Anda di halaman 1dari 6

Hassan Basarally 806007430 LING 2302 1

Name: Hassan Basarally

I.D.: 806007430

Faculty: Humanities and Education

Department: Liberal Arts

Course Code: LING 2302

Course Title: Sociolinguistics

Title: Detail what is known about language variation according to gender, ethnicity and socio-

economic class.

Course Lecturer: Dr. V. Youssef

Course Tutor: Ms. A. King

Tutorial Date and Time: Tuesday 10-11 a.m.

Date Due: 4th March, 2008.

The field of sociolinguistics continuously explains the causes and occurrence of linguistic

variation. Variation is the change of any variant in a language. A variant is the “realisation of a

variable” in terms of differences in pronunciation or “phonetic realisation” (Meyerhoff, 8).

Variation can be caused by geography, education, occupation, religion and social networks,

amongst others. Gender, ethnicity and socio-economic status cause variation as women use
Hassan Basarally 806007430 LING 2302 2

standard forms to elicit prestige, groups use specific variation to highlight cultural identity and

lower socio-economic brackets shift toward the language of those above them.

Variation occurs within a specific speech community that has interaction with others and

develops, consciously or not, due to factors such a gender, ethnicity and socio-economic status. A

speech community according to Spolsky is “a complex interlocking network of communication

whose members share knowledge about and attitudes towards the language use patterns of others

as well as themselves” (25). This knowledge encompasses the realities of gender, ethnicity and

socio-economic status thereby resulting in a particular linguistic shift.

“We generally treat gender as ‘given’ and unalterable, automatically classifying every

person we encounter as female or male...” (Holmes, 303). On the contrary gender is formed as a

result of social interaction and enculturation, they are “social constructs, they institutionalise

cultural and social statuses” (Wodak and Benke, 129). Research into variation has shown that

significant linguistic shifts are a direct result of gender attitudes. Milroy and Milroy conducted as

investigation into the deletion of medial /ð/ in inner city Belfast. The results showed a gender

difference in the variable as opposes to age difference. Milroy and Milroy suggested that “gender

difference may be prior to class difference in driving linguistic variation and change” (56). This

study left several probing questions that latter linguists tackled. Wodak and Benke describe

William Labov’s analysis of similar results in a New York department store in 1966. “Women of

all classes and ages use more standard variants than their equivalent men. As the standard is

usually regarded as the language of the elite, for the rest of the population an approximation to

this standard implies a deviation of one’s own group” (133). The question of why women appear

to shift to a more prestigious variety remains. Labov gives general reasons such as women rely

on expressive symbols to assert their position (Wodak and Benke, 135). Wodak and Benke also

quote Trudgill who states “that it may be more necessary for women to secure and signal their
Hassan Basarally 806007430 LING 2302 3

social class linguistically” (135). On the other hand the reason for men’s continuous use of the

non standard is explained by Milroy and Milroy, “men are subject to more rigid group pressure

to speak in vernacular than women...female linguistic behaviour is viewed more tolerantly than

local peer-groups, so that women have , in a sense, more linguistic freedom” (136).

Language reflects how a particular ethnic group views itself and others. Laferriere

conducted a study in Boston in 1979 amongst three ethnic groups: Irish, Italian and Jewish. The

result showed that “the dialect variant has become a valued trait of Irish and Italians in

Boston. It is clearly their linguistic feature- a mark of identity for them” (613). A group utilises a

variant to maintain cultural identity, especially in cosmopolitan societies. A case study done by

G. J. Escure, focussing on Carib and Creole in Belize shows that variation occurs as a means of

distinctiveness and portraying a particular group as linguistically elite and advanced. Belize has

four speech communities, two being Creole and Carib or Garifuna speakers. While both speak

the individual varieties in homogenous communities, interaction requires the use of Creole or

Belize Standard English. The result is that “socially ambitious speakers strive towards achieving

a varieties distinct as possible from the stigmatised, and as close as possible to the prestige

model, through two main processes: elimination of marked Creole features, and saturation of

marked English forms” (Giles and Saint-Jacques, 113). This situation can be explained in light of

Winford’s 1972 study in Trinidad, in which it was believed that unity in a community produces

linguistic fusion. The different speech communities have little unity hence the existence of four

distinct varieties in Belize and the manipulation of the standard being used as a yardstick of

linguistic competence.

“The most controversial social variable is socioeconomic class” (54). Socio-economic

class proves difficult to examine due to the different criteria used for determining the class an
Hassan Basarally 806007430 LING 2302 4

individual belongs to. There exists varying positions on what to use as a measure of socio-

economic status. Some criteria used were employment, father’s employment and in the case of

women, husband’s education, employment. In 1966 William Labov did a study of Martha’s

Vineyard. He interviewed people of English, Portuguese and Native American backgrounds. The

results showed that different segments of each group displayed the same type of centralisation of

diphthongs /ay/ and /aw/. Centralisation was shown by “those who laid claim to native status as

Vineyarders” (Labov, 186). However there were not just cases of centralisation but

hypercorrection in which the variant was applied to phonological areas it would not appear. The

centralisation is viewed as more desirable and linked to Martha’s Vineyard. Hence Labov infers

that “the hypercorrect pattern is more characteristic of upward mobility that of membership in

any particular socio-economic group” (Labov, 197). According to Wodak and Benke, Labov

believes that “the lower middle class (LCM) “hypercorrects” its language; it copies features of

the middle class (MC), whose language behaviour is more standard, in order to gain social

prestige” (133). The upward mobility and social prestige Labov refers to is in fact the desired

group of the interviewees or the group that identification is most sought with. Labov also states

that the socio-economic history of a group would cause variation towards a higher group. After

investigation in the Lower East Side of New York, Labov states, “a group of speakers with a past

history of upward mobility is more apt to resemble the next higher socio-economic group in their

linguistic behaviour” (Labov, 202). This mention of socio-economic history has drawn criticism

as it determines class on an individual’s parent’s etc. and does not take into account factors such

as education.

Despite variation being a topic of constant research, several facts have been discovered

through studies spanning decades. The language of women is different to that of men. Ethnicity

causes speech communities to choose varieties that best represent the group. Socio-economic
Hassan Basarally 806007430 LING 2302 5

class causes a conscious shift to the variety to the desired group in society. Through these finding

variation is understood better and the foundation for future studies are laid.

Works Cited

Holmes, Janet. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Essex: Pearson Education Limited, 2001.

Giles, Howard & Saint-Jacques, Bernard. Language and Ethnic Relations. Pergamon Press,
1998.
Labov, William. The effect of Social Mobility on Linguistic Behaviour. Sociological Inquiry. 32
(2), 186-203, 1966.

Laferriere, Martha. “Ethnicity in Phonological Variation and Change.” Language 55. 3 (1979)
:603-617. 25 Feb. 2008 <http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0097-
8507%28197909%2955%3A3%3C603%3AEIPVAC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-H.>

Meyerhoff, Miriam. Introducing Sociolinguistics. New York: Routledge, 2006.

Milroy, James and Milroy, Lesley. “Varieties and Variation.” The Handbook of Sociolinguistics.
Ed. Coulmas, Florian. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd., 1997. 49-56.
Spolsky, Bernard. Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Wodak, Ruth and Benke, Gertraud. “Gender as a Sociolinguistic Variable: New Perspectives on
Variation Studies.” The Handbook of Sociolinguistics. Ed. Coulmas, Florian. Oxford: Blackwell
Publishers Ltd., 1997. 126-156.
Hassan Basarally 806007430 LING 2302 6

Anda mungkin juga menyukai