DOCSLIB.ORG

Language Variation and Gender Throughout the 20Th Century. A

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Language Variation and Gender Throughout the 20Th Century. A Ghent University Faculty of Arts and Philosophy Language variation and gender throughout the 20th century. A historiographical study Thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of “Master in de Taal-en Letterkunde: Engels ” by (01002261) Daryen Vandeputte Supervisor: Prof. dr. K. Willems 2015-2016 Co-supervisor: dr. L. De Cuypere 2 Abstract The aim of this master’s thesis is to investigate how the discussion about language variation and gender evolved from the beginning of the twentieth century until the present day. To this end, five older sources published in the first part of the twentieth century are analysed and compared with one another: Om kvinnospråk och andra ämnen (About women’s speech and other topics) (Cederschiöld, 1900), Otto Jespersen’s chapter thirteen “The Woman” of Language, Its Nature, Origin and Development (1922), A.F. Chamberlain’s Women’s Languages (1912), Men’s and Women’s Language by the hand of P.H. Furfey (1944) and Louis Gauchat’s L’unité phonétique dans le patois d’une commune (1905). These sources are, moreover, contrasted with relevant comparable studies published since the second half of the twentieth century, in particular since 1975, the year in which Robin Lakoff published Language and Woman’s Place, and, in doing so, put the gender-issue definitively on the map of linguistic variation research. The analysis shows that in general, there are not many differences among the older publications. For the most part, they lack empirical evidence to support their claims. These claims are, moreover, often contradicted by contemporary research. This is true for all sources from the first part of the 20th century that are analysed, except for the work of Gauchat (1905). Throughout his work, the reader is provided with empirical data that support the hypotheses of Gauchat and are based on empirical sociolinguistic research. As a result, his findings are often in agreement with findings of present-day research. In general, there are far less “absolute truths” on language variety and gender emerging from present-day research than there were claimed to be in the first part of the twentieth century. However, the work of Gauchat forms an exception to this conclusion. 3 Preface This study was developed in the context of achieving the degree of “Master of Arts in Linguistics and Literature: English”. I would like to use this opportunity to briefly thank a number of people for their support and assistance while writing this thesis. I would like to start of by expressing my gratitude towards my supervisor and co- supervisor, prof. dr. K. Willems and dr. L. De Cuypere, respectively. They have guided me throughout the process of creating the thesis until the end. For their guidance, their support, their help, their advice, their answers to my questions and especially their patience, I am very grateful. A very special thank you is in order for my aunt, who has helped me with the layout and in doing so, she has saved me from a lot of frustrations. I would also like to thank my family, who have had to put up with my mood swings and nervous breakdowns, for their unconditional love and support. More specifically, I would like to thank my sister, who was writing her thesis at the same time, for her support when I needed it the most. On a final note, I would very much like to thank some of my fellow students who took the time and effort to proofread parts of the thesis. Their guidance and assistance have proven to be indispensable, without it I would not have been able to write the thesis. 4 Table of Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................................... 3 Preface ................................................................................................................................................ 4 Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................. 5 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 6 2 Bio-bibliographical background ......................................................................................... 9 2.1 Johan Gustav Christoffer Cederschiöld (1849-1928) ......................................................... 9 2.2 Otto Jespersen (1860-1943) .......................................................................................................... 9 2.3 Alexander Francis Chamberlain (1865-1914) .................................................................... 10 2.4 Paul Hanly Furfey (1896-1992) ................................................................................................ 10 2.5 Louis Gauchat (1866-1942) ........................................................................................................ 11 3 Status Quaestionis ................................................................................................................. 12 4 Theoretical Background ...................................................................................................... 15 5 Methodology ............................................................................................................................ 18 6 Discussion and Results ........................................................................................................ 21 6.1 Pronuncation ..................................................................................................................................... 21 6.2 Vocabulary .......................................................................................................................................... 27 6.3 Courtesy/politeness ....................................................................................................................... 31 6.4 Primitive languages ........................................................................................................................ 38 6.5 “Women’s” Language ..................................................................................................................... 39 6.6 Conservative Language ................................................................................................................. 41 6.7 Oral Sources ....................................................................................................................................... 46 6.8 Speed of thought .............................................................................................................................. 