Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T18:25:08.549Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The sociolinguistic variant as a carrier of social meaning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2011

Kathryn Campbell-Kibler
Kathryn Campbell-Kibler
Affiliation:
The Ohio State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Traditionally used as a “heuristic device” (Labov, 1978), the sociolinguistic variable has taken on a new role as a primitive of speaker/hearer mental models in third-wave variation work (Eckert, 2005, 2008). Results from a sociolinguistic perception study suggest that at least in some cases, variants of the same variable function independently as loci of indexically linked social meaning. Listener responses were collected to three matched guises of the English variable (ING): -in, -ing, and a neutral guise with no audible (ING) tokens. The results counter the study hypothesis that listener expectation, triggered by speaker regional accent, would shape (ING)'s impact. Instead, the two variants showed distinct social associations: the -ing guises were rated as more intelligent/educated, more articulate, and less likely to be a student than either the -in or neutral guises, which did not differ significantly. In contrast, -in guises made speakers sound less formal and less likely to be gay than the -ing and neutral guises, which did not differ. These results suggest that third-wave work needs to more closely examine the role of the variable in theorizing the relationship between linguistic and social structures.

Type
Research Article
Information
Language Variation and Change , Volume 22 , Issue 3 , October 2010 , pp. 423 - 441
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

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

REFERENCES

Baayen, R. Harald. (2008). languageR: Data sets and functions with “Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics.” R package version 0.953.Google Scholar
Bargh, John A., & Chartrand, Tanya L. (1999). The unbearable automaticity of being. American Psychologist 54(7):462–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bates, Douglas M., & Sarkar, Deepayan. (2007). Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 0.9975-8.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul, & Weenink, David. (2008). Praat: doing phonetics by computer [computer program]. Available at: http://www.praat.org/.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. (2006). From usage to grammar: The mind's response to repetition. Language 82(4):711–733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell-Kibler, Kathryn. (2005). Listener perceptions of sociolinguistic variables: The case of (ING). Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Campbell-Kibler, Kathryn. (2007). Accent, (ING), and the social logic of listener perceptions. American Speech 82(1):32–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell-Kibler, Kathryn. (2008). I'll be the judge of that: Diversity in social perceptions of (ING). Language in Society 37(5):637–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell-Kibler, Kathryn. (2009). The nature of sociolinguistic perception. Language Variation and Change 21(1):135–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cargile, Aaron Castelan, & Giles, Howard. (1998). Language attitudes toward varieties of English: An American-Japanese context. Journal of Applied Communication Research 26:338–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cedergren, Henrietta, & Sankoff, David. (1974). Variable rules: Performance as a statistical reflection of competence. Language 50:333–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chambers, Jack, & Trudgill, Peter. (1980). Dialectology. 2nd ed.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chartrand, Tanya L., & Bargh, John A. (1996). Automatic activation of impression formation and memorization goals: Nonconscious goal priming reproduces effects of explicit task instructions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 71(3):464–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dines, Elizabeth R. (1980). Variation in discourse: “And stuff like that.” Language in Society 9(1):13–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckert, Penelope. (2000). Linguistic variation as social practice: The linguistic construction of identity in Belten High. Vol. 27 of Language in Society. New York: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope. (2005). Variation, convention, and social meaning. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America. Oakland CA. January 7, 2005.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope. (2008). Variation and the indexical field. Journal of Sociolinguistics 12(4):453–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fasold, Ralph W. (1991). The quiet demise of variable rules. American Speech 66(1):3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, John. (1958). Social influence of a linguistic variant. Word 14:47–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiske, Susan T., & Taylor, Shelley E. (2007). Social cognition: From brains to culture. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
Forgas, Joseph P., & Bower, Gordon H. (1987). Mood effects on person-perception judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 53(1):53–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Forgas, Joseph P., & Moylan, Stephanie. (1988). After the movies: Transient mood and social judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 13(4):467–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fridland, Valerie, Bartlett, Kathryn, & Kreuz, Roger. (2004). Do you hear what I hear? Experimental measurement of the perceptual salience of acoustically manipulated vowel variants by Southern speakers in Memphis, TN. Language Variation and Change 16:1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldinger, Stephen D. (1998). Echoes of echoes? An episodic theory of lexical access. Psychological Review 105(2):251–279.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hay, Jennifer, & Drager, Katie. (2010). Stuffed toys and speech perception. Linguistics 48(4):865–892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hay, Jennifer, Nolan, Aaron, & Drager, Katie. (2006). From fush to feesh: Exemplar priming in speech perception. The Linguistic Review 23(3):351–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hazen, Kirk. (2005). The IN/ING variable. In Brown, K. (ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics. 2nd ed. Vol. 5. St. Louis: Elsevier. 581–584.Google Scholar
