1.6 The social significance of vari

1.6 The social significance of variation

Much of the above, however, is merely descriptive of accent variation, and we must return to the fundamental point that the primary concern of sociophonology is rather to investigate the social significance of such variation. It is not possible to agree with J. E. Joseph (1987: 16) that “awareness of variants seems inevitably to be accompanied by value judgment,” but all of the kinds of difference we have been noting carry the potential for positive or negative evaluations by listeners of the speakers concerned, and such evaluations are often general and systematic. Indeed, following Labov (1972b), a useful distinction can sometimes be made among indicators, which are variants to which little or no social significance is attached, and may indeed only be perceived by observers with linguistic training; markers, which are readily perceived and do have social significance; and stereotypes, which are popular and conscious but imprecise general characterizations of the speech forms of particular social groups. At their widest, such stereotypes are applied to whole languages: We all know of evaluations which describe particular languages (Italian is a favorite case) as “beautiful”; others (e.g., European languages which exploit velar/pharyngeal – “guttural” – sounds) are often described as “ugly” or “harsh.” The language of the Kipsigis in East Africa was described by an experienced British colonial governor as the “most melodious” he'd ever heard in Africa (Allen, 1990:109). Such judgments, however, do not always agree across cultures. An example of an apparently totally arbitrary phonaesthetic judgment is the widely observable fact that in many societies the lower ranges of generalized voice pitch (baritone, contralto) cause their speakers to be rated more highly for authority and personal attractiveness, and it is even claimed that the adult male speakers of certain languages (e.g., Germans) exploit such ranges more systematically than speakers of other languages.

A technique for examining the social evaluation of the different accents with which a language is spoken, in a given country, was developed first in Canada to explore the differential reactions to speakers of French and English respectively, and has produced interesting results in Britain and France in a series of experiments initiated by the British social psychologist Howard Giles and various associates (Honey, 1989: 60; Giles and Powesland, 1975; Hawkins, 1993). This is the “matched guise” method, by which various audiences hear stretches of speech spoken in different accents, and are asked to judge them, from sound alone, in terms of a list of qualities such as “intelligent,” “hardworking,” “friendly,” etc. In the form in which it is usually administered, this method excludes or minimizes complicating factors like the speaker's gender and voice quality, though it must be a serious criticism that it does not appear to control systematically for “breadth” of accent, i.e., the extent to which its differences from standard are obvious to listeners. Despite this and other limitations, however, the fact remains that the general picture which it reveals, over a considerable number of tests with audiences taken from different samples of the population, shows a very high degree of consistency which is confirmed by other, more informal, experiments based on speakers who use their own natural accents.

For Britain, this general picture suggests a hierarchy of attitudes to accents, in which RP (in its unmarked form, though the experiments do not always make this important distinction) is at the top, followed by the most educated varieties of Scottish English and the corresponding accents of Wales and Ireland. “Marked” RP, where separately identified, ranks high. Below these there is a cluster of English provincial accents such as “northern” English, with Yorkshire generally high, and the West Country accent of the southwest of England. Five accents representing the British urban lower-class sociolects of Birmingham, Belfast, London (“Cockney”), Glasgow, and Liverpool (“Scouse,” a variety which also involves a very distinctive articulatory setting; cf. Knowles, 1978) are regularly placed at the bottom of the scale, even by speakers of those varieties themselves. RP speakers are always held to rate more highly in terms of “status” and “competence” features like intelligence, leadership, selfconfidence, wealth, and ambition; while nonstandard speakers often scored higher than RP on the “solidarity” qualities such as friendliness, kindheartedness, integrity, and humor, but many also attributed trustworthiness to RP speakers, as well as improbable features such as cleanliness and tallness. When a version of the same technique was applied to 244 native speakers of French, similar findings emerged (described in Paltridge and Giles, 1984, and usefully summarized in Hawkins, 1993), associating “status/competence” features with the prestige accent of French and “solidarity” qualities with regional varieties such as Provencal and Breton. In Britain, BBC listeners expect the news to be presented by RP speakers (perceived as educated and authoritative), whereas “practical” information on gardening or the weather is stereotypically given by speakers with broad paralects or even mesolectal accents; sports commentating reflects the social standing of the sport concerned, with mesolectal accents appropriate for reporting football, but RP accents for polo (Honey, 1989).