48 6.9 Speed of utterances ........................................................................................................................ 50 6.10 Emotions vs. rationality in speech. ........................................................................................ 53 6.11 Taboo ................................................................................................................................................. 55 6.12 2nd/foreign language learning ................................................................................................. 58 6.13 Adverbs ............................................................................................................................................. 59 6.14 Non-verbal communication ...................................................................................................... 61 6.15 Pronouns .......................................................................................................................................... 62 6.16 Diphthongs ...................................................................................................................................... 63 7 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 67 8 Bibliography ............................................................................................................................ 70 (24492 words) 5 1 Introduction No two languages are the same, yet there is more than just variation between different languages, there is also variation within one and the same language. Variation within the same language is a phenomenon that occurs on a number of different levels, though some of them might be more obvious than others. Sociolinguists discovered that there are a number of factors that influence the way in which one speaks. It depends on what social class one belongs to, the education one received, the neighbourhood a person grew up in, his or her age and occupation, etc. All of these factors influence our speech, and as a result, it can be found that two neighbours will not speak the exact same language. One of those factors, and perhaps the most influential one when talking about language variety, is gender. At some point, everybody has probably noticed that a man and woman with similar social backgrounds do not speak exactly the same language. Intuitively we assign women with a higher-pitched voice, and there are certain phrases and expressions that would probably be regarded as strange when spoken by a man. These are just two examples of a wide range of differences in the speech of men and women. According to the Online Dictionary of Language Terminology (ODLT) a genderlect is “a variety of speech (i.e. a register or a sociolect) that is specific to either males or females”
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Syntactic Variations of African-American Vernacular English (Aave) Employed by the Main Character in Hustle & Flow
    SYNTACTIC VARIATIONS OF AFRICAN-AMERICAN VERNACULAR ENGLISH (AAVE) EMPLOYED BY THE MAIN CHARACTER IN HUSTLE & FLOW A THESIS Presented as a Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Attainment of a Sarjana Sastra Degree in English Language & Literature By: DESTYANA PRASTITASARI 07211144026 ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE STUDY PROGRAM ENGLISH EDUCATION DEPARTMENT FACULTY OF LANGUAGES AND ARTS YOGYAKARTA STATE UNIVERSITY 2013 MOTTOS Stay focus, work very hard, and do your best. (Farah Quinn) There’s no reason to say ‘I cannot do it’ because ‘I can do it’ I can get the tired and desperate feelings but they cannot occur in more than 24 hours Always smile, greet for everyone, and everything gonna be alright (Mottos of my life) Everybody gotta have a dream (Hustle & Flow) v DEDICATIONS I dedicate this thesis to: My beloved mama (Mrs.Bingartin), My papa (Mr.Sumarno) who always give me love , pray, support and deep understanding, My beloved sweetheart, who always gives me spirit and patience, and My younger brother Ardhi ‘Hwang Kichu’ who always supports and accompanies me in writing this thesis. vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Alhamdulillah, all praise be to Allah SWT, the Almighty, the Most Gracious and the Most Merciful, without which I would never have finished this thesis. In accomplishing this thesis, I owe to many people for the support, guidance, assistance, and help. I would like to express my deepest gratitude and thanks to RA Rahmi Dipayanti Andayani, M.Pd., my first consultant and Titik Sudartinah, M.A., my second consultant, for their endless support, advice, patience and great guidance in helping me throughout this thesis.
    [Show full text]
  • Variations in Language Use Across Gender: Biological Versus Sociological Theories
    UC Merced Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society Title Variations in Language Use across Gender: Biological versus Sociological Theories Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1q30w4z0 Journal Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 28(28) ISSN 1069-7977 Authors Bell, Courtney M. McCarthy, Philip M. McNamara, Danielle S. Publication Date 2006 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Variations in Language Use across Gender: Biological versus Sociological Theories Courtney M. Bell (cbell@ mail.psyc.memphis.edu Philip M. McCarthy ([email protected]) Danielle S. McNamara ([email protected]) Institute for Intelligent Systems University of Memphis Memphis, TN38152 Abstract West, 1975; West & Zimmerman, 1983) and overlap We examine gender differences in language use in light of women’s speech (Rosenblum, 1986) during conversations the biological and social construction theories of gender. than the reverse. On the other hand, other research The biological theory defines gender in terms of biological indicates no gender differences in interruptions (Aries, sex resulting in polarized and static language differences 1996; James & Clarke, 1993) or insignificant differences based on sex. The social constructionist theory of gender (Anderson & Leaper, 1998). However, potentially more assumes gender differences in language use depend on the context in which the interaction occurs. Gender is important than citing the differences, is positing possible contextually defined and fluid, predicting that males and explanations for why they might exist. We approach that females use a variety of linguistic strategies. We use a problem here by testing the biological and social qualitative linguistic approach to investigate gender constructionist theories (Bergvall, 1999; Coates & differences in language within a context of marital conflict.
