Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Previous studies have demonstrated that certain differences in speech behaviour can be related to the social characteristics of speakers. However, these studies have not explicitly examined the effect of level of linguistic analysis on correlations observed between language variables and status variables. Three levels of analysis of a linguistic construction were selected for study: grammatical form, lexical choice and use of a predication type. The corpus was the speech of forty-eight dyads of children (male, female; low, middle socio-economic status; Negro, white) performing three problem-solving tasks. The grammatical form of the construction differentiated between social groups, sexes and races. Lexical choice within the construction differentiated between social groups. Use of the predication type however, seemed to depend primarily on the task itself. The findings demonstrate that status differences in speech behaviour at one level of linguistic analysis cannot be taken as evidence that similar status differences exist at another level.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bach, E. ( 1967). Have and be in English syntax. Language , 43, 46.

Baldwin, T. and Garvey, C. ( 1970). Studies in convergent communication: II. A measure of communication accuracy. Center for Social Organization of Schools Report No. 91, The Johns Hopkins University ( Baltimore, Maryland).

Bernstein, B. ( 1962). Social class, linguistic codes and grammatical elements . Language and Speech, 5, 221.

Bernstein, B. ( 1964). Elaborated and restricted codes: Their social origins and some consequences. Amer. Anthropologist, 66, 55.

Cazden, C. (in press). The neglected situation: A source of social class differences in language use. J. soc. Issues.

Garvey, C. and Mcfarlane, P. ( 1970). A measure of standard English proficiency of inner-city children. Amer. Educ. Res. J., 7, 29.

Hawkins, P.R. ( 1969). Social class, the nominal group and reference . Language and Speech, 12, 125.

Labov, W. ( 1966). The Social Stratification of English in New York City (Washington D.C.).

Labov, W. , Cohen, P. , Robins, C. and Levis, J. ( 1968). A study of non-standard English of Negro and Puerto Rican speakers in New York City. Volume I: Phonological and grammatical analysis. Cooperative Research Project No. 3288, U.S. Office of Education .

10.

Lawton, D. ( 1968). Social Class, Language and Education ( London).

11.

Lyons, J. ( 1968). Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics ( Cambridge).

12.

Shuy, R.W. , Wolfram, W.A. and Riley, W.K. ( 1967). Linguistic correlates of social stratification in Detroit speech. Cooperative Research Project No. 6-1347, U.S. Office of Education.

13.

Stolz, W. and Bills, G. ( 1968). An investigation of the standard-nonstandard dimension of central Texan English. Office of Economic Opportunity Report No. OEO-4115 .

14.

Wolfram, W.A. ( 1969). A Sociolinguistic Description of Detroit Negro Speech (Washington, D.C.).

Levels of Analysis and Social Class Differences in Language

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References