Wrap-­‐up  

(dribs  ‘n  drabs)  

Sociolinguis5cs:  a  study  of  meaning    •  What  is  social  meaning?  

– What  isn’t  social  meaning?  

•  What  is  the  range  of  meanings  that  get  associated  with  linguis5c  variables?  

•  What  is  the  range  of  linguis5c  resources  that  func5on  as  sociolinguis5c  variables?  

What  is  a  slx  variable?  

•  An  alterna5on  of  form  becomes  a  variable  when  the  alterna5on  displays  a  paCern.  

•  It  becomes  a  sociolinguis5c  variable  when  social  context  is  part  of  that  paCern.  

•  At  that  point,  the  variable  takes  on  meaning,  becoming  a  sign.    

Podesva,  R.,  P.  Eckert,  J.  Fine,  K.  Hilton,  S  Jeong,  S.  King,  T.  PraC.  2015.  Social  Influences  on  the  Degree  of  Stop  Voicing  in  Inland  California.  Penn  working  papers  in  linguis5cs.        

An  emergent  sign  

•  Is  varia5on  part  of  pragma5cs?  – From  ye  olde  Wickedpedia:  Pragma&cs  is  a  subfield  of  linguis5cs  and  semio5cs  that  studies  the  ways  in  which  context  contributes  to  meaning.  

•  proposi5onal  meaning?  •  where  does  denota5on  leave  off  and  connota5on  begin?  

What’s  the  difference?  

(1) a.  Americans  need  to  pay  off  their  debts.              b.The  Americans  need  to  pay  off  their  debts.    

(2)  a.  Americans  drink  fluoridated  water.              b.  The  Americans  drink  fluoridated  water.    

Acton,  Eric.  2014.  Pragma5cs  and  the  social  meaning  of  determiners.  PhD  Disserta5on.  Stanford  University.  

Acton,  Eric.  2014.  Pragma5cs  and  the  social  meaning  of  determiners.  PhD  Disserta5on.  Stanford  University.  

“Americans  are  cravin’  that  straight  talk.”    

(42)  [.  .  .  ]  it  was  John  McCain  who  pushed  so  hard  with  the  Fannie  Mae  and  Freddie  Mac  reform  measures.  He  sounded  that  warning  bell.    

Acton, Eric K. and Christopher Potts. 2014. That straight talk: Sarah Palin and the sociolinguistics of demonstratives. Journal of Sociolinguistics 18(1):3-31. Liberman, Mark. 2010. Sarah Palin’s distal demonstratives. http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2240

Acton,  E.  (2011).  On  gender  differences  in  the  distribu5on  of  um  and  uh.  University  of  Pennsylvania  Working  Papers  in  Linguis5cs,  17(2).  

A  construc5on  We used to uh | put on like these skits for the cla- uh | me and her we won first prize in this talent contest cuz we uh | dressed up as sardines, you know.

Calder and Popova

D’Onofrio, Hilton and Pratt creak + uh p=0.01

We we got arrested before For uh | possession of alcohol

And uh | me and Jill we went in the john you know we had our first our first cigarette

Is  uh  a  filler?  

4/19  occurrences  of  um/uh  precede  pauses  of  over  a  second.  

•  2  occurrences  of  um.    •  2  occurrences  of  uh  with  no  creak.    

•  before  syntac5c  restart  •  before  long  pause  

   

The  role  of  the  2nd  genera5on  

     In  cases  of  language  contact,  adults  will  bring  substrate  influences  into  the  target  language,  but  it  is  their  kids  who,  as  na5ve  speakers  of  that  target  language,  will  (or  won’t)  select  substrate  features  to  index  aspects  of  the  second  genera5on  immigrant  experience.    

 Roberts,  S.  J.  (2000).  Na5viza5on  and  the  genesis  of  Hawaiian  

Creole.  Language  change  and  language  contact  in  pidgins  and  creoles.  J.  H.  McWhorter.  Amsterdam,  Benjamins.  1-­‐45.  

