U,4 PART III: STYLE, STYUZATION AND IDENTITY

n i d i r extreme construcdvist stance chan is generally adopted i n the sociohn-Kiiísiic mainstream. A t the same t i m e , the styhstic processes that Pennycook i', d c a l i n g w i t h here are themselves among the most creative and deiraditional-I lili; mies that SocioHnguistics has encountered, and i t is always necessary to n i . i n h itne's Une of interpretat ion to what the data show. Language Style as

Audience Design A L L A N B E L L

What is Style?

Language style is one of the most chal lenging aspects of sociol inguist ic var ia t ion . T h e basic pr inc ipie of language style is that an i n d i v i d u a l speaker does not always ta lk i n the same way on a l l occasions. Style means that speak­ers have alternatives or cholees - a 'that way ' w h i c h c o u l d have been chosen instead o f a 'this way'. Speakers ta lk i n di f ferent ways i n d i f ferent si tuations, and these di f ferent ways of speaking can carry di f ferent social meanings.

Style constitutes one whole dimensión of l inguis t i c v a r i a t i o n - the range of var ia t ion w i t h i n the speech o f an i n d i v i d u a l speaker. I t intersects w i t h what W i l l i a m L a b o v has called the 'social ' dimensión of v a r i a t i o n - differences between the speech o f d i f ferent speakers. I n sum, style involves the ways i n w h i c h the same speakers talk d i f f e r e n t l y o n di f ferent occasions rather t h a n the ways i n w h i c h d i f ferent speakers ta lk d i f ferent ly f r o m each other.

Style in Sociolinguistics

We can dis t inguish two m a i n approaches to the s tudyof style i n Sociolinguistics. T h e first, associated w i t h D e l l Hymes , encompasses the many ways i n w h i c h i n d i v i d u a l speakers can express themselves dif ferent ly i n di f ferent situations. T h i s recognizes that style can opérate o n the f u l l range of l inguist ic levéis -i n the phonology or sound system of a language, i n its syntax or grammar , i n its semantics or the lexicón, and i n the wider patterns of speaking across

Source: 'Language Style as Audience Design', by Bell, A. in Coupland, N . and Javvorski, A, (i-ds) Sociolinguistics: A Reader and Coursebook (1997) (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macniillnii) pp. 240-9.

265

266 PART 111: STYLE. STYLIZATION AND ÍDENTITY

whole discourses and conversations. So style may be expressed i n dif ferent forms of address, i n the use of cag questions such as isn't it, i n di f ferent ways o f asking a question, i n choosing one w o r d over another, as wei l as i n the ways that dif ferent vowels and consonants are pronounced. O n the social side, Hymes has proposed a wide range of factors that may affect the way an i n d i v i d u a l taiks, i n c l u d i n g audience, purpose, topic, mode , channel and gente (see Chapter 3 9 ) .

T h e second approach to style i n Sociolinguistics is m u c h more str ict ly defined on b o t h the social and l inguist ic dimensions. L a b o v pioneered i n his 1 9 6 6 N e w York C i t y study a means of e l i c i t ing di f ferent styles o f speech f r o m people w i t h i n a single interview. I n his recorded interviews^ as wel l as con-versing w i t h his i n f o r m a n t s , he had t h e m carry out a series of language tasks, each of which was designed to focus more and more of the speaker's at tent ion on to their speech. W h e n the speaker talked to someone else rather t h a n the interviewerj or discussed topics w h i c h got t h e m par t i cu lar ly involved, they were l ikely to be paying the least at tent ion to their speech, and L a b o v called this 'casual' speech. W h e n the speaker was answering questions i n typical in terview fashion, they w o u l d be paying rather more at tent ion to their speech and so produced 'careful ' style. W h e n they read aloud a br ie f passage of a story, they w o u l d give st i l l more at tent ion to their p r o n u n c i a t i o n . Reading out a hst of isolated words focused more at tent ion again, and reading a set of m i n i m a l pairs - words w h i c h di f fer only by a single sound such as reader and raider - w o u l d make the speaker pay the m á x i m u m amount of at tent ion to their speech.

