|1

ETL713 – Learning Global English in Diverse Social Contexts

Assessment 1 – Review of a Research Article

Addressee- and Topic- Influenced Style Shift : A Quantitative Sociolinguistic Study

John R. Rickford & Faye McNair-Knox

No abstract could be located for this study as it seems to be solely published in a

collection of papers in a book as opposed to separately. The following is a copy and

paste of the study’s introduction instead as well as the segment of the paper that

specifically addresses the study’s primary questions.

This chapter is a study of addressee- and topic-influenced style shift in language,

within the framework of quantitative or "variationist" sociolinguistics.
The first section is written from a theoretical, history-of-science perspective; we
begin by contrasting the taxonomic, polydimensional approach of sociolinguists
like Hymes (1972) and Halliday (1978) with the empirical, unidimensional approach
of Labov (1966:90-135, 1972a:70-109), for whom styles were ordered on a
single dimension, involving attention paid to speech. We suggest that the neglect of
style within the American variationist school from the 1970s onward was due in part
to methodological and theoretical difficulties with this approach. As we note, an
alternative unidimensional approach, considering style as audience accommodation
(Giles and Powesland 1975, Bell 1984), is more promising, but although several
quantitative studies within this framework have been made over the past decade and
a half, most of them were done outside the United States, primarily in Britain.
In the second section, we introduce some new data on addressee and topic style
shift in language, drawn from our ongoing study of Sociolinguistic variation in East
Palo Alto (EPA), California, a multiethnic, low-income community of over eighteen
thousand people, located just east of Stanford University. The data are from our two
most recent interviews with Foxy Boston, an eighteen-year-old African American
teenager whose vernacular language use we have been chronicling, through successive
recordings, since she was thirteen.' The two interviews which form the empirical
focus of this paper were recorded about eight months apart in 1990 and 1991
within the same setting (Foxy's home), but with different interviewers. The 1990
interview was done by Faye (coauthor of this paper), a forty-one-year-old African
American lecturer at Stanford, who was familiar to Foxy as a community resident
and from earlier interviews. Faye was accompanied by her sixteen-year-old daughter,
Roberta (a pseudonym), a native of East Palo Alto, who served primarily as
cointerviewee and peer for Foxy (see section 2.1). Since this was the third interview
of Foxy, we'll refer to it as interview III. The 1991 interview (referred to as IV) was
done by Beth (a pseudonym), a twenty-five-year-old European American who was a
graduate student at Stanford and a stranger to Foxy. Although the latter interview
was ostensibly being done for Faye, and Beth was able to trade on "inside knowledge"
from Faye's earlier interviews, Foxy's language in the second interview was
less vernacular and more standard than it was in the former.
We investigate Foxy's style shift across the two interview contexts by means of
quantitative analyses of her usage of several variables, including zero copula, invariant
 |2

be, plural -s, third singular present -s, and possessive -s. The fact that (most
of) these variables are sensitive to style-shifting is itself of interest, since the earlier
literature on African American Vernacular English (AAVE) is either ambiguous or
negative on this point. The fact that the style-shifting is primarily a function of the
race of the interviewer(s) is also of methodological interest, for, with only a few
exceptions (Anshen 1969, Fasold 1972, Terrell et al. 1977, Edwards 1986), race-ofinterviewer
or -addressee effects have been neglected within sociolinguistics, 2 although
they have been the focus of lively discussion in other social sciences, where
the focus is on the content of interviewees' responses rather than their language (see,
for instance, Schumann and Kalton 1985, Anderson et al. 1988). In fact, the effect
of interviewer attributes on interviewee speech—although privately recognized as
important by everyone—has received little systematic discussion in the sociolinguistics
literature. The primary exceptions have been studies of the effects of
addressee status or solidarity (Brown and Oilman 1960, Payne 1976, Baugh 1979,
Hindle 1979, Coupland 1984), gender (Walters 1989a, b), and insider versus outsider
status (Van den Broeck 1977, Bickerton 1980, Russell 1982, Rickford 1983).
We also argue that the variable rule computer program, which we use for the
analysis of zero copula, allows us to disentangle the effect of audience-design from
the effect of internal grammatical constraints with a precision that other approaches
do not, and we recommend it as a general means of studying stylistic variation.
Finally, we consider variation by topic within each interview, attempting to assess
whether this can be related to audience-design, as Bell (1984:178-82) suggests, and
its relative importance vis-a-vis addressee-influenced style shift.
In our conclusion, we summarize our main findings and stress the importance of
encouraging quantitative sociolinguists to return to the study of stylistic variation
and of encouraging students of style in spoken language to exploit the assets of the
quantitative approach.