    [Show full text]
  • Contesting Regimes of Variation: Critical Groundwork for Pedagogies of Mobile Experience and Restorative Justice
    Robert W. Train Sonoma State University, California CONTESTING REGIMES OF VARIATION: CRITICAL GROUNDWORK FOR PEDAGOGIES OF MOBILE EXPERIENCE AND RESTORATIVE JUSTICE Abstract: This paper examines from a critical transdisciplinary perspective the concept of variation and its fraught binary association with standard language as part of the conceptual toolbox and vocabulary for language educators and researchers. “Variation” is shown to be imbricated a historically-contingent metadiscursive regime in language study as scientific description and education supporting problematic speaker identities (e.g., “non/native”, “heritage”, “foreign”) around an ideology of reduction through which complex sociolinguistic and sociocultural spaces of diversity and variability have been reduced to the “problem” of governing people and spaces legitimated and embodied in idealized teachers and learners of languages invented as the “zero degree of observation” (Castro-Gómez 2005; Mignolo 2011) in ongoing contexts of Western modernity and coloniality. This paper explores how regimes of variation have been constructed in a “sociolinguistics of distribution” (Blommaert 2010) constituted around the delimitation of borders—linguistic, temporal, social and territorial—rather than a “sociolinguistics of mobility” focused on interrogating and problematizing the validity and relevance of those borders in a world characterized by diverse transcultural and translingual experiences of human flow and migration. This paper reframes “variation” as mobile modes-of-experiencing- the-world in order to expand the critical, historical, and ethical vocabularies and knowledge base of language educators and lay the groundwork for pedagogies of experience that impact human lives in the service of restorative social justice. Keywords: metadiscursive regimes w sociolinguistic variation w standard language w sociolinguistics of mobility w pedagogies of experience Train, Robert W.
    [Show full text]
  • Language Ideologies:Bridging the Gap Between Social Structures and Local Practices Introduction to the Colloquium
    Language Ideologies:Bridging the Gap between Social Structures and Local Practices Introduction to the Colloquium Brigitta Busch ¨ Jürgen Spitzmüller University of Vienna ¨ Department of Linguistics Sociolinguistics Symposium öw Murcia, wÏ/.Ï/ö.wÏ Bridging what? Introduction to the Colloquium Busch/Spitzmüller Bridging what? Stance and Metapragmatics Indexical Anchors ‚ Local indexicality – stance and social positions Programme ‚ Social indexicality – language ideologies ö¨öö Bridging what? Introduction to the Colloquium Busch/Spitzmüller Bridging what? Stance and Metapragmatics Indexical Anchors ‚ Local indexicality – stance and social positions Programme ‚ Social indexicality – language ideologies ö¨öö Social Positioning and Stance (as Local Practices) Introduction to the Colloquium Busch/Spitzmüller ‚ Davies,Bronwyn/Harré, Rom (wRR.). Positioning. The Discourse Production of Selves. In: Journal for the Theory Bridging what? of Social Behaviour ö./w, pp. ÿé–Ïé. Stance and Metapragmatics ‚ Wortham, Stanton (ö...). Interactional Positioning and Indexical Anchors Narrative Self-Construction. In: Narrative Inquiry Programme wR/wóÅ-wÏÿ . ‚ Englebretson, Robert (ed.) (ö..Å). Stancetaking in Discourse. Subjectivity,Evaluation, Interaction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins (Pragmatics & Beyond, N. S. wÏÿ). ‚ Deppermann,Arnulf (ö.wó). Positioning. In:Anna de Fina/Alexandra Georgakopoulou (eds.): The Handbook of Narrative Analysis.Oxford: Wiley Blackwell, pp. éÏR–éÏÅ. ‚ amongst many more é¨öö Social Positioning and Stance (as Local Practices – within Discursive Frames) Introduction to the Colloquium Busch/Spitzmüller Bridging what? ‚ Bamberg, Michael (wRRÅ). Positioning Between Structure Stance and and Performance. In: Journal of Narrative and Life History Metapragmatics Å/w-ÿ, pp. ééó–éÿö. Indexical Anchors ‚ Bamberg, Michael/Georgakopoulou,Alexandra (ö..Ï). Programme Small Stories as a New Perspective in Narrative and Identity Analysis. In: Text and Talk öÏ/é, pp.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction: Documenting Variation in Endangered Languages
