‘Authentic’ Israeli Hebrew
Class for
Sociolinguistics of the Mediterranean
Concepts from Giles (1973)
Speech Accommodation Theory/
Communication Accommodation Theory
Your linguistic choices are based on
*your affiliation with your interlocutor
*your disaffiliation from your interlocutor
.
Audience Design
HAY, J., JANNEDY, S., & MENDOZA-DENTON, N. (1999). Oprah and /ay/:
Lexical frequency, referee design and style. In Proceedings of the 14th
International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, pp.1389–1392.
How do speakers accommodate?
• Speakers converge toward or diverge
from an interlocutor.
• Did you know babies ‘coo’ with a lower Fo when
they’re seeing a man than when they’re seeing a
woman? That’s converging.
• Did you know, if someone talks English to a
French Canadian, the Canadian will often talk in a
heavier French accent than s/he ‘has’ to, or even
answer in French, although s/he knows English?
That’s divergence. [cf, Giles & Coupland 1991]
Audience Design
It is all about who you’re talking to….
Audience Design
Concepts from Bell (1984, 2001)
Your linguistic choices are based on
*Audience Design ~ affiliation/disaffiliation
w/ your immediate audience
*Referee Design ~ who you want to be seen as
or
~ characteristics you wish
to represent.
Referee Design
Trudgill, Peter. 1983. On Dialect: Social and Geographical Perspectives.
Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell.
Referee Design
Referee Design
How does Referee Design work?
• Speakers converge toward a ‘stereotype’
• Did you know, many national politicians talk more Southern when being
interviewed to show that they’re ‘old boys’ (Hall-Lew).
• Republican California Latinos use less accented English. (Bourhis)
• Singers use more southern features in singing because it is the phonology
of Elvis, or Nashville [or whoever]. That’s converging. (
• Speakers diverge from a ‘stereotype’
• Many Southern dialect speakers diverge from their native accent, not to
talk more like Northerners, but just not to be heard as ‘dumb’ or ‘racist’.
• Speakers accommodate to a stereotype of they want
to sound like.
How does Referee Design work?
• Speakers converge twd a‘stereotype’
• Did you know, many national Republican politicians
talk more Southern when being interviewed to show
their right wing bonafides(Hall-Lew et al 2012).
• Singers use more southern features in singing
because it is the phonology of Elvis, or Nashville [or
whoever]. That’s referee designed convergence.
•
Speakers accommodate to
–who they want to sound like.
–What image they want to project.
Example: George ‘W’ Bush
•
•
•
•
•
*Aks [only AAVE speakers, and rural southerners use]
*Bidness
Chirren
Nucular
Wuhdn’t<wasn’t
• Is this accommodation to area (TX) or image
(Good Old Boy=who me? A Yalee? Harvard
Business School? Nope. I’m a simple Texan.)
Referee or Audience Design
Referee Designed divergence?
• Speakers diverge from a group
‘stereotype’
• Many Southern dialect speakers diverge,
– not to talk more like Northerners,
– but just not to be heard as ‘dumb’ or ‘racist’.
• Many Latinos diverge from their accent
– Not to talk more like Anglos.
– But to project a specific persona.
Referee or Audience Design
Referee or Audience Design
Israeli Hebrew
Israeli Hebrew
• What is the relationship among different groups
within Hebrew-speaking society?
• Who are you talking to [i.e., your audience]?
• What is prestigious [i.e., your possible referee]?
• What are the linguistic ramifications of the
choices made?
Communal variation.
Ashkenazi
Mizrahi
Immigrants from Europe
Local & other Arabic-sp areas
Linguistic Sprachsbund
Religious variation.
Ashkenazi
Mizrahi (‘Eastern’)
Religious Western immigrants
Religious Local
Secular Western Israelis
Secular Eastern Israelis
Most of the country is not religious.
Most of the distinctions between the two groups are
relegated to liturgical reading.
Communal variation.
Ashkenazi
Mizrahi (‘Eastern’)/ Arab
Immigrants from Europe
Local & from Arabic-speaking regions
SES, $, Education
Linguistic Sprachsbund
Is this equivalent to the Maghrebi-Mashreqi distinction?
Albeit inverted? – ‘prestigious’ dialects from further W (& N)
Is this equivalent to the N-S distinction in the US?
Stereotyped Prestige.
Ashkenazi
Mizrahi (‘Eastern’)/ Arab
Immigrants from Europe
Local & from Arabic-speaking regions
Socioeconomic Power
(Bourdieu 1991)
Language Academy Prestige**
Each dialect has its own prestige:
•The ‘Newer’ dialect speakers have socioeconomic clout.