Audrit,  S.  (forthcoming).  “Non  standard  phone5c  variants  used  as  iden5ty  markers  by  immigrated  Moroccan  adolescents  in  Brussels”.  In  /Proceedings  of  the  ICLaVE  5th  (University  of  Copenhaguen  –  June  2009).  John  Benjamins.  

 

(th)  stopping  "• Mendoza-Denton, Norma. (1997). Chicana/Mexicana identity and linguistic variation: An ethnographic and sociolinguistic study of gang affiliation in an urban high school, Stanford University. !

• Rose, M. (2006). Language, Place and Identity in Later Life. PhD Dissertation. Stanford CA, Stanford University.!"• Dubois, S. and B. Horvath (1998). "Let's tink about dat: Interdental Fricatives in Cajun English." Language variation and change 10(3): 245-61."

Local or ethnic identity is never simply an association with a generic locale or ethnicity, but with a particular construction of that locale or ethnicity as distinct from some other.

Indexical Order (th) stopping

First Order

Latino Italian German Cajun

n+1 gang affiliate

tough guy hard worker entrepreneur

•  How  recognizeable  are  styles  beyond  their  local  context?  

-­‐1.00  

-­‐0.50  

0.00  

0.50  

1.00  

1.50  

2.00  

2.50  

std.  dev  from

 scho

ol  m

ean  

(ay)  raising/backing  nega5ve  concord  

Two girls at the local social extremes: Judy and Melody

Do  Judy  and  Melody’s  styles  have  meaning?  

•  Ques5on  1:  –  version  a.  what  social  group  or  clique  do  you  think  this  person  belongs  to?  

–  version  b.  how  well  do  you  think  this  person  does  in  school?  

–  version  c.  what  do  you  think  this  person  does  for  fun?  •  Ques5on  2:  

– What  do  you  think  this  person  is  like?    

Calder,  J.,  A.  D’Onofrio,  P.  Eckert,  E.  King,  G.  Lee,  D.  Popova,  T.  PraC,  J.  Van  Hofwegen,  A.  Venkatesh.  Jocks  and  burnouts  revisited.  2013.  Panel  presented  at  NWAV  24.  

4  from  the  Northern  Ci5es  region  

•  Judy    –  how  well  do  you  think  this  person  does  in  school?  

•  I  think  the  person  is  probably  a  very  poor  student  •  not  very  well  •  badly,  delinquent  

–  what  do  you  think  this  person  is  like?  •  obviously  doesn’t  know  how  to  speak  correctly  •  likes  to  have  a  good  5me,  not  very  serious  •  Probably  a  trouble  maker,  doesn’t  do  her  school  work  

•  Melody  –  what  do  you  think  this  person  does  for  fun?  

•  They  socialize  with  their  many  friends,  go  on  dates,  play  sports,  and  are  ac5ve  in  their  school's  extra  curricular  ac5vi5es  

–  what  do  you  think  this  person  is  like?  •     Friendly,  sociable,  easily  distracted,  slightly  melodrama5c,  ac5ve,  and  

asser5ve.    

what  social  group  or  clique  do  you  think  this  person  belongs  to?  

 

0  

0.1  

0.2  

0.3  

0.4  

0.5  

0.6  

0.7  

0.8  

0.9  

1  

Judy   Melody  

geeks,  gamers  

athlete  

vague  

gangsta,  par5ers  

smart  

popular,  cheerleaders,  preps  

What  do  you  think  this  person  is  like?  

0  

1  

2  

3  

4  

5  

6  

7  

8  

9  

Judy   Melody  

trouble  

par5es  

0  

1  

2  

3  

4  

5  

Judy   Melody  

low  class  

middle  class  

0  

2  

4  

6  

8  

10  

12  

14  

16  

18  

20  

Judy   Melody  

friendly,  outgoing,  energe5c  

what  do  you  think  this  person  does  for  fun?  

0  

2  

4  

6  

8  

10  

12  

14  

16  

18  

Judy   Melody  

shopping  

trouble  

school  ac5vi5es  

go  to  par5es  

friends  

games,  outdoor  ac5vi5es  

0  

1  

2  

3  

4  

5  

6  

7  

8  

9  

Judy   Melody  

not  smart  

smart  

how well do you think this person does in school?