    Language Documentation & Conservation Special Publication No. 13 (July 2017) Documenting Variation in Endangered Languages ed. by Kristine A. Hildebrandt, Carmen Jany, and Wilson Silva, pp. 1-5 http://nlfrc.hawaii.edu/ldc/ 1 http://handle.net/24746 Introduction: Documenting Variation in Endangered Languages Kristine A. Hildebrandt, Carmen Jany, and Wilson Silva Southern Illinois University Edwardsville, California State University, San Bernadino, University of Rochester The papers in this special publication are the result of presentations and fol- low-up dialogue on emergent and alternative methods to documenting variation in endangered, minority, or otherwise under-represented languages. Recent decades have seen a burgeoning interest in many aspects of language documentation and field linguistics (Chelliah & de Reuse 2010, Crowley & Thieberger 2007, Gippert et al 2006, Grenoble 2010, Newman & Ratliff 2001, Sakel & Everett 2012, Woodbury 2011).1 There is also a great deal of material dealing with language variation in major languages (Bassiouney 2009, Eckert 2000, Eckert & Rickford 2001, Hinskens 2005, Labov 1972a, 1972b, 1994, 2001, 2006, 2012, Murray & Simon 2006, Wolfram & Schilling-Estes 2005). In contrast, intersections of language variation in endangered and minority languages are still few in number. Yet examples of those few cases published on the intersection of language documentation and language variation reveal exciting poten- tials for linguistics as a discipline, challenging and supporting classical models, creating new models and predictions. For instance, Stanford’s study of Sui (China) (2009) demonstrates that while socio-economic class in indigenous communities is un-illuminating, clan is a useful predictor of lexical variation. Likewise, phonological variation (Clarke 2009) may be more productively observed across different territorial groups in Innu (Canada), highlighting the role of “covert hierarchy” as a social factor.
    [Show full text]
  • CHAPTER 2 Registers of Language
    Duranti / Companion to Linguistic Anthropology Final 12.11.2003 1:28pm page 23 Registers of CHAPTER 2 Language Asif Agha 1INTRODUCTION Language users often employ labels like ‘‘polite language,’’ ‘‘informal speech,’’ ‘‘upper-class speech,’’ ‘‘women’s speech,’’ ‘‘literary usage,’’ ‘‘scientific term,’’ ‘‘reli- gious language,’’ ‘‘slang,’’ and others, to describe differences among speech forms. Metalinguistic labels of this kind link speech repertoires to enactable pragmatic effects, including images of the person speaking (woman, upper-class person), the relationship of speaker to interlocutor (formality, politeness), the conduct of social practices (religious, literary, or scientific activity); they hint at the existence of cultural models of speech – a metapragmatic classification of discourse types – linking speech repertoires to typifications of actor, relationship, and conduct. This is the space of register variation conceived in intuitive terms. Writers on language – linguists, anthropologists, literary critics – have long been interested in cultural models of this kind simply because they are of common concern to language users. Speakers of any language can intuitively assign speech differences to a space of classifications of the above kind and, correspondingly, can respond to others’ speech in ways sensitive to such distinctions. Competence in such models is an indispensable resource in social interaction. Yet many features of such models – their socially distributed existence, their ideological character, the way in which they motivate tropes of personhood and identity – have tended to puzzle writers on the subject of registers. I will be arguing below that a clarification of these issues – indeed the very study of registers – requires attention to reflexive social processes whereby such models are formulated and disseminated in social life and become available for use in interaction by individuals.
