Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T12:24:48.023Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dialect and conversational inference in urban communication1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2008

John J. Gumperz
John J. Gumperz
Affiliation:
University of California, Berkeley
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Maintenance of dialect differences despite loss of communicative isolation points up the need to analyze the role of dialect-standard alternates in signalling social identity and in contributing to conversational inference. Such analysis should focus on conversational interaction and on the processes by which situated interpretations are arrived at and used as frames for interpreting what follows. An Afro-American sermon and a disputed speech by a Black political leader to a mixed audience are analyzed. Dialect alternants serve to signal switching between contrasting styles in both. In the sermon, the audience shares with the speaker a knowledge of the structure of the activity and of the rules for both styles. In the speech, the activity lacks a predictable structure, only the style can frame interpretation, and most of the audience do not share its rules. Conversational inference is shown to depend not only on grammar, lexical meanings and conversational principles, but also on constellations of speech variants, rhythm, and prosody. Such constellations may persist as symbols of shared cultural background. (Dialectology, conversational and discourse analysis; Afro-American speech styles; urban United States.)

Type
Articles: Sequencing in Children's Discourse
Information
Language in Society , Volume 7 , Issue 3 , December 1978 , pp. 393 - 409
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1978

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bateson, G. (1963). Exchange of information about patterns of human behavior. In Fields, W. & Abbott, W. (eds.), Information storage and control. Springfield, Illinois: C. C. Thomas.Google Scholar
Blom, J. P. & Gumperz, J. J. (1972). Social meaning in linguistic structures. In Gumperz, J. & Hymes, D. (eds.), Direct in sociolinguistics. New York:Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis. New York:Basic Books.Google Scholar
Grice, P. (1973). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. (eds.), Syntax and semnantics, Vol. 3. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gumperz, John J. (1971). Dialect differences and social stratification in a north Indian villages. In Gumperz, J., Language in social groups. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Gumperz, John J. (1974). The sociolinguistics of interpersonal communication. Working papers and prepublications. Centro Internationale di Semiotics e di Linguistica, Università di Urbino, Italy.Google Scholar
Gumperz, John J. (1976). The sogiolinguistic significance of conversational code switching. In Gumperz, J. J. & Cook-Gumperz, J., Papers on language and context. Working Paper No. 46, Language Behavior Research Laboratory. Berkeley, California: University of California.Google Scholar
Gumperz, John J. (1977). Sociocultural knowledge in conversational inference. To be published in 28th Annual Round Table Monograph Series on Language and Linguistics, Georgetown University.Google Scholar
Marks, M. (1974). Reliving the call: sound and meaning in gospel music, paper prepared for the session Sociology of Language and Religion, 7th World Congress of Sociology, Toronto, Canada.Google Scholar
Searle, J. (1973). Indirect speech acts. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. (eds.), Syntax and semantics, Vol. 3. New York, Academic Press. 59–82.Google Scholar