0  

0.1  

0.2  

0.3  

0.4  

0.5  

0.6  

0.7  

0.8  

0.9  

1  

Judy   Melody  

badly  

ok  

well  

Explicit volunteered judgments of intelligence (what is this person like?)

How  do  we  “acquire”  sociolinguis5c  “competence”?  

CONDRY,  J.  and  CONDRY,  S.  1976.  Sex  differences:  A  study  in  the  eye  of  the  beholder.  Child  development,  47.812-­‐19.  

 

adults  watching  a  film  of  a  crying  infant  were  more  likely  to  hear  the  cry  as  angry  if  they  believed  the  infant  was  a  boy,  and  as  plain5ve  or  fearful  if  they  believed  the  infant  was  a  girl.  

Interpella5on  from  the  start  

adults  judged  a  24-­‐hour-­‐old  baby  as  bigger  if  they  believed  it  to  be  a  boy,  and  finer-­‐featured  if  they  believed  it  to  be  a  girl  

RUBIN,  J.Z.,  PROVENZANO,  F.J.  and  LURIA,  Z.  1974.  The  eye  of  the  beholder:  Parents'  view  on  sex  of  newborns.  American  journal  of  orthopsychiatry,  44.512-­‐19.    

Parents  use  more  diminu5ves  (ki1y,  doggie)  when  speaking  to  girls  than  to  boys    

GLEASON,  J.  BERKO,  PERLMANN,  R.Y.,  ELY,  D.  and  EVANS,  D.  1994.  The  baby  talk  register:  Parents'  use  of  diminu5ves.  Handbook  of  research  in  language  development  using  CHILDES,  ed.  by  J.L.  Sokolov  and  C.E.  Snow.  Hillsdale  NJ:  Lawrence  Erlbaum.    

ELY,  R.,  GLEASON,  J.,  NARASIMHAN,  B.  and  MCCABE,  A.  1995.  Family  talk  about  talk:  Mothers  lead  the  way.  Discourse  processes,  19.  

 

People  use  more  inner  state  words  (happy,  sad)  when  speaking  to  girls  than  to  boys.  

Adults  use  more  direct  prohibi5ves  (don’t  do  that!)  and  more  empha5c  prohibi5ves  (no!  no!  no!)  to  boys  than  to  girls,  regardless  of  the  actual  nature  of  the  children’s  ac5vity.  

  BELLINGER,  D.  and  GLEASON,  J.  BERKO.  1982.  Sex  differences  in  parental  direc5ves  to  young  children.  Journal  of  sex  roles,  8.1123-­‐39.    

A  study  of  thirteen-­‐month-­‐old  children  in  day  care  (Fagot  et  al  1985)  showed  that  teachers  responded  to  girls  when  they  talked,  babbled,  or  gestured,  while  they  responded  to  boys  when  they  whined,  screamed,  or  demanded  physical  aCen5on.  Nine  to  eleven  months  later,  the  same  girls  talked  more  than  the  boys,  and  the  boys  whined,  screamed  and  demanded  aCen5on  more  than  the  girls.    

FAGOT,  B.I.,  HAGAN,  R.,  LEINBACH,  M.D.  and  KRONSBERG,  S.  1985.  Differen5al  reac5ons  to  asser5ve  and  communica5ve  acts  of  toddler  boys  and  girls.  Child  development,  56.1499-­‐505.    

The  developmental  impera5ve  Collabora5ve  socializa5on  

   •  Growing  up  is  central  to  kids’  lives.    

•  Adults  stress  it  (primarily  in  the  insistence  on  behavior  “improvement”)    

•  Nobody  wants  to  be  a  "baby".  •  Older  kids  have  more  status.  They  know  stuff,  they  have  more  liber5es.    

•  The  unknown  is  exci5ng.      

Kids know what they’re doing

Child  society  is  a  basic  part  of  the  social  order;  not  unfinished  business.    

Kids  are  important  agents  of  social  –  and  linguis5c  –  change.  They  are  not  just  people  who  make  interes5ng  mistakes,  but  people  who,  in  the  reproduc5on  of  language  and  society,  make  intelligent  changes.    

