1. ‘Authentic’ Israeli Hebrew Class for Sociolinguistics of the Mediterranean

2. Concepts from Giles (1973) Speech Accommodation Theory / Communication Accommodation Theory Your linguistic choices are based on *your affiliation with your interlocutor * your disaffiliation from your interlocutor.

3. Audience Design HAY, J., JANNEDY, S., & MENDOZA-DENTON, N. (1999). Oprah and /ay/: Lexical frequency, referee design and style. In Proceedings of the 14th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, pp.1389–1392.

4. How do speakers accommodate? Speakers converge toward or diverge from an interlocutor. Did you know babies ‘coo’ with a lower Fo when they’re seeing a man than when they’re seeing a woman? That’s converging. Did you know, if someone talks English to a French Canadian, the Canadian will often talk in a heavier French accent than s/he ‘has’ to, or even answer in French, although s/he knows English? That’s divergence. [cf, Giles & Coupland 1991]

5. Audience Design It is all about who you’re talking to….

6. Audience Design

7. Concepts from Bell (1984, 2001) Your linguistic choices are based on *Audience Design ~ affiliation/disaffiliation w/ your immediate audience *Referee Design ~ who you want to be seen as or ~ characteristics you wish to represent.

8. Referee Design Trudgill, Peter. 1983. On Dialect: Social and Geographical Perspectives. Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell.

9. Referee Design

11. How does Referee Design work? Speakers converge toward a ‘stereotype’ Did you know, many national politicians talk more Southern when being interviewed to show that they’re ‘old boys’ (Hall-Lew). Republican California Latinos use less accented English. (Bourhis) Singers use more southern features in singing because it is the phonology of Elvis, or Nashville [or whoever]. That’s converging. ( Speakers diverge from a ‘stereotype’ Many Southern dialect speakers diverge from their native accent, not to talk more like Northerners, but just not to be heard as ‘dumb’ or ‘racist’. Speakers accommodate to a stereotype of they want to sound like.

12. How does Referee Design work? Speakers converge twd a‘stereotype’ Did you know, many national Republican politicians talk more Southern when being interviewed to show their right wing bonafides(Hall-Lew et al 2012). Singers use more southern features in singing because it is the phonology of Elvis, or Nashville [or whoever]. That’s referee designed convergence. Speakers accommodate to – who they want to sound like. – What image they want to project.

13. Example: George ‘W’ Bush *Aks [only AAVE speakers, and rural southerners use] *Bidness Chirren Nucular Wuhdn’t<wasn’t Is this accommodation to area (TX) or image (Good Old Boy=who me? A Yalee? Harvard Business School? Nope. I’m a simple Texan.)

14. Referee or Audience Design

15. Referee Designed divergence? Speakers diverge from a group ‘stereotype’ Many Southern dialect speakers diverge, – not to talk more like Northerners, – but just not to be heard as ‘dumb’ or ‘racist’. Many Latinos diverge from their accent – Not to talk more like Anglos. – But to project a specific persona.

16. Referee or Audience Design

18. Israeli Hebrew

19. What is the relationship among different groups within Hebrew-speaking society? Who are you talking to [i.e., your audience]? What is prestigious [i.e., your possible referee]? What are the linguistic ramifications of the choices made?

20. Communal variation. AshkenaziMizrahi Immigrants from EuropeLocal & other Arabic-sp areas Linguistic Sprachsbund

21. Religious variation. AshkenaziMizrahi (‘Eastern’) Religious Western immigrantsReligious Local Secular Western IsraelisSecular Eastern Israelis Most of the country is not religious. Most of the distinctions between the two groups are relegated to liturgical reading.

22. Communal variation. AshkenaziMizrahi (‘Eastern’)/ Arab Immigrants from EuropeLocal & from Arabic-speaking regions SES, $, EducationLinguistic Sprachsbund Is this equivalent to the Maghrebi-Mashreqi distinction? Albeit inverted? – ‘prestigious’ dialects from further W (& N) Is this equivalent to the N-S distinction in the US?

