Lecture: Sociolinguistics Professor Dr. Neal R.

Norrick _____________________________________

Sociolinguistics

Universität des Saarlandes Dept. 4.3: English Linguistics WS 2008/09

Organization • Website: script, bibliography, PowerPoint presentation • attendance, quiz, certificates/credits

1. Introduction
1.1 What is Sociolinguistics? Sociolinguistics is the study of language in relation to society.

a culture. a sub-culture • the development of national standard languages and their relation to regional and local dialects • attitudes toward variants and choice of which to use where . from small sociocultural groups to entire nations and commonwealths • language as part of the character of a nation.Sociolinguistics studies: • the social importance of language to groups of people.

urban versus rural. while others are stigmatized • ongoing change in the forms and varieties of language.• how individual ways of speaking reveal membership in social groups: working class versus middle class. interrelationships between varieties • See Trudgill's "two Englishmen on a train" story . female versus male • how certain varieties and forms enjoy prestige. old versus young.

the participants and their relationship in terms of membership.Sociolinguistics also studies: • language structures in relation to interaction • how speakers construct identities through discourse in interaction with one another • how speakers and listeners use language to define their relationship and establish the character and direction of their talk • how talk conveys attitudes about the context. power and solidarity .

structure and development . wouldja? • how listeners interpret talk and draw inferences from it about the ongoing interaction • Sociolinguists describe how language works in society to better understand society.• Compare: Could I ask you to bring me the paint. but also to investigate the social aspect of language to better understand its use. please? Get me the paint.

language education .2 The Sociolinguistics of Society versus the Sociolinguistics of Language • The Sociolinguistics of Society concerns the role of languages in societies: – societal multilingualism – attitudes toward national languages and dialects – language planning.1. language choice. language shift. language death.

language.• The Sociolinguistics of Language concerns language function and variation in the social context of the speech community: – forms of address – speech acts and speech events – language and gender. language and power. politeness. thought and reality – language varieties and change .

language and social stratification in Norwich • Really we'll be doing the Sociolinguistics of English . USA and Commonwealth nations • Main focus on the Sociolinguistics of Language: particularly forms. functions and varieties of English • Labov and Trudgill as premiere sociolinguists  hence: variation in New York City.My treatment of Sociolinguistics of Society will focus on England. Black English.

cognitive linguistics.1. neurolinguistics. computational linguistics • Sociolinguistics as interdisciplinary: – – – – roots in dialect geography anthropology and sociology philosophy of language linguistic pragmatics and discourse analysis .3 Sociolinguistics within Linguistics • Sociolinguistics as "hyphenated linguistics" compare: – psycholinguistics.

• Since language is the basic vehicle of social cohesion and interaction. any linguistics should be sociolinguistics • As Labov puts it: sociolinguistics is "a somewhat misleading use of an oddly redundant term“ • • • • • language always exists in varieties language is always changing any adequate linguistic theory should be sociolinguistic describing variation by speaker. class. region and time failure to account for variation and change should render a linguistic description useless • but Sociolinguistics outside "mainstream linguistics" till recently .

1.4 Saussure's dichotomies and non-socio-linguistics • The Neo-Grammarians (Junggrammatiker) insisted: – speakers are unaware of change – and change can not be observed in progress .

namely synchronic linguistics . this dichotomy privileged one half of the pair. distinguishing synchronic and diachronic linguistics • This useful distinction in the 1900‟s became a program for ignoring the fundamentally dynamic nature of language • Like binary distinctions generally.• Saussure inaugurated "modern linguistics" around 1900.

language in use • this distinction became a program for ignoring the fundamentally social and behavioral nature of language . the language as a system.• Saussure also distinguished langue and parole • This dichotomy privileged langue. and marginalized parole.

region or time – language as a non-cultural.• Linguistics as the synchronic study of langue: – language as an abstraction without variation by speaker. static. non-social. depersonalized fact independent of context and discourse .

The social aspect of language is studied by observing a single speaker. but one can obtain data on individualistic parole only by studying linguistic behavior in the community. one can obtain all the data necessary for linguistic description from a single person--perhaps oneself. Labov (1972: 185-87) ."Saussurian Paradox" If we all share knowledge of the communal langue. but the individual aspect only by observing language in its social context.

• "categorial" versus "variationist" views with regard to language history and description: Phonological: room with long u as in pool with short u as in book -ing with velar nasal ng (-ing) with alveolar nasal n (-in) Morphological: .

1.5 Development of Sociolinguistics in USA • Structuralist linguistic theory in US (like Saussure) – stressed synchronic study of langue – focused on the system of language .

social factors appeared as part of the anthropological context .• American structuralism also followed Logical Positivism • Bloomfield insisted on “scientific” linguistics – – – – linguistic description as mathematical formal rules discrete input and output no variables or "free variation" • But in descriptions of native Amerindian languages.

and the only proper object of linguistic research – Performance: disorganized. in a completely homogeneous speech community. error-ridden talk not amenable to systematic description • the speaker was "an ideal speaker-listener. Chomsky's generative transformational grammar further marginalized sociolinguistics • grammar as creative aspect of language and the center of linguistic attention • restatement of Saussure's dichotomy of langue and parole as a distinction between competence and performance – Competence: language user's innate knowledge of grammar.• from late 1950's. who knows its language perfectly" (Chomsky 1965: 3) .

social function. context • Communicative competence versus Chomsky's grammatical competence .• These idealizations: – banished variation from linguistics – removed talk from society and local context – made language an abstraction • But Ethnography of Speaking recognized: – language functions and speech events – linguistic behavior.

Labov Urban dialectology. Sacks on language in social interaction • From mid 1960's: Sociolinguistics of language: – – – – Weinreich. conversation analysis Interactional Sociolinguistics .• Dialect geographers (or dialectologists. areal linguists) continued to describe systematic variation by region • Sociological research on language and society: – Fishman on language contact. societal multilingualism – Goffman. Black English Vernacular Linguistic Pragmatics.

6 Development of Sociolinguistics in UK • Linguistic theory in UK never really followed Saussure.1. langue and parole not systematically observed . philological tradition and applied linguistics in language teaching and anthropology • Dichotomies of synchronic and diachronic.

Crystal. Quirk et al.• Malinowski: – phatic communion as social meaning – context of situation basis of meaning • Firth: – context of situation central to meaning – meaning central to language description – conversation as key to understanding language • Halliday: – interpersonal meaning alongside ideational – Language as a social semiotic • Trudgill: social stratification and variation • Sinclair.: – conversational organization – transactional analysis .