 

 

Linguistically …

•  Kids learn early on the relation between linguistic

variability and social life. •  They interpret variability in adult speech: - Social roles - Social types - Affective displays

•  They embrace language as a free and portable resource for social action.

3  1/2  year  olds  doing  ‘father’  

•  lowered  pitch,  decreased  pitch  variability,  increased  amplitude  

•  oven  backed  and  lowered  vowels  in  a  manner  that  produced  an  almost  sinister  ‘accent’:    –   yes        [jʌs]  –   bad    [bɑ:d]  

 

Andersen,  Elaine  S.  (1990).  Speaking  with  style:  The  sociolinguis5c  skills  of  children.  London,  Routledge.  pp.  147  ff.  

Affect

•  Kids first learn the meaning of variation through its affective use.

•  Affect is social by virtue of the association of emotional proclivities with social groups.

•  Eventually affect becomes separable from social groupings.

NYGAARD,  L.C.  and  LUNDERS,  E.R.  2002.  Resolu5on  of  lexical  ambiguity  by  emo5onal  tone  of  voice.  Memory  and  cogni5on,  30.583-­‐93.  

Affect  and  Iconicity  

Language  as  Bodily  Hexis  

Language is a body technique, and specifically linguistic, especially phonetic, competence is a dimension of bodily hexis in which one’s whole relation to the social world, and one’s wholly social informed relation to the world, are expressed. […] The most frequent articulatory position is an element in an overall way of using the mouth (in talking but also in eating, drinking, laughing etc.) […] in the case of the lower classes, articulatory style is quite clearly part of a relation to the body that is dominated by the refusal of ‘airs and graces’ […] Bourgeois dispositions [esp. petit bourgeois] convey in their physical postures of tension and exertion … the bodily indices of quite general dispositions towards the world and other people, such as haughtiness and disdain. Bourdieu, Pierre and Wacquant, Loic J.D. 1992. An invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.1992. p. 149

Frequency Code���Association of high frequencies in f0, f2, and in consonant turbulence

with smallness; low frequencies with largeness.

������

• Sapir, Edward. 1929. A study in phonetic symbolism. Journal of Experimental Psychology 12, 225-239. • Newman, S. 1933. Further experiments in phonetic symbolism. American Journal of Psychology 45, 53-75. • Ohala, John. 1994. The biological bases of sound symbolism, 325-347. Sound Symbolism. L. Hinton, J. Nichols and J. J. Ohala, 222-236. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Silverstein,  Michael.  1994.  Rela5ve  mo5va5on  in  denota5onal  and  indexical  sound  symbolism  of  Wasco-­‐Wishram  Chinookan.  Sound  Symbolism.  L.  Hinton,  J.  Nichols  and  J.  J.  Ohala.,  40-­‐60.  Cambridge:  Cambridge  University  Press.  

 •  in5mate;dear  vs.  distanced;off-­‐puyng  •  desirable  vs.  to-­‐be-­‐shunned  •  personal  vs  impersonal  •  pleasing;sa5sfying  vs.  gross;disgus5ng  

Hamano,  Shoko.  1944.  Palataliza5on  in  Japanese  sound  symbolism.  Sound  Symbolism.  L.  Hinton,  J.  Nichols  and  J.  J.  

Ohala.,  148-­‐157.  Cambridge:  Cambridge  University  Press.    

•  instability,  unreliability,  uncoordinated  movement,  diversity,  excessive  energy,  noisiness,  lack  of  elegance,  cheapness  

ColeCe  

One  that  I  really  know  is  Josh  and  we  -­‐  we  give  him  rides  aver  school  

We  got  in  this  mad  because  of  Josh  or  something  and  um  the  next  day  ‘cause  she  was  spending  the  night  I’m  all  “wait  a  minute  why  should  we  get  mad  over  a  stupid  boy”  

ColeCe’s  (ay)  F1  p<.025  F2  p<.001    

ColeCe’s  (o)    F1  p<.001  F2  p<.025  

Rachel’s (ow)

Like everybody usually goes on Joanna's and um Vanessa's side so I usually have like nobody but Chrissy.

“I apologize” She says “oh well, I mean that was really rude and our friendship is over” I said and I got so mad when she says that so I said “Fine. Our friendship’s over.”

Rachel’s (ow)

Rachel’s  (ay)  

I  wanna  be  nice  and  sweet  like  other  teachers.  And  I  don’t  wanna  be  yelling  at  my  kids  all  my  life  you  know  -­‐  if  I  have  any  kids  

He  lies  to  me                                                                    Don’t  lie  

 

 

I  felt  like  I  wanna  cry  

Phonological  prodess  as  a  variable:  Some  hypoar5cula5ons    

He’s  a  jackass  and  everything  

Cuz  they  said  it  was  fucked  up          it  wasn’t  really  fucked  up          she  didn’t  even  fight  back      I  don’t  even  know  if  she  beat  me  up  or  nothing    I  think  she  did  kick  me        I  don’t  know      I  didn’t  feel  it  though          you  know    

Cuz  we  kinda  got  other  people  to  dance  cuz  then  you  know  -­‐  it  doesn't  maCer  if  you  dance  stupid  

FÓNAGY, IVAN. 1971. The functions of vocal style. Literary style: A symposium, ed. by Seymour Chatman, 159-74. London and New York: Oxford University Press. p. 160

!

The  gloCal  stop  appears  in  many  unrelated  languages,  figuring  neither  as  phoneme  nor  as  contextual  variant,  but  as  an  expression  of  anger,  hatred,  or  a  firm  aytude.  Tomographic  traces  show  that  a  strong  gloCal  constric5on  accompanies  the  expression  of  hatred.    The  biological  func5ons  of  gloCal  occlusion,  and  the  transfer  of  the  anal  libido  to  the  gloCal  level  seems  associated  with  the  “hard  aCack”  of  anger  and  hatred.      

 

Key  proper5es  of  sociolinguis5c  variables  

•  Implicitness.  Conveying  something  stylis5cally  is  less  of  a  commitment,  less  face-­‐threatening  than  puyng  it  in  the  content  of  an  uCerance,  and  it  allows  both  speaker  and  interlocutor  to  leave  things  “unsaid”.  This  also  allows  the  speaker  to  make  small  indexical  moves,  to  try  out  the  waters  with  less  risk  to  face.    

   •  Underspecifica2on.  Underspecifica5on  is  a  design  feature  of  language  more  generally.  It  allows  a  small  number  of  

forms  to  serve  a  large  number  of  purposes,  it  binds  language  to  social  ac5on,  and  it  lies  at  the  core  of  language’s  capacity  for  flexibility,  nuance,  crea5vity  and  change.  In  this  sense,  sociolinguis5c  variables  are  like  other  linguis5c  signs,  as  their  specific  meanings  emerge  only  in  context.    

   •  Combina2veness.  Variables  do  not  occur  alone,  and  are  not  interpreted  on  their  own,  but  as  components  of  

mquis5c  styles.  Styles  are  what  connect  to  social  meaning  through  their  rela5on  to  types,  personae,  or  characterological  figures  (Agha  2003).  The  underspecifica5on  of  variables  allows  them  to  bring  meaning  to  styles,  but  only  through  a  process  of  vivifica5on  as  they  contribute  to  the  construc5on  of  these  figures.  The  deployment  of  individual  variables  across  styles  expands  their  indexical  range.  

Key  proper5es  of  sociolinguis5c  variables  

•  Implicitness.  Conveying  something  stylis5cally  is  less  of  a  commitment,  less  face-­‐threatening  than  puyng  it  in  the  content  of  an  uCerance,  and  it  allows  both  speaker  and  interlocutor  to  leave  things  “unsaid”.  This  also  allows  the  speaker  to  make  small  indexical  moves,  to  try  out  the  waters  with  less  risk  to  face.    