    [Show full text]
  • A Literature Review on Code-Switching
    1 Code-switching as a Result of Language Acquisition: A Case Study of a 1.5 Generation Child from China1 Yalun Zhou, Ph.D.2 Michael Wei, Ph.D.3 Abstract Despite individual differences, all bilinguals share the ability to act in their native language, in their second language, and to switch back and forth between the two languages they know (Van Hell, 1998). Chinese is the largest Asian American ethnic group in the United States. Their use of code-switching is an increasingly important issue in understanding their language choice and language development. This study on code-switching between a 1.5 generation Chinese child and her parents will add perspectives on the growing literature of Chinese American families, their language interaction and language development. Introduction There are several definitions for code-switching. Gumperz (1982 b) defined code-switching as “the juxtaposition within the same speech exchange of passages of speech belonging to two different grammatical systems or subsystems” (p. 59). The emphasis is on the two grammatical systems of one language, although most people refer to code-switching as the mixed use of 1 This paper was presented at the 2007 Annual Conference of Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL), Seattle, Washington. 2 Yalun Zhou, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Director of Chinese Minor Program, Dept. of Communication and Media, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, [email protected] 3 Michael Wei, Ph.D., Associate Professor, TESOL Program Director, School of Education, University of Missouri-Kansas City, [email protected] 2 languages. Milroy and Muysken (1995) stated that code-switching is “the alternative use by bilinguals of two or more languages in the same conversation” (p.7).
    [Show full text]
  • THE ANALYSIS of LANGUAGE VARIATION USED in FAST and FURIOUS 8 MOVIE a Sociolinguistics Study By: Arkin Haris, S.Pd., M.Hum
    THE ANALYSIS OF LANGUAGE VARIATION USED IN FAST AND FURIOUS 8 MOVIE A Sociolinguistics Study By: Arkin Haris, S.Pd., M.Hum. Email: [email protected] Website: arkinharis.com A. Background of Study As human beings, people can not be separated from the process of communication. In their lives, people need to interact with others since they can’t live by themselves. Through communication process, people can change their minds, ideas, thoughts, and intentions. They can also deliver messages to others. In conducting communication, people need a medium to express their intentions and messages. The most appropriate medium is language since language can carry a message by symbols. This is in line with what has been suggested by Wardaugh (1992: 8) who states that ―Language allows people to say things to each other and expresses communicate needs‖. In short, language is constantly used by humans in their daily life as a means of communication. Language is very important in social interaction. In interlace good relation, people will use appropriate language that can be understood by others in particular event. Some communities have their own language that is used in daily activity which different with other communities. Every community have different characteristic from their culture which determined the variety of language that they use. Some of them make uncommon languages that only can be understood by the member of communities in order to keeping their attribute or keeping a secret. Family relation, work place, friendship, and social class also can be causes of language varieties. Beside language varieties, changed or mix a language to another can be the way to establish a communication depend on who is the partner and the context.
    [Show full text]
  • JOURNAL of LANGUAGE and LINGUISTIC STUDIES ISSN: 1305-578X Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 13(1), 379-398; 2017
    Available online at www.jlls.org JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES ISSN: 1305-578X Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 13(1), 379-398; 2017 The impact of non-native English teachers’ linguistic insecurity on learners’ productive skills Giti Ehtesham Daftaria*, Zekiye Müge Tavilb a Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey b Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey APA Citation: Daftari, G.E &Tavil, Z. M. (2017). The Impact of Non-native English Teachers’ Linguistic Insecurity on Learners’ Productive Skills. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 13(1), 379-398. Submission Date: 28/11/2016 Acceptance Date:04/13/2017 Abstract The discrimination between native and non-native English speaking teachers is reported in favor of native speakers in literature. The present study examines the linguistic insecurity of non-native English speaking teachers (NNESTs) and investigates its influence on learners' productive skills by using SPSS software. The eighteen teachers participating in this research study are from different countries, mostly Asian, and they all work in a language institute in Ankara, Turkey. The learners who participated in this work are 300 intermediate, upper-intermediate and advanced English learners. The data related to teachers' linguistic insecurity were collected by questionnaires, semi-structured interviews and proficiency tests. Pearson Correlation and ANOVA Tests were used and the results revealed that NNESTs' linguistic insecurity, neither female nor male teachers, is not significantly correlated with the learners' writing and speaking scores. © 2017 JLLS and the Authors - Published by JLLS. Keywords: linguistic insecurity, non-native English teachers, productive skills, questionnaire, interview, proficiency test 1. Introduction There is no doubt today that English is the unrivaled lingua franca of the world with the largest number of non-native speakers.
    [Show full text]
  • Demographic Dialectal Variation in Social Media: a Case Study of African-American English
    Demographic Dialectal Variation in Social Media: A Case Study of African-American English Su Lin Blodgett† Lisa Green∗ Brendan O’Connor† †College of Information and Computer Sciences ∗Department of Linguistics University of Massachusetts Amherst Abstract As many of these dialects have traditionally ex- isted primarily in oral contexts, they have histor- Though dialectal language is increasingly ically been underrepresented in written sources. abundant on social media, few resources exist Consequently, NLP tools have been developed from for developing NLP tools to handle such lan- text which aligns with mainstream languages. With guage. We conduct a case study of dialectal the rise of social media, however, dialectal language language in online conversational text by in- is playing an increasingly prominent role in online vestigating African-American English (AAE) on Twitter. We propose a distantly supervised conversational text, for which traditional NLP tools model to identify AAE-like language from de- may be insufficient. This impacts many applica- mographics associated with geo-located mes- tions: for example, dialect speakers’ opinions may sages, and we verify that this language fol- be mischaracterized under social media sentiment lows well-known AAE linguistic phenomena. analysis or omitted altogether (Hovy and Spruit, In addition, we analyze the quality of existing 2016). Since this data is now available, we seek to language identification and dependency pars- analyze current NLP challenges and extract dialectal ing tools on AAE-like text, demonstrating that they perform poorly on such text compared to language from online data. text associated with white speakers. We also Specifically, we investigate dialectal language in provide an ensemble classifier for language publicly available Twitter data, focusing on African- identification which eliminates this disparity American English (AAE), a dialect of Standard and release a new corpus of tweets containing AAE-like language.
    [Show full text]
  • 4 Variation in Language and Gender
    98 Suzanne Romaine 4 Variation in Language and Gender SUZANNE ROMAINE 1 Introduction This chapter addresses some of the main research methods, trends, and findings concerning variation in language and gender. Most of the studies examined here have employed what can be referred to as quantitative variationist meth- odology (sometimes also called the quantitative paradigm or variation theory) to reveal and analyze sociolinguistic patterns, that is, correlations between variable features of the kind usually examined in sociolinguistic studies of urban speech communities (e.g. postvocalic /r/ in New York City, glottalization in Glasgow, initial /h/ in Norwich, etc.), and external social factors such as social class, age, sex, network, and style (see Labov 1972a). When such large-scale systematic research into sociolinguistic variation began in the 1960s, its main focus was to illuminate the relationship between language and social structure more generally, rather than the relationship between language and gender specifically. However, the category of sex (un- derstood simply as a binary division between males and females) was often included as a major social variable and instances of gender variation (or sex differentiation, as it was generally called) were noted in relation to other socio- linguistic patterns, particularly, social class and stylistic differentiation. Because the way in which research questions are formed has a bearing on the findings, some of the basic methodological assumptions and the historical context in which the variationist approach emerged are discussed briefly in section 2. The general findings are the focus of section 3, with special reference to connections between sex differentiation, social class stratification, and style shifting.
    [Show full text]
  • Sociolinguistics: Language Change Wardhaugh Chapter 8
    Sociolinguistics: Language Change Wardhaugh chapter 8 (Labov’s homepage: http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~wlabov/home.html) Non-prestige dialects of English and Language Dispersion A common preconception about non-prestige dialects or colloquial forms of English is that they are unsystematic and 'lazy' forms of language, and that they either reflect or even encourage illogical thought. Over the past 4 decades many linguists have studied non-prestige and colloquial forms of English (and other languages) and arrived at the conclusion that these varieties are just as systematic as prestige varieties of English, that their 'non-standard' features are typically features found in prestige varieties of other languages, and that there is no basis for claiming that their phonology, morphology or syntax reflects 'illogical' or lazy thinking. We focus here on the dialect of English that has received the most attention: it is known variously as "Black English Vernacular" (BEV), "African American Vernacular English" (AAVE) or "Ebonics". The first two terms are the most commonly used terms used in sociolinguistic research; the third term has achieved wide recognition in the wake of a highly controversial resolution of the Oakland (CA) Board of Education involving the role of Ebonics in K-12 education. In what follows I will use the term AAVE, which is the most widespread term in current linguistic research. Some excellent readily accessible articles on AAVE are available on-line. Note1: the colloquial English spoken by African American communities spans a wide varieties of styles, often identical to or barely distinguishable from the English spoken by other ethnic groups, including the prestige white variety.
    [Show full text]