Coulmas Handbook of Sociolinguistics / Part 2 - Social dimensions of Language / part 2 - 7. Dialect in Society

7. Dialect in Society : The Handbook of Sociolinguistics : Blackwell Reference Onl... Page 11 of 13

paradigms, may function at the same time in a positive, covertly prestigious way in terms of local norms.

There are several different ways in which speakers within the sociolinguistic community may react to socially diagnostic variables. Speakers may treat some features as social stereotypes, where they comment overtly on their use. In English, items such as ain't, “double negatives,” and “dese, dem, and dose” are classic features of this type on a general level, but particular dialects may have stereotypes on a more local level. Thus the production of hoi toiders for high tiders has become a stereotype for the island community of Ocracoke, the plural youns a stereotype for the city of Pittsburgh, and the use of habitual be in They be doing it is rapidly becoming a stereotyped form for urban working-class African-American dialects in the United States. Sociolinguistic stereotypes tend to be overly categorical and are often linguistically naive, although they may derive from a basic sociolinguistic reality. For example, the stereotype that working-class speakers ALWAYS use dese, dem, and dose forms and middle-class speakers NEVER do is not supported empirically, although there certainly is a correlation between the relative frequency of the nonstandard variant and social stratification. Furthermore, stereotypes tend to focus on single vocabulary items or selective subsets of items rather than more general phonological and grammatical patterns.

Another type of sociolinguistic role is assumed by the social marker. In the case of social-markers, variants show clear-cut social stratification, but they do not show the level of conscious awareness found for the social stereotype. Various vowel shifts, such as the northern cities vowel shift discussed earlier, seem to function as social markers. There is clear-cut social stratification of the linguistic variants, and participants in the community may even recognize this distribution, but the structure does not evoke the kind of strongly evaluated overt commentary that the social stereotype does. Even if participants don't talk about these features in any direct manner, there are still indications that they are aware of their existence. This awareness is often indicated by shifts in the use of variants across different styles of speaking.

The third possible sociolinguistic role is called the social indicator. Social indicators are linguistic structures that correlate with social stratification without having an effect on listeners’judgment of social status. Whereas social stereotypes and social markers are sensitive to situational variation, social indicators do not show such sensitivity, as shown by the fact that levels of usage remain constant across formal and informal styles. This suggests that the correlation of socially diagnostic variables with social factors operates on a more unconscious level than it does for social markers or stereotypes.

The social recognition and evaluation of dialects does not relate just to particular dialect variables but to entire dialect communities. Research on perceptual dialectology (Preston, 1986b) shows that overall dialect perception is generated by linguistic differences, popular culture caricatures, and local identification strategies. For example, caricatures of New York City speech make this a highly recognized dialect area for virtually all American English speakers, regardless of their geographical locale. At the same time, the perceptual location of other regional areas may be subjected to a “proximity factor,” in which the more distant the dialect is geographically, the more likely it is to be classified globally.

4 Dialects and Social Commitment

The preceding discussion has viewed the role of dialects in society primarily on a micro-level, as we have examined the relations that exist between language variables and social variables. There are, however, issues related to the broadly based position of dialects in society. In this final section, we address some of these broader issues and consider the social role that sociolinguists can assume in addressing concerns relevant to dialects in society.

We have assumed in our discussion that dialects will continue to flourish in contemporary society, but many popular accounts of dialects question their enduring vitality. For example, in the United States it is often reported that dialects are levelling because of the widespread exposure to a standard, relatively homogenized dialect through the media, the increase in interregional travel and migration, and ready transportational access to virtually any dialect area of the country within a matter of hours.

Our preceding discussion indicates that the future of dialect diversity is assured on both a linguistic

http://www.blackwellreference.com/subscriber/uid=532/tocnode?id=g9780631211938... 28.12.2007

7. Dialect in Society : The Handbook of Sociolinguistics : Blackwell Reference Onl... Page 12 of 13

and social basis. For example, we have seen that the pressures of internally induced linguistic variation can take dialects in radically different directions once a particular linguistic shift has been initiated. The vowel changes taking place in the northern cities and southern vowel shifts in the United States are apparently making these varieties more dissimilar than ever, and some of the current rotational shifts may lead to changes in the English vowel system that are as dramatic as those witnessed during the great vowel shift that took place from 1300 through 1500 (Labov, 1994).

On a social level, the persistence of social dissonance of one type or another and the apparent inevitability of asymmetric social grouping underly the maintenance of socially and ethnically defined varieties, although some relic dialects preserved historically through their insularity have been levelled significantly as they emerged from their isolated status. The vertical social axis underlying the standard-nonstandard continuum remains operative, thus ensuring the continued vitality of vernacular dialects in most societies. External social conditions added to internal linguistic conditions assure the future of robust dialect differences.

