lesbians as leaders of linguistic change in philadelphian english [email protected] [email protected] ...

Lesbians as leaders of linguisticchange in Philadelphian English [email protected]

www.jeffconn.net

Jeff ConnNWAV 351

Photo by John Frank Keith

Lesbians as leaders of linguisticchange in Philadelphian English

NWAV 35 – Columbus, Ohio

NWAV 35


www.jeffconn.net

Jeff ConnNWAV 352

Variationist sociolinguistic studies show language change led by:

Women

The interior social classesSupported by the data from the study of Linguistic Change and Variation in Philadelphia [LCV] (Labov, 2001)

The Curvilinear Principle: Linguistic change from below originates in a central social group, located in the interior of the socioeconomic hierarchy (188)

Conformity Paradox: Women deviate less than men from linguistic norms when the deviations are overtly proscribed, but more than men when the deviations are not proscribed (367)

Also, language and gender literature investigates the linguistic behavior of gay men and lesbians, as well as criticizes the limitations of the studies on gay and lesbian speech (Jacobs, 1996; Kulick, 2000; Moonwomon-Baird, 1997; Gaudio, 1994; Cameron & Kulick, 2003) - Problematic correlation between sexual orientation and linguistic behavior


www.jeffconn.net

Jeff ConnNWAV 353

OMM (Of “moice” and men):

Re-study of Philadelphia [European Americans only] 30 years after LCV

Data collected from (2000-2003)

Focus on (ay0) and secondary foci on (aw) and (eyC)

Included self-identified gays and lesbians as part of the data set

Striving for high comparability with the original study, OMM followed the methodology and data analysis of the LCV as discussed in Labov, 2001

REPEAT OF SLIDE 6


www.jeffconn.net

Jeff ConnNWAV 354

/iyC/beat

/eyC/date

/uw/boot

/ow/boat

/aw/down/æh/

bath, ban

/æ/bat, banner

/e/dead

(ay0)ice

Philadelphia Vowel Shifts

“new and vigorous” changes

“spike”

“date”

“south”


www.jeffconn.net

Jeff ConnNWAV 355

Problem variable in the LCV data: The raising of the nucleus of the diphthong /ay/ before voiceless consonants (ay0)

Led by men

Shows no social stratification

Is (ay0) a counter-example to “typical” language change?

How does (ay0) progress through the speech community over time?

What about the movement on the front/back dimension of (ay0)?

If (ay0) does not behave like other vocalic changes in progress, are there certain gender-based evaluations of this variable? That is, do certain variants sound more masculine/feminine?

Questions from the patterning of (ay0) in the LCV data:


www.jeffconn.net

Jeff ConnNWAV 356

OMM:

Re-study of Philadelphia [European Americans only] 30 years after LCV

Data collected from (2000-2003)

Focus on (ay0) and secondary focus on (aw) and (eyC)

Included self-identified gays and lesbians as part of the data set

The current study: Of “moice” and men: The evolution of a male-led sound change [OMM]

Striving for high comparability with the original study, OMM followed the methodology and data analysis of the LCV as discussed in Labov, 2001


www.jeffconn.net

Jeff ConnNWAV 357

MethodologySample: 65 native Philadelphians

The data: sociolinguistic interviews (at subject’s house) including formal tasks of semantic differentials, minimal pairs tests, reading passage and a word list

Social Coding: Each speaker was coded for various social characteristics following the LCV (see Labov, 2001 for further details) - education, occupation and residence converted into socioeconomic class category (SEC)

age sex education occupation residence value mobility

house upkeepethnicityforeign language backgroundgenerationneighborhood of origin


www.jeffconn.net

Jeff ConnNWAV 358

Methodology

A new twist: Sexual orientation as a social factor and the Gender Index (GI)

Coded for sexual orientation

LWC UWC LMC UMC

Men 4 4 8 8Women 7 6 6 8

Gay Men 2 3Lesbian Women 4 5

Ages: 29-92Ages: 29-60

In order to investigate the role that socially constructed gender has on a person’s position within a language change situation, the GI was created (modeled after the SEI)

