Week 1 Example 1: This week’s topic is focused on language attitudes

Subject:EnglishPrice: Bought3

Share With

Week 1

Example 1:

This week’s topic is focused on language attitudes. Preston (2013) reviews several articles and studies on the topic including some of their own work from the past. These articles and studies show a trend of listeners tying stereotypes and assumptions about different social groups to speech samples with different linguistic features. In previous studies, Preston asked participants from Michigan to create hand drawn maps of speech regions in the USA. These speech maps were used to generate a computer-assisted generalization of where the participants from Michigan believe there are speech regions in the USA. Participants then rated the regions based on different social characteristics using likert-scale type items. The results showed an interesting pattern. The Michiganders rated their own region as the most correct or normal. They also rated northern speech regions higher in things like “normal”, “smart”, “good English”, and “educated” while a notable amount of participants rated the southern regions higher in things like “friendliness” and “politeness”.

            Callesano & Carter (2019) also examines the way speakers might view and perceive those who speak differently from them. They specifically examine Spanish speakers in the US and how they view other Spanish speakers that might have different linguistic features. In this article, they reference Alfaraz (2002, 2014) and Carter and Callesano (2018) and in these studies we see certain similarities to Preston (2013). The participants in these studies (in Miami) view the variety of Spanish that comes from Spain as more correct that the Latin American varieties, which includes Caribbean varieties, but they often view these “less correct” speech varieties as more “warm”. The Callesano & Carter (2019) study held similar results regarding the rating of peninsular Spanish as more “correct” but found that the participants also found it more “pleasant” than other varieties. This study concludes with the realization that language perception is influenced by social factors just as much as it is influenced by linguistic factors.

            McGowan & Babel (2020) examines the role that social influence has on our perceptions of language varieties. The participants in this study were asked to respond to multiple recorded voices that were supposed to be from both a Quechua- dominant speaker and a Spanish-dominant speaker. In reality the recording was the same voice. The result was that the participants responses still differ based on which variety they were told they were about to hear. The information about the social identity of the speaker had an effect on their answer.

            I believe the common thread between these three articles is that social information seems to have a significant effect on the way we perceive different language varieties.

            This is a convincing argument. After all, why would we have a positive or negative opinion about a language variety without social context being involved? Thinking of these studies as they apply to my life I can’t help but think that our opinions about peoples linguistic varieties in other parts of the US is almost completely guided by media, pop-culture, politics, etc. If I was a participant in some of those studies, having social information about those other regions makes me biased about how I think of them. It would be very difficult if not impossible to give answers that aren’t backed by my pre-existing biases. I think McGowan & Babel are correct that multiple methodological approaches need to be used in order to study this topic. I would be curious to see their study replicated with a smaller more isolated language perhaps. Due to English and Spanish being such widely spoken languages internationally, they might have a wider range of variation than a less widely spoken language. I think you might find some interesting information when replicating the study with a language that is less internationally spoken that might not have as much linguistic variation.

Example 2:

Part 1 

The readings for this week focus on language attitudes and the perceptions people have towards language and language varieties as influenced by their social knowledge of a particular speech style, and accordingly, the speaker. Preston examines the correlation between linguistic features and social group identity through a concept termed “iconization,” which projects the stereotypes associated with a social group unto the linguistic attributes also commonly linked to a speaker from said group. Preston is particularly interested in the non-linguist understanding of language and the attitudes that follow based on such beliefs (folk theory). He further proposes that there exist three constructs by which speaker voices are commonly evaluated by: competence, integrity, and attractiveness, the latter two of which are sometimes combined as solidarity. This leads us to our next reading by Callesano and Carter which explores how Cuban, Colombian, and Peninsular varieties are assessed by Latinx college residents of Miami. The study mentions how Miami is possibly “the most dialectally diverse Spanish-speaking city in the world” (Castellano and Carter, 2019). Thus, the impact of nation-state language ideologies is especially evident in the attitudes of speakers within this community. Like Preston, the study presents two dimensions pertaining to a listener’s perception of a language or dialect, and they are: competence which is often tied to a standard language ideal, and warmth (friendliness) which in turn alludes to a dialect or variety that strays from the perceived standard. Castellano and Carter employ a perceptual ideology approach in conjunction with an experimental manipulation similar to matched guise to conduct their study. The results suggest that Peninsular Spanish is perceived as more competent and correct than Cuban and Colombian varieties by all participants, and consequently, the socioeconomic assumptions made by the participants also reflect this perception. In comparison, the inverse was observed for the Cuban and Colombian varieties. 

Part 2 

The readings for this week were quite interesting to me as I found myself drawing parallels between them and previous readings which I suppose highlights the common theme of language and society, or perhaps patterns of human behavior within given social groups. The first reading I would like to comment on is the Castellano and Carter article because I thought the findings of the study were very fascinating. In the study, participants were asked who is most likely to watch television in English, of which the response was Colombia followed by Cuba, with Peninsular speakers as the least likely. The subsequent question that followed then asked participants to rate speakers on who was most likely to speak Spanish to their children, of which the results were the Colombian voice as least likely to, followed by the Cuban and then Peninsular voice as most likely to. This made me think about Milroy & Milroy's concept of social networks and the types that exist, namely weak/loose networks and strong/dense networks. Based on this prior understanding of social networks, I suggest another rationale for the survey findings. To me, the Cuban and Peninsular voices show likeness to the lower working class and upper class respectively, who tend to have a strong/dense network as they display strong ties to their social groups, and thus solidarity. Hence why they may not feel as compelled to learn English nor consume English media. Colombia on the other hand, represents the weak/loose network that is more receptive to language shift/change for the sake of mobility and adaptability. Another parallel I would like to draw is from the Mcgowan and Babel reading which surveys the evaluation made by participants based on whether the voice they heard was Spanish-dominant or Quechua- dominant guise. The comments ranged from viewing the Spanish dominant voice as legitimate and educated to remarking the Quechua counterpart as muffled or difficult to understand even if this did not necessarily align with what participants heard and how they responded to the match-guise. This made me think of the Labov study where the inner-city youth’s response to the abstract question posed despite being in AAVE, was far more sensible than the answer provided by the college educated, standard English-speaking middle-class man whose response was simply superfluous. Thus, verbosity versus verbality (standard language ideology) except this seems to be taking place on a sociophonetic level. 

 

 

 

 

 

Week 2

Example 1

W & F Chapter 5 gives us a review of the research up to date of regional dialects. They basically give us a rundown on the current state of studying regional varieties and the changes they go through. Studying regional dialects can get a bit muddy given how difficult it can be to define the region in which a dialect or vernacular is spoken. W & F introduces us to some of the ways sociolinguists approach this dilemma including the linguistic variable concept, social dialects and the apparent and real time models. In apparent time studies, the subjects in the study are grouped by age. Any variation in speech between the age groups can be attributed to change in the seaking patterns throughout generations.

 

In both Nance (2021) and Labov (1963) the apparent time model is used to examine similar things. They are both examining the variation in speech communities that can be considered geographical isolates. The inhabitants of both Martha’s Vineyard and the Isle of Lewis live away from the mainland, on islands. The linguistic variable that Labov chose to examine was the long range shift of the /ai/ and /au/ diphthongs and Nance examined sound changes in progress in the Gaelic lateral system and palatal glides.

 

The methodology is where these two studies begin to differ. Labov organized interviews with 69 speakers who all happened to be native island speakers. In the interviews, the participants answered a lexical questionnaire, answered questions concerning value judgements, read a written passage, and observations were made in public as well. Nance observed a smaller group of 35 speakers. Some of the younger speakers in this sample had never lived off of the island and most of the older speakers had lived off island for work or other reasons. The speech samples are collected from the participants through recorded readings.

 

Both studies find a change in the linguistic variable that they are examining. Labov finds that the speech patterns on the island show a centralization of the diphthongs /ai/ and /au/ and Nance finds that certain palatalized laterals are expressed as palatal glides and laterals are becoming more similar across generations.

 

            Both studies also come to the conclusion that without considering the social context that these dialects exist in, you cannot get a true picture of the changes or understand why they may be doing so.

 

            I think these studies are correct to assume that without considering the social dynamics and pressures that exist in the area being studied, we cannot truly understand shifts in linguistic sound change. Coming from a town that survives on tourism (Huntington Beach) it seems realistic that people who live in Martha’s Vineyard strive to express their local identity and it manifests itself in sound change. I also prefer the methodology used in Labov’s study over Nance’s methodology. Labov went out of his way to illicit authentic responses from his participants whereas Nance asks for recordings of speech samples. This seems like you might not get totally accurate responses. But then again, the observers paradox exists in interviews as well.

            I found Nance’s analysis to be quite extensive. This is probably due to new techniques and technology that have come around since 1963, but I also found some of it difficult to follow. I feel like I understood the results of the test but some of the charts lost me for sure.

 

Example 2:

Chapter 5 of the W&F reading focuses on regional dialects, methodology behind language variation, and other related terms. It is important to note that time and distance are two key factors that contribute to language variation. In terms of studying language variation, regional mapping of isoglosses show linguistic differences via boundaries marked on a map. It is understood that speakers use language variables categorically, and it can be dangerous to focus primarily on groups and to assume that individual speakers do not have variation in their speech. Also, speakers are not static, but participate in dialect mixture where different dialects are used per the linguistic situation. Along with studying variation, the linguistic variable is an innovative way of looking at language; dialectologist can study language components that have established, identifiable variants that are used in different situations. When speakers are aware of the social factors attached to variations, it is a marker, yet when there is no social value attached to a variable, it is called an indicator.

Labov discusses phonetic position change of a set of diphthongs within a diverse speech community in Massachusetts. The purpose of the study is to mark changes through the language’s history and to isolate the social factors that promote the linguistic change. Variables like ethnicity, age, occupation and place were all taken into consideration, and diphthongs /ai/ and /au/ are the interest points. Speakers of Martha’s Vineyard do not follow the standard New England diphthong pronunciation but have a wide array of possibilities that are seemingly said unconsciously. The use of interviews, a lexical questionnaire, questions, observations and a special reading were utilized to produce the tested speech. Data shows that the change is due to a host of reasons; locals centralize one way of speaking as resistance to tourist, age groups aligning themselves with a specific speech and Portuguese and Indian groups aligning themselves with socialized speech. Similarly, Nance discusses sound change, but in the context of Scottish Gaelic speakers via the apparent-time model. The purpose of the study is to understand how generations of Gaelic speakers produce phonemes; this was done by focusing on the three phonemic laterals in Gaelic where there is a high population of Gaelic speakers within different age groups. Recordings of a word list activity were used, and an auditory analysis of the data shows acoustic properties of spoken words. Findings show that older speakers do not produce laterals as glides as the younger generations does, and older Gaelic speakers have the largest acoustic difference between categories.

I really love the scientific approach taken by Nance in analyzing the data. Because the purpose of the study was to analyze differences in sound, using a spectrogram to compare waves is an accurate way to analyze spoken data. On the other hand, I believe categorizing their participants by ‘generation’ and not considering other social factors is a huge flaw. Social structure and a host of other variable musts be considered when performing linguistic work. To understand change and variation in language, the motivations and pressures for that change should also be acknowledged. People align themselves with specific ways of speaking to maintain identity; this is a phenomenon that can be seen in how Chilmarkers in Massachusetts choose one diphthong over another. I thought the Labov study was very diligent in the variables considered. Intermarriage, tourist seasons, and individuals in the group were entwined in the study. I believe this was lacking in the Nance article. The Nance article does point out in the beginning that defining a speech community is problematic, but then takes no measures to consider individual speakers. If I were to replicate the Nance study, I’d want to give questionnaire to the participants to find information about their social networks (ex. do you attend university? Does a member of your household attend university) and language ideologies about older and younger groups (Do you believe Gaelic speakers who are older than you speak more correctly?). Such questions would better define the speech community and highlight individual beliefs and knowledge. As the textbook points out, whether these phonemic differences are markers or indicators would give insight into the conscience or unconscious social choices behind laterals. I believe focusing on three generations is too large of a study area, but if Nance were to focus on one group and conduct a more detailed data-collection, the results would be more valid.

Week 3

Example:

Part 1 

The central theme of the readings for this week is variation in speech within individual speakers - language style/style shifting. The Wolfram and Rickford study are primarily concerned with the various quantitative approaches often employed by sociolinguists in attempting to understand intrapersonal linguistic stylization and style shift. In his article, Wolfram notes that there are three major approaches to quantitative study on stylistic variation that have continued to prove to be of profound influence in the field, they are: attention to speech, audience design, and speaker design. He then proceeds to analyze each of these methods and their subsequent findings, focusing especially on Labov and Bell, who were both key proponents of the models being examined. Rickford’s study, as previously touched on, takes this quantitative sociolinguistic framework as outlined in Wolfram’s study, and applies it to an “addressee - and topic influenced style shift” as exemplified during a series of interviews conducted between Foxy Boston, an eighteen-year-old African American teenager, and her two respective interviewers, Faye and Beth. The study aimed at explaining the relevance of stylistic variation within the subfield of quantitative sociolinguistics while also making hypotheses on how and why speakers’ shift their language style during discourse depending on topic and addressee dynamics. Holguin’s study on the other hand, investigates the “fresa” identity associated with women of certain social groups and communities of practice in the Mexican northern border cities of Juares, Chihuahua, and El Paso, Texas. Holguin uses a qualitative ethnographic approach to examine the ways in which the linguistic style and performance deliberately adopted by women in the fresa category, confers upon them a certain type of social prestige that signifies sociolinguistic and cultural capital that references American upper-middle class ideals on whiteness, femininity, and consumerism. 

Part II 

I have a clearer understanding of style-shifting after reading Rickford & McNairKnox. I believe that Foxy Boston is really both an SAE and AAL speaker. Neither of these alone represents her manner of speaking. Labov would claim that she naturally speaks AAL, but due to social pressure in certain contexts, she pays attention to her speech and thus moves it towards the standard of SAE. Although this may be true of Labov’s participants, this is not true of Foxy Boston. At least in the later interviews, she uses both varieties proficiently and naturally. She does not hypercorrect in SAE. This makes sense if we consider her environmental influences. She interacts with a school environment that uses one speech variety and a family/friend environment that uses another. Once she became adapted to both environments both varieties became equally hers. Labov’s idea of a continuum between artificial and natural speech is not reflective of all style-shifting. Foxy Boston has two natural styles that exist on a continuum that can be influenced by environmental factors. However, every location on that spectrum equally represents the authentic speech of Foxy Boston. 

 

Week 4

Example:

This weeks two readings surrounded research method and data collection. Much of what was discussed in these sections are things that we have interacted with though out the course already such as; Match Guising, Interviews, and Anonymous Interviews. In the Schiling article it also discusses the limitations of each form of data collection. For example there is method of elicitation, both direct and indirect. Elicitation involves drawing out specific linguistic feature that can range from lexical, phonological, or syntactical. This can be done directly or indirectly. However, while both direct and indirect elicitation have many pros some of the cons involve how much saliency the participant is aware of, or with direct elicitation someone could refer to the "standard" language ideology in order to construct themselves as more proper. This is interesting to me, because I feel it may depend on who is asking this direct elicitation. Academics and researchers are often perceived and constructed as "proper" and "standard". Just food for thought. Another method of research discussed in Schiling's chapter involves Sociolinguistic Interviews. In Schiling they discuss how Sociolinguistic interviews as being similar to elicitation, however do to their different structure could they could lead to possibly different results. For one thing they result in a more naturalistic response. There are other various forms of research Schiling discusses such as ethnography and participant observation each with their own advantages and disadvantages. 

The second reading by Drager focused more on Match-Guise and Identification Tasks. Drager uses a experiment design to set example to the linguistic questions that may be set up to determine which to use. A Match-Guise test, for example, can answer questions concerning perceptions of; dialect, stereotypes, and other social characteristics about a speaker. An Identification Task can be used to determine phonological perception based on identity and differences. 

This weeks readings largely concerned research design and got me thinking about some of the articles we hve read and how they were constructed. I believe the Match-Guise and Identification Markers were used in the Week 4 readings on language attitudes. The section I found most interesting was the Ethnography section in the Schiling Chapter. Coming from the Anthropology department, and having my BA in Anthropology, I was very familiar with the use of Participant Observation. I very much agree with the last statement made surrounding the emotional and research-related benefits to Participant Observation. During my own mini-ethnography research I was often thrusted into situations by my participants that earn more trust within the community that gave me more naturalistic answers. I think the relationship you have with your participant is very crucial to the answers, ultimately the results of the research. Positionality of the researcher is something that I often consider when reading studies or doing my own research.

 

Week 5

Example:

This weeks articles concerned Indexicality and social meaning in the Johnstone/Kiesling and Eckert readings. In the Johnstone and Kiesling article they examine the use of the dipthong /aw/ in Pittsburgh, and hypothesized that this dipthong was projecting a local identity. They studied this through a modified match-guise test and 4 interviews. For the Match-Guise test  there were 36 participants from 3 different Pittsburgh neighborhoods. The participants listened to a single sentence that differed in the single phoneme [ha?s] and [haws]. The speaker/ sample sentence was not native to Pittsburgh, but was able to accurately produce the phonetic for the match-guise test. They were then asked various questions concerning; their relation to Pittsburgh, Occupation, age, gender, and correctness. The results were interesting showing that [ha?s] was perceived as more local, thus disproving the initial hypothesis. The interviews also yielded various result, which resulted in the conclusion that indexical markings are not always a presentation of larger social identity. 

Penny Eckert's article also discussed themes surrounding indexical meaning within larger social meaning by reviewing other studies on the subject. When looking at two different studies, one of which Eckert's own. However, as the Eckert continues they they discuss the phenomenon of /t/ release whose indexical meaning differed depending on the context. These contexts ranged from; nerdiness, British, Gay Diva, or school teacher. While the /t/ release in some context meant educated or elegant it could also be related to "prissy". Once again this depended on the context. In conclusion Eckert discussed Indexical Fields which were not fixed, but rather fluid in meaning depending on context. 

Overall, the Eckert and Johnstone/Kiesling articles complimented each other with Eckert establishing the basis of Johnstone/Kiesling's research on indexical fields, and Johnstone/Kiesling further conflicting initial ideas Eckert was also attempting to challenge. While some research has highlighted Labov's initial research on Martha's Vineyard others challenge it, and indexicality within a broader context. As discussed multiple times in class linguistic theory, and people for that matter, make much more sense when they are considered fluid. This can obviously be seen in Speech Styles as we use various different linguistic repertoire to navigate different social situations. This fluidity was also discussed in class surrounding Bucholtz research, and the "nerd girls" larger social community outside of the club. It is difficult as researchers to keep these things in mind, because the idea of human fluidity makes it hard capture solid research questions that we often want to answer. While I am doing my research on the app tik tok I find that it's hard to fit this fluidity and larger social networks/ context into the data I am gathering. However, at this point I am just watching and collecting data. Maybe the context will be more apparent as I take a step back and actually analysis the data.

Example 2:

Part 1 

The readings for this week (Eckert, 2008 and Kiesling, 2008) challenge the traditional variationist approach and understanding of linguistic variables based on the stylistic practices of speakers within a given speech community or community of practice framework. Eckert argues that variables are neither precise nor constant but fluid and open to a wide range of interpretations and thus, meanings. Eckert achieves this by proposing an innovative approach to the study of social meaning in variation by employing Silverstein’s (2003) linguistic-anthropological idea of indexical orders. Hence, according to Eckert, the social meanings attached to variables comprise an even larger sphere of possible meanings that are all ideologically related to each other. It is from this indexical field that speakers individually construct and reconstruct the meanings they attribute to linguistic variables, and consequently, the context in which they opt for certain styles of practice. Eckert goes on to cite some previous variation studies such as Labov’s study of Martha’s Vineyard, and the generalist approach these studies took which in turn, did not really account for the speaker’s agency and the specific social contexts in which such variables were used. Eckert further posits that the best way to approach understanding the meaning in linguistic variation is by observing personal style because it is at this level that one may link linguistic style with other forms of stylistic expression such as clothing, and the ideological constructs speakers wish to align with (or detach from) in the social world. Kiesling’s article aims to test the hypothesis that the monophthongization of the /aw/ vowel indexes locality in Pittsburgh (i.e., identifying as a native of the city). An experimental matched guise was conducted amongst 36 participants, after which a series of follow-up questions were asked with the intention of eliciting the indexical meanings participants perceived from the features. The results proved that the indexical meaning of a feature is far more nuanced and subjective than previous variationist studies have concluded. This was especially apparent after reviewing four case studies from the participant pool, who all responded differently to the questions asked in terms of whether the /aw/ monophthong was a distinct feature of Pittsburgh English or not. Kiesling concludes that the best way to approach and account for this variation in indexicality is by adopting a “phenomenological approach to indexicality” that allows for analysis of a person’s sociolinguistic practice through their own experience of the social world.  

 

Part 2  

The readings for this week brought up a lot of interesting points that I especially relate to because they take up a linguistic stance that is more rooted in one’s understanding of the social world and examining a speaker’s individual sociolinguistic practice in relation to how they perceive and position themselves within this social world. I feel like it allows for a more nuanced understanding of style and variation, as opposed to the traditional variationist approach. Both Eckert and Kiesling argue similar points in the sense that the indexical meaning attached to a linguistic feature even within the same community of practice or speech community, can differ for several reasons such as: gender, age, ethnicity, family background, social network, and the intersectionality of these social stratifications. They argue that a generalist approach cannot be used to understand indexicality and variation. Eckert’s concept of indexical field reminds me of Duranti’s explanation of linguistic repertoire as noted in (Schilling, 2003), which suggests that we have a range of linguistic repertoire accessible to us as speakers, from which we pull from to position ourselves in various discursive contexts, and thus, constitutes our linguistic style. Accordingly, we also have an indexical field from which we draw a range of meanings that reflect our interpretation of the social world around us, and how we choose to orient ourselves relative to these social constructs and ideologies. Another aspect of Eckert’s study that I really liked is the concept of bricolage in terms of clothing style and how this connects with linguistic style. I majored in Fashion Merchandising during my undergraduate studies, so I am particularly fascinated as well as excited by theories that reconcile the two (language style and clothing style) because like Eckert mentions, they certainly influence each other. Clothing style and language style are very salient yet nuanced ways in which we as individuals express ourselves concretely as experiencers in the world, and how we constantly navigate through these experiences.   

Week 6

Example :

This weeks reading focused on Stance and how it fits in with things such as varients and indexicality. The first reading was a chapter by Kiesling, which argued that Stance is at the core of other linguistic variables. Stance is described in Barne's article as "... the expression of the speaker's relationship to the content of their utterance."( Barnes 2018) In Kiesling's article Stance is discussed in various ways.  In one sense Stance is discussed through epistemic, or a person's knowledge of the discussion. In this situation there is the Interpersonal Stance and the Epistemic Stance with one having more knowledge than the other. However, there are some problems with coding for Stance when doing research. This can be observed in studies such as the (ING) in a Fraternity. In this study the Stance of a college fraternity and determined that the particular stance became habitual. Kiesling uses this to back their argument that Stance is at the core of variation. 

In Barnes' article we expands on the stance and look at questions left by Kiesling. Barnes' research surround the use of Spanish 'es' and Asturian 'ye'. In the study the two romance languages have had contact, however recent urbanization has lead to an accelerated language exchange. Two different studies were conducted, one quantitative and the other qualitative. The quantitative method showed similar results to Kiesling. The stance of 'es' was more associated with an epistemic stance. However, the qualitative study showed a different stance surrounding the use of 'ye' being associated with diffusion of tense situations or criticism of character. Barnes' concluded discussing speakers using a macro-sociolinguistic knowledge to shape practice as well as reshape these linguistic forms. 

The Barnes and Kiesling readings compliment each other, with Barnes expanding on some unanswered questions. In the Kiesling chapter there is a question surrounding stance and how a speaker will use a particular varient. In the Barnes article we see this as the use of 'ye' takes different stances from non-epistemic and as a diffuser. The varient 'ye' may be the same word in these situations, however stance changes their meaning. Though I could be wrong in this assessment. If this assessment is correct then Barnes has helped confirm Kiesling's initial hypothesis of stance being at the core of varient use. 

With recent reading we have seen how Stance fits in with many other theories surrounding larger macro-sociolinguistic fluidity. Stance fits in with other theories such as; indexicality, indexical fields, audience, and style shifting. As we begin to step back from previously rigid assessments in sociolinguistics we see that languages and humans are in constant states of fluidity.

Example 2:

Part I:

Scott Kiesling and Sonia Barnes, in our readings, discuss stance taking. Stance refers to how speakers position themselves in relation to their linguistic interlocutors and the content of their speech. Stance is a necessarily element of all utterances because language is inherently social. Scott Kiesling claims that stances become interlinked with social situations and social roles through habitus. Furthermore, he argues that stance taking is of primary importance in all instances of language. He uses three studies to support his position that each demonstrate different stance taking phenomena.  Two that are very interesting to compare are the usage of /-ing/ verse /-in’/ variance between North Virginian college fraternity guys and another study on the same linguistic feature but as used by professional women. Identity and context are just as important as phonemic production when it comes to stance taking.  Sonia Barnes investigates how linguistic features of Asturian, as used in Spanish, perform stance taking. Her mixed-method study focuses on how variation between the use of “ye” the Asturian 3rd person singular copula and “es” the Spanish 3rd person singular copula, as they both occur in Asturian Spanish, can best be explained through a framework of stance. Factors such as disagreement between the speaker and the listener and epistemic uncertainty motivated the use of “ye.” “Ye” is also used to in the more obvious stances of local authenticity or down to earth informality as shown in memes and marketing materials.  Both articles help to explore the complexities and diversity of linguistic stance taking.

Part 2 

The readings these past couple of weeks have been very impactful and quite full circle to me because each reading directly feeds into as well as builds on the previous reading. I am especially resonating with these readings because we seem to have transitioned into more encompassing and multilayered studies that have expanded on Labov and other notable first wave variationists’ frameworks. Kiesling’s proposition on stance being the fundamental basis of style variation was quite convincing to me because regardless of what a topic of conversation or discourse is, we are always orienting ourselves in relation to how we feel about the content of talk as well as our socialness in relation to the interlocutors and audience involved in said talk. The example he used involving children and language acquisition further illustrated his proposition in a way that was familiar to me because I worked as a preschool teacher assistant recently. Kiesling notes that children tend to pick up a speaker’s stance first before anything else and it made me think about how the children that I worked with distinguished between when it was playtime versus nap time versus clean up time based on the stances, we the teachers and caretakers used during these various situations. Some were even able to imitate these stances as well. Regarding Barnes’ article, I really liked that she was able to use a mixed method approach and show how a detailed qualitative method can be used to support and better understand the more general data obtained from a quantitative study.  

 

Week 7

Part I

· Zentella (2016) demonstrates that social variety in Border High, a high school in the border of southern San Diego and Tijuana. Within this school, it showed how different social networks used Spanish, English, or both. On some occasions, specific social groups who would often speak Spanish at home with their parents and English with their siblings would swap the languages. In this case, they considered English as the more authoritative/dominant language at school and Spanish as the language that would be used with their peers. Additionally, this article looks into the concept of pocho/a. this term refers mainly to second generation, usually Mexican, and how they have adopted the customs of the USA and speak little to no Spanish.

· Reyes (2016) shows the presence of stereotypes and assumption referring to Asian Americans, and how language links to people which causes these issues. For example, she shows the language components of “model minority” and “forever foreigner”. MM are considered to be associated with speech that is considered “white”, and FF are assimilated with only speaking a foreign language or a nonnative English.  Furthermore, she investigates Korean American students in school. For her study, she focuses on 3 components to show the different identities for being Korean: who they are in the social environment, how they do and finish interactional work, and how they contribute to the circulating racial ideologies. Overall, she finds that the students use voicing throughout their conversations within their specific groups.

Part II

· These article really show a broader example of how language is often linked to how other perceive others’ language. I found Zentella’s article to be the most interesting and relatable. I remember back in high school when I was in a specific social group. During that time, it was more common for me to speak only on English to my friends. Spanish was only used with a selected few faculty members such as my Spanish teachers, but other than that it was mainly presented at home. Zentella mentions in their article that some of the groups would often do the same. They would use Spanish at home with their parents, however, they would speak English to their siblings. Once they were in school, it was required for them to speak English to staff/faculty and they would most likely use Spanish with their peers. I can relate to this as well. As I mentioned before, I mainly use English outside of my home; however, I do not use Spanish with my peers. Spanish for me is mainly present when gossiping is occurring. For example, my sister and I would mainly speak Spanish to each other, but when we want to mention something that we saw or disagree with, we mainly use Spanish, assuming that no one else knows what we are saying.

Example 2:

The readings this week delves into raciolinguistics. Hudley (2017) presents an overview on language and race. My takeaway from that reading is that there is a lot to unpack when examining the crossroads between language and race. First,  it is necessary to see that relationships of language, culture, and race are very dynamic and vary across communities. Racialization could come about due to many different factors and one must zoom out and look at the broader context and consider matters of history and community ideologies. Another consideration is also looking at the field of linguistics historically and learning from its racist past. I think the reading presents a warning for all undertaking linguistics research to be wary of assumptions and methodologies that, in the end, perpetuate racism or White supremacy. For instance, one should be cautious of “gross taxonomic analysis” and shoddy correlation analysis. I think researchers bear the responsibility of doing some introspection, and stopping and thinking if their analysis is being skewed by racial stereotypes or biases. I think that in the heyday, at least in the U.S., of generative linguistics and the hype of obtaining the nicest, most  elegant explanation to linguistic phenomena left its mark in the field. Hudley is turning that around and is asking linguists to dive deeper into the messiness of all that surrounds language.  Lastly, I learned from the reading that race and language is dynamic and definitely not static.  Race is more than a box checked off on a census form. Thus, methods used in the study of race and language as Hudley mentions must take a more “socio” direction. I see this as expanding the linguist’s toolbox and integrating methods from sociology, anthropology, psychology, and other social sciences. Maybe it’s time to get to reading outside linguistics to broaden our understanding of linguistics. For example, asking questions about social networks, community social hierarchy  and societal history is a good idea to beef up the background of a linguistic study. 

Perhaps I am going off on a tangent but I found Reyes to be a good study in the broader area of looking at language and how it shapes thought. Reyes did a good examination of stereotypes and how these stereotypes invoke mental pictures. Perhaps, in our minds, too, these mental pictures talk showing that linguistic features are part of the “whole package” so to speak of racial stereotypes. I felt like the article provided good insights as far as categorization of information in the mind and reveals that language is certainly not autonomous but is intertwined with our experience obtained knowledge about the world and society, including stereotypes. With input, especially with language use in interaction, there is a constant organization and reorganization of new information. I found it interesting that Reyes mentions how stereotypes can be such powerful exemplars that they can skew perception and even the new signs we take in, when compared to that exemplar, could be reduced to nothing (which I find mind-blowing). I could be totally off, but I thought that the voicing and performances in interaction of the participants in the group were used to try to shape/manipulate a collective, shared schema that carries social meaning. 

Zentella was reminiscent of the Holguin (2018) study we saw a couple weeks back. Again, the border region seems to be an area where you can see a lot of grappling with labels, stereotypes, and the interplay of identities old and new. I thought that the ethnographic study of BH shows bilingualism in the context of the linguistic marketplace as conceptualized by Bourdieu. Yet, they rejected the “ideal bilingual” concept which theoretically would give them an advantage in a capitalist system where being closest to an English native speaker/Whiteness wins. The mental borders that the students had was more fluid and constant negotiation between the 2 languages. There is a respect and valuing of both languages as reflected in language choices in the study. Thus, it isn't always about the American/White culture vs Mexican identity conflict but rather there could be an embracing of aspects of both as reflected in Border High. 

A common thread that I found between Zentella and Reyes is doing research on language and culture/race/identity in a school context. I think it is interesting to see the dynamics and negotiations between languages and identities in this sort of contained ecosystem. A lot of high schools especially in urban school districts have a bunch of students from all walks of life in one place and they are interacting to various extents in one place. There is a unique element and contribution to the dynamic that schools as a more or less contained institution brings (prison might be like this too). There are the existing dynamics that the student body brings on its own that contends with the ideologies the institution subscribes to. The school environment could be a gold mine for more sociolinguistic or ethnographic work especially looking at student interactions as well as teacher to student and teacher-teacher interactions. There is probably a lot of meaning-making going on during lunch time. 

 

Week 8

Example:

O’Rourke et al. discusses and challenges ideas of language planning in the context of language revitalization within several European communities. In the reading, the idea of the “new speaker” phenomena is discussed. In past research, “heritage speakers” are the focus of study, with little attention payed to “new” speakers who learn the language in immersion, dual programs, etc. These speakers may also be defined as an individual who did not grow up speaking the ‘mother tongue’, but they learned during adolescence while other places may have no distinction for ‘new’ speakers at all. Depending on the social context, these speakers are defined and socialized differently. For example, in some areas, a new speaker may have negative associations attached to them by other speakers. Views like “communities of practice” have been used to study language in a more emic perspective, but criticism and difficulty with defining authenticity is still an issue. Yet this concept of sounding ‘native’ is so engrained in our education system, the goal of many language classes is to sound ‘native-like’. De Meulder offers a more detailed account of language revitalization and ‘new’ speakers in deaf people. In taking a closer look at traditional/new and deaf/hearing signers, it is easier to see the motivations and opportunities for these very different speakers and how these choices effect the whole cannon of signers. New ways of learning and talking about signing have changed the language, and in many ways, have created disadvantages for actual deaf signers. Nativeness does not have a place in this type of research.

Overall, it is very difficult to pinpoint ‘legitimate’, ‘idea’, ‘real’ or ‘authentic’ speakers. Who are these speakers? Factors like time, age, gender, and awareness of cultures, social cues and contexts are utilized in order to be a good speaker in any situation, but these factors are not static and change in any situation. How is a native speaker defined when they speak with other groups? Are they aware of the underlying social phenomena and relationships present? What about the unspoken rules between genders and races? I feel as though to be considered an authentic speaker of any language or dialect, one would have to be a master of speaking in that time period and be aware of all social meanings within every context. This is not possible. The argument of NERDS posed in the De Meulder article is very interesting and a concept that I truly have not considered before. Learning sign language as a fad, a way to get credits or general interest all seem to be safe motivations, but under the surface, this type of signing can be detrimental to the deaf community as explained in the article. It seems almost common sense that deaf and hearing signers would sign differently, but considering what ‘new’ hearing signers bring to the table may be extremely different to what ‘traditional’ deaf signers may know. At the same time, languages are not static and the introduction of a language shift does not necessarily equate a negative movement. On the other hand, when deaf signers are at the disadvantage (in their own language) this is where problems arise.

 

Example 2:

I thought that this week’s readings touched on questions of what does it mean to be a native speaker of a language. As De Meulder (2019) and O’Rourke et. al (2015) discuss in their articles, this concept of new speakerhood versus a native or authentic speaker gets messy especially in the context of minoritized communities. O’Rourke et al. lays the foundation looking at new speakers in the context of several minority languages in Europe. They start in the article by discussing the recurring question in the field of what the heck is a native speaker. It is interesting to see the history of the term as used in the field. We can see efforts to identify native speakers as a category stemming out of notions of “one nation-one language“ ideologies and later riding on the generative linguistics bandwagon. Even in sociolinguistics, native speakers have been a term inherited and we can draw connections to this and concepts we saw in the beginning weeks of this course related to (the messy) defining of speech communities. A key takeaway I got from O’Rourke is the role of language revitalization programs and the creation of new speakers. It is kind of a paradox where concepts of standardization in revitalization and the attempt to produce  “ideal“ speakers of a language backfires. There are tensions in claims of authenticity, for example, between people who are classified as traditional native speakers vs people who learned the language at school. This reminds me of the Nance (2021) study we read earlier in the semester with Scottish Gaelic and how social dynamics get thrown in and messy the definition of a speech community. When examining minority language communities, you kind of have to consider factors such as language shift, political leanings, and where and how someone learned the language. 

De Meulder (2019) builds off of O’Rourke et. al. (2015) and examines the Sign Language community. I don’t know too much about ASL and it was interesting to learn about the categories of deaf traditional, deaf new signers, and then the deaf and hearing children. My impression after reading the article is that going off of O’Rourke et. al. looking at issues of new speakers in ASL is multifaceted as well, where there are questions of ideology within these groups about each other. In addition, regarding revitalization programs and within the realm of ASL language education, there are imbalances in implementation and treatment of these differing groups. I was drawn to the issue of NERDs and how there is a paradigm of catering to a dominant-culture vs teaching an indigenous culture. When I was in high school, I remember that taking ASL as a foreign language class was kind of a popular thing, and there really was no connection for some with the deaf community and learning ASL was like just for the sake of learning a cool new skill. I would like to learn more about the teaching of ASL and curricular considerations, and the reading takes me back to a question that was discussed in an education class I took a while back. The question was like: Can you teach a language removed from its culture? While it may be possible and the NERDs in the De Meulder reading kind of exemplify that, I think at the least it raises serious questions of appropriation and authenticity. It is kind of cyclical as well, where you could have teachers not knowledgeable enough nor is a member or affiliated with the deaf community teach and their students teach and so forth. All in all, I think the readings this week kind of show that programs that would want to revitalize a minority language and perhaps want to ideally create some form of linguistic unity and solidarity, often don’t necessarily do that, and instead create fractions within that community. 

Week 9:

Example:

This week’s readings were concerned with variation among new speakers of minoritized languages and rethinking assumptions about the native speaker gold standard. Nance’s (2016) study of rhotic production in traditional and new speakers of Scottish Gaelic revealed that variation was linked to speakers’ motivations and goals. Nance explains that previous studies of variation in new speakers fall into one of two categories: Type 1, where variation among new speakers is viewed as errors that will be “corrected” as they approach native-like competence; and Type 2, where the topic of interest is the acquisition of native-like variation patterns. Nance introduces a Type 3 approach, in which new speaker variation is explained by taking into account new speakers’ accent aims and identity constructions. By applying this method to Scottish Gaelic, Nance found that not all new speakers aspired to native-like speech, and variation in rhotic production was connected to variation in speakers’ goals. Rodriguez-Odornez continues to focus on new speakers in their study of perceptions of Direct Object Marking (DOM) in Basque. In Basque, regional varieties are seen as traditional or “real” Basque, whereas the standardized variety, Batua, is viewed as inauthentic.  In interviews with Basque speakers, those who claimed more authenticity also used DOM more often. However, a matched-guise experiment demonstrated that although regularly used by traditional speakers, use of DOM with Batua is highly stigmatized. This nuanced understanding of authenticity/inauthenticity based on speakers’ use of DOM fits well with the concept of an indexical field. DOM may index either authenticity or inauthenticity depending on the context in which it is used, and it is only once combined with Batua that it becomes stigmatized. 

Both articles look into how speakers of a language tend to categorize each other and themselves based on the way that they speak. Language is for ever changing by its newer and older speakers. As speakers of a language, it is difficult for us not to pay attention to the way we speak and to judge how other speak as well. As we got older, we begin to notice the word choice of our parents compared to ours. As we continue to grow, we begin to use words that are commonly being used within our social groups. And now that we are older and fully capable of making linguistic analysis (because we are linguistics), we notice that our linguistic expressions are not as "cool" as we use to think. It begins to date us. It begins to show others that we lived in the era of boy bands and pokemon, the 1990s vs the era of TikTok and viral videos. 

Example 2:

Part I

Interaction and practice by new speakers of minoritized languages with their in-group/out-groups shape their variation patterns and identity. Nance (2016) observes word-final rhotic productions among new speakers of Scottish Gaelic in comparison to older traditional speakers, using sociocultural approaches to second language acquisition through the investigation of accent aim, identity construction, and learning motivation for a more robust analysis of new speaker variation patterns. Studies of variation had traditionally been divided into two types. The Type 1 approach assumes L2 speakers will eventually default to the "correct" and "native-like" form with enough learning experience, while the Type 2 approach investigates the acquisition of native speaker-like patterns of variable usage. Both cases assume the native speaker as the ideal model of production that new speakers aim to achieve. However, Nance proposes a Type 3 approach that diverges from the native speaker model, incorporating a focus on the aims and identity construction of L2 speakers for an explanation of their variation patterns. Results reflect this approach, as there was not only variation in the rhoticization patterns between new speakers and old speakers, but within the new speaker group as well. These findings demonstrate how diversity of forms is what truly distinguishes new and traditional Gaelic.

Rodríguez-Ordóñez (2021) uncovers social meanings by ways of Basque Differential Object Marking (DOM), or the overt marking of typically animate direct objects. Basque speakers can be divided into the groups of new speakers, traditional speakers, and Basque speakers. Through production data yielded from sociolinguistic interviews and matched guise experiments, results demonstrate that although Basque DOM usage does indeed correlate with speaker self-identified authenticity, the extracurricular usage of Basque is what drives the development of legitimacy in the language and adoption of local features. Although DOM is stigmatized and considered ungrammatical in Batua, its variation patterns between speaker groups reflect ideologies of Basque authenticity at large.

Part II

Both readings highlight the much-needed shift away from the native speaker model, historically treated as a monolith for legitimacy in the sphere of language revitalization projects. This phenomenon is not only present in minoritized languages, but also widely-spoken languages as well. I draw upon my experience in a language exchange program during undergrad, where my language partner from Japan was primarily concerned with achieving English native-like pronunciation: his "ought-to self" (Dornyei & Ushioda 2011) can be interpreted as a native-like speaker to achieve legitimacy in his public affairs program. I was guilty of the same thing in my own history of language learning, prioritizing my skills of native-like pronunciation over practical goals such as native-like competence. Our patterns stem from standard language ideologies of what entails being an "authentic" or "legitimate" speaker of a language that many people still ascribe to. As linguists, it's easy to challenge these concepts through our knowledge of sociolinguistics, but those who are ignorant to the field do not have that privilege as they were indoctrinated into standard language ideologies that are reinforced by the people they interact with and the media. I believe that a shift away from the native speaker model as a basis for authenticity should be applied to widely-spoken languages as well, with more of an emphasis on hearer competency that reflects the functionalist approach to language.