Language and Society evidence & Identity

1) They don't see intuition as empirical, in the way a opticians test of your eyesight might be.
2) Every person and region has distinct variations, if someone writes a grammar it might as well be called "my grammar of this variety I speak"
3) Things deemed ungrammatical by syctacticians so-called 'evidence' are actually used by native speakers, their invented sentences in the intuition test, on the other hand, test a formal decontextualised grammaticality that is never used.
4) There are many cases (elaborated by Labov in When Intuitions Fail 1996) that show intuitions to be very unreliable. Evidence of this evidence being wrong.

He gave us the quiz with all the questions that showed our distinct interpretations of different questions about language and showed us that we don't remember the last thing we said in a conversation.

Native speakers are unable, and it is infact near impossible, to recognise all sentences of what we call a language; they do so no better than no-natives. So what is our language? 
It follows that native speakers also disagree in their evaluations and interpret sentences differently.

Even though they wanna help the tramp (object interpretation) is the only interpretation of this according to synctacticians, 35% of students would say they want the policewoman to help (subject interpretation) even though *They wanna the policewoman to help is supposedly ungrammatical.

So? Things seen as ungrammatical are used by native speakers in context.

Speakers intuitions about their use of language can be way off.

Leave taking (saying goodbye) is intuitively something ritualised and banale, which basically means not sincere. However: Saying goodbye can be difficult and risky in CONTEXT, there it is spontaneous and emotional and this kind of behaviour is not captured well by intuition, which excels more in ritualised behaviour. Hence the mismatch.

 - Examining our intuitions from decontextualised examples can often provide inaccurate results about use; 
 - The social stigma of certain non-standard forms can prevent native speakers having accurate intuitions about their own language use;
 - Context is crucial. Because so many intuition tests rely on decontextualised sentences, the pragmatic and interactional force of the phrases studied is stripped away and jeopardises the accuracy of the test;
 - Literacy and advanced study can cloud the accuracy of intuition as a window on the spoken language;
 - Speakers don’t always have clear intuitions, or black and white intuitions, or even agree with other people from the speech community.

Principle of Experimenter:
If there is any disagreement on introspective judgements, the judgments of those who are familiar with the theoretical issues may not be counted as evidence. 

When the use of language is shown to be more consistent than introspective judgments, a valid description of the language will agree with that use rather than with intuitions.

Umbrella term when outside factors mess with the mind when trying to intuitively describe the language:
 - When socially superordinate norms take precedence over native dialect. Often EITHER our intuitions about the dialect are wrong OR we are conditioned to accept 'standard/literary' forms we don't use.
 - Any grammar regionally/socially stigmatised may be suppressed in intuition.
 - We may accept forms from the written language we don't acutally use.
 - Often preference for written over spoken language.

Physical basis for distinction is eroded (hard to tell)

E.g. near-mergers (Bill Peters and the COT-CAUGHT merger)
 - close vowels but not distinct in vowel space
 - percieved as the same and sometimes produced as the same in informal speech.

another e.g.: treatment of unstressed 'have' and 'of'

When pragmatic function of a form does not equal the way users perceive it out of context.

e.g. Bye bye is considered childish and redundant, yet it is used all the time.

spoken vs. written

notes vs. recording vs. video (evolution through technology, video captures the most aspects)

more informal than formal data and the use of questionnaires has been questioned, as asking someone when they use what language is not much different than a formal ling. intuition test...

E-linguist does not like the I-linguist for not looking at real world examples and the I-linguist thinks the other is looking at trivial manifestations of a bigger system. 

Identity is a term that was not well defined initially and therefore used quite freely (cf. Labov in Martha's Vineyard vs. New York). It was discussed by Kiesling and was (/is) not a primary concern in the field.

Two extremes:

1. Identity as the essentialised traits of certain kinds (e.g. 'women')
2. Identity is only loosely tied to individuals and you can change it as easily as a pair of jeans.

• Social positioning of self and other B&H
• identity is a discursive contruct that emerges in interaction B&H
• Identity is how individuals define, create or think of themselves in terms of their relationships with other people and groups K

Counters idea that identity is something internalised in the mind. It is best viewed as emergent product that develops through social action. B&H

Counter to the idea that identity= broad social categories. Three levels

1. macro-level demographic categories
2. local ethnographically specific cultural positions
3. temporary and interactionally specific stances and participant roles
   • Number three is where we it emerges

E.g. Eckert's Jocks and Burnouts

• Overt mention of categories
• Implicatures and presuppositions
• Displays of orientations towards talk 'stances'
• Use of linguistic forms that are associated with specific personas or groups

Actually referring to social categories in talk (whitey, hijra, posh, Londoner, grumpy old man)

• require additional inferential work for interpretation. 
• e.g. using implicatures in order to not over-openly display a sexual identity: 'gaydar'
• e.g. using presuppositions as a defence lawyer to present the rape victim as active agent rather than passive (blargh)

Taking a position/approach towards a topic or person in discourse: friendly, authoritative, angry, disinterested...

Ling. forms that index identity are associated with interactional stances, such as forcefulness, uncertainty, etc. (direct indexicality). These in turn may be associated with social categories , like gender (indirect indexicality). -> Imperatives, High-rising terminals.

More stuff that is very detailed:

• Stance accretion: stances accumulate into more durable structures of identity (the ice queen)
• Role of habitual practice at sub-discourse level (cf repeated choice of a particular quotative form)
• indexical invertion: indexical associations imposed from top down, e.g. by the media - refugees, social welfare benefit claimants, single parents, etc.
• BUT: indexicality as little more than a correlation

Against the black and white distinction of identity = sameness and difference.

To reiterate that identities get their meaning in relation to other identity positions/people and not in isolation. (similarity/difference, genuineness/artifice, authority/delegitimacy.

1. Adequation
2. Distinction
3. Authentication
4. Denaturalisation
5. Authorisation
6. Illegitimation

Adequation
making oneself (or others) understood as similar enough for current interactional purposes;

downplay differences, highlight similarities (Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein)

Distinction
opposite of adequation.

Highlight differences, downplay similarities (avoidance of 'stigmatised' local dialect forms, 'othering')

Authentication
discrusively making claims to being 'real', 'genuine', 'authentic'.

(dialect performance and writing; discussions about borrowings, etc.)

Denaturalisation
Calling attention to fake/'put on' identities. 

(B&H: Dominican americans playing with 'Black/Hispanic' identities; teasing people who are 'being posh', etc.)

Authorisation
To proclaim/impose an identity from a position of institutional power

(cf Bush and his use of 'we' and 'our' to create moral stance between him and all Americans)

Illegitimation
Denying identity from position of political power. (AAVE, Spanish>Catalan>Valencian...)

Resolves the issue of identity being unconscious or conscious, how much agency it involves. Meaning:

Construction of identity can be partly deliberate and party habitual; it can emerge from interaction but also be created from other's perceptions while being part of larger ideological processes and material structures that influence interaction.

It is therefore constantly shifting. Through habitus people get used to their performances and do them unconsciously after a while.