LING433/ANTH433 (formerly LING434)
Spring 2007
Wassink
Sociolinguistics II
Instructor: Alicia
Beckford Wassink
Office: A217
Padelford
Office
Hours: Wednesdays 12:30-1:30
and by appointment
Office
Phone: 616-9589 (Note: I rarely check voicemail; email
preferred)
Dept.
Phone: 543-2046 (Dept.
of Linguistics Office)
Email: wassink@u.washington.edu
Classroom: SAV 153
Time:
TTh 1:30-3:20
Course website: http://faculty.washington.edu/wassink/LING433syll.html
Quick
Links to other parts of this page:
Course Description =
Required Work =Required Readings
=
Topics Overview
=
Methods Overview
=
Logistical Information (Grading and Course Policies) = Syllabus = Journal Formatting Requirements
This
course has two main concerns. First, we will survey a range of field methods
sociolinguists use in studies of "language on the ground"--i.e.,
language variation and change.
Building on basic concepts established in Sociolinguistics I, we will
discuss the relationship between the objects of sociolinguistic research and
sociolinguistic theory, and how these issues impact data collection. We will focus on a few key pieces of
classic literature from the sociolinguistic canon as our guides and seek to
understand their contribution both to sociolinguistic methods and theory. We will problematize the notion of Òspeech community,Ó discuss the nature
and composition of appropriate kinds of databases, the identification and
selection of informants, merits and limitations of introspective data, issues
of ethics and cultural expectations, and approaching and working with
informants.
The
other main concern of this course is to continue to build familiarity with the
classic literature in sociolinguistics. Our main topics of investigation will
be:
¯
The
classic Labovian (variationist)-style investigation of language variation and
change
¯
Regionality
¯
Second
dialect acquisition
¯
Immigration
and language change
¯
Language
attitudes
¯
Perceptual
Dialectology
We
will attempt to touch on areas of sociolinguistic research that connect with
student interests. For this reason,
the syllabus for this class may differ slightly from year to year, and may be
revised after the first week of the quarter.
This
course takes a practical approach to issues of data collection, and as such, is
geared particularly toward those students who plan to conduct their own field
research. We will be concerned
with targeting and designing a wide range of interview types for the collection
of phonological, morpho-syntactic or discourse/conversational data. We will give special consideration to
the following methodological issues: design of materials used for eliciting
large numbers of tokens; concerns about the quality of data for various types
of analysis; how to move beyond word lists and reading passage tasks; use of
census and other materials for random and judgment sampling. We will explore the merits of using
various types of recording equipment, and obtain some hands-on experience.
Depending on students levels of skill, we will have at least one software
demonstration (e.g., Principle Components Analysis, Plotnik, Akustyk,
Transcription using ELAN or Praat)
Prerequisites: LING 400 or equivalent, LING432/ANTH 432 (Sociolinguistics
I), or instructor's permission.
General familiarity with variationist sociolinguistics, including
stratification, network theory and audience design is assumed.
Note: There are no quizzes or
exams given in this course.
1.)
Research Design Project:
¯
Adopt
a linguistic variable (10%)
Week
4. All students will
"adopt" a sociolinguistic variable by the fourth week of class (=April
17th),
around which they will design a small-scale study. In week four, all students will email the instructor with
their proposed variable and tentative research question(s) (no firm decision on
a research question is required until week 7). You may NOT change your
variable after this date.
This
project may be an outgrowth of a data collection project the student has
previously completed. The student will design a project that will be ready to
conduct by the end of the quarter. There will be no data collection for this
project; rather the aim is to develop an abstract for the project to be turned
in at the end of the quarter. The methodology will be refined in a journaling
process (see ÒJournal Formatting RequirementsÓ below), and the project may be
piloted in the class, if desired by the student.
¯
Submit
regular journal entries (30 %)
Every
two weeks (as noted on syllabus), each student will turn in a journal, with
a written or typed entry related to the previous week's topic (for topics, see
"Term Overview", below).
It is hoped that this will help the student begin a lifetime of good
research practices! Journal
entries are to be used to work through theoretical issues associated with
deciding on a viable research question; and with methodological issues associated with
choosing their variable, assessing its collectibility, and sampling
issues. Most students find it
convenient to keep two separate notebooks for this class (one notebook for recording
reading and class notes to be brought to class daily, and a second for
journaling).
¯
Submit
final project: Abstract and Portfolio (20%)
End
of quarter (final exam period). All students will submit
1)
A one page, 200-word abstract outlining a talk planned for a hypothetical
sociolinguistics conference.
2) A portfolio containing collected
materials from the quarter (10-15 pages including journal, formal project
report, appendices, and cassette copy of recorded data). No late portfolios will be accepted!
****Final
exam date/time: 2:30-4:20
p.m. Friday, Jun. 8, 2007****
2.) Class participation (20%)
The
syllabus lists four in-class workdays (labeled ÒstudentsÕ research methods,Ó on
syllabus). These are intended to provide students with an opportunity to
discuss and obtain feedback on, their design project, and become familiar with
the kinds of considerations inherent to other kinds of sociolinguistic
projects. In these reports, students
talk in class about the methods they are developing for examining their
variable, working from the contents of the journal (see syllabus for
presentation dates). The success of this class (from a learning perspective)
relies upon each student developing an interest in, and familiarity with, the
projects of her or his peers. For this reason, students are graded on both
presenting on their own projects, and providing careful thought and input on
peersÕ projects.
3.)
Short Peer Feedback Report (20%)
In
addition to the discussion expected above in (2), students must pair with one
classmate, who is working on a different kind of linguistic variable than his/her own. They
are a peer advisor to this person.
In the role of peer advisor, students are responsible for reviewing
drafts of their peerÕs abstract and making editing suggestions. The comments must be turned in with the
peerÕs project (i.e., when turning in your portfolio, you will turn in a draft
of your own abstract, with the comments of your peer advisor).
All
readings are to be found in the coursepack, obtained at AVE COPYCENTER (4141 University
Way NE, Suite 103, http://www.avecopy.com/contactus.htm).
Readings
(in alphabetical order):
Agheyisi, R. and
Fishman, J. (1970) Language Attitude Studies: a brief survey of methodological approaches. Anthropological
Linguistics, 12(5), 137-157
Bell, Alan. (2001) Back in style: reworking audience
design. In, Style and
Sociolinguistic Variation (Eckert, P. and Rickford, J. R., eds.) Cambridge: Cambridge
UP. 139-169.
Chambers, J. K. (1992)
Dialect acquisition. In, The sociolinguistics Reader (P. Trudgill and J.
Cheshire, eds.) London: Arnold.
Chambers, J. K. (2001)
Region and language variation, English World-Wide 21(2), pp. 169-199.
Dorian, Nancy. (1982)
Defining the speech community to include its working margins. In, Sociolinguistic variation in
speech communities (S.
Romaine, ed.) London: Arnold. 25-33.
Eckert, Penelope. (1997)
Age as a sociolinguistic variable.
In, The Handbook of Sociolinguistics (F. Coulmas, ed.).
Oxford: Blackwell. 151-167.
Giles, H. and Ryan, E.
B. (1982) Prolegomena for
developing a social psychological theory of language attitudes. In, Attitudes
towards language variation: social and applied contexts (E. B. Ryan and H.
Giles, eds.) pp. 208-223.
Gumperz, J. (1968) The
Speech Community. In P. P. Giglioli, Language and Social Context. New York: Penguin.
Harris, J. (1984)
Syntactic variation and dialect divergence. Journal of Linguistics 20.2. 303-327
Horvath, B. (1991)
Finding a place in Sydney: migrants and language change. In P. Trudgill and J. Cheshire, eds., The
Sociolinguistics Reader, vol. 1. London: Arnold, pp. 90-102.
Kerswill, P. and
Williams, A. (2002) Dialect recognition and speech community focusing in new
and old towns in England. In
Preston, ed. Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology, vol. 2. Amsterdam:
Benjamins, pp. 173-204
Labov, William.
(1984) Field Methods of the
Project on Linguistic Change and Variation. Language in Use:
Readings In Sociolinguistics.
Baugh, John and Sherzer, Joel, eds. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall. 28-53.
Labov, William. (2001)
The study of linguistic change and variation in Philadelphia, ch. 2-3. Principles of Linguistic Change:
Social factors, vol 2. Oxford: Blackwell. 35-85
Lambert, W. (1967) A
social psychology of bilingualism, Journal of Social Issues, 23.2. 91-109
Lippi-Green, Rosina.
(1997) Teaching Children to
Discriminate: What we learn from
the Big Bad Wolf. English with
an Accent: Language ideology, and
discrimination in the United States.
London: Routledge, ch. 5.
Milroy, Lesley and
Gordon, Matthew. (2003) Sociolinguistics: Models and methods, chs.
1,2,7,8. Sociolinguistics:
method and interpretation. Oxford: Blackwell.
Payne, Arvilla
(1980) Factors controlling the
acquisition of Philadelphia dialect by out-of-state children. In, Locating language in time and space (W. Labov, ed.) New
York: Academic Press.
**NOT YET
AVAILABLE**Preston, D. R. (1996) Whaddayaknow?: The modes of folk linguistic
awareness. Language Awareness 5, 40-73.
Rickford, John. (1986)
Standard and non-standard language attitudes in a creole continuum. Society
for Caribbean Linguistics occasional Paper, No. 16
Romaine, Susanne (1982)
What is a speech community? In, Sociolinguistic
variation in speech communities (S. Romaine, ed.) London: Arnold. 13-24.
Other Useful
Readings
We make reference to
a number of other important reference works across the quarter. Here are
citations for a few of these:
Bell, Alan (1984) Language style as audience design, Language in society, pp. 145-204.
Chambers, J. K. (1995,
2001). Sociolinguistic
Theory: Linguistic variation and
its social significance. Oxford,
Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell.
Labov, William. (1972) The Social Stratification of (r ) in New York City department
stores. In Labov, Wm. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press. 43-69.
Milroy, L. and Gordon,
M. (2003) Sociolinguistics, Method and Interpretation. Blackwell.
Wolfram, W.
and Schilling-Estes, N.
(1998) American
English: Dialects and Variation. Oxford: Blackwell
The
readings we take up this quarter will give us a further opportunity to consider
the sociolinguistic phenomena associated with macrosocial groupings in Socio I
as well as the issue of micro-level variation (within speaker variation in
style):
1.
Classic methods in the study of Language Change and Variation (LCV)
Philadelphia
(Labov)
- Ethnicity. How have major urban studies handled
the ÒethnicityÓ variable? The LCV study set precedents for the selection
of groups for study within a speech community study.
--Selectional issues in defining ethnicity
- Sampling
--Complementary sources of error
--Judgement vs. Random sampling
- Geographic
mobility. Will supplement with ChambersÕ
article on ÒRegionalityÓ as an Independent variable
--Does this help us to think about sociolectal
variation in situ (e.g., Native American, Chicano/a, AAE groups that do not
participate in local forms?)
--Immigration
2. Second Dialect Acquisition, Dialect
Convergence and Regionality
Philadelphia—King
of Prussia Study (Payne)
- Age. Classic chapter on ÒFactors
controlling the acquisition of the Philadelphia dialect by out-of-state
childrenÓ
--Critical Period Hypothesis assumes adolescence
as a key time in the reduction of neural plasticity with respect to language
acquisition. Does this study have
anything to say about Òlinguistic change across the lifespanÓ (note that Gillian
Sankoff has an ongoing project by this name).
3.
Classic study on how immigrants contribute to language change
Sydney
(Horvath)
- Immigration
--Affective, conative, and cognitive dimensions
of language attitudes
- Language
communities within language communities
--Remuneration and speech community interests in
conduct of linguistic research
4.
Language Attitudes, Perceptual Dialectology
Reading,
Hull and Milton Keynes (Kerswill and Williams/Preston)
- Language
attitudes
--Affective, conative, and cognitive dimensions
of language attitudes
--Linguistic Insecurity
- Ethics
--Remuneration and speech community interests in
conduct of linguistic research
As we work through the studies listed in the ÒTopics
overviewÓ, we will scrutinize the methods used by the sociolinguists who
investigate these topics. Listed
are classic (old or newer) studies that set the precedents or apply
particularly well, now-commonplace practices in sociolinguistics. Each unit is organized into four
sections: ÒUnderstanding the Study,Ó ÒScrutinizing the Methods,Ó ÒStudentÕs
Research Methods,Ó
and ÒBest Practices Day.Ó After
discussing the research and findings of the classic study (Understanding the
Study), we will take a day to have a closer, critical look at the methods of
that study (Scrutinizing the Methods). We will then talk about studentsÕ
projects where these relate to the methods just discussed (StudentÕs Research
Methods). Finally, we will have a
summary discussion of what now constitute sociolinguistic Òbest
practices.Ó The methodological
topics we will address include:
1. Targeting the speech community; How theory structures
methodology; Outlining the study; Targeting a speaker sample
2. Collectibility of linguistic phenomena: the phonological
variable; the syntactic variable; language attitudes
3.
Working with informants:
--Approaches,
values and rewards
--Human
subjects issues
4. Data Collection Methods: One-on-one interviews;
Participant-Observation Sessions
Grading
The following UW grading
scale will be used (www.washington.edu/students/gencat/front/Grading_Sys.html):
Percent =
Grade
³ 95% =
4.0 88 = 3.3 81 = 2.6 74 = 1.9 67 = 1.2
94 = 3.9 87 = 3.2 80 = 2.5
73 = 1.8 66 = 1.1
93 = 3.8 86 = 3.1 79 = 2.4 72 = 1.7 65 = 1.0
92 = 3.7 85 = 3.0 78 = 2.3 71 = 1.6 64 = .9
91 = 3.6 84 = 2.9 77 = 2.2 70 = 1.5
63 = .8
90 = 3.5 83 = 2.8
76 = 2.1 69 = 1.4 62 = .7
89 = 3.4 82 = 2.7 75 = 2.0 68 = 1.3 (< .7 is
a failing grade)
Policies
¯
Readings
The
assigned readings are to be read in advance of the lectures. The readings complement the lectures and provide the
necessary background; however, you should not assume that they will be fully
summarized or reviewed in class. Students should be prepared to evaluate,
integrate, or respond to the readings in class discussions.
¯
Special
needs
To request academic
accommodations due to a disability, please contact Disabled Student Services,
448 Schmitz, 543-8924 (V), 543-8925 (TTY), uwdss@u.washington.edu. If you have a letter
from DSS indicating that you have a disability that requires special academic
accommodations, please present the letter to your instructor as soon as
possible so the proper accommodations can be discussed and met.
Note:
Journals are always due on Tuesdays.
You may wish to consider attending the Sociolinguistics
Brown Bag, an informal discuss and research support forum for UW
Sociolinguists. This group regularly holds meetings or tutorials on topics like
those listed below. Join the email
discussion list by emailing a request to wassink@u...
-
Visit with a representative from UW Human Subjects
-
Akustyk tutorial
-
Readings on current topics in Sociolinguistics
-
Feedback for lab members undertaking research
|
Week |
Date |
Today |
Prepare for Today |
|
1 |
T3/27 |
Introduction
and overview Required
work Student
interests |
|
|
|
Th3/29 |
Preliminary
background: Assumptions about intra-speaker variation:
Audience design vs. attention to speech |
Bell, 2001; Milroy and Gordon 8 |
|
2 |
T4/3 |
” Classic Study 1: Philadelphia—LCV Study (Labov) Understanding
the study Change in progress in Philadelphia |
Labov, 2001 (ch. 2, part of ch. 3) |
|
|
TH4/5 |
Scrutinizing
the Methods Asking
questions of ourselves: What do we want to know? How theory structures
methodology. Outlining the study: targeted data (linguistic
variables) |
Milroy and Gordon 2003, ch. 1; Labov 1984 |
|
3 |
T4/10 |
ABW
AWAY—reading day |
(read Romaine 1982; Dorian 1982; Gumperz 1968)
|
|
|
TH4/12 |