1. Slide 1 LING 432-532 – Sociolinguistics – Spring 2011 Wardhaugh Ch 5 Calendar Wardhaugh Ch 5 Also will discuss Milroy & Milroy article on Tuesday (notes from me up by Saturday) Quiz 1 on Thursday Particularly “the observer’s paradox” - how does Labov resolve this? Listen to NPR clip William Labov - NYCNYC

2. Slide 2 LING 432-532 – Sociolinguistics – Spring 2011 Wardhaugh Ch 5 Wardhaugh – Chapter 5 SPEECH COMMUNITY  Theoretical dilemma defining “speech community” as a social construct  A group composed of members that share something socially in common (region, politics, etc.)  Group may be temporary, and is also more than its members (they come and go but group still exists)  Have preconceived expectations of behavior (including linguistics) about members of a group = stereotypes (The blender is broke)  Labov defines it as not by linguistics elements but by “participation in a set of shared norms” (see page 120) – top-down approach (community defined by investigator)  Discuss Conn 2005 New Ways in Analyzing Variation (NWAV) presentation about Philadelphia

3. Slide 3 LING 432-532 – Sociolinguistics – Spring 2011 Wardhaugh Ch 5 Wardhaugh – Chapter 5 SPEECH COMMUNITY Discuss Conn 2005 New Ways in Analyzing Variation (NWAV) presentation about Philadelphia

4. Slide 4 LING 432-532 – Sociolinguistics – Spring 2011 Wardhaugh Ch 5 Wardhaugh – Chapter 5 SPEECH COMMUNITY  Theoretical dilemma defining “speech community” as a social construct  Milroy discusses that not all sociolinguistic variables have the same evaluation in different speech communities – (r) in NYC vs. England  Gumprez uses linguistic community instead (see definition on p. 122)  Somehow connect the social with the linguistic and capture the concept/belief that we as native speakers have when we speak a variety of a language  Hymes discusses difference between participating in and being a member of speech community (see page 123-24)  Question regarding nativity – does a community member have to be native to that community to participate in the speech community? (Horvath study)

5. Slide 5 LING 432-532 – Sociolinguistics – Spring 2011 Wardhaugh Ch 5 Wardhaugh – Chapter 5 SPEECH COMMUNITY  What do we do about heterogeneous speech communities like London example? Or even Portland?  The concept of belonging to a group is relative - Do you speak English, Western US English, or North Portland English?  Community of Practice - (Eckert and McConnell-Ginet) - see definition p. 122 - group of people coming together to do something – more of a bottom-up approach (community defined by group members)

6. Slide 6 LING 432-532 – Sociolinguistics – Spring 2011 Wardhaugh Ch 5 Wardhaugh – Chapter 5 SPEECH COMMUNITY - NETWORKS  Dense = if you know and interact with people who also know and interact with the same people (all people in your network are connected)  If not, then Loose  Multiplex = if people in the network are tied to each other in multiple ways (you work, live with, hang out with your brother/sister)  Social networks connected to social class (James and Leslie Milroy)  Discuss Milroy & Milroy, 1992

7. Slide 7 LING 432-532 – Sociolinguistics – Spring 2011 Wardhaugh Ch 5 Milroy & Milroy SPEECH COMMUNITY – NETWORKS vs. Socioeconomic Class (SEC)  Their Belfast study  Variables?  Findings? P. 12  Weak ties vs. strong ties (Labov Martha’s vineyard study)  What’s the difference between social network analysis and SEC analysis? Guy (1988) discusses micro- vs. macrosociological levels (p. 17).  Also, Labov seems to use network as methodological tool rather than anlaysis tool – EXPLAIN

8. Slide 8 LING 432-532 – Sociolinguistics – Spring 2011 Wardhaugh Ch 5 Milroy & Milroy SPEECH COMMUNITY – NETWORKS vs. Socioeconomic Class (SEC)