LING 3210 Exam 1: People and Studies

Jules Gillieron

1920; first regional dialectology atlas (Atlas Linguistique de la France); didn’t collect data himself (used data collected by Edmundt)

Edmund Edmundt

~1920; collected data for the ALF; biked to >600 towns; studied lexical variation and pronunciation through a questionnaire; made a map of how a word is pronounced in each town he went to

Dennis Preston

started perceptual dialectology and 3 key research methodologies

More on perceptual dialectology

Focuses on studying how people perceive + evaluate dialect variation; Explores subjective aspects of language variation by investigating how individuals perceive and judge linguistic differences; Attitudes with speakers

Ferguson

1959; 2 varieties of same language (i.e., dialects) used in clearly demarcated domains (High and Low language/variety)

Examples by Ferguson

Hawaii (standard French (H); Hawaiian Creole (L); Switzerland (Standard German (H); Swiss German (L))

Fishman

1972, 1980; extended Ferguson;s idea to 2 langauges co-existing within a geographical area; high (more eminent, sophisticated, educational and economic success) and low (informal, casual)

Espinosa

1909 and 1917; not a linguist; early status on CS; Mexican-American bilinguals in New Mexico; CS found more frequently in cities, among school children; both educated an uneducated CS users

Baker

1940; early-ish status on CS; Mexican-American in Arizona; more frequent among youth, varied depending on topic of conversation, strong marker of group membership

Bucholtz et al

perceptual dialectology in California; map labelling taska and questionnaire for best/worst way of speaking

Findings of Bucholtz et al

very clear divide between North/South; North associated with English, slangs like “hella”; South associated with Spanish; social groups, rural vs urban (distinctions like inland hicks and coastal surfers)

Preston study

original study of perceptual dialectology mapping of US by Michiganders (in 1980s); public university in Michigan, white students

Findings of Preston’s original study

prescriptive ideologies; Cali and Texas have strong identities; rate home state as most correct/standard

Alfaraz and Preston

perceptual dialectology mapping of US by Michiganders; replicate Preston’s original study and see what has changed over 30 years

Methology of Alfaraz and Preston

cognitive-mapping and demographic study; public university in Michigan; only white participants (to match Preston’s data set); map with state borders but no labels

Findings of Alfaraz and Preston

overall regions didn’t change significantly throughout both studies; very similar in South (also expanded a lot; mostly west-ward); Michigan area did not change a lot (likely because study occurred in Michigan)

Evidence of influence of prescriptive ideologies in Alfaraz and Preston

Michiganders labelled their own language as better; labelled somethings in judgemental/derogatory ways; would have seen more variation if it (prescript. ideo.) wasn’t there

Findings of both of Preston’s studies

South labelled most consistently; most areas get larger over time (but generally seen as the same area in both studies)

Alfaraz and Preston influence of Canada

surfacing of political ideologies; Canadian “eh”; associated with North (duh); sometimes/mostly seen as an inferior influence

Main takeaway of Alfaraz and Preston

reasoning for the speech areas is still largely the same, the areas that are most stereotypically portrayed in the media are the ones noticed the most

Alfaraz and Preston enregisterment

Michiganders perceive the way they speak as the default

Jankowski and Tagliamonte

“supper” vs “dinner” in south-eastern Canada (lots of studies done before but not in this region)

UK distribution

“midday—dinner, evening-meal—tea” preferred by Northern, working class and less educated speakers; “midday—lunch, evening-meal—dinner” preferred in South, middle class, higher education, women and under 25

Use of “evening-meal—tea”

consistently highest in speakers with manual labour jobs and those with less formal education

Synonymy of “dinner” and “supper”

suggests ongoing variation and change in contemporary dialects

Ontario dialects project (methodology of J&T)

socioling interviews; ~900 ppl; age 9-98 )born 1879-2001); more than a dozen communities; sample socially stratified by age, sex, occupation and education; did not use metalinguistic commentary

UK influence on Canadian English

North (settlers from N. England, Scotland and N. Ireland (supper)); South (loyalists to British Crown, after revolutionary war (dinner))

Geographic use of “dinner”

higher in large, Southern ubran areas (Toronto/Belleville have a significantly higher usage rate of “dinner” and their combined use increases in Gen X and later); lower in smaller, non-urban/rural, Northern communities (are distinct from urban areas and have a more robust use of “supper”)

Urban use of “supper”

Belleville retains “supper” at a low rate; “supper” disappears from Toronto

Social factors of “dinner” overtime

no post-2nd education tends to stay the same (for both blue and white collars); blue collars with some post-2nd increased usage; white collars with some post-2ns decreases usage

Hypotheses of “dinner” usage

urban, white collar, speakers with more formal education, women

Findings of J&T

urban, white collar (women and speakers with more formal education found not to be statistically significant)

Social meaning of J&T findings

blue collars disfavour dinner (carrying high prestige); education x occupation interaction suggests upwardly mobile blue collars with some post-2nd may favour dinner

Strongs effects of J&T

community differences (Toronto highest; rural/northern significantly lower); YOB (those born 1967 and later favour dinner); NP modification (modify NP significantly favour dinner)

Bouchard

linguistic insecurity among French speakers in Vancouver