Houston, Ann. (1985). Continuity and change in English morphology: The variable (ING). Ph.D. thesis, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Isen, Alice M., & Shalker, Thomas E. (1982). The effect of feeling state on evaluation of positive, neutral, and negative stimuli: When you “accentuate the positive,” do you “eliminate the negative”? Social Psychology Quarterly 45(1):58–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Keith. (2006). Resonance in an exemplar-based lexicon: The emergence of social identity and phonology. Journal of Phonetics 34:485–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnstone, Barbara, & Kiesling, Scott F. (2008). Indexicality and experience: Exploring the meanings of /aw/-monophthongization. Journal of Sociolinguistics 12(1):5–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiesling, Scott. (1998). Men's identities and sociolinguistic variation: The case of fraternity men. Journal of Sociolinguistics 2(1):69–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. (1966a). The linguistic variable as a structural unit. Washington Linguistics Review 3:4–22.Google Scholar
Labov, William. (1966b). The social stratification of English in New York City. Washington, DC: Center For Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Labov, William. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Labov, William. (1978). Where does the sociolinguistic variable stop? A response to Beatriz Lavandera. Working Papers in Sociolinguistics 44:1–17.Google Scholar
Labov, William, Ash, Sharon, Baranowski, Maciej, Nagy, Naomi, Ravindranath, Maya, & Weldon, Tracy. (2006). Listeners' sensitivity to the frequency of sociolinguistic variables. In Friesner, M. L. & Ravindranath, Maya (eds.), Penn Working Papers in Linguistics: Selected Papers from NWAV 34 in New York City 12(2):105–129.Google Scholar
Lavandera, Beatriz. (1978). Where does the sociolinguistic variable stop? Language in Society 7:171–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, John D., & Gaschke, Yvonne N. (1988). The experience and meta-experience of mood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 55:102–111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mendoza-Denton, Norma. (2008). Homegirls: Language and cultural practice among Latina youth gangs. Malden, MA: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niedzielski, Nancy A. (1999). The effect of social information on the perception of sociolinguistic variables. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 18(1):62–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ochs, Elinor. (1992). Indexing gender. In Duranti, A. & Goodwin, C. (eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 335–358.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet. (2001). Exemplar dynamics: Word frequency, lenition and contrast. In Bybee, J. & Hopper, P. (eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 137–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plichta, Bartek, & Preston, Dennis R. (2005). The /ay/s have it: The perception of /ay/ as a North-South stereotype in US English. In Kristiansen, T., Coupland, N., & Garrett, P. (eds.), Theme issue on “Subjective processes in language variation and change.” Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 37:243–285.Google Scholar
Podesva, Robert J. (2007). Phonation type as a stylistic variable: The use of falsetto in constructing a persona. Journal of Sociolinguistics 11(4):478–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romaine, Suzanne. (1981). On the problem of syntactic variation: A reply to Beatriz Lavandera and William Labov. Working Papers in Sociolinguistics 82:1–38.Google Scholar
Ryan, Ellen Bouchard, & Laurie, Suzanne. (1990). Evaluations of older and younger adult speakers: Influence of communication effectiveness and noise. Psychology and Aging 5(4):514–519.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sebastian, Richard J., Ryan, Ellen Bouchard, Keogh, T. F., & Schmidt, A. C. (1980). The effects of negative affect arousal on reactions to speakers. In Giles, H., Robinson, W. P., & Smith, P. M. (eds.), Language: Social psychological perspectives. Oxford: Pergamon Press. 203–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. (1976). Shifters, linguistic categories, and cultural description. In Basso, K. & Selby, H. (eds.), Meaning in anthropology. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. 11–55.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. (2003). Indexical order and the dialectics of sociolinguistic life. Language and Communication 23:193–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strand, Elizabeth A. (1999). Uncovering the roles of gender stereotypes in speech perception. In Milroy, L. & Preston, Dennis R. (eds.), Special issue: Attitudes, perception, and linguistic features. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 18(1):86–99.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. (1974). The Social Differentiation of English in Norwich. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wald, Benji, & Shopen, Timothy. (1985). A researcher's guide to the sociolinguistic variable (ING). In Clark, V., Escholtz, P., & Rosa, A. (eds.), Language: Introductory readings. New York: St. Martin's Press. 515–542.Google Scholar
Winford, Donald. (1996). The problem of syntactic variation. In Sociolinguistic Variation: Data, Theory and Analysis. Selected Papers from NWAV 23 at Stanford.Google Scholar
Wolfram, Walt. (1991). The linguistic variable: Fact and fantasy. American Speech 66(1):22–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wyer, Jr., Robert, S. (2004). Social comprehension and judgment: The role of situation models, narratives and implicit theories. Mulwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Zhang, Qing. (2005). A Chinese yuppie in Beijing: Phonological variation and the construction of a new professional identity. Language in Society 34:431–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar