Dialects In Contact 1-7, 9-11

(Bell 1984, radionews broadcasters in NZ)

linguistic style shifting in response to a speaker's audience > solidarity or distance

Addressee = listeners who are known, ratified, and addressed

Auditor = listeners who are not directly addressed, but are known and ratified

-seems to take place

-can happen phonologically, gramatically, lexically

-partial + incomplete (+sometimes wrong)

-not all features are acommodated to

-more accomm. when more contact

-can solidify over long term and can become (semi-)permanent

(Trudgill 1983)

-imitating American English

-accomodate to features which speakers are somehow alert to > sometimes wrong

e.g. Paul McCartney: I never saw them all

(Trudgill 1986)

-to salient linguistic features

-indicator, marker, stereotype (Labov)

(Labov)

1. Indicator

2. Marker

3. Stereotype

subject to social differentiation but not stylistic variation.

e.g. Norwich different /a:/ in 'bath', 'grass', ...

shows social + stylistic variation

e.g. (t) in Norwich

feature has a high level of awareness, it's overtly commented on

e.g. stigmatized /h/ dropping

-Maehlum in Spitsbergen

-Hirano on Anglophones in Japan

-Large community of Anglophone teachers in Japan, JET programme

-Mostly US, but also UK, Aus, ..

-mostly stay 2 years

-teach in Japanese schools, regular contact with Japanese as well

-recorded teachers on arrival + one year later

-looked at social contacts in community + social networks

-small but significant shifts over one year, esp. Americans with strong network ties with Brits, Kiwis + Aussies > less /taps/

-those with strong network ties with Japanese > fewer glottal stops for /t/

-Payne 1980

-Trudgill 1986

Acquisition of Philadelphia English by migrants:

-fronting of /u:/ and /o:/

Canadian kids living in England:

-diff. ages

-control group of English kids

-assessed lexical, pronunciation + phonological features

>8 principles of dialect acquisition

(Chambers 1992)

1. lexical replacements are acquired faster than pronunciation + phonological variants. the young are better

2. lexical replacements occur rapidly and then slow down

3. simple phon. rules are acquired more readily than complex ones

4. Acquisition of complex rules splits population into early and late acquirers

5. Acquisition happens variably (non-rhoticity)

6. Phonological innovations begin as pronunciation variants

7. Eliminating old rules occurs more quickly than gaining new ones (e.g. eliminating intrusive /r/)

8. Orthographically distinct variants are acquired faster than orthographically obscure ones

-Age seems to matter

-Complexity/simplicity of the feature being acquired seems to matter

-level of language seems to matter

-relationship between purely linguistic characteristics + more sociolinguistic characteristics

-effect of social network + degree of integration

-New Towns, Australia, Brits in Spain...

-they are socially + linguistically diffuse

-few agreed norms

-little agreement about attitudes, prestiges, stigma

migration was a chance to select cultural baggage: discard / take.

>highly overt class differences

-ppl don't know each other

-individuals put together, often sent away criminals

-have to build new social networks

-rebuild social life

-survival

-mix, lots of diff. dialects

-different ideas + attitudes

-strong social networks more likely to keep dialects

-weak networks highly vulnerable to linguistic change

(Giddens)

-creation of normal life, routines = comfort

-preserve the system

-enforce the norm

-security

-routinisation of accommodation = focussing

1. Levelling

2. Interdialect

3. Simplification

4. Reallocation

variants favoured by the majority, unmarked + socially neutral ones e.g. eliminated rhoticity

(Sudbury 2000)

Study of Falkland Islan English, rhoticity gone

outcume as result of imperfect accommodation > diff. pronunciation of words

(Britain 1997)

Fens, FOOT-STRUT, diff. pronunciation of /cup/

(characteristic of koineization)

dialects become more regular, fewer grammatical categories, no complex rules > result of simple minds of ppl in the community,

(Gambhir 1981)

diff. gender- and person tenses in Bhojpuri e.g. 'i be', 'you be' ...

variants survive but serve new function

NO role for identity, ideology, prestige, stigma + social factors > may have begun to play a role, but not relevant in actual new dialect formation process