   

•  Underspecifica2on.  Underspecifica5on  is  a  design  feature  of  language  more  generally.  It  allows  a  small  number  of  forms  to  serve  a  large  number  of  purposes,  it  binds  language  to  social  ac5on,  and  it  lies  at  the  core  of  language’s  capacity  for  flexibility,  nuance,  crea5vity  and  change.  In  this  sense,  sociolinguis5c  variables  are  like  other  linguis5c  signs,  as  their  specific  meanings  emerge  only  in  context.    

   •  Combina2veness.  Variables  do  not  occur  alone,  and  are  not  interpreted  on  their  own,  but  as  components  of  

holis5c  styles.  Styles  are  what  connect  to  social  meaning  through  their  rela5on  to  types,  personae,  or  characterological  figures  (Agha  2003).  The  underspecifica5on  of  variables  allows  them  to  bring  meaning  to  styles,  but  only  through  a  process  of  vivifica5on  as  they  contribute  to  the  construc5on  of  these  figures.  The  deployment  of  individual  variables  across  styles  expands  their  indexical  range.  

Key  proper5es  of  variables  •  Implicitness.  Conveying  something  stylis5cally  is  less  of  a  commitment,  less  face-­‐threatening  than  puyng  it  in  the  

content  of  an  uCerance,  and  it  allows  both  speaker  and  interlocutor  to  leave  things  “unsaid”.  This  also  allows  the  speaker  to  make  small  indexical  moves,  to  try  out  the  waters  with  less  risk  to  face.    

   •  Underspecifica2on.  Underspecifica5on  is  a  design  feature  of  language  more  generally.  It  allows  a  small  number  of  

forms  to  serve  a  large  number  of  purposes,  it  binds  language  to  social  ac5on,  and  it  lies  at  the  core  of  language’s  capacity  for  flexibility,  nuance,  crea5vity  and  change.  In  this  sense,  sociolinguis5c  variables  are  like  other  linguis5c  signs,  as  their  specific  meanings  emerge  only  in  context.    

   

•  Combina2veness.  Variables  do  not  occur  alone,  and  are  not  interpreted  on  their  own,  but  as  components  of  styles.  Styles  connect  to  social  meaning  through  their  rela5on  to  stances,  social  types,  or  personae.  The  underspecifica5on  of  variables  allows  them  to  bring  meaning  to  styles,  but  only  through  a  process  of  vivifica5on  as  they  contribute  to  the  construc5on  of  personae.  The  deployment  of  individual  variables  across  styles  expands  their  indexical  range.  

Posi5vism  vs.  construc5vism    ...  the  tradi5onal  rela5onship  between  structure  and  ac5on,  in  which  ac5on  is  treated  as  a  reflec5on  of  a  prior  structure,  is  rejected  in  favor  of  one  in  which  structure  emerges  through  situated  ac5on.    Dialogism  Loca5ng  language,  culture,  and  agency  in  the  inters5ces  between  people,  rather  than  within  individuals  themselves.      

...  meanings  emerge  in  conversa5ons  ....  as  meanings  are  coconstructed,  social  reality  is  also  constructed....  language  does  not  merely  reflect  an  already  exis5ng  social  reality;  it  also  helps  to  create  that  reality.      

Ahearn,  L.  (2001).  Language  and  agency.  Annual  Review  of  Anthropology,  30,  109–137.    

Structure,  constraint,  power  

Power  is  everywhere;  not  because  it  embraces  everything,  but  because  it  comes  from  everywhere.  And  “Power,”  insofar  as  it  is  permanent,  repe55ous,  inert,  and  self-­‐reproducing,  is  simply  the  over-­‐all  effect  that  emerges  from  all  these  mobili5es,  the  concatena5on  that  rests  on  each  of  them  and  seeks  in  turn  to  arrest  their  movement.    

Foucault,  M.  (1980).  The  history  of  sexuality.  New  York:  Vintage  Books.  

LANGUE  

A  P  

E

O   L  R  

?  Saussure,  F.  de.  (1916).  Cours  de  linguis5que  générale.  

Competence  

Performance  

?  

Chomsky,  N.  (1965).  Aspects  of  a  theory  of  syntax.  Cambridge  MA:  MIT  Press.  

Structure/Prac5ce  

Thanks  for  coming!  

Have  a  good  trip  home.