the sociolinguistics of the metropolis
DESCRIPTION
The Sociolinguistics of the Metropolis. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
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. Volume Sound Control of Vernacular inform’n of speech quality variables
Sociolinguistic interview Variable Excellent Excellent Excellent VariableGroup sessions Excellent Variable Variable Fair PoorParticipant observation Excellent Excellent Excellent None NoneSite studies Good Poor Variable Poor NoneRapid & anonymous surveys Poor Poor Poor None ExcellentWritten texts Poor Variable Variable None NoneStudies of mass mediaPoor Poor Variable Excellent NoneLaboratory experiments Poor Excellent Variable Excellent ExcellentDirect elicitation Poor Excellent Fair Excellent ExcellentIntrospection Poor Excellent None None Excellent
Ten methods for gathering linguistic data in the metropolis
Approach to Demogr. Volume Sound Control of Vernacular inform’n of speech quality variables
Sociolinguistic interview Variable Excellent Excellent Excellent VariableGroup sessions Excellent Variable Variable Fair PoorParticipant observation Excellent Excellent Excellent None NoneSite studies Good Poor Variable Poor NoneRapid & anonymous surveys Poor Poor Poor None ExcellentWritten texts Poor Variable Variable None NoneStudies of mass mediaPoor Poor Variable Excellent NoneLaboratory experiments Poor Excellent Variable Excellent ExcellentDirect elicitation Poor Excellent Fair Excellent ExcellentIntrospection Poor Excellent None None Excellent
Saks 1962 Macy's 1962 S. Klein 1962
0
20
40
60
80
All
Some
Store
% using constricted [r]
Percent [r] in rapid and anonymous study of three New York City department stores, 1962
Source: Labov 1966
Saks 1962 Macy's 1962 S. Klein 1962
0
20
40
60
80
All
Some
Store
% using constricted [r]
Saks 1986 Macy's 1986 May's 1986
0
20
40
60
80
All
Some
Store
% using constricted [r]
Percent [r] in rapid and anonymous study of three New York City department stores, 1962 and 1986
Source: Labov 1966, Fowler 1986
15-30 35-50 55-70
0
20
40
60
80
100
All [r]
Some [r]
Saks 1962
Age
% using [r]
Source: Labov 1966
Percent [r] in by age in Saks
15-30 35-50 55-70
0
20
40
60
80
100
All [r]
Some [r]
Saks 1962
Age
% using [r]
15-30 35-50 55-70
0
20
40
60
80
100
All [r]
Some [r]
Saks 1986
Age
% using [r]
Source: Labov 1966, Fowler 1986
Percent [r] in by age in Saks, 1962 and 1986
15-30 35-50 55-70
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
All [r]
Some [r]
Macy's 1962
Age
% using [r]
Percent [r] in by age in Macy’s
Source: Labov 1966
15-30 35-50 55-70
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
All [r]
Some [r]
Macy's 1962
Age
% using [r]
15-30 35-50 55-70
0
20
40
60
80
100
All [r]
Some [r]
Macy's 1986
Age
% using [r]
Percent [r] in by age in Macy’s, 1962 and 1986
Source: Labov 1966, Fowler 1986
fourth floor FOURTH FLOOR
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Saks
Macy's
Klein
1962
% using all [r]
Percent [r] in by stress and position
Source: Labov 1966
fourth floor FOURTH FLOOR
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Saks
Macy's
Klein
1962
% using all [r]
fourth floor FOURTH FLOOR
0
20
40
60
80
Saks
Macy's
May's
1986
% using all [r]
Source: Labov 1966, Fowler 1986
Percent [r] in by stress and position, 1982 and 1986
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Saks Macy's Klein's/May's
1962
1986
Overall increase in percent [r] from 1962 to 1986
Source: Labov 1966, Fowler 1986
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Saks Macy's Klein's/May's/Bradlee's
1996
1986
1962
Overall increase in percent [r] from 1962 to 1996
Source: Labov 1966, Fowler 1986, Tiernan 1996
Labov 1962
Tiernan 1996
Fowler 1986
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Casual Careful Reading Word List Minimal Pairs
Style
Percent [r]
96-84-52-310
Social and stylistic stratification of (r) in the random sample of the Lower East Side of New York City [N=81]
The cross-over pattern
SOCIO-ECONOMICCLASS
higher
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]
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
40 and over 20 to 39 8 to 19
Age
Per cent constricted /r/
Upper middle class
Lower Middle class
Working class
Lower class
0
20
40
60
80
100
Lower class Lower workingclass
Upper workingclass
Lower middleclass
Upper middleclass
Percent positive evaluation of (r)
8 to 17
18 to 39
40 and over
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
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
16 to 17 18 to 19 20 to 24 25 to 29 30 to 34 35 to 39 40 to 49 50 to 59
Age
Percent positive on two-choice test
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)