.58 0.630.650.810.61 foreignformerbe'source'foreign' unimportant, becausediacritics language' and the thusand so distinction foreignhadopposedthat not these sequencesbzen to that factors `non-foreign'; selected had ofcouldbeen lettersby made thebe the appearedstepcombined latter between up becauseanalysis to as StresstypeCoda Sec.Primaryclosedopen/am 0.3020.5600.4810.513 0.450.640.510.63 0.640.450.710.66 fromdistinctionsthein werespite conclusion the associatedof results showing intermingled thatshown with ita widehad in generallywith Table been range non-significant overanalyzed,4 thatofhigh factor non-European weights, weights, ones. with while significant leadinglanguages Latin to It was clear and Potentialforeign-Orth.harmony sequencediacriticsnonephraseword 0.7980.4810.7620.6150.489 0.740.610.730.530.81 0.640.880.860.75 otherwereGreek'semantic intermediate.factors had a field' excludedvery group,low because weight, 'personal of and infrequent names' modern (n=2), occurrence European these not were:languages being in the fre- In ord.,r to simplify 'source language' so langaugeSourceness HindiGermanFrenchArabicnone 0.7460.5830.4420.5580.432 0.780.810.520.880.55 0.850.730.600.700.59 either27glide'quent - (n=1).indialect, dictionaries; but because and `Followingin they ther showed'following place' strong manner' and effects`source group, in language' the 'following 1-level were also not selected i n Latin/GkJapaneseItalianSpanishRussian 0.4550.6600.2380.7870.515 0.510.750.230.870.67 0.610.780.370.870.67 inbehaveanalysis AmE; in (seeall future remaining Table runs. 4) they groups'Following were were retained manner' selected in order wasin both selected to dialects.see how in BrEthey but would not 248 BEST COPY AVAILABLE 241 242 TurkishOther 0.4560.856 0.610.83 249 0.610.92 Nativization of Foreign [a] Boberg U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1, 1997 0.42 EnglishDateintoentry of Medieval>W.W.IIW.W.IIideafood 0.5840.4790.3430.7950.592 0.600.500.400.420.24 0.200.650.410.400.31 Foll.place coronallabialstopvelar 0.544Wei!ht0.5860.3790.:i08 0.460.300.400.37 0.410.230.330.37Wei!ht othernon-foodreligiousplace 0.5750.3270.4100.654 0..310.480.550.53 0.190.250.480.40 manner In/1/nasalfricative 0.7100.3600.440 0.350.440.28 0.270.540.21 thethat languagesit might be were selected grouped as significant as European in future and non-European,runs, therefore, Prec.manner /1/otherinitial C 0.8260.5690.4820.1640.834 0.160.660.710.460.39 0.090.710.700.390.31 28while Under retaining the simplffiCation, Latin and Classical the Yiddish/Hebrew Greek as a tokens,distinct which had factor.28 StresstypeCodaPotential wordPrimaryclosedopen/amSec. 0.5750.3950.4430.231 0.180.460.240.28 0.280.130.390.24 madevoringsideredstoredbeen excluded inclusion as'a' a partEuropeanand ofits because in thecombination the languagenon-European non-European they had inwith manyproduced group.Hebrew, group senses, aWhile knockoutofa its languages Yiddishcategorical in AmE, must were re- non-European language, the obvious effect fa- be con- 250 harmony BEST nonephrase COPY 0.8020.08 AVAILABLE 0.420.53 0.660.32 243 way244languages). to proceed (non - European languages 'Russian', with a relatively high weight, might favor 'a' more than European have251 gone Nativization of Foreign [a] Boberg U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1, 1997 insubmitted'orthographic Table 5. to On a foreignness' secondthe basis analysis, of andthese 'source the results, results language' in of an which effort simplified canto simplify be seen was The smaller set of eight factor groups with Dataapplication'orthographicTable (revised 5a: Results valuescheme, foreignness' 'a'of against1-Levelwith 11 and Binomialfactor 'source groups Varbrul language' and 'v' as non-applications). reduced to 8Analysis and of AmE simplified; AmElihood,"tinctionthe model and between again BrEfurther, analyses. maintaining them certain had The factors ho directfactors significant were comparability thus combined combinedeffect on when between thewere: log the in like- dis-the Input 0.209; (372Chi-s cells; ./cell No 0.9393; Convergence L.L. -190.690) at Iteration 20; Applic./ WeightInput& /r/,centuryandopposition'following as liquids,'4', as and there ofplace' against early[+back] was group, 20th all no and others;3° significantcentury coronal[-back]; loans;in inand difference'date 'following labial, and of entry',in leavingbetween 'semanticmanner', periods a the /1/binary field', '3' 19thand Foll.placeGroup stopvelarcoronallabialFactor 0.6960.3010.5400.504Weight .0.25 Total0.430.300.27 0.100.240.210.38 inconcrete either group objects but and was non-food put in with cultural the European terms languages.were combined as 'Arabic' manner In/1/nasalfricative 0.2700.3570.4130.465 0.210.200.25 0.090.130.160.19 29(medievalthishad Change aappeared low weight, loansin log to are belikelihood behaving duevery to unlikely the(L.1,.)in ilarge his tois sense thehavenumber metric like 'a'). ofa byEuropean medieval which Varbrul language, Arabic evalu- loans but If two factors are CodaStresstype closedsec.primaryopen/am. 0.3820.3350.5490.577 0.180.350.190.34 0.120.240.140.27 warrantedwasthecombinedates L.L., modificationsnot significant it byand is other concludedthe analysisofcriteria and the thestructurethat as is combinationwell). amthe again distinction ofL.L. factor without can is groups.be adoptedbetween understooda significant (providing the astwo changea measure factors it in i s langaugeSourceforeign.Orth. non-Eur.Europeannon-for.foreign 0.7480.5010.4580.653 0.420.310.260.47 0.440.210.180.33 x2countsof theisstatistic; calculated predictive for. The values significanceby power subtractingthat haveof the ofa model, thepthe >0.05 L.L.change -or ofare thethe inconsidered amountL.L.second is calculated analysisof non-significant. variation from using it theac- a intoentryDate of MedievalLatin/GkW.W.II 0.5840.7410.3850.856 0.380.530.150.54 0.270.140.610.43 Anhierarchy;cidence,heavily explanation favoring remains in of fact, this elusive.'a' following pattern,and the The ifmost liquidsindeed!3rE sonorous weights itfavor represents (liquids)'a',do notthe more followopposite disfavoring than the asituation sonoritycoin- 'a'. othernon-foodreligiousplaceidea 0.5390.3920.5400.1270.575 0.400.330.430.150.31 0.240.150.040.26 followingfrom'a'. AmE. liquids Mysteriously, behave the in thesame final way analysis in both presented dialects,This change disfavoringin Tablebears further 6, investigation. 252 245 246 253 Nativization of Foreign [a] Boberg U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1, 1997 applicationDataTable'orthographic (revised 5b: Results value scheme, foreignness' 'a'of against1-Level with 11Binomial factor groupsVarbrul reduced Analysis to of 8 BrEand and and 'v''source as non-applications). language' simplified; objects,termsthe 'other' andand place categoryfood oritems, national were ideas/concepts, combined names as as originally 'other', religious leaving conceived. terms' only and arts Input 0.246; Chi-sq.kell(373 cells; 1.1190; No Convergence L.L. -202.969) at Iteration 20; TotalApplic./ Input& presentedAll3. of the inchanges Table described6, which will above be theare basisreflected of the in discussionthe results Results Foll.Foll.placeGrout stopvelarcoronallabialFactor 0.5250.2580.5320.554Wei:ht 0.360.170.340.33 0.270.100.29Wei:ht belowstepandvalue,that BrE.follows.up/step thenthe results. with down Results procedure; are shown the first statistics with 'a' for as each the applicationrun appear They reflect the "best-runs" selected by Varbrul's Since 'a' asand the application value, for each of AmE are opposite outcomes in manner In/1/nasalfricative 0.6720.6870.4470.427 0.570.420.240.27 0.400.420.210.20 wereTablesthe choiceeffects selected 6. process,on theby theother; the step effects this up is routine onconsistently one inshould true be theof the inverse data inof Table 7 shows the order in which the factor groups each run, with the p typeCodaStress sec.primaryclosedopen/am. 0.2120.5820.2770.650 0.140.390.130.43 0.440.080.310.110.38 tableshownitsvalue Level isor in that significance 1Table run. AmE 8. Theand level BrEgeneral associatedgenerally conclusion agreewith to eachon be the drawn factor nature from group of thisthe in A summary of the significant effects in each dialect is SourceOrth.langaugeforeign. Europeannon-Eur.non-for.foreign 0.4930.7040.2780.6090.442 0.110.410.340.280.52 0.110.340.240.21 eignsizebuteffects, there or[a] strength innativization, are other important ofwords the then,effects. on differences how British-American the factors between in each thedifferences dialectsgroup behave, arein With respect to variation in for- the of DateEnglishintoentry of MedievalW.W.II 0.5570.4160.4140.7850.545 0.340.300.220.540.38 0.280.290.190.54 favored31 In the 'a' initial in AmE results while shown having in Tablea neutral 4, religiouseffect in termsBrE. very heavily In the next othernon-foodreligiousplace 0.5760.4180.4330.546 0.470.310.330.45 0.310.190.200.28 effectanalysismysterious:factors. in (Tableboth The dialects, the5),change thisfactor effectsoin went thethat disappeared: weight theyfrom could 20 associated applications bereligious combined with terms out religious with ofhad 21 thea tokens terms other neutral iis n 254 247 248therthe Table investigation. 4 results to 9 out of 21 in Table 5. This obviously bears fur- 255 NativizationTable 6: Results of Foreign ("best (a] runs") of Step Up/Step Down Varbrul Boberg TableU. Penn 7: Working Order of Papers Factor in Group Linguistics Selection in best step up/step Volume 4.1, 1997 tested indi- Analysisshowing (final results scheme, of 2 runs, with first Varbrul stats for each run appear below. AmE additionalwith 'a' factor as appl. combinations, val., then with BrE AmE BrE downvidually, runs, cut-offwitha.v.AmE p 'a'valuesfor significance from Level p <0.05). 1 (each group a.v.BrE 'a' ArnEa.v. 'x' BrEa.v. 'x' GROUP1) Foll. place FACTOR[-Fback][-back] 0.525n.s.`a' 0.6710.2780.534 0.5770.489n.s.m"m' 0.327n.s. 683 (0.000) 354 (0.000) 6857 (0.000)(0.000) 4638 (0.000)(0.000) 3)2) Foll.Coda manner open/ambiotherliquid C (/1,r/) 0.5930.353 0.6520.471a" 0.466n.s. 0.5290.411 427 (0.000)(0.007)(0.069) 2781 (0.009)(0.008) 341 (0.001)(0.000)(0.017) 25 (0.023)(0.000) 4) Stresstype closedsecondarprimary 0.3270.3590.552 0.7240.2010.5860.274 0.2790.6970.440 0.3240.7790.4210.636 5 (0.000) The most important quantitative differences (0.009) (0.193) 7 (0.000) between lang.6)5) Orth.Source foreign. Latin/Gknon-Eur.Europeannon-for.foreign 0.0640.7200.5130.4540.666 0.436n.s. 0.5630.7320.3070.547 0.4920.5490.7720.400 runsfollowingAmEing that andthe looked weightsgraphs.BrE nativization at associated 'a' and of with foreign selecting [a] are These present a combined analysis of the as application values by illustratedfrom the inweights the subtract- 7) Date of Englishintoentry < 15001500-17991946-pres.1800-1945 0.4130.2180.7530.580 0.5740.5880.4560.136 0.1390.4430.5870.841 0.4060.4340.5280.862 positivevalue,theprocedureassociated opposite so number, that treatswith outcome when selectingone 'a' is theof in favored; the thedifference 'a' choices,choice (i.e., when AmEprocess between /o/ or it is negative, as a negative value,from 'a', a positive the weightsBrE is /ah/). a is fa- This 8) Sem. field otherobjectplace/nat.arts 0.5750.3840.1220.859 0.7800.4910.4170.587 0.7530.1720.3900.485 0.6390.2410.4620.454 lectsfavored.vored. agree In the that graphs, 'a' a bar or line belowis favored; the x-axis a bar means or line above the x-axis meansGraph 1, the effect of coda type, is favored in open syllables and shows that the dia- that 'als that in Cony.?CellsSTAT.Input 0.212NoAmE181 " BrE0.374No173 'a' 0.253NoAmE153 " 0.658NoBrE182 'x' statedtra,AmE.closed.open a closed Anabove, syllablesHowever, illustration syllable, this and effectthe syllablesofwhich effect this might difference is abouthave beentwice would much as be big bigger has /o/with in ambisyllabicAmE but 4/ codasin BrE. had As been the word man- in BrE as in if true pLo: Lkhd -201.0450.006 -216.3800.042 0.009-208.079 -228.8130.019 distinguished.fectlablestogether, is givesthat the of However,a secondarystrength good idea ofeven stress, ofthe the with constraint whichcharacter these strongly twoagainst of categoriesthis favors variable. lumped In Graph 2, showing the effect of stress, the biggest ef- in open syl- As in 256 BEST COPY AVAILABLE 249 250AmE.the last An graph, example the effectof this is difference again much would bigger be the in BrEword than kami- in 257 Nativization of Foreign [a] Boberg U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1, 1997 brulBrETable /ah/step 8: Summaryvs.up/step /ce/ in down theof Factors nativization selection. that affect of foreign the choice [a], in oforder AmE of /o/Var- or 0.3 Graph 1: Effect of Coda Type (open vs. closed syll.) on Nativization of Foreign [a] Non-EuropeanAMERICANFACTORSOpen syllable CORRELATED (/o/) origin WITH /o/ or /ah/ PrimaryOpenBRITISH syllable stress (/ah/) fto 4i 0.10.2 ForeignPrimaryRecentArts connotation borrowing orthographystress -Foreign orthographyFollowingPost-medievalArts connotation [-back]liquid loan (/W)C a -0.2 0 AmEBrE LatinConcreteAMERICANFACTORS origin object CORRELATED WITH Im/ ClosedSecondaryBRITISH syllable stress Uo -0.3 -0.4 open Coda Type closed EnglishOlderClosedSecondary borrowing orthography syllable stress MedievalFoil.EnglishConcreteLatin Corigin notorthography objectloan a liquid thatAnotheryearthan in inthiswhen, way BrE, factor in accordingthe which groupreverse this the to ofgraph Webster's,effectswhat differs we are saw frommuchthe before. word the stronger previous in twoAmE is Finally, Graph 4 shows the effect of date of entry, the containing the up/stepBrEword-finalvored(In addition when in down both word-initial.position to analysis.)dialects the factors(e.g., afterThese listed, /w/ lactors or Varbrul /l/ were and isnotfound categorically included that /o/ in orthe required /ah/ final is step fa-i n bra, spa, coup d'etat), while /e is favored i n morebetweenstrikingforeign recent [a]of date allwas the of first loan,theentry effects,used the and morein nativization becauseEnglish. likely of Thisit the isevident to ismonotonic beperhaps in AmE. the relation mostThe nativized with kaze,bles.stress which syllable, is &mina but Atom 'kahziy/ 'koziy/ in BrE, in AmE, with Ix/with in /o/the in secondary both sylla- presentoff,Renaissancea`a' similar rather with in perfectly nothanincrease significantloans linear inbut the at fashion.difference amountthis point of between the 'a' goingratio the of `a'remaining to peri- and the trend toward 'a' continues into the In BrE, by contrast, we see from medieval to levels andstronglysomewhat.the qualitativeBrE agree. favor 'a'agreement while objects between favor the 'a': dialects on this breaks much downAmE Turning now to the effect of semantic field, in GraphIn this 3 factor group, terms fromHowever, the place names and national names do arts very centurytheyexpectedshouldods. brokeThe be that similar to noapart: ashare surprise,difference ittrajectories nativizationsis after of between course,the of split the thatthemas of lines the AmEwere emerges. two up andestablished todialects theBrE AmE third in would the beforeperiod 19th be is obvi- 258 whereasnot behave in AmEtoo differently they strongly from favor the `s',category as much as objects do. `other' in BrE, 251 252tivizationously following of foreign an independent[a]. course with respect to the na- 259 Boberg U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1, 1997 Nativization of Foreign (a] Graph 2: Effect of Stress on Fot eign [a] Nativization of Graph 4: Effect of Date of Entry on Nativization of Foreign [a) Ed 0.60.8 El AmE 0.20.4 0 -- -0-- AmE >73.71 -0.3 -0.2 -0.4 BrE >73 -0.2C0 -0.4 BrE -0.6-0.5 Vary 2'ary I -0.6 -0.8 before 1500 1500-1799 1800-1945 1946-pres. Graph 3: Effect of Semantic Field on Stress of syll.Nativization containing of [a] Foreign [a] An4. important generalization can be made about the quantitative Discussion Date of Entry into English 0.8 tordifferencesfieldAmEtype groups and showed instresswe which have the strongest observedBrE showed effects between the strongest AmE and BrE. The are phonological in nature. This discrepancy in the impor- date of entry and semantic Those in whicheffects coda fac- AmEBrE phonologicalcorrespondeachTabletance dialect of7, phonologicalwhich to in effectsthose listsorder inthe of ofTable significant codatheir 6). typeselection factorand stress, (factor groups are group for each numbers run are non-phonological. d non phonological factors is evident in Note that groups 3 and 4, the selected first in E -0.4-0.2 Arts Places/ Object Other entryandceptionfactors 8,second and the selected being semanticnon-phonological in groupboth in the field,BrE 3 AmE in runs, werethe runseffects 'a' whereas among run). in threeof By thesourcethey ofcontrast, fourare language, among cases groups (the thedate lastex- of first groups selected 6, 7 260 SemanticNat. Field 253 BrEin 254both run, AmE group runs 6 was but not among even selected. the last in the BrE runs; in one 261 Nativization of Foreign (a] Boberg U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1, 1997 Theway answerAmE and lies BrE in the approach nature of the the nativization phonemes involved,of foreign in [a]? the How do we account for this general difference in the InisTherefore, aAmE, simple with lexicalthe thechoice exceptionor phonological between of thesome issue,sounds speakers with in llamano in social Eastern and import. mantra New ernedphonologicalforeigntweenIn BrE, principally a vowel: theshort structure choice vowel, primary by the weof /m/, thenature stressare voweland concerned open of a longthesystems syllables syllable vowel, with of heavily theis containing/ah/, essentially two and favordialects. is thegov-/ah/, be- ifhasusestereotypeEngland, one ofsocially isbroad-a, positively the of elevated broad-a traditional or long disposed connotationsclass [a:], Boston hasin to a disappeared,suchword speech which things, written orare orsurvivingBrE. either laughable, As admirable, such, only if asonethe a with the letter mighteffectmantra,llama,while closedhavewaswith with shownbeenits itssyllables open necessarily even to syllable, be biggerfavor twice closed /x/. willhad as ambisyllabichavebigsyllable, in /ah/, BrE will while as codashave in a AmE, word III.and truelikeand This means that a word like This areimport./montra/is not. conceivable, or /mmntra/, /o/ sounds in American refined Englishand /xi soundsis loaded uneducated. with social It seemsThe likely choice that betweenin most cases saying where /loma/ two orvariants /Imma/, or non-phonologicalphonologicalllamawordsopen syllables andindiscriminately mantra, nature been factors typically distinguished. of withthe such choice respecthave as date /o/ process to inof coda AmE.entry, intype: BrE meaning,The both implies principally of or them, lan-that AmE, indeed, treats these 5.alludedA number to above:of questions the social remain or attitudinaloutstanding. character The first of is the the vari- one Further Questions duction,trastsent.guage Most withof `short-o',origin speakersa short will theIx/. beof vowel relativelyAmE in do got notless or haveimportant. stop, a has long merged /ah/ that with con- the The nature of the choice made in AmE is very differ- Thi-; is because, as stated in the Intro- dictionarydata/xithatable, along asks fromwhich informantsa fieldworkdatanumber I plan from toof to investigate Australia,inattitudinal rate Canada contrasting whichdimensions.properlyand New productionswill using Zealand, help a to questionnaire withanswer as well/o/ thisand as Another is what happens in other dialects? I now have ix/longandvowel, and /ah/ long, /o/, ofat then,sinceleastthe father accordingAmEboth clash:alternatives is not to father makingWebster's. are and ashort botherchoice vowels, havebetween butthe a sameshort choice In choosing between [a, A]. question.variableratelyby American Webster's In and addition, andexpand and British data the my I OED speakers haveinvestigation representcollected will shed theintofrom lightcurrent the wordlists vaston statehow realm read ofaccu- the of toWherebetween make BrE a two choice makes sounds, governed a choice from governed by[x] quality. and centralby quantity, or back AmE is free Sound quantity is a . tionaries.personal and commercial names, which do not appear in dic- teristicsthen,ingasphonological seen dimensions that in and non-phonological BrE. associations issue, ofSound connotation which quality of Interacts factors, a andword,is an prestige. such aesthetic withplay as phonologicala thelarger issue, external role incorporat- in factors,charac- AmE It is not surprising, /kowbra/,/kobrativizationsimilarPreliminary /, to /moka/ utthose/mowka/ evidenceother thatand vowels: and /yog3t/,obtain shows /yowgart/, consider with thatwith foreignBritish-American the with the short-o contrasts the[a] mayiong-o of hop, affectbetween differencesof and hope; the na- or A third issue is what happens to other foreign vowels? AmE BrE nativization.istheconnotations a soundregional, [a] insurroundingnot British a social and variable.the American association English. of the In letter BrE, 'broad-a' with This view receives support from the different social Its use in Southern BrE is inactAmEBrE AmE, nature /nisazn/, /niyson/, and of thethe /pita//piyta/ relationeffect and and of /u'fitsiy/,between /uw'fiytsiy/, the phonetics the with fatherwith the of the short-oshort-i long-i of of hip, A further question that needs to be answered is the ex- and bother classes in different heap. and 262 ofas thecharacteristic things Eliza of Doolittle Cockneys had as toof learn RP speakers; from Professor Higgins. BEST COPY AVAILABLE it was not one 255 realizationAmE256 dialects of onthe the short-o results in of got nativization: or stop as relativelydoes the front or 263 phonetic [a] Boberg U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1, 1997 haveback,Nativization anyor merged effect of Foreign onwith how long-open-o foreign [a] (/oh/, is nativized? the vowel of caught),The corre- Labov, William 1973. Paper presented to NWAVE 2, Washington, "The Significance of Marginal D.C. Phonemes." Willdolargerditionalsponding not the body contain broad-aaddition structural of foreign the class, of environmentsissuehundreds [a] which wordsin BrE aroseor that isthousands thatthe inhave therelation conditioned an18th of identical new betweencentury, loans vowel andthe to this tra-the broad-a.32 but Trager,Prins,van A.A.Coetsem, George 1972. L. Frans and A HistoryHenry 1988. Lee of Smith,English Jr. lishUniversity Structure." Press. Norman, Okla.: Battenburg Loan Phonology and the Two Transfer Phonemes.1951. "An Outline of Eng- Press. Leiden: Leiden previouslynamesvariation Colorado closed within and Americanand marginal Nevada English. class generally help to have de-marginalize it? Finally, at least some foreign [a] words show regional For instance, the state /o/ in the East, Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th ed 1993. Merriam-Webster,Publications.Types in Language Incorporated. Contact. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Foris Springfield, Mass.: and Problems. phonethewhilepaper West. onesurvey. has or demonstrated both of them hov (most quantitative often Nevada) analysis can have le in While much work !mains to be Thisdone, is I somethinghope that this I shall investigate with a tele- and structural Weinreich, Uriel 1968. Languages in Contact: Findings TheYork,"Publications Hague: 1953). Mouton. of the Linguistics Circle of New York" (New (Orig. publ. as No. 1 in the series foreignorderphonological in [a] the in superficialEnglish. reasoning chz,oscan be thatused attends to establish the nativization at least some of Philadelphia,[email protected] of PAPennsylvania Williams Hall 19104-6305 ReferencesBloomfield, Leonard 1933. cago Press. Language. Chicago: University of Chi- Clements,Concise Oxford G.N. Dictionary1990. "The of role Current of the English, sonority 9th cycle ed. 1995.in core syllabi- persfication."UK: Oxfordin Laboratory In UniversityJohn Kingston Phonology Press. and I:Mary Between E. Beckman, the Eds., Pa- Grammar and Oxford, Jensen,Giegerich, John Heinz T. 1993. J. . Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Cambridge,Press.Physics of Speech. UK: Cambridge University Press. 1992. Cambridge,English Phonology: UK: Cambridge An Introduction. University ally32 As in stated closed above, syllables, broad-a e.g. was past, a change path. Prototypicaloperating on MEBrE short-a, foreign usu- [a] John Benjamins Publishing Company. scription.words with /ah/, like llama or plaza, let alone bra, do not fit this de- 264 257 258 265 U Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) A SociolinguisticRule Inversion Investigation in a British Englishof [rJ-Sandhi Dialect: in Newcastle upon Tyne* unsystematicidentifiedcontributiondemonstrates which thatandto theoretical corpus-based unaccountablelie beyond researchphonological theapproaches observation, scope of can methods in make turn patterns a facilitating significantbased areon Paul Foulkes studybriefevaluation synopsis and of competing of previous theoretical accounts analyses.(section 2). The sociolinguistic The paper begins with a description ofits [r]-sandhi and a results are described in section 3, and the basedphoneticAlthough1. on literature analysis[r]-sandhi ofon is any English, widely large referred descriptionscorpus. toTrudgill in ofthe it phonological have(1974) rarely included been and Introduction 2.phonological implications of the results are outlined in section 4. [id-Sandhi linkingspeakersotherusedintrusive categorically similar [r] [r]reading and as study 2a possiblevariable aand isshort that therefore intrusive in passageby his Bauer Norwichpaid [r]which (1984), littlesites. study, containedattention This who data-basebut analysed tofound 10 it. possibleThe is it37 quite toonly RP be reasonsvowel.In (oralternations'non-rhotic' their the As dialectalalternation a varieties between equivalents). onlyof 0English andoccurs [r] [r] Whereafter can theonly the set be[r] of realised before a result, there are in some words. For historicalphonologically is etymologically vowels /o: a: of conditioned bethevariabilitylimited, expected variation but in itfrom being theis interesting useLabovian linked of linkmg to thatresearch" any Bauer/r/ of in the (1984:77). RPconcludes kinds there of is factors"although little evidence that there would ofis In this paper I report the findings of an investigation of (1)inappropriate (1): it is termed 'linking [r]', examples of which are given pre-consonantalpre-pausal dollar [0] bill populationword-listTheupon[r]-sandhi corpus Tyne readings, (the comprisesinusing termslargest asampled large of urban samples age, corpus to centre sexreflect both collected and in a ofthe broadbroadly-defined naturalistic north in cross-sectionthe east city of speech of England). Newcastle socio- of and the been extended to certain words which did not historically contain Forpre-vocalicin speakers derived forms of some dialects the [r]-0 alternation has dolla[r]isationa dolla[r] or two a moreinfromcorrelatingeconomic the Newcastle complexphonological class. with isThe processsocial then literature,patterns used and toeven which assesssupporting stylistic emerge the most anfactors. reveal analysis prominent [r]-sandhi The in evidence accountsterms to beof than is generally acknowledged, theId,(2) but[r] iswhich labelled now 'intrusive'. end in one Examples of the vowels are given /o: a: in a/. (2): In these cases pre-pausal Tessa [0] *rule Thanks inversion to Jim Milroy, (Vennemann, Lesley Milroy, 1972). James More Myers, generally and Dominic the study Watt stigmatised in prescriptive works, and is often cited in letters of Itpre-vocalicpre-consonantal should also be noted that intrusive Tessa[r]Tessa [0] O'Brien Smith [r] is highly 266 Lesleyalsofor many to MilroyDavid helpful kindlyWalshaw suggestions presented for statistical regarding a version advice. theof thiswork paperIn presented my at enforced NWAVE here. absence, 25.Thanks U Penn Working Pipers in Linguistics, Volume 4.1, 1997 260complaint to the BBC and the quality press. 2 67 Volume 4.1 (1997) Ruleconsonantal Inversion topics in studies of British English, I proceed now to a [r]-sandhi is one of the most widely discussed Foulkes 3.U Penn Working Papers in Linguistics The Sociolinguistic Study processmainbriefexception review source is best ofanalysed of describedprevious argument [r] descriptive-sandhias z.has rule withincentred and atheoretical rule-basedon accounts. Until recently phonologists of insertion or of deletion (or a have whether the sandhi almostframework. The without TheFieldworksociolinguisticaccording empirical has to basistheyielded study criteria for carriedrecordings the listed [r]-sandhi out in (4). of 32 findings adult speakers, in Newcastle upon Tyne.2 is provided by a divided historicalwithcombination reference In of to the the two), Newcastle an data. Deletion accounts (c.g. Donegan, 1993) assumeis still encoded that the in the speaker's lexical representation. it is this issue which I shall address I (4) 42 classesspeakersgendersage groups per cell - WC;male;16-25; MC female 45-65 years Thetoaccountsallowed Inbe segmentno lexically-encoded(e.g.to surface McMahon,is deleted before beforeFe ,r/. aulkes vowel. Instead, a &consonant Tollfree, By it contrast, or pause, in insertion is proposed that In 1994) there is said but is is askedconversational to read aexchange word-list for constructed around 50 minutes. to elicit Theycitation were Informants were recorded first in a single sex dyadic forms then (3)follows.inserted Theby rule deletion after andthe insertionset of vowels analyses /o: a:are a/, illustrated if another in vowel (3): /r/-DEI ETION Id-INSERTION containingnumericalsandhiincluded sites numerousto scoreselicit in the intrusive forvariables conversational two [r]. variants, under investigation. material [r] and 0,were were A sentence was The whole corpus was analysed auditorily. Potential [r]- identified, andcompiled for dollarunderlyingbefore C /dolor/DELETI i in /dola/ 3.1.each speaker before log-linear statistical analysis was Results: Linking pi carried out.3 dollardollarbefore bill orV two [dola[dolor b] o:----] [dolorINSERT[dola 3:--] b]/r/ Linkingclass in[r] Newcastle. is clearly favoured Older speakers by older in speakers all groups and scoreby the over middle 20% Newcastle4, with reference English. The to thenext section summarises the fieldwork and I return to address the deletion-insertion debate in section findings of the investigation into co-researchersUKandforms2 This Economicchange part study, of in an alongcontemporaryand are ongoing SocialGerry with research ResearchaDocherty, similar spoken project Councilone JimBritish carried entitledMilroy, (grant English", out "Phonological Lesleyno. in R000the Milroy,city of Derby, supported by the 234892). My variation David results of this study. rhotic.stopsince3Walshaw between in These some and twoare,Penny cases adjacentin theOxley.where main, vowels. [r]-sandhi Thealveolar 0Scores variant isapproximants, absent, for is [r] more speakersconflate precisely but various someinsert definedtaps atypes glottal were as 'not [r]' rather than zero, of modelsI There1994) seeare and Durandmore Optimality recent (1997) accounts Theory and 1 oulkes (McCarthy,within (1997). Government 1993). For Phonology discussion (Harris, of these 268 261 262England.used, and See there Foulkes is a rapid (1997) spread for furtherof a labial discussion or labio-dental of this variant. [u] in much of 269 Rule Inversion Foulkes U Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) cohort.classhigher groups than Statistical the score corresponding analysis higher thanshows younger the that corresponding bothgroup. age Similarly, and working class all (but middle class not Table 1: Linking [r], selected Newcastle groups N tokens [r] used % [r] (1974).correlationintherefore,gender) Newcastle, areNote a marked foundoverwhelmingly which also in sociolinguistic thatcontrasts the thestudies age with significant bygroup patterningthe Bauer absence finding (p<0.001). (1984) of of linking sociolinguisticindicates and There [r]Trudgill usage that is, contrastglottal stop the beingyoung produced WC speakers between are clearly the two abandoningyoungolder relevant MC WC vowels. the use By of 263323 25497 36.978.6 intrusivealmostdirectionthusproduction be always heading[r] of of maythis linking assumed bechange towards spreading. [r] isma) thatdecreasing elimination surprise linking over many [r] from apparentremains observers, the time,stable since and whilst may it is dialect. The themarkedlinking word [r]degree for overall accounts of theylexical for produce 44restriction of theit in 97 justunderlying examples 37% of thiswherecases. distribution: [r] is used However, looking more closely we fmd that there is a speakers.continuum1, which (The ofpresents variation, data inscores Table namely fog 1 are the the therefore two older groups MC a subsetand at the younger ofpoles those WCof in the This point is illustrated more clearly by the data in Table processexceptionfmdby[r] this linkingis group.ofproduced beingof that[r] Where erased applies insingle 76% for from itemoccursofin cases;thejust for, accentin 27% linkingthebut youngforbyof these cases.all[r] WC otheris younger otherwise Thus,corpus, lexical speakers.with linking itemsin the we aroundwasFigure not 1, 80%.found but withThe to be countermale relevant and - femaleexamplesin the statistical scores for thecombined, analysis.) most part since involve gender a Linking [r] is not far from categorical for the older MC, at These3.2.view, findings as we shall are seevery later. interesting from a phonological point of Results: Intrusive Irl Figure 1: % linking [r] in Newcastle, by speaker group (number above each bar = N tokens analysed) emergedstrikingTable13 hours 2 gives isfrom howof the material.a rarepotential intrusive intrusive This 82[r] gives cases,results [r] isan in byin overalla Newcastle:socialcorpus appearance group. containing only What rate7 aroundistokens mostof just 80 OworkIng class 99middle174 class 149 8.5%.WC Inspeakers, the speech intrusive of 15 [r]of thedoes 16 not MC occur speakers, at all. and 11 of the 16 3S 4050 306070 129 119 125 Table 2: Intrusive r] usage in Newcastle, by speaker group N WC [r] N MC [r] e 20 10 0 older malesfemales 115 31 201013 01 270 females older malesolder youngerfemales younger males 263 264 young malesfemales 47 1 12 0 2? Rule Inversion Foulkes U Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1,(1997) mainly a characteristic of the lower socio-economic group: It is also apparent from Table 2 that intrusive [r] usage six of is Table 3: Intrusive [r] usage in word-list style, N [r] Newcastle speakers % [r] thehighlyfromThesea sevenwhole 55 figures significant[r] hasintrusive tokens [r], contrast amounting are [r](p=0.015) produced iswith em those toployed Statisticaljust by of 1.8%.WC the speakers.MC, analysisThe where class therefore effectonly one shows in 22.2% of potential cases. For the WC as is in fact token TOTALworkingmiddle class class 281513 10144 50.026.776.9 Newcastle.bothof intrusivethe speaker and responsible linking [r] are to belisted sociolinguistically in (5): The 7 tokens of intrusive [r] and the social characteristics correlated in triggerofconversationalsentences material! sentence. For Ten data, WC of where speakersthese wereonly there middle7 tokens is little class emerged The 14 tokens of intrusive [r] contrastcollected from markedly with the difference between thefindings speakers.4 from 13 hours just 28 read from the (5) Amanda[r]wea...in place saw[r] the forwilds Orton it Sylvia[r] all of Siberia[r] on it and... olderyoungolder WC MC WC female female female proportionalalmostconversational[r] in totally the readingusage in data their of task. (22.2%). [r]everyday But speech, while three MC quarters speakers This would seem to indicate that intrusive [r] in the word-list data (26.7%) and of them use avoid [r] is not justwhenlittle toThe follow do I saw[r] figuresI know on it[...rolai [...dal...]presented ...] in Table 2 are derived from youngolder WC WC male malefemale intrusivefeature,perceived which[r] [r]as is asstigmatisedhighly conflicts what stigmatised. would starkly by thesetraditionally with speakers. the received be Rather, called wisdom a they treat prestige that aretheexchange.analysis word-list,designed of However, data into the recordedelicit trigger recall citation bysentencethat speakers intrusive forms, put inforcinga [r] commadyadic was also inconversational it. tested Word-lists for in speakers to be probablyunexpectedhearingfeature connectedofit in style-shifting.the almost local to alldialect, the other fact However, non-rhoticinformants that, whilst the varieties. are reason intrusive nevertheless Thisbehind [r] includes is usednot a theto It is not my intention to speculate at length on this it is comparativelytrysociallysandhisingle to avoid lexicalhave stigmatised. universallyusingself-conscious items intrusive Thereforeinto aage microphone. of eed[r] it theiris whenthat predicted speech the speakingPrevious use that as of theyspeakersintrusive studiesin moreread shouldof [r]out [r]- self- is relativelyinhabitantsnewscastersstandard spoken formal therefore and formannouncers styles, recogniseRP and as well onso televisionuseintrusive as readit themselves speech, and radio. for when example Newcastle reading by [r] as a feature of theMcMahonconsciousfewer Newcastle than etstyles al, 14word-list 1994:306; speakers data. Spencer, actually As the 1996:236).producedresults in Table [r] when 3 indicate, reading no theIn light of this, a remarkable finding emerges on analysis of (e.g. Gimson, 1980:208; Brown, 1988:145; aloud.incorporatethespeech,studies middleMiddle tosuch be features class classasmore those speakers whosensitive of typically non-local make have to usedperceivedthe formsbeen greaterin shownintothe higher media. their conscious in many ownprestige As speech.a previousresult, effort forms it toisof 272 BEST COPY AVAILABLE 266thereforethe4 Note word that omitted comma, four speakers from such Table thatinserted 3. sandhi a clearly could perceptible not apply. pause Their after scores reading are 2'7,3 3.3.Rule Inversion Summary of Results Foulkes byinU. conversationalPennolder WorkingMC speakers); Papersdata (recall and in Linguisticsintrusive that no [r] tokens in word-list at all were style. produced Volume 4.1 (1997) descriptionspatterning.sociolinguisticallyusageIn sum, the studyThe of [r]-sandhi, results reveals correlated, an but unexpected and they intrusive furthermore complexity [r] also pose shows in interesting [r]-sandhi stylistic in Newcastle. Linkingin themselves conflict with previous and intrusive [r] are both diachronicdivisionallwe incan conversational consider of perspective: the itlexicon to bestyle. closewords which These to which categorical)is speakers entirely contain thereforebutappropriate an no etymological intrusive maintain from [r] /r/ ata Older MC speakers have 80% linking [r] (which means theproblems4. remainder for phonologicalof the paper. modelling. These will be discussed in Phonological Implications havespeakers,belongsconfusionare treated /r/ encodedto, therefore, regardingwholly and therefore separatelyin which athose deletion division intrusiveitems from analysis whichthose of [r] the whichwouldcannot containlexicon do be apply. anot. aadequate: particularhistorical There For these is theyitem Id,no English.adequateaccountsWhat is obvious Instead, into termsmodel from the of all variationtheinsertion the findings complexities inor presentedthe deletion data we forces aboveare fmd not usinis going thattoNewcastle propose simple to be data.theetymologicalallowing absence Although of le,intrusive intrusive of course, [r]. [r] isit forbiddencannot surface, in casual which speech, accounts speakers for A complication arisesit when we examine the word-listto surface only before vowels. If there is no displaystheagaindifferent older focuses scoresanalyses MC only forand for linkingon younger different the two Ell polar(omittingWC.speaker endsFrom groups. the of lefttheitem dialectto for); right intrusive continuum, Figure ,[r] 2 Figure 2 summarises the results already presented, but therefore,caninsertioninstances and do this whichproduce have means to that itbe when bothexplained deletionconscious by and a of hyper-adaptiveinsertion their speech. are active rule for of is connected to stylistic criteria. In effect,These Figure 2: summary of [r]-sandhi, selected speaker groups 0 linking intrusive, intrusive, group,forolder the MC observedas speakers.Figure behaviour 2 illustrates, of the linking young [r] WC is onspeakers. the wane For this The same analysis, however, will not adequately account (and 7080 cony. style WL style thatinfoundlargely both these in restrictedconversational their younger speech, to thespeakers and word word-listto for). abouthave At largelythe styles.the same same We erased degreetime, can consider,thatintrusive of frequencyhistorical [r]then, is 40603050 divisioninmaintain: the same in theitems way lexicon withas items etymological which which their lack /r/older etymological are increasinglyMC counterparts /r/. being treatedstill Moreover, the great majority of lexical items never occur 1020 0 young older possibleminoritytowith suggest a final toof arguethatitems,[r], even their that notably before theserepresentations for, itemsvowels. generally still It containtherefore no Kla longer occur encoded seems withcontain appropriateId,[r]. andSo, theit is /r/. A 274 working class middleclass 267 268accountlast vestiges for the of development the deletion rule of applyintrusive to them. /r/. Instead, But this woulda more not 275 Rulesatisfactory Inversion analysis is provided by a traditional rule of insertion. Foulkes intrusiveU Penn [r] Working correlating Papers with in Linguisticssocial and even Volumestylistic 4.1 variables. (1997) betweenbeforehistory.That is, vowels. no Aforms fewIn itemswith But etymological sincelike fol there are markedis /r/ now and nothoseto undergoencoded without, [r] speakers is encoded in any item, irrespective of the item's difference insertion analysistraditionaldirection.Thererule. is When alsoin Thephonologicalterms evidence viewed findings of a asdeletionfor aposeaccounts, changewhole somerule, thein progress,and dialectinteresting in others appears of toan supporting and in a surprising in some caseschallenges for manifest an insertion rulemayappropriate.in inversionmakethe sense 'errors' (in Thesethat thein insertionwhere 'errors'sense theyof yield canVennemann, apply tokensoccur the whereof 1972)intrusive it hasis not/r/. taken historically place, In sum, this means that in Newcastle English a process of rule of insertionerrors Referencesarchetypal case of rule inversion. which(6) is illustrated in (6). older MC young WC Ifo:/ Bauer,Brown, Laurie Adam (1984). (1988). "Linking "Linking, /r/ Intrusive, in RP: Some and Rhotic Facts." In Journal in Pronunciation International Phonetic Association 14;74-79. of the for, Tessabeforeunderlying C [fo: oem]DELETE /fo:r/ /tesa/ /tesa/ Donegan, Patricia (1993). "On the Phonetic Basis of Phonological Perspectives.Models."Change."18:144-151. Journal InLondon: C. Jones, of Longman.the ed., International Historical 98-130. Linguistics:Phonetic Association Problems and before V [tesat. o] [forINSERT It] Durand,Gimson,Foulkes, Jacques A.C. (1980).