Linguistic Variation • Variation through time: stages or periods of a language – Old English 449-1150 – Middle English 1150-1500 • Variation in space: regional dialects – English as spoken in Norwich. New York City . Norfolk.2. – New England.

– by saleswomen in New York department stores • Variation by situation: register – English as spoken in television sports reporting – as written in business letters – in personal e-mail .• Variation by group: sociolects (social dialects) – English as spoken by upper working class women in Norwich.

• variation even occurs in the speech of a particular person from a particular place in a particular group and situation • so varieties often differ by high versus low probability for specific items (this indicates necessity of counting!) • variety = set of linguistic items with characteristic social distribution .

say She come home yesterday instead of the standard She came home yesterday – Black vernacular speakers say I aks her did she know him. while AE speakers say subway – White rural speakers in the Midwest U. while standard speakers say I asked her if she knew him . word choice.• Varieties may differ in any kind of linguistic item: pronunciation.S. word form and syntax – Working class men in Norwich tend to pronounce thin and thing the same way in conversation – BE speakers say tube.

• Sociolinguistic Variables are particular items known to reflect particular social contrasts – Presence or absence of 3rd person singular -s in constructions like: she goes versus she go – Presence or absence of [r] in pronunciations of words and phrases like: theater theater is the idea of .

• Again we find patterns of variation – from group to group – from one speaker to the next – from one style to the next in the group (again indicates necessity for quantification) .

2.1 Class and style • In sociolinguistic studies, class is determined by rating status characteristics like occupation, education, residence, and income on numerical scales • Styles reflect different degrees of formality and awareness of speakers about how they're speaking versus what they're saying • Most formal is word list style, next reading style, then careful style as in an interview, and finally casual style • A particular sociolinguistic variable will display class stratification across social classes and styles, as shown in diagrams like the one below

Labov (1972: 239) ing

• • • • •

In every style, class members differ predictably In every class, style shifting occurs predictably the same variable distinguishes classes and styles a single signal has no fixed value a single variable may mark
– a casual middle-class speaker – a careful lower-class speaker

• Syntactic. morphological and phonological factors: • • • • • • monosyllabic verb sing indefinite something present participle suffix –ing at the end of a phrase preceding a vowel preceding a consonant She tried to find something She tried to find something in town She tried to find something she liked .

2 Variation and change • Some variation leads to permanent change • one variant gains acceptance and others disappear • The "embedding problem" – describe the matrix of social and linguistic behavior (changes and constants) in which language change takes place .2.

g. – change in diphthong /ay/ leads to parallel change in /aw/ • Social factors: – group member with high prestige provides model – pressure from outside group encourages solidary behavior .Linguistic factors • Universal constraints on change (based on past changes) – front vowels tend to rise – stop consonants tend to lose voicing • Local changes may affect the whole system. e.

2. one variant gains prestige. due to association with certain groups or speakers. another is stigmatized • Pronouncing "aitches" versus "dropping aitches" in words like hotel and house .3 Prestige and stigmatization • Change begins as irregular fluctuation below level of conscious awareness • no stylistic stratification • When variation comes to conscious awareness.

• General axiom of sociolinguistic structure: – uniform agreement in subjective reactions to a variable correlate with regular stratification – one finds stylistic stratification – speakers use more prestige variants in careful styles than in casual styles hypercorrection • speakers insert prestige variants where they don't belong (where prestige speakers don't use them) pronouncing "aitches" in words like honor. hour and if .

Pressure from new group produces greater solidarity in original group. and introduce patterns at home C.2. Commuters accommodate speech patterns to focal point. and members signal this through distinctive behavior.4 The actuation of change "The actuation problem" What sets change in motion? Social factors account for change in a general way. A. e.g. "Linguistic missionaries" return from living in focal point city with high status and new speech patterns . including speech patterns B. usually a major city.

• Linguistic factors may favor certain changes – regularizing a pattern – like /ay/ causing parallel change in /aw/ • but even taken together they can't predict that change will occur or in which direction • even knowing the linguistic and social matrix doesn't explain why one specific feature changes and another doesn't .

but not in America or northern England) • speakers in southwest England drop -r in posh pronunciation.• pronunciation of vowel in words like craft – changed from [æ] in OE to [a] in ME – back to [æ] in EModE – back to [a] in the 18th Century (in southern England. careful speakers in NYC are reintroducing the sound • historically stigmatized constructions like the comparative and superlative forms funner and funnest become standard in the course of a single generation (in AE) .

2.5 Variable rules • Language as a system of rules
– Constitutive rules versus regulative rules

• Assume full forms are stored in memory and reduced in speech, e.g. by rules for contraction: She + is  she's we + have + been  we've been and by rules for deletion: we've been  we been last + time  las' time

• Phonological rule for final consonant cluster simplification, as in las' time: C  Φ / C ___ ## C Read: delete a consonant following a consonant at the end of a word, if the next word begins with a consonant.

• Some dialects allow consonant cluster simplification even if the next word begins with a vowel, as in las' of all, so we could write: C  Φ / C ___ ##
• This rule fails to say that deletion is far more likely before a consonant than a vowel - in every dialect; so we need variable rules, relating differences in application to differences in the environment, as in: C  <Φ> / C ___ ## <C> Read: delete a consonant following a consonant at the end of a word, more often before a consonant than a vowel.

d. as in: liked [laykt] seemed [simd]) • This suggests a revision of the rule as: C  <Φ> / C <~#> ___ ## <C> Read: delete a consonant following a consonant at the end of a word. the rule is far less likely if the consonant to be deleted represents the past tense suffix -t. .• In addition. more often if there's no morpheme boundary between the consonants. and more often before a consonant than a vowel.

• Labov itemizes such constraints on variable rules in tables includes both internal linguistic factors and external social factors .• Further. and more likely for younger speakers than for older speakers. deletion is more likely for speakers of Black Vernacular than for white speakers.

.Labov 1972: 222 Thus variable rules can describe the behavior of a sociolinguistic variable for a whole speech community.

from higher classes to lower classes . The social motivation of language change (Labov 1972b) • Till Labov. no one had tried to explain language change • When linguists described change. not external (social) factors • Linguists claimed language change was imperceptible. its origins obscure to speakers and linguistics alike (Saussure: language as mutable and immutable) • Linguists claimed language change proceeded from above. they cited internal (systematic linguistic).3.

vernacular speakers cause language change.• But according to popular belief. through lack of education. unclear thinking – Double negation: She never saw nobody try it – ain’t for am not. she ain’t seen them. or language deterioration. hasn’t. aren’t. isn’t. better. laziness. haven’t – I ain’t going. it ain’t me • so-called language experts see change as corruption • any deviation from standard is undesirable • standard language is pure. more logical than dialects .