Had to utilize the single event interview (rather than look at intraspeaker variation) so needed to use static rather than dynamic gender aspects


www.jeffconn.net

Jeff ConnNWAV 359

MethodologyGender Index (GI)

From the idea of segregated socialization of the sexes - Cultural Difference approach in Lang and Gender (Maltz & Borker, 1982)

Why choose this type of continuum?Language is a social behavior which exists within a set of cultural/social stereotypes and expectations

The GI range is from 2 (stereotypically feminine) to 9 (stereotypically masculine)


www.jeffconn.net

Jeff ConnNWAV 3510

MethodologyGender Index (GI)

GI Category based on GI scores - distribution shown below


www.jeffconn.net

Jeff ConnNWAV 3511

Methodology

Acoustic vowel analysis

LPC analysis in Praat

Single-point, synchronous nuclear measurements of F1 and F2

Additional auditory support for single-point selection

Vowels of all Plotnik 25 vowel classes were measured - at least 5 tokens per class per speaker - complete vowel system for every speaker (200-500 tokens)

Data cleaned for measurement errors

Using Neary’s Log mean normalization in Plotnik, each speaker’s cleaned system was normalized, and from these data, a mean F1/F2 for each vowel class (and phonetic subclasses) was calculated


www.jeffconn.net

Jeff ConnNWAV 3512

Statistical AnalysisIn order to examine all the independent variables at the same time, a stepwise multiple regression analysis was conducted using the following independent social variables:

age sex education occupation residence value {3 above

separately or SEC} (Socioeconomic Class Category)

mobilityhouse upkeepethnicityforeign language backgroundgeneration (2nd generation Philadelphian)neighborhood of origin


www.jeffconn.net

Jeff ConnNWAV 3513

Statistical Analysis

Results of gender variables for (ay0)

Sexual orientation for both F1 and F2 (ay0) is not a significant social factor predicting values as either a binary category (gay/lesbian~hetero) or a combo 4-way split of sex and sexual orientation (details of (ay0) discussed at NWAV34 – see at http://www.jeffconn.net/papers.html )Binary Category Sex/Sexual Orientation

Combo

F1 F2 F1 F2

p < . 0.9478 p <0 .5843 p < 0.6660 p < 0.3294

So now onto (aw) and (eyC) . . .


www.jeffconn.net

Jeff ConnNWAV 3514

Apparent Time F2 (aw) Results

The stepwise regression analysis of (aw) selected the following social variables as significant factors in predicting F2 (aw) values

age sex

SEC (Socioeconomic Class Category)


www.jeffconn.net

Jeff ConnNWAV 3515


This model with age, sex and SEC can account for 26% of the variation (r2 = 0.256) of F2 (aw) in the data, with age as a significant predictor at p < .05

Data show change in apparent time (reversal of direction predicted by LCV = (aw) is now backing in Philadelphia)

1800

1900

2000

2100

2200

< 30 30-39 40-49 50-59 60+

Age Group

Pre

dic

ted

F2

(aw

)


www.jeffconn.net

Jeff ConnNWAV 3516

Real Time F2 (aw) Results

Apparent time analysis supported by real time data when combined OMM data with LCV data (and adding 30 years to age of LCV speakers)

1600

1700

1800

1900

2000

2100

2200

14-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90+

Age Group

Pre

dic

ted

F2

(aw

)

Predicted F2 (aw) values by age group LCV/OMM combined data


www.jeffconn.net

Jeff ConnNWAV 3517


When data are sorted by sex, men no longer show change in progress

(age p = 0.8948) but women still do (age p = 0.0138)

1800

1900

2000

2100

2200

< 30 30-39 40-49 50-59 60+

Age Group

Pre

dic

ted

F2

(a

w)

Women

Men

Predicted F2 (aw) values with regression lines for age groups for each sex


www.jeffconn.net

Jeff ConnNWAV 3518


When the variable Sex is substituted for the 4-way category Sex/Sexual Orientation (SO), this new variable is still significant predictor of F2 (aw) values at the p < .10 level (p = 0.07) [age and SEC also still significant predictors in this model at p levels of 0.0437 and 0.0652 respectively].

1800

1900

2000

2100

2200

HeterosexualWomen

Gay Men Lesbians HeterosexualMen

Sex/Sexual Orientation

Pre

dic

ted

F2

(a

w)

Predicted F2 (aw) values by sex/sexual orientation


www.jeffconn.net

Jeff ConnNWAV 3519

1600

1700

1800

1900

2000

2100

2200

2300

< 30 30-39 40-49 50-59 60+Age Group

Pre

dic

ted

F2

(aw

)

HeterosexualWomen

Lesbians


Looking at just the women’s data, the picture of language is similar to one sorted by sex, although these data are sorted by sexual orientation.

Predicted F2 (aw) values for women of two sexual orientations


www.jeffconn.net

Jeff ConnNWAV 3520


SEC - When the women are sorted by SEC, it is the LMC lesbians who are really a step ahead of their heterosexual counterparts

Predicted F2 (aw) values of social class categories for women

1800

1900

2000

2100

2200

LWC UWC LMC UMC

SEC

Pre

dic

ted

F2

(a

w)

All Women

HeterosexualWomen

Lesbians


www.jeffconn.net

Jeff ConnNWAV 3521


For F2 (aw), both GI score (p = .0286) and GI CAT (p = .0631) statistically significant social factor (at p < .10 level)

1600

1700

1800

1900

2000

2100

2200

2300

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

GI score

Pre

dic

ted

F2

(aw

)

Predicted F2 (aw) by GI score

1600

1700

1800

1900

2000

2100

2200

2300

Feminine Neutral Masculine

Gender Category

Pre

dic

ted

F2

(a

w)

Predicted F2 (aw) values by gender category

With regard to the direction of this change, non-feminine groups lead change


www.jeffconn.net

Jeff ConnNWAV 3522

Apparent Time F1 (eyC) ResultsUnlike LCV data, F2 of (eyC) does not show significant age effects (no change in progress for the F2 dimension). The stepwise regression analysis of (eyC) selected the following social variables as significant factors in predicting F1 (eyC) values

age sex

SEC (Socioeconomic Class Category)


www.jeffconn.net

Jeff ConnNWAV 3523

Apparent Time F1 (eyC) Results

This model with age, sex and SEC can account for 43% of the variation (r2 = 0.432) of F1 (eyC) in the data, with age as a significant predictor at p < .0001

Sex and SEC significant predictors (p = 0.0012 and 0.0004, respectively) in the raising of this vowel (lower F1 values)

400

500

600

700< 30 30-39 40-49 50-59 60+

Age Group

Pre

dic

ted

F1

(e

yC

)

Predicted F1 (eyC) values by age groups


www.jeffconn.net

Jeff ConnNWAV 3524

Real Time F1 (eyC) Results

Apparent time analysis supported by real time data when combined OMM data with LCV data (and adding 30 years to age of LCV speakers)

SEC and sex not significant factors in real time analysis at p < .10 level) Couldn’t investigate sexual orientation in real time

Predicted F1 (eyC) values by age group LCV/OMM combined data

Add

400

500

600

70014-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90+

Age Group

Pre

dic

ted

F1

(eyC

)


www.jeffconn.net

Jeff ConnNWAV 3525

Apparent Time F1 (eyC) Results(Sex/SO) variable has a significant effect at the p < .10 level (p value of 0.0060), and 43% of the variation is accounted for (r2 = 0.434). Both age and SEC are still significant at the p <.10 level. Lesbians show the highest vowels (represented by lowest F1 values) while gay men show the lowest vowels

580576554

535

400

500

600

700LesbianWomen

HeterosexualWomen

HeterosexualMen

Gay Men

Sex/Sexual Orientation

Pre

dic

ted

F1

(eyC

)

Predicted F1 (eyC) values by sex/sexual orientation

24


www.jeffconn.net

Jeff ConnNWAV 3526

Apparent Time F1 (eyC) ResultsSEC and Sex/SO: Lesbians do not show change in apparent time (age not significant factor at p <.10 level)

All other Sex/SO groups do show age as significant, so other groups are catching up to the lesbians with respect to raising of this vowel

Only men’s groups show SEC as significant factor (heterosexual men p < .01; gay men p < .07)

400

500

600

700

LWC UWC LMC UMCSEC

Pre

dic

ted

F1

(eyC

)

HeterosexualMen

HeterosexualWomen

Gay Men

LesbianWomen

Predicted F1 (eyC) values by sex/sexual orientation for each SEC

25


www.jeffconn.net

Jeff ConnNWAV 3527

Apparent Time F1 (eyC) Results

400

500

600

700

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

GI score

Pre

dic

ted

F1

(eyC

)

For F1 (eyC), both GI score (p = .0157) and GI CAT (p = .0173) statistically significant social factor (at the p < .05 level)

Similar to the curvilinear hypothesis, this analysis suggests that it is the speakers located in the interior of a masculine/feminine continuum who are leading this change (a gender curvilinear hypothesis?)

400

500

600

700

Feminine Neutral Masculine

Gender Category

Pre

dic

ted

F1

(eyC

)Predicted F1 (eyC) values by gender categoryPredicted F1 (eyC) for each GI score

26


www.jeffconn.net

Jeff ConnNWAV 3528

SUMMARY

With 2 variables involved in language change, lesbians show up as leaders of linguistic change

(aw) should be noted that this change is a reversal of direction, so lesbians being ahead may be in opposition to the heterosexual lead in the other direction

(eyC) is also a change involved in the redefinition of Philadelphia from a southern city to a northern one - may interact with sexual orientation

Labov’s depiction of leaders of language change as women who are anti-establishment, strong and the centers of their social circles may be defining a type of women captured in my data by lesbians = TOMBOYS, or women who do not define themselves by stereotypically feminine traits

27


www.jeffconn.net

Jeff ConnNWAV 3529

2 B continuedWhat’s next?

Explanations of why lesbians are leaders of language change

Other socioling variables show the same effect of sexual orientation?

Is sexual orientation the true social variable or is it more likely gender?

Need more data on gay men to see where they pattern with respect to language change.

Need other studies to examine sexual orientation as a possible significant social factor in language change

Need to improve Gender Index to examine the role of gender socialization with respect to dialect acquisition

Check out my website to download this presentation www.jeffconn.net Thank You!

28


www.jeffconn.net

Jeff ConnNWAV 3530

REFERENCESCameron, Deborah and Kulick, Don. 2003. Language and Sexuality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Eckert, Penelope. 1989. The whole woman: Sex and gender differences in variation. Language Variation and Change 1:245-268.Eckert, Penelope. 2000. Linguistic Variation as Social Practice. Oxford: Blackwell.Gaudio, Rudolph P. 1994. Sounding gay: Pitch properties in the speech of gay and straight men. American Speech 69:30-57.Jacobs, Greg. 1996. Lesbian and gay male language: A critical review of the literature. American

Speech 71(1):49-71. Kulick, Don. 2000. Gay and lesbian Language. Annual Review of Anthropology 29:243-285. Maltz, Daniel N. and Borker, Ruth A. 1982. A cultural approach to male-female miscommunication.

In Gumperz, John J (ed.), Language and Social Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 196-216.Moonwomon-Baird, Birch. 1997. Toward a study of lesbian speech. In Livia, Anna and Kira Hall (eds.), Queerly Phrased: Language, Gender and Sexuality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 202-213. Labov, William. 1994. Principles of Linguistic Change, vol. 1: Internal Factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Labov, William. 2001. Principles of Linguistic Change, vol. 2: Social Factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Milroy, Leslie. 1987. Language and social networks (2nd Ed.). Oxford: Blackwell

Please see my dissertation for more references and further accounts of these data.Conn, Jeff. 2005. Of “moice” and men: The evolution of a male-led sound change. Ph.D. dissertation. The University of Pennsylvania. Available at my website: www.jeffconn.net

29

lesbians as leaders of linguistic change in philadelphian english [email protected] [email protected] ...

Documents