The fact that so many dialect differences are defined on a vertical social axis naturally leads to a symbolic sociopolitical and socio-educational role for dialect. The socially constructed perception that vernacular dialects are deficient linguistic systems carries with it an attendant set of attitudes and behaviors that can impact significantly on the social and educational lives of underclass, vernacular speakers. The failure to recognize the legitimacy of dialect differences may lead to a kind of discrimination that is as onerous as other types based upon race, ethnicity, or class. Unfortunately, the existence of dialect discrimination is still not considered to be on the same plane as other types of prejudice. J. Milroy and L. Milroy (1985: 3) note: “Although public discrimination on the grounds of race, religion and social class is not now publicly acceptable, it appears that discrimination on linguistic grounds is publicly acceptable, even though linguistic differences may themselves be associated with ethnic, religious and class differences.” Dialect discrimination cannot be taken more lightly than any other case of potential discrimination, and there is now a precedent for litigation based upon such discrimination. A society that assumes responsibility for combating discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, class, sex, and age should feel obligated to extend the same treatment to dialect differences.

The relatively short history of social dialectology has shown that it is quite possible to combine a commitment to the objective description of sociolinguistic data and a concern for social issues relating to dialect. At various junctures over the past three decades, sociolinguists have become involved in several important sociopolitical and socio-educational issues related to dialect diversity.

According to Labov (1982), there are two primary principles that may motivate linguists to take social action, namely the principle of error correction and the principle of debt incurred. These are articulated as follows:

Principle of error correction

A scientist who becomes aware of a widespread idea or social practice with important consequences that is invalidated by his own data is obligated to bring this error to the attention of the widest possible audience (Labov, 1982: 172).

Principle of debt incurred

An investigator who has obtained linguistic data from members of a speech community has an obligation to use the knowledge based on that data for the benefit of the community, when it has need of it (Labov, 1982: 173).

There are several outstanding instances in the history of social dialectology where these principles have been applied. In the 1960s, sociolinguists in the United States took a prominent pro-difference stance in the so-called deficit-difference controversy that was taking place within education and within speech and language pathology (Baratz, 1968; Labov, 1969). Consonant with the principle of error correction, sociolinguists took a united stand against the classification and treatment of normal, natural dialect differences as language deficits or disorders. There is little doubt that sociolinguists played a major role in pushing the definition of linguistic normalcy toward a dialectally sensitive one, although the practical consequences of this definition are still being worked out in many clinical and

http://www.blackwellreference.com/subscriber/uid=532/tocnode?id=g9780631211938... 28.12.2007

7. Dialect in Society : The Handbook of Sociolinguistics : Blackwell Reference Onl... Page 13 of 13

educational settings (Wolfram and Adger, 1993).

In keeping with the principle of debt incurred, social dialectologists also rose to the occasion in the celebrated Ann Arbor decision (1979). Linguistic testimony was critical to Judge Joiner's ruling in favor of the African-American plaintiff children who brought suit against the Board of Education for not taking their dialect into account in reading instruction. In effect, the judge ruled that the defendants had failed to take appropriate action to overcome language barriers, in violation of Title 20 of the US Code, Section 1703 (f). In compliance with the judge's ruling, a series of workshops was conducted to upgrade awareness and to apply sociolinguistic expertise in reading instruction.

There is another level of social commitment that sociolinguistic investigators might adopt toward the dialect communities in which they conduct their research. This level is more positive and proactive, in that it involves the active pursuit of ways in which linguistic favors can be returned to the community. Thus I propose an additional principle of social commitment which I call the principle of linguistic gratuity.

Principle of linguistic gratuity

Investigators who have obtained linguistic data from members of a speech community should actively pursue positive ways in which they can return linguistic favors to the community.

This principle seems to be a reasonable extension of social commitment on the part of linguists. However, this level of social responsibility is not restricted by a qualification based on recognized community needs, as is Labov's principle of indebtedness. Instead, it is committed to a creative search for a community-based collaborative model to return linguistic favors – favors that accurately reflect the role of dialect in society vis-à-vis popular stereotypes. This may be done through popular books and articles about community dialects, work with preservation societies in collecting and archiving dialect data, and the development of dialect awareness curricula for community schools (see Wolfram and Schilling-Estes, 1995). Language is, in many ways, the most sacred of all cultural traditions and is the rightful property of its users. Those who study dialect therefore need to be sensitive to the symbolic role of language and to preserve this unique artifact that has been shared with us by archiving for present and future generations of speakers the rich legacy of community dialects. While social dialectologists may not view themselves as agents of social change, they do have a responsibility to share the truth about dialects and to address the social consequences that derive from the failure to understand the fundamental nature of dialect in society.

Cite this article

WOLFRAM, WALT. "Dialect in Society." The Handbook of Sociolinguistics. Coulmas, Florian (ed). Blackwell Publishing, 1998. Blackwell Reference Online. 28 December 2007 <http://www.blackwellreference.com/subscriber/tocnode? id=g9780631211938_chunk_g97806312119389>

Bibliographic Details

The Handbook of Sociolinguistics

Edited by: Florian Coulmas eISBN: 9780631211938

Print publication date: 1998

http://www.blackwellreference.com/subscriber/uid=532/tocnode?id=g9780631211938... 28.12.2007