I argue here for an additional subi

I argue here for an additional subidentity: cultural identity. Cultural identity is a
sociolinguistic factor that involves how speakers conceive of themselves in relation
to their local and larger regional communities. In one of the foundational works for
variationists, Labov 1963, Labov concluded that for the people of Martha’s Vineyard,
a speaker’s degree of orientation to the local community showed the strongest correlation
with the variants under study, although other nonlinguistic factors also showed
some correlation. The later and larger speech community studies of the 1960s and
1970s excluded such a variable, but other studies do remark on speakers’ orientation
to local and nonlocal culture (see Eckert 1988, 1999, Fasold et al. 1973, Ito & Preston
1998, Johnson-Weiner 1998, Meyerhoff 1995, Milroy 1987, Labov 1963, Schilling-
Estes & Wolfram 1999, Thomas 1997, Wolfram et al. 1999, Wolfram & Schilling-
Estes 1995; see also Meyerhoff & Niedzielski 1994). The study of identity is therefore
not new. In fact, one of the first American studies of language variation, Fischer 1958,
took into account a feature of speakers’ identity; Fischer correlated the social correctness
of the speaker with the dependent variable (e.g. his ‘model boy’ used ‘almost exclusively’
the more standard variant).3 But in general, as Chambers remarks, the categories
of identity have ‘frozen prematurely into a standard list—class, age, gender, ethnicity,
region’ (1993:143). I argue that cultural identity should become part of the regular
litany of nonlinguistic factors assessed in the study of language variation.

Results (Indonesian) 1:

I argue here for an additional subidentity: cultural identity. Cultural identity is asociolinguistic factor that involves how speakers conceive of themselves in relationto their local and larger regional communities. In one of the foundational works forvariationists, Labov 1963, Labov concluded that for the people of Martha’s Vineyard,a speaker’s degree of orientation to the local community showed the strongest correlationwith the variants under study, although other nonlinguistic factors also showedsome correlation. The later and larger speech community studies of the 1960s and1970s excluded such a variable, but other studies do remark on speakers’ orientationto local and nonlocal culture (see Eckert 1988, 1999, Fasold et al. 1973, Ito & Preston1998, Johnson-Weiner 1998, Meyerhoff 1995, Milroy 1987, Labov 1963, Schilling-Estes & Wolfram 1999, Thomas 1997, Wolfram et al. 1999, Wolfram & Schilling-Estes 1995; see also Meyerhoff & Niedzielski 1994). The study of identity is thereforenot new. In fact, one of the first American studies of language variation, Fischer 1958,took into account a feature of speakers’ identity; Fischer correlated the social correctnessof the speaker with the dependent variable (e.g. his ‘model boy’ used ‘almost exclusively’the more standard variant).3 But in general, as Chambers remarks, the categoriesof identity have ‘frozen prematurely into a standard list—class, age, gender, ethnicity,wilayah ' (1993:143). Saya berpendapat bahwa identitas budaya harus menjadi bagian dari yang biasaLitani nonlinguistic faktor yang dinilai dalam studi bahasa variasi.

Results (Indonesian) 2:

Saya berpendapat sini untuk subidentity tambahan: identitas budaya. Identitas budaya merupakan
faktor sosiolinguistik yang melibatkan bagaimana pembicara memahami diri dalam kaitannya
dengan masyarakat daerah setempat dan lebih besar mereka. Dalam salah satu karya dasar untuk
variationists, Labov 1963, Labov menyimpulkan bahwa bagi rakyat Martha Vineyard,
gelar pembicara orientasi kepada masyarakat setempat menunjukkan korelasi kuat
dengan varian yang diteliti, meskipun faktor nonlinguistik lainnya juga menunjukkan
beberapa korelasi. Studi kemudian dan masyarakat tutur yang lebih besar dari tahun 1960-an dan
1970-an dikecualikan variabel tersebut, tetapi penelitian lain yang berkomentar tentang orientasi speaker
'dengan budaya lokal dan nonlokal (lihat Eckert 1988, 1999, Fasold et al. 1973, Ito & Preston
1998, Johnson -Weiner 1998, Meyerhoff 1995, Milroy 1987, Labov 1963, Schilling-
Estes & Wolfram 1999, Thomas 1997, Wolfram et al 1999, Wolfram & Schilling-.
Estes 1995; lihat juga Meyerhoff & Niedzielski 1994). Oleh karena itu studi tentang identitas adalah
tidak baru. Bahkan, salah satu penelitian Amerika pertama variasi bahasa, Fischer 1958,
memperhitungkan fitur identitas pembicara; Fischer berkorelasi kebenaran sosial
dari pembicara dengan variabel dependen (misalnya 'Model boy' nya digunakan 'hampir secara eksklusif'
varian lebih standar) 0,3 Tapi secara umum, sebagai pernyataan Chambers, kategori
identitas telah 'dibekukan prematur menjadi standar daftar kelas, usia, jenis kelamin, etnis,
daerah '(1993: 143). Saya berpendapat bahwa identitas budaya harus menjadi bagian dari rutin
litani faktor nonlinguistik dinilai dalam studi variasi bahasa.