Li2
class-based
social variation I
Today’s topics

Linguistic variation conditioned by socioeconomic status (class)
 Stigmatization
and prestige
varieties
 sources
 discrimination

 Class
and traditional dialect
 Correlations of linguistic variables with class are
arbitrary
Socio-economic status/class

Professions most likely to have local accent:
 policeman, fireman…
 Correlation between class (socioeconomic status)
and traditional dialect
 Lower classes tend to have more regional variation and
preserve/use regional/non-standard variants (e.g. h-deletion in
England)
 Why?
Upper class more likely to move, go away to school, etc.
 Regional pride (cf. later discussion of Martha’s Vineyard)

Class-based variation in Norwich
100
90
80
70
60
t
h
50
40
30
20
10
0
LWC
MWC
UWC
LMC
MMC
% application of t-glottalization (t) and h-deletion (h)
from Trudgill 1974
Stratification can be the same across communities
Mean % r-deletion in the black community in Detroit (Wolfram 1969)
R-deletion in NYC and Detroit
80
•Many dialects of English delete non-prevocalic r. 70
60
•“non-prevocalic r” = any r-sound that isn’t
50
followed by a vowel:
40
•car, party, sophomore, etc.
30
20
Mean % r-deletion in 3 New York department stores (Labov 1966)
10
Saks
Macy's
S. Klein
0
UM C LM C UWC LWC
Floorwalkers
Sales clerks
Stock clerks
8%
some [r]
32%
some [r]
35%
31%
46%
all [r]
30%
all [r]
17%
20%
18%
14%
4%
Language/class correlations are arbitrary
r-deletion in America vs. England
50
40
30
20
10
0
NYC
Norwich
NYC
LWC UWC LMC UMC
Percentage of non-prevocalic r’s pronounced
data from Labov (NYC)
and Trudgill (Norwich)
Language/class correlations are arbitrary
Raising of long a to u before nasal consonants in two Persian dialects
Figure 1. Percent raising of (an) in the Farsi of Tehran and Ghazvin.
Yahya Modaressi-Tehrani (1978) A Sociolinguistic Analysis of Modern Persian. Doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas.
Stigmatization







Some stigmatized features in American English:
r-deletion
 double negation
 ain’t
N.B. stigmatized features sometimes have covert prestige,
as we’ll see later
150 respondents from SE Michigan (Preston 2000)
Mean scores of rankings for “correct English”, 1-10
Least correct: South, NYC, NJ
Most correct: Michigan (only state in the 8 range)
Prestige
Linguistic variables often assigned to qualitative
scale by speakers (unmarked, better, worse…)
 Most prevalent with class-linked variables, because
of independent social links between class and
quality
 A famous example:

Linguistic prestige on Martha’s Vineyard
63
62
42
32
(ay)
(aw)
positive




neutral
08
negative
Labov 1962
linguistic variable: centralization of diphthongs



09
/Aj, aw/ → [j, w]
In the chart above, higher numbers = more centralization
began with fisherman (traditional inhabitants)
spread to other islanders (presumably to distinguish them from tourists)
Labov study of college-age Vineyarders found two groups:



one hated the island and intended to leave as soon as possible
one intended to stay
strong correlation between positive attitudes toward life on the island and degree of centralization.
Types of linguistic prestige
overt
 covert
 crypto
 schizo
 none

Overt prestige
 double
negation, ain’t
 changes toward forms with overt prestige
normally spearheaded by middle-class women
(Trudgill 1978)
Covert prestige
Overt prestige is about seeking prestige by assimilating
to the standard.
 Covert prestige is about not choosing to assimilate to the
standard.
 Each choice has a distinct set of costs and benefits…
 pull of ultra-masculinity: working-class male
 Particularly noticeable in teenage years
 Important force in maintaining non-standard varieties of
speech

Cryptoprestige

when only one person knows the high prestige form
 what the yam really is
 between you and me (?)
 using hopefully and ironic “properly”
Schizoprestige

Agreement that there is a prestigious form and a
stigmatized form, but no agreement on which is which
 often: [t] vs. []
 coupon vs. cyoupon
 foreign words and local words

Des Plaines, Desmoines, Worcester, etc.
 regional splits:
r-deletion
 gymshoes/sneakers?

No prestige

spicket vs. spigot
 Harvard
Dialect Survey, Q41: Do you use
"spigot" or "spicket" to refer to a faucet or tap
that water comes out of? (10860 respondents)
spigot (66.89%)
 I say "spicket" but spell it "spigot" (12.64%)
 I don't use either version of this word (9.23%)
 spicket (6.38%)
 I use both interchangeably (2.52%)
 I use both with different meanings (2.00%)

 Doodlebug/pill
bug/roly poly/etc.
Sources of linguistic prestige

spelling?? (often cited in the literature)
 Often
 hors d’oeuvres
 r-deletion
 night

change in progress:
 forms undergoing change are more stigmatized (Labov
2000)
Discrimination

Linguistic variables play a major role in discrimination
 nonstandard



dialect confused with stupidity
Newcastle
Ebonics
masked guise assessments of education, height, etc. based on
speech
 Canada
bilinguals recorded speaking French and English
 when speaking English, listeners judged them to be:




more intelligent
more dependable
taller
better looking
 same results for (Canadian)
anglophone and francophone listeners
Conclusions




Prestige combines linguistic and social elements
Socioeconomic status is thereby closely linked to
language and attitudes about language
Not everyone aspires to speak the prestige form
There is no absolute good in language:
 Correlations
arbitrary
of linguistic variables with class are
References
Labov, William. 1962. The social history of a sound change on the island of Martha’s
Vineyard, Massachusetts. Master’s essay, Columbia University.
Labov, William. 1966. The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Washington,
D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Labov, William. 2000. Principles of Linguistic change. Volume II: Social Factors. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Modaressi-Tehrani, Yahya. 1978. A Sociolinguistic Analysis of Modern Persian. Doctoral
dissertation, University of Kansas.
Preston, Dennis. 2000. Some plain facts about Americans and their language. American
Speech 75.4:398-401.
Trudgill, Peter. 1974. The Social Differentiation of English in Norwich. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Trudgill, Peter. 1978. Sex,covert prestige, and linguistic change in the urban British
English of Norwich. Language in Society 1:179-96.
Wolfram, Walt. 1969. A Linguistic Description of Detroit Negro Speech. Washington,
D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics.