Sociolinguistics

LING 200

Spring 2006

Overview

• Language vs. dialect

• Language variation– variation in different subareas (phonology,

syntax, etc.)– variation conditioned by different factors

(region, socioeconomics, gender, age, etc.)

• Language and cultural identity, attitudes about language

Speech communities

language

egi dialect dialect dialect

egi idiolect idiolect idiolect

Idiolect

• Language at the individual level– “I need you to be a helperous one.” (request for

favor)– “He’s just repeaterous of the same bad animal

things that he does.” (talking about the cat)– “I think I’ll be jeanerous today.” (getting

dressed for work on a Friday)

• -erous: ]{N,V}__]Adj

Dialect (linguist’s definition)

• Mutually intelligible varieties; e.g.– English spoken in Seattle, English spoken in

Newcastle, UK

– Sahaptin spoken in Toppenish WA and Sahaptin spoken in Pendleton OR

• Not dialects of same language:– W. Germanic (English) spoken in Seattle and W.

Germanic (Dutch) spoken in Amsterdam

– Sahaptian (Sahaptin) spoken in Toppenish and Sahaptian (Nez Perce) spoken in Coeur D’Alene ID

Some sources of confusion re ‘dialect’

• Language/dialect socioeconomic development– indigenous people vs. industrialized societies

• Politically distinct linguistically distinct. – 200+ countries vs. 6000+ languages– ‘Chinese’: languages spoken in same country,

mislabeled ‘dialects’– Spoken in different countries, mislabeled

‘languages’:• Czech, Slovak• Serbian, Croatian• Norwegian, Swedish, Danish

Some sources of confusion re ‘dialect’

1. There are degrees of mutual intelligibility: what is criterion: 100%? 90%? 50%– Birmingham, UK vs. Seattle, WA

2. Asymmetries in intelligibility – Danish speakers find it easier to understand

Swedish than vice versa.

Difficulties with mutual intelligibility definition

3. ‘Is intelligible with’ is not transitive

Dialect continua:

Inuit (Eskimo family)

egi Iñupiaq Inuktitut Greenlandic

Iñupiaq speakers can understand Inuktitut, Inuktitut understand Greenlandic, Iñupiaq intelligibility of Greenlandic much less

Inupiaq Inuktitut W. Greenlandic

Language variation

• Some factors contributiong to variation– geography (region)– socioeconomic class– gender– age

• Types of variation– lexical/morphological– phonological– syntactic– etc.

Regional variation

wicket “next wicket please”

hydro “our hydro was really high last year”

local “if you do not know the local of the party you wish to speak to”

washroom = restroom

skidoo = snowmobile, snow machine

grade ones “The grade ones have not gone to recess yet.”

head “The headship search has just been announced at U. Alberta Linguistics.”

Some Canadian lexical items:

Regional variationPhonological differences between American, Canadian English: 1. “Canadian Raising”

Canadian US

cow [kw] [kw]

ice [ys] [ys]

eyes [yz] [yz]

scout [skwt] [skwt]

light [lyt] [lyt]

lied [lyd] [lyd]

/w/, /y/ [w], [y] / ___ voiceless

Regional variationPhonological differences between American, Canadian English. 2. Borrowed words with <a>

Canadian US

pasta [pæst] ("It Hasta be Pasta")

[pst]

Mazda [mæzd] [mzd]

taco [tæko] [tko]

avocado [ævkædo] [ævkdo]/ [vkdo]

Takla (< [tht’t] [tækl] [tkl]

Babine (<Fr.) [bæbin] [bbin]

• Socioeconomic factors; as defined by (e.g.)– occupation (white collar, blue collar)

– education (college?)

– income

Socioeconomic conditioning variation

Socially conditioned variation in NYC

• Background– Rhotic vs. non-rhotic dialects of English:

• [str] (rhotic), [st] (non-rhotic)

– NYC has both rhotic and non-rhotic dialects• Some within-speaker variability

• Rhotic dialects are more prestigious in NYC, used by speakers belonging to higher socioeconomic classes

Post-vocalic [r] in NYC (vs. Reading)

NYC Reading social class

32% 0% upper middle

20 28 lower middle

12 44 upper working

0 49 lower working

NYC Findings

• Effects on pronunciation by register (formal/polite vs. normal/casual/conversational)

– Careful pronunciations contain more post-vocalic [r] than casual pronunciations (perhaps more self-monitoring during careful speech?)