Why do some variables show significant addressee based

shift between the two interviews while others do not? Can we account for this
differential accommodation by appealing to the variables' role in social or interspeaker
variation, as Bell (pp. 166-67) suggests? What is Foxy reacting to as she
style shifts between one interview and the other—her interlocutors' personal characteristics
(race and familiarity, for instance) or their specific linguistic usage (Bell,
pp. 167-69)?12 What of the role of topic shifts within each interview? Can these be
viewed as proxies for audience-design, as Bell (pp. 178-82) asserts? And does
Foxy's vernacular use in our very earliest interviews (1986, 1988) square with the
evidence and analyses we present from interviews III and IV?
 |3

Research Review

Introduction

The following review sets out to evaluate Rickford and McNair-Knox’s study its place and Commented [hs1]: Year

purpose amongst the literature produced in the lead up to its publication in 1994, as well as an

examination of whether the methodology and design of the study fulfil the explicit intentions

of the research. While Rickford & McNair-Knox do succeed in justifying the need for an Commented [hs2]: Consistency; above you are using and;
follow APA please!

intrapersonal examination of style shift in the field of sociolinguistics, the manner in which

they have conducted this particular study means that while a discussion of style shift is

reopened, little progress is made towards generating valid discoveries to further develop

knowledge in the study of stylistic variation.

The Question(s)

The primary objective of the study was justified by its intended address of what Rickford and

McNair-Knox believed was a deficit in American research concerning stylistic or

intraspeaker variation as opposed to social or interspeaker variation. Rickford and McNair-

Knox aimed to continue to build upon the knowledge of others, in particular, Allan Bell’s Commented [hs3]: First name not needed!

1984 investigation of style as audience design. This study has the most direct implications for Commented [hs4]: (1984)

sociolinguistic researchers themselves, as without acknowledging the impact that their

presence has on their interviewee’s responses, they can potentially develop “strong theories

with weak foundations” (Rickford & McNair-Knox 1994, p.265). Although not mentioned in Commented [hs5]: ,
Commented [hs6]: p. 265); space required after p.
the study, such findings would also have broader implications for other fields including

research and education, as the perceptions of or influence of audience may explain aspects of

respondents’ or students’ communication strengths and weaknesses. However, while the

 |4

questions are specific and relevant on their own account, the design and methodology of the

study, as discussed below, is not conducive to adequately investigating their core queries.

Method, Data Collection and Discussion

The study does seek to acquire measurable quantitative data by tabulating variables such as

possessive -s absence, plural –s absence, third singular present –s absence, couple is/are

absence, and invariant habitual be, as markers of style shift. This is done with the assistance

of a variable rule computer program analysis of zero copula, sound recordings of the

interviews, and typed transcripts of these recordings. These forms are generally accepted as

reliable methods of sociolinguistic research. However, rather than draw extensively from this

empirical data, Rickford and McNair-Knox tend to over rely on creating relationships with

prior studies conducted by other theorists, which can be explained as compensation for the

following inherent weaknesses in their own data collection.

