Identity ; and Dialect Performance: A Study of Communities and Dialects

Linguistics and Literature Studies, 2019

This paper explores the linguistic behavior in relation to the identity of speakers who stay in their hometown and speakers who travel from one dialect region to another. Following the methodology of sociolinguistic variation studies, combined with qualitative analyses, this study examines two noticeable linguistic features of Tiaret compared to those acquired by speakers who moved to other dialect areas. Qualitative analyses of speakers' social identities, attitudes and language practices match quantitative analyses of patterns of phonological variation. The study finds that the migrant groups do make changes in their linguistic production due to their continuous exposure to a new dialect. Moreover, the findings suggest that speakers' linguistic behavior is noticeably related to their identities, social networks, language attitudes and the wider sociopolitical framework in the whole country.

2001

In the last decade there has been a burgeoning interest in dialect contact (Kerswill 1994, 1996; Milroy 1997; Britain 1997; Auer & Hinskins 1996) prompted by linguists' awareness of the insights this phenomenon can provide into the processes and outcomes of language change. In particular, recent research has shown that the process of leveling may be responsible for dialects losing their local features and becoming more homogeneous, this, according to Chambers ( 1999), occurring across national boundaries as between Canada and the U.S. If, as is suggested, leveling does lead to dialect homogeneity, this might also indicate a parallel shift in the orientation of speakers away from a local to a supra-local identification. In this paper, using a variationist analysis to examine the reflexes of two phonological variables, I chart the formation of a new dialect in a contact situation. Using a language ideology model, I suggest that speakers' own comments on various aspects of grou...

Routledge Handbook of Sociophonetics, 2023

Research in sociolinguistics (and sociophonetics) has long relied on appeals to “identity” as a means of accounting for patterns of variation in language use (for reviews of this work, see Le Page 1997; Tabouret-Keller 1997; Llamas & Watt 2010; Levon forthcoming). At its core, an appeal to “identity” as an explanatory factor is based on the assertion that linguistic differences are not (or not only) determined by physiological differences among speakers or by automatic routines established during early language socialization. Instead, identity-based approaches treat linguistic variation as a fundamentally social phenomenon, related to an individual’s positioning in society and/or their understanding and interpretation of that positioning. Yet even within this more socially oriented body of work, “identity” remains a contentious term and academic disagreements about the utility of “identity” as an analytical concept are longstanding. Cameron & Kulick (2003), for example, famously argued that there exists an overemphasis on the use of language as a way to claim membership in an identity category in language, gender, and sexuality scholarship to the exclusion of other ways in which language and gender/sexuality may interact (including, for example, as a means for rejecting category affiliation or via a more indirect, higher-order indexical relation between language and a given social label). In response to Cameron & Kulick’s argument, Bucholtz & Hall (2004) countered that a nuanced examination of how people dynamically and relationally enact category membership is central to this line of enquiry (see also Bucholtz & Hall 2005; Cameron & Kulick 2005). Similarly, Trudgill (2008) proposed that “identity concerns” play no role in the formation of new dialects in language contact situations and that long-term automatic accommodation between speakers can account for the developmental patterns observed in the literature. This position that was explicitly rebutted by Coupland (2008) and Holmes & Kerswill (2008), among others, who, while acknowledging the problem with “simplistic purposive accounts of identity as motive” (Coupland 2008:268), nevertheless argued that accommodation is never wholly automatic, that accommodation occurs when people—not language varieties—come into contact, and that interpersonal and intersubjective factors always play a role (see also Labov 2012). Within phonetics, proposals like Ohala’s (1983, 1994) Frequency Code and Gussenhoven’s (2004) Effort and Production Codes seek to account for patterns of sociophonetic variation via recourse to universal biological rules that are independent of social or identity-linked factors. In contrast, scholars such as Eckert (2017) have argued that, universal meaning potentials notwithstanding, agency and identity are crucial for sound symbolic meaning to be realized in interaction, such that we cannot divorce our analyses of sound symbolism from the specific social contexts in which it occurs. Part of the reason why there is so much disagreement about the role of identity in linguistic variation is because the term “identity” is often used to refer to a number of very different things. This is due in large part to the fact that “identity” is what Giddens (1987) calls a “double hermeneutic,” a concept that is used both as a technical term of analysis in scholarly work and as a popular term for organizing experience in wider society. According to Giddens, scholarly and popular understanding of such concepts influence one another, with popular conceptualizations conscripted into scholarly work and vice versa. While not necessarily a problem in and of itself, the danger of this kind of mutual influence is a proliferation of meanings of a given term, resulting in a lack of scholarly precision and a potential degradation in the perceived merit of academic enquiry. With respect to the term “identity,” Brubaker & Cooper (2000:1) summarize the issue succinctly by stating “if identity is everywhere, identity is nowhere.” In other words, if “identity” can mean different things to different people in different contexts (e.g., an overt category membership, an in-the- moment interpersonal relation, a deeply held sense of self), what sort of analytical purchase does the term have for scholars? It is not our intention to provide a definitive answer to this question in the current chapter. Instead, our goal is to provide an overview of the different ways in which the issue of identity has been approached in sociophonetics. We begin in the next section with a brief introduction to Brubaker & Cooper’s system for classifying different treatments of identity in social research into three broad categories: identity as category positioning (by self or other), identity as the expression of commonality or groupness, and identity as situated subjectivity. We use this system not as a prescriptive taxonomy, but as a way to organize our review of sociophonetic research on identity, demonstrating how examinations of variation in both speech perception and production have contributed to each of these areas. Through this review, we hope to demonstrate the relevance of identity-linked questions to sociophonetic investigation and to outline some of the different ways in which the topic can be approached.