O n the social side, therefore, this represents w h a t we m i g h t cali a m i n i m a l -ist approach, compared w i t h what we m i g h t cali the ' m a x i m a l i s t ' view of the more ethnographic w o r k . L a b o v has also usual ly w o r k e d w i t h m i c r o aspects of l inguis t i c s t ruc ture ~ specific sounds w h i c h can altérnate as two or more variants of one l inguis t i c 'variable ' , such as the cholee between a ' s tandard ' - m ^ p r o n u n c i a t i o n and a ' n o n - s t a n d a r d ' -in' p r o n u n c i a t i o n i n words such as leaving and building (see Chapters 4 and 1 3 ) . These are classed as d i f ferent ways of saying the same t h i n g , and analyses o f such sociol inguist ic variables have produced findings w h i c h , when graphed, have become classics of the sociol inguist ic l i tera ture .

Peter T r u d g i l l s tudied the (ng) variable, and F igure 4 . 1 o n p . 6 2 o f this v o l u m e f r o m his work o n N o r w i c h E n g l i s h is typ ica l o f a social class by style graph. Five social groups are d i s t i n g u i s h e d , r a n g i n g f r o m the L o w e r W o r k i n g Class to the U p p e r M i d d l e Class, us ing f o u r d i f ferent styles. T h e pat te rn o f the lines o f this graph shows t w o th ings . F i rs t , as we move f r o m the middle-class groups to che working-class groups the use of the -in' var iant increases and, conversely, che use of the prestigious -ing varianc decreases. Secondly, the rise of the linos f r o m w o r d lists to casual speech shows that

language Style as Audience Design 2 6 7

each group style shifts towards less -in' and more -ing w i t h each attent ion increasing cask i n the incerview. So al l f o u r classes use most -in' i n casii.il speech, less i n careful speech, s t i l l less i n the reading passage, and leasi o l all i n the w o r d lists.

Labov's techniques for e l i c i t ing styles have been used i n countless stiulu--. i n many languages and countries since 1 9 6 6 , and i n many cases a s imilar k i i u l of gradient of s ty le -shi f t ing has been f o u n d . However, some of the subseqiu-ni research has had dif ferent findings, and some researchers have questioiu-il whether these styles really apply outside the confines of che sociol inguis i ir interview. IVlany have also quescioned whether attention to speech is the fac cor w h i c h is operat ing here. Some have f o u n d that attention c o u l d be direc ic i l to p r o d u c i n g al l levéis of l inguist ic alcernatives, not jusc che more prescigious forms such as -ing rather t h a n -in'. Isn't i t also possible for speakers to acccnd to their speech a n d racher consciously sound more non-standard?

Audience Design

One cr i t ique and development o f earlier sociolinguistic approacht-s t o My l i was the Audience Design f ramework out l ined i n Bel l ( 1 9 8 4 ) . I p r o | i o ; ; r . l i h n

style shif t occurs p r i m a r i l y i n response to the speaker's audience r;ii I Ü I I h m co amount of a t tent ion or other factors. T h i s approach grew oui o l o n r cicular study on style. W h i l e researching the language of radio ncvv;; i i i N . v Zealand, I came across an unancicipated si tuation w h i c h proved to he l i i i lon ,1 co locating and expla in ing style shif t (Bel l 1 9 9 1 ) . T h e organización o l ' i l i e Nev\

Zealand public broadcascing syscem ac che t ime meant that two of tlu- r i u l i c i

stacions being studied b o t h originated centrally i n the same suice of s i i u l i o s

T h e same i n d i v i d u a l newsreaders could be heard reading news b u l l e i i i i s o n

boch of these networks . Stacion Y A was ' N a t i o n a l Radio' , che prestigc s e i v i n -

of N e w Zealand's publ ic Corporation radio. Ic had an audience w i t h h i j ' J i e i

social status t h a n the audience for stacion Z B , w h i c h was one of a nci w o i k o l local communicy stations.

