LING1002 / LING6002 Language & Society

7.2 Ideology I
A bit of taboo language today…
Attitudes and ideologies
• Ideology is a broader term which encompasses attitudes,
perception and values
• Studies of linguistic ideology investigate connections
between people’s beliefs and feelings about language and
the broader social world
• Looking at the meanings that are available (and not
available) in a language reveals something about the
society and how it is organised
Semantic change
• Words shift meanings over time (semantic shift), e.g.
awful = awe-inspiring/wonderful  terrible
• Semantic derogation: When meanings change so that
the result is a negative meaning or associations
• Tendency for words describing women to acquire negative
overtones (bitch, tart, minx), but not for words describing
men (Schultz, 1978 – The semantic derogation of women)
 Diachronic change affecting woman words
(adapted from Meyerhoff, 2006, p. 58)
Which social groups are implicated
in the semantic derogation?
gay Full of joy Addicted to Woman People, especially men, sexually
1310 social pleasures leading an attracted to people of the same
1637 immoral life sex; [not before noun] (slang,
1825 disapproving, offensive) (used
especially by young people)
boring and not fashionable or
attractive
harlot A low fellow, A male servant An unchaste A prostitute or a woman who
knave 1330 1386 woman 1450 looks and behaves like one
queen A woman of A term of An attractive Female ruler
high rank, endearment to a woman 1900 An offensive word for a male
king’s wife woman 1588 homosexual who behaves like a
900 woman
hussy A thrifty A playfully rude A female of A girl or woman who behaves in
woman, term of the lower a way that is considered
mistress of a addressing a orders 1700s shocking or morally wrong
household woman 1600s
1530
shift
Animal metaphors in English & Spanish
(Fontecha & Catalan, 2003)
• Contrasted metaphorical usages of animal word pairs which are
used metaphorically (applied to people) in English and Spanish
• English: fox/vixen and bull/cow
• Spanish: zorro/zorra and toro/vaca
• Semantic derogation occurred in both languages with the female
terms connoting worse qualities than the male terms, e.g.
• fox/zorro (male terms) = crafty
• vixen/zorra (female terms) = crafty + prostitution (zorra)
crafty + spitefulness (vixen)

• bull/toro (male terms) = strength

• cow/vaca = strength + fatness (vaca)
strength + fatness + coarseness (cow)
• Gender = ‘a set of socially acquired attributes and
patterns of behavior allotted to each of the members of
the biological category of male and female’ (Fontecha &
Catalan, 2003, p. 772)
• Gender norms are reflected in language - we ‘do’ gender
through the language patterns we choose to use
• Gender is also done (constructed) through patterns of
speech about it
• White, middle-class, heterosexual males tend to be the
‘unmarked’ linguistic category
• Attitudes to women (whose?) semantic derogation may be
a reflection of their attitudes to other groups
Attitudes to accent (Gordon, 1997)
• In a survey of NZ middle-class speakers, listeners were
more likely to categorise a young woman with a broad,
non-standard accent as highly likely to be sexually
immoral
• A young woman with a middle class accent was not so
likely to be considered promiscuous
• Possible explanation of women’s style-shifting to prestige
variants:
Could middle-class women's use of prestige forms be a
way of avoiding association with the lower-class
stereotype (i.e. divergence from lower, rather than
convergence to higher status group)?
Social identity theory (Meyerhoff, 2006)
• Social psychological theory: people identify with multiple
identities, some more personal, some more group-oriented (Henri
Tajfel)
• Relates to audience design (speakers shift style in relation to an
addressee on the basis of how they perceive the relevant group-
speak – their attitude to the group)
• SIT views language as a symbol that can be used to maintain
boundaries between groups
• Different identities become salient at different times in interaction
(we orient to different variants at different times)
• Personal identity – when personality, mood are most predominant in
interaction
• Group identity – when intergroup relations become important, the way we
talk will accentuate uniformity within a group (converge to our own, diverge
from Other)
• There is nothing inherently offensive about the collection of
phonemes which combine to form /slʌt/
• It’s a legal (conventionally permitted) combination of legal sounds in
English
• The relationship between this sound combination (signifier) to the
signified (referent or meaning) is arbitrary
• The offensive part is created by
1. the underlying world view (perception of social order) that is
attached to the term in what it indicates about group relationships
and power
2. the relationship between /slʌt/ and other available linguistic signs
in the variety which collectively are the resources available for
speakers; speakers are constrained in what ways are available for
them to speak about something, e.g. there may be no equivalent
male term (rake?)
Linguistic relativity: Edward Sapir
“The fact of the matter is that the ‘real world’ is
to a large extent unconsciously built up on the
language habits of the group. No two languages
are ever sufficiently similar to be considered as
representing the same social reality. The worlds
in which different societies live are distinct
worlds, not merely the same world with
different labels attached”. (Sapir [1929] 1949b
p. 162)
 Linguistic relativism
Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis

• The way we perceive the world is reflected in how we talk

• Different languages construe the world differently and
these differences are encoded in talk
• Different concepts are reflected in different habits of
speech
• This affects how people interpret their worlds
• Language is ‘a constraining channel through which
speakers construe experience’ (Foley, 1997, p. 198)
• Languages ‘require’ you to do things in certain ways, e.g. in
Dyribal you have to classify nouns into groups (this
information comes from the nature of the signified as well
as other sources, e.g. Dyribal mythology)
• New words (loan words) need to be categorised too

1. Human masculine; non-human animate

2. Human femine; water; fire; fighting
3. Non-flesh food (including honey)
4. Everything else

(Dixon, 2002, p. 467)

Linguistic determinism
• The language limits mean we are imprisoned by the
resources available to us – if the linguistic sign is not
available to us then it is impossible for us to imagine the
world of groups who have different available signs
• So does language constrain thought and therefore
behaviour?
Whorf’s proposal
"We dissect nature along lines laid down by our native languages.
The categories and types that we isolate from the world of
phenomena we do not find there because they stare every observer
in the face; on the contrary, the world is presented in a kaleidoscopic
flux of impressions which has to be organized by our minds - and
this means largely by the linguistic systems in our minds. We
cut nature up, organize it into concepts, and ascribe significances as
we do, largely because we are parties to an agreement to
organize it in this way - an agreement that holds throughout our
speech community and is codified in the patterns of our language.
The agreement is, of course, an implicit and unstated one, BUT ITS
TERMS ARE ABSOLUTELY OBLIGATORY; we cannot talk at all
except by subscribing to the organization and classification of data
which the agreement decrees." (Whorf, 1940, pp. 212–13)
Sapir-Whorf hypothesis: Reaction
Are we prisoners of our native language? But…
• We can learn other languages
• We can translate (can’t we?)
• If there is no word available in a language, the concept
can still be communicated (e.g. katarta in Pintupi: The
hole left by a goanna when it has broken the surface after
hibernation)
e.g. Counting systems differ across languages, but
people can still learn to count and calculate in other
languages
Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis:
Determinism vs relativity

Strong version – language determines thought (prison

metaphor)

Weak version
• Languages reflect what is culturally salient
• Context plays an important role in decoding the
meanings of linguistic signs (Kramsch, 1998)
• Language mediates concepts
• The social power of a standard language imposes
restrictions on what linguistic signs are available for
use in certain contexts
Back to the standard
• The notion of a standard in general use is “default against
which other stuff is measured” (van Herk, p. 154)
• The idea of a standard relates to its value as a commodity
and the ‘order’ it brings to society, e.g.
• standard size of a coffee (cost)
• a parcel delivery speed (cost)
• standard weight of flour (cost)
• standardized test score (marks=study
opportunities=job=status/wage)
• Standard language use (access to education, prestige networks,
jobs)
Language subordination process
(Lippi-Green, 1997 & discussion in van Herk)
The process of standardization as well as elevation of a variety
• Language is mystified (it requires teaching)
• Authority is claimed – someone has expertise in correct use of
Variety X T
le
• Misinformation – The way it’s said in Variety X is better, more
ge
logical Q
• Other varieties are trivialized – Variety Q is perceived as Quaint, D
w
Variety Q is Funny som
• Conformers are praised – you’ll do better with Variety X ’c
W
• Non-conformers are vilified – users of Varieties Q and F are not
trying, stupid, resistant people
• Promises are made – you will be taken seriously with Variety X
• Threats are made – Use Varieties Q and F and you won’t be taken
seriously (e.g. given a serious role in society)
Linguistic Landscape (LL)
• The study of language use in public spaces – signage,
graffiti, advertisements, notices, etc.
• Global English has ‘symbolic discursive properties as a
commodified index for modernity, sophistication,
transnational mobility, and economic success’ (Pillar, 2003,
Vandenbrouke, 2016, p. 87)
• “Linguistic marketplace”: Languages are commodities with a
symbolic value (Bourdieu, 1991)
• Vandenbrouke’s study of English LL in upscale & downscale
areas in Amsterdam & Brussels shows the ideology attached
to the English language in different SES areas
• Emblematic English used in some signs: primarily an index
to social power rather than conveying ideational content
Standardized
selection of
middlebrow chain
stores;
‘McDonaldization
of linguistic
practice in the
form of the world’s
linguistic economy
by English’ (Heller,
2000 in Vandenbrouke)
linguistic ideology
semantic change, shift, derogation
language subordination process
social identity theory
linguistic relativism
linguistic determinism
discourse
audience design & accommodation theory again
linguistic landscape