Book contents
- Social Meaning and Linguistic Variation
- Social Meaning and Linguistic Variation
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Acknowledgments
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- 1 Social Meaning and Linguistic Variation: Theoretical Foundations
- Part I Where Is (Social) Meaning?
- Part II The Structure of Social Meaning
- Part III Meaning and Linguistic Change
- 12 Emergence of Social Meaning in Sociolinguistic Change
- 13 Multiethnolect and Dialect in and across Communities
- 14 Changing Language, Changing Character Types
- 15 Social Meaning and the Temporal Dynamics of Sound Changes
- 16 The Role of the Body in Language Change
- 17 Afterword
- Index
- References
15 - Social Meaning and the Temporal Dynamics of Sound Changes
from Part III - Meaning and Linguistic Change
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 30 July 2021
Book contents
- Social Meaning and Linguistic Variation
- Social Meaning and Linguistic Variation
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Acknowledgments
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- 1 Social Meaning and Linguistic Variation: Theoretical Foundations
- Part I Where Is (Social) Meaning?
- Part II The Structure of Social Meaning
- Part III Meaning and Linguistic Change
- 12 Emergence of Social Meaning in Sociolinguistic Change
- 13 Multiethnolect and Dialect in and across Communities
- 14 Changing Language, Changing Character Types
- 15 Social Meaning and the Temporal Dynamics of Sound Changes
- 16 The Role of the Body in Language Change
- 17 Afterword
- Index
- References
Summary
The first study reveals that GOAT exhibits a higher F2 when it occurs in the context of smiling, which suggests that some sound changes may be advancing during moments when the body is used to express heightened affect. The second study illustrates that the more durative embodied practice of maintaining an open-jaw setting has had lowering consequences across the vowel system of California English – even for GOAT, which is typically described as undergoing fronting rather than lowering.
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Social Meaning and Linguistic VariationTheorizing the Third Wave, pp. 338 - 362Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
References
Adank, Patti, Smits, Roel, and van Hout, Roeland. 2004. A comparison of vowel normalization procedures for language variation research. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 116(5), 3099–107.Google Scholar
Becker, Kara. 2014. The social motivations of reversal: Raised BOUGHT in New York City English. Language in Society 43(4), 395–420.Google Scholar
Brysbaert, Marc, and New, Boris. 2009. Moving beyond Kučera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behavioral Research Methods 41(4), 977–90.Google Scholar
Conn, Jeff. 2005. Of ‘moice’ and men: The evolution of male-led sound change. Ph.D. dissertation. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Coupland, Nikolas. 1980. Style-shifting in a Cardiff work-setting. Language in Society 9(1), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckert, Penelope. 2001. Style and social meaning. In Eckert, P. and Rickford, J. R. (eds.), Style and Sociolinguistic Variation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 119–26.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope. 2003. The meaning of style. Texas Linguistic Forum 47: Proceedings of the Symposium about Language and Society – Austin, 41–53.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope. 2008. Variation and the indexical field. Journal of Sociolinguistics 12(4), 453–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckert, Penelope. 2010. Affect, sound symbolism, and variation. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 15(2), Article 9.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope. 2012. Three waves of variation study: The emergence of meaning in the study of sociolinguistic variation. Annual Review of Anthropology 41, 87–100.Google Scholar
Fruehwald, Josef. 2013. The phonological influence on phonetic change. Ph.D. dissertation. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Guy, Gregory R. 2013. The cognitive coherence of sociolects: How do speakers handle multiple sociolinguistic variables? Journal of Pragmatics 52, 63–71.Google Scholar
Hubbell, Allan Forbes. 1950. The Pronunciation of English in New York City. New York: King’s Crown Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kendall, Tyler. 2009. Speech rate, pause, and linguistic variation: An examination through the sociolinguistic archive and analysis project. Ph.D. dissertation. Durham, NC: Duke University.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1963. The social motivation of a sound change. Word 19(3), 273–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. 1984. Field methods of the project on linguistic change and variation. In Baugh, J. and Sherzer, J. (eds.), Language in Use: Readings in Sociolinguistics. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 28–53.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1994. Principles of Linguistic Change, Volume 1: Internal Factors. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 2001a. The anatomy of style-shifting. In Eckert, P. and Rickford, J. R. (eds.), Style and Sociolinguistic Variation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 85–108.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 2001b. Principles of Linguistic Change, Vol. 2: Social Factors. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 2006 [1966]. The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 2010. Principles of Linguistic Change, Volume 3: Cognitive and Cultural Factors. Malden, MA, and Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William, Ash, Sharon, and Boberg, Charles. 2006. The Atlas of North American English: Phonetics, Phonology and Sound Change. Berlin, DE: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Labov, William, Rosenfelder, Ingrid, and Fruehwald, Josef. 2013. One hundred years of sound change in Philadelphia: Linear incrementation, reversal, and reanalysis. Language 89(1), 30–65.Google Scholar
Podesva, Robert J. 2008. Three sources of stylistic meaning. Texas Linguistic Forum 51: Proceedings of the Symposium about Language and Society – Austin 15, 134–43.Google Scholar
Prichard, Hilary, and Tamminga, Meredith. 2012. The impact of higher education on local phonology. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 18(2), Article 11.Google Scholar
Rickford, John R., and McNair-Knox, Faye. 1994. Addressee- and topic-influenced style shift: A quantitative sociolinguistic study. In Biber, D. and Finegan, E. (eds.), Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Register. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 235–76.Google Scholar
Rosenfelder, Ingrid, Fruehwald, Josef, Evanini, Keelan, and Yuan, Jiahong. 2011. FAVE Program Suite [Forced alignment and vowel extraction].Google Scholar
Sharma, Devyani, and Rampton, Ben. 2011. Lectal focusing in interaction: A new methodology for the study of superdiverse speech. Queen Mary’s Occasional Papers Advancing Linguistics 2, 1–22.Google Scholar
Sonderegger, Morgan, Bane, Max, and Graff, Peter. 2017. The medium-term dynamics of accents on reality television. Language 93(3), 598–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tamminga, Meredith, Ahern, Christopher, and Ecay, Aaron. 2016a. Generalized additive mixed models for intraspeaker variation. Linguistics Vanguard, 2(s1).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tamminga, Meredith, MacKenzie, Laurel, and Embick, David. 2016b. The dynamics of variation in individuals. Linguistic Variation 16(2), 300–36.Google Scholar
Van Hofwegen, Janneke. 2017. The systematicity of style: Investigating the full range of variation in everyday speech. Ph.D. dissertation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.Google Scholar
Wagner, Suzanne Evans. 2008. Linguistic change and stabilization in the transition from adolescence to adulthood. Ph.D. dissertation. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Wolfson, Nessa. 1976. Speech events and natural speech: Some implications for sociolinguistic methodology. Language in Society 5(2), 189–209.Google Scholar
Wood, Simon N. 2006. Generalized Additive Models: An Introduction with R. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Wood, Simon N. 2011. Fast stable restricted maximum likelihood and marginal likelihood estimation of semiparametric generalized linear models. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 73(1), 3–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Accessibility standard: Unknown
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this chapter is currently unknown
and may be updated in the future.
- 2
- Cited by