Tresch, Laura Alessandra (2018). The First Duty in Life is to be as Authentic as Possible? Language Ideologies and Authenticity in Contexts of Dialect Contact. (Thesis). Universität Bern, Bern, 2018

In this dissertation, I investigate the language ideologies underlying the development and legitimisation of (relatively new) English varieties that have emerged through contact, as they are embedded within their socio-geographical and sociolinguistic history. Some specific metalinguistic debates will be selected for special examination. I therefore attempt to identify the most salient political, social and cultural debates about language that have shaped and have been shaped by metalinguistic discourses. The English varieties on which this investigation is focused are: New Zealand English and – what I have labelled – (some of) the 'enregistered non-standard contact varieties of the south east of England' (i.e. 'Estuary English', 'Multicultural London English' or 'Jafaican', and 'Mockney'). New (colonial) linguistic varieties – such as koinés – have presented a serious challenge to ideas about 'legitimate' languages and dialects, as traditionally geographical stasis and immobility were considered fundamental to concepts like identity or authenticity. In the context of decolonisation and increasing globalisation, however, positive attitudes to linguistic diversity as a consequence of mobility and language contact have become fortified. The main purpose of this investigation is thus to examine the language ideologies that have shaped and underlain these discourses (e.g. discussions about the appropriateness of New Zealand English vis à vis external, British models of language) and their related practices in public discourses (mainly media and educational discourses). Notions of authenticity have turned out to be central in these metadiscourses. The main questions addressed are thus: a) How are these contact English varieties legitimised and authenticated, and how are other varieties – within the same metadiscourse – 'delegitimised' and 'deauthenticated'?; b) How do these (de/)legitimisation and (de/)authentication practices interact with discourses of nation building and (local) discursive identity construction?; c) Did these (de/)legitimisation and (de/)authentication practices change over time, and if yes how did they change – and possibly – why?

1970

Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill Academic Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Brill provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to

Kanchana Kularathna, 2022

ABSTARACT The relationship between language and identity is a key component in applied linguistics, sociology, communications and other related scholarly fields. Furthermore, many researchers have focused on the English language dialects, which given its unique and effective context allows for testing of this relationship. The two concepts of language and identity have been addressed in many ways by considering the related theoretical work as well. The research has been carried out as a case study selecting a large sample around the world. Examined briefly how they use English language and the differences which made another dialect of English. In order to do this few countries have been studied thoroughly and the vocabulary, pronunciations grammar rules and other relevant language base components have also been studied to bring out the relationship between language and identity. The main source of data collecting was referring internet recourses due to covid 19 pandemic. This paper presents an overview of existing research, theories, and opposing perspectives related to the relationship between language and identity. The study has been aimed to demonstrate the dialects of English, by presenting the relevant data in support of the relationship between language and identity.

2002

Language & Communication, 1986

Trudgill's book is of wide interdisciplinary interest, since Trudgill is one of the most articulate scholars in the field today: his prose is clear, and his arguments are generally self-contained and eloquent. Although one might want a more thorough discussion of his methodological infrastructure, almost every chapter reveals a new methodological technique to extend the horizons of a field already charted by Labov's ingenious ploys. For this book Trudgill has 'revised, updated and edited' carefully chosen articles to present them as 'a coherent text.' While some such texts focus on 'secular' linguistic topics, and others focus on specific communicative aspects of linguistics, Trudgill has chosen a broad cross-section of papers which run the entire gamut of foci. The first papers are of primary concern to the linguist who realizes that the inclusion of sociological parameters can extend a purely linguistic analysis, and as the book progresses, the articles increasingly emphasize the social variables. Given that the intention was for the book to be read as a coherent text, in a couple of instances more work should have been done to integrate and update the papers. However, on the whole, the volume flows well. While Trudgill has clearly read all the American literature, he uses a primarily British or European data base, and draws conclusions which appear to imply that influences on speech in the U.K. are universal. Since the organization of British society is quite different from that in many other parts of the world, not surprisingly, the hypotheses which Trudgill presents as sociolinguistic 'universals' frequently are contradicted by sociolinguistic data gathered elsewhere. Consequently, students must be especially skeptical of Trudgill's theoretical positions when they appear to contradict the data. Thus, articles cannot be accepted at face value, but can motivate students to compare Trudgill's data with other published data. If students are careful, studying work like this can lead to new breakthroughs. Since an introduction places a book's chapters in a specific perspective, this reviewer felt the introduction called for a special comment, in light of the fact that it appears to propose a frame which Trudgill himself would clearly reject. The 'Introduction' (pp. l-7) outlines the range of interests which have been considered sociolinguistic, and moves from this to focus attention on dialect from a sociolinguistic perspective. Trudgill demonstrates language teaching us about language and about society. Trudgill has presented a framework for such a 'cross-disciplinary' understanding before (1978, pp. 1-18); however, Trudgill's condensation of that discussion here maintains that work which is transparently concerned with 'improving linguistic theory and. .. developing our understanding of the nature of