(1997). An"Linking Introduction r in English: to the PronunciationConstraints, Principles of English. Perspective."and Parameters, Histoire, or Rules?" Epistemologie, Histoire,Paul Epistemologie, Langage 19. Langage 19. (1997). "English [r]-SandhiA Sociolinguistic effectspeakers.fashioncomposed to Itthea isphonological deletion'mirror-image' rule ni which le in which that is thestill operates rule operative causes in a mirror-imagefor the older opposite MC (insertionYoung WC speaker s have restructured the lexicon and rather than deletion) in complementary McMahon,McCarthy,Harris, John April John(1994). M.S.,J. (1993).English Foulkes, Sound"A CasePaul Structure. &of Tollfree, Surface Oxford: LauraConstraint Blackwell. (1994). Violation." "Gestural 3rdCanadian ed. London: Journal Arnold. of Linguistics 38:169-195. beforephonological5. consonants contexts and pause,. (in this case before vowels, rather than Conclusion Trudgill,Spencer, PeterAndrew (1974). (1996). The Phonology: Social Differentiation Theory and of Description. English in Norwich. Oxford: Cambridge:Blackwell.Representation Cambridge an. Lexical University Phonology." Press. Phonology 11:277-316. Newcastle,sandhiDerby)This basedpaper constitutes which onhas sociolinguistic reported(in the tandem most findings extensivewith fieldwork a from similar study an material studyinvestigation to date in collected ofthe this city of much inof[r]- UniversityDepartmentVennemann, of Theoof Leeds Linguistics (1972). "Rule and Inversion." Phonetics Lingua 29:209-242. thandiscussed has previously topic. The studybeen acknowledged,reveals [r]-sandhi with to beboth more linking complex and 276 BEST COPY AVAILABLE 269 [email protected] LS2 9JT, U.K. 277 U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) Optimality and the Syntax of Lectal Variation* Rakesh M. Bhatt ideologicalBereiter,Americanreproduction Engelmann, Vernacular discourse of the early is English),andthe 60s geopolitical Jensen. discourse as evidenced What on setting Black has inchanged English (African in fromthe the worksinner of this IndianIndia.This1 paper Itvernacular has presents been Englisha relativelyan. account is just daunting of as English systematic task language to and demonstrate logical variation as thatany in Introduction the(1974),.citywith empirical, schools With theamong deficit respectof methodological manythe modelUnited to others, AAVE, ofStates Bereiterwere and Labov to abletheoretical-conceptual English et (1970),to al. demonstrate This language Wolfram paper education successfully replicates &problems Fasold in the twoEnglish.other varieties variety This of ofpaper English, Indian focuses English say `'standard" on therestricting syntactic Indian, thedifferences British discussion or American between to the syntax of null arguments (pro the standard and the vernacular (1)thelanguagespirit rationale of Labov variation of the and studyin Wolfram India. presented & Fasold in this paper:in dealing with English (a) Principle of error correction (Labov 1982:173) The following two principles guide confoundingdrop)differencesoptimality1986, and wh-question for the mainstream formation. syntactic models (Chomsky 1981, 1995), but when tie same data are viewedbetweenvantagepoint from the the (Princetwo varieties andThese Smolensky data, I will argue, are follow as 1993), a natural the (b)errorinvalidatedsocialA scientist Principle to the attentionwho by of hislinguistic becomes (or of theher) gratuity awarewidest data ofis possible(Wolfram obligeda widespread audience. to1993:227) bring idea this or practice with important consequences that is consequenceinstancespast several of thedecades, architecture we still of the theory. Despite the advances inof sociolinguistic theory over the syntactic variation find in presented the literature numerous as grammatical for thepositivemembersInvestigators community. ways of a inspeechwho which have community they obtained can return should linguistic linguistic actively data favors pursue from to fromthemselvesexample,anomalies. the standard that inevitably (British "the English bearsEnglish) tileuf thelanguagestamp teachers of locally ..." (in (ibid:8, Indiaacquired emphasisand deviations ) Quirk (1990), echoing Prator (1968), claims, it is a India:of the thesyntactic standard differences Indian English between (SIE) two and varieties the Indian of Englishvernacular in The goal of this paper is to present a tidy demonstration twenty-fifthConference*added).1 Versions This annualonof thisWorld discourse, meeting Englishes on we New nowheld Ways inknow, Nagoya, of Analyzing is Japan Variation in May 1995, held paper were presented at second International not new; empiricalSmolenskyEnglishalsoWE ispresents, (IVE). just generalization 1993) as Thereafter,systematic even account if only(and is andan presented tangentially, theoptimality-theoretic logical intuition) whichas that athat strongis of able theSIE.2 (Princegrammartoargument yieldThis andpaperthe of for wishtheseNewLanguagein Las Delhi,tomeetings Vegasespecially Analysis India in for Octoberin thankhelpful roundtableJanuary Salikoko comments,19)6, 1997. held Mufwene,I amat suggestionsJawaharlal grateful Robert to Nehru theand Stockwell, participants questions. University, of and the eighteenth South Asian and I languageusing Optimality variation and Theory change.3 (01) as a framework of research on disclaimers,MiriamI Meyerhoff of course, for apply.comments,It help and encouragement.is The usual instructive to see how certain ideological startegies and artifacts.in2 The the "real"grammatical question process here is whetheror whether this itintuition dissolves actually into plays a role taxonomic 278 rhetorical"deviant",rationalize methods etc. For are a discussion, continulaly see Kachru (1996) and Bhatt (1995a). U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics,the Volume 4.1, 1997 power of theoretical manipulated constructs to like legitimize "standard", and 272situation",use3 Although is obligated which I recognize topresumably declare that eventually the yields precise observed a restrictivenature realization theory ofof linguisticlanguage of the "context of 279 Optimality and lectal variation data, Bhatt the ledU. by Penn Raja Working Ram Mohan Papers Roy, in LinguisticsDwarka Nath Tagore, and Rajunath Volume 4.1 (1997) ofgeneralizations, andidentityEnglish Western of in its India and usersethos thewill andanalysis, shed its somecanons a brief light socio-historical on the regional description cultural Before discussing one that is unrelated to the Judeo-Christian the methodology, and on the process of the domains.Hariofdemandacademic, 1835,Navalkar, Macaulay's for led scientific, English, to who the preferreduseMinute, coupled and of otherEnglish the Englishwith intellectualfirst Thomasin language allto Indianofficial B. inquiry. Macaulay's policy languages and educationalin India, Minute This local for acculturation2.use. of the in local (Indian) contexts of Context4English in India: Socio-historical introduced English for the following purpose: worthemployTo sum knowing; upthem what (Indians) I thathave English said,in teaching ... thatis whatwe ought is best to better worth EastEnglishvariousnumbers India came strategiesCompany. of toits India of Although around trade ,ind 1600 initially proselytizing, via the severely establishment especially limited inof during the speakers, English bilingualism increased with colour,govern;interpreterspresentknowing doa butthan class our Englishbetween Sanscrit best of persons, to in orformus taste,Arabic; and Indiana class the in opinions,millions inwho blood may we bein ... We must at and followingwasEnglishproselytizing1614-18th rationalized bilingualism to say: century strategy in several (cf.to wasthe Duff ways; Indianchiefly 1837, Grant subcontinent. instrumentalRichter (1831-31:60-61) 1908, in Law 1915). had the The Proselytization introducing worthwere pointing not native out speakers. that the modelsAs Kachru for (1996:907)pedagogy and notes: acquisition "Whatever Althoughmorals, and English in intellect. instruction created bilinguals, it is Theandlight. theircommunicationtrue The errorscurse Hindoos ofhave darkness err, neverof becauseour been islight the theylaid and introduction before areknowledge ignorant them. of andIrish,language.inthe the assumptions,educators Welsh, hands ... ofor involved theScottish in locals, reality in backgrounds the and the teaching notteaching with overseeingof theofEnglish, Englishnative thewho speakers was local provided primarily teachers of thethe It was, therefore, not unusual to find teachers with control in India, and especially in early 19th century, the spread of Afterdisorders.to them, 1765 would when prove East India the best Company remedy established for their political non-Westernasmodels 1947,the use for English and the sociolinguistic users teachers, was of firmly English both contexts. established in increased, class and asso outside adid medium its it." acculturation And, of instruction further, to By the time India got its independence from Britain in speculationexpressionsEnglishattempt was is I of beyondaidedsuggest a certain and thethat abetted scopecommunicative some ofbyarticulated this support paper. act; theoryfrom As I submit aprominent of very diglossia, thatbrief, suchIndians yet along anbold mandatoryofstatusColonialand the administration. of legal associate India, languages system precious official andWithintroduced thelanguage;little respect Parliament; changed:in schools;to it thecontinues roleEnglish it English of to English bestill newspapers the enjoys language in post- theare is one of the three undifferentiated(e.g.,choiceswiththe lines certain among of (H/L)Ferguson thetags; functional competing; see(1959) Bhati domains -- 1995b, wherecandidates forcertain some of (H/L)linguistic discussion). forms are tagged the alternation in the use may accountbetween for the observed differentiated expressions and Englishtheterritories,published total is reading higherinand twenty they public;than command seven the the percentage of percentage the highesttwenty of books of circulationnine books publishedstates published inand terms in union any inof 4 Most1996). of the discussion in this section is taken from Kachru (1983, 230 3EST COPY AVAILABLE 273 journals274other language; and 83% and,of nonscientific finally, in 1971, journals 74% were of India's published scientific in 281 Optimality and lectal variation Bhatt U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) English-usingEnglish (Kachru nation 1990: (60 35-36). mil) after Presently, the USA India and theis the UK. third largest As a result of over 200 years of contact with native Indian anonymousfluenteducated Hindi. middle-class fashion Their permission was families, obtained. toand use spoke,The the mainrecorded in addition topics material discussed,to English, in an toIndiastructurelanguages, stablevernacular displays systems;and English use. (unmonitored).a hierarchy the has difference become of varieties The anbetweenstandard Indian themand language, the is avernacular function both in of areits the And like other natural languages, English in from standard (monitored) minutes,Furthermore,India.thealthough family, Therepresenting not conversations trip restrictedwhere to a approximately recordingssummer to, varywere: resort, in were neighborhood length 7 hoursnotand frompossible, pollution of collectedapproximately disputes, notes in New material.werewedding Delhi, 10-35taken in inIndianeducatedStandardformality routine Vernacular speakers Indian ofsocial the Englishcontext, interactions, inEnglish any isformalin is the the without sensedomainvariety of exercisingusedof Labov interaction, by (1972).the any same whereas conscious Thus, speakers thethe the variety used self-consciously by (3a)drawn:collated,of what wasand asaid, catalogue and in of what the followingcontext. syntactic properties was inversion/adjunction in wh-questions, Finally, the data were The3.control proposal of language of language use. variation adopted in Methodology this paper is (3b)Kachru(3c) (1983) and Trudgill and Hannah (1985). referentialThenull secondexpletives null kind (topic) subjects of datasubjects comes (`silent' (pro-drop), from it ) published sources like Both of these Thewithinthepremisedgrammar knowledge grammar a structuredon oftwo isIVEof standarddefined what is range a constitutesproduct asassumptions: of a structuredplausible of asthe optimal dynamics (i) alternatives, collection linguistic linguistic of language competenceof and behavioralexpression (ii) contact. the is judgmentsweresubjectspontaneoussources elicited andwere on object crucial consulted,speechfrom pro-drop), 27data data native where (inversion (cf. unavailable speakers also,possible, Sellsin indirectof for in etIndian thecomparisons al. published questions, English, withsources, and 1994). Finally, which the observedtheobtain(=descriptivetendencies; following (explanatory the adequacy),hypotheses: job adequacy).of the and grammarian, (b) Given to explain these then, whyassumptions, is the (a) patterns to collate I propose in fact the tendencies into categorical paradigms of patterns pro-dropdirectcontainingtwoincludedIndian engineers) and highgovernment sentencesinverted 4 items, school and indirectsubjects two English(e.g., doing questionsQ: were theseteachers, 'Do given days.'), you (e.g., professionals sentenceshave and'Nobody somesubject with (threeknows tickets?'; and/oruninverted doctors, what object A: is linguists.5 In a small test instrument (2b)(2a)(2c) ThesetIVEeach of differencesgrammarsis grammatical justgrammar as systematic of in prioritizesIVE theconstraints; twoand and varietiesSIE these logical are constraints. constrained is as a functionSIE; by of the how same below:instanceofsentences 'Sorry,British of soldwereEnglish. Indian already.'). spoken vernacular 4 out by Theyof a 7speaker English.English were thenof teachers TheIndian asked results English didto reportare not given oraccept whethera in any(4) the speaker collectedintrospectivesources,spontaneous like using Kachruspeechjudgments a portable (a(1983) la (Labov Labov DATand 1972b).Trudgill1972a); recorder and(b) to dataHannah ensure from the published highest Three kinds of data were collected: The recorded data were (a) recordings of (1985); (c) 5 Following Wolfram (1986), Sells et al. (1994, 1996), I have drawn 282 women)quality recordings. participated Altogether in the conversations. nine speakers (five men and four They all belonged to 275 276minimizecomparisons the riskof introspective of hypo-and hyper-data with correction. spontaneous speech data to 233 Optimality and lectal variation Bhatt U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) (4) Dummy embeddedmovement clause,of the wh-phrase without, however, to the any auxiliary Embedded indirect questions left-periphery (Spec-CP) of the in SIE followingalso it (in involves No. = 27 inversionQuestionsDirectw/o QuestionIndirectinversionva pro-dropObjectSubject/ pro-dropsubject 19 Comp).(6a) Some examples are given in (6) below: IThey wonder know wherei whoi he Vijay works has h. invited ti tonight. NeitherEnglishBritishEnIndian fish 423 20 22 The(6c)(6b) well-known empirical generalization about data such as DoI asked you himknow whati wherei he ate he tiis for going? breakfast. (5) and (1976)English.surprisingly study highin which awareness; more than of 55%endocentric of Indian (=Indian) graduate normstudents The data in the tibleThe result of thi: pilot study does replicate Kachru's in (4) above demonstrates a of configurationtermsstandardapply(6) is inthatof embedded GBWh-Criterion, Inversion accounts shown contexts. inis (May restricted(8) given below. This1985, in generalizationto (7)Chomsky matrix and thesentences; 1986, relevant is expressed Rizzi it structuraldoes1990) not in in the English",reportedforasEnglishWhat Indian expository the usingcomparedare English) data aware the inpurposes, asofvariety (4)to wellthe 29% suggest vernacular as of refer labelingthe English educatedis to that useas weir's Standard theymostof use English "British speakspeakers Indian (reported as English". of English Indian in (4) of English, which 1, "Indian (7a)(7b) Each+whEachwh-phrase. +wh X°.wh-phrase X° must must be in be a inSpecifier-head a Specifier-head relation relation with with a a 4.showsyntactic(reported1993) how fail differencesin the (4)to "standard"capture as British between these GBEnglish). differences theseaccounts two (avarieties,in laa systematicChomsky SIE and way.1981, IVE, 1986, and The Data, the Generalizations, and the In the next section, I present (8) formedIn4.1. Standard by moving Indian the English wh-phrase (henceforth, to the left-periphery SIE), root questions (Spec-CP) are of ExtractionStandard AccountsFacts Comp).the(5b)(5a) clause Some followed examples by, in are noir-subject given in (5) extractions, below: the auxiliary (in Whati dohas you he tiwant eaten ti? ti? explained1990), and by assumingthe role of that inversion INFL isin specifiedmatrix context [+wh] is (see to carry Rizzi the According to the Wh-Criterion, the data in (5) and (6) are (5d)(5c) 284Why[How do youmuch look interestli worried? did they charge you ti? BEST COPY AVAILABLE" 278[+wh] featureINFL is to moved a position to C whereand the it emptycan satisfy verb (7a).do is In inserted (5b), the to 285 Optimality and lectal variation Bhatt U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) matrixissupport specified verb.the stranded on Wh-movement the embedded INFL. In embedded toC theby the embedded selectionquestions Spec-CP propertiesthe [+wh] satisfies feature of the (9b) IP operationsPrinciple.and(7b). therefore Inversion in direct movement is excluded and embedded of INFLsince Ctocontexts. isC content-fullwould violate (i.e., the hasProjection [+wh], In (9a) and (9b below, I show the wh-movement They Spec r (9a) A V vp CP know Spec " 1 IA spec IP who C IP [-hseh] Spechas . Joi u. The embedded (Indirect) questions in IVE involves wh- De les invited a tonight esden givenmovementThe wh-phrase, in (11) to(inversion) in below:the embedded surprisingly, left-periphery to, presumably,contexts is (Spec-CP)followed is Comp. by of the the The auxiliary, embedded relevant i.e., clause.data wh- accompanied by auxiliary is other hand, root questions Lre formed also by moving the wh- In Indian Vernacular English (henceforth, WE), on the DoIThey askedwonder you know John know wherei whoi whati where; does hasj did he heVijayisi work eat he tjtitj invitedfor going breakfast. ti?ti tonight. (10a)isphrase noSome auxiliary to examples the left-periphery (in areComp) given (Spec-CP)following in 10) below: of the the left-moved clause. However, wh-phrase. there What; he has eaten t;? embeddeddata in (10) questions; and (11) it is does that not in applyIVE, ininversion matrix questions. is The simple empirical generalization that emerges from restricted to The (10d)(10c)(10b) Why[HowWhat; you muchyou look want interestii worried? ti? they charged you ti? IVEinterestingSpecifier,movementsof isDeprez just empirical the while (1991) mirrorthat all require factandother image is Bakovic movementsthat a of following the that (1995),question in are SIB. headadjunctions. I formation Followingwill are assume movements strategy The relevant thatthe XP- work toin . 28U 279 280 287 Optimality and lectal variation Bhatt U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) (12b)structural below: configurations for questions in IVE are given in (12a) and (13b)(13a) InversionCriterionviolatesAdjunction data data (11a-d) (10a-d) (7b). violates do not thefollow Projection from the Principle. Wh- (12a) Adjunction problematicEnglish.the data Insuch thefor asthenext given standard section, in (10)GB-theoretic I present and (11) more accounts. Given the standard GB account, the grand above are simplydata from not IVE that is prediction is that he has eaten t 4.2.subjectstandardWith respect are British disallowed, to argument and American as shown pro-drop, invarieties: (14a) SIE andworks Finite Pro-Drop (14b) below:6 like other regional clauses without (12b)Inversion (14a)(14b) There*He*pro saiddances are thatnumerous well. pro would reports come in thetomorrow. literature linking pro- Spec IP I' dropsubjectthegender)association to phi-feature rich agreement(=Identification). agreement. between (person (=Licensing). subjectIn /other number Languages (pro) words, The / dropgender) agreementthere whichand seem contentrich have affixes (person,to of rich can recover be a generalthe dropped number,subject- They ,/N, //X I know V VP allowimpoverisheddrop,agreement whereaspro drop.? morphology, S1E,agreement as well like morphology, as Spanish, other standard Italian, and, Englishand therefore, Hindi varieties, does not Under the standard GB account (cf., Rizzi 1986, Jaeggli allow pro- has Fecho C' Vijay t invited t tonightIP frompositionisand the Safir language "Licensing" is 1989), Case-governed to there language. requirement; are two by arequirements "licensing" that Pro-drop head,for pro-drop.is whichallowed can The if vary Thus, INFL is a licensing head in firstthat maintain the Wh-Criterion (cf. 7a,b, above) for the following Given (10), (11) Ind (12a,b), it is not possible to English6 Mufwenemorphology,7say Chinese hello!' where (1988) is subjectanand exceptiondiscusses yet pro-dropis allows severalto this isempty possible, instancesgeneralization: categories. e.g., in casual 'Just Accordingit has speechstopped no agreement styleto by Huang toof reasons: 288 281 282variable(1984), boundChinese to auses zero a topic. different mechanism to license pro: 289 it is Optimality and lectal variation Bhatt U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 ( 1997) coindexedfully"Identification""licensed"Spanish, recoverable. but(possible) with not requirement; featuresOne in inEnglish, way English. of to person achievethat and the therefore andidentification content number ofpro-drop the onis prowhen must pro beis The second requirement is the its is Case- not emptyexaminationstandardlike subjectsSpanish explanations (discussed weand notice Italian ofinthat innextLicensing thatthe subsection). absence it and of Identification, an overt subject on closerin NE Although the pro-dropping facts in NE do not follow does not require semantically andlicensingidentify/recovergoverning (14b). and head. identification, Again, the content the iinpoverished predict of pro. the ungrammaticality English Agr is unable of (14a) to The pro-dropping facts of IVE are interesting. These two requirements, IVE, like Italianis1995).the notall discourse about. freeasBriefly, argued topic discourse in (cf.Samek-Lodovici Huang topic 1984,here is (inGrimshaw defined preparation) as & what Samek-Lodovici and the Grimshaw sentence Theit is requireddistribution when of the pro-drop subject inis coreferentialIVE is similar with to (15c)Spanish ;8 and Italian, allows pi o-drop, as shown in (15a), (15b), and He played cricket all day today and now pro does IVE(16)& dataSamek-Lodovici in (17): (1995). Compare the Italian data in (16) and the Q: DidE' John's mother leave? partita [la madre di Gianni]? A:B:Subjectnot want IA to Objectwork on pro-drop his homework! IsNo,You he pro gotin his soldtickets? office? pro already. (17) A: Is heYes,Si, in (she)his office? left. pro /*lei e' partita morphologicallyGB account. impoverished, and therefore should not license TheB: data in (15) pose two empirical problems to standard The first problemSorry, is pro left just now only. that like SIE, IVE is topic-connected.(1995), pro-dropping Topic-connected is restricted to arguments those arguments must which are InB: Italian (16), as argued by Grimshaw & Samek-Lodovici Sorry, pro left just now only. obligatorily Further,doesfraughtapro-drop; licensing not withunlike havebut head, empirical it Spanish Subject-Verbdoes. just Itas problems.andis in possible Spanish.Italian, inversion, Unlike toIVE This stipulate does Spanishstipulation, not that show andINFL however, anyItalian, in trace IVE NE isofis e.g., ` *Speaks he.' connected.restrictedgeneralization,(referringdrop. In IVE to)to The those(17), then,difference however,arguments for pro-dropping between where (subject/objects) inItalian B's in IVEresponse and is IVE that the is pro-drop that subject in the is the topic, it can optionally be dropped. The are topic- andinthat-t IVE Italian effects. are ungrammatical,are Thus, not. Thesentence. second although such problem as similar 'who is didthat sentences you IVE say does inthat Spanishbehave came' Turning4.3.IVEformer, the topic-connecteddropping now to nullof topic-connected expletive arguments subjects, droparguments obligatorily, SEE is requires only optional.whereas dummy in Null Expletive (it ) Subjects English,8 Platt as at shownal.(a) (1984) below: discuss similar data for Malaysian and Hong KongseparatedhoneyDis Australians, there, already. darling you see here, dem hold hand hold hand, honey here, darling dere, next moment pro requiresubjects(18b)(18a) dummy in finite subjects clauses, in as finite shown clauses, in (18a) as show whereas in (18b). WE does not *proHere is clear pro isthat not he safe will to not wait. come. 290 (c)(b) theyIf youIn willAustralia, don't laugh like atpeople pro, you. ya..a neva (nursemaid) carry umbrella will give you water. so if you carry pro 283 284 29 Optimality and lectal variatiott Bhatt U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) ments.the"licensing" violation andof formal "identification" "licensing" requirements and "identification" (cf., Sells, Rickford require- & Under the standardThe grammaticality account (18a) is of ungrammatical (18b) has no due account to under (19) WasowThe5. starting 1994). point in our discussion of the framework is the overall Optimality Theory A Description assumptionisrationalistthe collectionsystem approach that underlying grammaticalof the in grammaticalwhich language intuitions Optimality performance.grounded. judgments provide Theory of privileged Under the(henceforth, "idealized this access approach, OT) native to The rationalist approach is premised on the x>>y>>z Ga y>>x>>z Gb speaker/hearer"conflictsaccountandwhich unfortunately, underlies thereof. with represents actually the leaves use observed linguistic of nolanguage. room utterances,competence for The language idealization, the former variation, prevailsof course, or its in And further, when linguist's the knowledgeintrospection conflictsoftempirical constraints with generalizations, a higher are violable ranked uses inconstraint. "violable"just those The (soft)contexts core constraints. ideas in which of OT These they can OT, instead of using categorical constraints to express variation,traditionalthe construction asframeworks will of become grammars. in clear momentarily. Although OT is rationalist in spirit, it,-; ability to accommodate linguistic it departs from the OT differs from (viaGenerativeconstraintsbe summed Eval) grammar all upare in ranked; the consists following and of the rankedway: optimal constraints constraints form canis which be violated; examine possible candidate structural descriptions grammatical. freely howorthodox1995).1995) grammars in rule/principle-based the manner are defined discussed by approach constraintbelow. (a la hierarchies Chomsky 1965,(McCarthy 1981, UniversalOptimality Grammar theory (Prince in OT and is expected Smolensky to provide 1993) is a aboutfinite best(22)generated case(20)below.9 scenario)OT by input-outputGrammar:The outputis optimal, thatfunction i.e.,has grammatical.the (Gen). least violations (=0, in the This is illustrated in differenteachwell-formedness.set of ranks potentially grammars,configurations the set Languages conflicting of as violable shov. of constraint differ n(violable) schematicallyconstraints. from ranking each constraints other inyield, (19). in on termsin structuralprinciple, of how Thus, in essence, If so, it INPUT {11 1n}EZEI structurescandidate EVAL structures optimal--a Interpretation coverage.differencesmechanismtofollows dialect that variation, tominimallybetween theoretically. SIE different and IVE, constraint without rankings risking will empirical give rise faithfully account for the Adopting OT thus provides a subtle grammatical GrammarAnttilaan illustration (1995)): B, bothof how Consider of OT which accounts twohave grammars,for three language constraints Grammar variation A Before I close the discussion in this section, let me give {x, (cf., also y, andz). 292 BEST COPY AVAILABLE 285 286handout,the9 This MIT-OT diagram and theworkshop isreference taken infrom of May the one speaker.1995. of the Regrettably, handouts of the talk given at 293 I have lost the Optimality and lectal variation Bhatt U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) >>suchAssume z,a way x further, >> that z { that ].x } dominatesin Grammar (y} A dominates these constraints 4z1 are ranked in In other words, Grammar A imposes a total x » y, y I6. now present the analysis of the data following Labov (1972a) The OT Account candidates.candcertainorder 2. on input Tableau the Cand we constraints: get 1, twoviolates competing x the» y highest >> output z. Now, ranking candidates: assume constraint cand that {x1for and }, a 1 shows the competition between the two spirit,indeterminate;who1996), has I propose, arguedthe (universal) it that canfollowing (syntactic)often constraints be Sells, shown variation Rickford listed to be in issystematic. (21)and usually toWasow account not free(1994, for or the In that Tableaustraightforwardlywhich is 1: output as = the cand2 optimal, grammatical, option. lethal. Grammar A, therefore, chooses cand 2 syntactic(21a) variation discussed in section 4.0. OP-SCOPE: (=c-commandscopeOperators over (e.g., the VP/IPentire wh-phrase) atproposition S-Structure). must take a. Candidates candi x . (21d)(21c)(21b) OB-HD:STAY:OP-SPEC: HeadsNoOperators movement of selected must (=trace) be projections in Specifier is allowed. must position. be grammarhasNow the consider same imposes three the other slightly(universal) grammar, different constraints Grammarb. ordering, {x, B. y, Assumeviz., z}, thehowever, that constraint it, too,this cand2 (21e) SUBJECT: aA-SpecifierThefilled la(Grimshaw Chomskycanonical (either in by an1991)subject1981, trace "extended mustorbut position overt violable). be projection" material)filled. (=highest (=EPP, higherTableaucandGrammar{y} 1 ranked dominatesand 2, A is , constraintcandwe get{x) I, becausethedominates { samey }, leading in two this{z}. candidate to grammarNow its rejection for competing thecand sameas 2 optimal. input, outputs: as in cand 2. The optimal output, as shown below in violates a (210(21h)(21g) DROPFULLPARSE: TOP: INT: Leave(FailedParsestructurally arguments lexicalinput by expletives unrealized.constituents conceptual coreferent and structure. auxiliarywith the topicdo) Tableau 2: output = Candidates x z listedassumptionssyntactic in (21)differences needare not to between benecessarily explicitly SIE `surface-true';and stated. IVE, a couple this of theoretical Before I show how these constraints interact to yield the First, the constraints is expected b.a. = cand2candi 4,! thosesincealways thewhich constraints vicwrious ranked either higherdo inwhich not any conflict than conflictare always with by surface-true virtueany other of the constraint, arefact going that theyorto arebe are those with which they conflict . (Grimshaw 1994). conflictinginteractions yield well-formed utterances in both SIE and IVE. In the next section I will propose a setmeta-linguistic of potentially constraints and show how their constraintscentralthat(21) allare rankings meta-principleuniversal; are universal. of thethem grammar of are OT, possible. calledof every This UNIV, language assumption which has says themfollows and a Second, and importantly, the constraints listed above in The constraints listed under (21) have that 294 287 288&been Wasow extensively (1994, discussed 1996), Grimshaw in the OT (1994),literature Grimshaw (cf., Sells, & 295 RickfordSamek- LodoviciOptimality (1995), and lectal Smolensky variation et al. (1995), Bakovfc (1995), Bhatt and phraseU. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics in the adjunction structure. In this competition, Volume 4.1 (1997) Beginning6.1.Samek-lodovici with (in the preparation)). matrix questions in SIE and WE, we need to Matrix (Direct) Questions inversion(24) loses25) Tableau: because IVEit incurs more violations than adjunction. WE: STAY » OP-SPEC ofSIEdeal toisquestions, allows inviolablewithmove the subject-verbto OP-SCOPE problem ain position both SIE of inversion, wil! Inversion fromand not iVE. which appear WE Thisvs. does it Adjunction, inconstraint can the not. tableaux In forcesthe i.e., because whereas c-command the entire wh-phrasediscussion it nv WhatCandidates wouldyou would you tlike like to to eat eat t t? ? STAY **! * OP-SPE,r7;7:11'.* . ,, theinteractionrecruitedpropositionin categorical CP-Spec to of yield(=IP) these followedprediction directat two S-Structure. constraints questionsby of an direct aux The questionsare:inin theComp. constraintsOP-SPEC order in givenSIE: and that the in STAY. (22)needwh-phrase yields to The be The tableau in (23) rankings6.2.with respect of the same to direct constraints, question which formation, is expected reduces in OT. to TheEmbedded difference (Indirect)between the Questions grammars of SEE and WE, different constraint,candidateconstraintstructureshows a competitionand set. STAY,while anSince inversion inversion and adjunction betweentherefore structure. does violates two not,STAY Both candidates,inversion OP-SPEC, remains violate structure the inactiveaan higher lowadjunction rankingis rankedon more the distributioninversionThe generalization inin indirect indirectof inversion about questions questions indirect in the(=Noninversion, (=Inversion). questionstwo varieties is: SIEwhereas of doesEnglish IVE not permitallowsunder This grammatical harmonic,(22) 23)and Tableau: wins. SIE SIE: OP-SPEC >, STAY constraints,considerationinviz., indirect OP-SPEC two questions, can previously and be STAY, accounted OB-HEAD recruited and a for new to must byaccount one, the have viz., interaction for a OB-HEAD.lowerdirect questions,prominence of three Consider first SIE. Since SIE does not permit inversion invadj WhatCandidates youwould would you liket like to to eat eat t ?t ? HOP-SPEC *! . STAYOrvIir:':- thevis-a-visSTAY;HEAD, grammar OP-SPEC thegiven ofrelevant SIE its diminishedandranks ranking STAY. OP-SPEC is status Wegiven haveover inin SIE,(26). alreadySTAY must (22, established be above).ranked belowOB-that thatSpecan adjunction both instead OP-SPEC of structure, moving and (12a)toSTAY CP-Spec above; yield as thethe it does wh-phraseadjunction in SIE. structure too, Turning to IVE, recall that direct questions in IVE involve adjoins to IP- It turns out theimportantbetweendeferential inversion the constraint, to two OP-SPEC.structure candidates, STAY. that the incursAgain evaluation twoboth violations violate is passed STAY, onof toSTAY butthe itnext asis The tableau (27) shows two competing candidates, both Since OP-SPEC cannot distinguish theviolatingTheoveralbeit inversion tableauOP-SPEC with the a in differenthigheststructure (25) (24, shows, below), ranking ranking. incurs again, which constrainttwo twoviolations gives competing STAY. the ofdesired STAY Notice candidates, results however, (25). both The NE grammar ranks STAY one by once.opposedharmonic, to non-inversion and wins. structure which violates STAY only In this competition, then, non-inverted structure is moving wh-phrase and the other by movingas opposed the Infl/Aux to only toone Comp violation of STAY 296 BEST COPY AVAILABLE moving wh- 289 290 297 (26)Optimality and lectal variation SIE: OP-SPEC » STAY » OB-HD Bhatt dropping,U. Penn Working it must Papers be the in case Linguistics that PARSE (an argument) and Volume 4.1 (1997) 27)no-in Tableau: v = I wonder SIE what e he is eating t Candidates SPEC OP- STAY OB-HD PARSEconfigurationnon-pro-dropSUBJECT and are SUBJECT given phenomenonranked in (30).higher is preferred inin SIEpriority over follow thanboth from DROPcandidate the TOPIC. dominance (a), which The As shown in tableau (31), candidate (b), which satisfies require inversioni n v with wh-movement, suggesting that OB-HEAD is Turning to indirect questions Iin wonder IVE, recallwhat is that he t eatingthese t **I (30)yieldsThusviolates the the PARSE, rankingnon-pro-drop PARSEand candidategeneralization above SUBJECT(b), inwhich SM. above violates DROP SUBJECT. TOPIC SIE: rankingestablishedwea constraint get OB-HEAD the that desired of in high-prominence. I'VE overoutput. STAY STAY outranks and Recall, OP-SPEC, OP-SPEC too, thatas (24,shown we above). have in (28),already By Once again, the tat.leau in (29) shows two competing 31) Tableau: SIE Candidates TOPICPARSE » SUBJECT » DROP PARSE SUBJECT TOPICDROP violates(28),candidates. is theOB-HEAD. invertedThe optimal structure output, because given the the dominance non-inverted hierarchy structure in ca . = lefthe left *ust*ust 'List nownow now onl onl onl he *! * ! >r (28) 29) Tableau: IVE IVE: OB-HD » STAYCandidates » OP-SPEC HDOB- OP- evidenceranking(or object) of that the the whenthree grammar constraints.it of IVE does not require an overt subject Turning to pro-drop in IVE, we find evidence of different is topic-connected, which means that the Earlier, in (15a-c), we provided inno-invI v wonder what e he is eating t = I wonder what is he t eating t * ! NM,..M.17' SPEC *pi] sinceInconstraint fact,tableau the the other DROP-TOPIC(33),ranking two we candidates configurationfind that must candidate incur dominate in violations(32) (a) gets PARSE is us theof thethe harmonic and desiredhighest SUBJECT. results.choiceranked "> With respect to indirect question formation, the difference constraint, DROP-TOPIC. rankingsbetween6.3.OT appeals theof the grammars to same variation constraints, of inSIE ranking and which WE to providereduces, is only differentexpected again, to grammars. given different that Pro Drop (32) 33) Tableau: IVE IVE: SUBJECTDROP TOPIC » PARSE » The empirical facts of pro-drop are straightforward: SIE, like other IVE, on Candidates TOPICDROP PARSE *I = .: SUBJECT .1 ,,,. differentargumentsthestandard other patternsvarieties hand, (subject/objects) allowsof of generalization English, pro-drop does can notbut bepermit expressed pro-drop. by letting three that are topic-connected.it is restricted to those These k)(a)(b) lefthe left Oustjust just now now now onlyonly only he 49*1. 298 inconstraints different ways. PARSE, DROP TOPIC, and SUBJECT Since SIE does not permit argument pro- interact 291 292 299 Volume 4.1 (1997) differenceOptimality betweenand lectal the variation grammars of SIE and IVE is reducible to With respect to the phenomenon of pro-drop, Bhatt the of U.two Penn constraints, Working Papers FULL in LinguisticsINT and To sum up, with respect to null expletives, the SUBJECT, yields interaction the Turning6.4.different finallyrankings to ofnull the expletive same constraints. subjects, we noticed earlier in (18) Null Expletive (it ) Subjects distributio-The7. success nal differencesof (socio)linguistic between SEEtheory and depends NE. largely, I Conclusions believe, requirethatassumingSUBJECT.the SIE interaction expletives requires that We expletivesandan in follow expletivefinite satisfaction Grimshawclauses. in finiteis aof regular clausestwo & constraints,Samek-Lodovici pronoun whereas withIVEFULL doesits (1995) INT lexical not and in This difference follows from allowsofvariationin inconstraintits India. ability for and a straightfoi interactiontouse. demonstrate In this ward and paper satisfaction,account the I have systematic of argued English as conceptualized thatnature language the ofmechanism variation in OT, In OT, UG is conceptualized as a set of potentially language position(34).thatsubject,conceptual in In this tableau even(=1P-Spec) grammarstructure expletives (35), (atSUBJECT thewins least incandidate becausesubject partly) outranks withposition,unparsed. it only FULLthe violatesexpletive it Since INT,must SIE asFULLbe in shown the requiressubject caseINT in conflictingdifferently.languagelinguistic constraintsvarietiesvariation resolvearising holding fromthe inconflicts the fact amongthat different these constraintslanguages, I have presented evidence to claim that the differences all languages, with cross- (34)givenwhereas the prioritized the other ranking candidate in (34). violates SUbJECT, a fatal violation, SIE: SUBJECT » FULL INT grammaticalconceptualizationonbestbetween accounted the observedconstraints for inallows apatterns conceptualization that us govern of generalization the syntactic of grammar in behavior SIEa that and is NEof based IVE are general notion of to priority. capture the intuition This OT-theoretic that the 35) Tableaux: SIE proCandidates is clear that he will not come SUBJECT *! FULL INT * givendifferenttheare differencenot that unique rankings OT between toappeals it. of the theto samevariation grammars constraints, in of ranking SIE which and to NE provide is isonly reducible expecteddifferent to Specifically, in section 6, I have shown that thesubject two position.constraints, This SUBJECT generalization and FULLcan be INT captured in such by are-ranking way that It is clear that he willIn IVE not on come the other hand, expletives can be dropped from plausiblepresentedconstraintgrammars. to rankingin maintain sections yields the 4 "deviationand different 6 to support fromgrammars, the it, norm" and hypothesisthe evidence of Given the logic of the argument, that it does not seem variation in INTFULL(36)(37) at INTtheshows expense outranks that ofin SUBJECT,violatingIVE an optimal SUBJECT. as shown candidate in (36). will The satisfy tableau FULL in asvariationQuirk this (1988, one in Indian(cf. 1989, also English. 1990;Sells, cf.,Rickford also Prator and Wasow1968) to account for Finally, I believe that studies on language variation, such 1994, 1996, 37) Tableaux: IVE , ro is clear that he will not come IVE: FULL INT » SUBJECT Candidates II FULL INT SUBJECT * andsociolinguisticRickford enrich et each theoryother. and current syntactic theorizing can inform al. 1994, Mesthrie 1992), show ways in which It is clear that he will not come 300 BEST COPY AVAILABLE93 *! 294 301 Optimality and lectal variation Bhatt U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) Anttila,References Arto (1995). Finnish Genetives. Deriving variation from grammar: A study of rus. Optimality Archives. in Kachru,Jaeggli, Braj0. & (1983).(1990). K. Safir TheThe (eds.) IndianizationAlchemy of English.of English. Urbana, New Delhi:IL: University OUP. ofDordrecht, Illinois Press.Holland: Kluwer. (1989). The Null Subject Parameter. Bamgbose,Bakovic, Eric. A. Urbana,Identification.Presented IL: at UniversityOT Work shop of Illinois at MIT, Press. May 19, 1995. (1995).(1992). In B. Kachru (ed) StandardA Markedness Nigerian Subhierarchy English Across Cultures. English: 148-161. Issues Syntax. of Labov,Kachru, William.Braj. (1996). (1970). The logic of nonstandard English. In Alatis, James906-913.(eds.) Contact(ed.) Linguistics Linguistics. and the teaching of English as lingua france. New York: Walter de Gruyter. In Hans Goebl et al. Bhatt, Rakesh (1995b). Rakesh 396.Englishes.Segregated:South WE, 14:2 African Indian English. (1995a). Thu Uprooted, ThePlescriptivism, Indentured, and The 247-260 creativity, JPCL, 10:2. 381- and world Labov, William (1972a). UniversityWashington,to speakers ofRound ofDC: Pennsylvania other GeorgetownTable languages on Press.'Languages University and dialects. and Press. Linguistics 1969. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia:Georgetown Chomsky,Bokamba, E. Noam. (1981). Dordrecht,Illinois(ed) Press. Holland: Voris. English(1992). Across Cultures. The A fricanization125-147. of English. Lectures on Government and Binding. Urbana, IL: University of In B. Kachru Law,Labov, N.N. William (1915). (1982).(1972b). Some Principles of Linguistic Methodology. Science.Language Language in Society, in 1.Society, 11. Promise of Learning in India by Early European Objectivity and Commitment in Linguistic 97-154. 165-201. Deprez,Chomsky, V. Noam (1991). (1986).(1995). WH-Movement: Knowledge Adjunction of Language. and New Substitution. York: Praeger. In D. BartesPress (ed.) WCCFL 10. Stanford: CSLI. 103-114. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge: MIT Mesthrie,McCarthy,May, Robert R. J. (1992).(1985).(1995). EnglishLogicalSome Misconceptions inForm. Language Cambridge: Shift. about Cambridge:MIT Optimality Press. CUP. Theory. Ms.Settlers. UMass, Amherst. London: Longman. Grant,Goodall,Duff, A. C. G. (1991). On the Status of SPEC of IP. WCCFLLiterature 10. in Stanford.India.(1831). Edinburgh:(1837). CSLI. 175-182. J. Johnstone. ObservationsNew on Era the of State the Englishof Society Language among theand English In D. Banes (ed.) Prince,Pollock,Platt, J., Jean-Yves (1989). Verb Movement, UG and the Structure of Alan &IP.Routledge. Paul Linguistic SmolenskyH. WeberInquiry, & M. Ho (1984). 20. 365-424. (1993).The New Englishes. Optimality London:Theory: Grimshaw, Jane (1991). University.toMorals,Asiatic Parliamentary Subjectsand the Means ofPapers Great of 1831-1832. ImprovingBritain, particularly it.London. with respect to Edended Projection. In General Appendix Ms. Brandeis Quirk, R. (1988). The question of standard in the international use of ProceedingslanguageEnglish.Constraint policy: Interaction of GURT in1987, Generative Washington Grammar. DC. Ms. Rutgers U In Peter Lowenberg (ed.) Language spread and issues, implications, and case studies. Grimshaw, Jane &(1995). Vieri Samek-LodoviciOptionality and Optimality. .Presented at 01' WorkshopRutgers U (Toat MIT, appeal May . Linguistic 19, 1995 Inquiry). (1994). Projections, Heads, and Optimality. Ms. (1995). Optimal Subjects. Quirk, R. (1989). Language varieties and standard language.. JALT English1, 14-25. Today, (1908).(1990). A History of Missions in India. New York: F. H. Language Varieties21, and 3-10. Standard Language. Hosali,Hancin-Bhatt, P. & J. AitchisonB. and R. Bhatt (1995). Transfer,CornellUMOP and 18.University, L2589-606. Phonology. Ithaca, New York. Sept 29-Oct 1. (1916). Butler English: A minimal pidgin? Paper presented at SLRF Optimality,'95, Crosslanguage RickfordRichter, J. J., T. Wasow, N. Mendoza-Denton & J. Espinoza. RevellVerbalSyntactic Coda Variation in Topic-Restricting and Change as in far Progress: as Loss of the Constructions. 1994. JPCL 1:1. 51-80. 295 296 Language, 70. 303 Optimality and lectal variation Bhatt Rizzi, Luigi (1990).(1986). Speculations on Veil) Second. GrammarM.Linguistic Nespor inInquiry, (eds.), Progress. Dordrecht: Forts. 375:386. Null Objects in Italian and the Theory of pro. 17, 501-58.The Henk van Riemsdijk In J. Mascar6 and Festchrift, DepartmentClub,(PWPL)The University is anof occasionalthe of University Pennsylvania series of Pennsylvania.produced Working by Papers the Penn in LinguisticsLinguistics the graduate student organization of the Linguistics Samek-Lodovici,Sells, P. Vieri. ApproachDissertation,Clause J.Structure: Rickfordto VariationRutgers An & University. T. Optimalityin Wi:sowNegative (1994). TheoryInversion An Approach. inOptimality AAVE. Ph.D Ms. Theoretic In preparation. Topic and Focus Effects on elsewhere;Volumespapers.Publication all of copyrightinthe this Working volume is retained Papers does not areby availablethepreclude authors submissionfor of $12, the prepaid.individual of papers Smolensky,Sey,Sells, K. P. Paul et al. (1995). When is Less More? Faithfulness and (1973).NaturalApproachStanford J.LanguageGhanian University. Rickford to Variation English. and & T.Linguistic Wdsow London: Theory(1996). Macmillian. 14: 591-627. in Negative Inversion An Optimality Theoretic in AAVE. Please see our web page for additional information. The PWPL Series Editors Sridhar, S. N. LanguageMIT,MinimalEnglish. May Links Interaction19, World 1995. in wh-Chains.Eng!ishes, in the Syntax 11:2/3, Presented of Indiginized141-150. at Of Workshop Varieties ofat (1992). The Ecology of Bilingual Competence: ClarissaAlexander Surek-Clark WilliamsAlexis Dimitriadis Laura Siegel Trudgill,Sridhar, K. P. K. & &J. S.Hannah N. Sridhai (1985). (1992). Cultures.VarietiesSecond Language ofUrbana, English. II.: Acquisition University Theory of Illinois and Press. the Indiginized 91-107. In B. Kachru (ed) . Bridging the Paradigm Gap: English Across London: Editors for this Volume Wolfram,Williams, WaltJ. (1987). (1993). Non-native Ethical Considerations Varieties of English: in Language A Special Awareness Case ofEdward Programs.Acquisition. Arnold Issues English in .4pplied World-Wide, Linguistics, 8:2. 4. 225-255. 161-199. and the PWPL series editors StephanieMiriam MeyerhoffStrassel Charles Boberg Knoxville,UniversityDepartment of TNof Tennessee English 37966 U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics HowDepartment to reach ofthe Linguistics PWPL 619 Williams Hall [email protected] BEST COPY AVAILABLE http://www.ling.upenn.edu/papers/pwpt html [email protected], PA 19104-6305 University of Pennsylvania 304 297 305 U Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) The Truth about Codeswitching in Insular Acadian' Ruth King and Terry Nadasdi oftigeforbilingual.comparative contact those of French linguistic Whilewith purposes. differs English. the features grammars in All L'Anse-i-Canardsthe of relevant three the of speakers communities, the for three the we isstudy, varieties locatedlooked as the does inat relativeare arean the the isolatedfluently degree samepres- twoMost1. perspectives. recent research The onsearch cod forswitching grammatical is conducted constraints from on one intra cf Introduction hasbeforeareashownFrench exerted of theNewfoundland thathas second little beenit isinfluence world onenegligible whereof war.2 the on themostthereand Until local consequently conservativewas quite dialect. little recently, contact Elsewhere the Acadian standard educationwith we Englishvarieties, havevariety in exemplifieswhileToribio(e.g.sentential the 1994;DiSciullo study codeswitchingthe Mahootian of interactional theet alsocial 1986; & exemplifies Santorini meaning perspective Pop lack 1996; of the particular 1989; grammatical(e.g. Myers-Scotton GumperzBelazi, codeswitches perspective Rubin 1982;1993) & thecommunities.lonprIslandfrom standard the period, varieties perspective (cf. butKing have there & of beenNadasdi, influenceare strikingin closer 1996). from differences contact EnglishThe two with and Princebetween influenceEnglish, Edward the forfrom two a Abram-Village is located in a small enclave in wouldwithroleinHeller ofFrench-Englishhow arguecodeswitching 1982, codeswitching that 1994). codeswitching bilingual inThe the figures present organization discourse. can in article thebe analyzedexpression ofFollowingconcentrates discourse, at theof Auer evidentiality specifically,levelinstead (1995), of ondis- thewe wellsamplewhole.cally,Prince as although EdwardhereThereof the includes localis Island itstrong is variety. speakersin where ainstitutional minority Frenchwith some position issupport the control majority in for theof French the province language standard and as ourlo- as a Saint-Louis, on the other hand, is tionbedded.coursecodeswitching in orderrelatively We todo explain turn andindependently to the inter-consideration immediate and ofintracommunity any social of grammatical the context sociolinguistic variation. in propertieswhich situa-it is cfem- toLouisaforsurrounded serious Standard French, French problem andFrenchby have Englishlack hadfacedthan of transmissionmorevillages, have by theexposure their community.there counterparts of istothe littleEnglish language institutional in but Abram-Village. to less the exposureyoung support is Speakers of Saint- 2.adaOur Acadianstudy is concernedcommunities, with two codeswitching in Prince Edward in three Island, Atlantic Abram- Can- Speech Corpus 3.We will return to intercommunity variation below. Switched Forms hundredAbram-VillageCanards.Village residents. and All Saint-Louis,three residents are small and and 20fishing one Saint-Louis in villages Newfoundland, residents with fewer comprising L'Anse-a- than five a A sociolinguistic interview corpus for 24 (1)(1)-(3).We were Note initially that the struckmatrix bylanguage codeswitches is French. such as those found in Abram-Village)I guess qu'on est pas mal tout pareil. (19.2A.255, totalforstudy; 1of 8 We residents,just a wishsubsample over to thank800,000consisting of Gary our v,'ords L'Anse-A-Canards Butlerof just providesfor over discussing 100,00 the corpus, mainsomewords, of datainterview wasthe fordata used the withdata for us 2 See King (1989, 1994) and King and Nadasdi (1996) for more de- "I guess that we are just about all equal." 30U references.and Susan Ehrlich and Monica Heller for suggesting some important U Penn Working Papers in Linguistics, Volume 4.1, 1997 300nities.tailed discussion of the sociolinguistic situation in the three commu- 307 Volume 4.1 (1997) (2)The truth about codeswitching (30.2A.47,I think 1 aiSaint-Louis) plus peur des chenilles qu'une serpent. King & Nadasdi (9)U Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Speaker A: bien?Les Francais alentour d'icitte s'accordont (3) "I Isnake."think don't (that) know I'm quoi more ce-qu'a afraid arrive, of caterpillars moi. than a (29.1B.269, (SpeakerSpeaker A:B: A: (Do)Oui,ItsBien, travaillont oui. theI guess (27.1B.208,French tiso. ensemble? around Saint-Louis) here get along clauseIIn guess, the Prince complements. I imagine, Edward I Island think,One only corporaI bet, finds and one tokensI'm finds sure codeswitcheswith with the French first suchperson that- as "ISaint-Louis) don't know what happened." Speaker A:B: Yes,DoWell,well? they yes.) I guess work so.together? ject.withsingular a first pronoun: person thatplural is, pronoun, one does or not (5), find with examples a lexical such NP asas sub-(4), (10) Speaker A:B: Ahunes?c'estlaLes I-Apure oui!traditions ti de Je quoi croispuis de quilesquasiment, la vafricotsconununaute rester puis je avec crois toute conune les qua- ca,je- (5)(4) "Marie* We* Marie guess "Wedoesn't doesn't qu'onguess know estknowthat whatpas we quoi mal happened."are ce-qu'a toutjust pareil.about arrive. all equal." (Speaker A: "Tricot"Community(19.2B.273,siment que and Abram-Village)oui. traditionsall that,I think like so. "rapure" and is that something Je sais pas. "edges"In (6)-(8):findaddition widespread of sentences.to the matrix use Examples ofclz:use I think, useof 1such of guess, English bracketing 1 imagine,codeswitches, are givenetc. at wein the Speaker B: thatdon'tlieveOh is yes! going knowpretty to (for much stay sure).) with so, yes. young people? I believe pretty much so, I be- I think so. I (6) Abram-Village)"TheyIts avont are pas having mal de a la hard misfire, time, I guess.I guess." (01.1B.407, ofencescodeswitches,While frequency: in our verb primary choice it is worth focusin single-clause willnoting be thaton utterances. matrix there areclause no strikingand edge-type differ- Sentence (11) ies a list of English verbs used, in order (7)(8) "ThereretionsC'est(30.1A.108, uneweresept quarantaine, ou about Saint-Louis) huit fortyheures, I ofsuppose, jeus, sais I suppose, pas,une quarantaine.huit about heures, forty." I imag- (11) Englishbelieve,guess, verbs think, suppose, employed don't be know,sure, in codeswitches: bet, don't can't think, see, wish imagine, hope, imagine.""It'sine. seven (33.1B or eight .810, hours, Saint-Louis) I don't know, eight hours, I (12)foundThe verbs in codeswitches: in (12) are examples of high-frequency English verbs not inExamples codeswitches: of high-frequency English verbs not employed tratedFurthermore, in (9) and we (10): also find iLtersentential codeswitching, as illus- 308 301 302 say, tell, ask, remember, show, explain 309 The truth about codeswitching King & Nadasdi U Penn Working Papers in Linguistics (Speaker A: Did that happen only once or - ? Volume 4.1 (1997) withchoiceRegardless4. a particularof verb of theis semanticallyclass syntactic of evidentials, position constrained: occupied, verbs of weopinion found or that belief. the The Expression of Evidentiality codeswitches occur Speaker B:A: IsecondMmhmm.Well...as guessI think wife?he farhe was Was wasas marriedI know,hemarried married toyes. then.)the then...tosecond wife. his glad,inferencesuchwhichWe hate, did as take verbsnot etc.) (prove, that-clause find ofThus communicaisuch show, we codeswitchescomplements do discover, not ion find (say, etc.)examples inwith tell, English or other explain,emotives like (cf. classes IParteeetc.), said (be of verbsque,sad, 1973), verbs beI of time.whethersponds,The interviewer The inthe informantEnglish, informant's asks "as responds if fatherfar it happened as wasI that know". married he just guesses The once. to interviewer his his Thesecond father informant wife thenwas, at asks that theit- normallyonegeneralshowed with semanticque, beI wish, classedetc. pattern.exemplified as verbs There of inopinion are (13) several and or belief, (14).tokens Thesebut with they wouldI hopeare opin- andnot We do find what might appear to be exceptions to the phasizedtruthofhe thethinks of proposition the byhe propositionthewas codeswitch: remarried is highlighted expressed then. by inthe the switch embedded to English. clause is em- In (16), on the other hand, the informant's belief in the Here, uncertainty as to the truth givesitionion-related: an in (13)opinion the inembedded both about cases unrealized clause the verbto bevirtual expresses realized. events. a desire for the propo- II va venter de soir. I hope qu'il vente pas trop a cause In other words, they (16) Speaker A: folleque,pareilMoi, je puisjeparce disais,sais chante que qu'on comment j'en puis peut ai l'experience toute avoir j'avais ea, de faitpuis la parce funma je (14) too"It'sles pecheuxwindy goingI wish because to ca sont be serait wiiidyla. the (10.1B.498,trois fishermen this heures. evening. areAbram-Village) (14.2B.822, (out) there." Abram-Village) I hope that it's not justementm'ai,causetroisprends ans, jej'en pasunem'ai at prenais une least.petite juste drink! Bienbeaucoup,social decide, avant, drink. ea, j'en c'est pour,Bien prenais pas jedes a- Ca fait, toujours Inrelationshipthat (15) in many the local tocases the interviewer theproposition codeswitches asks expressed the serve informant, into themitigate embedded a middle-agedthe speaker's clause. Close"I wish analysis (that) it of were the threesurrounding o'clock." text leads us to suggest Speaker A:B: jamaisrien.Puis,Mmhmm.certaines en je toucher touche raisons, backpas oui, ade un maque petit vie. j'allais wine, justerien, (15)wife:Saint-Louis male, about his father's seeing the ghost of his first Speaker A:B: Bien...c'a ii ienque as far arrive as I know,une fois oui. ou - ? SpeakerSr A: B je quisais,PuisNon.danse disont jedes assez,m'enjoye fois, <>. vas qu'il afolle, une y danse,enah, a to Its Speaker A:B: (39.femme.ItempsMm!unm. guess ! B.532-534, la... qu'il a saetait deuxieme Saint-Louis) mane avec femme? la deuxieme I think qu'il II etait ti mane la dans ce etait mane then. (Speaker A: IcauseMe,(06.2B.186-190,voulont was I I'veknowsaying, pas had meyou thehow croire, Abram-Village)can experience, I haveplayed bien, fun c'est thebecause, anyway foolpas vrai. andlikebe- 310 303 304 sang and all that, and I don't have a drink! 311 The truth about codeswitching King & Nadasdi U Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) goingthat,littlewasn'tThat's for,social to threethat touchcertain I drink.years, drank any reasons, againat a least.lot, for yes,I usedWell the I wasrest tobefore, have ofnever my ita Well, I just decided, equivalents.to 5.answer the question of whether or not French-language Equivalents these forms really ate SpeakerSpeaker B: A:B: No.nothing,And,Mmunm.life. I don't nothing. (even) have a little wine, the(20)We indicatorbegin which, with atpar leastpotential excellence among equivalents of the uncertainty: heavy for switchers I guess as of used our incorpora, (19) and is Speaker A: TheysureIah,And go you sometimes,thatto don't aknow, somedance, want I'm say whenIto really dance"you believe I'm enjoyingdrink aacting lot,me, in wellwell, the secret".myself, fool,Pm it's (20)(19) Louis)I"I guess guess jela the devraistide tide etait was parler trop too haute.en high." francais. (30.2B.119, Saint-Louis) (29.1B.376, Saint- shewell-knownIn this no case,longer inthe takes the informant, community a drink, a ever. middle-aged as the life of Abram-Village the party, declares woman that not true.) But, she says, she's sure there thisaIn stancetype, these I onsentences,guess the indicatesveracity and ofindeed to the the following listenerin the vast that proposition; ma;ority the speaker of sentences is taking of "I guess I should speak French." however, she dencecouldionsare someto or bethat beliefs conveyedwho effect. arethink Theinvolved, by she thetwo drinks English cases as is in uncertainty.are secret,verbs linked, in although question. then, because she For has instance, opin-no evi- We took into consideration the various meanings which (21)ofderedis extremelyI guess by a include French uncertain. the equivalent? forms Can thisin (21): Potential same degree candidates of uncertainty for equivalents be ren- Potential French-language equivalents for I guess: (17)"reflect","predict",we found as noas in inexamples(18). (17), or where guessthink might be paraphrasedparaphased as *I guessed que ca serait un probleme. theThe veracity first four of forms a statement certainly or allow event. the However, speaker tothe take degree a stance of cer- on jje 'imagine crois (que), (que), je peut-etre pense (que), (que) me semble (que), a moi, (18)These lacunae lend support i o our analysis of the discursive func- "I *Ithinkguessed think about aboutthat that it ca would often."so uvent. be a problem." j 'imaginethansitionthetainty speaker that indicatesisindicated or indicated is wants not bya true highto these by indicateand degreeI forms guess.they that indicate ofis One quiteuncertainty,she mightis astrong. fairlydegree be certainTheysimilar ofable certainty are to that to argueused a greaterpropo- when that that taintytionquestion,onlyspeaker's of as meansthe to thecodeswitches,personalwe for veracityturn indicating to opinion data of afori.e., statement.thisabout lye kind heavysomething of uncertainty?codeswitchers or indicate To and theirexplore compare uncer- this they are used to underscore a But is codeswitching the frombutsucceedsswitchers.indicated it takinginvolves inby As lettinga I stance for guess;pure peut-etre the conjectureon however, listener the veracity (generally know andit is ofentirely notthat thetranslated used the statement. releasesspeaker by our as "maybe"), heavyItisthe woulduncertain, speaker code- ap- it French-languagetheir use of I guess equivalents and 1 think with what might be considered 312 BEST COPY AVAILABLE In the course of doing so, we hope 305 thatpear,306 the then, speaker that I doesguess in fulfills fact take an intermediate a stance as to role: the veracity of a 313 it indicates thanproposition;The any truth potential abouthowever, codeswitchingFrench the languagestance is extremelyequivalent. weak, As such, much switching weaker King & Nadasdi selectedTableU Penn 1: speakers Distribution Working Papers of I think in Linguistics and French-language equivalents, Volume 4.1 (1997) thepreviouslyto strong1 dataguess evidenceindicates enablesunnamed that thethat, in a speakerthe switch unlike language. to the 1indicate think case indicates for a degree I guess, a ofgreater uncertainlythere degree is no of What about forms such as I think? Close examination of I think (que) Verb 12 Accomplished(20%) Events 48 Unaccomplished(80%) Events uncertainty(22) than the equivalent forms in (22): je pensePotential que, French-languageje crois (que), je equivalents trouve (que), for jeI think: dirais je croisme (que) semble (que) 05182 (51%)(54%) 49660 (49%)(46%) NoteHowever,codeswitchers' first of allthe thatjepenseother inventory forms que do of occurseemsterms and toused be seem absentto indicateto be from interchangeable uncertainty.the heavy (que), me semble (qae), a moi (25) je pense (que) a.Unaccomplished, current or hypothetical events/facts:I don't think que je pourrais vivre comme une (23)thewith sentence I think. in So, (23)a for seemsexample, the samethe meaning as that of of (23)b: the main clause of a. I think que c'esi ca qu'arrive. (30, Saint-Louis) b. Mewould"Ifemme 135,don't semble be Saint-Louis)qui think tied serait ca to devraitthat the amante house."I could etre A unla live maison.homme as a womanqui serait who un (30.3B.134- There may, however, still be reason to believe that they are not b. Je crois que c'est ca qu'arrive."I believethink that's that's what what happens." happens." (30, Saint-Louis) should"ItSaint-Louis)pretre seems abe cause a topriest me le sincebon (that) Dieu God it shouldwasetait a un man." behomme. a man who (31, estedthelentscomparesabsolute veracity andin fall equivalents. whichpropositions intoof a twostatement.involves basic which casesciitegories: 'I iiefollow wherekinds I thinka) ofa events/factsspeakerpropositions and the takes French accomplished we a stance are equiva- inter- on Consider now the data in Table 1 which taintymatrixinformation.isTable indicated is 1indicated clauses, provides by These edges,French-language by results numberscodeswitches and for single-clause howinclude equivalentsoften with all a Itypesutterances. speaker'sthink, forof and codeswitches,both degree how categories often of uncer- i.e.,it of (24)andongoing.in the (25). past Examples and b) unaccomplished of these two categoriesevents which are are presented hypothetical in (24) or Accomplished eventdfacts: lentprimarilyaccomplishedused forms to indicate for are this eventsevenly a latter speaker's and distributedcategory unaccomplished opinion of acrossinformation. relative accomplished events,to theThe veracity FrenchI think and equiva-isof unac- usedboth What these results reveal is that while all forms can be b. Ellea. m'avaitJe crois demande qu'elle !vait pour sixty-five. un hanger (30, une "I Saint-Louis)jounide believe(29.1B.245,I think puis she que was Saint-Louis) j'aisixty-five." ete lui querir des clothes pins. confidenceargue,byandcomplished its foremost very then, innature, events.is tothe that take veracity is when Ina relatively stanceother oneof awords,on usesstatement uncertain.information a the French-language Englishis Whatstill the appreciably veracityformwe would is usedof greaterwhich,like first to equivalent, went"She tohad look asked for mesome for clothes a hanger pins one for day her." and I think I 307 codeswitch.than308 when a stance on information is introduced by an English 315 The truth about codeswitching So while I think and its French equivalents can be used in King & Nadasdi largeU. Penn corpora Working we would Papers not in haveLinguistics identified the data as Volume 4.1 (1997) constituting taintyvis-a-vislents.theused, same Ais the codeswitchgreater.a context, proposition: speaker In it othercould tois Inot think words,have obvious underscores used whenever thatan English they a a speakers' Frenchare codeswitch equivalent to under- it indicates to the listener that the uncer- absolute equiva- uncertainty is justfrequentexpressiona 3.6pattern.lish. occurrences Given as However, oneof attitudesthat might per our 1000itexpect corpusarisingmust words in be is discourse:through approximately in conversational opinion Chafe (1986:266)or900,000 belief iswords, reportsnot as our kept in mind that the linguistic written Eng- (26)isscore a nice the example uncertainty. of this. Example (10) Speaker A: Lesla traditions rapure puis de lales communaute fricots puis commetoute ea, above, repeated here as (26), mantsproportionEnglishmeswitches, semble,vary data foundin and amountterms etc. that by thatof almostChafe. to,the can relatively degree everyonebe with speaking, has which some about examples a fifth of jeof crois, Whencharacterized one considers as opinion-giving, that our infor- our they employ English the Speaker B: (19.11B.273,simentAhunes?c'est (Jul! ti deque Je quoi crois Aoui. bram- qui quasiment,I think vaVillage) rester so. je avec crois les qua je- - Je sais pas. lence.tioned,quently-occurringresults Of areis thethose not indicator out informants ofEnglish tine. of uncertainty verbwhose is speechguess, about which,exhibited information as wethe have phenome-par excel-men- Looking at all three corpora, we find that the most fie- (SpeakerSpeaker A: B: that"fricot"CommunityOh is yes! going and traditions toall stay that, with like young "I-Apure" people? and I believe pretty much so, I be- is that something theonenon,ouslysuggests firstof more their formsuggested, than thatverbs) used 85%in tocommunities inwe underscorehadmatrix believe guess clauses. that (as awhere speaker's thetheir The switch its only use uncertainty. to is I guess cameAs on the pervasiveness of I guess Englishwidespread, verb or as it was previ- tions,Here we in seethis that case the traditional informant Acadian comments dishes, on whether will be the retained old tradi- by don'tHew- know pretty (for much sure).) so, yes. I think so. I switches.documentedtainlywasscene previously tohave allow For a casesprecedenceexample, the not speaker distinguished. involve Poplack, into languageborrowedindicate SankoffDevelopments a contact nuanceforms and Millerrathersituations, (1988)than though code- sug- of uncertainty that of this type cer- thethinkaso". young.decrescendo Then so), He to he commentsabsolute says,from "Ifairly uncertainty think in certainFrench so. Je (je that sais crois)sais "he pas". pas). believes,to relativeWe interpret pretty uncertainty much this as (I allowssentedalsofromgest gives thata desireisthe uniquethe examplesspeaker borrowingto nuance in toas of indicate much thisbetween of cute type.as a itgreater different inisHowever, Quebecoisnot nuanceonly registers; thethe in French caseEnglish meaning, Nadasdi we originated haveform but (1991) pre-that the English.We6. now Tableconsider 2 presents the process the fullof "infiltration" set of English of opinion-related the switches to Why Codeswitc h? actualforms codeswitch other than Iitself, guess.3 especially with codeswitches involving English.ance"haveverbs combinedcategorywhich The occurred low here. our frequency "edge" in matrix category of theclauses structure with and our in might"single-clause other at contexts; first appear utter- we We found a total of around 600 tokens with switches to codeswitching,English3 Maschler discourse (1994) i.e. markers "[a]also verbal makes (e.g., activity this so, but,second is you marked point know) notregarding in only English-Hebrew by the the use pres- of surprising: indeed, if we had not done quantitative analysis of 316 BEST COPY AVAILABLE 309 ence310 of a discourse marker, but also by moving to another language." 317 The truth about codeswitching King & Nadasdi U Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) ci) --- We believe that the greater degree of uncertainty which 40(1)-a =I.ea II]23 0,VD ourwithinitially data all switchesaccompanied suggest to that English the Englishswitch involving to codeswitches I stancesguess was on veracity.then began associated (on the Also, C;CIA .G00X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cameveracityedges) I withthink of a speakers statementand others, wanting or but occurrence. only to taketo indicate Ita weakstarted uncertainty, stance with 1 vis-a-vis guess, not then per- the 4t ,...a.) 0 0 0 0 ...., 0 0 0 0 0 0 (27).sonal Thisopinion latter, like we "I would think queargue, l'eglise is a more est mortellement recent development. belle", in 4,)M D ..0 a.) ..--, (27) I think que l'eglise est mortellement belle. (27.1A.255, ...."II. E r44 0 0 0 0 -- ah 0 N.. 0 'ren '.o 0 "ISaint-Louis) think that the church is really beautiful." 2 xCO 0 Intensive language contact would seem to be a prerequi- <.0 ,....., ingly,site to then,the kind it is of not discursive reported behaviour for Quebecois described French. here: Elsewhere not surpris- in ..0 el)6,CI) 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 e-,0 et 0 brardofCanada, use (1975), of where English-language for French instance, is a minority reportdiscourse that language, markers.English we anyway,Mougeon do find well, evidence and youlie- ..4 =H I LT.] CA N N 00In 00 enZ:r 'I'`.....,as particularknow, etc. with are associatedspeakers who with speak working-class both English Ontario and French French, on in a "iea eaX 0 0 0 ...... 0 ...... s 0 0 ton,regularbut New and basis; Brunswick. so by Roy working-class (1979) makes speakers a similar of Acadian observation French for in use Monc- cf The data in Table 2 show striking intercommunity differ- . M V' N .-- 0 0,00 00 0- 0 -X,o--,Tten en - tionedences,1996), earlier. which L'Anse-i-Canards As are we related have reportedto intensityFrench, elsewhere spoken of contact in(cf. Newfoundland, withKing & Nadasdi, has had English, men- p.) -1L = 4,a. =cl)-- .52 > .) .1-ctcn .13.15 = gor,CI) Eu .13 C0 lg.8cytu :-0 2w- .= cn Village,the least contactPrince Edwardwith English, Island. followed In Saint-Louis, by the French the other of Abram- Prince c .0 ..0 g g 0C...0- cn ..E-14 c0 = 0 corpus.lackWhileEdward of all occurrence Abram-VillageIsland three community, varieties of other appears clearly English contact more are verbswith partial "advanced" Englishin tothe guess, L'Anse-i-Canards is most we noteintense. the than L'Anse-A- - 3 ourtermsmasksCanardsSaint-Louis corpus, of considerable number in thethis speakers Saint-Louis regard,of switches variation, who but women andlessare varietythethough, so (marriedheaviestthan of inSaint-Louis. English that codeswitchers, it verbs The used. tableboth in with children) stand is particular In 318 311 312particularout as star type codeswitchers of switches. and as most advanced in the use The data for Table 1, for instance, 319 of this The truth about codeswitching King & Nadasdi U Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) ofcome English from isfive greater of these than women. that of These other members of the sample. Saint-Louis women's use Belazi, Hedi,"Codeswitchingstraint." Linguistic and X-bar Inquiry theory: 25:221-237. the functional head con- Edward Rubin & Jacqueline Toribio (1994). thewhichMostresponsibilitylabour other do are not withhand, conducted work other have for outside French-speaking child-reariag,ina EarEnglish. the greater home, tendencyand and,men. are if Womenlargely theyto work do, raisingbear workat unskilledthe English-at primary jobs Male Saint-Louis residents, on DiSciullo,Chafe, Wallace Anne-Marie, (1986). Pieter Muysken, and Rajendrah Singh (1986). eds.,in academicVol. Evidentiality: XX Advances writing", in Wallacediscourse Chafe processes, and Joanna 261-272. Nichols, "Evidentiality the linguistic encoding of epistemology. in English conversation and pora.ledspeakersdataspeaking in indicate English ofchildren. the that, thanAcadian while is that variety, the of Saint-Louis any a higherother speakers proportionwomen arein of theclearly their three lives fluent cor- is Seen in this light, their status as star codeswitchers is not Both participant observation and self-report Gumperz,Heller, Monica John (1982). (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge 22:1-24."GovernmentUniversity Press.and codeswitching." "Negotiations of language choice in Mont- Journal of linguistics 7.surprising. Conclusion King, Ruth (1989). Raymondinbridge:real", French in Cambridge J. Ontario.Gumperz,Mougeon Berlin:University ed.,and(1994). LanguageEdouard Mouton Press, Crosswords: Beniak,andde 108-118. Gruyter. social eds., Language, identity. Le francais Cam- education and ethnicity "Le francais terreneuvien: Apercu general", in OurfunctionThein approach presentindicating of codeswitching study has a allowedbilingual's has attempted usin severalto uncertainty identify to shedvarieties the lightvis-a-vis role of on ofAcadian thecodeswitching the discursive veracity French. of King, Ruth and Terry Nadasdi (1996). "Sorting out morphosyntactic canadienFrench."Les presses hors Language de Quebec: l'Universite variation apercujociolinguistique. Laval, and change227-244.(1994). 23.3:239-253. Quebec: "Subject-Verb Agreement in Newfoundland ofstatements, useanceusedopinion in inwith the meaning orbeginning varietiesthis belief. in itthis Weof providedwith mannerFrench have it particular argued wasspoken was a guess,motivating that inclass Prince the suggesting of English evidentials, Edwardforce form forthat Island its verbs thefirst initial nu-and Mahootian, Shahrzad and Beatrice Santorini (1996). "Code switching ford:method.marketplace."variation CSLI, in 113-128.Acadian Sociolinguistic French: the variation: importance of the linguistic Selected papers from NWAV23 at Stanford. Stan- data, theory and Newfoundland.termineswitchingatedtainty with which how allconducted widespreadaccompanied codeswitchesWe have from also such a switching tosuggesteddiscourse developments English. to perspective thatFurther this theare. form degreeresearch becameshould of on uncer-help associ- code- de- Mougeon,Maschler, YaelRaymond (1994). and Pierre Hebrard (1975). "Aspects de l'assimi- andbilingualRubin the complement/adjunct and conversation." Toribio." Linguistic Language distinction: inquiry in society 27: a reply 3. 464-479.23:325-366. to Belazi, "Metalanguaging and discourse markers in References Nadasdi,Myers-Scotton, Terry Carol(1991). "Divergence semantique des anglicismes au structurelationQuebec."('Ontario." linguistique in codeswitching.Revue quebecoisedans une Oxford: communaute de linguistique Clarendon francophone theoriquePress. et de ap- Working papers on bilingualism(1993). 