23. Stereotyped Prestige. AshkenaziMizrahi (‘Eastern’)/ Arab Immigrants from EuropeLocal & from Arabic-speaking regions Socioeconomic Power (Bourdieu 1991) Language Academy Prestige** Each dialect has its own prestige: The ‘Newer’ dialect speakers have socioeconomic clout. The Local dialect has Social-Psych ‘authenticity’ & Gravitas **How important is Academy bonafides? (ex)

24. Dialect Ideology example The Moroccan’s insistence on not understanding Mashreqi varieties seems to be an ideological move to undermine their inherent intelligibility without sustained mediatized exposure. The Lebanese commenter, on the other hand, makes it clear that the question is not about ‘intelligibility’ per sé but certainly about who does and does not have symbolic capital. Those with it…don’t need to ‘listen…’ – Hachimi 2013:286f

25. Linguistic Variation

26. Relevant Cells for Singers Degree of Religiosity AshkenaziSfardi Secular55 Religious25

27. ‘Mizrahi’ vs. ‘Ashkenazi’ Vs / Vowel/ Region I Xirik +/-  tseire/se gol a kamats/ patax o xolem +/- u shuruk/ kubuts ^ schwa Europeaniy/I ey/  o/aow uwschwa ay/I ey/  ow/  ow uwschwa iy/I ay/  aiy/I uwschwa iy/I ey/  uwIy/ischwa iy/I ay/  oy/oIy/ischwa MizrahiI  aou 

28. ‘Mizrahi’ ‘Ashkenazi’ & Koiné / Vowel/ Region I Xirik +/-  tseire/se gol a kamats/ patax o xolem +/- u shuruk/ kubuts ^ schwa European iy/I ey/  o/aow uwschwa Mizrahi I  aou  Academy =Koiné i  aou  That is, the distinction between long & short vowels is lost, And the simplest Vowels are retained, both in Academy and Koiné use.

29. Mizrahi, Ashkenazi, Academy C/ Region (resh)(het)(xaf)(ayin)(sof) AshkenaziRxx-s Mizrahirhxpharynt Academyrhxpharynt The Language Academy insisted on ‘linguistic purity’, although it wasn’t the lowest common denominator. Rules for, e.g., announcers, politicians, professors. Academy as beneficiary of linguistic insecurity.

30. ‘Mizrahi’ vs. ‘Ashkenazi’ Cs C/ Region (resh)(het)(xaf)(ayin)(sof) AshkenaziRxx-s Mizrahirhxpharynt KoinéRxx-t But: Unlike with the outcome of the vowel repertoire, the lowest common denominator won…on the street.

31. Today’s Public Speakers C/ Region (resh)(het)(xaf)(ayin) Theaterrrhxpharyn Scripted Newsrhxpharyn TV talkRxx- So: The more formal the speaking style, …. the more the Academy choices dominate. Conversely: Dominance of unscripted ‘reality’TV limits the importance of Academy decisions.

32. Academy, Mizrahi or Koiné?

33. Audience or Referee Design?

34. Referee Design (Trudgill 1983) Presence of ‘postvocalic ‘r’ in songs.

35. Cutler (2010f) & white rappers 35 Evidence of t/d deletion in 2 styles among US rappers

36. Use of [r] in different situations songIV

37. Mizrahi singer (resh, het, ayin) If they’re singing only ‘Eastern Style’ – they’ll maintain [r] – They’ll maintain pharyngeals If they’re presenting their music as ‘koiné’ – they’ll attempt to use both [r] and [R] – They’ll variably neutralize pharyngeals While maintaining their koiné vowel system Interviews for the general public reveal greater convergence toward the koiné

38. Mizrahi Interviewee (resh, het, ayin) Interviews for the general public Reveal greater convergence toward the koiné Except when the interview focuses on Mizrahi ID NB: 3 Mizrahi song writers interviewed IV [r]-fulness can even exceed sung percentages.

39. /r/ For Singers in the 90’s The stronger the Koiné ‘bonafides’ the clearer the contrast between IV and song [aqua line] (M)KI singers, who sing no ‘Mizrahi’ music – Used [r] categorically in song – Used [R] categorically in IV M~KI singers, who sing both styles of music – Used [r] and [rR] variably in song – Used [R] and [rR] variably in IV

40. /r/ For Singers & Politicians in the 90’s Interviews (etc)-mixed audience, referee designed – The more salient audience, the more convergent – The more salient referee relationship, more MI maintenance. ASIDE: 3 ideal foci for research into social psych motivations— -Pop music (e.g., Trudgill…Gibson for Eng. Lg Singers) -Politics (e.g., Hall-Lew, Hernández-Campoy /Cutillas- Espinosa ) -Humor (e.g., Gibson 2011)

41. (rR) % for singers ca 1990 41 song IV

42. Audience Hyperaccommodation vs. Referee Design