Sociolinguistic sources of dialect development

The linguistic system is a source of flexibility and redundancy. In relation to phonological systems specifically, phonological variation may be influenced by a variety of internal (i.e.

linguistic) and external (i.e. social) factors. In this section I consider a variety of important influences on the direction and consequences of variation. Though I am dealing with phonology specifically in this thesis, these influences apply to the linguistic system more generally.

2.6.1 Language acquisition

Processes of language (and dialect) acquisition are an important carrier of phonological changes across successive generations of speakers (Kerswill 1996b; Labov 2001: 422-436).

The identification of systematic linguistic differences in the distribution of features between successive generations of speakers has come to be accepted in variationist research as a reliable indication of language change (cf. Weinreich et al. 1968: 150; Labov 1972a, 2001).

Intergenerational change is recognised as a significant factor in the development of new dialects (see 2.7.9). Research suggests that from a young age, children are developing sociolinguistic competence. Adolescents have become an important focus for research on intergenerational language change (cf. Eckert 1988, 2000; Kerswill 1996b) as well as in studies of the linguistic manifestation of identity construction (Eckert 1996; Mendoza-Denton 2008; Drager 2009; Lawson 2011).

2.6.2 Contact, accommodation and diffusion

Language change follows the trajectory of an S-shaped curve (cf. Weinreich et al. 1968: 113;

Bailey 1973; Labov 1994). Innovations appear to diffuse slowly at first and have minority status, but then exhibit a stage of rapid increase in frequency. As the innovative feature reaches majority status the change appears to slow. The relative frequencies and patterns of distribution of linguistic features are therefore an integral component of processes of

linguistic change. Changes do not progress to completeness. Rather, changes replace one heterogeneous distribution of linguistic features with an altered, yet still heterogeneous new set of distributions.

Contact between speakers is a prerequisite for language change, since linguistic features diffuse via contact (Weinreich et al. 1968: 155; Kerswill & Williams 2002a: 82). Therefore, changes in the dynamics of the sociocultural networks that bring people into contact have a profound impact on the distribution and frequency of linguistic features. Significantly reduced contact between certain speaker groups is a condition favourable for linguistic divergence between the separated groups. This is not a simple matter however, since distinct (and geographically distant) dialects may also undergo parallel developments (Weinreich et al. 1968; Trudgill 2004).

Alternatively, when speaker groups are brought into contact anew, interaction takes place in conditions relatively more favourable to linguistic convergence. There may be

transmission and borrowing of phonological features, reduction of similarities and focusing (see 2.7.6). Dramatic cultural changes such as colonisation are not necessary for linguistic convergence and / or divergence to take place and the results of contact in relation to

convergence and divergence are influenced by a variety of factors (see Jones and Esch 2002).

Psychological and linguistic accommodation (see 2.7.2) is understood to play an

influential role in the degree to which speakers diverge or converge in their use of linguistic features (see Trudgill 1986; Auer & Hinskens 2005) but the relationship between speakers‟

attitudes and linguistic accommodation is not fully understood (see Hinskens et al. 2005: 7;

Drager et al. 2010; Hay et al. 2010). Psychological accommodation does not necessarily result in linguistic accommodation since there is influence from a variety of additional linguistic and social factors.

Contact and accommodation clearly impact upon the degree to which dialect features diffuse socially and geographically and converge versus diverge (Britain 2009). As observed by Kurath (1972) the spread of linguistic features is often particularly vigorous in

geographical sites of dense contact, such as urbanised centres (cf. Trudgill‟s 1983 gravity model of geolinguistic diffusion). The socioeconomic hierarchies of speech communities are also relevant to contact and diffusion. Vernacular speech styles among speakers within the lower strata of the socioeconomic hierarchy have been identified as the primary locus of linguistic innovation, change and diffusion (Labov 1972a; Milroy 1987). Eckert (2012: 90) notes that patterns of linguistic variation in relation to gender, ethnicity and other social categories have traditionally been interpreted from the perspective of socioeconomic divisions. The facts now appear to be more complex, as I discuss in 2.6.3.

2.6.3 Evaluation and social meaning

The adoption or acquisition of linguistic features does not involve precise reduplication.

Features adopted from one variety into another take on their own localised social significance (see Weinreich et al. 1968: 157; Britain & Trudgill 1999; Meyerhoff & Niedzielski 2003;

Pennycook 2007; and see 2.7.5).

Speakers evaluate each others‟ use of linguistic features. Language is a cultural practice subject to the influences of creativity and identity construction. Just as people evaluate each others‟ clothes, beliefs and other cultural practices, so too they evaluate each others‟

linguistic practices. Linguistic variation carries social meaning.

Phonological variants which are sufficiently salient (i.e. noticeable, see 2.7.10) may become associated with certain speaker groups. Research using matched guise experiments (e.g. Lambert et al. 1960), in which subjects evaluate different pronunciations produced by the same speaker, and other experimental studies of language perception (e.g. Babel 2010;

Hay & Drager 2010; Hay et al. 2009, 2010) demonstrate complex symbolic connections between sociocultural stereotypes and language variation.

Eckert (2012) arranges variationist research into “three waves” with respect to its treatment of social meaning. An early recognition of the importance of the social evaluation of linguistic features in Labov‟s Martha‟s Vineyard study (1963) was relegated to a

subsidiary role by the “first wave” concern with macrosociological levels of variation such as age, gender, ethnicity, and socioeconomic class in particular. In the “second wave” it became apparent that linguistic features were an integral part of speakers‟ constructions of styles and identities, rather than simply indicative of category membership. Phonological variation reflects speaker characteristics as well as speaker group membership.

In the current “third wave” of variationist research, the indexical and symbolic nature of the link between language and social meaning is receiving close scrutiny. It now appears that the utilisation of linguistic variation in relation to speaker characteristics involves

interconnected and multilayered social meanings (cf. Kiesling 2005; Eckert 2008; Zhang 2008).

Eckert (2008) suggests that linguistic variables symbolise social meanings and personal styles by referencing “indexical fields.” Any one of a range of potential meanings associated with a linguistic variable can potentially be activated during a given interaction depending on the particular stance (cf. Ochs 1993; Kiesling 2005) that a speaker adopts in the context of the interaction. A stance is “a socially recognised point of view or attitude” (Ochs 1993:288).

The concept of linguistic style has evolved throughout variationist research (cf. Labov 1966; Coupland 1980; Bell 2001; see Coupland 2007 and Eckert & Rickford 2001 for a comprehensive treatment of style within sociolinguistics). Here I treat a style simply as a particular “way of speaking” (Coupland 2007: 2) within a given context. Styles are context dependent and personal (i.e. individual) but are also associated with particular speaker groups or characteristics. In this thesis I consider the social meanings attached to linguistic variables to be inclusive of stances, styles and speaker identity characteristics. When I refer to

evaluation I refer to all aspects of social meaning.

Kiesling (2005) describes a particular linguistic style used by Greek migrants in Sydney, Australia. Kiesling found that an open and lengthened pronunciation of word-final <er>, e.g.

in better, articulated as [a] and with HRT, is indexical of the “Australian Greek migrant experience.” Its use facilitates an “authoritative connection” (Kiesling 2005: 23) which references shared understanding and establishes solidarity between speakers.

Similarly, Zhang (2008) investigated the rhotacisation of syllable rimes in Mandarin Chinese, a stereotypical vernacular feature which is highly salient and used to invoke Beijing culture in literature and in discourse. Zhang (2008) uses metapragmatic discourse data (written and verbal sources of commentary) to explore the social meaning attached to this feature. Rhotacisation receives a variety of descriptions in reference to a distinctive Beijing style. Certain descriptive labels may themselves be rhotacised in order to enhance the

indexical effect (Zhang 2008: 208). Beijing speech itself is perceived as “smooth” and this is partly attributed to rhotacisation, which is interpreted as “making the speech sound smooth”

(Zhang 2008: 210). This association is also applied to a Beijing character style: the “Beijing Smooth Operator” who is stereotypically an urban male professional. Interestingly it is professional male businessmen who make use of this feature significantly more than professional women (cf. Zhang 2005).

The discursive practices of speakers thus play a role in establishing the social meanings associated with linguistic variation. Johnstone et al. (2006) provide a historical account of the evolution of social meaning for an emerging regional variety: “Pittsburghese.” They trace the metadiscourse associated with this variety as linguistic features shift across three “orders of indexicality” (cf. Labov‟s taxonomy of social meanings 1972: 178-180 and Silverstein‟s 2003

“orders of indexicality”). In Johnstone et al.‟s (2006: 82-83) classification, characteristics of features at each stage / order of indexicality are:

3. First-order indexicality:

(i) correspond to Labov‟s “indicators”

(ii) are below the level of speaker awareness

(iii) are recognised by linguists as associated with particular sociodemographic groups (age, class, region)

(iv) do not display stylistic variation

4. Second-order indexicality:

(i) correspond to Labov‟s “markers”

(ii) beginning to enter speaker awareness as associated with a particular style, locality, class, etc.

(iii) display stylistic variation

5. Third-order indexicality:

(i) correspond to Labov‟s “stereotypes”

(ii) explicitly commented on by speakers (iii) used to perform (local, regional) identity

During first-order indexicality a feature is not noticed or used by speakers consciously for identity purposes since they are not aware of the sociodemographic differentiation of its use, though linguists may draw attention to variation through analysis and overt description. The feature is not yet imbued with social meaning.

As the feature passes into second-order indexicality, speakers become aware of its socially differentiated use and begin to use it stylistically themselves. At this point features have become ideologically significant although speakers may not have sufficient awareness to be able to refer to the features in question.

In third-order indexicality features become explicitly identified as characteristic of local speech. Speakers refer to them explicitly in performing local identities or identities associated with other speaker groups and characteristics.

Johnstone et al. (2006: 80) describe this as a process of “standardization of a “non-standard” regional variety.” The sociocultural conditions which surround the linguistic variation influence this process. The shifting evaluations of linguistic features are connected to sociocultural contexts and histories. This recent literature suggests that in order to

understand how new regional dialects develop out of a relatively new variety such as NZE,

attention must be paid not only to linguistic variation, but also to the sociocultural conditions and to speakers‟ awareness of and attitudes towards linguistic features.

In the next section I describe the social and linguistic processes involved in new-dialect development which have moulded NZE into its present form. I then consider how similar processes might lead to diversification in the variety.