5:1-38. Duelling languages: grammatical Auer, Peter (1995). "The pragmatics of code-switching: a sequential switching.twoapproach",135. languages: Cambridge: in L. Milroy and P. Muysken, eds., One speaker, cross-disciplinary perspectives on code- Cambridge University Press, 115- Partee, Barbara Hall (1973). "The semantics of belief-sentences," in K. pliquietoHintikka, natural10.3:173-187. J.M.E. language. Moravcsik Dordrecht: and P. Reidel, Suppes, 309-336. eds., Approaches "Distinguishing 32° BEST COPY AVAILABLE 313 314Poplack, S, S. Wheeler & A. Westwood (1989). language contact phenomena: evidence from Finnish-English The truth about codeswitching bilingualism", in K. liyltenstam, and L.K. Obler, eds., Bilin- King & Nadasdi The University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics Poplack, Shana, David Sankoff and Christopher Miller (1988). "The gualismingsociality and and correlatesloss. assimilation." and linguistic processes of lexical borrow- across the hfespan. Cambridge University Press, 132-54. Linguistics Aspects of acquisition, matur- 26.1:47-104. Club,PublicationDepartment(PWPL) is aninof occasionalthisthe Universityvolume series does of Pennsylvania.notproduced preclude by submissionthe Penn Linguistics of papers the graduate student organization of the Linguistics Roy, Marie-Marthe (1979). adedarts Montreal. contact.changements le francais delinguistiques Moncton, Uneprovoques etude parsociolinguistique une situation Unpublished M.A. thesis, University du Quebec L conjonctions anglaises "but" et "so" PleaseVolumespapers.elsewhere; see of ourall the copyrightweb Working page isfor Papers retained additional are byavailable information.the authors for $12, of the prepaid. individual YorkSouthDepartmentRuth KingUniversity 561 Ross of Languages, Building Literatures and Linguistics University200ModernTerry Arts Nadasdi Languages of Alberta and Comparative Studies The PWPL Series Editors Alexis Dimitriadis Laura Siegel [email protected] Keele York, M3J Street Ontario 1P3 [email protected], T6G Alberta 2E6 Editors for this Volume ClarissaAlexander Surek-Clark Williams and the PWPL series editors StephanieMiriam StrasselMeyerhoff Charles Boberg U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics HowDepartment to reach ofthe Linguistics PWPL 619 Williams Hall http://www.ling.upenn.edu/papers/pwpl.html [email protected], PA 19104-6305 University of Pennsylvania 315 323 U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) Empirical Analysis of Anti-ImmigrantMetaphor in Political Discourse studytheimmigrants 1994 the California metaphors in California referendum, used (Santa by Ana the Proposition et Los al. Angeles 187. We Times, (ms.)).2 The issue was chose to the Abstract Otto Santa Ma examinationinpolitically informedusall withits pertinent a quite way publicof the moderateof published opinionmetaphoriclooking newspaperduringat articles the structures political the during campaign.of recordused the by 187of Inthe the brief,campaign. press West we provided Coast, find Our that discourse that reflected and ofreportedCaliforniadiscourseA metaphorstheoretically by framingis the identified,from print and over media.'socially 200by analyzingLos An important Angeleson-going the Times metaphorsexhaustiveelement articles of usedcataloguing the (presently bypublic and the 1994 Proposition 187 campaign in campaign.itsDeltathe editorialTimes Chi 1987). maintainedNevertheless pages It alsoeight professional repeatedlythe times predominating in repudiatedthejournalistic final metaphoric four Proposition standards months 187of discourse (Sigma the in editorialprofessionalinformed2000newspaper in 200,000 pages.California journalistic were Yet words) anti-immigrant. publicthe standards.predominating displayed opinion. It Thethe repudiatedIn politicalsoTimesmetaphors far asmaintained Prop. discoursethe used print 187 by in highmediathat theits realitythediscourse.usedstate experience by (Lakoffthat the Since thisTimes of 1993,newspaper metaphor everydaywas Gibbs anti-immigrant, theorycontributed life1994), and claims westructures toratherhave that the a publicmetaphorthan principledour aexperience more way toof construction of organizes neutral whichpredominantoutcontributedactually the are basicsinfluence consistent tometaphors, a ofbiased publicmetaphor with IMMIGRATIONpublic opinion the theory,construction more (van encompassing, DijkIIS describe DANGEROUS of1989), reality. onethis After structuringnewspaperof WATERS, a layingset of reality,contestThemetaphor analysiswith the anworks, dominant inadvertent follows. and metaphors,howLastly bias. metaphor I offer whether a works systematic intentional in political way or to domains.not, begin to The following sections I will briefly describe how that meansexamplesmetaphors1. by which of used contestation thesein the metaphors Times, of anti-immigrant NATION can be systematically AS HOUSE.metaphors, contested. I end and with the Introduction A2.dominate metaphor America's is a mapping present of way ways of ofthinking thinking about about immigration. some source How Metaphors Work mediawhichMy team wethat of identified students andmetaphoric I started representationsa new research project used by last the year print in frame public discourse about immigration and seesemantic in the domainfollowing to examples: anoiner target semantic domain. As you can She is the flowerthorn in of my my side. garden. SOURCE 4 TARGETflower -4 womanthorn -4 woman 1Support hasCenter been provided and UCLA by Councilthe UCLA on ChicanoResearch. Studies I am most Research grateful to Profs. and Guillermo Hernandez for their The2Theabout, source Wordsmiths: the domains parts of areour Juan thosephysical Moran, things world Cynthia we whichas humansSanchez, are handy can Pamela easily and familiar.Alcoset, think Eduardoreviewercomments Hernandez-Chavez on on an my earlier new version researt ofh direction,this paper. and an anonymous PWPLU. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics, Volume 4.1, 1997 324 BEST COPY AVAILABLE 318 ValenteCristina Guzman, and M6nica Villalobos. Fernandez, Enrique Covarrubias, 325 Elva Patricia Cortez, Anti-Immigrant Metaphor Santa Ana U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) conceptualourThe sensestarget domains structureor otherwise are of most the unknown familiar frequently to to 'getabstract a handle ones, on' hidden the targetfrom us. People borrow the seriousconventionalizedabout the restructuring world. inFinally, our of society.the LOVE cognitive Changing metaphors mapping them are of would veryour society. tightlyrequire to(1980)domain.thedomains. talk target aboutcite ForThen without a setthe example we oftarget thehavinguse conventionalizeddomain theas illustratedborrowedto think of LOVE. about structure below, metaphors Theythe nature Lakoffwhen are ingrouped talkingofEnglish & the Johnson targetinabout used this Metaphors3.Political metaphors of political are domainsnot as rigidly operate fixed. in the same way that they Metaphors in Political Discourse exampleLOVEMetaphors intoIS A three ofPHYSICAL Love basic (Lakoff mettiphors: FORCE: &. Johnson I could feel1980) theThere electricity were betweensparks; Theus; atmosphere was charged, etc. Churchilldoyearsinternationalfamiliar in matters this coined way of relations. LOVE. ofthe thinking They This wasmetaphorallow the the only waspublic way so topowerful to grasp think a thataboutshared, for the 50 structure and explanation term The Iron Curtain to of society. For example characterize LOVE IS WAR:MADNESS: She fought I'm crazy him off, about then her; she He fledHemind; drives isfrom besieged He mehis constantly outadvances; by of admirers, my raves about he has her, to etc.fend them off, etc. politicscaptureBerlintarget, Wall withfor their the politiciansimmense pointAmerican of social view,have electorate sought implications.and to(Chilton new thus ways conceptualize & Since Ilyin to metaphorically the1993). fall global of the Since the political issues of our lives are subject to debate namelytransferredentailmentsOncethus we potentially to accept beto that theinsane hold target abecomes metaphor, isfor (Lakoffto thz have part source so 1993). ofno goesour control metaphor Oneunderstanding Lakoff entailment of one'sare s theory, automatically ownof of what insanity, action,all it is to the negotiation.ofopenand discussion, to change. the Thus metaphors for issues that such we asuse Proposition to metaphoricallydiscuss them187, ourare moreways We began our study dismayed by California's voting discussing IMMIGRATION are subject to usepartasbe inin unthinkingly.of alove. statementthe culturalThis happens 'I can'tMoreover,knowledge corn when rol aspeoplethat myself far speakers as make when the theory use ofyou're a of language the isaround'. entailment, tend to Metaphoric relations are certainly not 'natural'. They are true, prose ofpublic thanwasspitethe campaign,overwhelming. support neutral.of the vigorous forAll the a the divisive,public Moreover majorcampaign discourse Californiaanti-constitutional it againstwas wasclear newspapersProposition anti-immigrant, that from referendum. reflected187, therather In voteand the beginning now,theLakoffmetaphors target. Navaho 1996). In are the We speakersused case act to asof conceptualize andifLOVE th..1, Korean metaphorswere speakers ourthe onlyworld that doway I viewhave not to useconceptualize(Gibbsprovided LOVE 1994, just IS opponentsmetaphoricormetaphorreinforced against usage, thethisof representation Proposition referendumanti-immigrant irrespective 187 (Santa of of werediscourse immigrantswhether Ana not 1996). abletheyin terms and toeditorialized effectively immigration, of their dominant incontest favor the In part due to this theyandtheseINSANITY commonality, are expressions. transparent, as a metaphor. the that fact is that to They say people weare do veryof nota culturesurprised reflect share on at them ourthem, usewhen that of Metaphors draw their strength from their frequency of use anpresentpointthe analysis way of an view,the alternative of public thesecontemporary viewedopponents way of and Americanseeing of talked Proposition immigration. about the187 issues. wereWe now not From turnable my to immigration metaphor as 326 domainswe use them, have and to especially be consistent because with metaphors a coherent way of thinking from different target 319 instantiated320 in the Los Angeles Times. 3 27 Volume 4.1 (1997) Anti-Immigrant Metaphor IMMIGRATION IS DANGEROUS WATERS Santa Ana 7.U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics foreigners who have flooded into the country [697] the city's While4.naturalcharacterizedanimals immigrants to (Santa people in as Anatermswho individuals areet of al. Americanwater are metaphors.metaphorically English speakers,This characterized may but seem it should quite as (ms.)), the process of migration is 9.8.10. countryanthepopulation overwhelming relentlesswave in ofan[868] immigrationangryflow floodof funk immigrants [749]of has transformed [610] asylum-seekers have put the clearconnotationnotbe emphasized the social implications, associated that such witha and construction immigrationpolitical consequences.of movement in particular of The peoplehas major very is only possible metaphor. Moreover, the negative arefromwhich seen Mexico emphasizes to be streamingto the the United direction inward, States. byof waters,termsNote thatsuch primarily immigration as northward waters as The second subcategory of dangerous waters is movement, influx. metaphorcontrol:thereIMMIGRATIONof human are for verybeings the process clearIS from DANGEROUS subcategories ofone the country movement WATERS. to of the volume, of U.S. Andsubstantial iswithin movementcharacterized this numbers metaphor and as 11. generallyinoutragedResidents about of the the faceillegal San ofFernando immigrationifeconomic Valley hard notare times, immigrationincreasingly growing 2.1. theoverloadingawash crush under of illegal thea brown lifeboats immigrants tide [73]3of a sinking in Los ship Angeles [658] is like 13.12. Latinoscongestion,Thestem influxthe[507] tide widespread has and strained flow ofcrime illegalstates and immigrationand a dramatic localitiesincluding [192] influx of 5.4.3. accommodatecomparedathe sea human of brown thesurge Unitedfaces10 [809] people [145] States at one to atime. lifeboat that could only ... "If you put 40 14. thehard-pressed flowribbon north of Losrust-colored [811] Angeles Countysteel apparently [524] has not impeded 6. remakingLike[61]people waves on the a lifeboaton face a beach,of itAmerica will these sink [10] humanand no flowsone will are be literally saved" byworkersHerestemmed. describing the pursues efforts means a tocorrespondence reduce by which the immigration theof the waters dangerous can of beundocumentedwaters held metaphor back or The third subcategory is the control of dangerous waters. thesubcategoryWithin relative this metaphor ofnumbers the dangerous thereof immigrants. .ffe waters very isclear Individualsvolume, subcategories. which are emphasizes lost The in first the 16.15. themakean attempt opportunistic headway to stemagainst criminal illegal an adverse immigration element tide) that [272] (to stem = exploits our massrelentlesshighlighted sense andof these inoverwhelming. the volume examples terms. with The strong negative connotation is adjectives such as 18.17. theundocumentedhard-lineporous nation's borders porous irrunigrants[686] immigration [508] laws [513] measures intended to stem the flow of 3Bracketed numerals17 column are serial database numbers with offull metaphor reference tokens information. linked to a 328 321 The322immigration connotations of this metaphor are extensive. By treating as dangerous waters, the 329 individuality of the Anti-Immigrant Metaphor Santa Ana U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) faces.playedfrighteningimmigrants Theout, issuewith scenarioand devastating oftheir what of humanity uncontrolled is beingfloods, are washed and backgrounded. movements inundating away is ofsurgesvery waterIn important,its of place canbrown be a IMMIGRATION IS DANGEROUS WATERS is only one element of a TheUS's vulnerability vulnerability of toland fundamental to flooding change. corresponds to the inspiredemonstrateddominance.brownbut cannot flooddread be Sincethatand fullyto fear.isinvoke littlefearedaddressed The alarm, ha,w, IId-working, in inundate floodsthis working are family-orientedAnglo a perfect paper. American metaphorIn immigrantshort, cultural the to evidence of an inundation has to be Thesepaperempiricallargerwhich include schemaare characterize metaphoricalway). IMMIGRANTS of metaphorsOther aspects entailmentsmetaphors ARE (which ofANIMALS, the havewhichof publiclarger been IWEEDS cannotnon-Latino andcompiled the and discuss electorate A in metaphorsDISEASE. this in text- this are: movementasmetaphor.who both believes arean His informalemphasized. in or the her American descriptionhuman quality dream and is a diminished hiddenmore formal with as the volumeontological use of andthis Following Lakoff (1993), the metaphor can be presented 5.FIRE.PUBLIC SENTIMENT IS MOVING WATER, SEVERE WEATHER and U.S. IS A HOME aremapping. labeled "IMMIGRATIONThe informal scenario, IS DANGEROUS i.e., the WATERS,"entailed inferences follows: that ItA threatensflood of immigrantsto inundate Anglois flowing America. into America.By sheer If metaphorsmakeandframework,we thefind this structure ahappen. into waythen a wetotomore It which connect cangives coherent, understand they an analysisthese belong. encompassing how metaphors strengthA they structuring reinforce becausestructure. into metaphor one it Lookinglinks another can the a larger Americans.peoplecovervolume the thatand territory dowithWaters not a look,different areof America fundamentallyact natureor speak with the like flood differenta seaAnglo will of bedrooms.structuretellsmetaphorsfor the us bigger this offor home thispictureour homestudy has in ourato complete frame. be: case, NATION weExamples with found IS doors, oneHOME.4 21-24 of the giveExample structuring us the 20 corridors, and controlland.thisabsorbthan flow theThe an the land.threatens influxterritory flow. In unchanged. Itsmall towillwill change notbequantities eroded.be In the ablevolume, contours theTheto absorb landhoweverterritory of can the or 21.20. There`family-oriented'the strikersare extremiststhose are trying terms. to [790] framewho would their arguments build an alligator- in peaceful domaintightlyThe metaphor structured of immigration. labeled to "IMMIliRATIONmap The the mappingontology IS is of DANGEROUS as floods follows: and tides WATERS" onto the is will be destroyed. 22.23. salesman"This[819]filledthe ismoat, kindurban [813] andof corridor a thosebedroom below who community," wouldSan Diego. swing [813]explained the door an open. auto floods.TheImmigration US corresponds corresponds to toa landmoving subject waters. to change from 4Altemative24. analyses are of course possible, e.g. proposals for a more"close[527] our borders tight to illegal aliens and drug-runners" 330 threatIncreased to the immigration land. corresponds to an increase in the 323 324 suggestedgeneralized by HumANrri an anonymous IS OCEAN PWPL and reviewer. NATION AS LIFERAFr schema, as 331 Anti-Immigrant Metaphor Santa Ana U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) thesethreatensWe're examples very the protectivestability of metaphors. and of general our homes. Thewelfare US Weof as our afear homehome, anything isaccording only one to that 6.immigrantsIt is not enough and immigration to catalog thein public deleterious discourse. representations While the great Contesting the Dominant Metaphors of examplenon-human,Americananonymousmetaphors. of territoriality citizens PWPLabstractNote thatatreviewer, or a masspersonalthis kindnoun also human ofkeepsmetaphors metaphor, thelevel, for in asimmigrants contrast noted byto andthe an that we noticed discourse of Anglo-in the dominant turnstrikingdominantmajority the dominantrefutations ofanti-immigrant the 2000+ metaphor of these metaphor metaphoric onmetaphors. its tokensear. mappings, These were directconsistent a few contestations tokens with were the A common metaphor states that immigrants are a burden associatedare.Weweimmigration. normally feelI will we notmetaphor, own will Whetherbe these able resort POLITICS territoriesto cultural, toexpand any means because ISlinguistic,in WAR,this necessary paperthey which or partly onmaterial is to consistentdefine protect territories, who with we the matter of an them. propositionchildren.Likewise,25,on society.as it tweaks In the One isexample outlinedmost therefutation dominantcommon 26, sharply. the of ultimatetargetmetaphorthis metaphor of politicalProp. by respecifying 187 implications was the the innocent target. of the is shown in example theirthe IMMIGRATIONproposition homes' .5 that IS people DANGEROUS arc prepared WATERS to go metaphorto extremes and toillustrates `guard 25.26. Constitution.[PropositionHayes-Bautista"These people [230] aresaid. carrying [719] more than their own weight," 187] is like target practice against the thecan5A samplingactionsbe classified involving of the as metaphorsPouncs I WAR which metaphor refer to the tokens sounds follows. of violence, These fighting, strategies and tactics of war, and finalmetaphoricThereto rejectsection are specificthe structures, of dominant this wayspaper as metaphor toIChilton will systematically turn and& to Ilyin supply the (1993)second contest another. pointmeans, the out.dominant which In the is b.a.outcomes: PropositionareNinety fired percent [408] 187 of subtlythe 'thump' attacks (abuse) the casesdignity come and from humanity agents ofwho a InIMMIGRATION order to seek IS consistency BENEFICIAL with WATER the world view of the American c.d. defenselesspreventingtheand"invasion" greatereroding people of effectivenessillegalslifestyles illegal [266] from immigrants[215] penetrating is causing the first economic hardship of the border control line of defense. program i'n theprovidedvoting source public, by metaphor the we Times. rework of water,The with first but the set givedominant of italternative a positive metaphoric mappings spin: mappings retain e. andpreviousarrestedSaying[725] concrete-buttressed that duringcalls up to to th, fortify 1,000 Los fences keyAngelesillegal sections and immigrants riots, to deployof Buchananthe border U.S.were military amongrepeatedwith ditches forcesthose his TheseIMMIGRATION ISIS AIRRIGATIONBENEFICIAL WELL- SPRING FORWATERS, OF A DESERT,AMERICAN or or WEALTH. metaphors are linked to frequently-used metaphoric f. there if necessary.Third World [855] take over [2,;8] 332 BEST COPY AVAILABLE 325 worldviewscharacterizations326 of the electorate of the US do economy not have to and be radicallyculture. revampedThus the 333 Anti-Immigrantfor the positive Metaphor waters metaphor to be promulgated. A whole series Santa Ana AmericanU. Penn Workingeconomy. Papers Thus in the Linguistics metaphor is: Volume 4.1 (1997)IMMIGRATION IS mappingsBLOODof particular presented.OF THE metaphors BODY now can be developed that are based on the characterizedBLOOD. inThe a Immigrationsingle ontological sentence: flow mapping corresponds of the to metaphors the body's bloodcan flow. be ofsourceA secondexample domain, set of ofthis NATION alternative recurrent AS nietaphor Bogy.metaphor Examples from mappings the 27 Times: and uses 28 area different a couple 33.32.areA whole based serieson the of mappings particular presented, metaphors of nowwhich can I present be developed only that stoppingProp. 187 immigration will be economic will cut suicide California's for California jugular three: 28.27. a[1496]peopletrend-setting big country had put withstate dollar a or very concerns the small ice-hearted aheadheart [1502]of domain humanitarian where will the These34. and other instances of the new metaphor can be used to industriesProp. 187 will sever the artery that nourishes California's metaphor,thetokensECONOMY Times of databasethe with ASmetaphor a negativeBODY that actually in is connotation,the not Times use at allthe database. aIMMIGRATION asnovel in examples metaphor. There are 29AS Wetokensand BLOOD found 30: in alternative,theimmigration.provide dominant insurgent A metaphor, creative metaphor mind and can regularlyin expandorder to onrepeat begin this metaphor,toinstances constructively contestof the an alternative, affirmative way of talking about 30.29. those...whoofonly illegal improved immigrants. would economies pollute [386] the can cultural stanch bloodstreamthe northward [1447] flow restructure7.world view the of wayimmigration. the general public unthinkingly frames its Conclusion metaphor.A US/Mexicanpoliticalnovelist, boundariesIn Carlos example boundary Fuentes, separating 31 ishe isan extends well injurynations aware itto arewith a of bodyartificial, the largerlarger,idea and that than bodythat the the compelling,exposerevealprosaicContemporary the themetaphors underpinnings structuringthese metaphor claims which theoryprincipleshave of we our primarily commonly makes common of veryour been sense andstrong made unblinkingly world claims on the view thatbasis andtheuse of experience. However 31.political nation: crossedThis border by 200is the mil most lion exciting people bordera year. in ...I the have world. always It is offerexperimentalintrospectionvariation,bear a languageon the which studiesand claimsand use deduction has basedin cognitivefocused hopefully analysis (Lakoff almost psychology that a 1993, new exclusivelybrings way1996), (Gibbs gritty to analyzewith on empiricism1994). phonologicalsecondary language Here to I asThus blood in ourflow work, and pulse,we use to entailments create a new of metaphor the body for metaphor, such tosaid bleed it is again. a scar, We not want a border. the scar But to weheal. don't [52] want the scar immigration. Lakoff'sbasedand morphological method Moral can Politics clarifydomains. (1996), deductive in whichanalyses he of provides metaphor, a As for matters of metaphor theory, this language use deductive such as 334 toThe a targetnew metaphor domain, mapswhich the is thesource vital domain, nature ofthe immigration blood of the for body, the 327 analysis328 of the presumed representations of immigrants 335 based on Santa Ana Volume 4.1 (1997) Anti-Immigrantpoliticalhis interpretation stances Metaphor in of our the count'basic contrasty (Santa of Ana liberal et al. versus (ms.)). conservative vanU. Penn Dijk, Working T. (1989). Papers The inrole Linguistics of the media in racism. In R. Wodak (editor), Language, power and ideology: the reproduction of (e.g.,theoryideology'developed attitudes, and (Woolard acan direction commonencompass 1992).of researchsense, a wideIt drawsnorms, which range on prestige, hasof many sociolinguisticbeen hegemony).sources termed 'languageof studies social From Lastly, in recent years qualitative sociolinguistics has Woolard,van Dijk, K.A. (1992). Language ideology: PragmaticsDiscoursestudies in political& 2.3. society discourse. 4.2.T. John Benjamin, Philadelphia. (1993). Principles of critical issues and approaches. discourse analysis. anusediscoursesocially-engagedthe empirical basedfield of inanalysis discoursethemeans reproduction researchof to prose reveal analysis, metaphorsthat and of addressessocialevaluatevan Dijk presented dominance. the (1993)focuses ideological here has Theon is the called offeredlanguage structure role for asof LosBoxUniversityCesar Angeles,951559 Chavez of CaliforniaCACenter 90095-1559 for LosChicana Angeles & Chicano Studies effectivelyourdominantargumentationof political society metaphorscontested. discourse. are can brought be used documentedWith out to itframe in the bold nature andcommon relief, analyzed. of metaphor sensethese As thinkingmay the in insidiousbepolitical moreabout [email protected] Gibbs,Chilton,References R. P. (1994). & M. PoeticsIlyin. of the mind: Figurative thought, language andDiscourse understanding. & society Cambridge 4.1. University Press, New York. (1993). Metaphor in political discourse. Lakoff,Lakoff, G. (1993).G. (1996). The Moralcontemporary politics: theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony liberalsNew(editor), York. don't. Metaphor University and thought. of Chicago Cambridge Press, UniversityChicago. Press, What conservatives know that SantaLakoff, Ana, G. & 0. M. (1996). Johnson. Awash (19?;0). under Metaphors a brown wetide: live Metaphor by. University and the of (ms).ideologyChicago Press, of immigration Chicago. in American newspaper discourse. SigmaSanta Ana, Delta 0., ChiJ. Moran & C. ;;anchez. Floods of illegals and waves of innativism: California metaphoric politics. structuring'(ms.). of anti-immigrant discourse Foundation. (1987). Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics. Author, Greencastle, IN. 336 329 330 337 U Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) Is There An Authentic African American Speech Community: Carla Revisited culturalAfricannotcapital surprising for stylesmentors, many ofthat non-blackdress as some well in find contextsas youth in it theirfitting (cf.where wider Bourdieu to itspeak isinteractions sanctioned 1991).creole Thus,and inby Afro- sporttheir it is 1. Introduction' Lanita Jacobs-Huey cultureAmericansRamptonCaribbean as 1995). problematic. considerclubs or non-blacks' communities explicit (Hewitt identification 1986, Jones with 1988, black It is often in the latter more public domain that African Consequently, though a white U.S. rap popularculture.representationsIn 1992),the culture 1990s For young example, whereare of peopledisseminated urban thein Japan, language ofArtican diverse youth to andinternational and havebackgrounds African musical appropriated American masses styles are the emulatingof(Dent youthblackbaggy emulationgroupgroupmentalityracial called stereotypesas of appropriating (Brown African Young and1991), American Black unite aspects many Teenagersdiverse rap ofAfrican styles urban youth viewsas Americanadolescent undera way a to shared youth undermine seehip thishop its name and black culture Caribbeandecades,reggaedress1993). style and Similarly,adopted andand African even African the Russian,dreadlocked American discourse American British hairstyleship and peers2 andhop dress Asian and associated(Hewitt styles rap youth culture of 1986, withhave, their AfricanGilroy(Jones inAfro- recent whofindSmithermanblackand are identity. that languagetrying white 1994).3(orMoreover, and want)Britons culture Similarly, to whites bewho are black" whoseoftenviewedJones and derogatorily (1988)outward "wiggas"their and use expressions Rampton (Heardlabeledof creole 1994,"whites (1995)reflect as a universaltheirmanyconstruct1987, black of Jonesthese forms peers "cool" 1988,non-black of and oppression or Knobelmusical "hard" youth, 1994, icons (cf.identities the Morgan Ramptonare language tropes and 1993b) 1995, alignof and resistance andWulffdresswith a meanstheir styles1995). against black ofto For andstylisticopenlylinguistic identity. reprimandeduse alignment of creole with asby a Afro-Caribbeans stereotypicalRastafarian culture cooption who and ofinterpreted resistance African culture theirwere In this paper, I discuss a white speaker's use of a variety televisedlanguagewithpeers blacks(Rampton jukeboxes and in culture. order1995, featuring BucholtztoWith hone the their 1996). explosionlatest outward rap andof hip affinitiessoul hop videos, magazines, to andblack Yet, white adolescents need not rely on peer associations of intonation,includingcharacterizedspokenAfrican by Americanrhythm urban the by use theadolescentand Englishuseof tempo, African of African males.timing (AAE) American ThisAmericanand that pitch,variety lexical risingprosodic is one anditems which system, falling and is is predominantly Blackconfinesdiversestand-up discourse backgrounds ofcomedy their stylesbedrooms and filmshave can (Jones nowbegunabout educate1988, tourban constitute Heard black themselves 1994, streeta form Cutler life, ofwithin symbolic youth 1996). the of discussedcharacteristicformsidiomatic1992). [Id/ expressions,insubstitution previous of AAE andstudiesforspeakers /th/the andrelative(Hewitt (cf. postvocalic Morgan high1986, use Jones1996a, Irl] of phonologicalthought 1988), Mufwene to this be Unlike the non-black working class adolescents this2Linguistics paper. Any Lab final andI amStanshortcomings greatly Huey indebtedJr. are,who of provided to course, Marcyliena my valuable own. Morgan, comments the UCLA on Anthropology expressions3 have beenThe stylistic critically appropriation noted in pres"us of African scholarship American as well. music and idiomatic 333 groupof AAE associations grammarSilverman and with phonology African (1975) Americans. by and Puerto Labov Rican et al. youth (1968) with have strong also documentedpeer the use U Penn Working Papers in Linguistics, Volume 4.1, 1997 Brown332See, 1968.for example, Dillard 1977; 1972, Walker 1971, Williams 1971, and 339 Carla Revisited Jacobs-Huey U Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) Further,socializedspeaker is his notin use an an upper-middleof adolescent AAE is fairly male class butconsistent suburb is in his in across mid-20s New socialYork and city. andwas Bucholtztaken issue 1995). with the theoretical bases of Labov's Labov's reliance onand explicit preference forgram- findings (cf. decenteredfirmlyformalspeechproblematizes contexts. community (Hall At the a notion time(AASC) when of byan the bringing"authentic" notion ofinto identityAfrican question has American the been etic, redefined 1992a;as ever-shifting, 1992b, Mercer 1994), multiple, fragmented and this speaker justificationbeliefsofmatical researcherslinguistic aboutand phonological ideologiesof language (e.g., perceived Morgan as,articulated criteria languagefollowing 1994a, necessarily by and SilversteinKroskrity users structure as precludes a 1992, (1979)rationalization and Prestonuse." the"... importsets Many 1989, or of identitysimilarhasoften been linguistic, caseswithin defined. further the standards TheAASC. expose social by the whichand politics political its socio-linguistic of implicationslanguage, ideology authenticity of this and theirusageuncoveringlikewiseButters evaluations that 1984), note characterize the the includingshared of significance their memberssocial own Labov and of of individualhimselfothers'interpretive a speech speech. (1975; language norms But, 1972a; ofasattitudes languageWoolard 1972b) in community and shape 2.respectThough andthe aboveflattering examples may appear c)f linguistic modem, cooption they are or in alternatively, many ways Carla Revisited (1992)discountsviews1979:329). notes, ideology the Labov's power as oversight,overt of ideology political though, to discourse affect is not speech surprising and thus forms sinceexplicitly (Labov he A strictly linguistic analysis also fails to account for schoolCarla,addressedconcerningdirectly ain relatedwhite Camden,by who Hatala adolescent to speaks theoretica New (1976) Jersey.AAE? attending .1nd issues LabovIntrigued whicha predominantly (1980) byemerged Carla'sin their in black verbalanalyses the 1970surban skill of This question was indirectly notes(Spearscompetence,metalinguistic that 1988, members as Rickfordmeans well of asthrough a validate1985, speech which Sankoff others',community members 1989). in a speechdemonstrate demonstrate community their Duranti (1994) their however,herunanimouslywithin speech this Labov AASC,sample. classified noted Hatala In that aCarla linguistic althoughsurveyed as African she analysis46 reportedlyAfrican American of AmericansCarla's sounded after speech,hearing black who Kroskrityappearancesimultaneouslyandcompetence producers 1993, of by an adhering exploitWeinrei'h, ofencompassing texts, heteroglossiato as discourseLabov well system &as normsHerzog throughand (see reproduce alsoas 1968). active their consumersatability least anto Morgan 1994a, Likewise, throughAfricanwasconsideredlexical not her markers,anAmerican use authenticsignificant of CarlaAfrican speech AAE by employed linguists.Americanspeakercommunity. andfew Labov syntactic, thus,grammatical concluded not prosodica member indicators that and ofCarla the This was a powerful repertoire(GumperzAfricanCarla'sindicate useAmerican is her1982). ofone commandStandard which syntactic, emphasizes ofAmerican an prosodic African theEnglish American anduse lexicalof (SAE) both linguistic cuesSAE grammar might and repertoire AAE alsoand As DeBose (1992) argues, this linguistic discourseboundariesstatueswhichconclusion to within determine and as of it over-statedthe presented AASC. AASC"authentic" the linguisticsdiscountedSince import AAE Labov's speakers ofas the grammarthe attemptsocial definitive and situatednessandlegitimate to delimit phonologycriteria their the by of practicestheas Carlaforan Arizona inherenta similar was of Tewa). teenagebased aspectdiscussion Moreover,upon of male AAE ofthe streetthe and syntactic Labov'svalue the gangs AASCof linguisticandlinguistic (Labov (seephonological Kroskrity 1966;variationassessment 1972b) speechamong of 1993 (Kroskrity 1993), it is not surprising that several scholars have 340 333 women's334although speech research, is typically including more Labov's standard (1991) than men's (cf. Gal 341 has shown that Carla Revisited Jacobs-Huey U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) competenceappreciate1991, Morgan how as AAE speakers 1991, speakers, likeHenley additionalCarla 1995). successfully attention In order must negotiate to be more devoted their fully (45to(1976) speak African studies. AAE, American, ILastly, present and33 survey Anglo in an results attemptAmerican, for to 92 address8 Latinosurvey what and it4 Asian)means respondents analysisknowledgeareasto andthe personal,qualitative (Kroskrity biographical which methods1993). increasingly to and examine interactional call the for speechqualitative basis of threelinguistic forms males of Accordingly, the current study employs both quantitative theywhateticassessmentswho, assessmentsdirectly afterit means hearing ofaddress toeach ofspeak a "Whospeaker. speechthe a heterogeneity particular speaks sample, Collectively, AAE" providedvariety of with speakersthese of raceemic AAE. findings and evaluations In thesocial doingjuxtapose politics class so, of andthreetheircollegefictitiously Greg earlyidentify educated, are tonamed mid-20s Africanthemselves fromMike, Americanwhen middle Grcg, culturally they and class whilewere Ron. as backgrounds, interviewed.RonAfrican is Anglo-American. American, Althoughand were Mike allin All three speakers are AAE?"necessaryassessingof language, and tothe "What discuss identity,three (does) speaker'spreviouS and it mean ideology literatureplace to speak within within concerning, AAE?" the the AASC, AASC. "Who it Beforeis first speaks hip,Roncontrast,black"African employsurban and American AfricanMike amore variety and pejorativelyAmerican classmates Gregof di ;courseemploy male likewiseas styles "thinkingdiscourse culture. associateddescribe heSeveralstyles talks him with more black."of as young, Ron's "talkingclosely In 3.1.3.Smitherman (1977) notes that AAE is spoken predominantly by WhoThe SpeaksAfrican AAE? American Speech Community phonologicalthoughspeakers.associatedfairly hisconsistently. withspeech forms. educated has Mike'sGreg relatively and uses employs middle-class SAE more SAE phonology SAE grammar African grammatical and and American grammar phonology and Greg employs bath AAE and SAE language styles, commonlikewisemoreadolescentslower-class than amongfound adultsirrespective copulathe (cf. youngest Morgan of absence class African use1994a). (e.g., AAE American He Rickfordgrammar 0 funny) speakers and et to phonology be quite African Americans, though African al. (1991)American in their prosody,as threequiteoccasionallywell, extensivelybutadmit frequently that speaks theirin African codeswith respective awitches nasal. statuses into AAE as throughAAE speakers have phonology, and merican speechidiomatic communities and all Ron, Greg and Mike interact expressions. his use of Mike grammarEastquite Palo marked Altoand phonology sample. as they demonstrate across formal an ability and informalto codeswitch contexts between Even among adolescents, however, the strict use of AAE is quantitativeadolescentbeen previously African linguistic called American analysis into speakers).question of Ron, by Mike (often and lower Greg's class speech, and In replicating Labov and Hatala's analyses, I provide a (DillardindividualAmericansfiguresAAE and (Morgan, 1972, SAE speakers display Morganwhen personal differa speaking command 1996b). withcommunication). with respectMiddle of theirboth toclass elders AAEtheir In speakers fact, useandand of othermanySAE, eachemploy authority Africanthough variety less examiningAAEcompetence,andphonology. of in itself relationthe Understanding extent Iin also revealing to usetothe which discourseAfrican that each they linguistic Americanspeaker's analysisemploy analysis toAAE linguisticdegree explore grammaris insufficient of theirrepertoire. linguistic anduse inof employMorgan(SAE)AAE features, andboth (1993a; AAE of yet these 1994a)codeswitch(Spears codes notes 1988,for between conversational that DeBose working Standard 1992). signifying.class American speakers Additionally, English also 342 "WhoThese relatedspeaks analysesAAE?" addressed attempt to in critically Labov (1980)revisit theand question, Hatala's 335 336 343 3.2.Carla Revisited WhatLinguistic does it IdeologiesMean to Speak AAE? African American Jacobs-Huey earliershiftingU Penn vernacular. towards Working the Papersnorm of in careful Linguistics speech in order to return to Volume 4.1 (1997) his (cf.ambivalenceofPerceptions language Morgan of1994a). or, as AAE thougha symbol Withvary less withinrespect ofcommon, ethnic the to AASCthe aand latter strong rangingcultural view, disdain fromsome for theAfrican its view use identity to Members3.3.competence of the through AASC their often adherence demonstrate to shared their norms African American Discourse Styles & Verbal Genres styles and verbal communicative governing pathological,uneducated)EnglishrejectedAmericans Vernacular)the (often alternative Africandisordered teachers and American labelsandits and use lazy of lower-middlebyspeakers speechAAE other (Black (allegedly whichon the class English threatensbasis lowerspeakers) that and speakers'class AAE Black have and is modespoliticalsharedgenresthe proper acrossnormsof reality communicating use socialand and which ideologies interpretationcontexts. mandated among areMorgan rooted thatof themselves discourse, African in a social, Americans as (cf. 1994a) argues that these well as inhistorical, the and develop educationalculturaloftenMcMahon see identity. this and1992, variety economic Morgan This as perspectivebeing 1994a). success intricately (Brown linked 1991, to their Speicher ethnic & and African Americans who are more sympathetic to AAE is demonstrated in African presencesystemindirectnesslanguage of of potential indirectness,during (Morgan slavery spies 1991;words or which over-hearers. 1993a;or phrasesrelied 1994a; on and an 1)96b). African system Likewise, African Americans developed a counter- social encounters can Within this of whichspeakersacknowledgingorAmerican talking provides also speakers' "white" see the them theirmarginal, strong with language accessaisdain nation to as forof certaina AAE beingform in rightsaccusedof wider symbolic and society, of privileges speaking capital AAE (cf. Morgan 1994a). Additionally, while byanddoubleEnglishhave AAE rap contradictory entendre styles.interpretations.speakers To pervadeto illustrate, ordenote multiple As slave something Morganshe meaningssongs notes likewise positive. andthat beyond contemporarythe notes,term their "bad" elements hip is used hop traditional of thatconsideredwithincultural the the strict AASC prideto usebe indexical (Morgan(cf.of SAE Morgan is of1994a). indicative a 1994a). speaker's Likewise, of racial a low middleconsciousness sense of class ethnic African such and The ability to speak AAE is, for example, often contrastoccurspracticethe use whenofcalledor otherwiseprosodic members"reading featureshighlight dialect of the belonging obvious"(Morgan African features 1996b).Americanto a larger of Reading AAE interpretive and dialect SAE AAE speakers also demonstrate their competence through community (1987;toculturaltheAmericans, them African 1992) consciousnessvia and Americanrap have youthand also hip-hop in byspeech particular,shown speaking culture. community that who the upper-middle Dillard varietywere attempt not (1977)of socialized AAE toclass andassert accessible African Baugh within their kinesictempo,falling1996b:in an timingstrategies,unsubtle 26).intonation, and and to high unambiguousprescribeloud pitch,as talking, specific well mannervowel as responses range lengthening, to make of accompanyingfrom a point rhythmspeakers, (Morgan and Within this practice, speaker can employ rising and relateddegreesAAEphonologyAmerican in caseofboth socialandcollege informal grammar.which and students and linguistic a 25in formalyear-old, hypocorrect success. settings, college-educated Labov inthough their (1979) withuse presents ofAfricanvarying AAE a These students also attempt to speak regularizedsubject.suchwhichtargets a wayinvolvesand Morgan that hearers.intervals it mimickingalso carries For notesbetween example,an that expressivea language talksspeaking speakers and value variety rhythmicallypauses) can towards outemploy signals of an (oftencontext marking,intended that with the in American male, Steve K, attempted to reverse his pattern of style 344 BEST COPY AVAILABLE 337 338leadinteraction to conversational is highly markedsignifying as (1996b:African 29). American and likely to 345 Carla Revisited . Jacobs-Huey U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) socialthese discourseface and as styles such, and mar verbal k that genresa conversation constitute has a evolvedspeaker's to In addition to establishing speaker competence, the use of verb:adjectives and locatives, verbs, and the auxiliary gon(na) before a Morganentail cultural 1996a). forms of discourse, interpretation and resolution (cf. FigureFAVORABLE 1: Grammatical EnvironmentsLEAST Favoring Copula Deletion 2.1. Inadjectives. adjectives,present before locative predicate and comitativenouns and SheHe tired.a over friend. there. contextualSpeakers4. alsoframes employ in conversation AAE grammar (Gumperz in 1982b).ways which Deletion shift of An Overview of AAE Grammar & Phonology FAVORABLE MOST 1 4.3. Auxiliaryphrases. gon(na)forms "be...ing" before a verb SheHe working withgon(na) us. withdo well. us. SAEdo"grammaticalcontractions)the illustratescopula as "We bearefeatures. copulais or limited easily auxiliary deletion The inone whatsentence of be in AAE'swe AAE.(overwhelmingly can"We Thismostdo." 0 limited sentence extensively in iswhat realized studiedwe can in is and are tothedialectologists West rule (RickfordAfrican and creoles 1991) creolists andand in toSAE efforts better (Stewart understandto refine 1969, certain AAE's Dillard aspects relation 1972, of Labov's work has since been revisited by a number of extend(cf.baseddeletion) Mufwene creoles, beyond has addressed1994). European the scope While whether English of the this origins AAE orpaper. some ofhas ThisAAE combinationderived sectionare important,from provides of African- the theytwo a Research on copula variation (i.e., copula contraction and samegrammaticalBaugh1972, copula 1980, Myhill featureWinfordand 1988, auxiliary thought 1992).Spears functions to 1988). distinguish Inas AAE,the AAE conjugated the from habitual SAE forms be(Fasold hasam, the The habitual marker be is another highly debated researchsingular,Thegeneral absence overview as wellof copulasof as the in AAE the may pluralcopula occur forms.system.4 in 1st, The 2nd, most and 3rdinfluential person in this area has investigated distinct grammatical (Gloss:habitualfromindicatesis, are, will was,I be(usually) abe recurring fromand or wouldwere the be/am futurestate in be. SAE.there), orSmitherman be activity Yet,as Future follows: unlike and be: (1985) itsIHabitualSAE, be form there differentiates I the is be:(Gloss: nothabitual I bederived Ithere will thebe grammaticalrulefoundcopulaconstraints, for contractionthe contraction environments environment or the andenvironments and deletion deletion. whichmost conducive constrain provides Labov'sfavoring the to(1969b; aand ranked copuladeletion the 1972b)rules deletion.order rule governing (inofvariable theorderHe must(1994a)be there). be note in the that progressive when a verb as heads in, "She the predicate be talkin' phrase, every the time verb I With respect to its usage, Mufwene (1994) and Morgan from least toThe most reader favorable) will likewise to include notice the predicate conspicuous noun absence phrases, of scholars who day."whichbecome" + nonverbal Although (Morgancan be glossed predicate,these1994:332). constructions as "Ias Mufwene amin "I [usually] be are tired also usually tiredprovidesby the bynon-stative, end theanother of end the of form:day," they the featureWinford5have reviewed of 1990, AAEEarlier Holmthe (Rickford copula studies1984, frometLe of al Pagecopula 1991,dialectology and variationStewart DeCamp or 1969,argued creolist 1960, Bailey copula Turner perspectives 1965). absence 1949). to(cf. be an absolute The alsocelebrated occur1994a). with feature stative of constructionsAAE and generally (Richardson refers to1991, the unstressedMorgan Been as a rt.mote present perfect form is another amongargument contemporary of zero copula, scholars. though, is understood to be a clear overstatement 339 340been. The unstressed been is illustrated as a remote present perfect 347 Carla Revisited Jacobs-Huey U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) weekform innow. the [Gloss: following Mary sentence, has been Mary working been here working for a week here now]. for a argues that been appears in contexts where it possessionoccurrencesentence andShe of subject-verblaugh /s/ where funny. the agreement form can can also depend on Baugh (1983) also found that the represent pluralization, the theseemsLabovor AAE 1972,whether like(1969a) stressed "have"Rickford have been was is present isdeleted, used regardlessor such past as tense in of They the (Stewart form of the subject 1975, Sit itherman 1985). Mufwene (1994) been gone. 1968, Dillard Yet, characterizingsuch(1994:11)speech as event "he cites (Morgan like/seethe the grammatical absence 1994:331).me" of and/or thepossibilities possessive "my intwo AAE.marker puppy/dog" in sentences as In a similar vein, Mufwene (Morganandbyhaveillustrates Stewart Rickford known 1991) the (1965), you latter(1975; or for a Loflin casepasta 1977), long inpei (1970), time.""1 fectessentially bin marker Thisknow(in)Dillard stressed serves(cf. (1972), you" Fasold been,as which aFickett tenseand as means,describedWolfram (1972),marker "I fricativesphonologicalalsoin word considered such initial features, as positionthink to be including and non-rhotic (Morgan then, the which orvariable1994a, hi-less are Mufwene substitutedabsence in word of 1994).fmal byinterdental /t/ position, AAEor /d/ is AAE is also marked, though not exclusively, by several it!]illustratesduly1975). which acts thecanas an perfectivebe intensifierheard in done the (Mufwene speechin She doneof many 1994). took southern it [Gloss: whites She took and Done marks the perfective in AAE, and in some cases Spears (1988) diphthongvowelMufwenethusfor yielding/my/ /I/ to /ay/1994,or 4/ /ovi/ beforeis/mo:/ Morganphonologically for /13/for/over/. moreto1994a). yield orreduced takin' AAE/fo:/ forfor speakersto taking.in four (Labov alsoSimilarly, lower 1966, thethe in cases like /mt/ possible(1972a)auxiliarynormallyAfrican notesinAmericans have occursSAE. that and Essentially, before doneusually in southern encodes the acts done verb as andan serves the inintensive northern equivalentthe as samean meaningadverb,urban positionof have.areas. functioning that Labovas isDone thenot rhythmicbothsimilarlyamong formal African speechuse timingand Americansoften informal and signals rhythm (Morganconversation. that in the creative interaction 1996b). andMorgan strategicis highly notes waysmarked that in Vowel lengthening is another feature of expressive speech AAE speakers African(56).sometimes1975). Both Creoles, beenlike alreadyincludingand done or Gullah havereally also (Mufweneand been has lostobserved 1994, its status Rickford among as a 1977; Westverb The AAE negative system includes multiple negations 5.signifyingas African (1996b:29). American and is Ethnographic Description of Participants likely to lead to conversational use(1972a)whichand of1985, negativea double translates andWhatley Spears inversion negative 1981,into (1988) There(Mufwenein Labov thenote sentenceis the1972a). no 1994, use one of It SpearsSpearsin negativeain't there nobody (1988)1988, in inversion SAE. Smitherman illustratesin there, Labov in the the turesRon,mid-20sblack describedMike identity andand above.Greg pursuingand culture.use Ron some a is graduate Ata ofwhite the the time malediscourse degree of who the in study,and African linguistic Ron American was fea- in his self-identifies with withpossessiveglossedphrase SAE. inDon't SAE marking,According nobody as Nobody and toknow verbal 'chowsLabov it's agreement whether (1980),really a thereAAE God,"contrast is does really which significantly not a God. usecan thebe Morgan (19:4b) nolcs that AAE methods of pluralization, communityhewassuburbstudies interacted spoken atin a New majorinand hiswith York,was university.immediate African otherwise where RonAmericanscommunity Standard exposed grew up American to andresiding in African anat home.upper in EnglishAmerican amiddle peripheral (SAE) class cul- As a youth, notverbal have -s inan subject-verbunderlying third agreement singular and -s. AAE speakers likewise do 348 This is illustrated in the 341 342Ronture through emphasizes hip hop, the rap major and otherrole thatproducts hip hopof popular has played culture. in 349 introducingCarla Revisited him to African American culture. He states with ado- Jacobs-Huey thoughU. Penn Ron Working had not Papers egisteredor in Linguistics did not acknowledge through Volume 4.1 (1997) AmericanRon'slikelescent hip rhythmic phonologyhopculture been isgait a alsoandpart resembles themarkedof /ma/use oflife by what the likehis unstressed several physicalyou know African been,representation. /fo/ /eva/.""You American know Ron's identification with adolescent urban African contextsBecausevariouslinguisticpracticethe contexts in Ron repertoire which range appears (Anderson to of use orcodes toAAEthe lack 1977,characterizingnorms and an Fergusonfails awarenessgoverning to demonstrate an1977, ofAfricanthe theDeBose use appropriatean ofAmerican ability AAE toin 1992).6 thehopbrightlydescribedcomedians time scene. of colored theas His a interview, performedhair and was baggy cut Ron"cool" in"gear" awore fade, and associated Cross markedlya common Colors, with "black" hairstyle theand 1992walk. other among hip At (e.g., Richard Pryor) and Johnson (1975) have commensuratespeechperformingvarieties,move between emulates he awas stereotyped more with viewed an formalBaugh's adolescent by version manyand (1987; informal of .ofvariety his 1992) AAE. African African and description Americanas such, of is peers upper- more as In this way, Ron's American speech musicalseminarscompletelyAfrican styles, American on shaved RonAfrican developedon males theAmerican sidos which a andsophisticated isEnglish backhigh (Smithermanon and top metalanguage African and very 1994:106). American short for or As Ron's graduate education included upper-division thatAAEinmiddle both when was formalclass acquiredhe blacks wasand informalyounger, laterwho onemployed universityin hip his hop life. AAE did settings.Ron phonologynot himself occupy acknowledges and a prominent grammar Ron's background would seem to suggest that his use of racialspeakers.identitydescribing authenticity Sometimes, AAE basedand Ronthe on important theirwould use challenge of role a particular it playedAfrican register in Americans' indexing or their and racial consciousness among African American butplacelife.late((chuckles)) I was in teenAt his oneonly years life. point,.. about Hethat Ronstates, ...hip probably suggested hop "I becamecan about/rimzmbi/ that a his salientseven use back oforfeature AAEeight in /nu/ of wasso hisday it actually wassocial (.) it wasn't as (.1) as big of a thing..." It was in Ron's asuchclassmateknowledge graduate identity seminarturned of checks. African informal on At African andthe interviewer, timeAfrican American of the American interview, English. I was not history. Ron immune was taking from I also conducted informal ethnographic observations of As a 6Africanstrategic. One of American Ron'sIn order peers community,for made him to the make Ronfollowing feltimportant that comment a command contributions about of himAfrican to as the a (formal,andRonAmerican selectin a graduate grammatical peers seminar. seemed markers Ron's to operate use was of with thenot AAE anotheraffected prosodic set by of context system criteria. informal, age of addressee), although his African Anglowhetherparticipant"... American theyIt 's in likethought Matthew's ... this and one,members when (1996) and I sat I'mof study.thereother just goingandraces talked couldto call to be him him, considered 'Brotha'. he just had black):There's the this I never felt whiter than sitting by(The speaker had been asked AmericanspeechhopWhen or Ron's other community phonology commentssocial and (as and involved cultural was grammar often aspectscontextualized quitethe case),of freely. the RonAfricandescriptions used American African of hip Yet, even when becausesomeonetheyhim.lingo Andweredown, that Ilike veryremember hip history him hopmuch could and is thinking, acquirednot everything.identify his. And'Where liketo, he by can didMTV watchhe ...get MTV,all of Yo!this?' MTV For Raps him, let's say maybe a historical past There's no way that (SAE)prosodictoengaged other and inscholars)system. seriousStandard speechRon African at (e the g., American very taking least a politicalEnglish made use stance,(SAAE) of the referring during AAE Most of Ron's African American peers used gotcommodity.knowhow everything. much what he Andpeople wants you but aregot that's thecalling lingo not Blacknessgoing down, to you make hasgot him the sort anyhip of Blackerhop turned down, ... into You you a You know, you're sort of Blacker, and that's definitely classroom discussions. As such, some of Ron's peers felt as 343 yousomething344 into that that's Black part sensibility." of our heritage. But understanding that doesn't put 351 Carla Revisited Jacobs-Huey U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) AcademyRonAmericansay states, something culture [a"...And school outlandish (and when forpresumably youngI like (1.0) black AAE) urn malesyouwas knowabsolutely with an essential.explicit it up in a boardroom you know and 'The Milwaukee university;attributesstressedgeneration the his members He valuesparents' graduated ofof encouragement the hard withmiddle-class work a host throughout ofto and hisacademic as success Greg his andnotes, at a life. Greg servicemajor have talkingtimeAfrocentricrepresentationsaffects studying to it philosophy] you this' know'(.1) because I-E ... isn't myI need I suchskincan't to colorabe just bad able say willidea to I...say butknow trigger 'Look it's what positive I'vea certain I'm spent about because my ... physical manifestations and sported(white)thisrelatedawards major to withbusinessclothes the would arefinement degree that world.enable werein English.of Unlikehim hismarkedly speakingto ForRoncommunicate Greg,associated and skills. Mike,English Greg effectively withGreg reasonedwas the seldom early inthat a directly participants,oftoreaction understandingwhatever..." automatically were ... orsocialized empathythat I'm supposed into thatmiddle perspective to to have upper-middle no okay connection regardless class ... Mike and Greg, the two African American male 6.undergraduate1990's hip hop ensemble scene. consistedIn fact, even of top when designer dressed labels. casually, Greg's Description of Data AmericantheirselectedAfrican use to Americanof culture, participate AAE, alland communities aspects because their explicitshared of their in by identification classLos Ron. Angeles.and Like age Ron, backgrounds,with They both African wereMike Totointerviews elicit1992. everyday I had were already speechconducted established from at the my threea home rapport theirspeakers, during with RonMay ethnographic and and Greg June prior of interviews given the fact that they were casual African-Americanreflectionrevealedinand practice, Greg of their one's supportedtheir disdain racialusedominated of for consciousness.theAAE being notion contexts. was accused relegated that MikeYet, one'sof "talkingto bothand lessuse especiallyalso formal of white" addedAAE and byGreg that,was moreboth a ofinterviewsolicitedacquaintanceacquaintances the interviewee hisprocess participationand and afteras college(Button implicitly several inpeers. 1987), thephoneinvolving study.I asmet conversations, well Mike expectationsIn asacknowledging throughthe interviewer, successfully on a themutual partthe I varioustheirAfrican linguisticuse speakers. Americans of these repertoires codes and other vacied consisted ethnic across groups.of social both AAE contexts and andSAE with and Both reported that withmadenaturallyLikewise, consciousmy prior AAE attempts and SAE.' to present Following myself the in atradition manner consistentof Labov's I didn't self monitor my speech and thus shiftedinformal interactions with the participants. workingbetweenseveralgreatest interviews command inSAE a law and firm and overAAE. and phone African Ahad t conversations,theinterests American time inof pursuingthe speech Mike interview, varieties.codeswitcheda law degree.he was Mike, a recent college graduate, seemed to have the In Participantsrespond(1968) sociolinguistic to "danger also discussed of death" hip and hop, "happiest their educational moments" andquestions. career interview, I asked the participants to baseballattireculturaltendencyIn our rangedinterview, affmitycap to worncodeswitch from while Mikebackwards. business. working noted to AAE He hissuit within also andin to order sportedsweathis the other courtto pants, aacknowledge fade.black system. tee colleagues' shirt their and Mike's claimcontextsbenefits7 to have(Hymesto investigating conductedThis, 1979, of Labov course, informal the three1966). does observations participants' notUnfortunately, deny the (non-audiotaped) speech definite, the author in yet a variety in can this of only the caseof unexploited, between middle and upper middle class. The community in which Greg was 352socialized BEST is mixed COPY AVAILABLE His parents are first- 345 346mustparticipants' no doubt speech be weighed in various against social this limitation.contexts. The claims of this paper 353 Carla Revisited Jacobs-Huey U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) topicsplans,7. asthe well. 1992 The civil interviews unrest rangedin Los fromAngeles, 40 -50 and minutes. initiated other Quantitative Analysis _Loc,deletionenvironmentsfound _Ving, copula seemed deletion _Gonna.(ordered to be to mostfrom beWith favored favoredleast Ron, to in greatest): bothinthe following contraction grammatical and Ving environments. NP, _AdjP, likewisemethodologyGiven the reflects current used afocus moreto tabulate on neatral the speakers' copula formula, contractionuse Straight of AAE Deletiongrammar,and deletion andthe Givenfavoredleastenoughwhether thefavored to inthissmall warrant _AdjP slight number ancontexts.deviation in-depth of tokens Infrom discussion. Mike's Labov'soverall, case, Contraction, findings contraction is substantial though, is most is in _Loc environments while deletion is least it is questionable investigationsRomaineContraction formulas (cf. of Rickford AAE's which relation et haveal. tobeen African-based employed increoles and 1991), rather than Labovian 1or previous Mike'sfavored contraction in in _Ving environments only represent 14% Gon(na) (.38) and AdjP (.25) contexts. NegativeetgrammaticalpercentagesEuropean al. (1991), (based ofenvironmentsBaugh copula languages. (1980), contraction employedi.,nd Table Labov and by (1969b; deletionWinford 1972b).8 according(1992), NoteRickford to thatthe Neg) and Miscellaneous ( provides the participants' Miscel.) categories overwhelminglywithcontractionof _Gon(na)his total percentage isenvironments follow most stronglypersonal of rankingcontractions. pronounsfavored second. in (he, _AdjP Ron's she, we environments,use and of they). copula For all three speakers, both contraction and deletion percentagerespectively.copulashave been that added of occurred copula in order beforedeletions to account not (.31), and for ambiguous thoughcontracted his environments, and/orpercentage deleted of Of the three speakers, Ron displays the greatest 95%constitutesalmosttheIn the three of Person-Number equalthe participants. totalthe rates majority number (.43 For category, ofand Ron, deletedRon's .57 contraction there respectively).deletion tokens. is greater Mike'scases; of is variationand theycontractions are constitute occur among atof However, are andcontractioncontrast,copula .03 contractions respectively). Greg (.43 and and (.29)Mike.64 respectively) are have nearly greater identical than percentages they to dohis absencedeletions. of copula (.02 In Across the board, both contraction and Greg'sdeletioncontractionsare represent case, involve are 78%only is the contractedofconstitute theplural/2nd total at22%.number a singularrate of .62,contractions, auxiliary. while is contractions while His three cases of copula copula deletion Finally, in his is phonologicaldeletion8 are environment.favored when 1,abov a vowel (1969; constitutes 1972) and the Baugh preceding (1980) involveoccur at the a lower plural/2nd rate ofsingular .38. Greg's auxiliary. two cases of In addition to copula deletion, an analysis was also formandincluded 99% past of formspresent the time. of forms theFollowing Other copula, of is Don't am asRickford are, inCount (She since (DC)etwill amal 12g (1991),occurscases here included incases and full She oranalyzed nonfinite contracted mis here.) for copula variation /rn/,doubleconstructions,conducted and negatives, /ay/ of reductionthestressed speakers'/d/ and and to /t/ unstressed/a/. usesubstitution the habitual been, for verbal /th/, be, non/ty -s, reduction edSAE deletion, tense to None of the speakers employed Ron'sexposeddistinguishsick)Additionally, were DC (i.e. casesnot from clause tokenscounted totaleddeletion final) of since 291,the and contractedsuch Mikes contractionstressed sentences DC positions is cases followedin are rapid totaled phonetically were speech. by also 294,a sibilant not and difficult counted. Greg's (He to0 Copulas in useintodrivingdone me!?"contrast of or the down the Ron unstressedto habitual theGreg'sdisplayed freeway displaybe, been 11 though talking casesoccurred of two, Mikeofabout non and in used WHY P SAEMike's r'l's the tense whyspeech futurelack did constructions, thereof. yoube in do "I Thethis be four times, 354 exposednitetotaled and 283. positions. past A forms large partof the of copula,each participants' as well as DC copulas cases inincluded stressed nonfi- and 347 Mike's348 speech 3 times, and Greg's speech twice. Ron displayed 355 Carla Revisited Jacobs-Huey U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics , Volume 4.1 (1997) Table 1: Copula Variation Across Three Speakers providedfouremphatic cases 7 ofcasesweight. verbal Mike's -s single use of the double of double negatives, all of which carried and Greg displayed one case. negative is also Ron SC* American) (AngloRON SCAmerican)(African MIKE SD SC American)(AfricanGREG SD ofphonology,thought 76%, to61%, have Ron and beenverbalized 53% used respectively. for /th/, emphatic /ij/, and Mike purposes.both and /y/ andGreg At /er/ at a rate the level ofverbalized phonologicalPreceding Env. .05 SD'- .02 deletionthese variables show qualitativeat relatively parallels higher rates.and as such, it is not surprising Labov (1969b) has argued that AAE contraction and GrammaticalFollowing Env. VowelConsonant .95 1.0(.: 1.00 1.00 .98 1.00 thatGregenvironmentdeletions they and are Mike,quantitativelyrespond accordingly however, in parallel parallel deemshow wayshim veryas well. an fewto "authentic" Ron'sfollowing quantitative contractions AAEgrammatical parallels speaker. and in Followingtheirspeech,repertoiremarginal (relatively (KroskrityLabov AAE of social low) speakers.(1972a), percentage1993),identities these a discourse enacted speakersof contractions through analysis qualify each and ofas select"lames" participants'deletions. speech or Yet, to more fully appreciate the Subject. . tsce_ samples is offered below. Pronoun OtherPersonal Pronoun .85.10 .95 1.00 1.00 .82.15 1.00 Transcript8. 1 is an excerpt from two hours of Ron's speech that is Qualitative Analysis SingularPerson-Number PluralNoun Pronoun/2nd .05.57 .95.05 78 1.00 .62.03 1.00 features.9Transcriptmarked by 1:grammatical, Ron Excerpt (NOTE: Bold words and phrases phonological, and prosodic AAE TotalOverall* Straight # ofPercentage Tokens Contraction, ** Straight3rd Singular Itletion .31.4341 41.29.05 .43.2263 .0263 .6441.38 .0341 1 Lanita: Do you thinkRon'srepresent it's speech) going an orthographic to blow up again? rather than phonetic representation of C=contraction,StraightStraight/Romaine Contraction D=deletion, Deletion F=full F+C+D C 42 Ron:3 transformationbecauseMaybe not like dis I year.said, (.1) notIt'llwithout justdefmitely change real changes, blow but tra:nsformationup againwithout I mean real 35 -4-C4-13 BEST COPY AVA/LABLF 349 350grammarbeen9 removed and phonology. inThe efforts majority to focus of the more interviewers' exclusively minimal on Ron's responses use of AAE to Ron's talk have 357 5 Carla Revisited (1) um the same things'll happen (.1) okay (.) you know Jacobs-Huey U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) 9876 (.1)ha:dokay(.) it's of with (.) likea recessionit's deregulation(.1) not and (.) struggling making agli automobiles who the with parts are sellingus and anymore (1) there's youparts have thatHonda no a Honda differencetransnationalism and uses Chrysler betweento sell likeand its grammarthecontrast,construction,cars voiced no there more",and alveolar isrelatively"There a relativeand fricative i5 one highno abundance more /th/.1°use ofbetter ofprosodicRon's /n/ business and limited /d/and substitution practices.use of AAE forIn phonological 25242322 Lanita: But you say that like that has somethin' to do with why makingGMcars! (.)>ain't thePeople parts< even buy (2) sellingHondas becausecars no of more their reputationthey 0 just so hiskeyAAE relativelyAfrican features American limitedindex an useidentity African of AAE for American surveygrammar listeners.style here which is not might unlike likely his Ron's use of the African American prosodic system and 2726 Lanita:Ron: = simply waythere .entire causedwas saying set a certainof the occurrencescivil incident level unrest of (1)to destructionthat meI think wouldis like it andnegotiatedduringthree slightly speakers. our the 45formal use minuteAs ofsuch,nature a formalinterview. this of my excerpt register inquiry. is through not atypical the contextualized of his speech Here, I may have actually 21201918 put athethis band-aid wrinklesway of on kinda and this everything makingyou know everything will and bewe okay canall right< butsmooth in (.)N_Q outWe Way can haveTranscript been bolded 3: Greg below.) Excerpt (NOTE: Collectivizing pronouns 25242322 givecreateunrestIn Hella few (.)(1) is thismaybe gon a befew okay more by um just access identifying (1) for this some as anof We're gonna come inteenagers (1) we're somegonna jobsget a um we're going to 4321 Lanita: upset,tothe Ia rebellionmeant lot um, of toandurn Patask urnstudents (ayou somemutual about wereat friend UCLAum just your of kinda A G feelings lotta& nonchalant LJ) people andurn Iregarding talked wereabout 282726 occuryoungerreturnns into again will the generations returnestablishmentand if tothis don't normal means decide but ifthat basicallyWE hey, we meaning thishave isthings to not pullwe going would asevery the to 8765 Greg: thetheU:m whole fact yeah issue that upset howhalf would didmy itneighborhood affectbe an you?understatement was burned in light down of 32293130 webanksmeansblack have and politicianthat to start we invest haveour ow ownsolely to of pull foundations their in all our ofcurrent ourown (1) dollars businesses officeif that out means(1) of if sowhite that thatwe 1110 9 understoodandsorryurn (1)so for forthHow you whythat did know gotIit feeltook their(.) about allplace their the it? and storespeople To I aunderstood burnedcertain that that downdegree thatKoreans /n/ excerpt, can Gregeasily often be explained fully vocalizes by the /th/ preceding and the guiltybe another slap in the face cause they're gonna be found otherweremiddle,classdoes?" asked,cases, background Survey lower "Could"What orparticipants theethnicityany would speaker variation youdoalso pass you insayresponded asbetween)?"think the white speakerthe tospeaking speaker the Many isquestion, from theis,"respondents way and (upper, "What hein communitymarking24]).phonological Greg's his usepotential byenvironment of aligning collectivizing membership him (-`...and with pronouns, within nen the the plight thedoes watchakalit..." African the of mostthe American African work [line in alsoresponses,speechwerepolitical speculated encouraged samples orientation on intheto listenmaking ofpotential the to three boththeir age, speakers.the assessments. educational sound and the level,Following content and the their the interviewer revealed the Survey ethnicparticipants and of the class his"brothas"whichheAmerican notesstatus situates that as (pronouncedresidents African "half him my impactedwithinAmerican /bi-/a-is/)neighborhood the by as affected inthethis line Rodneyterm was 25communities. is burnedalso anKing in-grouppotentially verdict.down" His reference (line signalsIndeeduse of7) Ron.commentsbackgrounds and of questionsthe three speakers, about the which three often speakers, elicited particularly insightful Survey administrators included two African American 9.to an African American male Survey Analysis American.werefemalessurvey Anglo respondents, and makeMalesAmerican, two upconstitute white the 845 (9%) remaining (49%)males, 59% were were all (54) Latino, college41% African of the(38).and entire 6 sample, and students." American, 33 (36%) Additionally,(7%) were the Asian Of the 92 basisspeaker'sPreviousprovidedNinety of voicetwo studies ethnicity,ethnic people cues indicate and aloneclass listenedclass that(cf.background, assessments Harmslisteners to the 1961; makeandabove of1963,even interpretations the excerpts personality Buckthree 1968, speakers. and about on Shuythen the a ethnicityAfricanmajority,respondents Americanand 83%, class ranged were background and betweenbetween Anglo of16-25 10-45Americans' Ron, years Mike years old. and assessmentsin Tableage, though 2 provides of the Greg.12 LinnJacksonet al. &1969, Piche 1971, Tucker 1982). Giles & TheLambert& Bourhis earliest 1969, 1976,of theseDe JohnsonStefano studies 1971, &were Buttny Koustaal conducted 1982, & assisting1211 in the collectionTheI ofam these fewindebted timessurveys. to when Jason survey Baker, participants Jason Schiffman questioned and Jocelyn which attribute Henry to for 362 characteristicsin laboratory as settings whether and a speakerelicited islistener mean judgmentsor nice, an onathlete such or polar a 355 thenweigh356 content. most heavily, they were admonished to consider sound first, and 363 Table 2: Race & ClassCarla Assessments Revisited of Speakers Jacobs-Huey speechU. Penn Workingplaced him Papers closer in Linguistics to SAE, 92% of Volume 4.1 (1997)people surveyed Race &Assessments Class (Angln:RON (AfricanMIKE (AfricanGREG SAEwhite.classified of Greg, all him three whose as Africanspeakers, speech American, iswas classified thought while asto only Africanbe the7% mostclassify American by closest to him as .-,.., Americ:nn) ''Ye ) American) American) of85% the of survey the people respondents. surveyed. Greg was classified as white by 15% In terms of class rankings, Ron is AFRICAN AMER;Low .. 48% ,-(72/ 1% 412210 4% (accordingperceivedtheMike survey is overwhelminglyas to lowerrespondents90% of class survey byconsidered considered 48%respondents). of survey Greg to be Sixty-fourto respondents,middle be middle to percent upper to while upper- class of MidLow-MidUpper-Mid 22%18%3% 40%30% 1% 49%12%16% 9.1.class.middle class, while 16% cl,assified him as lower to lower-middle Ron .. ANGLGAIVIE Upper , ...... :5% _ I% 20%7%,. !:::: 3% useRon's of useAfrican of an Americanadolescent prosody variety, (i.e.,marked rhythm most andstrongly tempo by his and MidLow-MidLow 3%1% - 5%1% 13% 1% speaker.thattimingclassifications, he andwas pitch) a lower renderingand to phonology, lower-middle assessments convinced class such African manyas, "He's respondents American black!" and Fifteen respondents were quite adamant in their UpperUpper-Mid - 1% - speechpeople"He's definitely whoover-performed classified a brothaT" Ron to someas African extent. American For example, also found several his Yet a substantial majority of the UNSURE= 1 According' " to the linguistic analyses presented above, Ron '' ".. ' .: % televisionIce-TSeveraltryingrespondents and to others soundthecomedy, stated parodied compared intelligent Inthat Living nonsensical Ronhim or soundedpejorativelyColor." to sound inmate Additionally, inauthentic, white toof the the (Frazierrapper former twoas ifand African popular he1957). actor was commensurateassessedclassifiedGreg'sappeared toRonRon withbe asasan these whiteAfrican"authentic" findings, sad American. another AAE92% of speaker, twotheOnly survey respondents two while respondentsrespondents Mike were and speech was more similar to SAE. In a manner alignmentForblackAmerican these and respondents, white,respondents and hence Ron's assumed ambivalentalleged that bi-racial Ron about might identity his ethnicbe triggeredmixed identity. with his with a "militant" (Afro-centric) perspective and class13undecided." commented, "He'sOne slipping African Americanwith his accent. (female) You who know classified when Ron it's as white and middle However, though a linguistic analysis of Mike's likevoice,14 Ice one T, joked,but he 'Dudecan back got up lyrics!' his words.' andOf severalanother respondents comments, who 'He laughedsound immediately upon hearing Ron's Ironically, though, Ice T is Ron,shaky!" "He's a white boy tryna send black." This survey participanit echoed the classic characterization364 of 357 (,;OPY AVAILABLE 358hisfrom use a ofmiddle AAE. class background who is a successful rap artist because of 365 (over)performanceCarla Revisited of AAE. This findings resemble Dillard (1977) Jacobs-Huey respondentU. Penn Working commented Papers that in his Linguistics speech was a bit "shaky" and two Volume 4.1 (1997) whichparticipantsmiddleandconstructed Baugh's Mitchell-Kernanand uppercommented (1987; in middleopposition 1992) that class (1969) research Ron toAfrican "proper" soundeddescribes on Americans. hypocorrection southernor as "good" a term Others or English"country," which among survey is(cf. beabout(Africanwasrespondents anything socialized Ron's American potential speculatedbecause in a blackand ethniche's that Anglo environment.trying Ronidentity, American)was too onea hard." lower alleged,Of who theclass two were"He white respondents [Ronj undecided male could who This comment also thatupperclassificationLawrence Ron class "sounded and 1977). Africanas educated." anThose African American respondents American (26%) who oftenand described respondents did so onRon the qualifiedmiddle basis to What are we to make of the Ron's overwhelming rambled,someasseems African wayto etc.)characterize American(e.g., some thebut felt sentimentsstill Ron's felt hisspeech of speech those was whowas over-performed, inauthenticclassified Ron in suspicions?markersAmericancontextually to Part varietyargue, ambivalent of the in that myreason is op is replete thatii why ion he rathersurveywith employs prosodic cogently, assessments an adolescent and a liberal phonological of Ron positionAfrican are prosodyGreg's9.2. relatively served, forlimited many use African of AAE American grammar, respondents, phonology and to Greghis lack consciousness. Africanwithinessence,educated,with respect Americans.the Ron'syetAASC. tohis speechimproving speech In this varietyvariety sense, economic serves Ron comes asandto a marginalize pointsocial off toof conditions listenerscontention. his status as for In communitiesbeginsestrangedcharacterizedsignify his excerptfrom several the by black placing times community, himselfas an African within despite theAmerican theAfrican fact whoAmericanthat Gregwas which of racial were burned during Thus, Gregthe was 1992 civil socioeconomicclassthrough speakers his excerpt within class does is the more not African meshoften American welldetermined with conceptionscommunity. in the AASC ofAs middle bySince an Further, Ron's identity as constructed for listeners nerd,"Africanwellreferringdisturbances as "white-washed," anAmerican to Anglo African and Americanuses assessed American andgenitive accused Gregrespondent, residents. pronouns as him a "wimp," of who "talking"we" identified "black and white."I5 "us" but Greg whenhe's The as a African Americans, as (Morganeducatedindividual's 1994a), speaker. real Ron's or Yet perceived messagethe adolescent educationalserves speech to signal status variety his versus statusRon employs incomeas an 15 sense,stereotypicaltendedeitheris stigmatized with lower-class to the hypocorrect black use and ofor middle as toblack such, alignor and over-performaffect compelshim, upper isin mostaclass listenerslinguistic AAE. convincingcollege toForand studentsclassify metaphoricalmany, in marking who hisRon's as clubs,storymoreinterview. Greg "educated"about was Having his compelled experiences speech been toaccused to what shiftatInterestingly, a he ofclub, his called, "talking discursive Greg "ghetto white"thiscomments strategiesaccusation gear." by several onIn theawayhis is followingwomenconscious one from which at Greg discussed in our ethnicracialcontenthim as identity)(which lower-class is suspiciously for or asome Africanmilitant awkward respondents American.African as Americanto meant Forsuggest others, confused who that Ron'sfelt he themay about message need be his bi-to someonecommunicateondisdainsituational the dancefor that's codeshift being floor, withghetto accused totheyou inan person a haveAfricanof certain talking to that American useway, white: you're common you're "...style talking notIf senseofyou communicating speech to. plan and onand you getting his strongcause out You .. have totalk to 366 American,perform his identityAsian American,by speaking aand stereotyped two Anglo variety Americans, of AAE. When Ron was assessed as white, as he was by an African 359 a modethat.the360 communication I onehad nightsomeone and processItell was me kickin ..is I not came it. taking I hadI was aplace toothpickkickin because it Iin was my they really mouth can't in ...relate ghetto I was to 367 African,Carla Revisited Asian and Anglo Americans who classified Greg as white Jacobs-Huey U.speculated Penn Working that he Papers interacted in Linguistics regularly with Anglo Volume 4.1 (1997) Americans. heclassifiededucatedand sounded middle and Greg educated class used as oftenblackbig or words. eloquent. attributedand middleWhen it Asians class,to the manyandfact Anglothat commented he Americans sounded that Mikecomments,upperinOverwhelmingly, their wasclass. classifications six"obviously commented Anglo of intelligent"AmericansMike that ashis African speech provided and Americanwasone positive stated and assessments that middle Mike to Of the nine Anglo respondents who provided "eloquent" and that 9.3.verymiddleMike well was to upperspoken predominantly class. and Manyused classified"good respondents words." as Africancommented American that he wasand Mike In his excerpt, Mike Anglo-AmericanassessedremindedbutAmericans stuck asthem Anglowith who of and antheprovided American Anglo onebasketball Latino comments,American by player respondent.three classificationAfricanoneScotty was Of Pippen. American,initially the two and Mike undecided, African the three was other respondentscommunitytakesverbalizesimpressed an assertive his to preferencegive stance him a againstofmiddle the term politicians,to upper "riot" class over and rating. "civil then callsManyunrest," for of severalaction. African His problem-solution basedAmerican, Asian, and exposition Anglo remarked10. that he was "more articulate." Summary maturitythesenegativecases, respondents ofhowever, feedback his ideas feltMike'sfrom reflects that AAE preference dboth aspeakers certain his use whoclassfor of theconsidered background.language term riot himand Inaroused to thetwo hold asThese statusauthenticeither1980). findings in"lames" the ThoughAAE AASC.challenge (Labovspeaker, linguistic Additionally, 1972a)traditional survey and or discourseresponses authenticdescriptions while Mike analyses reveal ofis consideredhisAAE present marginalized speakers Ron to as an speakers (cf. Labov be Americansreclassifiedrespondentscases,little affinity Mike whohim continued wasto astheidentified initially African African to listen thoughtMikeAmerican. American toas the Africanto Additionally,becontent community. white. American of his some Inspeech, and two African middle other they Yet, as survey andconsidereda marginal through AAE todiscourse a competentspeaker analysis. by AAElinguistic speaker standards, by survey respondents Butters (1994) argues that because AAE speakers, he is by and large in"militantto thatupper frame class as of though mind also so remarked heI had was ih toothpickmixed that he with in sounded my black mouth "whiteand kickin white." backwashed," um and .. I "lame"grammaticalparticularlylinguistic AAE non-adolescents, descriptions features speakers of at AAEof best speakerstend in or, not their as to can Ron exploitspeech easily illustrates, theat end anyentire up one presentproducingrange time, of Yet, as woman.toofmewas youclub) white talking as and So andopposed shetoI 1forgot somewas kind've to thinking wherewoman talking assum,,d I What!was into heher and oh White.club like Iwell was andI'm Now hetalking shetalking must I ...happened to hadbe to her athe oreo,(namelike tonerve beI'm why ofin talkingto (nameclub- is call he speakersviewedappreciationandMorgan pride of within(1994a) foran adolescentmanynor the argues, use AfricanAASC of SAE.thoughAAE asAmericans, a Invariety wayAAE fact, to is theas this negotiatesymbolic "authentic." ability does not toofone's speakprecludeethnic economic SAEloyalty their is from commentthattalkingbeing because whiteto youme you soknow. proper? call 1 me didn't So white white. appreciate and So I'm you itpissed atknow the off timeyou because haveso you to I'm knowbe veryaware .. andfar of ... So 1 don't, think 1 don't really appreciate that AASCusedAmericansuccess by risks Africanin discourse a marginalization. society American styles. which Itspeakers continuesLikewise,is only whenthat Greg,to their marginalizeSAE whose status is the speech within only code was the African certainbecause people I don't in like a certain to get way. comments like that, 1 try to avoid talking to 368 361 362shown via linguistic and discourse analysis to be most closest to 369 SAE,Carla isRevisited seen by many African American respondents as having a Jacobs-Huey U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) identityshiplow senseand andalignment of (linguistic)racial withconsciousness-despite the ideology African for American members his expressedcommunity. the AASC. member- After These findings also implicate the politics of language, Bailey,Anderson,References B. 1965.E. 1977. Toward Learning a New How Perspective to Speak inwith Negro Style. English Unpublished Dialectology. Ph.D. dissertation. Stanford University. otherFormiddlesurvey many white respondentsclass African background,speakers' American discovered of manyAAE] critics, thewere failure theRon extremely fault was to layacknowledge white withincritical and his offrom [andhim. the a Baugh,Baugh, J. 1992. J. 1987. Hypocorrection: The situational Mistakes dimension in production of linguistic of power.vernacular Language African Arts AmericanAmerican12(314):317-26. Speech English 50:171-77. as a second dialect Language Communication anytimethemselves,privilege1990). and associated Ronenjoy could the with privileges switch such linguistic to thus white associated (begin speaking (cf. Royce SAE) 1982, at For example, several respondents noted that, unlike ethnic options (cf. Waters Baugh, J. 1980. A Reexamination of the Black English Copula. In W. Labov Academic(ed.),64: 234-40. Locating Press. Language in Time & Space, (83-106). New York: Woolard11. 