Reading Working Papers in Linguistics 4 (2000) - The University of ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

J. MARSHALL 2. Change versus Resistance McIntosh (1961) writes that it is generally possible to say that in a given community there is an ‘old-fashioned’ type of speech. That is to say, one which, as far as our knowledge will permit us to judge, has been less affected than other types of speech spoken there, by recent influences from outside. For convenience, those who use this kind of speech can be called ‘resistant types’: they will often, though not always, prove to have lived all or most of their lives in the area which is being investigated. He writes that these resistant types will generally be middle-aged or older, but it will turn out that some young people are also resistant types and that some older persons are not (1961: 85). He does not venture to say what it may be about these speakers that causes them to be resistant, and this leaves us with the question of what social factors, other than age, will predict language change or maintenance. In the Doric Study, this notion of ‘resistant types’ is important. The social and ethnographic data of such resistant individuals shows certain patterns under quantitative analysis. People’s attitudes to changes and to the groups in which they originate are specific and measurable, and have an important effect on the success of their diffusion (Kerswill and Williams 1994: 9). This has been an important consideration in the present study, and attitudes have been measured as part of the questionnaire. The question of how a language community maintains vernacular norms in the face of relentless pressure from the standard is one which interests many linguists. It is very clear that vernacular norms are persistently maintained in many communities, and that they have important social functions. But when language change finally begins to occur in a hitherto conservative variety, it offers the researcher a good opportunity to study the social factors involved in language change, as well as clear, linguistically distinctive variables to use when testing for correlations between social and linguistic variables. Most modern sociolinguists see language variation as inextricably tied with language change, and this study is based upon this notion. Language variation provides an explanation of how transmission takes place, but the problem of actuation remains elusive. McMahon (1994) adopts the view that language is a system containing ‘orderly heterogeneity’ (Labov, Herzog and Weinreich 1968: 100). This implies that: 124
SOCIAL NETWORKS IN A RURAL SETTING language variation is not random, but rather strictly controlled, often by extralinguistic factors, and the specification of these factors may help us account for change (McMahon 1994: 226). The purpose of this study is to discover more about these very extra-linguistic factors. What is interesting is which individuals are more ‘resistant’ to change than others, ignoring age and sex grading. This has become the central focus of the Doric study: to explain which social ‘mechanisms’ predict language change, at least in rural speech communities. 3. Topic Selection The selection of the topic came about as a reaction to the abundance of studies of linguistic change and the social mechanisms involved in the diffusion of change. The dialect in question, known locally as ‘the Doric’, is spoken (with slight variation) throughout the north-east of Scotland in Aberdeenshire, and here the town of Huntly has been the focus (see map below). The location may be regarded as a relic area for linguistic purposes, as will become obvious from the data. Until recently, the speech of the area was rather conservative, and now that change is taking place rather rapidly, the community has been singled out for sociolinguistic study. Improved transport links and increased geographical mobility have also meant that local villagers 125
Page 1 and 2:
Reading Working Papers in Linguisti
Page 3:
Reading Working Papers in Linguisti
Page 6 and 7:
K ALJENAIE testing ground. To what
Page 8 and 9:
K ALJENAIE causative form is basica
Page 10 and 11:
K ALJENAIE person diagram, the two
Page 12 and 13:
K ALJENAIE 3.2 Data Analysis The sa
Page 14 and 15:
K ALJENAIE Table 4 Osama’s longit
Page 16 and 17:
K ALJENAIE The asterisk indicates t
Page 18 and 19:
K ALJENAIE which is the transitive
Page 20 and 21:
K ALJENAIE confirming Hyams (1986)
Page 22 and 23:
K ALJENAIE Table 12 Sara’s realiz
Page 24 and 25:
K ALJENAIE Table 15 Number of Infle
Page 26 and 27:
K ALJENAIE masculine forms are cons
Page 28 and 29:
K ALJENAIE Motar, A. (1969). Khasai
Page 30 and 31:
P. COUTSOUGERA Plural Plural Singul
Page 32 and 33:
P. COUTSOUGERA e.g. [peδja'] *[pe
Page 34 and 35:
P. COUTSOUGERA Tableau 1: Opacity i
Page 36 and 37:
P. COUTSOUGERA As can be seen, in r
Page 38 and 39:
P. COUTSOUGERA 6.1 Selection of the
Page 40 and 41:
P. COUTSOUGERA /alevr-I-a/ Tableau
Page 42 and 43:
P. COUTSOUGERA different areas of t
Page 44 and 45:
P. COUTSOUGERA ruled out as it viol
Page 46 and 47:
P. COUTSOUGERA operation McCarthy p
Page 48 and 49:
P. COUTSOUGERA Tableau 6: Applicati
Page 50 and 51:
P. COUTSOUGERA References Anderson,
Page 52 and 53:
R. INGHAM cognitive deficits. They
Page 54 and 55:
R. INGHAM 2. Subjects and hypothese
Page 56 and 57:
R. INGHAM good as their CA matches
Page 58 and 59:
R. INGHAM 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30
Page 60 and 61:
R. INGHAM Did the [+LD] group perfo
Page 62 and 63:
R. INGHAM using the Wilcoxon ranked
Page 64 and 65:
R. INGHAM representations but also
Page 66 and 67:
R. INGHAM Van der Lely, H., & L. St
Page 68 and 69:
P. KERSWILL & A. WILLIAMS some vene
Page 70 and 71:
P. KERSWILL & A. WILLIAMS far soone
Page 72 and 73:
P. KERSWILL & A. WILLIAMS outside l
Page 74 and 75:
P. KERSWILL & A. WILLIAMS 3. Intern
Page 76 and 77:
P. KERSWILL & A. WILLIAMS • Varia
Page 78 and 79: P. KERSWILL & A. WILLIAMS Despite s
Page 80 and 81: P. KERSWILL & A. WILLIAMS naturalne
Page 82 and 83: P. KERSWILL & A. WILLIAMS apparent
Page 84 and 85: P. KERSWILL & A. WILLIAMS Summary f
Page 86 and 87: P. KERSWILL & A. WILLIAMS Table 2 T
Page 88 and 89: P. KERSWILL & A. WILLIAMS regard it
Page 90 and 91: P. KERSWILL & A. WILLIAMS The ‘gr
Page 92 and 93: P. KERSWILL & A. WILLIAMS Table 4 (
Page 94 and 95: P. KERSWILL & A. WILLIAMS sociodemo
Page 96 and 97: P. KERSWILL & A. WILLIAMS Bardovi-H
Page 98 and 99: P. KERSWILL & A. WILLIAMS språkfö
Page 100 and 101: S. KULKARNI in the Indian caste hie
Page 102 and 103: S. KULKARNI ideologies, each emphas
Page 104 and 105: S. KULKARNI century. The Sabha was,
Page 106 and 107: S. KULKARNI The main study includes
Page 108 and 109: S. KULKARNI 4. Quantitative Analyse
Page 110 and 111: S. KULKARNI comparatively lower (in
Page 112 and 113: S. KULKARNI Table 3: Percentage use
Page 114 and 115: S. KULKARNI showing an almost compl
Page 116 and 117: S. KULKARNI 50 mean % std. score 40
Page 118 and 119: S. KULKARNI 100 mean % std. score 9
Page 120 and 121: S. KULKARNI Marathi the kin term /m
Page 122 and 123: S. KULKARNI not by the less-privile
Page 124 and 125: S. KULKARNI Bapuji, B.R. (1994).
Page 126 and 127: S. KULKARNI Sastry, J.V. (1993). Re
Page 130 and 131: J. MARSHALL have become more expose
Page 132 and 133: J. MARSHALL anthropologists. As man
Page 134 and 135: J. MARSHALL for data such as Milroy
Page 136 and 137: J. MARSHALL To some extent, [networ
Page 138 and 139: J. MARSHALL these close-knit ties a
Page 140 and 141: J. MARSHALL Life mode 1. Life modes
Page 142 and 143: J. MARSHALL There are, however, som
Page 144 and 145: J. MARSHALL can choose a high level
Page 146 and 147: J. MARSHALL Pedersen therefore, lik
Page 148 and 149: J. MARSHALL case that these people
Page 150 and 151: J. MARSHALL 6. Research Question an
Page 152 and 153: J. MARSHALL ‘are high in frequenc
Page 154 and 155: J. MARSHALL 6.5. Morphological Vari
Page 156 and 157: J. MARSHALL 4 Do you work/go to sch
Page 158 and 159: J. MARSHALL 8) I never eat brose or
Page 160 and 161: J. MARSHALL mentioned, a ‘real ti
Page 162 and 163: J. MARSHALL 3. LEXREC. This is an i
Page 164 and 165: J. MARSHALL which comes nearest to
Page 166 and 167: J. MARSHALL LIFMODLEXREC 60 50 40 L
Page 168 and 169: J. MARSHALL the different tests wer
Page 170 and 171: J. MARSHALL PHOVAR = 21.1 + 0.573 A
Page 172 and 173: J. MARSHALL There is no significant
Page 174 and 175: J. MARSHALL 7.6. SOCNET as a Predic
Page 176 and 177: J. MARSHALL SOCNET is again not sig
Page 178 and 179:
J. MARSHALL integrated sociolinguis
Page 180 and 181:
I. SINKA, M. GARMAN AND C. SCHELLET
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
show all

Reading Working Papers in Linguistics 4 (2000) - The University of ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?