F igure 18.1 shows che percencage of intervocalic /t/ voic ing for l'oiii- i i e w : ,

readers recorded on b o t h chese scacions. W h e n it occurs between i w o v o v v e j - , ,

usually voiceless /t/ can be pronounced üke a voiced /d/, makinp; wonls MI. II as writer and latter sound like rider and ladder. T h e six newsreaders s l i i l i c i l <>\

average 2 0 per cent becween Y A and Z B . Single newsreaders hearti m i HAM differenc stations showed a remarkable and consistenc abilicy co make i o i r . h l erable style shifts to suit the audience. These switches between stationí; w e i . ac cimes very rapid : at off-peak hours a single newsreader m i g h t ; i l i e i i i ; i i i

becween Y A and Z B news w i t h as l i t t le as ten minuces becween bul lc t i i i ; ; o n che differenc scacions.

PART III: STYLE, STYLIZATION AND IDENTITY

50% -

0% YA ZB YA ZB YA ZB YA ZB

Figure 18.1 Percentage of in tervocal ic Itl voic ing by four newscasters on t w o N e w Zea land rad io stat ions, YA and Z B ( f r o m Bell 1984: 162)

W h a t could be the cause of these shifts? There is after a l l just one i n d i ­v idual speaker p r o d u c i n g two divergent styles. T h e i n s t i t u t i o n is the same i n b o t h cases. T h e topic m i x of the news is s imilar ( i n some cases, even the actual scripted news stories are the same). T h e studio sett ing is the same. A n d there is no reason to suppose that the a m o u n t of a t tent ion pa id to speech is being systematically varied. O f all the factors we m i g h t suggest as possible influences on news style, only the audience correlated w i t h these shifts.

1 .ooking beyond this par t i cular study, i t seemed clear that the same regu-lar i i ies w h i c h were ampl i f i ed i n the media context are also operat ing i n face-in iace c o m m u n i c a t i o n . I n mass c o m m u n i c a t i o n , a broadcaster's i n d i v i d u a l •iiyk' is rout ine ly subordinated to a shared station style whose character can iiiily be explained i n terms of its target audience. W h e n we look at o r d i n a r y . oi ivcTsation, we can also see the i m p o r t a n t effect that an audience has on a ' . |H-akcr's style, a l though the impact is less obvious than for broadcasters. I n p a l I icLilar, we k n o w that mass communicators are under considerable pres­ea i n ' to w i n the approval of their audience i n order to m a i n t a i n their audience M / e or market share. I n ord inary conversation che urge co gain the approval ni onc 's audience is s imi lar i n k i n d a l though less i n degree.

'l 'he audience design f ramework was developed to account for these pat-uans i n face-to-face as w e l l as mass c o m m u n i c a t i o n . T h e m a i n points can be s i immar ized l ike this :

1 . Style is luhat an individual speaker does with a language in relation to other peo­ple. T h e basic tenet of audience design is that style is oriented to people rather than to mechanisms such as at tent ion. Style is essentially a social t h i n g . I t marks interpersonal and intergroup relations. I t is interactlve - and active.

Language Style as Audience Design 2 6 9

A l t h o u g h audience design and its hypotheses are based on evidence b e h i n d this propos i t ion , this is really a premise rather than a hypothesis. O u r view of style is u l t imate ly derived f r o m our view of che nature o f h u m a n persons. B e h i n d audience design chere lies a strong and quite general c la im that the character of (intra-speaker) style shif t derives at a deep level f r o m the nature of (inter-speaker) language differences between people.

