Stop and go (away)sknee/nwav_aspiration_Nov6.pdf · Goldvarb X • First present stopping rates for...

Stop and go (away) Linguistic consequences of non-local aspirations among small-town

Newfoundland youth

Sarah Knee Gerard Van Herk Memorial University of Newfoundland

1 nwav39, 06/nov/10

Explaining social influences on linguistic variation

•  “You talk like who you are.” – Speech community, social categories like age,

gender, class

•  “You talk like who you talk to.” – Social networks, communities of practice

•  “You talk like who you want to be.” – Speaker design, agency, social mobility,

performance

•  Which of these matters? Depends on situation.

2 nwav39, 06/nov/10

Explaining social influences on linguistic variation

•  “You talk like who you are.” – Speech community, social categories like age,

gender, class

•  “You talk like who you talk to.” – Social networks, communities of practice

•  “You talk like who you want to be.” – Speaker design, agency, social mobility,

performance

•  Which of these matters? Depends on situation.

3 nwav39, 06/nov/10

“Who you want to be”

•  Implies speaker agency •  Social aspirations

4 nwav39, 06/nov/10

Hypotheses, predictions: “You talk like…

•  “…who you are.” – Differences between categories (e.g.,

genders)

•  “…who you talk to.” – Differences between social networks,

communities of practice

•  “…who you want to be.” – Differences within categories and networks,

due to speaker aspiration

5 nwav39, 06/nov/10

Today’s question

•  Can we tease out social aspiration from social categories, networks, communities?

•  In other words, what happens (linguistically) when we manipulate these factors to test the hypotheses that they imply?

•  Can we do that?

6 nwav39, 06/nov/10

Investigating speaker aspiration

•  The right social situation – Meaningful social options for speakers

•  “mobility” (Chambers 2003): movement across social categories is possible

•  aspirations can be realized

•  The right variable – Socially salient variation – Shared understanding of social options

indexed by each variant

7 nwav39, 06/nov/10

8 nwav39, 06/nov/10

Situation: Newfoundland English (NE)

•  Rapid social and linguistic change •  Strong (and growing) local pride •  Distinct and diverse local variety,

heavily implicated in identity practices •  = intense sociolinguistic forces

9 nwav39, 06/nov/10

Variable: Interdental Stopping

•  [θ] [t], [ð] [d] •  widespread and well attested

phenomenon in Newfoundland English (PADDOCK, 1981, COLBOURNE, 1982, CLARKE, 1991, 1997, 2004, 2008)

10 nwav39, 06/nov/10

Stopping and salience

My take on NL, is I like some words that we use like I use b’y, like ‘eh b’y’, or maid. [I do that just to make fun of myself.] We’re forever sayin’ that.

But like, I don’t like it when they mispronounce ‘th’, like tree [3]. I hate that. A tree is a living thing that grows from the ground, not the number.

---Aphrodite 11 nwav39, 06/nov/10

12 nwav39, 06/nov/10

The Variable:

All they used to do was make fun of my accent. All the time. Especially when I’d say tree [3].

For one week straight, like ever two seconds a kid would come up to me and dey’re like: “say ‘three million, three thousand, three hundred, and thirty three’”.

And I’d be like: “ 3,003,333”. Dey’re like: “No, the way you always say it”. And I was like, kay, “tree million, tree tousand, tree hundred, and tirty tree”

---Jessica 13 nwav39, 06/nov/10

Petty Harbour (Van Herk et al 2009)

•  Young women orient toward education, StdE –  limited opportunities within rural traditional

roles since decline of the fishery (1992)

•  Young men split –  some match the women – others maintain high rates of local traditional

forms, orient toward vernacular culture and working class occupations (92)

14 nwav39, 06/nov/10

But…

•  These are young adults, already in workforce

•  Petty Harbour has limited local (traditional) employment

•  People commute to nearby urban centre for school and work

•  Hard to disentangle aspiration/affiliation, experiences, social networks/CoPs

15 nwav39, 06/nov/10

So…

•  Let’s look elsewhere

16 nwav39, 06/nov/10

So…

•  Let’s look elsewhere •  New age group •  New Community

17 nwav39, 06/nov/10

So…

•  Let’s look elsewhere •  New age group: 12-16 year olds •  New Community: New-Wes-Valley

http://townofnewwesvalley.com/ 18 nwav39, 06/nov/10

New-Wes-Valley

•  Population: 2,485 (2006 CENSUS)

http://townofnewwesvalley.com/ 19 nwav39, 06/nov/10

New-Wes-Valley

•  economy still centers around the local fishplant

http://townofnewwesvalley.com/ 20 nwav39, 06/nov/10

New-Wes-Valley

•  the nearest shopping centre is 1h30 away by car

21 nwav39, 06/nov/10

New-Wes-Valley

•  One school: K-12 (about 300 students)

22 nwav39, 06/nov/10

New-Wes-Valley: not Petty Harbour

•  Local traditional employment still viable •  Shared local schooling •  Non-local aspirations require leaving the

community (and people do)

23 nwav39, 06/nov/10

Why 12-16 year olds?

