Language and Socio-Economic Status Flashcards
identify the differences between “caste societies” and “industrial societies” in relation to language
CASTE SOCIETIES
In India and Indonesia, society is stratified into different castes.
Castes are relatively stable, clearly named social groups, rigidly separated from one another, with hereditary
membership, and little to no possibility of in-and-out movement.
Because of rigid separation between different castes, language variations across different castes tend to be
readily observable, and caste language differences are sometimes greater than regional language differences.
Caste varieties are thus easier to study and describe than social dialects (= sociolects), which describe
language varieties spoken in societies where social and geographic mobility is possible.
Social structure determined by the Hindu caste system:
Brahmans (teachers & priests):
Rajputs (warrior-rulers):
Vaishyas (merchants)
various middle castes: artisans & laborers
the “untouchables”:
Chamars (landless workers): 12%
Jatia Chamars (leather workers): 2%
Bhangis (sweepers): 4%
According to Gumperz, different castes were distinguished both phonologically and lexically, with each caste having a vocabulary specific to their subculture (→ the language varieties of these social groups reflect their lack of social mobility).
INDUSTRIAL SOCIETIES
Social dialect (= sociolect) refers to the language variety spoken by a particular social (or occupational) group.
Sociolects may coincide with standard varieties (AmE + General American English; BrE + Received
Pronounciation) or differ from them in terms of phonetics, phonology, lexis, and/or grammar.
The presence or absence of certain linguistic features relative to standard varieties has been found to vary in
accordance with social stratification (= the existence of various social groups in a society, characterized by
dissimilarities in status and social class).
To analyze the extent to which language reflects social stratification, sociolinguists select one or more linguistic
variables.
(Socio-)linguistic variable = a theoretical construct introduced by William Labov (1963) to describe patterns of
linguistic variation. A variable of this kind has 2+ identifiable linguistic forms; the meaning, however, stays
the same.
6 different categories of linguistic variables:
phonological (ng), morphological (3rd person), lexical (soda-pop), syntactic (clause structure), pragmatic (word order), suprasegmental (intonation).
Sociolinguists distinguish between sharp stratification (= pronounced) and gradient stratification (= discrete) in relation to these linguistic variables.
William Labov (1972b) also distinguishes among what he calls “indicators,” “markers,” and “stereotypes.”
indicator = linguistic variable with little to no social significance (e.g., “cot” and “caught” pronounced differently by
some North American speakers)
marker = linguistic variable with social significance (e.g., the non-rhotic “car” /kɑː/ in NYC, which is associated with
lower-class speakers in that city)
stereotype = linguistic variable with social significance used as a negative basis for negative comments (e.g., outsiders
associate NY working-class speech with pronouncing “bird” as “boid”)
in industrialized societies – i.e., societies where social and geographic mobility is possible – one’s socio-economic status
may be understood as lying at the intersection of 2+ of these variables (occupation, education, income level, housing type, neighborhood).
recall the socio-economic and linguistic variables sociolinguists consider when distinguishing among informants
informants are assigned to social classes through the use of composite scores derived from various scales which “measure” some of the factors mentioned above. Certain scales used in sociolinguistic studies draw on sociological research: e.g.,
Labov’s 10-point scale for the Lower East Side study inspired by the ranking system of the Mobilization for Youth (MFY)
program, which took into account occupation, education, and income to assess young individuals at various levels of risk of juvenile delinquency.
understand the similarities and differences between Bernstein’s and Eckert’s studies, .
Penelope Eckert devoted a book-length study to comparing language use in the two main youth groups in a suburban high school in Detroit.
Her ethnographic approach involved gaining acceptance as someone who, though a little older, did not identify with
adults, and especially with the informants’ teachers. Consequently, her study lasted for two years.
The sociolinguist focused on Belten High School’s two most prominent youth groups, which she presumed to constitute
two different communities of practice (= aggregate[s] of people who come together around mutual engagement in some
common endeavour):
“Jocks”: students who enthusiastically participate in (extra)curricular activities (e.g., sports, clubs, etc.) and abide by
school values;
“Burnouts”: students who do not actively involve themselves in school-life activities and reject authority.
One of the linguistic variables Eckert took into consideration was “negative concord” (= double negatives), which does
not conform with standard British and American English; many vernacular (non-standard) varieties of English do,
however, display negative concord.
The American sociolinguist found that “Burnouts” exhibit a higher proportion of negative concord in their speech
compared to “Jocks”. In terms of gender, “Jock” girls showed the lowest tendency to use double negatives.
→ people who are alike in some social aspects (socio-economic status and age) could still exhibit linguistic differences if
they belonged to different communities of practice.
Caste language
Because of rigid separation between different castes, language variations across different castes tend to be.
Caste varieties are thus easier to study and describe than social dialects (= sociolects), which describe language varieties spoken in societies where social and geographic mobility is possible.
One of the first studies to look at caste-based language differences was carried out by John Gumperz in the late 1950s.
understand the similarities and differences between Bernstein’s and Eckert’s studies,
The British sociologist argues working-class students are less socially and geographically mobile than middle-class students → the former are more likely to live in close-knit communities where people use an
informal language.
Basil Bernstein study (1971) was the observation that students from
higher social classes tended to perform better at language-based subjects than those from lower social classes,
although their performance was similar as far as mathematics was concerned. (5yo working class and middle class)
Trudgill’s and Labov’s research,
Peter Trudgill (1974) distinguishes five
social classes based on (father’s) occupation, income, education, locality (neighborhood), and housing.
Middle middle class (MMC)
professional workers
Lower middle class (LMC)
non-manual workers
Upper Working Class (UWC)
skilled manual workers
Middle Working Class (MWC)
semi-skilled workers
Lower Working Class (LWC)
unskilled workers
the LWC informants failed to establish subject-verb agreement more than 80%
of the time. MMC informants used the standard /ng/ in the two most formal
styles (WLS+RPS) almost 100% of the time.
Gender-wise, women across all social classes used standard varieties more
frequently than men (e.g., /ng/ variable in LMC: 73% men vs. 97% women);
however, women over-evaluated their use of standard varieties, whereas men
under-evaluated it → women use language to establish overt prestige (=
acceptance outside of group), while men employ it for covert prestige (= group
cohesion).
Labov: informants are assigned to social classes through the use of composite scores derived from various scales which “measure” some of the factors mentioned above. Certain scales used in sociolinguistic studies draw on sociological research: e.g.,
Labov’s 10-point scale for the Lower East Side study inspired by the ranking system of the Mobilization for Youth (MFY)
program, which took into account occupation, education, and income to assess young individuals at various levels of risk of juvenile delinquency.
Milroy’s and Eckert’s surveys.
