1. Li2 class-based social variation I

2. Today’s topics Linguistic variation conditioned by socio- economic status (class)  Stigmatization and prestige varieties sources discrimination  Class and traditional dialect  Correlations of linguistic variables with class are arbitrary

3. Socio-economic status/class Professions most likely to have local accent:  policeman, fireman…  Correlation between class (socioeconomic status) and traditional dialect  Lower classes tend to have more regional variation and preserve/use regional/non-standard variants (e.g. h-deletion in England)  Why? Upper class more likely to move, go away to school, etc. Regional pride (cf. later discussion of Martha’s Vineyard)

4. Class-based variation in Norwich % application of t-glottalization (t) and h-deletion (h) from Trudgill 1974

5. Stratification can be the same across communities Mean % r-deletion in the black community in Detroit (Wolfram 1969) Mean % r-deletion in 3 New York department stores (Labov 1966) Floorwalkers Sales clerks Stock clerks 8% some [r] 35% 46% all [r] 18% 14% Saks Macy's S. Klein 32% some [r] 31% 30% all [r] 20% 17% 4% R-deletion in NYC and Detroit Many dialects of English delete non-prevocalic r. “non-prevocalic r” = any r-sound that isn’t followed by a vowel: car, party, sophomore, etc.

6. Language/class correlations are arbitrary Percentage of non-prevocalic r’s pronounced r-deletion in America vs. England data from Labov (NYC) and Trudgill (Norwich)

7. Language/class correlations are arbitrary Raising of long a to u before nasal consonants in two Persian dialects Figure 1. Percent raising of (an) in the Farsi of Tehran and Ghazvin. Yahya Modaressi-Tehrani (1978) A Sociolinguistic Analysis of Modern Persian. Doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas.

8. Stigmatization 150 respondents from SE Michigan (Preston 2000) Mean scores of rankings for “correct English”, 1-10 Least correct: South, NYC, NJ Most correct: Michigan (only state in the 8 range) Some stigmatized features in American English:  r-deletion  double negation  ain’t N.B. stigmatized features sometimes have covert prestige, as we’ll see later

9. Linguistic variables often assigned to qualitative scale by speakers (unmarked, better, worse…) Most prevalent with class-linked variables, because of independent social links between class and quality A famous example: Prestige

10. Labov 1962 linguistic variable: centralization of diphthongs  / Aj, aw / → [  j,  w ]  In the chart above, higher numbers = more centralization began with fisherman (traditional inhabitants) spread to other islanders (presumably to distinguish them from tourists) Labov study of college-age Vineyarders found two groups:  one hated the island and intended to leave as soon as possible  one intended to stay  strong correlation between positive attitudes toward life on the island and degree of centralization. 63 62 42 32 (ay)(aw) 0908 positive neutral negative Linguistic prestige on Martha’s Vineyard

11. Types of linguistic prestige overt covert crypto schizo none

12. Overt prestige double negation, ain’t changes toward forms with overt prestige normally spearheaded by middle-class women (Trudgill 1978)

13. Covert prestige Overt prestige is about seeking prestige by assimilating to the standard. Covert prestige is about not choosing to assimilate to the standard. Each choice has a distinct set of costs and benefits… pull of ultra-masculinity: working-class male Particularly noticeable in teenage years Important force in maintaining non-standard varieties of speech

14. Cryptoprestige when only one person knows the high prestige form  what the yam really is  between you and me (?)  using hopefully and ironic “properly”

15. Schizoprestige Agreement that there is a prestigious form and a stigmatized form, but no agreement on which is which  often: [  t  ] vs. [  ]  coupon vs. cyoupon  foreign words and local words Des Plaines, Desmoines, Worcester, etc.  regional splits: r-deletion gymshoes/sneakers?

16. No prestige spicket vs. spigot  Harvard Dialect Survey, Q41: Do you use "spigot" or "spicket" to refer to a faucet or tap that water comes out of? (10860 respondents) spigot (66.89%) I say "spicket" but spell it "spigot" (12.64%) I don't use either version of this word (9.23%) spicket (6.38%) I use both interchangeably (2.52%) I use both with different meanings (2.00%)  Doodlebug/pill bug/roly poly/etc.

17. Sources of linguistic prestige spelling?? (often cited in the literature)  Often  hors d’oeuvres  r-deletion  night change in progress:  forms undergoing change are more stigmatized (Labov 2000)

18. Discrimination Linguistic variables play a major role in discrimination  nonstandard dialect confused with stupidity Newcastle Ebonics masked guise assessments of education, height, etc. based on speech  Canada bilinguals recorded speaking French and English  when speaking English, listeners judged them to be: more intelligent more dependable taller better looking  same results for (Canadian) anglophone and francophone listeners

19. Conclusions Prestige combines linguistic and social elements Socioeconomic status is thereby closely linked to language and attitudes about language Not everyone aspires to speak the prestige form There is no absolute good in language:  Correlations of linguistic variables with class are arbitrary

20. References Labov, William. 1962. The social history of a sound change on the island of Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts. Master’s essay, Columbia University. Labov, William. 1966. The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics. Labov, William. 2000. Principles of Linguistic change. Volume II: Social Factors. Oxford: Blackwell. Modaressi-Tehrani, Yahya. 1978. A Sociolinguistic Analysis of Modern Persian. Doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas. Preston, Dennis. 2000. Some plain facts about Americans and their language. American Speech 75.4:398-401. Trudgill, Peter. 1974. The Social Differentiation of English in Norwich. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Trudgill, Peter. 1978. Sex,covert prestige, and linguistic change in the urban British English of Norwich. Language in Society 1:179-96. Wolfram, Walt. 1969. A Linguistic Description of Detroit Negro Speech. Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics.