Social class and dialect frequency

The number of subjects in each social class based on Steinegger’s criteria is shown in Graph 5.15. The upper class is very large, due primarily to the classification of all school teachers as upper class. Given Ried’s position as an education center for the region, a very large number of the subjects are employed as teachers and school administrators.

Graph 5.15 – Distribution of Subjects by Social Class

Upper Class Middle Class

Working Class

Social Class (Matches Steinegger's Criteria)

250 200 150 100 50 0 Coun t

Table 5.16 - Mean of Dialect Frequency (Steinegger’s Criteria)

Social Class (Matches

Steinegger) Mean N Std. Deviation

Working Class _{4.1724 90 .60438}

Middle Class 4.0516 201 .87786

Upper Class _{4.1829 163 .79503}

Total 4.1227 454 .80130

When Steinegger’s criteria are used to determine social class, the upper class uses dialect the most, with the working class using almost as much dialect and the middle class using slightly less than the other two groups. This may be due to the overrepresentation of teachers in the upper class. The differences in mean dialect frequency across the different social

classes are very small (see Table 5.16), and a one-way ANOVA of the mean dialect frequency indicates that the differences between the means are not significant. A one-way ANOVA test of social class vs. frequency of dialect usage in the various situations showed a correlation significant at the .05 level in only two of 35 situations. For almost all situations there is no correlation between social class and the frequency of dialect spoken. This is in agreement with Steinegger’s findings that for small cities, towns and villages in Austria social class plays a very small role, much less so than in middle- or large-sized cities (Steinegger 1998: 153).

5.5.2 Teachers in the middle class

The distribution of the three social classes using these criteria is shown in Graph 5.17. The large number of school administrators and teachers now cause the middle class to bulge.

Graph 5.17 - Distribution of Subjects by Social Class

Upper Class Middle Class

Working Class

Social Class (Teachers = Middle Class)

300 200 100 0 Coun t

Table 5.18 - Mean of Dialect Frequency (Teachers = Middle Class)

Social Class Mean N Std. Deviation

Working Class 4.1724 90 .60438

Middle Class _{4.1295 305 .81380}

Upper Class 4.0116 59 .98310

The mean dialect frequencies for all three groups are very similar (see Table 5.18); however with the population divided thusly the trends are more closely aligned with the normal expectations. The upper class speaks dialect least often, the working class speaks dialect most often, and the middle class falls in between the working and upper classes; therefore using these modified criteria to divide up the social classes is vindicated. All following references to three social classes will therefore use these criteria, unless specifically comparing with Steinegger’s results. Again, the differences in mean dialect frequency are not very large, and one-way ANOVA indicates that the differences are not significant.

These findings are also in agreement with Steinegger’s findings for communities of this size in Austria, in which social class has very little effect on choice of language variety.

5.5.3 Ammon’s Criteria

As a further comparison, the subjects were divided into 2 groups, using Ammon’s (1995) division of manual-oriented labor and mental-oriented labor. For the most part, the middle and upper classes are combined into the mental-labor oriented group, and the working class becomes the manual-labor oriented group. The distribution of all subjects into mental and manual labor groups is shown in Graph 5.19. The relatively small size of the manual-labor group is probably due again to the large number of teachers, administrators and bureaucrats in Ried, and the shift away from traditional agricultural industries in the Innviertel.

Graph 5.19 – Distribution of Subjects by Manual and Mental Labor

Mental Labor Manual Labor

Manual labor or mental labor

400 300 200 100 0 Count

Table 5.20 - Mean of Dialect Frequency (Ammon’s Criteria)

Manual labor or

mental labor Mean N Std. Deviation

Manual Labor 4.0729 108 .78409

Mental Labor 4.1158 357 .83152

Total 4.1058 465 .82012

The mean dialect frequency for the mental-labor oriented class is slightly higher than that of the manual-labor oriented group, which is unexpected. However, just as with the other possible social class divisions, the differences between the groups are not very great and one- way ANOVA indicates that the differences are not significant. The relaxed variety spoken by manual laborers may actually be closer to the base dialect (Basisdialekt) than the variety spoken by those who are primarily involved with mental labor (Wiesinger’s Verkehrsdialekt), which the latter group nevertheless considers to be dialect.

Regardless of the criteria used to determine social class, the differences in mean dialect frequency between all of the groups are very small, and all groups have a mean dialect frequency over 4.0, which corresponds to using dialect “often.”

When Ammon’s criteria are used, those subjects who are classified as primarily manual- oriented laborers indicate significantly higher agreement with the attitudes “Innviertler dialect is an important part of my culture,” “I am an Austrian first, and a European second,” and “I am an Innviertler first, and an Austrian second” than mental-oriented workers. The manual-oriented class expresses a greater sense of local connection and association of the local dialect with its identity. When split up into three socioeconomic classes — working, middle, and upper classes — significant differences are apparent for only one of the attitudes: “I enjoy dialect poetry,” and the upper classes indicate greater agreement with this attitude than the middle class, who in turn indicate greater agreement than the working class.

The likeliest explanation for the irrelevance of social class in Ried is the small size and homogeneity of the community. Research on smaller communities in Austria and elsewhere has shown that for small populations socioeconomic status does not serve as a reliable construct to predict individual dialect usage (Lippi-Green 1989: 213, Milroy and Gordon 2003: 116). In small communities class distinctions may not be very great, and individuals’ own self-concept may not correspond with a social class designation made by others. Indeed, in small rural communities the dialect variety is found throughout all levels of the social class structure, and is not necessarily associated only with working classes. Situational factors play a much greater role than social class differences in rural communities (Malliga 1997: 24). The speakers in Ried behave much more like the speakers of a small rural town or village than like the speakers of a medium or large city such as Salzburg, Linz, or Vienna.