1. Sociolinguistics LING 200 Spring 2006

2. Overview Language vs. dialect Language variation –variation in different subareas (phonology, syntax, etc.) –variation conditioned by different factors (region, socioeconomics, gender, age, etc.) Language and cultural identity, attitudes about language

3. Speech communities language egi dialect dialect dialect egi idiolect idiolect idiolect

4. Idiolect Language at the individual level –“I need you to be a helperous one.” (request for favor) –“He’s just repeaterous of the same bad animal things that he does.” (talking about the cat) –“I think I’ll be jeanerous today.” (getting dressed for work on a Friday) -erous: ] {N,V} __] Adj

5. Dialect (linguist’s definition) Mutually intelligible varieties; e.g. –English spoken in Seattle, English spoken in Newcastle, UK –Sahaptin spoken in Toppenish WA and Sahaptin spoken in Pendleton OR Not dialects of same language: –W. Germanic (English) spoken in Seattle and W. Germanic (Dutch) spoken in Amsterdam –Sahaptian (Sahaptin) spoken in Toppenish and Sahaptian (Nez Perce) spoken in Coeur D’Alene ID

6. Some sources of confusion re ‘dialect’ Language/dialect  socioeconomic development –indigenous people vs. industrialized societies

7. Politically distinct  linguistically distinct. – 200+ countries vs. 6000+ languages –‘Chinese’: languages spoken in same country, mislabeled ‘dialects’ –Spoken in different countries, mislabeled ‘languages’: Czech, Slovak Serbian, Croatian Norwegian, Swedish, Danish Some sources of confusion re ‘dialect’

8. 1. There are degrees of mutual intelligibility: what is criterion: 100%? 90%? 50% –Birmingham, UK vs. Seattle, WA 2. Asymmetries in intelligibility –Danish speakers find it easier to understand Swedish than vice versa. Difficulties with mutual intelligibility definition

9. 3. ‘Is intelligible with’ is not transitive Dialect continua: Inuit (Eskimo family) egi Iñupiaq Inuktitut Greenlandic Iñupiaq speakers can understand Inuktitut, Inuktitut understand Greenlandic, Iñupiaq intelligibility of Greenlandic much less

10. Inupiaq Inuktitut W. Greenlandic

11. Language variation Some factors contributiong to variation –geography (region) –socioeconomic class –gender –age Types of variation –lexical/morphological –phonological –syntactic –etc.

12. Regional variation wicket“next wicket please” hydro“our hydro was really high last year” local “if you do not know the local of the party you wish to speak to” washroom= restroom skidoo= snowmobile, snow machine grade ones“The grade ones have not gone to recess yet.” head“The headship search has just been announced at U. Alberta Linguistics.” Some Canadian lexical items:

13. Regional variation Phonological differences between American, Canadian English: 1. “Canadian Raising” CanadianUS cow [k  w] ice [  ys][  ys] eyes [  yz] scout [sk  wt][sk  wt] light [l  yt][l  yt] lied [l  yd] /  w/, /  y/  [  w], [  y] / ___ voiceless

14. Regional variation Phonological differences between American, Canadian English. 2. Borrowed words with CanadianUS pasta [pæst  ] ("It Hasta be Pasta") [p  st  ] Mazda [mæzd  ][m  zd  ] taco[tæko] [t  ko] avocado [æv  kædo][æv  k  do]/ [  v  k  do] Takla (< [t h  t  ’  t][tækl  ][t  kl  ] Babine (<Fr.)[bæbin] [b  bin]

15. Socioeconomic factors; as defined by (e.g.) –occupation (white collar, blue collar) –education (college?) –income Socioeconomic conditioning variation

16. Socially conditioned variation in NYC Background –Rhotic vs. non-rhotic dialects of English: [st  r] (rhotic), [st  ] (non-rhotic) –NYC has both rhotic and non-rhotic dialects Some within-speaker variability Rhotic dialects are more prestigious in NYC, used by speakers belonging to higher socioeconomic classes

17. Post-vocalic [r] in NYC (vs. Reading) NYCReadingsocial class 32%0%upper middle 2028lower middle 1244upper working 049lower working

