1. Social Class & Style Dr Emma Moore
Sociolinguistics
Social Class & Style
Dr Emma Moore

2. Contents
What are the concerns of sociolinguists (and how do they differ from those of dialectologists)?
How do sociolinguists define their ‘sampling environment’?
Studying social variation
Studying stylistic variation
What research issues do sociolinguists need to think about?

3. Regional dialectology
The relationship between dialectology and sociolinguistics
Both concerned with recording “real language”
Traditional dialectology
Linguistic archaeology?
Preserving older stages of the language
Preserving traditional, rural dialects

4. Criticisms of traditional dialectology
Representativeness
Location
Rural only
Social factors
NORMs
Sample size
1-2 informants per locality
Context
Relatively formal
Survey methods
Questionnaires and interviews
Ability to explain variation
Dialect mixture
Co-existence of one or more dialect in a single area
Free variation
Random use of alternative forms

5. From dialectology to variationist sociolinguistics
Representativeness
Location
Urban (and rural)
Social factors
Social class, age, gender, ethnicity
Sample size
Representative sampling
Context
Different social styles
Survey methods
Informal interviews/”naturally” occurring speech
Ability to explain variation
Structured heterogeneity
Systematic variation based on social differentiation
Requires us to measure relative differences in language use

6. Sampling: The speech community
Traditional Dialectology boundaries
Sociolinguistic boundaries
“Sociolinguists use the concept of speech community to delimit the social locus of their account of language use. Because sociolinguists’ treatment of language focuses upon its heterogeneity, they seek a unit of analysis at a level of social aggregation at which it can be said the heterogeneity is organized”
(Eckert 2000: 30).

7. Defining the speech community
Speech community = a community based on language use (see Hudson 1996)
Shared language use (Lyons 1970)
But… how do you delimit languages/varieties?
Shared interactions (Bloomfield 1933; Gumperz 1962)
But… how do we know that interactions are meaningful?
Shared rules (Gumperz 1968)
Communicative competence
Shared attitudes and values (Labov 1972)
Evaluating language based on community knowledge

8. The speech community and social groups
How speakers position themselves and their language use
SPEECH COMMUNITY
Black
Young
Old WC
White
Asian
Middle-aged MC
Male
Female

9. Understanding a speech community (Labov 1966)
Labov (1966) New York City
Goal: to show systematic variation based on
Social class
Attention paid to speech
Linguistic context on a variant
Pilot study: NYC department stores
Studying the incoming prestige use of postvocalic /r/

10. Studying social status…
Social class status based on prestige of department stores

11. Studying attention to speech & linguistic context
Unconscious response
Eliciting tokens of /r/
A: “Where is ….?”
B: “On the fourth floor.”
A: “Excuse me?”
B: “The fourth floor.”
Careful articulation (more attention paid to speech)
Token of (r) word finally
Token of (r) before a consonant

12. More /r/ in more statusful department stores
NYC results
More /r/ in more statusful department stores

13. More /r/ in more careful speech styles
NYC results
More /r/ in more careful speech styles
More /r/ word-finally

14. What Labov’s study tells us about the speech community
Members of a speech community share social evaluation of variables
Variables used according to place in the hierarchy
Use is stratified by social class status
All speakers are conscious of community prestige norms
Speech shifts to prestige norms when it is being observed

15. More on social class… How do you measure social class?
Use of indices: occupation, education, house-price, income
Behaviour: activities, dispositions, self-identification

16. More on style… Stylistic continuum Formal to informal styles Word list
Reading
Careful (interview)
Casual (friends)

17. The reoccurring salience of class & style
Word List
Reading
Formal
Casual
MMC M
000
004
031 F
LMC
020
027
017
003
067
UWC
018
081
095
011
013
068
077
MWC
024
043
091
097
046
088
LWC
066
100
054
<
Trudgill (1974: 94) The (ng) variable in Norwich
<
<
<
<
<
<
<

18. Types of variable
Variables which show style shifts are referred to as markers
Other types of variable
Indicators
Show social variation, but rarely stylistic variation
e.g. /a:/, /a/, /α:/
Stereotypes
Highly stigmatised markers
e.g. negative concord

19. But are patterns always so linear?
Interesting intersections of class and style

20. Hypercorrection? The cross-over effect
The linguistic insecurity/sensitivity of the LMC
Apparent in more formal styles

21. What are the LMC in NYC responding to?
Overt prestige
“The prestige associated with a variant that speakers are aware of and can talk about in terms of standardness, or aesthetic and moral evaluations like being ‘nicer’ or ‘better’” (Meyerhoff 2006: 37).
But do speakers only respond to overt prestige?
How do we explain why speakers use other variants?

22. ‘Hidden’ prestige Covert prestige
“A norm or target that is oriented to without the speaker even being aware that they are orienting towards it. Evidence of covert prestige can be found in mismatches between speakers’ self-report of using one variant and actual use of another variant” (Meyerhoff 2006: 37)
Trudgill (1972): mismatch between what speakers say and what they do
/tjun/ vs. /tun/ in Norwich

23. The problem of observing what speakers do…
The Observer’s Paradox (Labov 1972)
Sociolinguists are interested in how speakers behave when they’re not being observed; but they only way to find out how speakers behave is to observe them.

24. Solutions? Rapid, anonymous surveys (Labov: NYC Dept stores)
Telephone surveys (Labov: Philadelphia)
The Sociolinguistic interview (Labov: Martha’s Vineyard; Trudgill: Norwich)
Participant observation (Labov: Harlem; Eckert: Detroit)

25. Ethics… Surreptious recordings What do informants need to know?
Purpose
What the data will be used for
Who will have access to the data
Freedom to change their mind about participation

26. Summing Up…
Sociolinguists use the concept of the ‘speech community’ to define the scope of their research
Linguistic variation has been shown to be stratified according to social status and style
Explanations consider the relative prestige of variants
Overt vs. covert prestige
Sociolinguistics have to consider the methods they use
Defining social class and style
Linguistic constraints
Observer’s paradox
Ethics

27. References Hudson, Richard A. (1996) Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: CUP.
Labov, William (1966) The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Labov, William (1972) Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Trudgill (1972); reprinted as: Trudgill, Peter (1998) “Sex and covert prestige”. In: Jennifer Coates (ed.) Language and Gender: A Reader. Oxford: Blackwells,
Required Reading: Meyerhoff (2006: pp.22-38, )