Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-07T13:30:42.576Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Relative salience of gender and class in a situation of multiple competing norms

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Thomas D. Cravens  and
Luciano Giannelli
Thomas D. Cravens
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin, Madison
Luciano Giannelli
Affiliation:
Università di Siena
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

One of the most consistent findings to emerge from sociolinguistic research is that “men use more nonstandard forms, less influenced by the social stigma directed against them; or, conversely, women use more standard forms, responding to the overt prestige associated with them” (Labov, 1990:210). With regard to change, these findings indicate that “women lead in both the acquisition of prestige patterns and the elimination of stigmatized forms” (p. 213), apparently without exception in change from above the level of conscious awareness and in all but a few of the cases studied in change from below. An examination of the social parameters of acceptance and spread of intervocalic spirantization of /p/, /t/, /k/ in Tuscany offers the possibility for testing and refining these precepts in a situation of rule competition that is more complex than most of those studied previously, in that here there are three forms in competition. Building on established principles (e.g., Trudgill, 1972), this sociolinguistic analysis of the interaction of three options provides a more precise understanding of the significance of both gender and class as (co-)conditioners of variation and change.

Type
Research Article
Information
Language Variation and Change , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , July 1995 , pp. 261 - 285
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abd-el Jawad, Hassan R. (1987). Cross-dialectal variation in Arabic: Competing prestigious forms. Language in Society 16:359–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agostiniani, Luciano, & Giannelli, Luciano (eds.). (1983). Fonologia etrusca, fonetica toscana: Il problema del sostrato. (Biblioteca dell' Archivum Romanicum, serie 2, no. 39.) Florence: Olschki. 25–59.Google Scholar
Agostiniani, Luciano & Giannelli, Luciano (1990). Considerazioni per un'analisi del parlato toscano. In Cortelazzo, Michele A. & Mioni, Alberto M. (eds.), L'italiano regionale. Rome: Bulzoni. 219–237.Google Scholar
Ashby, William J. (1991). When does variation indicate linguistic change in progress? Journal of French Language Studies 1:1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, Guy, Wikle, Tom, Tillery, Jan & Sand, Lori. (1991). The apparent time construct. Language Variation and Change 3:241–264.Google Scholar
Berruto, Gaetano. (1987). Sociolinguistica dell'italiano contemporaneo. Rome: La Nuova Italia Scientifica.Google Scholar
Berruto, Gaetano. (1993). Le varietà del repertorio. In Sobrero, Alberto A. (ed.), Introduzione all'italiano contemporaneo. Vol. 2. La variazione e gli usi. Rome: Laterza. 3–36.Google Scholar
Bianchi, Bianco. (1888). Il dialetto e la etnografia di Città di Castello. Città di Castello: S. Lapi.Google Scholar
Canepari, Luciano. (1977). Presentazione e applicazione all'italiano e alle sue varietà del sistema di trascrizione IPA. Rivista italiana di dialettologia 1:153–161.Google Scholar
Canepari, Luciano. (1981). Le pronunce regionali dell'italiano. Padua: CLEUP.Google Scholar
Contini, Gianfranco. (1960). Per un'interpretazione strutturale della cosiddetta “gorgia” toscana. Boletim de filologia 19:263–281.Google Scholar
Cravens, Thomas D. (1983). La gorgia toscana quale indebolimento centromeridionale. In Agostiniani, & Giannelli, (1983). 115–121.Google Scholar
Cravens, Thomas D. (1984a). Implicational phonology: Martinet, Foley, and beyond. In Manning, Alan, Martin, Pierre, & McCalla, Kim (eds.), The tenth LACUS forum. (Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Conference of the Linguistic Association of Canada and the United States.) Columbia, SC: Hornbeam. 141–148.Google Scholar
Cravens, Thomas D. (1984b). Intervocalic consonant weakening in a phonetic-based strength phonology: Foleyan hierarchies and the gorgia toscana. Theoretical Linguistics 11:269–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cravens, Thomas D. (1991). Phonology, phonetics, and orthography in Late Latin and Romance: The evidence for early intervocalic sonorization. In Wright, Roger (ed.), Latin and the Romance languages in the Early Middle Ages. London: Routledge. 52–68.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope. (1989). The whole woman: Sex and gender differences in variation. Language Variation and Change 1:245–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franceschi, Temistocle. (1965). Sulla pronuncia di e, o, s, z nelle parole di non diretta tradizione. Turin: Giappichelli.Google Scholar
Giannelli, Luciano. (1973). k, p, t intervocaliche in Toscana. Atti e memorie dell'Accademia Toscana di Scienze e Lettere “la Colombaria” 38 (ns 24):33–47.Google Scholar
Giannelli, Luciano. (1976). Toscana. (Profilo dei dialetti italiani, 9.) Pisa: Pacini.Google Scholar
Giannelli, Luciano. (1983). Aspirate etrusche e gorgia toscana: valenza delle condizioni fonetiche dell'area toscana. In Agostiniani, & Giannelli, (1983). 61–112.Google Scholar