The most notable flaw in this study’s methodology is the skewed parameters. While Rickford

and McNair-Knox do not make “race-of-interviewer” (Rickford & McNair-Knox 1994,

p.236) an explicit objective of their study, the mention of it in their context and the continual

reference to the ethnicities of the interviewers suggests that this is intended to be one of the

key areas of focus in any their discoveries. However, they sabotage any potential claims by

incorporating too many other variables such as how African American interviewer Faye had

five years’ familiarity with Foxy and was accompanied by her t(Bordia, Wales, Pittam, &

Gallois, 2006)eenaged daughter, providing a peer cointerviewee, while European American

interviewer Beth had no such companion present and was a stranger to Foxy. Faye and Beth

were also significantly different ages, an eighteen-year-old interviewee may perceive a

woman only seven years her senior differently to one who is twenty-three years her senior.
 |5

This surplus of variables is also exacerbated by the individual strengths and weaknesses of

the interviewers themselves such as how “Beth's transitions between topics are sometimes

awkward, marked by long pauses and hesitation fillers as she tries to decide what to turn to

next. And sometimes, perhaps because of dialect differences, Beth's questions are

misunderstood” (Rickford & McNair-Knox 1994, p.245). Additional to the variations in

interviewer style, the interview questions themselves were also not regulated with variations

in topic, such as a focus on gang related killings in Faye’s interview and the Persian Gulf War

in Beth’s interview, as well as variations in how questions were asked and in what order.

Thus, when posing the question of “What is Foxy reacting to as she style shifts between one

interview and the other—her interlocutors' personal characteristics (race and familiarity, for

instance) or their specific linguistic usage (Bell, pp. 167-69)?” (Rickford & McNair-Knox

1994, p.242) the true cause cannot foreseeably be pinpointed. Furthermore, one could claim

that the involvement of their own co-author in the study as an interviewer could obscure the

objectivity of these interviews.

Although Rickford and McNair-Knox touch on the shortcomings of their findings through

such statements as “Their race and relative familiarity seem significant enough, from this

study and from the earlier work of Anshen (1969), Fasold (1972), and Baugh (1979), but how

much to attribute to race and how much to familiarity is difficult to say, and the contributory

effects of residential community membership, personality, and age are even harder to assess”

(Rickford & McNair-Knox 1994, p.258), in other sections of their analysis they freely make

comments that could be perceived as assumptions considering these discrepancies, one

example being, “This is evident in the fact that although the race and familiarity of Faye and

Roberta elicit more vernacular grammar, Faye's role as an adult and mother appears to lead

Foxy to refer to sex allusively and indirectly.” (Rickford & McNair-Knox 1994, p.262)
 |6

Without further controlled case studies to confirm the validity of their observations, this study

serves as only one unsubstantiated, small and generalised example to add to a repertoire of

much larger investigations of the style shift field as opposed to offering justifiable standalone

findings. Commented [hs7]: you need to break this paragraph as

sentences are very long.

Findings that are justifiably evidenced are that Foxy does demonstrate addressee related style

shifts as well as topic related style shifts. However, while the cause for the addressee related

style shifts can only be assumed based on correlations made by Rickford and McNair-Knox

with prior studies conducted by other theorists, the topic related style shift trends can be more

adequately supported by Foxy’s data alone. This is partly due to the fact that while the topic

changes, the other variables such as interviewer and setting remain the same. The presence of

two separate interviews also provides a reaffirming case study that can examine the responses

to similar topics. This enables Rickford and McNair-Knox to successfully build on Bell’s

hypotheses, specifically in how “Foxy's shift between topics A and F in interview IV

corresponds perfectly to Bell's hypothetical example, since A deals with school, college, and

career plans and is predictably more standard, while F deals with "wives and slamming

partners" (see quotation [10]), the kind of topic one is most likely to discuss with friends, and

one which predictably elicits the most vernacular speech.” (Rickford & McNair-Knox 1994,

p.261)

Conclusion

While Rickford and McNair-Knox do, at times, acknowledge the limitations of their

methodology, it cannot be ignored that they draw multiple assumptions from their findings

and refer to them as ‘fact’. Rather than arrange additional scenarios to validate their data they

instead rely on drawing parallels with the prior findings of other theorists. While this study
 |7

does set out clearly defined questions and investigates them through use of observable and

measurable data, its limitations indicate the paramount importance of any research ensuring

restricted variables and parameters in order to be able to subsequently justify any findings.

References:

McTaggert, R. (1996). Appraising reports of enquiry. D. Caulley, H. Moore & J. Orton (Eds.) Commented [hs8]: Not used in the text!

Social science methodology for educational inquiry: A conceptual overview (pp. 215-239).

Beijing: Beijing Teachers College Press.

Rickford, R. & and McNair-Knox, F. (1994). Addressee- and Topic-Influenced Style Shift: A

Quantitative Sociolinguistic Study. D. Biber & E. Finegan (Eds.), Perspectives on Register:

Situating Register Variation Within Sociolinguistics (pp. 235-276). New York: Oxford

University Press.

Spratt, P. (2000). Social research methods. R. Jureidini & M. Poole (Eds.) Sociology: Commented [hs9]: Same!

Australian connections (pp. 215-239). St Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin.

Look again at Topic 2 and write a response to this focus question: How does language –

in form and in use – reflect and maintain social grouping? (500 words)

Language is a specific system of communication that is inherently defined by the social

context within which it is constructed. As such, each language system is imbued with identity

markers that can indicate one’s social positioning. The modification of one’s language use

can also be used as a tool to assimilate with different social groupings. In my own personal

experience, as a child my mother taught me the Queen’s English as she felt it had the greatest
 |8

prestige. While this was generally accepted in Adelaide, a community which will use [ɑː] as

opposed to [æ] in the pronunciation of ‘chance’, perhaps an indicator of their free-settler

history, founded by migrants who paid their own tickets to emigrate from England, when I

moved to rural Victoria I was perceived as a ‘snob’, thus I embraced the Howard Giles’

communication accommodation theory and conformed to the broader Australian vernacular.

Likewise, in my roles as a university student I use dissimilar jargon than my two years spent

as an apprentice mechanic, and in order to be well received by the academic community I

need to exercise a more advanced register which would in fact alienate me if used in domains

such as the automotive trade. In this anecdote one can observe the accommodation to

different regional and social dialects which in the aforementioned cases have been marked by

changes in phonetic and lexical forms.

However, all facets of linguistic forms play a role in reflecting and maintaining social

grouping. Anna Shnukal, in her research of Thursday Island High School students, noted Commented [hs10]:

many syntactical and semantic differences that identify Torres Strait Creole (TSC) and set it

apart from Standard Australian English. Although originally not considered to be a ‘proper

language’ due to its mixed origins, TSC “has emerged as the regional and young people’s

lingua franca” (Shnukal 1996, p.44). It has played a role in creating unity between those on

Thursday Island, becoming legitimised through its use in “government offices, church, radio,

Bible translation, posters, advertisements, T-shirts, and it has acquired an orthography,

grammar and dictionary.” (Shnukal 1996, p.44) Although the presence of a lingua franca can

threaten minority dialects it can also solidify social grouping by creating communication

bridges and establishing a speech community, as seen by the preference for Torres Strait

Creole and “calls for the abandonment or curtailment of English instruction as the Strait

moves closer to regional autonomy in education.” (Shnukal 1996, p.44)

 |9

As well as marking social and regional identity through its linguistic forms, there are a

myriad of other language functions that relate to the maintenance of social groupings on the

interpersonal level. For instance, politeness strategies can influence solidarity or separateness

as is seen by Brown and Gilman’s 1960 study of the Tu and Vous distinctions in French,

where the “T forms are a solidarity marker for those who do use them” (Wardhaugh 2002,

p.264). Additionally, terms of address, euphemisms, face saving, and other politeness

markers are culturally and socially sensitive, ensuring that one’s social grouping is both

reflected and maintained.

References:

Holmes, J. (2008). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics (3rd ed.). Essex, England: Pearson Commented [hs11]: Text referencing!

Education.

Shnukal, A. (2010). Language in learning at Thursday Island High School. The Australian

Journal of Indigenous Education, 24(2), 45-52.

Wardhaugh, R. (2002). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics (4th ed.). Malden, MA: Blackwell

Publishing.