1988, Waters 1990, Kroskrity 1993). Conclusion Brown,Bourdieu, D. P.1991. 1991. Communication Language & Symbolic Skills: Is Power. Black DialectCambridge, Keeping MA: Us Harvard Out of CorporateUniversity America?Press. Upscale Oct/Nov:34-35. AmericanCarla,In replicating this paperspeaker Hatahas and critiqued la (1976)speech notions and community Labov's of an "authentic"(1980) which assessment are African based of Bucholtz,Brown, C.F. M.1991.1968. AllThe The Language Kids Are of Soul.White. Esquire, Mother Vol. Jones. 69: Sep./Oct:73-74. 88+, (April). theThrough NWAVE African 25 Conference, American Vernacular Las Vegas, English.CA (October Paper1996. 17-20). presented Marking at Black: The Construction of White Identities "authenticity"exposedbehaviorprimarily ofuponthe Ron inadequacy linguisticwith and anlisteners' adolescent analyses. of assessmentslinguistic speech models of variety. Ron, that this paper has In exploring both the speech Similarly,associate Bucholtz, M. 1995. From Mulatta to Mestizo: Passing and the Linguistic NewGenderReshaping York: Articulated. ofRoutledge. Ethnic LanguageIdentity. and the Socially Constructed Self. in K. Hall and M. Bucholtz (eds) ListenerdotoMike's problematizenot usespeech responses adolescent behavior the which use varieties ofand were "lame" listeners' acrossantagonistic to describe aassessments variety of AAE Greg'sof social ofspeakers primaryMike contexts. serve who use Butters,Buck, J. R. Attitudes186.1968. Theof College Effects Students. of1984. Negro When Speech & White Is Monographs,English Dialectal 'Black Variations Vol. English 35: 181- UponVernacular'? Journal of addressingof meanandSAE cultural indirectly to speakthe consciousnessquestions AAE?,indicate of the forrole members of AAE asof athe symbol AASC. of Thus,racial in Who speaks AAE? and What does it Button, G. 1987. Answers as Interactional Products: Two Sequential Practices UsedEnglish160-171. in Linguistics,Interviews. Vol. Social 17, Psychology 29-36. Quarterly, Vol. 50, No. 2: thelinguisticquantitative AASC. and and social qualitative complexity forms characterizing of analyses AAE to describespeakers andthe this paper has advocated the utility of Cutler,DeBose, Cecilia. C. 1992.1996. Codeswitching:Yorkville Crossing: Black A EnglishCase Study & Standard of the Effects English of Hip NewLasHop York Vegas, Culture City. CA on Paper (October the Speechpresented 17-20). of aat White the NWAVE Middle Class25 Conference, Teenager in in the 363 364 Development.African American Linguistic Repertoire. 131(1- 2):157 -67. J. Multiling. Multicult. 371 Carla Revisited Jacobs-Huey U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) Dent,De Gina.Stefano, 1992. J. Black Popular Culture. Seattle: Bay Press. The Florida FL Reporter, Vol. 9: 23-27. (Spring/Fall).1971. Black Attitudes Toward Black English: A Pilot Study. Hatala,Harms, E.L.S. 1976. Environmental Effects on White Students in Black UnpublishedQuarterly Journal Master's of Speech. Essay. Vol.University XLVII, of No. Pennsylvania. 2: 164-168.1961. (April). Listener Judgments of Status Cues in Speech. Schools. The Dillard, J.L. 1977.(ed.) Lexicon of Black English. New York: The Seabury Press. Mouton & Co. 1972. Black English, Its History & Usage in the United States.1975. Perspectives on Black English. The Netherlands: Heard, R. 1994. The Wigga You Love to Hate: What's Up With Hip Hop's BiggestJune. Identity Crisis: White Kids Tryin to1995. be Black? Rap Pages, In H. Duranti, A. 1994. From Grammar to Politics: Linguistic Anthropology in a NewPress.Western York: SamoanRandom Village.House. Los Angeles, CA; University of California 1975. Some Linguistic Features of Negro Hewitt,Henley, R. N. 1986. White Talk, Black Talk Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. psychology:ton,Landrine DC: American Theory, research,Psychological and practice,Association. 1st ed. (Ed.)Ethnicity and Gender Issues in Language. Bringing cultural diversity to Washing-feminist Fasold, R.R and Walter Wolfram. Analysis.inDialect. the Schools In Arlington, Black and American In VA: Literature,1972. Center English: fored. Appliedby Its Paul Background Stoller.Linguistics. Delta and its Usage Tense Markings in Black English: A Linguistic & Social Hymes,Holm, J. D. 1979. Sapir, Competence, Voices. In C. Fillmore, D. Kempler, W. SpeechWang 59:291-309. (eds.)1984. Individual Differences in Language Ability & Behavior Copula Variability in BE and Its Creole Kin. American Ferguson,Fickett, C.J. 1977. Baby Talk as A Simplified Register. In C. Snow and C. FergusonCambridge (eds.) University Press. Talking to Children (219-37). Cambridge: Johnson, K. BlackPatterns(33-36). English Newin the York: (296-306).Black Academic Community. The Netherlands: Press. In1972; J. Dillard 1975. Mouton (ed.)Black & Perspectives Kinesics:Co. Some on Nonverbal Communication Frazier, E. Franklin. 1957. Black Bourgeoisie: The Rise of A New Middle Class.Linguistics. New 6:17-19.York:1972. The Tense Free & Press. Aspect in Black English.1991. Journal of English & Johnson, F. and R. Bunny. 1982. White Listeners' Responses to "Sounding 49,JudgmentsBlack" No. and1: 33-49. About"Sounding Language. White": The Effects of Message Content on Communication Monographs, Vol. Gal, Susan. ogyresearchPress.Gender in the on Postmodernat languagethe Crossroads and Era gender.(175-203). of Knowledge: University Feminist of California Anthropol- Between speech and silence: The problematics of In M. deLeonardo (Ed.) Knobel,Jones, S.A. B.1988. 1993. 1994. Black Black Rhymin' Culture Like Me. Provides White Spin, Youth. Oct:74-78.a New Basinstoke: Voice for MacMillan. Russian Youth. LA Times, June 8 (Calendar). Giles,Gilroy, H. and P. R. Bourhis. Hutchinson.Communication Monographs,1987. Vol. 43, No. 2: 108-114. (June). There Ain't No Black in the Union Jack. 1976. Voice and Racial Categorization in Britain. London: Kroskrity,Koutstaal, C.P. 1993.and F. Language, Jackson. 1971. History Race and Identification Identity: Ethnolinguistic on the Basis ofStudies Biased of (March).Speech Samples. e.hio Journal of Speech & Hearing, Vol. 6: 48-51. Gumperz, J. UniversityPress. Press. 1982. Discourse1971. Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Language in Social Groups. Stanford, CA: Stanford Kroskrity, P. (Eds.)Linguisticthe Arizona Ideology. Tewa. Tucson: In P. Kroskrity, University B. of ShieffelinArizona Press. and K. Woolard1992. Special Issue on Language Ideologies, Pragmatics, Arizonav.2, Tewa Kiva Speech as a Manifestation of Hall, Stuart. 1992a. New Ethrucities. In J. Donald and A. Rattansi (eds.) G.Race, Dent Culture (ed.) Blackand Difference. P, pular Culture. London: Seattle: Sage.1992b. Bay Press. What is this "Black" in Black Popular Culture. In Labov, W. 1984.1991. FieldThe Three Methods Dialects of the of Project English. on In Linguistic P. Eckert and (ed.) Variation. New Ways In No.3:of Analyzing 297-309. Sound Change (1-44). New York: Academic Press. Harms, L.S. Identification. Lingua, Vol. 12: 300-306. 1963. Status Cues372 in Speech: Extra-Race and Extra-Region BEST COPY AVAILABLE 365 366 EnglewoodJ. Bauman Cliffs, and J. NJ: Prentice Hall. Sherzer (Eds.) 373 Language in Use (28-53). Carla Revisited Jacobs-Huey U. Penn Working Papers in LinguiStics Volume 4.1 (1997) Labov, W. HighfieldOrientations (eds.) in New Creole York: Studies, Academic1980. (389-424). Press. A. Valdam & A. Is There A Creole Speech Community? in Theoretical Morgan, M. 1996b. More Than A Mood or an Attitude: Discourse & Verbal Genre in African American Culture. Salikoko Mufwene, John Labov, W.. 1979. (327-340).FactorsWang in (eds.) LinguisticNew Individual York: Variation. Academic Differences Press. in Language Ability & Behavior Locating the Frontier Between Social and Psychological In C. Fillmore, D. Kempler, W. Morgan, M. AfricanRickford,RealitySociolinguistics. American inGuy Creole Bailey English. Situations and London: John (121-50). Baugh Routledge. Los (eds.)1994a. Angeles: The CAAS. African American Speech Community: Reality & in M. Morgan (ed.) The Social Construction of The Structure of Labov,Labov, W. W. PennsylvaniaVernacular. Philadelphia: Press. University1972a.1972b. of Pennsylvania Press. LanguageSociolinguistic br the Inner-City: Patterns. Studies in Black English Philadelphia: University of Morgan, M. AnnualAfrican Review American of Anthropology. Life. Manuscript Vol. 23: 325-45.1994c.1994b. Just ToTheories Have Something: & Politics Camouflagedin African American Narratives English of in Labov, W.W. 1969b.1969a. Contraction, Deletion & Inherent Variability in the .English Reporter. Spring/Summer: 60+. The Logic (.f Non-Standard English. The Florida FL Morgan, M. LanguageAmericans. Varieties (423-35), Athens: University of1993a. Georgia Press. InThe S. Africanness Mufwene (ed.) of Counterlanguage Africanism in Afro-American Among Afro- Labov, W.W. , 1966.P. Cohen, C. Robins, and J. Lewis. StandardWashington,Copula. Language, English D.C.: of Center 45, Negro 715-62. for and Applied Puerto Linguistics. Rican Speakers in New York The Social Stratification of English in a New York City. 1968. A Study of the Non- Morgan, M. Association,Identity.Women's Presented Discourse.92 , Washington, at the Pragmatics Annual D.C. Meeting, 1.4:421-52. AmericanI 993b. Anthropology1991. HipIndirectness Hop Hooray!: & Interpretation The Linguistic in ReproductionAfrican American of Lawrence, L. Folk2,City. Washington, ThoughtFinal Report From D.C.: Cooperative Sla 0 likevery of to Education. Freedom.Research Oxford:Project 3288,Oxford1977. Vols. University Black 1 and Culture & Black Consciousness: Afro-American Mufwene, S.S. UniversityEnglish Language, Press. Vol. 6, ed. J. Algeo.1994. African American1992. English in The Cambridge History of Ideology and Facts on African American English. Cambridge: Cambridge Linn,LePage, M. R.B.and G. and Piche. D. DeCamp 1982. Black ( Us.). and White Adolescent and PreAdolescent MacMillan.Press. 1960. Jamaican Creole. London: Preston,Myhill, J. D. Pragmatics,Vernacular. Vol. American 2, No.1988. 2: Speech 141-66.The Rise 63.4. of1989. Be As An Aspect Marker in Black English Perceptual Dialectology: Nonlinguists' Views of Areal Loflin, M. 1970. On the Structure of the Verb in a Dialect of American Negro EnglishAttitudes LinguisticsVol. Toward 16, No. Black 59:14-28. 1: 53-69. English. (February). Research in the Teaching of Richardson,Rampton, B. C NewLinguistics. York: Longman. Providence, RI., USA: Forris Publications.1995. 1991. Crossing: LanguageHabitual & Ethnicity Structures Among Among Adolescents. Blacks & Whites in the Mercer,Mathews,Major, C. K. 1994.M. 1994. N. Juba1996. Black to The Jive: Hair African A /Style Dictionary American Politics. of AfricanStudent's American Social Experience Slang. New at York:UCLA. Penguin Unpublished Books. Master's Thesis. In (K. Mercer) Welcome to Rickford, J.J., A. Ball, R. Black, R. Jackson, N. Martin. 1991. Rappin on the Speech.Copula19;0s. Coffin.60:2,99 American Language -125. Speech, Variation 66.3, Fall.1985. & Change 3, 103-132. Ethnicity As A Sociolinguistic Boundary. American Mitchell-Keenan. C. 1969. Language Behavior in a Black Urban Community London:the(Working Jungle: Routledge. New Paper Positions No. 2.1, Language-Behaviorin Black Cultural Studies, Research (97-128). Laboratory, Rickford, J. J. 1977. The Question of Prior Creolization of Black English In IndianaPidginEnglish &University CreoleBIN In Linguistics,AnalyzingPress. Variation ed.1975. A. Valdman,.in Carrying Language. the Eds. New R. Wave Fasold into & Syntax: The Case of Black Bloomington: Morgan, M. AmongUniversity African of AmericanCalifornia, Women. Berkeley. Forthcoming Publication.1996a. Conversational Signifiing: Grammar & Indirectness 367 368 Press.R. Shuy, pp 162-183. Washington, DC: Georgetown University 375 Carla Revisited Jacobs-Huey U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) of Sankoff,Royce, A.P. G. 1989. A Quantitativc Paradigm for the Study of Communicative Competence.Indiana University In J. Press.Bauman and J. Sherzer (Eds.)1982. Language in Use Ethnic Identity: Strategies of Diversity. Bloomington: Turner,Waters,Walker, L. M.S. 1971. Black English. In Black World Vol. 20:4-16. (June). Angeles,Chicago Press.CA: University1949. Africanism of California in 1990.Press. the Gullah Dialect. Chicago: University Ethnic Options: Choosing Identities in America. Los Silverman,Shuy, R., J. S. Baratz, 1975. andThe W. Learning Wolfram. of Black 1969. EnglishSociolinguistic by Puerto Factors Ricans in in Speech New Identification.(18-49).D.C.: EnglewoodCenter for Applied Cliffs, NJ:Linguistics. Prentice Hall. Researcih Project No. MH.15048-01. Washington, Weinreich, U , W. Labov, and M.I. Herzog. London:(eds),Theory Directions of University Language for of Change. HistoricalTexas Press. Linguistics (95-189), Austin and In W.P. Lehmann and Y. Malkiel Empirical Foundations for a Silverstein, M. Clyne,TheYork. Netherlands: In W. J. Dillard Hanks Mouton (ed.) and PerspectivesC. & HofbauerCo. on (Eds.) Black English, (331-357).1979. Language Structure and Linguistic Ideology. The Elements: A In R. Whatley,Williams, E. 1981. Language in Black America in Language in the USA. ed. C. S.Press.Ferguson and S. Brice-Heath. 1971. Black Talk: Creative Communication. Ufahamu, Vol. 2: Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Smitherman, G. AmenChicagoParasession Corner. Linguistic on New Linguistic Soci_ity. York: HoughtonUnits and Mifflin.Levels (193-247). 1994. Black Talk: Words & Phrases from the Hood to the It Bees that Way Sometime. in Language: Introduc- Chicago: Winford, D. PolylectalCaribbeanD.61-7. (Spring). Creoles,Grammars. American Pidgin SpeechCreole 67.1.Language.1990. 5(2):223-52. Copula1992. Variability, AccountabiLy and the Concept of Another Look At the Copula in Black English & Smitherman, G.G. 1977.1985. Boston:Martin'story Readings, HoughtonPress. eds. Mifflin. V. Clark, P. Escholz, A. Rosa. New York: St. Talkin & Testifi,in: The Language of Black America. Woolard, K. LanguageKroskrity,1988.K. Codeswitching Ideology, B. Shieffelin, Pragmatics, and and Comedy K. v.2, Woolard andno. 3:Catalonia. 235-249. (Eds.) Special In M.1992. Heller Issue on Language Ideology: Issues and Approaches. In P. Speicher,Spears, A. B. and S. McMahon. 1992. Some African American Perspectives onIntroductory Black English Readings. Vernacular. Ed.1988. J. LanguageCole. Black New American & York: Society The English. 21.383-407. Free Press. In Anthropology for the 90s: Wulff, H. Cross-Cultural(Ed.)and Codeswitching Teenage Perspective Femininity (53-76).995. (63-80). Inter-Racialin Berlin: South London: Moutin.London. Friendship: Routledge. Consuming Youth Styles, Ethnicity In Youth Cultures: A Stewart, W. 1969. Historical & Structural Bases for the Recognition of Negro Univ.No.Dialect. 22, Press. ed. J. Alatis, pp. 215-25. Washington, DC: Georgetown In School of languages & Linguistics Monograph Series BoxUCLA, 951553 Dept. of Anthropology Stewart, W. 1968/75. Continuity .t Change in American Negro Dialects. In J. Netherlands:DillardEnglish (ed.) Teaching. Mouton Perspectives & InCo. Social on Black Dialects English,1965. & UrbanLanguage (233-247). Negro Learning: Speech: Sociolinguistic Factors Affecting The Los Angeles, CA 90095-1553 Tucker, G.R. and W. Lambert. ProceedingsReactionsEnglish.Shuy, 10-19. ofto theVarious Champaighn, Bloomington, American-English IL: Indiana National Conference Dialects. Council In 1964,of J. TeachersDillard ed. R. (ed.) of 1969/1975. White and Negro Listeners' MoutonPerspectives & Co. on Black English, (369-377). 376 BEST COPY AVAILABLE The Netherlands: 369 370 377 U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) ofof the a WhiteInfluence MiddleYorkville of Hip Class Hop Crossing: Adolescent Culture a Case Study on the Speech man.growMike2. Likeupis the from many is sonthe of ageofhis a peersofclose six. he friend He has is suffered ofa tall, mine. blond, through I have sociable thewatched young him Background divorce of 1. Introduction in New York City Cecilia A. Cutler Atandobservingproblemshis around parentsbegan hiscollecting ageheand language has 12,this Mikehad has data practicesinprobably beganin late to1995 sincecontributed identify when 1992 withMike when to some"hip was he hop"was 15of yearsthe about culture. social old. 12 recent years. I have been passively ofEnglish.This whiteAAVE paper girlLabov because revisits who (1980) was she Hatala's thoughtarguesonly acquired (1976) that to speak Carla study a subsetAfrican is noton ofCarla,an American phonologicalauthentic a 13 year vernacularspeaker and old wasaroundwiggasneakers,He wore commented or the baggywhite and same developed jeans,niggaon time and a byhe oftenreverse Smitherman's begana taste ridiculed baseball to for change rap by definitioncap, andfamily the shaved hip way members hop hehead, music spoke. whodesigner Thissaid (1994;168).' At a differencessystemphonologicalyear-oldprosodic of features.boy AAVE. between andwho, lexicalIn Howeverlike thisMike Carla, workfeatures and there I demonstratesCarla:look but are at lacks thesome speechthe importantthe tense useof anda ofwhite socialaspectmany 16 Carla grew up in a conversationalphoneparticularhe "sounded call marks with likerepair hishis a to earlystreetbest a typical friend,attempt kid AAVEor Mikeathoodlum." imitating form. demonstrated AAVE.One incident During a quick in a attendsluxuryenvironmentoverwhelminglymainly condominiuman African exclusive in Camden, American.African private on ParkNewAmerican Most high AvenueJersey, of school. Mike's neighborhood whereas in NewfriendsCarla's MikeYork arefriends and white. livesCity school were andinWhile a I) (age 13) Observed by Cutler, Mike's motherMike:Mike and spokeI older gotta to ask,brother a friend I mean as on AKS the phone:my mom. In his description of young people in South London, [ofculture's]explanation.adaptCarla's black to adoption her differences,culture]... Asenvironment, Tricia of AAVE as drawnRose a forbidden Mike'sfeatures writes, in by linguistic mainstream whitesmay narrative, have are behavior "fascinatedreflected social [and] constructionsbegsa an symbol by effort another [black toof groupstheirwhiteHewittthis cultural neighborhoods manifestedhe (1986) considered allegiance shows itself anti-African pass that with among throughsome blacks" American. whiteother a phase (1986:159). adolescentsways "inHe inwhichaccused vocal In in theyMike's hisprimarilycriticism display case of mother roleAmericanwhitesrebellion" of suchhip youth speech (1994:5). hopas my cultureculture. informantmarkers Thus inIn the tile isthe to anmotivations following takeconscious attempt part in pagesby the adoptionof young youngprestige I shall middle ofwhitesdiscuss of African African class likethe AmericanISpain).of Smitherman racism He friends when was describes ashamed sheas "el affectionately negrito." a to wigger live on (Hisor Parkreferred white mother Avenue nigger to isone andfromas of 'an pretended his Madrid, emerging African to heavilyofpossibleevidenceMike AAVE to onexplanationsadopt that features Roger his AAVE target Hewitt's has for features isbegun why indeed work now toin AAVE, decrease.theiron white speech, and creoleThe discuss present analysis use some inlinguistic Britaindraws of the at the age of 16 his use Normanparticularly'throughoutaspectspositive of termMailer African in for the dubbed white Americantwentieth youth them who century.Cultures.'"white identify Negroes." with hip hop, rap and other U.S. history, there have always been wiggas, In the 1950s, whiteShe goes writer on to say that Their numbers are and 378 (Hewitt(Rampton 1986), 1995). as well as R ampton's "language crossing" model U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics, Volume 4.1, 1997 exposuresignificantly372(1994:168). to African larger today American than inCulture previous made generations possible bybecause of the television'379 liveYorkville in Brooklyn Crossing by giving out his older brother's Brooklyn phone Cutler self-consciousU. Penn Working addressing Papers inof Linguisticsthe microphone interspersed with Volume 4.1 (1997) henumber.graffiti]bound expressed up with with his his identitygang friends, culture. in began his Heearly experimenting often teenage went years"tagging" with were drugs, [scrawling closely and had Mike's perception of "hip hop" and consequently the way analysisagainstanimated, aon backdrop unconscious approximately of "hip interactions six hop" hours and of among recorded"techno" Mike material. music. and hisI base friends my thefivethroughschool,run-ins doctor's weeks withseverala 'friend' oforders the recovery tendons police. wherepushed inand Ata bed, group Mikeathe nerve he end of wentthrough inrivals of each outhis (perhaps freshmanwrist.toa glassCentral After gang door, yearPark surgery members) cuttinginagainst high and WolframTable4.MyhillAAVE. 1 below 1986 &Labov Fasold outlines have 1972a, 1974all many commented Labov and of Labov the1980; linguistic on Labov1972a the relative features &as Harrischaracteristic ease identified 1986; with Ash which byof & Linguistic Observations playedwouldwhite.mentionheld him Mike'soutscare here down immediately. himthat mother and mostinto broke desperatelyaof Hemore thehis continued kidsarms passive involved withhoped to lifestyle baseball see that in the these these samebutbats. incidents thisexperiences friendsIt iswas well were andnot to compareseesituationanotheroutsiders in Table dialect cantowhich AAVE acquire 1 versus mostis born are superficial theof phonological. out thedifficulty in elements Mike'sphonological of acquiringOfspeech in these Mike's and as the the lexicalwell. speech mostgrammar As features common we can of which a kindergartenwasissomewhat. thinkingejected at He fromabout the is end happier theSATs of French his atand freshman his college. newschool school,year. Hehe ishad gets much attendedpassing more grades likelysince and to Now at age 16, Mike has modified his behavior phonologicalothernasals,post-vocalic,features vernaculars absence are stoppre-consonantalvariations of pronunciation finalin New sodental we York r-lessness, muststops, of City alsoword-initial and possess takevoiced off into-glide dentalsome dentalconsideration absence. stopsof fricatives, the before Manysame the teenagersinmanycharacteristicallyuse South standard of hisLondon eventually friends.English AAVEis restrictedHewitt ceaseforms phonological usingiii(1986) formalto adolescentscreole found settings, and at that about lexical andcreolebut the continuesthatfeatures ageuse most ofby sixteenaroundwhites towhite use presencepredominancestudybefore determiningof lexical of Creoieand what grammatical featureshis target in actually thefeatures local is. inyouth Hewitt Mike's vernacular. 1986 speech in his A on young people in South London observes the markersinteresting(1986:193). in theto In see yearslight how toof longcome.Mike's hc recentcontinues attitudinal to employ changes AAVE it willspeech be occasionallywithformsadolescentssimilar any without phenomenon regularity of indiversethe his risks asspeech. ethnic showninherentmay backgroundsThebe in in at Tablemost outrightwork notable1 thoughinaccess appropriation. examplesto some black do linguistic appearare his Mike uses none of the grammatical features of AAVE the U.S., allowing attitudesaskedparticipantThe3. data Mike andconsists observation. if behavior. he wouldof individual He Inlike hadNovember, to recently beinterviews, part 1995 seenof my groupthewhen study film sessionshe on"Kids" was teenage 15, and Data Collection I ofmentioneddislocation,formsoccasional the salient aboveuse and features of demonstrative onthe dialect past of the perfect acquisition, AAVE alternation. in narrativegrammatical Mike In hasline style, not withsystem concord acquired the such studies with any as of "be", negative concord, question inversion, left MikefriendsIinitiallyimagining was the able whorecorded tape Ito waswere recordertape doingsome incidentally some upon one-on-onea similargroup Ids suggestionall sessionsproject, interviews.white. wasMostwithso he eagerSeveral severalcouldrecently to recordweeks take of I loanedMike's part. somelater, I fromwhitespeechInthird Figure singularrandom speakers are 1 comparedbelow, -ssamples absence,for three the to ofsame phonologicalinvariantdata his variables.speechgathered "be," in variables oronwhichThe regular African data I observed counted copulaon American Mike deletion.tokensin comesMike's and of sessions with his friends. Th:se sessions are characterized by some 38 0 BEST COPY AVAILABLE 373 374each variable for the duration 38 of1 one side of the tape Yorkville Crossing Cutler U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) PresenceTable 1 of AAVE Features i:i Mike's speech Frequency of Observation ComparisonFigure 1 of Three Phonological Variables pitotsologisol-AAstopcons. VE pron. cluster Features off eatier.es simplification-voi.dental : fricatives t# ,F7-4=--- Common --.Qceasional . iNiever: 111-7-177=1espost-consonantalstop pron. snes of s+voi r-lessness dental fncauves V absencevoiced1.'":7=, dental of 7ilessness final stop dental before stops nasals V V past-perfectIrregularGrainrncalc04,FeWIPX,:.:. past-tense tense in forms narrative style-..,:r_f:4:4::,,-..,:.,',:qi.,,,,;, :+4-,6, , Corp:sop: =',4; -,Occasiong:.-..::',1,:ti:fl'''',.' qtleFer- :".''. absencethecompletive remote of time thirdaspect aspect person with with singular -s done been .././ invariantconcorduse of with be forms for SE didn'tof f moregraph,(approximately closely Mike's than speech 15 northern minutes follows whitesfor that each acrossof variable). northern these AsparticularAfrican we can Americans see in the variables. negativeuse of ain't concord for SE am not, tsn't etc. v V featuresEach of arethe discussed variables below. as well as the data and other phonological questionleftnegative dislocation inversion auxiliary preposing v V 4.1.1.4.1. Schwa Pronunciation of 'the' Preceding a VowelPhonological Features auxiliarydemonstrativeabsence of deletion possessive alternation -s (have) v V CorrelatescomesTheConference data from for of whites Sharon onInter-Ethnic New and Ash Ways blacks and Contact," of on AnalyzingJohn the schwaMyhill from Variation pronunciationthe (1983) Twelfth in Sankoff Annual of 'the' (ed.) "Linguistic 332 copulaauxiliary deletion deletion (will) v 375 376whites1986. (who Ash andhad Myhillextensive compared contact the with speech blacks) of 24 across blacks and 5 BEST COPY AVAILABLE 3 8 3 three thephonologicalYorkville pronunciation Crossing and four of the grammatical word "the" variables. varies according In standard to theEnglish first Cutler 0)to U.Labov'sthan Penn to white BlackWorking New Working Papers York ClassCity in Linguistics vernacular speakers who speakers average at only 60-80% 5-10% (r- Volume 4.1 (1997) Fasoldspeakersconsonantletter of theuse follows followingthe schwa and pronunciationwoi[ow] d. if "The"a vowel iseverywhere follows. Many (Wolfram AAVE & 1974:146). Mike uses the schwa pronunciation pronounced [be] if a in 3)examplesin theVocalization same of theenvironment twoof word-final (r -0) environments (Labov /r/ preceding 1972a:39). discussed a 61%vowel: Extracts above. 11/18 3 and tokens 4 are = 2)(1983).comparedapproximately Schwa Extract Pronunciation to 30% 70%2 is amongan of exampleofthe thc pie-vocalicthu whitesof this. instancesstudied by in Ash one &sample Myhill as : 7/10 70% 4) Post-vocalic, pre-consonantal hi: .20/27 tokensMike: = 74%YoYo, man she I'mstill pumped looks her up age. for this party tonight! [jo Ji stil luks he eij] 4.1.2. R- lessness: (r VI V; VrC) Mike: Dass the other side that fucks it up. [dees oe Oa said diet fuks it op] I4.1.3. observed Stop two Pronunciation types of stop pronunciation of Dental ofFricatives dental fricatives in [jo mean aim pamt op fo ois poidi tenait] LabovtheTheandlessness social data WNSstudy onand for groupswereinter-vocalic stylisticblacks all are fromand stratification compared.2 whites Inwood, comes of aThe workingaverage from six white Labov (r)class indices adolescents neighborhood1972a:39 for BEV wherein the .ind post-vocalic, pre-consonantal r- reachedpronunciationdentaldemonstrativesMike's fricatives 36%. Approximately of such voicedas in as the 'the',dental word 50% 'this', fricatives of'with'. the'those' word In in etc.,one wordfinal sampleand voicelessinitial of voiceless theposition dental stop speech: voiced dental fricatives in articles and alittleenvironment.veryin vowel, upper vocalizationsimilar Manhattan. but pronunciation Labovfor ofall word-final commentsTheseof the whiteofblack (r)that workingwhen togroups the blacks "Inwood the theclassnext except vocalization groupwordspeakers in begins theshows showedr414tV withrulevery 5)isfricatives one(age such 15; in 1995)example. the word 'with' were voiceless stops.Mike: nuh...yeah,Extract 5 belowbut I had to verify DUH SHIT WIT YOU. (1972acommunity,bythatoperates a even vowel :13). herewhite as "(r) Mikeatin r-less leastfourbecomes demonstrates New o'clock,50% Yorkers aof glide thebut time"that aorpronounce generally disappears for (1972a:40). many an high in (r)in the whenthis rateLabov AA position" offollowed speech notespost- 4.2. Grammatical Features [no je bet ai heed to vertfai de Pt wit Wu] tokensaimpressivethevocalic word age were (rboundary.of -0) 13is (r-0) hisin and spite rate in neither Inthis wordof a thesampleenvironment, finalaru fact any (rthat of -0) of Mike'she when his(61%), was family followednotspeech, which r-less members. 11comes bybefore aout vowel closer ofaboutMost 18 at AmericanfromsomeMyhillResearch uniqueother 1986 byspeakers EnglishLabov andon the predictable who1972a;1980, grammar appear grammatical ofto Labov AAVEhave acquired& showsHarris rules the whichthat1986 AAVE it and setpossesses itAshdialect apart & dialects. Labov's work on non-African identicalalthough2 It must be granted that Lahov's data is results,it's unlikely there that is morea recent replication of his study would yield evidence nearly 30 years old and suggesting that andeffectivesuggestingfeatures.suggests prosodic usethatThe that featuresof theydiscussion stress, she rarely waswhile pitch, mainly ofacquiredisplaying tempo, "Carla" able many and infrequent to certain 'soundof these syntactic,use black' grammatical of the through lexicalAAVE typifies this pattern by muchintervocalic, a part of and AAVE post-vocalic as in Bat ighpre-consonantal (1983). r-lessness are still very 384 BEST COPY AVAILABLE 377 378tense and aspect system (Labov 1980). This is not to say that a 385 Yorkville Crossing Cutler U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) Africandemonstratesthenon-African white American informant American a higher informants "Ron" are rate not c discussed infable copular the to study. learn deletionby AAVE Jacobs-Huey's than grammar. either (1996)Indeed of the My informant, like Carla, has a limited range of AAVE lexicaldefineAlthough4 . 3 . someoneitems the by use aswhites AAVE an authentic is anterminology intriguing speaker, phenomenon.alone the adoption does not Inof serve spiteAAVE toof Lexical Features Americans,conformspast-perfectSEgrammar would to i.e., infeatures,demand the place in typeplace of the the themost of simple most simpleain/is/are commonly commonpast past, notform e.g. or of usedIhave/has 1 didwhich had that.by done is non-African notHis the that instead use use where of of ofain't the languagesFolbyoungblackthe stigma (1980)youth people" and attached culture havedialects (Hewitt documented tois among AAVEin 1986:102). fact young ain 'prestige' whitethe AfricanMitchell-Kernan existence society, variety Americans. "theof amongst generational language(1972) According many of and did6) not as in Extract 6. SHIT.Mike:(age 15; ((CLICK)) 1995) Conversation YO, don't worry between about Mike NUTTIN' and friend. BRO. IT AIN'T establishmentcomn.unity,followto (1972:3).Fasold, a fairly expressions liberals,rapid cyclical from and finallythese pattern generational pass in whichon into theydialects fairly arise general "...generally in the use" AA are adopted by 'hip' young whites, then by vocabularies.whichfromhard toso many makefew tokens. any non-AA claims Extract about 8 is Mike's arguably knowledge an idiomatic of this expression feature I even found a few cases of copula deletion but it would be teens have incorporated into their ATable Sampling 2 of Hip Hop Vocabulary 7) poker:Mike:(age 16; What 1996) up? Group What session:up? Mike and friends"For are Northernplaying strip urban Vernacular Black English, the rule bootybitchbeefb;ayite bee 'buttocks''woman''problem''friend''all right' mo'madmai'moill 'more''very''mother''i'm'wierd, going obnoxious' to' belowdemonstratesvariable"that restricts although (Wolfram 'is'this it tois non-standard thirdnot & a Fasold part- person of featureshis singular everyday as shownsubjects speech. in seemsthe example to be 1974:157). Mike occasionally cribbuggin'bro'datchill shit 'that'house''calm'going'brother, shit' down' crazy' friend' steppin'sisterphatnigganah to 'aggressively 'sister,'good,'fellow'no' great' blackblack woman'brother' 8) (age 16; 1996) Group session: poker:Mike: These niggas IZ got shoes on! Mike and friends are playing strip frontin'flyfinedowndope 'showing'good,'sexy,'in agreement' hot'great' off y'wordwhatwhassup?; all up?up approach''you'for'what's real; all' up?' in fact' nativetheLabovMike's difficulty speakers.1980; speech Labov of seems Theacquiring & examples Harristo confirm t AVE 1986; listed grammaticalthe Ash above findings & Myhill(no.s offeatures 6-8) 1986Labov suggest regarding for 1972a, non- that Over all the relative dearth of grammatical features in homeyg; geehoochieherbhell yeah 'friend''nerd,'yes'woman' indeed' loser, (pej.) geek' wordwhackyouyo know? 'Do you understand?' 