•  We need to talk to people who want to leave, but before they do leave

•  12-16 year olds usually can’t choose where to live (up to parents/guardians)

•  But some independence •  Thinking about where they want to be,

plans for after high school, etc

24 nwav39, 06/nov/10

Reminder of Hypotheses: “You talk like…

1.  “…who you are.” 2.  “…who you talk to.” 3.  “…who you want to be.”

25 nwav39, 06/nov/10

Addressing Predictions

Who are we? – Speech community – Age

– Socioeconomic class – Sex

1.  “…who you are.” 2.  “…who you talk to.” 3.  “…who you want to be.”

26 nwav39, 06/nov/10

Addressing Predictions

Who are we? – Speech community: New-Wes-Valley – Age: 12-16 year-olds

– Socioeconomic class – Sex

1.  “…who you are.” 2.  “…who you talk to.” 3.  “…who you want to be.”

27 nwav39, 06/nov/10

Addressing Predictions

Who are we? – Speech community: New-Wes-Valley – Age: 12-16 years old

– Socioeconomic class – Children of working class parents

– Sex

1.  “…who you are.” 2.  “…who you talk to.” 3.  “…who you want to be.”

28 nwav39, 06/nov/10

Addressing Predictions

Who are we? – Speech community: New-Wes-Valley – Age: 12-16 years old

– Socioeconomic class – Children of working class parents

– Sex: 6 male, 6 female

1.  “…who you are.” 2.  “…who you talk to.” 3.  “…who you want to be.”

29 nwav39, 06/nov/10

Addressing Predictions

•  Social factors held steady: – Community, Age, SES

•  Social factor that varies: – Sex

PREDICTION:

 DIFFERENCES WILL BE BETWEEN MALES AND FEMALES, NOT WITHIN MALES OR WITHIN FEMALES

1.  “…who you are.” 2.  “…who you talk to.” 3.  “…who you want to be.”

30 nwav39, 06/nov/10

Addressing Predictions

PREDICTION:  GREATER VARIATION BETWEEN PARTICIPANTS

IN DIFFERENT SOCIAL NETWORKS/COPS THAN PARTICIPANTS IN THE SAME SOCIAL NETWORK/COP

1.  “…who you are.” 2.  “…who you talk to.” 3.  “…who you want to be.”

31 nwav39, 06/nov/10

Addressing Predictions

Networks/CoPs •  Gabe & Kole – friends, participate in the

same activities together, share the same friends and interests

•  Venus & Aphrodite – share same interests, on same sports teams, hang out inside and outside of class

•  Jessica & Elizabeth – fraternal twins, raised together, involved in church together, spend most of their (free) time together

1.  “…who you are.” 2.  “…who you talk to.” 3.  “…who you want to be.”

32 nwav39, 06/nov/10

Addressing Predictions

Aspirations •  Education

–  Trade –  university –  undecided

•  Local vs. non local –  Newfoundlanders vs. Mainlanders –  Newfoundlanders vs. Come-From-Aways (CFA) –  Townies (from St. John’s) vs. Baymen

PREDICTION:   PARTICIPANTS WITH LIKE ASPIRATIONS SHOULD PATTERN MORE

SIMILARLY THAN PARTICIPANTS WITH UNLIKE ASPIRATIONS

1.  “…who you are.” 2.  “…who you talk to.” 3.  “…who you want to be.”

33 nwav39, 06/nov/10

Hypotheses, predictions: “You talk like…

1.  “…who you are.” – Differences will be between males and

females, not within males or within females 2.  “…who you talk to.”

– The following pairs should pattern more similarly Gabe&Kole, Venus&Aphrodite, and Jessica&Elizabeth

3.  “…who you want to be.” – Participants sharing aspirations will pattern

similarly; Differences within categories and networks

34 nwav39, 06/nov/10

Hypotheses, predictions: “You talk like…

1.  “…who you are.” – Differences will be between males and

females, not within males or within females 2.  “…who you talk to.”

– The following pairs should pattern similarly Gabe&Kole, Venus&Aphrodite, and Jessica&Elizabeth

3.  “…who you want to be.” – Participants sharing aspirations will pattern

similarly; Differences within categories and networks

35 nwav39, 06/nov/10

Hypotheses, predictions: “You talk like…

1.  “…who you are.” – Differences will be between males and

females, not within males or within females 2.  “…who you talk to.”