Labov's questions: • • • • • What causes language change? Internal versus external factors in change? Who propagates language change? Does it really proceed from above? How can language change be imperceptible if people talk about undesirable features and changes in progress? • Is language change dysfunctional or does it have positive influence? • Why do some groups maintain stigmatized features after centuries of condemnation? .

3.1 Social motivation versus free variation: A case study of Martha's Vineyard. Massachussetts • In structuralist and generative phonology. sounds (phonemes) written in / / to show variation is irrelevant • Audible differences count as "free variation" • Labov writes sounds in ( ) to show variation has social significance • Apparent "free variation" increasingly tied to groups and attitudes as analysis progresses .

separate from mainland Clear social structure: natives versus summer residents Variables: (r) as elsewhere in New England Diphthongs (ay aw) with clear local pattern .Case study: Martha's Vineyard • • • • Island off Massachussetts coast.

Geographic Occupation .

Group/age .

• Note quick rise. esp. in (aw) variable. for younger speakers • table comparing four 15-year-old students .

centralized diphthong marks identification as native islander rather than as "Yankee" (of English descent) .• Interviews include questions to determine attitudes about Martha's Vineyard and staying on the island.

Labov describes the stages of language change as: .

not from above as such • Internal factors may play a role in spreading change: change in (ay) stimulates parallel change in (aw) • Members of language community aren't explicitly aware which features are in flux (though they may identify someone's speech as "fishermen's talk" or "dockworkers' talk") • But linguists can see change in progress.• Apparently. it's especially clear in diagrams calibrated for age differences . • Immediate group status plays primary role. pressure from outside causes language change as a mechanism of group identity. not status within culture as a whole. i.e.

reflecting pattern of national standard • stigmatizing the traditional r-lessness of NYC speech • Note: loss of r in New York City was also change from above. borrowing r-less pattern from London speech in early 1800s .3.2 Social stratification in New York • Hypothesis: any two subgroups of NYC speakers ranked on a scale of social stratification will be ranked in the same order by their differential use of (r) • Retroflex pronunciation of (r) is a change from above.

Klein • Department stores ranked by pricing. wages.• Rapid and anonymous speech events as data • Employees of three large department stores as test group: – Sacks – Macy's – S. advertising. physical appearance of store . working conditions.

• Method: Ask question to elicit answer fourth floor Say excuse me to elicit emphatic response • This gives four variants: – Preceding final consonant and word final – Casual and emphatic .

Less differentiation shows greater security as a speaker Greater differentiation shows less security as a speaker .

Compare just white. native born saleswomen: .

breadth of data • Disadvantages of rapid and anonymous interviews – Not much differentiation between styles  Reading aloud and word list needed .• Advantages of rapid and anonymous interviews – Easy access.

STYLE D = word list • for a Jewish male taxi driver STYLE A B C 12 15 46 D 100 % retroflex r • for a Black middle class female STYLE A B C D 00 31 44 69 % retroflex r . STYLE C = reading. STYLE B = interview.In follow-up interviews Labov found for the (r) variable: • for a white female Sacks employee STYLE A B C D 00 03 23 53 % retroflex r STYLE A = casual.

hypercorrection and hypersensitivity .• Cross-over pattern in diagram of multiple styles and social classes: • Second highest class typically displays cross-over pattern.

language structure and change • Based on research on Martha's Vineyard and in NYC. Labov summarizes "Mechanism of language change" .3 Social variation.3.

The variable becomes a marker showing stylistic variation. Change from below originates in subgroup due to external pressure. . 2. Succeeding generations carry variable beyond the model set by parents (=hypercorrection from below). 3.1. The variable acts as indicator of membership. 4. and it shows no stylistic variation. Change begins as generalization of feature to all members of the subgroup.

6. and hence to new change. 8. The highest-status group provides prestige model for all speakers. 7. .5. The variable now shows social stratification as well as stylistic variation. Movement of variable in system leads to readjustments in system. If the change did not originate in the highest-status group. Other subgroups interpret first change as part of community system and new change as stage 1. this group will stigmatize the change through control of institutions and communication network. This recycling stage is primary source for continual origination of new changes.

Extreme stigmatization can lead to stereotype. The change is then adopted by other groups in proportion to their contact with the users of the prestige model. 12. 11. Change originating in highest-class group (change from above) usually represents borrowing or influence from outside community. Speakers shift. it becomes prestige model for all speakers. to imitate the prestige model (=hypercorrection from above). especially in careful styles.9. When change originates in highest-class group. . 10. and the stigmatized form may disappear.

• Within a single class. esp. • Women show greater stylistic shifting. women use more prestige forms. to imitate the prestige model (=hypercorrection from above). .4 Change and Gender • Women as traditional caregivers have special influence over propagation of change • Women usually lead in change from above. while men usually lead change from below. fewer stigmatized forms.3.

3. e.g.5 Attitudes toward variation and change • Evaluation of variants are uniform across classes and groups. they assign character traits to speakers and groups. – New York dialect sounds impolite and tough – Bostonian sounds refined and snooty – Southern drawl sounds lazy and ignorant • Those who use highest degree of stigmatized form also condemn it most .

they continue to use forms they know to be stigmatized • covert norms opposed to those of the middle class. they monitor their speech accordingly. but choose not to use them.• Pre-adolescents are aware of prestige and stigmatized forms. they usually settle back into established class patterns • lower class group know prestige forms. attribute positive values to use of the vernacular .

3. change from below strengthens position of vernacular • Language change appears dysfunctional only if we view language as a purely ideational system. for language to serve as a social marker. it must have variation and undergo change . because it requires extra learning and monitoring of forms.6 Language change as positive influence • Language change as deterioration and leveling of distinctions is only half the story. change also introduces new distinctions and features • Language change must have value for the group.

