Social Groups & Social Networks Dr Emma Moore Sociolinguistics Social Groups & Social Networks Dr Emma Moore

Contents What are the limitations of survey studies? Why study local groups? How can we study local groups? What have social network/community of practice studies told us about sociolinguistic variation?

Limitations of surveys Do surveys make assumptions about the community and its structure? What does it mean to talk about social class? Do large scale studies make assumptions about what speakers think? Do all speakers view the same linguistic variant in the same way?

Labov’s speech community “The speech community is not defined by any marked agreement in the use of language elements, so much as by participation in a set of shared norms; these norms may be observed in overt types of evaluative behaviour, and by the uniformity of abstract patterns of variation which are invariant in respect to particular levels of usage” (Labov 1972: 120). All speakers share the same norms Uniformity in style shifting behaviour

Challenging abstract social categories: local definitions of class Rickford (1986) Cane Walk, village in Guyana Three main social groups: The senior staff The estate class The working class All three groups bound by ethnicity & historical ties (19C semi-forced migration from India) Differences in life chances based on local definitions of class

Explaining language use Guyanese Creole  Standard English Analysing singular pronoun use WC: 18% StE Estate class: 83% StE Why? Estate class: StE = getting ahead WC: no chance to get ahead; Creole = social solidarity, militancy Can we say all social classes are adhering to the same norms?

Challenging abstract social categories: social groups Cheshire (1982) Reading adventure playgrounds Groups of ‘delinquent’ children (WC) Examining morphosyntactic variation E.g. use of nonstandard has, was etc. Considered style shifting Language used with peers Language used with the teacher in school

Adhering to different norms Use of nonstandard present tense forms Inconsistent style-shifting Noddy: hated school, disliked teacher Kitty: regular school attender Barney: hated school, disliked teacher Vernacular style School style Noddy 81% 78% Kitty 46% 33% Barney 32% 54% Boys do not adhere to ‘community’ norms of evaluation, but to ‘vernacular culture’ norms

Vernacular speakers & vernacular norms? Are standard variants always the most “prestigious”? Social psychological studies investigating responses to different language varieties Giles and Powesland (1975): RP = “competence” Vernacular = “personal integrity”; “social attractiveness” Revealing the positive value of vernacular varieties

Understanding how forms gain value Bourdieu (1977): The linguistic market The value of a linguistic variety is determined by the status of those who use that variety, in the marketplace in which it is used Standard language Spoken by high status speakers Standard language itself assigned high status

Understanding how forms gain value Woolard (1985): There is more than one linguistic market Vernacular varieties are valued in vernacular settings (the vernacular market) Vernacular language Spoken by speakers in local communities (loyalty, integrity, friendship) Vernacular language itself assigned status as symbolic of local attributes

Looking at local connections NOT abstract categories Competing norms Vernacular varieties = low mainstream status,unattractive = high local status, attractive How do we understand the social function of vernacular forms? By accessing local communities where the forms are meaningful Looking at local connections NOT abstract categories

Modelling local communities: Social networks Social network: refers to the social ties which link people to one another Network density Multiplexity Work network Kinship network

Milroy’s (1980) study of Belfast Three WC Belfast communities Ballymacarrett, Hammer & Clonard Speakers classified by their social networks Assessing network strength scores for speakers Leisure activities Employment Knowledge of other community members

Milroy’s (1980) study of Belfast Linguistic variables: Local vs. incoming prestige forms E.g. (a)-backing in words like bad /a/ (standard pronunciation) /ɔə/ (vernacular change in progress) Results Men tended to use more vernacular variants than women in Ballymacarratt and Hammer Young women had higher use of particular vernacular variants in Clonard

Network ties and language use Ballymacarratt and Hammer Men had stronger network ties Employment Roles in the community/visibility Clonard Young women had higher network strength scores Employment (loss of linen industry)

Significance of Milroy (1980) The importance of LOCAL relationships to the use of language Dense, multiplex networks & VERNACULAR norms Building on earlier work: Provides more information about the community being studied Allows us to explain language behaviour in relation to local social factors Not just gender or class, but social network

Modelling local communities: Communities of Practice Community of Practice (CofP): “an aggregate of people who come together around mutual engagement in an endeavor” (Eckert and McConnell-Ginet 1992:464). “The people at the Jones’s breakfast table, in Mrs. Constock’s Latin class, or in Ivan’s garage band get together fairly regularly to engage in an enterprise. Whether the enterprise is being a family, learning (or not learning) Latin, or playing music, by virtue of engaging over time in that endeavour, the participants in each of these groups develop ways of doing things together. They develop activities and ways of engaging in those activities, they develop common knowledge and beliefs, ways of relating to each other, ways of talking – in short, practices. Such a group is what Jean Lave and Etienne Wenger (1991) have termed a community of practice” (Eckert and McConnell-Ginet 2003: 57).

How is a CofP different to a social network? Social networks: who is connected to who in a community Communities of Practice: who shares social practice with who in a community Not just about connectivity, but quality of connectivity Studying CofPs require ethnography

Eckert’s (2000) study of Detroit High school community in Detroit, US Two years of ethnographic participant observation Speakers classified by their CofP membership Practices: territory, clothing, substance use, language

Eckert (2000): Jocks and Burnouts Two oppositional CofPs: Jocks: institutionally-orientated Burnouts: rebellious, anti-school Variables studied: Six phonetic variables (vowels); one syntactic variable (Negative concord)

Variable distribution and CoPs Distribution of linguistic variants best explained by the Jock-Burnout split Social class relevant BUT not as strong an explanation as practice …and especially interesting findings with gender

Burnout girls > Burnout boys > Jock boys > Jock girls CofPs and gender Raising of (ay): right /aɪ/ to /ɔɪ/ Burnout girls > Burnout boys > Jock boys > Jock girls

Significance of Eckert (2000) The importance of LOCAL relationships to the use of language CofP membership (i.e. local social practice) constrains linguistic behaviour more than abstract social categories Building on earlier work: Provides more information about the community being studied Allows us to explain language behaviour better Not just gender or class, but how local speakers LIVE gender & class

Summing up… Early variationist studies provide a broad view of sociolinguistic variation BUT to explain variation, we sometimes need closer analysis of communities Prevents overgeneralisation Allows us to explore competing norms Gets us closer to the precise social correlates of variation The social network & the CofP approach provide frameworks for more local analyses

Reading and selected references Cheshire, Jenny (1982) Variation in an English Dialect: A Sociolinguistic Study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Eckert, Penelope (2000) Linguistic Variation as Social Practice: The Linguistic Construction of Identity at Belten High. Oxford: Blackwell. Milroy, Lesley (1980) Language and Social Networks. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Rickford, John (1986) “The need for new approaches to social class analysis in sociolinguistics”. Language and Communication 6: 215-221. Required reading: Meyerhoff (2006: Chapter 9)