18. NYC Findings Effects on pronunciation by register (formal/polite vs. normal/casual/conversational) –Careful pronunciations contain more post-vocalic [r] than casual pronunciations (perhaps more self- monitoring during careful speech?) Post-vocalic [r] borrowed from one group (customers) to another (salespeople) –speaker awareness of prestige features, effect of use (or lack thereof) on others’ perceptions –speakers at middle and lower levels of social scale in NY are more aware of prestige features

19. Variation in 3sS -s classDetroit, MINorwich, UK upper middle1%0% lower middle102 upper working5770 middle working87 lower working7197 % verbs without –s: ‘he go’

20. Grammaticization of register Formal/polite vs. less polite: –Spanish tú (vos) vs. usted –Japanese, Korean honorific morphemes honorific suffixes which honor the subject (benefactive, etc.) –Korean -si (added to verbs) –Korean -k*eso (added to nouns) register/politeness suffixes which indicate social rank/distance between speaker and listener –Korean -yo (added to verbs)

21. Some honorific morphemes in Korean plainhonorific -[i]/[ka]-[k*eso]subject [o-ta] come-declarative [o-si-ta] come-hon-decl ‘to come’ [o-a] come-pres [o-a-yo] come-pres-pol ‘is coming’ [m  k-ta] eat-declarative [t  -si-ta] eat-hon-decl ‘to eat’

22. Korean [uri tonse  -i neil o-a] our yo.sibling-sub tomorrow come-pres ‘Our little brother/sister is coming tomorrow.’ (talking to friends) [uri tonse  -i neil o-a-yo] our yo.sibling-sub tomorrow come-pres-pol ‘Our little brother/sister is coming tomorrow.’ (talking to respected individual) [uri halm  ni-k*es  neil o-sy-  -yo] our grandmother-hon.sub tomorrow come-hon-pres-pol ‘Our grandmother is coming tomorrow.’ (talking to respected individual) [uri s  nse  -nim-k*es  neil o-sy-  -yo] our teacher-hon-hon.sub tomorrow come-hon-pres-pol ‘Our teacher is coming tomorrow.’ (talking to respected individual) (-nim is an honorific title reserved for kings, gods and teachers)

24. Effect of gender on language variation Some standard vs. nonstandard forms –-ing vs. in’ Who’s playing? vs. Who’s playin’? –single vs. double negative I don’t have any money. vs. I don’t have no money. –negative auxiliary ain’t (< am not) I haven’t done anything wrong. vs. I ain’t done nothing wrong. Women tend to use more standard forms

25. Effect of gender and socio class malefemale upper middle class6.30 lower middle class32.41.4 upper working class40.035.6 lower working class90.158.9 % double negatives, Detroit

26. Effects of gender on language variation Other differences between men’s, women’s speech: –intonation (women have more pitch variation) –lexical (adjectives, intensifiers) That’s so gorgeous. That looks nice. –use of tag questions (‘isn’t it?’) (women use more)

27. Grammaticization of gender Male and female forms of lexical items in Yana, a Native American language Hokan language family Extinct in early 20 th century

28. Yana language area

29. ‘Male’ and ‘female forms’ in Yana hearer malefemale speaker malemale forms female forms femalefemale forms

30. Male vs. female forms in Yana malefemale ‘go’ni/nii-  a- 1. Unpredictable differences

31. Male vs. female forms in Yana malefemale ‘eat’ mo  i-mo  i  - ‘inside’iiwuulu iiwuulu  ‘man’  iisi  iisi  ‘place’p h ati p h at h i  ‘snow’p h atsa p h ats h a  2. Predictable differences. Root > 1 syllable, ends in short vowel: Devoice final vowel, aspirate final stop in female

32. Male vs. female forms in Yana 2. Predictable differences. Root ends in long vowel, or 1 syllable: malefemale ‘tree, stick’  i-na  ih ‘shelled acorn’yu-nayuh ‘deer’pa-na  Add –na to male forms; devoice final vowel to form female forms, unless final vowel = only vowel (add –h)