2. Style derives its meaningfrom the association of linguistic features luith particular social groups. T h e social evaluación of a group is cransferred co the l inguist ic features that are associated w i t h that group. T h e l i n k between differences i n the language of di f ferent groups ('social' var ia t ion i n Labov's terms) and w i t h i n the language of i n d i v i d u a l speakers (stylistic variat ion) is made by society's evaluation of the group's language (F igure 18.2). Sociolinguists have noted this at least since Ferguson and G u m p e r z (1960). Evaluat ion o f a l i n ­guistic variable and style shif t of that variable are reciprocal , as L a b o v (1972) demonstrated i n idenci fying these 'marker ' variables. Evaluat ion is always associated w i t h style shif t , and style shif t w i t h evaluation. Those few variables w h i c h do not show style shif t (indicators) are also not evaluated i n the speech c o m m u n i t y . Stylistic meaning therefore has what we can cali a normative basis. A par t i cu lar style is normally associated w i t h a par t i cu lar group or s i tu-at ion, and therefore carries w i t h it the flavor of those associations.

3. Speakers design their style primarily for and in response to their audience. T h i s is the heart of audience design. Style shi f t occurs p r i m a r i l y i n response to a change i n the speaker's audience. Audience design is generally manifested

1. Group has ¡ts own identity, evaluated by self and others

2. Group ditferentiates its language from others': 'social', or inter-speaker variaton (indicators)

4. Others shift relative to group's language: 'style', or intra-speaker variation (markers)

3. Group's language is evaluated by self and others: linguistic evaluation

Figure 18.2 The der iva t ion o f sty le f r o m in ter -speaker var ia t ion

270 PART III: STYLE, STYUZATION AND IDENTITY

in a speaker shif t ing cheir style to be more like that of the person they are is ta lking to - this is 'convergence' i n the terms of the Speech/Communicat ion Accommodat ion T h e o r y developed by Giles and associates (see Chapter 19). Response is the p r i m a r y mode of style shift. Style is a responsive phenom-enon, but it is actively so, not passive.

Th i s can be seen i n a study o f the speech of a travel agent carried out by Coupland (1984). Coupland recorded an assistant i n a travel agency in con­versación w i t h a wide social range of clients. He quantif ied the assistant's level for the intervocalic (t) voicing variable when speaking to different groups of clients, and compared that w i t h the levéis the clients use i n their o w n speech. Figure 18.3 shows how the travel assistant accommodates towards the clieats' own levéis of (t) voic ing, shif t ing to more (t) voicing for lower-class clients who use more voicing themselves, and to less (t) voic ing w i t h higher-ciass clients. I n this style shift she goes on average at least halfway to meet her clients.

4. Audience design applies to all codes and levéis of a language repertoire, mono-lingual and middlingual. Audience design does not refer only to quanti tat ive

100% -1

0%

Client's level

Assistant's level

Assistant's input level

IIIN IV V

Addressee class

Figure 18.3 Travel assistant's convergence on intervocalic (t) voicing variable to five occupational classes of clients

Note: Input level taken as assistant's speech to own class, ÍIIN (derived írom Coupland 1984: Figure 4).

Language Style as Audience Design

style shift o f ind iv idua l sociohnguistic variables such as (ng). W i t h i n a s ¡ i i ) ' l r language, i t involves features such as cholee of personal pronouns or adilir>;:, terms ( E r v i n - T r i p p 1972) and politeness strategies ( B r o w n and L c v i i i : ; i i i i 1987), as well as quantitative style-shift ing. Audience design also applii-:; in all codes and repertoires w i t h i n a speech communi ty , i nc lud ing the i ; \ v i h h from one complete language to another i n b i l ingua l situations. I t l i ; i ; ; I n m ' been recognized that the processes which make a mono l ingua l s l i i l i :,ivh are the same as those wh ich make a b i l ingua l switch languages. W l u n .1 monol ingua l speaker o f Engl ish w i l l make quanti tat ive shifts on a i i i i n i l i . 1 ni l inguistic variables when t a lk ing to a stranger rather than to a family n i c i i i l " 1 , a b i l ingua l speaker i n parts of Scotland, for example, w i l l shift froi i i i : i l l Gaelic to a family member in to Engl i sh to address a stranger.

5. Variation on the style dimensión luithin the speech of a single speaker (L'ri'i'i'\\oiii

and echoes the variation which exists between speakers on the 'social' ¡liiiirii .ii'ii

This style ax iom (Bel l 1984: 151) claims that the inter-relat ion b c i W L H i i mi 1 :i speaker style shift and inter-speaker dialect differences is a deriv;ii ion I I h axiom refers bo th to the historical origins o f styles, and to the prcsciii M , mi which styles carry social meaning. T h a t is, dis t inct styles or ig in ; i ic i l m p r i differences i n the language of different groups. A n d styles carry ;i | I ; I M M ni 11

social meaning now in the present because of their association w i i h i ln hm guage of par t icu lar groups.

T h e style ax iom encapsulates the often-noted fact that the saine Imi ' i n i i . variables o p é r a t e simultaneously on bo th social and stylistic d i i i u l u m i ., that for one isolated variable i t may be di f f icul t to dis t inguish a \:: i : ,n:il , . i l . , man f r o m a careful pipefi t ter ' (Labov 1972: 240). I t also reflccis ilu- i | n . i n i i tative relationship of the social and stylistic dimensions: che maxnnnin i ' }• shift on graphs such as Figure 4.1 i n Chapter 4 (i.e. Trudgi l l ' s (ii!',i) 1 : . n .n ally less than the m á x i m u m difference between social groups. On l i l u l i n i r . graph, the greatest style shift is b y che Upper W o r k i n g Class ;nul 1:. : i l i i i in . . 1 1 per cent, whi le the m á x i m u m difference betvi'een the differcni i:l;i;;:,c:. 1 : , M i n n

95 per cent i n style B .

6. Speakers show a fine-grained ability to design their style for a raniy o/ Jt/I.1,11:

addressees, and to a lesser degree for other audience members. These ;nc iln- i l,r, j . ñ n d i n g s o f Giles's accommodation model (e.g. Giles and Powcshnul \'> i'>, Chapter 19). I n its essence, speech accommodation theory proposoil 1 l i : i i \\u i | ers accommodate their speech style to their hearers i n order to vviii : i | ' i ' i " ' ' I A l though the theory was extensively expanded and revised duriui,; ilu- l ' i ; ; i i its pr incipal insight has been that speakers respond p r imar i l y to i l icn : M h l i . n, 1 i n designing their talk. As well as changing the way they talk w l i f n : u l i l i > ing different people, there is good evidence that speakers can make cv in l i i n 1 shifts to cater to a range of different people w i t h i n their audience.

• 7 2 PART III: STYLE, STYUZATION AND IDENTITY

N o t a l l a u d i e n c e m e m b e r s are e q u a l l y i m p o r t a n t . W e c a n d i s t i n g u i s h

. I I K I r a n k t h e i r ro les a c c o r d i n g t o w h e t h e r o r n o t t h e y are k n o w n , r a t i f i e d

1 1 1 ' a d d r e s s e d b y t h e sp eaker . W e c a n p i c t u r e t h e m as o c c u p y i n g c o n c e n t r i c

1 l í e les , e a c h o n e m o r e d i s t a n t f r o m t h e s p e a k e r ( F i g u r e 1 8 .4 ) . T h e m a i n c h a r -

i i i i L T i n t h e a u d i e n c e is t h e s e c o n d p e r s o n , t h e addressee, w h o is k n o w n , r a t i -

l i c i i a n d a d d r e s s e d . A m o n g t h e o t h e r , t h i r d p e r s o n s w h o m a y be p r e s e n t , t h e

.iiiiiitors are k n o w n a n d r a t i f i e d i n t e r l o c u t o r s w i t h i n t h e g r o u p . T h i r d p a r t i e s

I w l i o m t h e s p e a k e r k n o w s t o be t h e r e , b u t w h o are n o t r a t i f i e d as p a r t o f t h e

Ki 'uup, are overhearers. A n d o t h e r p a r t i e s w h o s e p r e s e n c e t h e s p e a k e r d o e s n o t

' i -vcn k n o w a b o u t are eavesdroppers.

I Speakers are ab le t o s u b t l y a d j u s t t h e i r s t y l e w h e n a s t r a n g e r j o i n s a g r o u p

; i i i d b e c o m e s a n ' a u d i t o r ' - p r e s e n t i n t h e g r o u p b u t n o t d i r e c t l y a d d r e s s e d .

' T l i e y e v e n r e s p o n d to t h e p r e s e n c e o f a n o v e r h e a r e r w h o is w i t h i n e a r s h o t b u t

is n o t p a r t o f t h e speaker ' s c o n v e r s a t i o n a l c i r c l e . I n a b i l i n g u a l c o m m u n i t y

i n H u n g a r y , f o r i n s t a n c e , t h e a r r i v a l o f a m o n o l i n g u a l G e r m á n s p e a k e r at

a n H u n g a r i a n - s p e a k i n g i n n c a n be e n o u g h t o m a k e t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n s w i t c h

i n t o G e r m á n ( G a l 1979) . T h e s w i t c h b e t w e e n d i f f e r e n t l a n g u a g e s is a m u c h

m o r e o b v i o u s m a n i f e s t a t i o n o f o v e r h e a r e r d e s i g n t h a n t h e q u a n t i t a t i v e s t y l e

s h i f t s w i t h i n t h e s a m e l a n g u a g e b y a m o n o l i n g u a l s p e a k e r , b u t t h e p r o c e s s is

b a s i c a l l y t h e s a m e .

7. Style shifts according to tapie or setting derive their meaning and direction of shift

from the underlying association of tapies or settings with typical audience members.

T h i s t e n t a t i v e h y p o t h e s i s suggests t h a t w h e n speakers s h i f t t h e i r s t y l e because

o f a c h a n g e o f t o p i c , t h i s is a n e c h o o f t h e k i n d o f s h i f t t h a t o c c u r s w h e n a

Figure 18.4 Persons and roles in t h e speech s i t u a t i o n

language Style as Audience Design 273

speaker s ty le s h i f t s i n r e s p o n s e t o t h e k i n d o f addressee a p a r t i c u l a r t o p i c is

assoc ia ted w i t h . I t i m p l i e s t h a t w e t a l k a b o u t e d u c a t i o n i n a s ty le t h a t echoes

h o w w e t a l k t o a teacher , o r a b o u t w o r k i n a s t y l e t h a t echoes h o w w e t a l k t o t h e

boss. T h u s C o u p l a n d ' s s t u d y m e n t i o n e d above also f o u n d t h a t t h e t r a v e l a g e n t

s h i f t e d h e r s t y l e s i g n i f i c a n t l y b e t w e e n w o r k - r e l a t e d t o p i c s a n d o t h e r t o p i c s .

8. As well as the 'responsive' dimensión of style, there is the 'initiative' dimensión.

H e r e t h e s t y l e s h i f t i t s e l f initiates a c h a n g e i n t h e s i t u a t i o n r a t h e r t h a n residting

f r o m s u c h a c h a n g e .

S o c i o l i n g u i s t s h a v e d r a w n a t t e n t i o n t o t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n a t leas t s ince B l o m

a n d G u m p e r z ( 1 9 7 2 ) . I n r e s p o n s i v e s t y l e s h i f t , t h e r e is a r e g u l a r a s s o c i a t i o n

b e t w e e n l a n g u a g e a n d s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n . T h e e n t r y o f o u t s i d e r s t o a l o c a l g r o u p ,

f o r e x a m p l e , t r i g g e r s a s w i t c h f r o m l o c a l d i a l e c t to s t a n d a r d s p e e c h . T h e s e

s i t u a t i o n a l s h i f t s r e ñ e c t t h e s p e e c h c o m m u n i t y ' s n o r m s o f w h a t is a p p r o p r i a t e

spe e c h f o r c e r t a i n a u d i e n c e s . I n i t i a t i v e s t y l e t r a d e s o n s u c h r e g u l a r assoc ia-

t i o n s , i n f u s i n g t h e flavour o f o n e s e t t i n g i n t o a d i f f e r e n t c o n t e x t . H e r e l a n ­

g u a g e b e c o m e s a n i n d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e w h i c h i t s e l f shapes t h e s i t u a t i o n . So

w e find b i l i n g u a l speakers w h o s w i t c h o u t o f t h e i r u s u a l h o m e l a n g u a g e i n t o

t h e p r e s t i g e l a n g u a g e o f t h e w i d e r c o m m u n i t y i n o r d e r t o c l i n c h a n a r g u m e n t

w i t h a f a m i l y m e m b e r . I n i n i t i a t i v e s t y l e s h i f t , t h e i n d i v i d u a l s p e a k e r m a k e s

c r e a t i v e use o f l a n g u a g e r e s o u r c e s o f t e n f r o m b e y o n d t h e i m m e d i a t e s p e e c h

c o m m u n i t y , s u c h as d i s t a n t d i a l e c t s , o r s t r e t c h e s t h o s e r e s o u r c e s i n n o v e l

d i r e c t i o n s . L i t e r a r y e x a m p l e s o f t h i s k i n d o f ' s t y l i z a t i o n ' ( B a k h t i n 1981) are

w e l l k n o w n i n t h e use t h a t J. R . R . T o l k i e n a n d James Joyce , f o r e x a m p l e , h a v e

m a d e o f o t h e r d i a l e c t s o r l a n g u a g e s t o c r é a t e t h e i r o w n u n i q u e v o ices .

9. Initiative style shifts are in essence 'referee design', by which the linguistic fea­

tures associated with a group can be used ta express identification with that group.

I n i t i a t i v e s ty le s h i f t s d e r i v e t h e i r f o r c é a n d t h e i r d i r e c t i o n o f s h i f t f r o m t h e i r

u n d e r l y i n g a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h k i n d s o f p e r s o n s o r g r o u p s . T h e y f o c u s o n a n

absent r e f e r e n c e g r o u p r a t h e r t h a n t h e p r e s e n t addressee , f o r e x a m p l e b y

a d o p t i n g a n o n - n a t i v e accent . Referees are t h i r d p e r s o n s w h o are n o t p h y s i -

c a l l y p r e s e n t at a n i n t e r a c t i o n b u t w h o are so s a l i e n t f o r a s p e a k e r t h a t t h e y

i n f l u e n c e s ty le e v e n i n t h e i r absence . I n i t i a t i v e s ty le s h i f t is e s s e n t i a l l y a r e d e f i -

n i t i o n b y t h e s p e a k e r o f t h e i r o w n i d e n t i t y i n r e l a t i o n to t h e i r a u d i e n c e . So

i n m a n y N e w Z e a l a n d te lev i s ión c o m m e r c i a l s , n o n - N e w Z e a l a n d accents are

u s e d i n o r d e r t o c a l i u p d e s i r a b l e a s s o c i a t i o n s w i t h a r i s t o c r a c y t h r o u g h use o f

B r i t i s h R e c e i v e d P r o n u n c i a t i o n , o r w i t h t h e s t r e e t w i s e w h e e l e r - d e a l e r t h r o u g h

i m i t a t i o n o f C o c k n e y ( B e l l 1992) . T r u d g i l l ' s s t u d y o f t h e accents o f p o p s ingers

s h o w s h o w B r i t i s h s i n g e r s h a v e a d o p t e d f e a t u r e s o f A m e r i c a n E n g l i s h i n o r d e r

t o associate w i t h t h e p r e s t i g e o f A m e r i c a n p o p u l a r m u s i c . T h e y h a v e also b e e n

k n o w n to a d o p t B r i t i s h w o r k i n g - c l a s s f e a t u r e s i n s i n g i n g m u s i c ( s u c h as p u n k )

w h i c h is a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e v a l ú e s o f t h a t class.

2 7 4 PART III: STYLE, STYLIZATION AND IDENTITY

Conclusión

The smdy of style has had a chequered career in SocioUnguistics. In 1972 Labov wrote that 'the most immediate problem to be solved in the attack on socioünguistic structure is the quantification of the dimensión of style'. Howeverj in the intervening years there has been much less study of styüs-tic variation than of variation between different groups of speakers. Style is attracting more interest again, and as the American scholars Rickford and McNair-Knox have written (1994: 52): 'Wi th respect to theory development, stylistic variation seems to offer more potential for the integration of past findings and the estabhshment of productive research agendas than virtually any other área in sociolinguistics.'

Style research seems to be taking two directions. One of these is manifested in the work of Finegan and Biber (1994), vvhose 'multi-dimensional' approach developed as an alternative to the one I have taken above. The other direction responds to criticisms of both attention and audience factors as inadequate to account for the pervasiveness of initiative style and for the fact that lan-guage is not just a reflection of social structure. Recent critica! social theoriz-ing stresses that language is not independent of society. The hnguistic and the social are not two cleanly sepárate dimensions, and language constitutes social reality as well as reflecting it. Identity may be revealed and expressed by language on its own, as for instance when we can tell what kind of person a speaker is just from hearing them on the radio, with no other clues to their character. This approach promises new insights into the natura of socioün­guistic style (Coupland 1997; also Chapter 22, this volume).

} REFERENCES

Bakhtin, M . M . 1981. The Dialogic Imaginación. Ausün, Texas: University of Texas Press.

BeU, A. 1984. Language sc>'le as audience design. Language in Society 13: 145-204. Bell, A. 1991. Audience accommodation in the mass media. In H. Giles, N . Coupland

and J. Coupland (eds.) Contexts of Accommodation - Developments in Applied Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 69-102.

Beil, A. (1992) 'Hit and Miss: Referee Design in the Dialects of New ZealandTelevision Advertisements', Language and Communication, 12(3-4), pp. 327-40.

Blom, J-P. and J. J. Guraperz. 1972. Social meaning in linguistic structure: Code-switching in Norway. In J. J. Gumperz and D. Hymes, D. (eds.) Directions in Sociolinguistics. New York: Holt, Rinehart andWinston. 407-434.

Brown, P. and S. C. Levinson. 1987 [1978]. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. 2nd edidon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Language Style as Audience Design 2 7 S

Coupland, N . 1984. Accommodation at work: Some phonological data and thcir impücanons. International Journal of the Soaology of Language 46: 49-70.

Coupland, N . 1997. Language, context and che relational self: Re-theorising dialoci style in sociolinguistics. In P. Eckert and J. Ricidbrd (eds.) Style and Sociolinguisii, Variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 185-210.

Dorian, N . C . 1981. Language Death: The Life Cycle of a Scoaish Gaelic l)i,il,;i Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Ervin-Tripp, S. M . (1972) 'On Socioünguistic Rules: Alternación and CO-OCCUDTI I I I', in Gumperz,}. J. and Hymes, D. (eds) Directions in Sociolinguistics. New York: i . Rinehart & Winston. 213-250.

Ferguson, C. A. and J. J. Gumperz (eds.). 1960. Linguistic diversiry in Soulli i\-,m International Journal of American Linguistics 26(3), part 3. Bloomington, ImluinM Indiana University Press.

Finegan, E. and D. Biber. 1994. Regiscer and social dialect variation: An J approach. In D. Biber and E. Finegan (eds.) Sociolinguistic Perspectives on A'.v.'ii/.i

O.xlbrd: Oxford University Press. 315-347. Gal, S. 1979. Language Shift: Social Determinants of Linguistic Change in Hilniini.il

Austria. New York: Academic Press. Giles, H. and P. F. Povvesland. 1975. Speech Style and Social Evaluation. I .HH.IMII

Academic Press. Labov, W. 1972. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Univi-i-.iiv " l

Pennsylvania Press. Rickford,]. R. and F. McNair-Knox. 1994. Addressee- and topic-influenccd :iivk .Inli

A quantitanve sociolinguistic smdy. In D. Biber and E. Finegan (eds.) Sufuthiiiiiii.n.

Perspectives on Register. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 235-276.