4. Black English Vernacular (Labov 1972a)
• Black English Vernacular (BEV) versus Nonstandard Negro English (cf. Ebonics) • Labov began from failure of Blacks in school, esp. in reading • BEV as fully elaborated system but also symbol of conflict • Participant-observer in Black street gangs (Ethnomethodology) • BEV as regional southern dialect becoming class/ethnic marker in northern cities • BEV versus Standard American English (SAE)

Phonological differences: 1. r-lessness (like New England, New York, the South) no post-vocalic r, e.g. in sore, fort so that sore = saw fort = fought but BEV may not pronounce r even between vowels, as in: Carol, terrace which sound just like Cal, test

and BEV may not pronounce r after th, as in: throw through throat

2. l-lessness (no post-vocalic l) so that toll = toe all = awe

fault = fought

3. Simplification of consonant clusters e.g. -st -ft -nt -nd -ld -zd -md in passed past soft bent bend hold raised aimed so that past = pass meant = men hold = hole Note: Consonant cluster simplification can combine with l-lessness to yield: told = toll = toe

Other consonant variables Some single consonants are glottalized or lost completely: seat = seed = see poor = poke = pope Final th realized as /f/ or /v/: death = deaf Ruth = roof .4.

Missing future markers (through loss of final l) you'll = you they'll = they he'll = he but gonna I'm'na I'ma . loss of final r) Mick book they book you book 2. Missing possessives (through cluster simplification.Grammatical correlates of phonological variables 1.

3. Missing copula. Missing past tense markers (through loss of final t d following consonants) passed = past = pass fined = find = fine but irregular forms remain: told/tol' kept/kep' . except with I you're = you they're = they he's = he but I'm 4.

4.1 BEV as a separate system • BEV negative inversion: Ain't nobody gone let you walk Don't nobody break up a fight • Embedded questions retain inversion in BEV (without complementizers if and whether): I asked Alvin could he go She asked us did we know how .

BEV consonant cluster simplification yields a distinct tense paradigm: SAE BEV kicks kick tells tell kicked kick told tol' .• BEV loss of r even before vowels. as in: borrow (= bow) • unlike any white New York dialect. as in: our own and word-internally.

he cry she done left him I been know you a long time – Intensive done in: – Extended time been in: .• Also special BEV tense and aspect forms: – Habitual be in: she always be messing around If you be beating on him.

BEV can delete them. though you're out of the game *here he's/they're BEV BEV BEV BEV she the first one she wild. BEV can't delete them: SAE SAE SAE SAE she's the first one she's wild.• Contraction and deletion of copula: • Where SAE can contract is/are. though you out the game *here he/they . and where SAE can't contract is/are.

" • He explicitly rejects BEV as "dialect mixing" performance • General Principle of Accountability: any variable form must be reported with the proportion of cases where the form occurred in the relevant environment compared with the number where it might have occurred .Labov (1972: 64) concludes: • "The gears and axles of English grammatical machinery are available to speakers of all dialects.

creolized language (and hence inferior to Standard English) .• Labov accepts categorial challenge of describing a homogeneous speech community • this makes it necessary to account for community variation in explicit rules • Labov may be seen as overreacting to formalism of generative grammar and to claim that BEV is a separate.

gonna • thus contraction is most likely in: she's gonna/they're gonna • far less likely in: Ruth's tough/life's tough • and we could assign values to the probability of contraction for each environment and for different styles . esp.2 Variability and variable rules • To describe BEV.4. Labov invented variable rules • The rule for contracting the copula (am/is/are) favored by: – a preceding pronoun versus a full noun – a preceding vowel or glide versus a consonant – a following verb.

gonna • thus deletion is most likely in: it gonna • and somewhat less likely in: they gonna • again we could assign values to the probability of deletion for each environment and for different styles .• The BEV rule deleting contracted forms ('s/'re but not 'm) is favored by: – a preceding consonant versus a vowel – a preceding pronoun – a following verb. esp.

BEV is a dialect of SAE with its own characteristic constraints on general rules. • Thus. . • Variable rules are integrated into the community grammar. they operate within general grammatical categories. the grammar of the speech community as a whole is more regular than the grammar of any dialect or member. how and when.• As formulated in Labov's variable rules. • Variation is part of competence: knowing a language means knowing what varies. so that they must represent competence (rather than performance).

system versus ideolect • Lames are relative outsiders who act as informants for linguists and sociologists to avoid the Observer's Paradox Observer's Paradox: • How can we observe the way people act/speak when they're not being observed? • When members leave group.3 Members versus lames.4. they lose insider's knowledge of the group and its folklore. their intuitions are no longer trustworthy . they generally orient toward SAE and away from BEV.

.Labov found for lames versus members of Black street gangs: • For ing versus in: Lames use 25% ing members use 4% ing • For contraction and deletion of is/are: Contraction about the same: lames 65% members 73% But deletion: lames 12% members 52% • For 3rd person does versus do. doesn't versus don't doesn't: lames 36% members 3% does: lames 13% members 0 In each case the lames were closer to or even the same as white SAE speakers.

they are bad informants on their own dialect • even if some intuitions are correct. practice its language skills and folklore .• Linguists themselves tend to be lames vis-a-vis their own speech community. • Only members are embedded in community. we can check them only by researching the real community • This leads back to the participant-observer within group to overcome Observer's Paradox (as ethnomethodology suggests).

• Labov turns to members and their folklore – to defend BEV as systematic and valuable – to find clear examples of BEV unaffected by SAE • Hence: investigation of soundings/dozens and fight stories .

4 Analyzing narratives • Labov became interested in narrative as community folklore and as a source of natural BEV speech unaffected by observer • Narrative as method of recapitulating past experience by matching a verbal sequence of clauses to the sequence of events reported. .4.

• minimal narrative as at least two such clauses So he get all upset.• narrative as a sequence of past tense clauses • sequentially ordered with respect to each other. So he get all upset. • Reversing the order destroys the sequence as a narrative proper--or changes it into a different story: Then I fought him. Then I fought him. .

• Beyond skeleton of temporally ordered narrative clauses. when. where?” • Complicating action • Evaluation: answers the question “So what?” • Resolution: answers the question “What finally happened?” • Coda: puts off any further questions about what happened or why it mattered. . assigned to specific function elements: • Abstract: answers the question “What was this about?” • Orientation: answers the questions “Who. what. other “free” clauses are typically found in stories.

A "fight story" illustrates the central elements ABSTRACT A When I was in fourth grade--no--it was third grade-There was this boy. . he stole my glove.

.ORIENTATION B He took my glove. C and say that his father found it downtown on the ground.

G I knocked him out all in the street. I And I kept on hitting him. and just his father is the only one that find it? E So he get all upset. 'cause all those people were walking by.COMPLICATING ACTION D I told him that he--it's impossible for him to find downtown. J Then he start crying K And run home to his father. H So he say he give. . F Then I fought him.

RESOLUTION L And his father told him. he ain't find no glove. .

Then I fought him. So he get all upset.Labov identifies the “primary sequence” with the most explicit statement of the “a-then-b” relation. And I kept on hitting him. as: D E F G H I J K I told him that he . . . So he say he give. Then he start crying And run home to his father. . I knocked him out all in the street.

• Evaluation particularly important – establishes the point of interest – emphasizes its unusual character – demonstrates the teller's involvement with event reported elicits interest and belief from listeners .

suspends action D I told him that he--it's impossible for him to find downtown. 'cause all those people were walking by. I And I kept on hitting him. he ain't find no glove.EVALUATION • Semantic: Explains teller's attitude. • External: Statement by third person L And his father told him. . and just his father is the only one that find it? • Symbolic action: Hitting someone after he says he gives indicates the teller's anger was great H So he say he give.

language death. view of variation as one property of a language system • Developmental linguistics is a comprehensive linguistic theory – it includes variation and change as central facts of language – relates them to language acquisition. Bailey (1973.-J. Developmental linguistics • By contrast with Labov.5. 1982 etc) sees sociocommunicational factors like ethnicity. gender. pidginization and creolization • C. style etc balancing neurobiological factors in language development .

g. ng/ final in syllable /t.Marking (or Markedness). d. lost last.• Sociocommunicational factors depend on local speech community • Neurobiological factors are universal and appear in language acquisition and loss. d. e. ng/ initial /k. found in more languages. pidginization and creolization. as in: Unmarked /t. n/ initial Marked /k.g. more robust in language contact . g. n/ final in syllable • Unmarked terms acquired first.

e. marked term predicts presence of unmarked term. syllable initial /k/  syllable initial /t/ • In Developmental Linguistics: – Rules form a panlectal grammar predictive for language acquisition and change – Categories are gradient. not just + or variation is built into rules • gradient morpheme boundary in the rule for consonant cluster simplification cited above: C  <Φ> / C <~#> ___ ## <C> .• Usually.g.

they describe connatural change.• says deletion becomes more likely as the morpheme boundary becomes less clear from laughed to leftPst Tns to leftAdv to draft • rules reflect neurobiological influences. versus abnatural change due to sociocommunicational influence .

for constructing social identity generally . Community of Practice (CoP) Communities of Practice (Wenger 1998) • fishermen on Martha‟s Vineyard • members of a Black street gang • We all participate in various CoPs: – – – – in the family at home at work at school in casual groups and organizations • CoP ways of speaking are the most closely coordinated • CoP is the primary place for “doing gender”.6.

ethnicity) – develops the "big picture" of the social spread of sound change across groups and regions.• Newer research on variation focuses on the CoP and the social meaning of speech styles (based on linguistic variables) • By contrast. sex class. Labov‟s “correlational sociolinguistics” – uses survey and quantitative methods – examines correlations between linguistic variability and major demographic categories (class. . age.

• still focus on some kind of speech community.Later variation studies • describe the relation between variation and local. participant-designed categories. • give local meaning to the demographic categories. • examine linguistic variables in their role as local/regional dialect features .

Newest research oriented to CoP • views practices and styles. as directly associated with identity categories • explores the contributions of variables to styles • takes social meaning as primary • examines any linguistic material with a social/stylistic purpose (not just changes in progress) • often explores the style in relation to gender . rather than variables.

• re-interpret Labov‟s findings on Martha‟s Vineyard: – Fishermen as members of a CoP – use vowel quality to express social meaning – other islanders orient toward the shift to position themselves socially • female identities and alignment among members of CoP • Notice: repetition.• Eckert (1998) shows how adolescents use language practices to construct their social (gendered) identity • if CoP (rather than class) defines speech style. overlap. markers of agreement. details. tags. dialogue . it‟s no surprise that women and men “in the same class” display different styles.

] Helen: [oh yeah. right? remember. Jean: you could go over there around the holidays and get smashed before you left [the place.] Jean: we used to have the last appointment.TIPSY Annie: and I always thought that her and Vance just were great [together.] used to [get s-] Helen: [they were both] good.] Jean: [yeah. Annie: yeah. the two of us would go? Annie: yeah. . yeah. they were really good.

and he'd be pouring the wine and we were tipsy by the time we walked out of that place. [we went there. well sure. you were under the dryers. yeah. remember? yeah. ." you walk out of there you're half tipsy.Jean: Annie: Jean: Annie: Jean: Annie: Jean: Annie: Jean: "want some wine girls?" "sure we'll have a glass of wine. when he was there. yeah. near the town show. then he moved all the way out at Rand Road.] and then we went on to Union Road. we followed him around.] [we used to go there.

7. patterns and functions of speaking as an activity in concrete social settings in the speech community Defining speech community: – shared rules for speaking and shared speech variety – we all inhabit different. overlapping speech communities . Ethnography of communication Ethnography of communication (or Ethnography of speaking) • studies uses.

• Methodology: participant-observer description • Etic versus Emic (from phonetic versus phonemic) • Communicative competence versus Chomsky's grammatical competence .

7.1 Language functions • Bühler (1933) "Organon Modell": 3 factors. 3 functions .

• Malinowski (1935): phatic communion. 6 functions . magic language as instrument in "context of situation" • Jakobson (1960): 6 factors. interaction.

• Hymes (1962. • expands Reference into: Topic & Setting (hence: referential & contextual functions) • splits Sender into Speaker and Addressor . 1964): extends Jakobson.

composed of Speech acts • Speech act: minimal unit of speech event By contrast with turns.2 Speech acts and speech events • Speech situation: scene (cultural) and setting (physical) • Speech event: within Speech situation.7. pairs. sentences etc .

For example: speech situation market place conversation ceremony speech event transaction story prayer speech act offer preface invocation .

register • Ends: purpose of event. perfunctory versus painstaking .Components defining speech events: • Participants: Addressor. variety. goals of participants • Key: mock versus serious. Addressee. Audience • Form: dialect.

• Register is "what you are speaking" based on "what you are doing." i.• Form: dialect. register etc • Dialect is "what you speak" based on "who you are.e.e. your age. the particular activity and context • Genre: poem. lecture. where you were born/where you live. "speak only when you're spoken to" for children . group memberships etc." i. advertisement • Norms: "no gap. no overlap" in conversation. proverb.

physical Form variety of language drawn from community repertoire of interaction of interpretation Textual categories PARTICIPANTS: ENDS: ACT SEQUENCE: KEY: INSTRUMENTALITIES: NORMS: GENRE: . non-verbal. subjective definition of an occasion speaker or sender / address or hearer or receiver or audience / addressee outcomes purpose of the event from cultural point of view goal purposes of individual participants message form and content tone and manner Channel verbal.The SPEAKING GRID: a schema of the components of speech SITUATION: setting scene physical circumstances psychological setting.

• Apply the Speaking Grid to various speech events – – – – written invitation to child's birthday party internet chat room interaction talk at work telephone sex .

Interactional Sociolinguistics • Interactional Sociolinguistics grows out of • Ethnography of Speaking and Sociology of everyday life.8. esp. the notion of the participant-observer .

8. Goffman • Through “ways of speaking” we define ourselves and our relationships with others • we present a self for ratification in interaction.1 Sociology of everyday life • Order at every level of interaction • Garfinkle. and we take a line (or stance) • Goffman defines “face” as the positive social value a person claims by the line others assume he/she has taken: we can save face or lose face in interaction .

if addressee refuses. requests.• Social interaction is then “face work” – we have face wants and needs – positive face: desire to be liked – negative face: desire to be left alone • interaction may threaten our face in various ways • some acts are inherently “face threatening acts” (fta‟s) e.g. invitations • the requester risks loss of face. but addressee also loses face in refusing .

2 Involvement and Contextualization cues • Involvement is successful ongoing interaction • co-produced by interactants • negotiating selves.8. relationship and interactional goals .

• Gumperz defines contextualization cues:
– – – – – – ways of signaling our attitudes toward what we say prosody (tempo, volume, intonation, hesitation) repetition formulaicity shifts in style code-switching

• contextualization cues frame interaction • in terms of our “contextual presuppositions”:
– serious/humorous – important/trivial – hurried/leisurely

• contextualization cues bracket individual acts or stretches of interaction • perception of contextualization cues allows us to draw inferences about other participants and their interactional goals

• So: Interactional Sociolinguistics studies:
– – – – – – – prosody disfluencies discourse markers repetition formulaicity code-switching style

• and their effects on talk in interaction regarding: – construction of identity – power versus solidarity – control – alignment among participants • concern with intercultural and inter-ethnic communication • effects of sociolinguistic variables on communication: – – – – male/female old/young insider/outsider power/solidarity .

• Consider an example from Gumperz: Following an informal graduate seminar at a major (US American) university. turning his head ever so slightly to the other students: “Ahma git me a gig!” . Come along to the office and tell me what you want to do.K. and said: “Could I talk to you for a minute? I‟m gonna apply for a fellowship and I was wondering if I could get a recommendation?” The instructor replied: “O. the black student said. a black student approached the instructor.” As the instructor and the rest of the group left the room. who was about to leave the room accompanied by several other black and white students.

then with the students. formulaicity. .• the student frames his two utterances in different ways • his presuppositions about interaction with the instructor differ from those about interaction with the other students • code-switch from Standard American to Afro-American Vernacular English • appropriate contextualization cues (prosody. AAVE aligns him directly with other black students. lexis) align student first with the instructor.

no interruption . class – High-involvement: fast. partially determined by social variables: • gender.3 Conversational Style • Tannen (1984) sees involvement as a scalar factor. age. profession. long pauses. no pause or overlap. joint production – Low-involvement (High-considerateness): slow.8. background.

• storytelling exhibits higher involvement than a report • Style differences are heard as social (class) differences .• High versus low involvement style – type of speaker – passage of talk – type of discourse • New Yorkers exhibit higher involvement than Californians • talk between friends exhibits higher involvement than talk among strangers • women exhibit higher involvement than men.

on the Isle of Skye] [right next to the west] coast of Scotland we were right on the north[right in the north] [new year‟s eve] new year‟s eve freezing cold freezing cold Lucy: James: Lucy: James: Lucy: James: Lucy: James: . we were on the Isle of Skye] [sorry.in Ireland. eh no it wasn‟t in Ireland [it was on the Isle of Skye] [no.high involvement between co-narrators: James: Lois: James: we were in this we were in a peat bog uh in Ire.

Lucy: James: Lucy: Emma: Lucy: in the middle of nowhere just nothing and we got stuck in this terrible bog. Note particularly overlap. . speaker change. . {laughs} and jusas far as the eye could see it was just bog and we were like walking through it and [it was quite late] [and it was late] and it was becoming dark about five o’clock aw and it was really really cold and we were on our way home after a long walk . repetition . joint production.

Tannen: women‟s and men‟s styles of involvement systematic study of male versus female involvement “men and women engage in cross-cultural communication” • Women – higher involvement – – – – – – – – – – closer together more eye contact more understanding checks more attention signals shorter gaps more overlap shorter turns more frequent speaker change more egalitarian less appeal to expert knowledge .

• Men – lower involvement – – – – – – – – – – farther apart less eye contact fewer understanding checks fewer attention signals longer gaps less overlap longer turns less frequent speaker change Less egalitarian more appeal to expert knowledge .

• Men‟s and women‟s conversational styles clash causing systematic misunderstandings in everyday interaction • attention to stylistic differences and realization of their effects. reframing and meta-talk about differences can smooth interaction .

9.1 Conversation Analysis • Conversation Analysis (CA) • from ethnography and the Sociology of everyday life (Garfinkle. Goffman) • order at every level of interaction. at every point in the system • Where others had seen conversation as too messy for analysis. Sacks found it highly systematic at the micro-level . Conversation 9.

• Turn-taking system: – to avoid gaps and overlap – to determine who speaks next • Adjacency pairs: as basis of organization – first part: question – second part: answer • Preference structure: describes differences in form and frequency of possible second pair parts – first part: invitation – preferred second part: acceptance – dispreferred second part: rejection .

that‟s a bad day for me. Uh. Thursday. .• preferred responses are more frequent and shorter A: B: A: B: Please come to my party on Thursday. gee. Please come to my party on Thursday. Okay.

Other-initiated repair: A: I saw Judy last Tuesday. . A: Yeah. B: You mean Tuesday. Monday.• Conversational repair – system for handling problems. I saw her at Nancy‟s. Tuesday? A: Oh. Other-repair: A: I saw Judy last Monday. B: Uh:. for clarification and correction Self-repair: I saw Judy last Tuesday.sorry. yeah. I saw her Monday at the party.

well. oh. between seven thirty and eight.Sequentiality Insertion sequence Nan: Aaron: Nan: Aaron: Nan: what time do you get to work? Friday? yeah. quarter to eight. I might not be there the second you get to work .

sequences. Then I know how to get there. preferences. Recurrent pairs.Double insertion sequence A: B: A: B: A: B: Where can I catch the Saarbahn? Do you know where Landwehrplatz is? Is it just over on Mainzer Strasse? Yeah. repair. that‟s where you catch the Saarbahn. cues and signals all work together to create coherence in conversation . exchange types. Well.

right?. pre-sequence . uh-huh. turn.9. tags • Attention signals: m'hm. huh?. pair. exchange.2 Conversation as a type of discourse • Conversation is a special speech event or discourse type • characteristic cohesive devices • coherent structure • Understanding checks: y'know. wow. really? • move.

Not so well really. greeting greeting question answer response question answer response statement/request response response. Really? Who else was there? Fred. So. I‟m looking for Al. How about you? Not too bad. I guess. Yes. Hi.Sue: Jill: Sue: Jill: Sue: Jill: Sue: Jill: Sue: Jill: Sue: Jill: Hi. question answer . By the way. how have you been. I just saw him at Lou‟s. Oh I'm sorry to hear that. one muddles through.

Are you busy right now? Not really. Would you do me a favor? Sure. Would you call Al for me? Sure.Sue: Jill: Sue: Jill: Sue: Jill: Sue: Jill: Wow. Thanks. response. comment comment. question (pre-sequence) answer question (pre-request) answer (commitment) request agree. No problem. No problem. Great. thanks comment .

10. Politeness Politeness as a historical phenomenon (recall Brown & Gilman) • Politeness as in-group behavior • Politeness as code of civility Politeness in Linguistic Pragmatics • Grice: politeness as a "social maxim" • Lakoff: revises Grice's account of implicature .

don't impose (respect) • Give options (deference) – Positive politeness: • Be friendly (solidarity) • Lakoff introduces Power and Solidarity into description of inference in conversation • Paradox of power and solidarity (Tannen) .• Cooperative Principle and Maxims as Negative politeness: – Negative politeness: • Maintain distance.

embedding.• Brown and Levinson: Positive and negative face. face wants and face threats going off record. pre-sequences .

impoliteness and identity (Spencer-Oatey) .• politeness and politic behavior (Watts) • politeness.

Language and Gender • Gender as social construct versus biological sex • Grammatical gender as a linguistic feature .11.

steward versus stewardess • vocabulary unbalanced toward male body. major versus majorette.11. Madam chairman • gender-marking in noun pairs: governor versus governess. poet versus poetess.1 Sexism in language • So-called "generic" man. male point of view . congressman Cf. you guys plural • "generic" 3rd person pronoun he • gender-marked forms of address: Mrs/Miss versus Mr. also chairman.

• Binary Distinctions and Markedness – Langue versus parole (competence versus performance) – Synchrony versus diachrony – Man versus Woman Male versus Female .

Feminist Linguistics • 1st Stage: Accept binaries. introduce Ms for Mrs/Miss. introduce "splitting": she or he his/her (s)he eliminate stewardess (substitute flight attendant) eliminate poetess in favor of poet invent new female-oriented vocabulary: herstory . generic he. attempt to eliminate bias – – – – – – eliminate man.

• Note:English drops differences. German accentuates them – Chairperson or chair versus Vorsitzenderin – Judy and Jill are authors versus Judy and Jill sind Autorinnen • Splitting with nouns: – alle Autoren und Autorinnen – alle Autor/innen or alle AutorInnen .

women as better listeners. reduce to power differential – Argue for women's language as more involved.• 2nd Stage: Question binaries. linguistic – Innovators • 3rd Stage: Reject Binary Thinking – Reveal traditional male/white/hetero-sexual bias in prevailing discourses – Study power relations in particular texts – Ask how language system and practice construct gender . more – cohesive.

more hedges.11. use more color words. more expressively. more overall. interrupt more. tags  all signs of lower status . swear less.2 Women's talk versus men's talk • Traditional gender stereotypes • Women talk faster.

finds deficiencies . confirms stereotypes.• Rules for feminine speech – – – – – From etiquette books to self-help manuals Little girls taught to talk "like ladies" Polite speech as women's key to success Women as "better communicators" Women as responsible for successful conversation • Early linguistic writing on gender and language – Jespersen. Lakoff: largely introspective. looks for differences.

• Research on gender and language – general results are contradictory – must look at specific types of interactions – specific groups of speakers: • female and male executives in business meeting • two women college students talking about shared problems • Black male gang members telling stories to interviewer .

boys and girls. he and she. him and her .3 Gayspeak • Sexism in language: – not just male bias – hetero bias – pejoration of homoerotic terms • Homosexuals multiply marginalized: – default male/he. – default "male or female". – men and women.• 11.

• Functions of Gayspeak – Gayspeak as a secret language • Simultaneous mutual recognition and exclusion of outsiders – Gayspeak as an in-group language • the "closet metaphor“ • flaming .

dyke. transgendered. faggot .– Gayspeak as a political instrument As with feminists: • • • • Reject binary thinking Attempt to disrupt traditional male/hetero-sexual bias Invent new vocabulary: gay. straights. breeders Reclaim pejorative terms: queer.

equal. unsolidarity implies distance • closeness also implies control (power). Language and Power • Power and Solidarity Power: superior. inferior Solidarity: solidary versus unsolidary • Solidarity implies closeness.12. distance renders power differences irrelevant • Paradox of Power and Solidarity (Tannen) .

not given a priori in nature • power is encoded in the discourses of a community .• power as a transitive feature of relationships. though power is ultimately reciprocal (Foucault) • power as socially constructed through language/discourse.

– company and college policies.12. community stance – style sheets. – court cases .1 The PC debate • Political Correctness (PC) is a label from opposed side • Those in favor of practices labeled PC favor: – guidelines for non-discriminatory language – affirmative action in hiring and admissions etc • PC as public.

• • • • Miss + Mrs  Ms queers/homosexuals  gays Colored People  Negros  Blacks  African-Americans Crippled  handicapped  physically challenged • Note: people in power decide which features of PC to enforce • PC as public etiquette versus "linguistic hygiene" (Cameron) .

the right man for the job • differential treatment: host versus hostess poet versus poetess .• As public etiquette • PC = avoiding offense to addressees through exclusion or through differential treatment • exclusion: mankind.

