File 10: Language Variation — Vocabulary Flashcards
10.1 Language Varieties
Language variety (linguists’ cover term) refers to any form of language with systematic features. Can refer to:
A distinct language (e.g., French, Italian)
A form of a language spoken by a group (e.g., Appalachian English, New York English)
The speech of a single person (idiolect)
The way a single person speaks in a given context (contextual variation)
Idiolect: Everyone has a unique idiolect that differs systematically from others’ idiolects.
Sociolinguistics studies relationships among language varieties and social structure, and interrelationships among varieties.
Dialect: A group’s speech that differs noticeably from another group; in linguistics, a dialect is a variety with systematic differences in structure or lexicon. In lay terms, often linked to pronunciation, but not limited to it.
Accent vs. dialect: Accent = systematic phonological variation; dialect = broader set of systematic phonological, lexical, and grammatical differences.
Speech community: A group sharing a common set of language norms; not usually purely isolated by geography due to mobility and mass media.
Mutual intelligibility: A practical criterion for distinguishing dialects vs. languages; dialects are mutually intelligible with the same language; nonmutually intelligible varieties are often treated as separate languages, but political, cultural, and historical factors can override this criterion (e.g., Mandarin vs. Cantonese in China are often treated as dialects of Chinese due to shared writing system and political culture).
Dialect continuum: A chain of dialects where neighboring varieties are mutually intelligible, but dialects at the ends are not; challenges the idea that a language has a single boundary.
Language variation is not only geographic but also social; context and identity shape how speakers choose forms (style, register).
Style and Register (10.1.2)
Style: Systematic variation in speech based on topic, setting, addressee.
Registers: Prototypical levels of formality (formal, informal, casual, careful).
Style shifting: Unconscious or automatic adjustment of speech style to audience/context; not simply “playing a role” but selecting appropriate linguistic tools for a task.
Pragmatics connection: Speech adjustments relate to appropriateness in social context (e.g., greeting a head of state vs. a party acquaintance).
Jargon and Slang (10.1.3)
Jargon: Technical vocabulary of a domain; varies lexically, clear within a field but opaque to outsiders. Examples: ‘photosynthesis’ (science), ‘derm-’ terms in medicine.
Slang: Informal, stylistic vocabulary; serves social identity and group membership; two types:
Common slang: everyday informal terms (e.g., fridge, TV).
In-group slang: jargon of a specific group; helps insiders and excludes outsiders; evolves quickly (e.g., 23 skidoo, “fan” for fanatic).
Slang evolution parallels human social creativity and identity needs; present in all languages, including ancient ones.
Standard Dialects and Prestige (10.1.4)
All dialects are linguistically equal; no dialect is inherently superior.
Standard dialect: Often associated with power, politics, media, and education; not defined by lexicon/grammar alone but by its social prestige and political status.
Overt prestige: Recognized prestige of the standard dialect by the broader society.
Covert prestige: Prestige within a nonstandard-speaking group; belonging to a group can sustain nonstandard forms because they signal group identity.
The prescriptive notion of a single standard is misleading; SAE (Standard American English) is not a unitary dialect but a collection of features tied to grammar, with pronunciation varying by accent.
The UK example: Received Pronunciation (RP) or “the Queen’s English” represents prestige in Britain, combining grammar/vocabulary with certain pronunciation markers.
Nonstandard varieties: Often stigmatized, but not inferior; can be descriptively systematic and easier for learners in some aspects (e.g., reflexive formation in some dialects).
Hypercorrection: Nonstandard forms produced by false analogy entered into prestige usage (e.g., subject pronouns in object position).
SAE as standard in the US is a broad, grammar-focused standard; pronunciation varies regionally yet can still be considered SAE in terms of grammar.
Reflexive pronouns – a comparison of standard vs. nonstandard paradigms (illustrative example):
Standard: add -self/-selves to possessives and pronouns as needed (1st/2nd person singular possessives + self; 1st/2nd person plural possessives + selves; 3rd person singular object pronouns + self; 3rd person plural object pronouns + selves).
Nonstandard: add -self to all persons (including 3rd singular possessives, e.g., hisself; and add -selves to all plural possessives, e.g., theirselves).
Identity and language: Language serves as a marker of identity, with overt and covert signals; the standard vs. nonstandard prestige dynamics influence schooling, social mobility, and language conformity. Case studies illustrate how language can mark membership in or distance from groups, and how power dynamics shape judgments about language use.
Key example tables and figures (numerical references):
Labov (1972) NYC department-store study: rhoticity increases with prestige in careful speech. A summarized data point shows a clear store-based stratification in rhotic usage:
Saks: Casual 63, Careful 64
Macy’s: Casual 44, Careful 61
S. Klein: Casual 8, Careful 18
In LaTeX:
egin{array}{l|cc}
ext{Store} & ext{Casual} & ext{Careful} \\hline
ext{Saks} & 63 & 64 \
ext{Macy's} & 44 & 61 \
ext{S. Klein} & 8 & 18
\end{array}
10.1.1 Languages, Dialects, and Idiolects
Language variety is a broad cover term for any form of language with systematic features.
Idiolect: Each speaker’s unique way of speaking; varies across time and context.
Dialect vs. language distinctions can hinge on mutual intelligibility, but also on political/cultural/historical factors and shared writing systems.
Mutual intelligibility is a practical criterion but not foolproof (e.g., Serbo-Croatian vs. Bosnian/Croatian/Montenegrin/Serbian; Mandarin vs. Cantonese as dialects yet not fully mutually intelligible in speech but sharing a writing system can maintain a single language identity).
Dialect continuum presents a challenge to strict boundaries between dialects and languages.
Speech community: Defined by factors outside linguistic structure (region, SES, age, gender, ethnicity). Few communities are purely “pure” dialects due to mobility and media.
Accent is the phonological side of variation; every speaker has an accent of some sort.
Ethnography and fieldwork: Isogloss bundles mark regional dialect boundaries; the more lines bundle, the stronger the regional distinctiveness.
10.1.2 Style and Register
Every speaker has a repertoire of dialects and idiolects; style shifting is the automatic adaptation of language to audience/context.
Formal vs. informal registers reflect differing levels of formality; practical examples include interactions with leaders or experts vs. casual conversations.
Registers are not limited to lexicon but can involve grammar and discourse features; some languages have explicit formality markers; English relies more on lexicon and discourse conventions for formality.
The ability to shift style is integral to effective communication and social navigation.
10.1.3 Jargon and Slang
Jargon vs. slang:
Jargon: Technical vocabulary used within a field; precise, economical; outsiders may find it opaque.
Slang: Informal, socially marked language; can be neutral (common slang) or group-specific (in-group slang).
Examples of jargon evolving into common usage (e.g., bottom line, hardware, software, system, countdown, A-OK, blast off).
Slang often mirrors fad dynamics and group identity; it is a dynamic feature across languages and cultures.
10.1.4 Standard Dialects and Notions of Prestige
No dialect is inherently superior; all are rule-governed and effective for communication.
Prestige dialects: Tied to social power, visibility, education, media, and politics; not intrinsic properties of the dialect itself.
Overt prestige vs. covert prestige:
Overt: Public prestige of the standard variety.
Covert: Prestige within a nonstandard-speaking group; belonging can sustain nonstandard forms.
Historical shifts show that prescriptive “standard” rules do not always track actual usage (e.g., multiple negation; subject pronouns in object positions); these are social judgments rather than strict linguistic rules.
Reflexive pronoun paradigms illustrate how different varieties can be equally systematic:
Standard: I like myself; You like yourself; He likes himself; She likes herself; We like ourselves; You like yourselves; They like themselves.
Nonstandard: I like myself; You like yourself; He likes hisself; She likes herself; We like ourselves; You like yourselves; They like theirselves.
Implications for education: Nonstandard varieties often carry social stigma; bidialectalism can be advantageous, but social dynamics shape language learning and identity formation.
