Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:31:25.802Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Attitudinal and sociostructural factors and their role in dialect change: Testing a model of subjective factors

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 May 2011

Louise Kammacher ,
Andreas Stæhr  and
J. Normann Jørgensen
Louise Kammacher
Affiliation:
University of Copenhagen
Andreas Stæhr
Affiliation:
University of Copenhagen
J. Normann Jørgensen
Affiliation:
University of Copenhagen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The causation of language change is a problem with a high profile in sociolinguistics. This paper presents two contrasting models of language change: one that is based on sociopsychological factors (Kristiansen & Jørgensen, 2005) and one that rejects them (the Napoleon Principle, Brink & Lund, 1979). In a longitudinal study of individuals' changing pronunciation of the Danish aj-diphthong over 20 years, we test predictions following from the sociopsychologically oriented model. By the mid-1980s, female speakers used more aj-pronunciations that are associated with high socioeconomic status than did male speakers. However, in guise tests, females revealed a more positive attitude toward speech associated with low socioeconomic status. Our prediction that female speakers would change their speech patterns to include more aj-pronunciations associated with low socioeconomic status is supported by an analysis of the same female speakers' pronunciations as recorded in the mid-2000s.

Type
Research Article
Information
Language Variation and Change , Volume 23 , Issue 1 , March 2011 , pp. 87 - 104
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

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

Aitchison, J. (2001). Language change. Progress or decay? 3rd ed.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bailey, Charles-James N. (1973). Variation and linguistic theory. Arlington, Virginia: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard. (1933). Language. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Brink, L., & Lund, J. (1974). Udtaleforskelle i Danmark, aldersbestemte—geografiske—sociale [Pronunciation differences in Denmark, age-related, geographical, social]. København: Gjellerup.Google Scholar
Brink, L., & Lund, J.. (1975). Dansk Rigsmål 1-2 . Lydudviklingen siden 1840 med særligt henblik på sociolekterne i København [Standard Danish. Sound changes since 1840 with a special emphasis on the sociolects of Copenhagen]. København: Gyldendal.Google Scholar
Brink, L., & Lund, J.. (1979). Social factors in the sound changes of Modern Danish. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences 1979. Vol. II. Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen. 196–203.Google Scholar
Coupland, Nikolas, Sarangi, Srikant, & Candlin, Christopher N. (eds.) (2001). Sociolinguistics and social theory. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope. (2000). Linguistic variation as social practice: The linguistic construction of identity in Belten High. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ferrer, Raquel Casanoves, & Sankoff, David. (2003). Identity as the primary determinant of language choice in Valencia. Journal of Sociolinguistics 7(1):50–64.Google Scholar
Gregersen, Frans. (2009a). Hvad ved vi—om det såkaldt “flade” a? [what do we know—about the so-called “flat” a?] In Farø, K., Holsting, A., Larsen, N.-E., Mogensen, J. E., & Vinther, T. (eds.), Sprogvidenskab i glimt. 70 tekster om sprog i teori og praksis. Odense: Syddansk Universitetsforlag. 17–25.Google Scholar
Gregersen, Frans. (2009b). The data and design of the Lanchart Study. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 41:3–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hock, H. H., & Joseph, B. D. (1996). Language history, language change, and language relationship. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Holmberg, H. (1991). The sociophonetics of some vowel variables in Copenhagen speech. In Gregersen, F. & Pedersen, I. L. (eds.), The Copenhagen study in urban sociolinguistics. Vol. 1. København: C. A. Reitzel. 107–240.Google Scholar
Hudson, R. A. (1996). Sociolinguistics. 2nd ed.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. (1897–1899). Fonetik. En systematisk fremstilling af læren om sproglyd [Phonetics. A systematic description of the study of speech sounds]. København: Det Schuboteske Forlag.Google Scholar
Jørgensen, J. N. (1980). Det flade a vil sejre [The flat a will conquer]. SAML, Skrifter om Anvendt og Matematisk Lingvistik 7:67–124.Google Scholar
Jørgensen, J. N., & Kristensen, K. (1994). Moderne sjællandsk. En undersøgelse af unge sjællænderes talesprog [Modern Sealand Danish. A study of the language use of young Sealand Danes]. København: C. A. Reitzel.Google Scholar
Jørgensen, J. N., & Kristensen, K. (1995). On boundaries in linguistic continua. Language Variation and Change 7:153–168.Google Scholar
Kristiansen, T. (1991). Sproglige normidealer på Næstvedegnen. Kvantitative sprogholdningsstudier [Linguistic norms ideals in and around Næstved. Quantitative language attitude studies]. Københavns Universitet.Google Scholar
Kristiansen, T., & Jørgensen, J. N. (2005). Subjective factors in dialect convergence and divergence. In Auer, P., Hinskens, F., & Kerswill, P. (eds.), Dialect change. Convergence and divergence in European languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 287–302.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1966). The social stratification of English in New York City. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Milroy, Leslie. (1980). Language and social networks. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Peng, Fred C. C. (1976). A new explanation of language change: The sociolinguistic approach. Forum Linguisticum 1(1): 67–94.Google Scholar
Peng, Fred C. C. (1979). The reality of sound change: A sociolinguistic interpretation. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Vol. II. Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen. 229–237.Google Scholar
Petersen, N. M. (1829). Det danske Sprogs Historie [The History of the Danish Language]. København.Google Scholar
von Phister-Andersen, Carl Ulrik. (1977). Sprogbrug [Language use]. In Hansen, H., von Phister-Andersen, C. U., Troelsen, B., Malberg, E., & Møller, P. M. (eds.), Retorik. teori og praksis [Rhetorics. Theory and practice]. København: Munksgaard, 62–99.Google Scholar
Rampton, B. (2001). Language crossing, cross-talk, and cross-disciplinarity in sociolinguistics. In Coupland et al., 261–296.Google Scholar
Torp, Arne. (2007). R—ei urokråke i språket [R—a source of unrest in the Language]. Oslo: Det Norske Samlaget.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. (1974). The social differentiation of English in Norwich. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Williams, Glyn. (1992). Sociolinguistics: A sociological critique. London: Routledge.Google Scholar