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; Phonology; 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 Australia" (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 British English 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 High Rising Terminal 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 New Zealand, 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 New Zealand English." 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 Sydney (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 Vanuatu 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 William Labov 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
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)