Giannelli, Luciano. (1985). Baragazza e la Montagnola senese: situazioni di cambiamento e dati per la ricostruzione. In Agostiniani, Luciano, Bellucci, Patrizia Maffei & Paoli, Matilde (eds.), Linguistica storica e cambiamento linguistico. Rome: Bulzoni. 51–77.Google Scholar
Giannelli, Luciano, & Savoia, Leonardo M. (1979–1980). L'indebolimento consonantico in Toscana (II). Rivista italiana di dialettologia 3–4:38–101.Google Scholar
Gigli, Girolamo. (1717). Vocabolario Cateriniano. Rome.Google Scholar
Giurescu, Anca. (1979). Descrizione transformazionale di un fenomeno di fonologia storica: problemi e risultati in campo romanzo. In Vàrvaro, Alberto (ed.), Atti del XIV Congresso Internazionale di Linguistica e Filologia Romanza: Vol. 3. Amsterdam and Naples: Benjamins/Macchiaroli. 27–33.Google Scholar
Grassi, Corrado. (1993). Italiano e dialetti. In Sobrero, Alberto A. (ed.), Introduzione all'italiano contemporaneo: Vol. 2. La variazione e gli usi. Rome: Laterza. 279–310.Google Scholar
Haeri, Niloofar. (1987). Male/female differences in speech: An alternative interpretation. In Denning, Keith M., Inkelas, Sharon, McNair-Knox, Faye C., & Rickford, John R. (eds.), Variation in language: NWAV-XV. Stanford: Stanford University, Departmant of Linguistics. 173–182.Google Scholar
Haeri, Niloofar. (1994). A linguistic innovation of women in Cairo. Language Variation and Change 6:87–112.Google Scholar
Hall, Robert A. Jr (1949). A note on “gorgia toscana.” Italica 26:64–71.Google Scholar
Izzo, Herbert J. (1972). Tuscan and Etruscan: The problem of substratum influence in Central Italy. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaberg, Karl, & Jud, Jakob. (1928–1940). Sprach- und Sachatlas Italiens und der Südschweiz. 8 vols. Zofingen: Ringier.Google Scholar
Labov, William. (1981). What can be learned about change in progress from synchronic description? In Sankoff, David & Cedergren, Henrietta (eds.), Variation omnibus. Carbondale, IL: Linguistic Research. 177–199.Google Scholar
Labov, William. (1990). The intersection of sex and social class in the course of linguistic change. Language Variation and Change 2:205–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lepschy, Anna Laura, & Lepschy, Giulio. (1988). The Italian language today. New York: New Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Melillo, Matteo Armistizio. (1975). Testi umbri sud-orientali con osservazioni sulla lenizione tosco-umbra. Lingua e contesto 2:87–116.Google Scholar
Poggi Salani, Teresa. (1981). Per uno studio dell'italiano regionale. La ricerca dialettale 3:249–269.Google Scholar
Poggi Salani, Teresa. (1982). Sulla definizione di italiano regionale. In La lingua italiana in movimento. Florence: Accademia della Crusca. 113–134.Google Scholar
Rohlfs, Gerhard. (1930). Vorlateinische Einflüsse in den Mundarten des heutigen Italiens? Germanische-romanische Monatsschrift 18:37–56.Google Scholar
Rohlfs, Gerhard. (1966). Grammatica storica della lingua italiana e dei suoi dialetti: Vol. 1. Fonetica. Turin: Einaudi.Google Scholar
Saladino, Rosa. (1990). Language shift in standard Italian and dialect: A case study. Language Variation and Change 2:57–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savoia, Leonardo M. (1974–1975). Condizioni fonetiche nel fiorentino comune e alcune proposte per una fonologia concreta. Studi di grammatica italiana 4:210–325.Google Scholar
Savoia, Leonardo M. (1980). Fonologia delle varietà apuane e garfagnine: Consonantismo. Studi urbinati di storia, filosofia e letteratura; Supplemento liguistico 2:233–293.Google Scholar
Suzuki, Shingo. (1976–1977). I fonemi consonantici orali della varietà romana dell'italiano. Annuario dell'Istituto Giapponese di Cultura in Roma 13:67–90.Google Scholar
Tekavčić, Pavao. (1980). Grammatica storica dell'italiano: Vol. 1. Fonematica. 2d ed.Bologna: il Mulino.Google Scholar
Telmon, Tullio. (1993). Le varietà regionali. In Sobrero, Alberto A. (ed.), Introduzione all'italiano contemporaneo: Vol. 2. La variazione e gli usi. Rome: Laterza. 93–150.Google Scholar
Troncon, Antonella, & Canepari, Luciano. (1989). Lingua italiana nel Lazio. Rome: Jouvence.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. (1972). Sex, covert prestige and linguistic change in the urban British English of Norwich. Language in Society 1:179–195.Google Scholar
Walsh, Thomas J. (1991). The demise of lenition as a productive phonological process in Hispano-Romance. In Harris-Northall, Ray & Cravens, Thomas D. (eds.), Linguistic studies in Medieval Spanish. Madison, WI: The Hispanic Seminary of Medieval Studies. 149–163.Google Scholar
Wanner, Dieter, & Cravens, Thomas D. (1980). Early intervocalic voicing in Tuscan. In Traugott, Elizabeth C., LaBrum, Rebecca, & Shepherd, Susan (eds.), Papers from the 4th International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 339–347.Google Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel, Labov, William, & Herzog, Marvin. (1968). Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. In Lehmann, Winfred P. & Malkiel, Yakov (eds.), Directions for historical linguistics. Austin: University of Texas Press. 97–195.Google Scholar
Weinrich, Harald. (1958). Phonologische Studien zur romanischen Sprachgeschichte. Münster: Aschendorff.Google Scholar