• Post-vocalic [r] borrowed from one group (customers) to another (salespeople)– speaker awareness of prestige features, effect of use (or

lack thereof) on others’ perceptions

– speakers at middle and lower levels of social scale in NY are more aware of prestige features

Variation in 3sS -s

class Detroit, MI Norwich, UK

upper middle 1% 0%

lower middle 10 2

upper working 57 70

middle working 87

lower working 71 97

% verbs without –s: ‘he go’

Grammaticization of register

• Formal/polite vs. less polite:– Spanish tú (vos) vs. usted – Japanese, Korean honorific morphemes

• honorific suffixes which honor the subject (benefactive, etc.)

– Korean -si (added to verbs)– Korean -k*eso (added to nouns)

• register/politeness suffixes which indicate social rank/distance between speaker and listener

– Korean -yo (added to verbs)

Some honorific morphemes in Korean

plain honorific

-[i]/[ka] -[k*eso] subject

[o-ta]

come-declarative

[o-si-ta]

come-hon-decl

‘to come’

[o-a]

come-pres

[o-a-yo]

come-pres-pol

‘is coming’

[mk-ta]

eat-declarative

[t-si-ta]

eat-hon-decl

‘to eat’

Korean[uri tonse-i neil o-a]our yo.sibling-sub tomorrow come-pres‘Our little brother/sister is coming tomorrow.’ (talking to friends)[uri tonse-i neil o-a-yo]our yo.sibling-sub tomorrow come-pres-pol‘Our little brother/sister is coming tomorrow.’ (talking to respected

individual)[uri halmni-k*es neil o-sy--yo] our grandmother-hon.sub tomorrow come-hon-pres-pol‘Our grandmother is coming tomorrow.’ (talking to respected individual)[uri snse-nim-k*es neil o-sy--yo] our teacher-hon-hon.sub tomorrow come-hon-pres-pol‘Our teacher is coming tomorrow.’ (talking to respected individual)(-nim is an honorific title reserved for kings, gods and teachers)

Effect of gender on language variation

• Some standard vs. nonstandard forms– -ing vs. in’

• Who’s playing? vs. Who’s playin’?

– single vs. double negative• I don’t have any money. vs. I don’t have no money.

– negative auxiliary ain’t (< am not)• I haven’t done anything wrong. vs. I ain’t done nothing wrong.

• Women tend to use more standard forms

Effect of gender and socio class

male female

upper middle class 6.3 0

lower middle class 32.4 1.4

upper working class 40.0 35.6

lower working class 90.1 58.9

% double negatives, Detroit

Effects of gender on language variation

• Other differences between men’s, women’s speech:– intonation (women have more pitch variation)– lexical (adjectives, intensifiers)

• That’s so gorgeous.

• That looks nice.

– use of tag questions (‘isn’t it?’) (women use more)

Grammaticization of gender

• Male and female forms of lexical items in Yana, a Native American language

• Hokan language family

• Extinct in early 20th century

Yana language area

‘Male’ and ‘female forms’ in Yana

hearer

male female

speaker

male male forms

female forms

female female forms

female forms

Male vs. female forms in Yana

male female

‘go’ ni/nii- a-

1. Unpredictable differences

Male vs. female forms in Yana

male female

‘eat’ moi- moi-

‘inside’ iiwuulu iiwuulu

‘man’ iisi iisi

‘place’ phati phathi

‘snow’ phatsa phatsha

2. Predictable differences. Root > 1 syllable, ends in short vowel:

Devoice final vowel, aspirate final stop in female

Male vs. female forms in Yana

2. Predictable differences.

Root ends in long vowel, or 1 syllable:

male female

‘tree, stick’ i-na ih

‘shelled acorn’ yu-na yuh

‘deer’ pa-na

Add –na to male forms; devoice final vowel to form female forms, unless final vowel = only vowel (add –h)