10.2 Variation at Different Levels of Linguistic Structure
10.2.1 Variation at All Levels
Variation exists at phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, and semantics (lexicon).
Pragmatic conventions can also vary (File 11.1).
10.2.2 Phonetic Variation
Phonetics deals with the physical production of sounds and perception; differences can occur in the articulation of the same phoneme across varieties.
Example: American English /t, d, n, s, z/ are present in all varieties, but articulated differently (e.g., dental vs. alveolar t, d).
Variation in voice quality and enunciation across formal vs. informal styles (e.g., enunciating clearly in formal contexts may involve phonetic adjustments without changing phonology).
ASL example: KNOW sign variants in informal vs. formal contexts.
10.2.3 Phonological Variation
Phonology concerns the system of sounds and their distribution; differences can be observed in phoneme inventories and phonotactics (allowed sequences).
Examples: /ɔ/ vs. /ɑ/ in caught vs. cot; rhotic vs. non-rhotic varieties; /t/ and /d/ realization as [ɾ] vs. [ʔ] in certain environments.
Vowel shifts/mergers (Northern Cities Shift; near-merger in the Midland; full mergers in New England).
10.2.4 Morphological Variation
Morphology = morpheme distribution and use; different morphemes for the same function may be used in different varieties.
Example: -ish usage expands beyond adjectives in some varieties (now-ish, tree-ish); SAE often uses -like (tree-like).
Reflexive pronouns: Some dialects use hisself/themself (regularization) instead of himself/themselves; past tense forms vary regionally (climb/clumb; dive/dove; drag/drug).
10.2.5 Syntactic Variation
Syntax includes word classes, order, and phrase structure; differences appear in auxiliary usage, adjective placement, and modal constructions.
Examples: Southern dialects with might could; Appalachian with right before adjectives; needs + participle vs. needs to be + participle.
Pro-drop languages: Omission of subject pronouns in some languages (Spanish, Italian, ASL, Japanese, Mandarin, Polish) depending on context.
10.2.6 Lexical Variation
Lexical variation covers words used for the same concepts or same words with different meanings across varieties.
Examples: Soda, pop, coke; regional terms for everyday items; sign language regional variations (SHOE in Taipei vs. Tainan).
Polysemy and semantic shifts across registers (e.g., knock up meaning to rouse vs. to make pregnant).
10.3 Factors Influencing Variation: Regional and Geographic Factors
10.3.1 Why Does Language Vary?
Regions host distinct language varieties; regional dialect boundaries often correspond to historical settlement patterns, isolation, and contact with other languages.
People in proximity influence each other more; geography interacts with social and historical factors.
Isogloss bundles mark dialect boundaries; isogloss bundles create regional dialect boundaries.
10.3.2 Regional and Geographic Variation
Variation arises from geography and contact; examples include differences between American and British English, New York vs. Texan English, etc.
Visual example: two ASL signs for FOOTBALL (national vs. Ohio-specific).
10.3.3 A Case Study: The United States
Settlement patterns from England shaped regional dialects; later migrations and contact with other languages (French, German, Spanish) added regional diversity.
African slaves and later African American migrations had major impacts on Southern and Northern varieties.
Modern dialect regions: North, New England, South, Appalachia, Midland, West; approximate regional boundaries shown on dialect maps. The map lines reflect bundles of isoglosses.
10.3.4 The North
Defined region includes upper Midwest and Northern Plains; main feature: Northern Cities Shift (NCS) affecting low/mid vowels; fronting/backing of vowels; rhotics and other morphemic features.
Lexical items: parkway/tree lawn, roly-poly, sneaker, pop.
10.3.5 New England
Similar to the North but with two key differences: cot/pot vowels merged; non-rhotic tendencies; agreement in some areas with do I vs don’t I (so don't I vs so do I).
Lexical items: line vs on line; Berm/verge; bubbler; soda.
10.3.6 The South
Features: diphthongs in front vowels; pin/pen merger; house as [hɑʊs] and out as [aʊt]; /ɑː/ as a monophthong in wide and my; double modals (might could, may could, etc.) as politeness/tentativeness; fixin’ to; coke for cola; roly-poly; curb strip/devil’s strip.
10.3.7 Appalachia
Isolated by mountains; features include fish/pish pronunciation, primary stress on first syllable in multisyllabic words (cigar vs. cigár), a-prefixing (went a-running), irregular past tenses (clumb, het, ruck), multiple negation (I didn’t have no lunch), lexicon such as jasper, sigogglin, poke, holler.
10.3.8 The Midland
Key features: /oʊ/ as [øʊ]; /l/ vocalization at end of syllables; near merger of /ɑ/ and /ɔ/ in many words; Scots-Irish morphosyntactic patterns (anymore with negation meaning nowadays); uses of all the further; needs + ed; Mid-Atlantic differences.
10.3.9 The West
Western dialects are less distinct; often a hybrid of other regions; notable features: fronting of /u/ after certain consonants; /u/ vs /oʊ/ behavior; /ɑ/ vs /ɔ/ merger similar to New England; discourse markers like I’m like; West terms such as lookie lou, firefly; granola as lifestyle descriptor; soda as beverage term.
10.4 Factors Influencing Variation: Social Factors
10.4.1 Social Influences on Language Variation
Social factors create social dialects: socioeconomic class, age, gender, ethnicity shape language use.
Language variation is not only regional; it co-occurs within regions due to social identities.
10.4.2 Socioeconomic Variation
Prestige associated with higher SES often aligns with standard forms; Labov (1972) NYC study showed rhoticity correlates with prestige: higher-status stores (Saks) used rhotic endings more in careful speech; lower-status stores (S. Klein) used rhoticity less.
Data summary (rhotic [ɹ] usage):
Casual: Saks 63, Macy’s 44, S. Klein 8
Careful: Saks 64, Macy’s 61, S. Klein 18
This demonstrates how socioeconomic status and careful speech patterns influence phonological features.
10.4.3 Age Variation
Younger vs. older speakers show variation; language changes naturally over time; common changes include up-talking, new lexical items, and shifts in prestige usage.
10.4.4 Gender Variation
Gender is not a binary biological category; it is a set of social patterns (doing gender). Women often align with more prestigious/standard variants; men more likely to use nonstandard forms in some contexts.
Classic studies: Norwich (1974) showing women and middle-class speakers use standard verb forms more; Sydney studies showing similar gender patterns in nonstandard uses; perception studies show gender can affect judgments of language use.
Community of practice concept (Eckert): Identity is formed within overlapping communities of practice; individuals switch styles across contexts (e.g., workplace, school, social groups).
10.4.5 Ethnic Variation
Ethnicity interacts with language variation; includes dialects such as African-American English (AAE), Chicano English, Lumbee English, each with distinct phonological, morphosyntactic, and lexical features.
AAE: features include monophthongization, word-final consonant cluster reduction, copula absence, habitual be; nonstandard forms reflect West African roots and regional social histories.
Chicano English: vowel reductions (e.g., /oʊ/ as monophthong [o]); Spanish influence on syntax and lexical items; topicalization patterns influenced by Spanish; presence of embedded Spanish lexical items and taboo words signaling cultural identity.
Lumbee English: unique features including /ɑʊ/ vs /ɔɪ/ distinctions, finite be with -s for habitual aspect, distinct lexical items (ellick, yerker, brickhouse, buddyrow, toten).
The overall point: ethnic variation is a social and historical phenomenon interacting with regional variation; no variety is inherently superior; speakers may navigate multiple identities.
10.5 Language and Identity
10.5.1 Using Language to Mark Identity
Language is a social phenomenon used to identify with or distance from groups; identity is dynamic and context-dependent.
Language can be used to signal membership or to indicate belonging to varied groups; perception of identity also depends on listener expectations and social biases.
The same utterance can signal different identities to different audiences (e.g., pronunciation affecting perceived prestige by different listeners).
10.5.2 Defining “Identity”
Identity is not fixed; it is a dynamic construct formed through social interactions.
Individuals belong to multiple overlapping groups (e.g., nationality, region, ethnicity, hobby, occupation) and may switch identities depending on context.
Researchers study identity through broadened methodologies beyond predetermined sociological factors to capture self-identified communities (e.g., Habitat for Humanity groups, school cliques).
Observer’s paradox: People alter their speech when they know they are being observed; this complicates sociolinguistic study.
10.5.3 Signaling Identity
Language signals identity at all linguistic levels (phonetics to pragmatics).
Overt signals (explicit statements) vs. covert signals (linguistic choices signaling membership).
Examples of signals: monophthongal vowels (e.g., ɑː for tide/I), habitual be in AAE, be as a marker of habitual action, the interjection like by younger speakers, etc.
Language choice in multilingual societies (Canada) can carry political implications: language choice signals alignment with or opposition to groups and political tensions.
Linguistic discrimination: Studies show landlords discriminating against potential tenants based on dialect cues; sociolinguistic findings inform policy and anti-discrimination efforts.
10.5.4 Studying Identity
Early sociolinguistic studies used predetermined sociological variables and single variables to correlate with language patterns; limitations include lack of cross-societal comparability and potential oversimplification.
Contemporary approaches combine ethnography, surveys, interviews, and discourse/conversational analysis to triangulate identity signals.
Observer’s paradox motivates larger corpora and indirect methods to capture authentic usage.
10.5.5 Martha’s Vineyard: A Case Study in Language and Identity
Labov’s 1961 study analyzed centralization of /ɑː/ and /ɑʊ/ in Vineyard speech; centralization was regional but also varied with age and economic status.
Key findings: centralization higher among Vineyard natives who identify with the island; greater centralization with age up to 31–45, then declines; higher centralization among Portuguese and Native American populations on the island (identity and group affiliation influence linguistic features).
The study illustrates how identity (island association) influences language use; language can reinforce or challenge group boundaries.
Footnotes of interest:
(1) Strand’s study on perception: listeners categorize fricatives differently depending on whether they see a male vs. female face, showing identity can influence perception.
(2) Baugh's work on dialect discrimination illustrating social consequences in housing markets.
10.6 Practice
Exercises and discussion prompts accompany the material, including pragmatic applications, isogloss identification, sociolinguistic analysis of regional variations, and reflection on language and identity. (Note: Practice content is indicated in the source but not detailed here.)
Connections to prior and subsequent material
Links to pragmatics (Chapter 7) on felicity/inappropriateness in context.
Links to earlier chapters on prescriptive vs. descriptive grammar, mutual intelligibility, and the social meaning of prestige.
Preview of how language variation interacts with power and social dynamics in File 11.3 (Language and Power).
Practical and ethical implications
Recognizing that language varieties are systematic and legitimate helps counteract stigmatization of nonstandard varieties.
Awareness of covert prestige explains why some communities maintain nonstandard forms despite public prestige pressure.
Understanding how language signals identity can inform inclusive education, anti-discrimination policies, and communication across diverse communities.
Real-world relevance
Educational settings: Differences between home dialects and school standard can affect learning; bidialectalism can be advantageous.
Workplace and media: Prestige dialects influence perceptions of competence and credibility; style shifting can enhance professional communication.
Policy and social justice: Dialect discrimination is a real issue; research informs interventions and advocacy.
Summary takeaways
Language variation is pervasive across phonetic/phonological/morphological/syntactic/lexical levels and across styles/registers.
Variation is shaped by a web of regional, social, ethnic, gendered, and identity-related factors.
The standard is a socially constructed concept tied to prestige, not an intrinsic linguistic superior form.
Language serves as a powerful marker of identity and social belonging, with real-world implications for opportunity, discrimination, and social life.
– End of notes for File 10 (10.1–10.5).