The Sociolinguistics
Sponsored Links
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
1 / 21

The Sociolinguistics of the Metropolis PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 49 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

The Sociolinguistics of the Metropolis.

Download Presentation

The Sociolinguistics of the Metropolis

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


The Sociolinguistics

of the Metropolis


It is a well-known fact that small cities are friendlier than big ones. But are they? Our research on street life indicates that, if anything, the reverse is more likely to be the case. As far as interaction between people is concerned, there is markedly more of it in big cities--not just in absolute numbers but as a proportion of the total. In small cities, by contrast, you see fewer interchanges, fewer prolonged goodbyes, fewer street conferences, fewer 100% conversations. . . Individually, the friendliness quotient of the smaller might be much higher. It could also be argued that friendships run deeper in a smaller city than in a larger one. As far as frequency of interchange is concenrned, however,the streets of the big city are notably more sociable than those of a smaller one.

--William H. Whyte, City. NY: Doubleday, 1988, p. 6.


The speech community as

• chaos

“one cannot predict what a person will say”

• a fictional construct

“the reality is the individual speaker”

• an average value

“merely the average of individual idiolects”


Ten methods for gathering linguistic data in the metropolis

Approach to Demogr.VolumeSoundControl of

Vernacular inform’nof speechqualityvariables

Sociolinguistic interviewVariableExcellentExcellentExcellentVariable

Group sessionsExcellentVariableVariableFairPoor

Participant observationExcellentExcellentExcellentNoneNone

Site studiesGoodPoorVariablePoorNone

Rapid & anonymous surveysPoorPoorPoorNoneExcellent

Written textsPoorVariableVariableNoneNone

Studies of mass mediaPoorPoorVariableExcellentNone

Laboratory experimentsPoorExcellentVariableExcellentExcellent

Direct elicitationPoorExcellentFairExcellentExcellent

IntrospectionPoorExcellentNoneNoneExcellent


Ten methods for gathering linguistic data in the metropolis

Approach to Demogr.VolumeSoundControl of

Vernacular inform’nof speechqualityvariables

Sociolinguistic interviewVariableExcellentExcellentExcellentVariable

Group sessionsExcellentVariableVariableFairPoor

Participant observationExcellentExcellentExcellentNoneNone

Site studiesGoodPoorVariablePoorNone

Rapid & anonymous surveysPoorPoorPoorNoneExcellent

Written textsPoorVariableVariableNoneNone

Studies of mass mediaPoorPoorVariableExcellentNone

Laboratory experimentsPoorExcellentVariableExcellentExcellent

Direct elicitationPoorExcellentFairExcellentExcellent

IntrospectionPoorExcellentNoneNoneExcellent


Percent [r] in rapid and anonymous study of three New York City department stores, 1962

Source: Labov 1966


Percent [r] in rapid and anonymous study of three New York City department stores, 1962 and 1986

Source: Labov 1966, Fowler 1986


Percent [r] in by age in Saks

Source: Labov 1966


Percent [r] in by age in Saks, 1962 and 1986

Source: Labov 1966, Fowler 1986


Percent [r] in by age in Macy’s

Source: Labov 1966


Percent [r] in by age in Macy’s, 1962 and 1986

Source: Labov 1966, Fowler 1986


Percent [r] in by stress and position

Source: Labov 1966


Percent [r] in by stress and position, 1982 and 1986

Source: Labov 1966, Fowler 1986


Overall increase in percent [r] from 1962 to 1986

Source: Labov 1966, Fowler 1986


Overall increase in percent [r] from 1962 to 1996

Tiernan 1996

Fowler 1986

Labov 1962

Source: Labov 1966, Fowler 1986, Tiernan 1996


Social and stylistic stratification of (r) in the random sample of the Lower East Side of New York City [N=81]

SOCIO-ECONOMICCLASS

higher

The cross-over pattern

lower


The introduction of constricted /r/ by upper middle class youth in the spontaneous speech of the Lower East Side sample of New York City [N=81]


Subjective evaluation of (r) in matched guise tests for New Yorkers by age and social class


Percent positive response to (r) on two-choice subjective reaction test in New York City


The metropolis: a speech community with a high degree of social stratification on a uniform structural and evaluative base


Stratification by occupation in white employees at Macy’s (1962)


  • Login