– The following pairs should pattern similarly: Gabe&Kole, Venus&Aphrodite, and Jessica&Elizabeth

3.  “…who you want to be.” – Participants sharing aspirations will pattern

similarly; Differences will be within categories and networks

36 nwav39, 06/nov/10

Method: Participants

•  Found participants through a friend-of-my-friend method

•  Interviews were: – digitally recorded – between 45mins – 2 hours long

– conducted in private homes in New-Wes-Valley, usually in a living room or kitchen

37 nwav39, 06/nov/10

Method: Data Extraction

•  Tokens were extracted after the first 15 mins of an interview – Exception Gabe&Kole

•  Type-token ratio of 5 •  These types were lexical not

phonological – 5 tokens of they’re and 5 tokens of there

were kept

38 nwav39, 06/nov/10

Method: Data Extraction

•  4 different kinds of that were kept – Pronoun: I like that – Complementizer: I said that I wanted to

leave – Determiner: that book was terrible – Modifier: it wasn’t that quick

39 nwav39, 06/nov/10

Method: Data Extraction

•  Contracted forms were included as the same as the non contracted form – e.g., that’s would count as that

•  Exception: –  if the vowel quality and syllable type was

change by the contraction, this was coded as a different word

– E.g., they’re would not count as they

40 nwav39, 06/nov/10

Method: Data Extraction

Exclusions •  Tokens that could not be identified after

looking at a spectrogram or waveform

•  Tokens that were proceeded or followed by one of the variants unless a contrast could be heard – Ex With them

41 nwav39, 06/nov/10

Linguistic Factors

•  Place in syllable –  onset –  coda

•  Word class (FOR ð) –  lexical –  Functional

•  Lexical stress –  stressed syllable –  unstressed syllable

•  Voicing –  Voiced and voiceless run separately

42 nwav39, 06/nov/10

Social Factors

•  Sex –  male –  female

•  Local Aspiration –  local (plans to live in small town NL) –  non local (plans to move away)

•  Educational Aspiration –  university –  trade –  undecided

43 nwav39, 06/nov/10

Method: Data Analysis & Results

•  All statistical analyses were done using Goldvarb X

•  First present stopping rates for ð then θ •  Then look at individual rates of

stopping

44 nwav39, 06/nov/10

Total N = 664, corrected mean .68

Education Local

uni trade undec. nonlocal local

prob .25 .52 .87 .20 .69

% 33 83 90 30 80

N 291 214 159 236 428

range 62 range 49

Rate of ð-stopping

Not significant: place in syllable, word class, lexical stress, sex 45 nwav39, 06/nov/10

Total N = 360, corrected mean .262

Sex Education Local

female male uni trade undec. nonlocal local

prob .36 .64 .38 .45 .75 .18 .69

% 53 47 10 47 59 10 48

N 177 183 143 130 87 126 234

range 28 range 37 range 51

Rate of θ-stopping

Not significant: place in syllable, lexical stress 46 nwav39, 06/nov/10

STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT

X

STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT

√ Results for ð-stopping Participant asp. fricative stop other total % stop

Uhura N U 56 2 0 58 3% Aphrodite N U 61 4 1 66 6% Elizabeth N U 41 17 1 59 29% Cat L U 26 32 3 61 52% Venus L U 17 40 2 59 68% Jay L T 12 34 0 46 74% Daniel N D 10 48 3 61 79% Jessica L T 10 48 3 61 79% Ken L T 9 50 4 63 79% Kole L D 4 42 1 47 89% Ty L T 5 46 0 51 90% Gabe L D 3 53 1 57 93%

47 nwav39, 06/nov/10

Participant asp. fricative stop other total % stop

Uhura N U 56 2 0 58 3% Aphrodite N U 61 4 1 66 6% Elizabeth N U 41 17 1 59 29% Cat L U 26 32 3 61 52% Venus L U 17 40 2 59 68% Jay L T 12 34 0 46 74% Daniel N D 10 48 3 61 79% Jessica L T 10 48 3 61 79% Ken L T 9 50 4 63 79% Kole L D 4 42 1 47 89% Ty L T 5 46 0 51 90% Gabe L D 3 53 1 57 93% *