'really;'great,'hey you' excellent' for real' 336 whetherMike is or not he produces them on a regular basis. at least aware of certain features of AAVE grammar 379 380 337 Cutler U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) wide-spreadYorkville Crossingbut the appropriation of AAVE lexical items into the Limited use of AAVE forms among white youth is very 12) (age 15; 1995) Mike:...YO, he better know some BOMB BITCHES down there!! everydaywhatassociateduseunmarked of is markedregardedvocabulary with aregard formsparticularas markedof to whiteswhere ethnicity speech or unmarkedtherebysocial itemmust or(Hewitt berendering with distinguished 1986:127).regard these to ethnicityfromforms Clearly the ethnic information is 13) (age 16; 1996) Mike: ((singing with a Jamaican accent)) ...letwrote...yup,wrote,Maxi, me tellya murder gonna ya 'bouthuh, sayshe huh, Iwrote, don't huh, know murder hup, what dah, she I know,huh, wrote, huh...what but murder murder cha she she areLaughingmid-1990sSomemay listed differ of thein Pit from AfricanTable most Home group 2common below. AmericanPage to groupRap I lexicalwould youthDictionary or fromargue items culture one that andVol. asmost expressions 1"reported onof thethese byWWW from 'The locality to another. items interestingwhite friend. is probably Smitherman the Mike's (1994) use lists of several nigga alternative[nrge] to refer definitions to a Ofgonna all do, what cha gonna do....AYITE, AYITE!! the marked terms appearing above the most observedexplainbecomingAfricanare recognized the Americanin lesshisorigins casual asso. ethnically ofMikerap/hip speech.most was ofhop and theable music sociallyitems to accurately sceneon marked the butlist thatdefineandas part mostmany but were arenot of the crossoveraccordingnowhereforranging a "Black from can worldto man",it anSmitherman refer "African and to to a a "rebellious, white American" "created person IN-YA-FACE a (1994:167).in linguistic general to White dilemmaBlack a generic use man" inof term hasthebut in the African American community" certainwordsinappropriate,analysis are items of used" lexical appear due(1986:130). evidence to in therelation relative What is tonotoriously canothers. infrequency be noted In difficultthe is excerpts withthe frequencyand which below probably most that we As Hewitt (1986) aptly points out, any "quantitative differentor(1994:168). whitesthenot termwhites meaningsare niggaShe still can refers veryhave isthat still sensitive tolicenseBlacks themarked on-going giveto about use is to reflected theusing it"controversy 'N-word'(1994;168). it. Mike in the about denies Thefact "whether factthat using that most the with the many letters.9)vocabulary.see (age a few 16; 1996)of The the lexical items itemswhich in appear question frequently appear in upper case in Mike's theirofwhiteterm different friendsand teens, never ethnicinincluding informal uses backgrounds, it Mike aroundsettings. as wellhis Clearlyuse mother as this young this term or issue people olderroutinely raises brothers. from toquestions arefer range to Yet 10) (age 16; 1996) Mike: You ever hear of Frank Frazetta? Dis is somelikeYO. aYO, PHATthousand when SHIT dollars.the dude Yo, dies, tell dis me book THAT will SHIT probably is not bePHAT! worth here.Theacceptlanguage,about subject the whites motivationsand is thecertainlyusing extent the of worthy toterm young which nigga of whites Africanmore to refer attentionto Americans appropriate to their than whiteare can such aware be friends. loaded given and 11) (age 16; 1996) Mike: Dis is gonna soui.c1 MAD weird YO. Don'ttouchworry. worry,it!! I'll Don't put don't THE touch ;;HIT it!!! off!!!I got this Don't over touch here! it. CHILL, don't 5.Young people in New York City have the opportunity to observe AAVE Acquisition by White Teenagers Mike: Look at this, NICGA! What the fuck isHe'sTheseCHILL!pants got down! NIGGAS aShut hat NIGGA, theon. iz fucl.Yo, goi look y'allshoesup! atLookNIGGAS theseon. Thisat NIGGAS. these haveNIGGA'S NIGGAS like CHILLI ten got timesover shorts CHILL! here.more on. this?!...Put yuh (lowerwithoutsidecorners,first handkids 'hangingeast in fromparks,a side),variety 'uptown'out' night and withof clubs Brooklyn.linguistic (Harlemhis etc.friends Mike formsandSome where spends the inof heBronx), subways,his acomes great favorite 'downtown' intodeal on contact of socialstreet time clothes than me on. 388 381 382activities, tagging, playing pool, drinking beer on the street with 389 Yorkville Crossing Cutler U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) linguisticlowerorcontact friendssocial eastand groups.roleand conflictside modelgoing project One with outfor white kids Mike.tohas clubs from friendbeen This onother something inyoungthe particularneighborhoods weekends man ofattended who abring social and lives Frenchhim ethnic andin into a MacNielCalloway,Harlemplayed in Renaissance (1986)bringing Count describes Basie, blacks brought Duke and how togetherwhites Ellington, whites together jazztraveled and legends linguistically.Louis to Harlem such Armstrong. as to CabThe see There is an historical precedent for the role that music has Yorkdisciplinarya fewwhiteschool City years vernacularwith African problems. before Mike American whenandMike His standafd theyspeech for and poorboth patterns HispanicEnglish were academic childrenare speakers.teenagers closer performance but to Hewittwasthanthat suspendedofto New local(1986)and "riff"ExpressionswhichCabthese Calloway's performersare he justrepeated such a few "Jiveand as infrom "groovy,"were talk"his Calloway'ssongsfascinated or the "have has language withpassed lista ball," (MacNeilblack ofinto "hip," the music. standard jazz 1986:224)."jam," Much players use.and of contactexpressions"amongstAfricanpoints out with American thewhite African spread "Janus-like" youth" culture Americans.to white (1986:144). rolemake adolescents of them such whitesa beacon who whose havefor its contacts little promotion with In this way words and direct prerequisitebyandWhite little phrases audiences the generalto for "show languageand public howjazz smartfollowedreporters contact and suitbeganupthe to (MacNeilquestion date employing they 1986:224).of were" how these and whites words little In the absence of the sort of social contact that is a havethehaswhite beenair animated in teenagersI 1989believe saleship raphave hop music.figures sky-rocketed cultural Ever for rapsincestyle (Rose music "Yo!and 1994). aestheticsamongMTV "Rap Raps" middle musicand went haveclass videos on The other significant source of Mike's AAVE acquisition middlemydiscussedexplainableactually informant's class above. mainly suburban acquisition Music in terms adolescents has of ofcertainly the AAVE sortwho ofplayed ashave musical it doesfar a significantless crossoverfor direct other contactappealrolewhite, in acquire AAVE is crucial and would appear to be comingdialoguefacilitatedallowsand race" out in the a a of(Rosecross-neighborhood, sociallistener New 1994:9). environmentYork to read City, The and Oakland,inclusion that then is highlylearn andof lyric theLos segregated sheetslatest Angeles. expressionsin by CD These class cases cross-country (transnational?) music.perhapswhiteincreasewith African audiences. It justin will the Americansas be number much interestingIn today's a ofthan transmitter 'black' Mike.televisionto see sitcoms In whether of recent linguisticdominated on years thesetelevision weinformation programs home have with thisseen large will anas is DogLLanthewords avid speechCool to and namerap J, expressions of fanTwo teenagersa sincefew. Live Hehe haveCrew, was acrossnow become12. listensPublic the His entire incorporatedfavorite toEnemy, a country.combination groups and to Mike's Snoop someinclude of hasextentrapDoggie Ice-T, beenand in haveseenroleto come.any inall effect thethe transmissionrecent on the so-called speech of of"Hood AAVE white Films" suburbanto whites dwellers like Mike. in years He has Finally, recent films on black inner-city life have played a several times in some teenagerswhichscene"techno" and AAVE music appearhas a lotexpressions to of acquire cross-over AAVE pass appeal vocabularyinto for rap fans. largely by watching Music is traditionally been one of the main pathways by a style which grew out of the DJ dance-hall white culture. Today's City"Brooklyn"theoutcases ofHomeboys" (1991).Brooklyn" (1991), He (1991),(1991),also "Menace says "Boyz'n"House he tohas Society" the Party"seen Hood" Spike (1990` (1993), (1991), Lee's "Straight and "Do"Hangin' "New the out Right Jack wli;c:: have emerged in recent years including "Straight with of presumablywhitemusicareway. popularmusiciansvideos, Rage acquire Against whitebuying who the groups theexperimentrap style Machine, music, at and tne format andwithmoment The studying the Beastiefor rap whichtheir and lyricBoys, songs have hip sheets. Beck hopinemployed the genresandMany same 3-11 rap culture.fromglamorizedtoThing" transmit to (1989) constructIt would version, views at leastbestereotypes ofimpossiblewhich threeinner-city white or about four to teenagers ghettoobjectively Africantimes. life,These Americanscan measure selectively films haveand the hipchooseeffectsserved hop in some cases a 300 music sounds and vocabulary in their music. 383 384each of these sources has had on Mike's acquisition of AAVE. 391 SufficeYorkville it to sayCrossing that each has undoubtedly played some role in this Cutler U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics streetassociate culture. the languageIt is for these with reasons a distinctly that, amongst some Volume 4.1 (1997) oppositional process.I6. will now turn to the questions of what AAVE crossing reveals Ethnic Identity and Crossing' Similar observations of the associations between black (1986:137)rangewhite adolescents, of real creole has come to be employed and playful competitive situations. English and in a perhapsissuethroughpersonabout ofa could speakers' notaskin combination impossibleconstruct color ethnic would a blackof foridentity. languageof others identitycourse It to seems use, acceptmakefor him/herselfdress, plausible it this more friends identity. difficultorthat vice etc. a Given white versaThe but theirteenage(1963),streettheir speech culture status boysKochman can inand thethecreate some school(1972),United an girls, aurapecking States and employing of Folb toughnesshave order. (1980). In anthat inner-cityFor may many setting been made by Abrahamselements of AAVE in help ensure white this tryingteenagersblacksthattrying such to are constructextremeto who probably associate employ casesblack quite themselves elements ofidentities whitesrare, of tryingfor withblack themselves. tothe youth pass qualities themselveslanguage Rather black they are off youthnotare as it may be assumed that most sons"Teenagecase.may actuallyand daughtersGangland" be an environmentalof [December New York's 16, adaptation elite 1996] join which gangs strategy describes or as how the New York Magazine recently carried a lead article entitled "crews", deal in Carla's creoleInthatspeakerslanguage the group sameand usesconveys. willstreet vein a beparticular culture Hewitttransferred Labov as (1986)variant1972 the to observedreasonthat thenassesses linguistic the for thatsocial the its "ifappeal connectionvariant" values a certain among attributed(1972a:25). groupbetween white ofto haveyoung"prepprivatedrugs, been school people andschools part steal interviewedgangsters." of have toa gang amuse witnessed or inMike crew.themselves. the thearticle admittedThe growing crews although Some knowing discussedpresence of he the claims many city'sinof theso-called never offinestarticle the to adolescents. particularlybeenThe economic historically in urbanconditions placed contexts, in in post-slavery which have blackcontributed societies, people to have andthe economicallythaninvolvementare madejust a flirtationdeprivedup with of wealthythese withyouths sorts gang fromupper of culture youngHarlem east as people sideandthe severethe teens represented Bronx. physical Mike's more scars along side quickcultures,strategiesemergenceindividual wits encompassing and of survival.ideologies, 'Ilse a combinationtraceable association in many of of toughness this urban street black and code potentially a strand employed in ofusually the malesurvival service of whiteprobablyofthathe belongingbears the teens average attestbe saidto to. amiddle forcrew In themost or class way gang cases hipAAVE to howeverhopbe fashionable. crossingfan only it would functionsplays The bewith same fair for the to couldmost idea say as a way to imbue themselves with the aura of a exactlyasestablishmentwith 'role'a resource lower-class associated forof thesuggesting withtower-class them those forms very of qualities black language and the this reference for many young blacks, who life and language ... the use of creole has has led to the employedtough,"occurrencesSouth urban Midlands: by stylish the that young minimalblackdeviated people teenager. crossingfrom in the his characterized ordinary" study of adolescentsthrough by the the marking usein the of "aof Rampton proposes three distinct levels of crossing foreigneroutgroupbroadly3 to talkuse a range ofand"Language prestigious theof sociolinguistic notion Crossing"a of "marking" practices term as coined aincluding way byof differentiatingBen the dominantRampton (1995)refers minority codes, pejorative secondary crossingsmallofcrossing 1995: outgroupset involvingof characterized208-210;218). fixed phonology terms the useand by Granted of moreformulae";and weakly prosody;random Rampton ritualized more and and extensive isinnovative extensive,describingforms (Ramptonbut application jocularadolescent serious wayoneself of assertingfrom those an being alternative imitated identity as well (Rampton as the white 1995). use of AAVE as a 392 BEST COPY AVAILABLE 385 386fromcreole white use in AAVE the U.K. use whichin the U.S.,is arguably however different the idea in that many crossing ways 393 Yorkville Crossing Cutler U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) believehasrather"themotivations many desire encompass than levels ato ofdesire participate which most what to white index"be is inhappening black" thecrossersdifferent 'prestige' as Hewitt inmight sorts Mike's attach[ed] statesofbest motivationscase be (Hewitt tosummedas blackwell. 1986:94). can youth"The up I as stronglyadolescents(Hewittpressures 1986:48). with from in black predominantly whites youth and culture blacks white in totheir neighborhoods stick early to teenage who years identify often Hewitt found that, at least in South London, white their own culture time.employstermsdescribedThese Mike's ofyoung andlevels as useminimalhas people also ofemployed AAVE provides accordingor jocular generallyAAVE a way crossers.to in Rampton's to variesdifferent understand Thinking depending situations model, theof crossing on howwould and who Mike over behe in downabandon"encounteredSouthand intoperhaps London,the their more hostility forfriendships..." Mike overtsome frombegan signsof the both (Hewitt[ofcomplaining same allegiance sides reasons 1986:49). [and] about toas tend blacks] hisAt what about counterpartsgradually heand age settle to perceived 16, in employsis authority.friendssomeaddressing friends significantly than As andwith thanmentioned in family he other more does membersearlier casesAAVE with otherswhatMike phonology or otherhe doesand is much talkingnotadults and ally morelexicon in about.himself positions so withamong He with of complainedthetheseAmericanas the company sorts racial classmates of inexclusivity complaints of friends. and ofand in InAfrican conversations anti-white one interviewAmericans with hein me general.and as He particular about "anti-white skits" attitudes of his African his friendswelland as in madeovert lexicalspeechparallelsAfrican elementsfeatures. Americansthe decrease Nevertheless,of AAVE/1,1ackas in strongly frequency he as hangs heyouthwith did which onto languagea few some he years employs because linguistic back AAVE whichof andthe it continues to hold among his peers. To use demonstrations14a)"Def (AgeComedy 16: of 1996):Jam." black Mike pride and on blackfriends television (Funny,discussing Joey,programs and black such racism as against whites: Nikki) are crossing.wouldRampton'shigh status now bemodel, more Mike'saccurately formerly described extensive as less extensivecrossing orbehavior jocular Funny:Mike: YEAH, AndLike IHELLif also you think YEAH, watch that LIKE"Def there's AComedy LOT. a lot of Jam" racismwhites. or anythingfrom blacks there to The7.ofneedyoung fact'blackness.' to peoplethat claim hip makesit hopAsas a one culturebroad,some presumably non-African multi-cultural is a creation white American styleof youth African instead teenagers wrote American of ain symbol to the Racism and Crossing feel the Reggieonalwaysracist,know... the stagemakingJackson but with I,says Icracksthe thinkknocking awhole little aboutthere's rainbow jokeat whites ahis lotI doormean of...coalition. but orif you're aJesse white you gonnaJackson know,guy gets I'myou up not have racists.lookyoungwithWWW andthis whites SmithermanHip languageshit???? Hop feel Style Notandthey writes allthat havePage.4 of blackabout us the here"Hey adolescentsright"wiggas" are hey to blacc[sic], hey or who "white wut oppose alright."is niggas"goin' them downMany who are appropriate the hip hop Mike: And like I hate the way, I hate the way theyperson,person...((loudyoubroughtseparate they see completely whenthatthemselves.a freekin' up they laughter)) . "Def when When Comedy theyno, you seclude haveJam", that, I themselveshate like that ...I'm show. glad Like you like that's what I call a jigaboo, no, no that's what I call a they're a culture.stronglytothe the social In issueidentify Hewitt's and of political groupwith words African boundaries" aspectssuch youngAmerican of the andpeople culture mayand may especially orcome fail"fail toacross to be perceivehip hop sensitive strong becausethey'reOTHERYOUwhite just shirt,KNOWthey DAY as whitegobad, AND Iup WASthat's sweat there I WAS WALKIN'that's shirtand WITH whattheyand they'reMY IDOWNhave call GIRL BOOM,aup "Black THE thereJUANITA MEETa"YO, as bastard, Hell" ...MAN, THE 394 at4 Messagehttp://www.streetsound.conzistyle/fashhiphop.html. posted on the "Tommy Hilfiger Fashion Research" web site 387 388 Funny: WIT MY FUCKIN' BITCH!! 395 Yorkville Crossing Mike: YOU KNOW AND WIT JUANITA YOU KNOW I WUZ JUS Cutler black."U. Penn During Working the Papers same froupin Linguistics session Mike and his friends Volume 4.1 (1997) made Funny:Mike: MY AND BITCH!! I EMPHASIZE TWENTY MORE TIMESPRINCESS,CHILLIN' THAT YOU SHE'S MY KNOW, BLACK... MY BLACK GIRL, MY BLACK 14c)"wannabes."mention of a "Yorkville crew" in responseFunny: to a question You see, aboutNAH, I'm sayin' you see a lot of kids who live Funny: Yeah, yeah!! ANYONETHATBLACK SHE'S ((laughter))TO TO THINK BLACK I HAD ((laugher)) MAKE TO DOSURE BECAUSE WITH EVERYBODY WHITE." I DON'T KNOWS WANT like[Harlem]...youdown theyall here these want like... tosee be a uplot fromof kids up running there you around know...like here who you look see [Yorkville] who wished they lived there both'The exchange boys. is marked by exaggerated imitationMike: YOU of AAVEKNOW, bythat's exactly how they are. They resent what they perceive as boundary Joey:Mike: They They go around like they like like these have these like these their these own rich,likeonlygo 'crew' around every,rob n kids shit robbin' and when and then kids. they every Ihave mean night like like15 or every 20 kids other in anight gang. they it's like so stupid...and they white kids especiallymaintenanceimaginarytermbitter. "bitch" Funny at Africanonthem. tothein meanparticular partThe American of tone"girlfriend" African makesof speaker. the Americans aconversation inpoint Mike'shis ofmarked theyinserting stressed is feel mockingimitation isrepetitionthe targeted derisive and of anof FunnyBronx mentioned know of this that Yorkville friends of"crew" his who and arereally particularly come critical of Museumall hang atout night like time. all 200 of 'em by of the Metropolitan from the wanted.andAfricanexclusivity.the word feel American Laterparticularly"BLACK" Teenagers on inand parodies theresentful likeparticularly conversation, Mike what when and he hip perceivestheyhis hopthe friends are boysculture "told"as have complainthe in show'sthey manybought are about racialways intonot 14d)its members. Funny: ...they [Yorkville Crew kids] wouldn't stepyou footknow over they like, wouldn't they're like set foot into Harlem but being14b) victims of black on white racism. Mike: Yeah, I mean ((click )) I have a lot of friendsraces that areand of I don'tother care out once I hear somebody say you know Joey: YOKVILLE."yearthey hetry got to acta go like round their and from like Harlem"YOYeah, you know. I, I mean last they're like "GET OUT OF DIS IZ YOKVILLE, DIS IZ YORKVILLE Funny: Or "white boy", boy"thenanother"OH, Ito WORD-UP,see me,thing 'em there's muchfor me. like BLACKdifferent. Then if I walk I PRIDE"see around 'em then then and I theylikesee 'em urnlike different;you become know I hate that shit, when they say "white Funny: ATMUTHAFUCKA." WOH (war), WE AT WOH." [continuing the imitation] "WEST SIDE, EAST SIDE WE "fromyouI,becausein I'vea niceknow? agotten private I'moutfit You,in into "heyaschool" private yot:arguments white remember you school, boy" know... like just this "ohyou cause is whiteknow, my I'm favorite boy" it's in comea you nice thing, know closeor oror Funnylessnessaspredominantlyto affectthe and stop JoeyinAAVE pronunciation'Yorkville' both white.) pronunciation. parody Funnyand of the'war', voiced employs Yorkville (Theand `th' even phonological"Yorkville as kids' in copula 'this', speech crew"post-vocalicdeletion markers by tryingkids in such arethe r- black racism was also directed towards whites who "want to be 396The indignation the boys felt about what they perceive as 389 demographicallyPark5 Yorkville390 to East End it Avenue is predominantly from roughly white 60th and Street upper upclass. to 86th Street; encompasses the upper east side of Manhattan from Central 397 Yorkville Crossing Cutler U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) order(1996)featuresnoticeablevery lastto cites inparody phrase: hissince similar own the neither speech'WE examplesspeech [ Funny aside of in other whichfrom nor whites Joeya whitefew employs lexicalwho teens routinely "markitems. many black"Bucholtz employAAVE in ] AT WOH.' This is particularly alsoideologicalWhatthinkparticular that heall hehadthis friends shiftmakes beenpoints away would effortsinvolved to from is associatethatto identifying adaptwith Mike the hishim appears Yorkvilleideas with and Africanoneto havebeliefs Crewof these Americansundergone atto onethegroups grouptime. butan or kids]friendsimitationaAAVE bit of don't speechAAVEas ofwill like the patterns.bephonology blackYorkville seen kids below. Mike and crewactually." on Mikelexicon isthe quite otherclaims Funny in differenthis hand "[the everydayagreed does Yorkvillefrom employsaying, speech. that Crew ofquite"this Hishis discussedexperimentsmarkedlyhe is with. in more Inthe with sessionsfollowing hip a 'Spanish'hop with vocabularysection. identity other groupsand through AAVE of code-switching friends phonology he uses and as 14e)askedspecial whether group around these kids Yorkville talk in doesn'ta special even way, likeFunny: Funny black Well replied: kids." they When have the homeboy handbook so. I guess they Rampton's8.whereas in-group(1995) discussion use of Punjabi of Punjabi constitutes crossing a normal shows thatcode- Code-Switching into Spanish Mike: justWHEN follow... I'M STEPPING TO SOMEBODY...Awright, awright [with a heavily affected white accent] switchingwhoPunjabiselectionwords, used terms situation,inventions..." of Punjabi, stock of deprecation, out-group formulae "swearing (Rampton useandperhaps is wasone1995:43). generally aora few valuedtwo numbers, For "restrictednonsensical manypart ofa non-Asians veryto the pseudo-swear smalllocal WhenMike's imitating comments the in Yorkville this exchange crew kids' are speechparticularlyFunny: he goesYou interesting. outknow of theyhis like practice in front oftheir the pants mirror, down pull to their knees, I don't know. Asiansdiscoursefriendsactivitiesmultiracial and for strategyin non-Asian inheritancea which number they peers ofand hadyears..." (Ramptonfigured been inparticipating(Rampton 1995:192).a range of 1995:192). the with entertaining bilingual As a it symbolized "inter-ethnic unity" between helead"steppingtheireffectivelyway implies to language ause fist to sets verythat somebody"fight) himself inforexaggerated alludesa a white white apart (to to context. actfrompeer white'its aggressivelymarkedness tothe pronunciation. use His`wannabe' this use asinword of atypes the'black'way Inis expression this bysomewhatthat termsituating way would and he hop'sGilroyplaysNewmother York upframe (1987:190;217)complains his City 'Spanish'of referencewhere about identity he andhis hasas accentJones primarilyaroundlived (1988:139;218)and his certain grammar. entireblack friends. lifebut He butmore describes wasThe at timesopen bornwork hip in toheof Mike is a bilingual English-Spanish speaker although his wasisdiscussion.ridiculous. notably hesitant lower His to useprovide than of in hip sessionsdirect hip expressions information with other and aboutgroups AAVE the of "Yorkvillefriends.phonology He It is also interestin to note Mike's behavior during this designatethanortheHispanic, Dominican) non-specific someone any white person or orand something New anythingwho Asian Yorkspeaks participation. specifically pertaining City Spanish, use fromto ofMike(usually Hispanicthe Spain. isterm ablea Puerto "Spanish" to cash Rican in onto culture rather comecrew"fictitiouswhospecific upand said at namesseemed "why all.names When ofy'all somewhat such"crews" lookin'I asked as thein at uncomfortable whetherYorkville, me"first for?" avenue any Laterall of eyes that mob" thehe went gavetheboys and subject towardsome knew "heavy absurd, had theMike fat Spanishgrouppeersappears throughsessions toamong have his thereMikewaned, association areand Mike severalhis stillfriends. with examplesenjoys `Spanishness.' All a the certain of young status people among present Although his cultural allegiance to Africans Americans code-switching into In one of the his thelosers" interview to the great suggests amusement he was of somewhathis friends. ashamedHis behavior that during these BEST COPY AVAILABLE 391 in 392the sessiongirls, "Mary," were white who is half Italian half Peruvian and speaks with perhaps the exception of one of 399 SpanishYorkville fluently Crossing and middle class. At one point Mike is Cutler toU. thePenn claim Working that divergence Papers in Linguisticsis a widespread phenomenon thenVolume the 4.1 (1997) hearsuchothercarrying"Gus" Mikeasinstances theonemploys exclaim, ainsertion conversation of Spanish"diablo" "Ay, of tags use collo!"fromwith involveand Marytime severalexpletives. to emblematicin time Spanish times as One an throughoutbutcode-switching expletive of most the ofboys, and the we divergenceethnictowardsinterestingpractice backgrounds convergence of between questions.AAVE black crossing of AAVE the and speech white among crossing vernacularsof adolescentsyoung may people inrepresent the frompopulation avarious trend at an exception to the reported pattern raises some of non-Spanishthecartas."game. next Further The several otherspeaking along minutes. kids into girl. follow the "Give c:ard suit, megame, requesting tres Gus cartas, says, cards yo" in says Spanish another for A closer examination of the lexicon of hip hop shows the "Give me DOS accessiblepossiblecountry,morelarge. andTo this theparallel moreby convergence extentyoung common to peoplethat Rampton's the inmay ofthe use manybe speech ofquite (and hip ethnic wide-spread.of hopHewitt's) young and language social "youth There backgroundsis becoming is code," also a people across the LavocabularytruncationSomeinfluence Raza terms and of of in urban others.such thepart Spanish becauseaslanguage According "liiia" "estilo" of contactfor the to a influence "line"the(style) between "Internet's of have ofcocaine, blacks Hispanic entered Totally and and therappers Hispanics.Unofficial "stilo," hip hoplike a happeningappropriationwhich,sensitivity although in surrounding heavilyof black influenced the youth issue language. ofby appropriation.creole, isThe not sameperceived may as bean the U.S. although there appears to be more AlthoughFrostRapsymbolicbasis Dictionary," and of itmeans this wouldresonance study, "homeboy" thebe prematureexpression Spanishas AAVE (nielsj@ mayto "vato"for make well manysci. suchwas kun.nl;18have young aintroduced conclusion some people April of theby 1996).inon Kid urbansamethe fashionsThe10. phenomenoncovert of black prestige youth of whitesattached culture crossing have to the long intolanguage, provided AAVE theandis hardly musiccontinue new. and to Conclusion areas.AAVEstreet Both culture clearly are associated so has alluring much to higher to .1 white degree status middle with and theexposure.class tough, teenagers oppositional although linguisticandcountryprovide provides and a practice. constant all aover useful Althoughthe source world. distinction of muchThe inspiration term morefor "crossing" this limited for teenagers thanhowever Rampton's inis newthis sort of out-group in totheThe9. what question convergence/divergence one "Arewould black expect and after whitepanel decades atvernaculars NWAVE of affirmative XIVdiverging?" (1985) action addressed Contrary and Divergence/Convergence Debate linguisticunderstandtimeBritain,or Hewitt's in anthis urban, papertheexhaustive mechanisms attemptsNorth studiesAmerican to build and of motivationson settingout-group the idea of languagefor crossing this use behavior. It is impossible to in an attemptmake to sweeping sort of this socialAmericansstrikingsuggestingefforts segregation.at offdesegregation, in that inparticular, blacks In Labov this evidenceas welldivergence 's words, aswas whites presented "thereis due in inis Philadelphia nopartat thedoubt to conference increasing that arethe different directions linguistically. For African ragingcrossinggeneralizationswhetherwidespread. battles among or not inParadoxically from the AAVEyoung media one orpeople case, and"Ebonics" this buteducational isin going itthe is United aon legitimate establishmentagainst States the rule-governed backdrop about of is my belief that AAVE is very statesignificancesociety"symptomaticdivergence that (NWAVEsound that ofof this achanges wesplit reported XIVhave betweim mayPaliel v, divergenceitnessed stand the Discussion:10). black for on "symbolic Labovand the white linguistic and As claimsportions Harris to the to (1986)ofsocial local our front is mainstreamorderhappening.interpretedyouthdialect languageto or participatewhitesimply Young enjoyssociety. "slang" whites in so theUnfortunately andmuchmost prestige "broken often prestige embraceof English." this hipamong does hop features Theteenagersnot and appearfact blackof thatAAVE might to youth black be bein as a trend towards legitimization of AAVE in otherrights minoritiesand privileges," are often such shin :is outjobs from and housing(1986:18). which If there blacks is truth and 400 BEST COPY AVAILABLE 393 394culture or in other cases to emphasize 401. their own ethnic Yorkville Crossing Curler U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) withdistinctiveness African Americans. rather than as a conscious effort to ally themselves Hewitt, Roger (1986). White Talk Black Talk: Inter-racial friendship Cambridgeand communication University Press. amongst adolescents. New York: Anshen,References Frank (1969). Speech Variation among Negroes in a Small Jacobs-Huey,Hill, Jane H. (1993).Lanita (1996). "Is it really "Is there `no Problemo'?an authentic JunkAfrican Spanish American and conference.Anglospeech Racism," community?: Paper Carla given Revisited" at the First from Annual NWAV SALSA XXV Oct. Ash, Sharon and John Myhill (1983). "Linguistic Correlates of Inter- October,DiscussionUniversity,Southern (1985 "Are at black Georgetown and white University, vernaculars p. 22).diverging?", 24 Community. cited in papers Ph.D. from NWAVEDissertation, XIV Panel New York LabovJones, S(1966). (1988). The Black Social Culture Stratification White Youth. of English Basingstoke: in New Macmillan.York City , Linguisticsin17-21. R.W. Shuy, ed., Washington D.C.: Center for Applied Bourdieu,Baugh, John Pierre (1983). (1986). Black "The Street forms Speech: of capital" Its History,in John G. Structure, Richardson, and Survival.EthnicPhiladelphia: Contact." Austin: Benjamins. inU. D. of Sankoff,Texas Press. ed., Diversity and Diachrony, Labov, William (1980).(1972a). "Is Language there a creole in the speech Inner community?,"City. Philadelphia: in A. University of Pennsylvania PressPress. ( I 972b). Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: Bucholtz,Brake, Michael Mary (1985). (1996). Comparative "Marking black:youth culture.The construction London: Routledge of white &Education,ed., Kegan A Handbook Paul 214-258, of NewTheory York: and Greenwood Research in Press. the Sociology of Labov, William, and Wendell A. Harris. (1983). "De Facto Segregation DiversityofCreoleValdman Black Studies, and& A. Diachrony,White 369-388, Highfield, Vernaculars." New Philadelphia: eds., York: Theoretical Academic Benjamins. Orientations Press. in in D. Sankoff, ed., Dalby, 99-138.andCommunicationDavididentities N. H. Washington, through Clarke, inAAVE" eds.,Africa DC: Black-White from Centerand NWAVthe for New Applied SpeechXXV World," Oct. Linguistics.Relationships, W.17-21. Wolfram (1971). "Black Through White: Patterns of Mitchell-Kernan,McCrum, Robert C. (1972). DirectionsAmericanStory of English. speechin sociolinguistics. New acts," York: in J. Viking Gumperz New York: and Holt, D. Hymes, Rinehart eds., & , William Cran, and "Signifiying and marking: two Afro- Robert MacNeil (1986). The Folb,Fasold, Edith Ralph A. (1972).(1980). Tense Runnia' Marking down somein Black lines: English. the language Arlington, and UniversitycultureVA: Center of Press. blackfor Applied teenagers. Linguistics. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Myers-Scotton, Carol (1992). "Codeswitching as a mechanism of deep borrowing,explorationsBrenzinger,Winston. language ed.,with Language shift,special and reference death:language Factual to death," East and Africa, in theoreticalMatthias 31-58. Graff,Gilroy, David, P (1987). William There Labov, ain't no and black Wendell in the Harris Union (1983). Jack. London:"Testing MethodListener'sHutchinson. for Reactions Sociolinguistic to Markers Research." of Ethnic in Identity:D. Sankoff, A New ed., Poplack,NWAVE Shana XIV Panel(1980). Discussion "Sometimes "Are I'll blackstart a and sentence white in vernaculars Spanish Y LinguisticsTerminodiverging?",Berlin: Mouton En 18, Espanol:24 de581-618.October Gruyter. toward 1985, a at typology Georgetown of code-switching," University. Hatala,Gumperz, Eileen J. (1976). Environmental Effects on White Students in BlackUniversityinteraction.Diversity Schools. and Press. In Diachrony, Language Unpublished inPhiladelphia: social master's groups, J.Benjamins. essay, (1971). Stanford: University Stanford of Bilingualism, bidialectalism and classroom Rose,Rampton, Tricia Ben (1994). (1995). Black Noise: rap music and black Sociolinguistics,"Adolescents. New PaperYork: given Longman.Ben at NWAV XXV Oct. 17-21. (1996). Crossing: Language"Language & Ethnicity Crossing Among and Ethnicity culture in in 402 Pennsylvania discussed in Sankoff, ed., (1986). 395 396 Press.contemporary. America Hanover, NH: Wesleyan University 403 Yorkville Crossing Cutler Sales,Ross, AndrewNancy Jo and (1996). Tricia "Teenage Rose (1994). Gangland" Microphone New York fiends: Magazine youth music Vol. and youth culture. New York: Rout ledge. The(PWPL) University is an ofoccasional Pennsylvania series Workingproduced Papersby the Pennin Linguistics Linguistics the Thompson,Smitherman, John Geneva B. (1991). (1994). LanguageMack talk: and words Symbolic and phrases Power/Pierre from the Bourdieu.hood29 No. to 48. the Cambridge: amen corner. Harvard Boston: University Houghton Press. Mifflin. elsewhere;Club,PublicationDepartment all copyrightinof thisthe Universityvolume is retained does of Pennsylvania. notby thepreclude authors submission of the of papers graduate student organization of the Linguisticsindividual Wolfram, Walter (1973). & Ralph W. Faso ld (1974). The Study of Social WashingtonLanguageRicanslanguage in attitudes:East D.C.: Harlem," Georgetown current in trends R. University Shuy and andprospects, Press. R. Fasold, 148-173. eds, assimilation "Objective and subjective among second-generation parameters of Puerto- PleaseVolumespapers. see of our the web Working page for Papers additional are available information. for $12, prepaid. Woolard (1988). "Codeswitchiitg and Comedy in Catalonia," in Heller, Perspectives,ed.,Hall.Dialects in American 53-76. The English. Hague: EnglewoodMouton de Gruyter. Cliffs:Codeswitching: Anthropological and Sociolinguistic Prentice The PWPL Series Editors Clarissa Surek-ClarkAlexis Dimitriadis Laura Siegel NewWorld York Wide University Web Sites: httphttp://www.sci.kun.n ://www s tre e tso nd. :80/thalia/rapdict/dict com/s ty le/fas hhip hop _en. . h htm/(Gal tml . ax y); Editors for this Volume Alexander Williams [email protected] Broadway, York, NYDepartment 5th10003 floor and the PWPL series editors StephanieMiriam StrasselMeyerhoff Charles Boberg U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics HowDepartment to reach the of PWPL Linguistics 619 Williams Hall http://www.ling.upenn.eduipapers/pwpl.html [email protected], PA 19104-6305 University of Pennsylvania 404 397 405 Modeling contact-induced language change U.byfactors PennTable are Working 1. not recognized Papers in in Linguistics the field of language contact as shown Volume 4.1 (1997) 1 . The Problem Naomi Nagy calledstudies.whichhaving factorsinto My ignored account, goal are considered iscertain torather show aspects. than inthe a torangequasi-random My criticize analysisof factors particular samplingwould which notscholars haveof be 15 possible beencase for Table 1 gives an overview of the situation, showing example,play--thereexamineLinguists is or still social argues evensince little factorswhat theexplicitly consensus Neogrammarians the in thefactors that regardingstudy gender are.1 of language rolesthehave roles differstressed change. that over these the However,time need factors from to Eckert (1989:254), for thanaverage,evident.if this 11 work of each the had study26. not More been lists thancompleted.7 social half factors, the studies and thatno study I had originally From TableIn only1, the 15 disparity studies, of26 social different factors factors reported were cited.is lists more On caseandanycommunity social atif everythingdifferent factor to community. maytimes. else have could My different Implicitly,i.equestion held effectsconstant? is, there would in differentis the that suggestion really communities be thatthe and detailed studies factors(randomly) were selectednot reported had atto all. be excluded because effects of social comparisoneachinteraction has been of across socialundertaken cases and linguisticdifficult in an independent or factors impossible. have framework, been The conducted,root making of the While many extensive of the ICAbbreviations1 used in Table 1 Marathi/HindiFactor which measures contact in intensity Nagpur, ofIndia contact (Pandharipande themselvesproblemtreatiseswhole.not also lies onpropose to How indetailed the Language useful fact analysis that, wide-ranging Changes in of general, particular do notprinciples linguists generallycontact for whosituations report the devote field detailed do as a On the flip side, theoretical linguists who write grand 243 FrenchBrahui-BalochiUzbek-TadzhikKaufman1982:97) and Norse1988:70) contact influencecontact situation in on Soviet English (Indic) Union (ibid(Thomason (ibid 263-303) 70-1) & constantherefacts isregarding to show howparticular this gap situations can be bridged. of language change. My aim In order to seeeffects, a uniform v, hether social factors multi-dimensional actually haveapproach is 8765 ChinookMa'aUralicAsia-Minor (ibid interference Jargon 223-227) Greek (ibid (ibidin Slavic256-262) 215-222) and Baltic (ibid 238-250) similarchange.researchnecessary. paradigm project In this to to dopaper, analyze that inI outline the spontaneous field a ofproposal contact-induced change for and a large-scale variation, language Since Labov's early work, sociolinguists have used a 9121110 NormanAfrikaansMednMichif1988:129-135) (ibid French (ibid 228-232) 251-255) & medieval English (van Coetsem Aleut (ibid 233-237) Whenidentities,callingmembershipfactors these upon suchexperience factorsa maycore as be groupdon't andadded. accountpositionof Suchfactors setsfor relevant allof coreof the toand speakers'variance, peripheral social other social ethnicity, level of education,within their communities. and network 131514 Basque,KorlaiAfrikaans Portuguese Gascon, (ibid 129-135) and creole French in India interaction (Clements (Haase 1992:41-52) 1992:343-4) 406 1 This is a substantially revised version of Nagy (1996: Ch. 2). U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics,8-EST Volume COPYAVAILABLE- 4.1, 1997 400 407 Contact-Induced Language Change Nagy U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) Table 1. Community level factors cited in accounting for variation IC? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 N 2. ComputingMotivation Socialfor Developing Factors a Method. Geographic overlapdomain y x x x x xx x x x x x 591 whichofThis social project go factorsback is a atresponse involved least to to Kiparsky in numerous contact-induced (1938) calls for and structuredlanguage Coteanu analysischange,(1957), ContributingPol.Political relation domain geog. of grps. y x x x x x x x 63 cited(1985),highlightedexamining in Thomason and social Siegelin recent & factors(1995), Kaufman work ininter bycontact (1988:35). Mufwenealia. and shift (1996), situations Mougeon et The importance of has been al. SizeDemographicOther of grps. subord.dom. present group grp. y x x x x x x x x x x 52 sizestwo(1981) populations of that the the community. level in contact of integration is more significant(read "intensity than the of contact")raw relative Mufwene (1996), for example, argues, contra Bickerton In order to evaluate such competing of PeriodBothChronology sexes of influence present? y x x x x 11 31 examples.claims, we need a metric of comparison, rather than just lists of I respond, in theirparticular, book on tocontact-induced Thomason & Kaufman'slanguage Biling.LanguagePeriod of in contactdom.sub. use group group y x x x x x x x x x x x x xx x x x x x x x 463 contact-inducedclaimschange.(1988:3)the book and Their challenge isa systematicgoalthat change." socialis in "a unified factors historicalA refrain framework... are whichinvestigation very important is basedrepeated of on inall throughoutsubstantive determining kinds of tinspec.CulturalDomainsOngoingOther biling.2lgs. shiftof spoken use y x x x x x x x x x x 435 what types of change occur in a given situation.WeinreichFrom They Meillet, write, to the most modern generativists, the heirs of have Sapir, and the Prague constraints linguists onto CommonIntermarriage work/econ.religionculture y x x x x x x x x x x x x 257 canstrictlylinguisticSaussurelanguage; be linguistictransferred interference... and implicational possibilities from And any they universals go,language allany fail. linguistic that to depend feature solely proposed linguistic As far as the any other StandardizationPersonalityCauseMisc. of contact y x x x x x x x x x x x 361 ...on linguistic properties are similarlysocial invalid factors (ibid are 13-4). so important... that any inhibiting factors would probably be Lgs'Lg. attitude official status y x x x x 25 someoneleaveHowever, the matterelsesince will Thomason of tackleexamining it,& Kaufmanas social can be factors are seen notoverriddenforce fromaside sociolinguists, exerted the and (ibidfollowing hope by 53). linguistictheythat 2 Author doesn't note which group has bilinguals in it. 401 402quotation: 409 Contact-Induced Language Change Nagy U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) thestructuralvariousmaking sociolinguistnotion itkinds borrowing-is more [of culturalof precise-i.e.,rather social a thanpressure] taskfactors the thatgiving historical infalls an relative into effort linguist, the weights todomain and oftois is of course vague; predict moveProminentrelationsstandardized toward between amongapproachthe position type them is necessary.of iscontact Guy (1990), and type in of which language the typeschange. of Several linguists have begun to where this is develop systematicpossible, a more Taking2.1. up this challenge, I propose a methodologytherefore which beyond allows the scope of this book (ibid The77). Need to Analyze Social Factors linguisticaslanguagespontaneous agent). as characteristicschangeGuy agent), (internal) proposes and change, imposition ofcorresponding change borrowing (externalfor each social, (external ofcause, these psychological, sourcecause, types, language recipientbut does and are reduced to the following trichotomy: tous beto findat the answers forefront to ofquestions linguistic ofHowWhat curiosity:the canfollowing types each of type change type, be whichchar occur acterized? appearin what type of speech community? Many2.2.not report texts on refer particular to the socialcontact factors situations as if therein any were detail. a standard way The Need for a Standard Computation WhereWhat factorsis/are does the theencourage source(s)change orbetin? of discourage a change? change? Denison (1980:335) poses this series of further questions of (1988)aresuggesthavecomputing more been propose that likely them,many in ato borrowinggiven andbeproposals borrowed there social isscale of nocontext, than "dines suchin whichothers. thing. certain of the borrowability"Thomason In type linguisticparticular, and & quantity Kaufmanelements there which of which beg for a codification of contact situationcomparablecircumstancesWhy types: will one case and community to against rapid linguisticodds cling which to assimilation? its lead language an apparently under Why linguisticthatbetweenelements(1) one but the borrowed canfactsunfortunately communities, induce alone is determined (ibidthe leave socialand 225). they the by Theyhistory themakeinterpretation providetype aof veryand a situation the quantitystrong ofscale their prediction: of shownthrough contactcategory in existenceplurilingualismlanguages,withinwill thefor space decades-evenon sometimes the of other a single givehand,centuries-after generation? way hang to onmonolingualism to How a precarious do somea seemingly stable and centuries-old all state rational of (1)names to the readers' imagination. casualScale of contact borrowability (Thomason & Kaufman 1988:74-6) questions, many sociolinguistic analyses mustcalculation imminenceinclude disclaimers has thereof? proclaimed their demise or predictedAlthough the attempts have been made to answer such verystrongmoreslightly strong intense cultural more cultural contactintense pressure pressure contact innumberdifferentrepresentativenoting the roles thatof in individual otherplayedthe ofresults communities. a by wider cases the they socialcanti haveznd, it befactors. becausefound determined Themay social goal not if there factors necessarilyis to is be variation may able beto Only by examining a large makeworksborrowability]Singh reference neither addressto are intensity valid methods for of similar contact of computing contact without situations." intensity defining of terms. contact (1980)Trudgill (1989:229) and Pandharipande (1982:97) also proposes that "[implicational hierarchies These of 410 givenpredict situation, what types once of the linguistic social factors influence are willknown. be observed in a In order to 403 404metricsnor provide for determining definitions of similarity the social of factors contact situations. mentioned, nor present 411 Contact-Induced Language Change Numerous problems arise when one attempts to construct Nagy beU. calculatedPenn Working algebraically. Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) bydifferentlyreportedwhicha model an outside are infor bydiversementioned comparing observer).different manners. membersinthe This several effects Second, d, many of studies ofthe such theseof community these factors may factors. factors be may (notexamined beinteract. to perceived mention andThe First, factors nationalauthorfromstudies the illustratesfinds studyBergamo surprising, of this.the dialect Italianization Berruto's becausereports (1977) a no strongof suchdialects. study effect effect of However,the of was sex,shift notedwhich to it Italian turns inthe a A simple example involving only two factors and two 3.thirdnext sectionof these suggestsproblems. a means to overcome at least the first and How to Make a Model (3)men,women,out that as Berruto'sseen while in the(3). sample sample of offemales males contains contains predominantly predominantly young old Distribution of speakers in Berruto (1977) model,inducedmodelThis section ofof language contact-inducedthe describes form: change how language isto similarconstruct change.to athe quantitatively-accountable Labovian The model variable of contact- rule YoungOld Female 2716 Male 2313 byI,(2) the a numberintensity of contactfactors for{x, a y,particular individual, is determined 1 = ax + by + cz + ...3 z,...} representing intensity of Thus,highlightsbewas teasedit observed. may actuallyapartthe Innecessity, thewith be bigger an fewer age pointed picture, effect, than out the30rather ineffectsstudies. Kerswill than of a 30sex (1994:115) factors effect cannotthat of This example factor.individuals.determinedcontact. See Sec. Theseby 5simultaneously for values further inuicate discussion. solving the relative the equations importance for of many each a,b,c,...}, the coefficients of each factor, must be examiningwhichoneaccidentally was individual anot large examined.attributing number level factors aof trend factors areto theinsignificant eachwrong study, factor in mostin becauseorder of the to the avoidstudies. right Once the equations are derived, it will be possible to see developedfiniteIn3.1. order set to of toconstruct factors assign must quantitativethis bemodel, established. three values things to each are factor.necessary. First, a The Steps Second, metrics must be The third atThis the set community will point level.to the Adaptingset of factors Bell's which StylesingleVariation account Axiom, speaker for on influence derives[any] dimension from and echoes within the the variation speech which of a thecannotbecause,factorsstep sum is to bemust of untilcombine set. the be there Thateffects developed the areis, factorsof ifmore eachthe beforestudiessocial intostudy an factors thethanis equation. seen metrics factors, indexes as anA canthe consistentequation the factorbe amount designed valueswhere set of 3.2.Studies since Labov et al. (1968) have shownexists that between it is possible speakers to (Bell 1984:151). Individual Level Factors equationtherecontact-induced are setas many is underdetermined change, equations the (;ascset ofand studies) equations the value as factors.cannot of the be factorsOtherwise solved cannot until the representativeBecauseassignlinguisticobtain weights ana finiteaccurate environment to sample factors description of at andspeakers,the individualofsocial the variation andattributes speaker then within coded of level the a community. forand both thus corpus of speech can be recorded from a individual Sectionexposition.3 The additive 5. A logistic model equatiotis used a; a first approximation and for ease of 412 is more appropriate and is discussed in BEST COPY AVAILABLE 405 406eachspeaker, of the it isfactors possible to the to overalldevelop variable equations distributions. relating the weights of 413 Contact - Induced Language Change Nagy U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) constrainedconsideredspeakercommunity level. set in level of15 factorsstudies. factors thatMoi listed show e overlapin Tableinfluence is 1,seen at in the this individual set of fators Therefore, rather than directly attacking the tangle of Table 2 summarizes the individual level factors I examine the more Table 2: IndividualsexageIndiv. factors level factors cited in accounting for variation x1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 x x x x ofcommunitythan individualthe in table. level. level The factors, facto' s we cited see most that frequently there is are at the top From thisthe analysisfactors calledof 15 caseon to studies account which for changeexamine at a much more the domainsstatusoccupationneighborhood/ of use network x x x x x xxxx x x 7t xxxxxxx*4 x x x x x xxxxxxx x x x x x* x x x constrainedstudiescommunityanalysis seems of set contact-induced level. of to factors predict which a huge change are number repeatedly at the of individual factors called being level upon calledthan for theat into the Although at first blush, 23 factors for 15 parentsLlcontactamount w/L2of school x x x x x x x x x x x x studiesandrelatingthisaccount theis arenot numberifthe examined.one thenumber were case. of factors toof lookstudies grows at all to themorethe studiesnumber and more that of factorshave slowly been reported, as done,more Rather, there is an asymptotic function race/ethnicityanimalpoliticalurban/ruralamount ownership leaning of travel x x x x* Abbreviations used in Table ..' 1 proficiencyintermarriage x x x x 432 Bergamasca-ItalianGrico,ItalianGenovese influenceRomanzo, & other on & Catanzaro sage Italiandialects in (SobreroBergamo (COveri dialect & (Berruto&(Saladino RomanelloDe Nardis 1977) 1990) 1977)1977) pressureattitudeage#length 1gs. of spokenL2of toward to res.acq. change lg. x xx 7865 ShiftSpanishItalian-CroatianEffects from of influence 3 "standard"French contact on toUcieda Italians inEnglish Bosnia dialect (Galli in(Corry (HolmquistOntario de Paratesi 1980)Beniak (Mougeon, 1988) 1977) & Valois 1985) TOTALmedia contact (23) For the individual level factors, on average, each study 4 6 4 5 6 a 6 5 x5 8 5 7 6 7 x 1 9 1110 Transfer of accent io British EnglishScotsGerman/Hungarian (Tahta, Gaelic Wood to English & shift shift situation (Dorian in Austria 1994a) (GalLoewenthal 1978) 191i 1) examined,whichdifferenceconsensuscites 5 shows factors, averagingbetweenthan the theout average these community-level ofover the setsnumber1,000 23 of listed different factors of factors(over factors is possible illustrated 1/5),added showingorderings by in each Figure morestudyof 1, in Table 1. The the 15141312 SpanishUrbanMexican-AmericanHonduran and influence Spanishrural dialectsoil inLimon bilinguals in Creole contact in (Herzfeld Los in Bergen,Angeles 1980) Norway (Silva- Spanish(Kerswill (Amasiae 1994) & Satcher 1993) contact with Northern Mexican factorslevel (of factors. the 15! or 23! possible orderings). The solid curve represents the function for these individual The dotted curve represents the function for the Corvalan 1994)414 BEST COPY AVAILABLE 407 indicated4 Author408 thatdid he wished he had. not report on the factors marked by an asterisk, 415 but Contact-Induced Language Change Nagy U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) Fi. ure 1. Correlation o number o studies to number o actors2530 onIn3.3. ordercontact-induced for the field language to advance, change all oughtsociolinguists to report onmaking reports Combining the Factors the same set 2015 I ,00 changeeachequationstudyof case15 which factors.may study. representing veryoccurs. FactorsUntil well that whichinfluence a occurs, particular haven't therethe been caseamount are reportedstudy,too ofmany contact-inducedvalues on unknowns in a given in If significant factors are ignored in the will be 10 50 typeTomisdetermined simplify as in (5). matters, Thesefor the the threefactors individual subsets that are canlevel reported. be factors seen as can three be groupedaxes along by Even 15 factors may be too many to efficiently analyze. 0 1 2 3 4Number of studies examined 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 111I ageshownadoptwhich and features speakersin sex. Figure The of are 2. thestrongest aligned majority toversion showlanguage theirof my into individual proposal their own propensity would speech, asto Conspicuously absent are the commonly examined factors claim community level factors. levelIndividual factors (Factors cited by only one study amlevelCommunity factors modelLinear differencesthatpointingaccountthese sex- factorsand forthisacross age-correlated the out).if generationsthere same are effect differencesmore and (thanks generalgenders: are to behavioralreflections thereM. Meyerhoff is no of patternsneed behavioral (p.c.)to reifywhich for functioncontrast,situationlinearlyexcluded.) relatingshown inthe whichThe actual in dashedthe (4),the numbercurves theset linemopof factors (of represents :anlel factors has be is valuable modelednot to aconstrained.the hypothetical numberpredictive as the ofasymptoticBecause, powers. studies,function in a Figure 2. Factor groups for intensity of contact languagefavoredLocal (4) F = Fo 1 e N° N identitycultureLocal A contactMorelocal risecurvesThelevelstudies abovepattern rise factors, are thevery to added asymptote notecontrasted slowly, isto that, the predic Fo,with pool, after which '23.2ting the that forequalstotalfirst theno ninenumber mattercommunity14.0 sample for howof the factors levelpoints, manyindividual factors. willmore the not non-local contactMore Dominant V Dominantidentityculture 416 409 410 languagefavored 417 Contact-Induced Language Change Nagy U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) (5) Types of IC factors Linguistic factors Language learned first The3.4.Sincethe first speaker, thefactor language with group respect learned(or axis) to firstthe represents languages is generally the spoken the language Expected Effects of Contact Factor Groups linguistic profile of in the commuity. of one's Amount of contact Parents'NumberProficiency languageof languagesin each language spoken similarthisanthefamily L2 longest will and andeffects. be stop period closestidentical speaking of friends, time to thetheir (except as parents' L1)well init as caseslanguage, being where the so However, Kerswill (1994) points out that one's will index IC. languagepeople used forswitch tothey Inwill most have cases, LengthIntermarriageAmount of residence of dailytravel contact inoutside community with the localdominant community language speakers especiallycommonlyfirsthavealso bea different takenfor used, immigrants. into oreffect account.most depending proficient on language whether thefor sourcealllanguage, or parents' language may not be the most Therefore, the following factorProficiency must in each language may speakers,language Cultural identity MediaDomainsAge of contact second of use language of each languageacquisition theNumberforspeakerwas more instrumentallearned mayof languages languages for use affective more purposes, one spoken of speaks,or its instrumental featuresit on may thea regular lesshave in thetimepurposes: basisless Ll. one Ifeffect indexes itspends is learnedon IC speakingthe in Lthat, 1 . if affective, the only UrbanNeighborhood/netw,Race/ethnicityStatus/prestigeOccupation vs. rural residence within ,rk membership each of the two cultures eachstudyidentity of them. of with Martha's the localdifferent Vineyard, culture cultures has where been in thefactors examined community. such in asLabov's Theoccupation, effect (1963) of The second factor group (or axis) represents the degree of ParentsAmountMediaOwnershipPolitical contact ofleaning ofschooling particular types of animals thesecontact-inducedspontaneousethnicity, factors and andchange neighborhood change,the amountin progress. where correlateof contact there Such tois factorswith degreea direct the are ofsource relation acquisitionalso language.relevant between of in a Neighborhood or network membership indexes cultural pertinenttakenofThe intensity position into in account, of everyalong contact study.these but (IC). not three There everyin axesevery must factor shows study, be listed some a all person's threein latitude Table axesoverall 2in mustwill which level bebe Domains of use of each language frequentalsobylanguage.identity, status indexes contact withinin More many IC. with theparticularly, cases (local define even and one's cultural dominant) defines culture, identity it: community and is with partially so this defined factor The urban/rural factor indexes IC along the the people one is in it, one's onlychoosingrepresentingparticularKerswill's social social factors (1994:49)each factors, ofwhich are the programexamined dueeare as opposed"of axes importance"of ainmust subjective anyto anbe one all-inclusiveincluded. are study,"selective" analyzed. This but strategy: strategyfollowsfactors of culturalthedominantany dominant community axisaxis: culture as language.urban described and where inhabitants are in morerace Gal islikely(19787) generallya salient to and have factoridentify Holmquist regular for more the contact (1988). speakers with with the in Occupation also indexes IC along the In 418 BEST COPY AVAILABLE 411 determining412of contact their between social linguistic networks, groups. it will play a role in the degree Political leanings were 419 shownContact-Induced to index IC Language along the Change cultural identity axis in Holmquist Nagy restrictedU. Penn set Working of domains. Papers in Linguistics Finally, media contact indexes IC: Volume 4.1 ( 1997) servesidentifieschoiceand(1988). attachment amongspeakers Likewise, with. media Amountto of animalthe both forms traditional oflanguages ownership schoolindicates lifestyle indexes or whichas ifa measureitis ICaspects servescorrelated either of oneof if both culture the tolinguistic IC. schoolwealth Theone 4.contactexposure with to mediathe dominant in the majority language. language entails that much more Metrics parentsnon-standard"amoregroup high contact in influencelevel the language ofwithspeech education one's the as sourceof cultwwell anot is aslikely language.alher. greater identity Either to breed self-confidence." Kerswill inway, numerous a greatermore (1994) school waystolerance notes meansand that soof Finally, objectivelydesignedOnceattempts a set for ofhave assigned relevant each been factor madefactorsto each atso has designing factorthat been a forvalue determined, metrics each (coefficient) speaker. for metricssome factors, mustcan bebe and Several Lengthcontactcorrelateany factor ofan to residence individualtheircorrelated children's. in hasto the parents' with community the linguistic languages is a direct of the correlate community. of the The third factor group (or axis) represents the amount of patterns may also 5.Moisset(1994),I will not D.(1996). go Sankoff into them & Labergehere. (1978), and Nagy, G. Sankoff & The Model Relevant references include Kerswill lessfewer(includingamount likely opportunities of to youngcontact exhibit children withtoany hear directthe born the dominant influence dominantin the community) language: of language the dominant newer willand wouldhave language arrivals had be beOnce (6)combined metrics inare an developed equation forof the the form pertinent shown social in (6). factors, they can / = ax + by + cz + theacquisitionmorein their secondmore their own speakers languagelanguage. also speech.5 contributes are will Amount Amount in be contact Influenced. to of ofthe travel daily withoverall andcontact a dominant amountintermarriage has aof language,similar contact index effect: with IC,the Age of second language 1 representscontact,(x,y,z...) such are theas attendingweights of schoolthe factors in the contributing source to intensity of intensity of contact for the individual language or speaker. domainsalonglanguageanothera language the of amount language. use in, is indexes theused of morecontact in, IC the likelyalong axis, more all onein likelythreeobvious is axes. it isways. toThe be Distributionmore in contact domains withof Also, tha more domains one uses the local to identify with the local community.constantsestimationvaluesmarryingequations can indicatinga techniquememberbe TheirRd empirically (at values least)theof (e.g., theimportance are as sourcetheobtained obtainedmany Varbrul language ofindividuals by theby package). a simultaneously factormaximum community. asgroup there likelihood in areasolving social (a,b,c...) am givenTheir culture.ispossibleactive seen it in effect Scots is demonstratedGaelic even inwhen Dorian it (1994b): much variation Third,is theand more thus, domains the more a languagesusceptible is used to change. in, the more is used only in a very Another acrosshavedifferentfactors. predictive communities. communities, power, Otherwise, they the canvalues be we compared.of learn { a,b,c,... that } must be similar Once the values of the coefficients ar" obtained for many differentIf the parameters model is to thewhoof5 It linguistic directis are, possible in influence turn, influence that in thiscontactof the ifwould the intermediary with speaker hot the show dominant is speakersinup contact as alanguage. correlate would with beother to passed the speakers amount on to In that case, traditionalanalysis.are of different form relative of a variable importance rule, asin showndifferent in (7). Each term such This method differsThis slightly is seen from by traditionalcomparing variable the equation rule in (6) to the communities. 4 0 lexiconwherethe more there and isolated age.is no correlation speakers. between amount of Italian influence in the Such an effect is shown in Chapter 9, 413 414as pi in (7) corresponds to a term like ax in (6). 421 Contact-Induced Language Change Nagy U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) (7) P Po + Pi+ Pj Pk combinationsocial factors affectwith language change in contact communities. work on linguistic structure effects and In distinctionmannerthepossibleBy overalldividing can to isseparateeffectthe noteach coefficients possible of term the the facto! factorinto using be acomparedweight acrossthecoefficient current within communities. across model andone communitya of variable, GoldVarb, Only in fromit this as communities. This is typologicallanguageforwill testing be within difference contact this reach. model. settings effects, Appropriate wherea complete (a) data there model would is of a language linguisticbe collected change I close by requesting suggestions for data sets to be used variable from Although(forstatistical different comparisonthe communities)additive ofmodel factor is is not groupsappealing possible. across due different to its intuitiveness, calculations it One further modification to the model is necessary.technical examinecollectedwith a clearly each from of defined athe large factors innovativeenough listed sample in variant,(5). of speakersand (b) data to be has able been to modeldifficulties.hasadditive been in its rejectedmodel place.Rousseau show The for & informvariable Sankoff(6) ofis giventhis rule (1978:62) model in analyses (8). that propose corresponds due to the logistic to the ReferencesBell,Amastae, A. (1984). J. & D. "Language Satcher. (1993). style as "Linguistic audience design." assimilation Language in variables." Language Variation and Charge 5.1:77-90. in two (8) In order1 to have greaterI comparability acrossI studies, the =x X y X1a a t b b 1c czx... Bray,Bickerton,Berruto, D. G. (1909). D. (1977). (1981). "Uso Roots di Italianoof language. e dialetto Ann Arbor:a Bergamo. Karoma. Alcuni dati." RivistaSociety Italian13:145-204. di Dialettologia 1.1:45-78. The Brahui language. Calcutta: Superintendent threeiffactors there subgroupsaxes may is highin be Figure collapsed correlationlisted 2. in (5).into among three parameters the factors corresponding within each of to thethe This is an appropriate simplification only Clements, languageGovernmentBenjamins.Explanation change." Printing. 41-58.J. (1992). "Elementsin of resistance HistoricalIn G. Davis & G. Linguistics. in contact-inducedIverson Amsterdam: (eds.) change.levelThis6. paperfactors Focusing has relevant shown on intensityto how understanding to ofquantitatively contact contact-induced as the analyze primary individual languagecorrelate Summary Corra,Coteanu, L. (1980). I. 1957. "Fenomeni A propos d'integrazione des longues linguisticamixtes (sur e l'istro-roumain).sociale all'in- delletrapiantatatemo minoranzedi una all'estero." comunita di fronte dialettofona,In all'Italiano.F. Leoni (ed.). inizialmente Rome: I dialetti Bulzoni. eterogenea, e le lingue conductingnumberprogressof contact-induced of in comparable thesuch study studies change, of case how is Iset studies havecontact up, proposed building is induces necessary. that,on language the in A factorsorder paradigm change, to which make for a Coveri, L. & A. De Nardis. (1977). "Lingua italiana e giovani leve op- Aspettiprofessionaleeraie:Bucharest: Indagine Mélanges a Genova." sociolinguistica linguistiques. In R. Simone in un centro& G. Ruggiero di formazione (eds.). congressosociolinguistici intemazionali di studi. Rome: Bulzoni. contemporanea. A tti equation,methodindicatedwhichhave been should for ishowshown combining proposed. be the addressed to factors be thepertinentOnce effectsarein aall toset instudies beof ofearlier thesealigned such is studies.factors, established,equations along Ausing three set is and ofavailablea axes. logistic factorsI have A Dorian,Denison, N. N. (1994a). (1980). "Varieties of variation Sprachkonflikt.progress."235-72. Wiesbaden: Steiner. 335-342. In "Sauris: A case study of language shiftP.H. Nelde (ed.) in a very small place: Sprachkontakt and in infrom principle, a series solvable, of similarly and conducted sociolinguists studies, will the have set a of model equations of how is, 4 22 BEST COPY AVAILABLE 415 416 variation.Social "Language 70.4:631-698. homogeneity, prestige norms, 423 and linguistic Contact-Induced Language Change Nagy U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 4.1 (1997) Dorian, N. (1994b). Stylistic variation in a language restricted to pri- ticvate-sphere Perspectives use. onIn Register.D. Biber &NY: E. Oxford,Finegan, 217-234. eds., Sociolinguis- Pandharipande, R. (1982). "Counteracting forces in language change: Linguistics.and Means: University3.1:111-126. of Pennsylvania Working Papers in GalliGal,Eckert, S. de (1978).P. Paratesi, (1989). "Peasant N."The (1977). whole men can'twoman: get Sexwives." and Languagegender differences in Society in variation."7:1-16. Language Variation and Change 1:245-67. "La standardizzazione della pronuncia Rousseau, P. & D. Sankoff. ConvergenceModelsmethodology.Sciences and 12.2:97-116. vs.methods. New York: Academic. "In D. Sankoff, maintenance. "Studies in the Linguistic(1978). "Advances in ed. Linguistic variable variation: rule Guy, G. (1990). "The sociolinguistic (eds.)nell'italiano167-95. Aspetti contempraneo." sociolinguistici In R. Simone & G. Ruggiero congresso internazionali di studi. Rome: Bulzoni. types of language change." contemporanea. Atti Saladino, R. (1990). "Language shift in standard& italianS. Laberge. and dialect: (1978). A "The Linguistic market variation:explanationcaseand study."the statistical Models Languageof variability." and methods. Variation In New D. and Sankoff York:Change Academic. (ed.). 2.1:57-70. Linguistic Haase, M. (1992). "Basque iind Gascon language contact." Laval.Crochetiere,Diachronica.Congres 343-346. International J. VII:1.47-67. Boulanger, des& C. Linguistes. Ouellon (eds.). Actes du XVe Quebec: Universite In A. Silva-Corvalan,Siegel, C. (1994). "The gradual loss of mood distinctions in J. 6.3:255-272.LosConferencevarieties?" Angeles on Spanish. Oceanic(1995). Linguistics. "Pidgins, creolesPaper presentedand koines- or just contact "Language Variation and Change at the Second International Herzfeld,Holmquist, A. (1980). J. (1988. "Creole Language and standardloyalty and languages: linguistic Contact and Sprachkonflikt.Studyconflict." in Spanish Wiesbaden: Caniabria. Steiner. Dordrecht: 83-90. Foris. In P. Nelde (ed.). Sprachkontakt variation: A and Sobrero,Singh, R. (1980. "Aspects of borrowing: English loans in Hindi." In baden:P. Nelde Steiner. (ed.). 113-116.A.Sprachkontakt & M. and Sprachkonflikt. Wies- Teresa Romanello. (1977). "Una e ricerca Kiparsky,Kerswill, Valentin. 1938. "Co:nment on Vocadlo, 'Some observations InternationaleonUniversity Press. de Linguistes.P. Copenhagen: Muksgaard.mixed (1994). languages.'" Diale.:ts converging. New York:Actes du Quatrieme Congres Oxford Tahta, S., M. Wood & K. Loewenthal. (1981). "Foreign accents: sociolinguisticirisultati."congressosociolinguistica internazionali di studi. Roma: Bulzoni. In R. Simone & G. Ruggiero dell'Italiain Salento: contemporanea. Linee d'indagine (eds.)Atti 373-384. dell'VIIIAspetti primi Labov, W.,William. P. Cohen, 1963. C. "The Robins social & J.motivation Lewis. 1968. of a Asound study change." of non- standardWord 19:273-309. English of Negro and Puerto Rican Speakers in New Vol I. Trudgill,Thomason, P. S.(1989). & T. Kaufman."Contact and(1988). isolation Language in linguistic contact, change." creolization, In L. andafactors second genetic relating language." linguistics. to transfer Language Berkeley: of accent and Univ. Speech from of the California first language Press. to 24:265-272. Mufwene,Mougeon, S.R., (1996). E. Beniak, "Language & D. Valois. ecology (1985). and creole "A Sociolinguistic genesis." Paper 23.3:455-487.studyPhiladelphia:York City.of language Cooperative Linguistics contact, Laboratory, Research shift, and Report U. change." Penn. 3288. 123-157. Linguistics van Coetsem, F. (1988). Loan phonology and theBreiviklanguage study & of E. itscontact. Jahr, causes. eds. Dordrecht: Berlin, Language New Foris. York:change: Mouton Contributions de Gruyter. to the two transfer types in Nagy,Nagy, N. N.,(1996). G. Sankoff Language & contactC. Moisset. and language(1996). "On change the inacquisition the Faetar speechmeeting,presenteddissertation. San at Society Diego. Philadelphia: fi,r Pidgin IRCS. and Creole Linguistics Annual community. University of Pennsylvania PhD of EnglishDurham,University225-C Department Hamilton NH of New03824-3574 Smith Hampshire Hall 424 variable phonology in L2." In M.BEST Meyerhoff. COPY (ed.) (N)Waves AVAILABLE 417 418ngnO hopper. unh.edu 4 ° J U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 2.2, 1995: Penn Linguistics Colloquium Papers from the 19th Annual Please use the form at the end of this volume to order back issues. Contents o f Earlier Voluthes CHARLESRAJESHELENA E. BHATT: BOBERGBENEDICTO: Why & STEPHANIE 'Minimize (Relativized) Restrictor'? M. STRASSEL:Minimality,Reflexive PhonologicalDatives, Suffixes and DAVIDEUGENEVolume EMBICK: BUCKLEY: 1, 1994 Licensing Tigrinya and Vowel Consonantal Features HarmonyCoalescence and Vowel ALEXISDONGDONG DIMITRIADIS: CHEN: Chinese When Reflexive pro-Drop ZijiLanguages inAcquisitionChange Second Don't: in Cincinnati Language On overt MIRIAMANTHONY MEYERHOFF: KROCH & ANN Rethinking TAYLOR: "Gender" The Syntax ContactMovementas a of Sociolinguistic Verb in Middle English Dialect Variation and Language HADASSNAOMIADAtvIANTIOS NAGY: SHEFFER: I.Double GAFOS: Visibility or Long-DistanceNothing: and Abstract Romance Spreadingpronominal Form: alignment Evidence as reduplication subjects strategies from in Greek BERNHARDBILLNAOMI REYNOLDS NAGY: ROHRBACHER: Language & HADASS Contact: SHEFFER:Notes Italian on the Variation (?)VariableAntisymmetry geminates and Optimality in of Faetar Syntax NATALIE SCHILLING-ESTES: Production, Perception,varietyPatterning:spirantization and "Performance" in Modern Hebrew Speech in an endangered dialect GREGORYANNJOSEF TAYLOR: TAGLICHT: WARD Variation & Syntactic BErry in BIRNER: PastStructure Tense A and UnifiedFormation IntonationalEnglish Account in the Phrasing of History English of CHANG-KOOKLUCIA TOVENA: SUH: Negating Coda Underspecification an Ordered Relation andInalterability. Geminate RAJESHVolume BHATT: 2.1, Verb Movement in KashmiriFronting Constructions 1995 RICHARDGREGORYVolume 3.1,CAMERON: R. GUY: 1996: Post-Saussurean PapersA Proposed from Explanation Linguistics: NWAVEintegrated ofSpecific/Nonspecific theToward 24 theory an of language TU Constraint Ranking in Spanish JONDONSABINE F. PRESSMAN: RINGE: IATRIDOU: Nominative-Accusative Adding Clitics to and the Island Inventory: EffectsSyncretism ContemplatingCaseperfect and marking Syntactic anti- in Frencii Antillean Creoles DAVIDTRACEYMARIA HEAP: JOSE L. WELDON: Subject SERRANO: Pronoun Past Accounting Marking Variation in for Gullahin Morpho-Syntactic Centralin Spanish: Romance The Change present perfect case ANNEANNBERNHARD TAYLOR: VAINIKKA: ROHRBACHER The Functional Distribution & TomProjections of ROEPER:Object inCliticsChild FinnishNull inSubjects English Koine Non-Finite in andGreek Early the TIleory of Economy of Projections LISANANCY ANN NIEDZIELSKI: LANE, ROBERT Acoustic KNIPPEN, Analysis JEANNETTE andTranscription:DANIELDetroit Language DENTON SUSLAK: Attitudes & Validity Reachingin and reliability Criterion of in non-native Phonetic speakers Constructions 426 419 420NAOMI NAGY, CHRISTINE MOISSET & GILLIANAcquisition SANKOFF: of OnVariable the Phonology in L2 427 ANITA HENDERSON: The Short 'a' Pattern ofAfrican-American Philadelphia among Speaks rs HA The(PWPL) University is an ofoccasional Pennsylvania series Workingproduced Papersby the Pennin Linguistics Linguistics organization Linguistics SCOTTJAMESWALT WOLFRAM PETERSON: & KIRKSociolingt. istic InterviewerHyperconvergenceinvisible Style Variation: Outer Banks in thedi:.lect. other informant ZEN: Isolation within Isolation: The elsewhere;PublicationDepartmentClub, all inof copyrightthisthe Universityvolume is retaineddoes of Pennsylvania.not by preclude the authors submission of the individual of papers the graduate student of the JAMESDANIEL MILROY: LEFKOWITZ: Variation On the in Mediation/ai/ in Northern of Class,IntonationVariation British Race English, & on Gender: Sports with RadioFABIUS Talk Shows KIESLING: Men's Identities and Patterns of PleaseVolumespapers. see of our the web Working page for Papers additional are available information. for $12, prepaid. CHRISTINEPAUL KERSWILL: MOISSET: Dialect The Status Levelling, of 'h aspire'Koineisationcomments inof French the and Adult onToday the Canadian MigrantSpeech Raising The PWPL Series Editors Alexis Dimitriadis Laura Siegel SYLVIESTEPHANIE DUBOIS, M. STRASSEL MARTINE & BOUTIN CHARLES & DAVID BOBERG:ConversationsQuantitativeSound SANKOFF: The Change Reversal TheAnalysis in ofCincinnati of Turntaking in Multiparticipant Editors for this Volume ClarissaAlexander Surek-Clark Williams LUIZETEVolume 3.2, 1996: Includes papers fromtheAnnual "Gramatica" the 20thPenn ofLinguistics Andres Bello ColloquiumGUIMARAES BARROS: Structuralist and Generative Ideas in and the PWPL series editors StephanieMiriam StrasselMeyerhoff Charles Boberg LIZANNECHUNG-HYEEUGENEVIRGINIA BUCKLEY: KAISER: BRENNAN: HAN: Overt Korean Bare Epistemic Tail-MarkingRoot Pi osodicNodes : Root Domainsin in Basaa:: Japanese Particular and Phrase : General Structure U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics How to reach the PWPL YOICHICHARLES MIYAMOTO L. POOSER: & YASUKO Thirteenth TAKATA: Century TheJapanese Oralcase Status Resonanaces: of Temporal Changethe Valenciennes of The Adverbial Chronicle Clauses in SLA Philadelphia, PA UniversityDepartment of Pennsylvania of Linguistics 619 Williams Hall 19104-6305 EUGENEHAE-KYUNGLAURAANNE VAINIKKA:R. WAGNER: VACHON: WEE: VerbAccommodatedThe Optimizing Transition Raising inRussian fromThemeQuestions haver Stress to ter in Portugese http://www.ling.upenn.edu/papers/pwpl.html [email protected] 4 8 421 4 9 U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Order Form 2 2.Subscription1. Colloquium.Volume 4.2,4.1, ProceedingsPapers from ofNWAVE the 21st 25 Penn (this Linguistics volume). Please3.Including:Single see issues preceding pages for complete tablesVolume of contents. 4.3, 1997 Working Papers. Volume 3.1, Papers from NWAVE 24. OrderVOLUMESUBSCRIPTION 1, 1994 # ?rice@@$30 $12 = VOLUME 2.1, 3.1:3.2:2.2: 1995 PapersProceedings from NWAVEof PLC 20,19, 24, 19961995 1996 (4)$12@$12@ $12 = VOLUMEVOLUME 4.1 (This 4.3: VOLUME) Proceedings of PLC 21, 1997 Check to Penn Linguistics Club, in the amount of: (4/$12@ $12 = DetachGiveTo place your the an address pageorder, by please:: on cutting the back along of leftthis margin.page. andMailEnclose payment completed payment(check to: form or money order). Philadelphia,University619PWPL Williams of Pennsylvania PAHall 19104-6305 430 payment(PleaseQuestions? do in notadvance)working-papers@babel. order volumes by emailwe ling. upenn.edu need to receive BEST COPY AVAILABLE 431 U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI) ERIC National Library of Education (NLE) Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)

NOTICE

REPRODUCTION BASIS

This document is covered by a signed "Reproduction Release (Blanket) form (on file within the ERIC system), encompassing all or classes of documents from its source organization and, therefore, does not require a "Specific Document" Release form.

This document is Federally-funded, or carries its own permission to reproduce, or is otherwise in the public domain and, therefore,may be reproduced by ERIC without a signed Reproduction Release form (either "Specific Document" or "Blanket").

EFF-089 (9/97)