• The Local dialect has Social-Psych ‘authenticity’ & Gravitas
•**How important is Academy bonafides? (ex)
Linguistic Variation
Relevant Cells for Singers
Degree of
Religiosity
Secular
Religious
Ashkenazi
Sfardi
5
5
2
5
‘Mizrahi’ vs. ‘Ashkenazi’ Vs
/ Vowel/ I
e
Region Xirik +/- tseire/se
gol
European iy/I
ey/ e
Mizrahi
a
kamats/
patax
o/a
o
xolem
+/ow
u
^
shuruk/ schwa
kubuts
uw
schwa
ay/I
ey/ e
ow/a
ow
uw
schwa
iy/I
ay/ e
a
iy/I
uw
schwa
iy/I
ey/e
a;
uw
Iy/i
schwa
iy/I
ay/
e;a;
oy/o
Iy/i
schwa
I
e
a
o
u
e
‘Mizrahi’ ‘Ashkenazi’ & Koiné
/ Vowel/ I
a
o
e
Region Xirik +/- tseire/se kamats/ xolem
gol
patax
+/European iy/I
o/a
ow
ey/ e
Mizrahi
Academy
=Koiné
I
i
e
e
a
a
o
o
u
^
shuruk/ schwa
kubuts
uw
u
u
schwa
e
e
That is, the distinction between long & short vowels is lost,
And the simplest Vowels are retained, both in Academy and
Koiné use.
Mizrahi, Ashkenazi, Academy
C/ Region
(resh) (het) (xaf)
(ayin)
(sof)
Ashkenazi
R
x
x
-
s
Mizrahi
r
h
x
pharyn
t
Academy
r
h
x
pharyn
t
The Language Academy insisted on ‘linguistic purity’,
although it wasn’t the lowest common denominator.
Rules for, e.g., announcers, politicians, professors.
Academy as beneficiary of linguistic insecurity.
‘Mizrahi’ vs. ‘Ashkenazi’ Cs
C/ Region
(resh) (het) (xaf)
(ayin)
(sof)
Ashkenazi
R
x
x
-
s
Mizrahi
r
h
x
pharyn
t
Koiné
R
x
x
-
t
But:
Unlike with the outcome of the vowel repertoire,
the lowest common denominator won…on the street.
Today’s Public Speakers
C/ Region
(resh)
(het)
(xaf)
(ayin)
Theater
rr
h
x
pharyn
Scripted News
r
h
x
pharyn
TV talk
R
x
x
-
So:
The more formal the speaking style,
…. the more the Academy choices dominate.
Conversely: Dominance of unscripted ‘reality’TV limits
the importance of Academy decisions.
Academy, Mizrahi or Koiné?
Audience or Referee Design?
Referee Design (Trudgill 1983)
Presence of ‘postvocalic ‘r’ in songs.
Cutler (2010f) & white rappers
Figure 1. T,d Deletion as a Meas ure of Identity Performance
100%
Dr. Dre
90%
Ghetto Thug
80%
Rate of t,d Deletion ------->
70%
Chuck D
Kevin
Nas
PJ
Trix
Eyedea
60%
Ivy
Mike
50%
Bobo
Eminem
Benny
40%
G Robot
30%
20%
10%
0%
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
Informal
0.05
0.00
<---S tyle S hifting--->
-0.05
-0.10
-0.15
Formal
35
Evidence of t/d deletion in 2 styles among US rappers
-0.20
Use of [r] in different situations
song
IV
Mizrahi singer (resh, het, ayin)
• If they’re singing only ‘Eastern Style’
– they’ll maintain [r]
– They’ll maintain pharyngeals
• If they’re presenting their music as ‘koiné’
– they’ll attempt to use both [r] and [R]
– They’ll variably neutralize pharyngeals
• While maintaining their koiné vowel system
• Interviews for the general public reveal greater
convergence toward the koiné
Mizrahi Interviewee (resh, het, ayin)
•
•
•
•
•
Interviews for the general public
Reveal greater convergence toward the koiné
Except when the interview focuses on Mizrahi ID
NB: 3 Mizrahi song writers interviewed
IV [r]-fulness can even exceed sung percentages.
/r/ For Singers in the 90’s
• The stronger the Koiné ‘bonafides’ the clearer the
contrast between IV and song [aqua line]
• (M)KI singers, who sing no ‘Mizrahi’ music
– Used [r] categorically in song
– Used [R] categorically in IV
• M~KI singers, who sing both styles of music
– Used [r] and [rR] variably in song
– Used [R] and [rR] variably in IV
/r/ For Singers & Politicians in the 90’s
• Interviews (etc)-mixed audience, referee designed
– The more salient audience, the more convergent
– The more salient referee relationship, more MI
maintenance.
ASIDE: 3 ideal foci for research into social psych
motivations—
-Pop music (e.g., Trudgill…Gibson for Eng. Lg Singers)
-Politics (e.g., Hall-Lew, Hernández-Campoy /CutillasEspinosa)
-Humor (e.g., Gibson 2011)
(rR) % for singers ca 1990
song
IV
41
Audience
Hyperaccommodation
vs.
Referee Design