*

Results for ð-stopping STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT

X

48 nwav39, 06/nov/10

Participant asp. fricative stop other total % stop

Uhura N U 56 2 0 58 3% Aphrodite N U 61 4 1 66 6% Elizabeth N U 41 17 1 59 29% Cat L U 26 32 3 61 52% Venus L U 17 40 2 59 68% Jay L T 12 34 0 46 74% Daniel N D 10 48 3 61 79% Jessica L T 10 48 3 61 79% Ken L T 9 50 4 63 79% Kole L D 4 42 1 47 89% Ty L T 5 46 0 51 90% Gabe L D 3 53 1 57 93%

*

*

Results for ð-stopping STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT

√

49 nwav39, 06/nov/10

Participant asp. fricative stop other total % stop

Uhura N U 56 2 0 58 3% Aphrodite N U 61 4 1 66 6% Elizabeth N U 41 17 1 59 29% Cat L U 26 32 3 61 52% Venus L U 17 40 2 59 68% Jay L T 12 34 0 46 74% Daniel N D 10 48 3 61 79% Jessica L T 10 48 3 61 79% Ken L T 9 50 4 63 79% Kole L D 4 42 1 47 89% Ty L T 5 46 0 51 90% Gabe L D 3 53 1 57 93%

*

*

Results for ð-stopping STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT

√

50 nwav39, 06/nov/10

Participant asp. fricative stop other total % stop

Aphrodite N U 32 0 2 33 0% Elizabeth N U 36 0 5 41 0% Uhura N U 26 1 1 29 3% Venus L U 16 5 6 27 19% Jessica L T 26 10 3 39 26% Cat L U 27 11 1 39 28% Daniel N D 25 12 2 39 31% Jay L T 23 14 0 37 38% Ken L T 17 14 4 35 40% Ty L T 6 26 4 36 72% Gabe L D 6 25 3 34 74% Kole L D 5 17 1 23 74%

Results for θ-stopping

51 nwav39, 06/nov/10

Participant asp. fricative stop other total % stop

Aphrodite N U 32 0 2 33 0% Elizabeth N U 36 0 5 41 0% Uhura N U 26 1 1 29 3% Venus L U 16 5 6 27 19% Jessica L T 26 10 3 39 26% Cat L U 27 11 1 39 28% Daniel N D 25 12 2 39 31% Jay L T 23 14 0 37 38% Ken L T 17 14 4 35 40% Ty L T 6 26 4 36 72% Gabe L D 6 25 3 34 74% Kole L D 5 17 1 23 74%

* *

Results for θ-stopping STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT

X

52 nwav39, 06/nov/10

Participant asp. fricative stop other total % stop

Aphrodite N U 32 0 2 33 0% Elizabeth N U 36 0 5 41 0% Uhura N U 26 1 1 29 3% Venus L U 16 5 6 27 19% Jessica L T 26 10 3 39 26% Cat L U 27 11 1 39 28% Daniel N D 25 12 2 39 31% Jay L T 23 14 0 37 38% Ken L T 17 14 4 35 40% Ty L T 6 26 4 36 72% Gabe L D 6 25 3 34 74% Kole L D 5 17 1 23 74%

*

*

Results for θ-stopping STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT

√

53 nwav39, 06/nov/10

Participant asp. fricative stop other total % stop

Aphrodite N U 32 0 2 33 0% Elizabeth N U 36 0 5 41 0% Uhura N U 26 1 1 29 3% Venus L U 16 5 6 27 19% Jessica L T 26 10 3 39 26% Cat L U 27 11 1 39 28% Daniel N D 25 12 2 39 31% Jay L T 23 14 0 37 38% Ken L T 17 14 4 35 40% Ty L T 6 26 4 36 72% Gabe L D 6 25 3 34 74% Kole L D 5 17 1 23 74%

*

*

Results for θ-stopping STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT

√

54 nwav39, 06/nov/10

Difference between θ and ð

•  Lower rates overall of θ-stopping •  Significant sex difference between θ-

stopping but not ð-stopping

•  Why? – θ-stopping is more salient than ð-stopping (Van Herk et al 2009)

55 nwav39, 06/nov/10

Discussion

•  Which predictions were borne out?