Madam.2 Linguistic hygiene • "linguistic hygiene" or "linguistic interventionism" – PC attracts attention to naming.12. language change and backlash . – forces speakers/writers to take sides and go on record • Do public naming and forms of address influence attitudes? • Cameron's example: Pardon me. – solicits political or moral judgments. versus Hey. bitch! • Linguistic prescription.

Lei versus tu honorifics and 1st person pronouns last name versus first name (and nick names) Titles like Mrs. Professor. Forms of Address • Forms of Address as socially (not linguistically) motivated variation 13. Ms.13. Dr. Herr Oberregierungsrat Kin terms like Aunt Mary and Oma Schmidt Address versus reference versus summons reciprocal versus nonreciprocal . vous versus tu.1´Speech as social marker • • • • • • • 2nd person pronouns: Sie versus du.

"solidarity semantic" developed – reciprocal "non-solidary" V even among common people – reciprocal "solidary" T even among powerful people • Also: reciprocal T to mark "shared fate" .13. "power semantic" developed: – non-reciprocal V to mark deference – then reciprocal V spread among nobility • In more mobile society.2 Power and solidarity • Brown & Gilman (1960): semantics of power and solidarity in use of 2nd person pronouns in European languages • In clearly stratified society.

• • • • "power semantic" still determines who initiates T "shared fate" only works when fate is lack of power pronoun use interacts with other systems English lost 2nd person pronoun distinction .

executive . in public .shop worker) – Age more important in kinship groups. Jim. Penny. boss . status more important at work.3 American English address • • • • FN (first name) versus TLN (title last name) FN includes common nicknames like Cindy. Bill MN (multiple names) to signal intimacy Factors: – Age difference (15 years or more) – Status (e.13.g.secretary.

Ervin-Tripp's flow chart .

sister.• System fails if FN is unknown Title + ø = Title e. professor. Ms + ø = ø • But also Generic Terms of address: – First Names like Bud. Jane – Informal titles like chief. dude – Terms of endearment like dear. father (priest) Mr. honey . brother. Mac.g.

Women receive more TLN even when men have more power • Politeness as code calling for certain forms despite power differences.13. e. T-Pronoun – T-Pronoun (versus V-Pronoun) for solidarity – FN more significant for intimacy than T-Pronoun – MN even more significant for intimacy • Age and Power determine Nonreciprocal forms of address – But Age and Power may be contradictory. Grandmother receives TLN but lacks real power • Gender and Politeness may also contradict power – e.4 Universals of address • Intimacy and Solidarity: FN.g. PC as Politeness in public behavior generally .g.

and socially responsible) . Fairclough.14. Coulthard) analytical tool and mode of social engagement • opposed to Correlation Socio-linguistics (Labov. Trudgill) • Power is constructed in the discourses of a community. Critical Discourse Analysis Critical Discourse Analysis • (Fowler. demystification can influence power (hence linguistics is essential. Discourse Analysis can reveal it • Deconstruction.

Linguistic Indicators (Fowler's Checklist) (1) Lexical processes: • abstract versus concrete: Force may be used .The door opened Circumstances dictate the raising of taxes .The cops will be there • general versus specific: The media expect .The SZ predicts (2) Transitivity John opened the door .

likelihood (5) Implicature: The party is low on funds > Please send money . permit.(3) Syntax: deletion.Please arrive early Early arrival will be appreciated (4) Modality: modals. nominalization. passivization We want you to arrive early . predict.

backchanneling and interruption etc .(6) Presupposition BY how much were you exceeding the speed limit when you ran the stop sign? > you were exceeding the speed limit > you ran the stop sign (7) • Turn taking: length and number of turns. selection of next speaker.

15. culture and thought • Language as expression and medium of thought • Language behavior as mirror and basis of culture 15.1 Concepts and propositions • "Culture" consists in what a person must know and believe to function as a normal member of society • Knowing-how versus knowing-that . Language.

while propositions usually correspond to sentences • Thus language serves as the medium of expressing and understanding culture. and functioning in society .• "Culture" breaks down into concepts like family and walking and propositions like People live in houses • Concepts usually correspond to words in a language.

g. grammatical gender and number The red table is high Der rote Tisch ist hoch Il tavolo rosso é alto no gender.• Jakobson: Languages differ not in what they can express but in what they must express. singular number in verb gender & number in subject NP. number in verb gender & number in subject NP and in predicate adjective. number in verb . e.

15.2 The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis • Sapir: Language not just guide to social reality for linguist. but also grammar. snow. e. colors. naming and segmentation of reality. but shaper of reality for members of the language community. The "real world" is unconsciously built up on language habits • Whorf: Standard Average European (SAE) versus Hopi. Nootka. duration. tense • Strong versus weak versions of the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis: – Strong: Language determines the way we think – Weak: Language influences the way we think . esp. nouns versus verbs.g.

which holds that all observers are not led by the same physical evidence to the same picture of the universe.15. unless their linguistic backgrounds are similar." (Whorf 1940) • Cultural relativity versus Linguistic relativity • Compare: kinship systems and vocabulary .3 Linguistic relativity • "New principle of relativity.

female‟ primo „cousin.Norwegian: farfar 'father-father = paternal grandfather' farmor 'father-mother = paternal grandmother' mormor 'mother-mother = maternal grandmother' morfar 'mother-father = maternal grandfather' farbror 'father-brother = paternal uncle' morbror 'mother-brother = maternal uncle' Spanish: abuela 'grandmother' abuelo 'grandfather' tia 'aunt„ tio 'uncle' prima „cousin. male‟ .

evident in borrowing and translating problems: – Cooking terminology: sauté marinate grill filet – German animal terms: fressen saufen trächtig .• Gaps in vocabulary and culture.

• Apparently. no list of properties suffices to identify all the activities we call games.4 Prototypes and basic-level concepts • As Wittgenstein noted.15. . we learn prototypes and extrapolate from them.

Labov's cups: .

.

ponderosa .ponderosa pine forester: tree .pine .tree .chair .pine tree .ponderosa pine chair in hierarchy: piece of furniture .pine .Prototype effects (in grammar): My daughter's a real fish/a regular fish Strictly speaking.kitchen chair "basic-level = single term" holds even when hierarchy differs city dweller: tree . a dolphin isn't a real/regular fish Basic-level concepts (lowest level where single term applies): pine in hierarchy: plant .

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful