What’s left of the course

• (today) 6. Accommodation and sociolinguistic variables

• 7. Acts of identity

• 8. Inequality – social and linguistic

• To be compressed for lack of time:– Sex differences– Language structure and its social functions

Sociolinguistics 6

Accommodation and sociolinguistic variables

The story so far

• Our knowledge of social structure is an inheritance network, so it consists of:– isa hierarchies of ‘person-types’

• E.g. Doctor isa Adult isa Person

– Isa hierarchies of relation-types• E.g. Parent isa Close kin isa Intimate isa Relation

• We each build ourselves a ‘face’ defined in terms of this social structure.

An example

M al e B r i t Adul t F e m al e Aus tr al i an

M e H e r

D i s tant E qual

(p ers on -typ es )

(re lation -typ es )

Face and social structure

• Our face defines– our person-type.– our relations to other people.

• It is important because it defines the rights we claim from others:– Positive rights (for respect – and, indirectly,

help), based on solidarity– ‘Negative’ rights (for freedom), based on

power.

Flexible face

• Our face is not fixed – we choose it and signal it.

• We can vary our face according to:– The situation, e.g. tutorial or chat– Our addressee (or listener!)

• So we vary both:– Our person-type (social identity)– Our relation

How to manage solidarity

• We negotiate solidarity relations• We tend to like those who are like us.• So, to increase solidarity we may use

dedicated behaviour, e.g. – touching – smiling– saying darling

• Conversely, solidarity affects our behaviour.

I don’t like you!

I like being with you.

I do like you!

Accommodation

• We can increase solidarity by increasing similarity:– Non-linguistic behaviour, e.g. walk like them.– Linguistic behaviour: speak more like them.

• This is called ‘accommodation’

In step with each other

In harmony

Linguistic convergence

• Why do children learn their native language so perfectly?– Because they want maximum solidarity with

their models.– Including fine details of pronunciation and

irregular grammar

• But sometimes their carers compromise too!

Danny and Mummy converging

• Danny: Look . he went (winter) . (winterz)

• Mummy: vintage yes . one two three vintage cars

• Danny: fast car vintage . fast car vintage

• Mummy: fast car vintage

• Danny: fast car vintage

But divergence is possible too:

• A number of people who were learning Welsh were asked to help with a survey. In their separate booths in the language laboratory, they were asked a number of questions by an RP-sounding English speaker. At one point this speaker arrogantly challenged the learners' reasons for trying to acquire Welsh which he called a "dying language which had a dismal future". In responding to this statement the learners generally broadened their Welsh accents. Some introduced Welsh words into their answers, while others used an aggressive tone. One woman did not reply for a while, and then she was heard conjugating Welsh verbs very gently into the microphone. (Giles)

Evidence for accommodation

How they talk in Norwich

• I’ve got something humorous happened to me, one thing I’ll never forget. [What’s that?] Eh? We …well th… this is, this is when I first met my husband … cos I generally … you know, my daughter always laugh at that

So:

• Post-vocalic /t/ = [] (glottal stop)– E.g. forget, daughter

• Long /ɑ:/ = [a:] – E.g. laugh

But:

I went to go in first … thought that was a long passage and that wasn’t … they had forty steps and I fell right to the bottom

So …

• The pronunciation of at least /t/ varies: it’s a sociolinguistic variable with a choice of variants:– Sometimes [t]– Sometimes []– Standard notation: (t): [t] ~ []

• In fact the same is true of /ɑ:/:– (a:): [ɑ:] ~ [a:]

Quantitative dialectology

• Variable behaviour requires a new kind of dialectology.

• Speakers can differ quantitatively in terms of how often they choose each variant on each variable.

• So each speaker can be given a score for each variable, e.g. one variant as a percentage of the total for the variable.

For example

• Speaker A says 20 words containing (t)– 5 pronounced with [t]– 15 with []– So A’s score for [t] = 5/20 x 100% = 25%

• Two speakers:– Speaker A scores 25% – Speaker B scores 37%

Back to accommodation

• This Norwich speaker was talking to an interviewer in a research project.

• The same interviewer interviewed many other speakers, each with slightly different pronunciations.

• Did the interviewer accommodate to the ‘informants’ (interviewees)?

The interviewer: Peter Trudgill

student of William Labov:

Source:

The (t) variable: Trudgill (top line) & subjects

(lower)

So:

• He did accommodate to his subjects.

• How? By adjusting his score – i.e. a subtle quantitative change.

• Why? To increase solidarity.

• Why? To make them like him.

• Why? To encourage them to help.

• Why? Because we help those who are close to us.

Accommodation for solidarity Int i m ate

S A

•

language

re lat io n

language

But: the (a:) variable …

Comments

• The figures for (a:) and (t) are based on the same recordings – same people, same occasion.

• But Peter Trudgill – did accommodate on (t) but– did not accommodate on (a:).

Why no accommodation on (a:)?

• Because each variable signals different social information in terms of:– Social types, e.g. ‘Norwich-er’– Situation types, e.g. ‘Casual’

• (t):[] signals casual as well as Norwich-er.– So Trudgill could ‘pretend’ to accommodate on this.

• (a:):[a:] signals only Norwich. – So he couldn’t shift on this.

(This is his own explanation.)

Coming shortly

• 7. Acts of identity

• 8. Inequality – social and linguistic