56 nwav39, 06/nov/10

Hypotheses, predictions: “You talk like…

1.  “…who you are.” –  Differences will be between males and

females, not within males or within females

2.  “…who you talk to.” –  The following pairs should pattern more

similarly: Ty&Ken, Venus&Aphrodite, and Jessica&Elizabeth

3.  “…who you want to be.” –  Participants sharing aspirations will

pattern similarly; Differences within categories and networks

ð θ

57 nwav39, 06/nov/10

Hypotheses, predictions: “You talk like…

1.  “…who you are.” –  Differences will be between males and

females, not within males or within females

2.  “…who you talk to.” –  The following pairs should pattern more

similarly: Ty&Ken, Venus&Aphrodite, and Jessica&Elizabeth

3.  “…who you want to be.” –  Participants sharing aspirations will

pattern similarly; Differences within categories and networks

X √

ð θ

58 nwav39, 06/nov/10

Hypotheses, predictions: “You talk like…

1.  “…who you are.” –  Differences will be between males and

females, not within males or within females

2.  “…who you talk to.” –  The following pairs should pattern more

similarly: Ty&Ken, Venus&Aphrodite, and Jessica&Elizabeth

3.  “…who you want to be.” –  Participants sharing aspirations will

pattern similarly; Differences within categories and networks

X √

ð θ

59 nwav39, 06/nov/10

Hypotheses, predictions: “You talk like…

1.  “…who you are.” –  Differences will be between males and

females, not within males or within females

2.  “…who you talk to.” –  The following pairs should pattern more

similarly: Ty&Ken, Venus&Aphrodite, and Jessica&Elizabeth

3.  “…who you want to be.” –  Participants sharing aspirations will

pattern similarly; Differences within categories and networks

X

X

√

ð θ

X

60 nwav39, 06/nov/10

Hypotheses, predictions: “You talk like…

1.  “…who you are.” –  Differences will be between males and

females, not within males or within females

2.  “…who you talk to.” –  The following pairs should pattern more

similarly: Ty&Ken, Venus&Aphrodite, and Jessica&Elizabeth

3.  “…who you want to be.” –  Participants sharing aspirations will

pattern similarly; Differences within categories and networks

X

X

√

ð θ

X

61 nwav39, 06/nov/10

Hypotheses, predictions: “You talk like…

1.  “…who you are.” –  Differences will be between males and

females, not within males or within females

2.  “…who you talk to.” –  The following pairs should pattern more

similarly: Ty&Ken, Venus&Aphrodite, and Jessica&Elizabeth

3.  “…who you want to be.” –  Participants sharing aspirations will

pattern similarly; Differences within categories and networks

X

X

√

ð θ

X

√ √

62 nwav39, 06/nov/10

Discussion

•  For this population and variable, we need to appeal to speaker agency

•  Speakers are making decisions (whether conscious or not) about how they speak

•  Their decisions to use local vs. non local features are related to their educational and local aspirations

63 nwav39, 06/nov/10

Discussion

•  These findings suggest that personal aspirations also need to be considered when explaining sociolinguistic variation

•  In accordance with previous research (ECKERT 2000, GARDNER 2010, HAZEN 2001, ITO&PRESTON 1998)

64 nwav39, 06/nov/10

Thanks!

SPECIAL THANKS TO: SSHRC Jennifer Thorburn, Lindsay Harding, James Bulgin, Evan Hazenberg, & Suzanne Power Participants

65 nwav39, 06/nov/10

Chambers, J. K. (2003). Sociolinguistic theory: linguistic variation and its social significance (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Clarke, S. (1991). Phonological variation and recent language change in St. John's English. In J. Cheshire (Ed.), English around the world: Sociolinguistic perspectives (p. 109-122). Cambridge University Press.

Clarke, S. (2004). Newfoundland English phonology. In B. Kortman & E. Schneider (Eds.), Handbook of varieties of English (p. 355-370). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Colbourne, W. B. (1982). A sociolinguistic study of Long Island, Notre Dame Bay, Newfoundland. Regional Language Studies, 10 , 20-21.

Eckert, Penelope. (2000). Back to the Future. Plenoquium on the Future of Sociolinguistics. NWAV 29. East Lansing: Michigan State University.

Gardner, Matt. (2010). The in-crowd and the "oat"-casts: diphthongs and identity in a Cape Breton high school. NWAV 39.

Hazen, Kirk. (2000). Identity and ethnicity in the rural south: a sociolinguistic view through past and present BE. PADS. 83. Raleigh, North Carolina: Duke University Press.

Ito, Rika and Preston, Dennis. (1998). Identity, discourse and language variation. Language and Social Psychology 17, 4, 465-483.

Paddock, H. (1981). A dialect survey of Carbonear, Newfoundland (No. 68). University of Alabama Press.

Van Herk, G., Childs, B., & Thorburn, J. (2009). Identity marking and affiliation in an urbanizing Newfoundland community. In W. Cichocki (Ed.), Papers from the 31st annual meeting of the Atlantic provinces linguistic association/actes du 31e colloque annuel de l'association de linguistique des provinces atlantiques (p. 85-94).

Williamson, M., & Cardoso, W. (2009). The social stratification of the voiced interdental in the Battery Dialect of Newfoundland. NWAV 38.

Selected References

66 nwav39, 06/nov/10