Results (Malay) 1:

1.6 The social significance of variationBanyak perkara di atas, Walau bagaimanapun, adalah semata-mata deskriptif pengubahan loghat, dan kita perlu kembali ke titik asas yang keprihatinan utama sociophonology agak untuk menyiasat kepentingan sosial pengubahan tersebut. Ianya tidak mustahil untuk bersetuju dengan Joseph E. J. (1987:16) yang "kesedaran varian seolah-olah tidak dapat dielakkan untuk disertakan dengan pertimbangan nilai," tetapi semua jenis-jenis perbezaan yang kita telah mencatatkan membawa potensi untuk penilaian positif atau negatif oleh masyarakat yang di-Pertua berkenaan, dan penilaian seperti itu akan selalunya umum dan sistematik. Malah, berikutan Labov (1972b), perbezaan berguna boleh kadang-kadang dibuat antara penunjuk, iaitu variasi yang sedikit atau tiada kepentingan sosial disediakan, dan memang hanya akan dilihat oleh pemerhati dengan Linguistik latihan; penanda yang mudah dilihat dan mempunyai kepentingan sosial; dan stereotaip, yang popular dan sedar tetapi imprecise characterizations am bentuk pertuturan golongan masyarakat tertentu. Pada mereka yang terluas stereotaip tersebut dikenakan ke atas keseluruhan Bahasa: kita semua tahu penilaian yang menghuraikan bahasa tertentu (Itali adalah kes kegemaran) sebagai "indah"; lain-lain (contohnya, Bahasa-bahasa Eropah yang mengeksploitasi bunyi-"guttural" – velar dan farinks) sering kali digambarkan sebagai "hodoh" atau "keras." Bahasa Kipsigis di Afrika Timur digambarkan oleh Gabenor kolonial British berpengalaman sebagai yang "Tempahan yang" dia pernah dengar di Afrika (Allen, 1990:109). Penghakiman tersebut, Walau bagaimanapun, tidak selalu bersetuju merentasi budaya. Contoh untuk pertimbangan phonaesthetic nampaknya benar-benar sewenang-wenangnya adalah meluas akibat hakikat bahawa kebanyakan masyarakat dalam julat rendah pitch suara umum (Penyanyi bariton anak jati, contralto) menyebabkan penuturnya untuk undian lebih tinggi untuk kuasa dan daya tarikan peribadi, dan ia juga didakwa bahawa penceramah lelaki dewasa bahasa tertentu (cth., Jerman) mengeksploitasi julat tersebut lebih sistematik daripada penutur bahasa-bahasa lain. A technique for examining the social evaluation of the different accents with which a language is spoken, in a given country, was developed first in Canada to explore the differential reactions to speakers of French and English respectively, and has produced interesting results in Britain and France in a series of experiments initiated by the British social psychologist Howard Giles and various associates (Honey, 1989: 60; Giles and Powesland, 1975; Hawkins, 1993). This is the “matched guise” method, by which various audiences hear stretches of speech spoken in different accents, and are asked to judge them, from sound alone, in terms of a list of qualities such as “intelligent,” “hardworking,” “friendly,” etc. In the form in which it is usually administered, this method excludes or minimizes complicating factors like the speaker's gender and voice quality, though it must be a serious criticism that it does not appear to control systematically for “breadth” of accent, i.e., the extent to which its differences from standard are obvious to listeners. Despite this and other limitations, however, the fact remains that the general picture which it reveals, over a considerable number of tests with audiences taken from different samples of the population, shows a very high degree of consistency which is confirmed by other, more informal, experiments based on speakers who use their own natural accents.
For Britain, this general picture suggests a hierarchy of attitudes to accents, in which RP (in its unmarked form, though the experiments do not always make this important distinction) is at the top, followed by the most educated varieties of Scottish English and the corresponding accents of Wales and Ireland. “Marked” RP, where separately identified, ranks high. Below these there is a cluster of English provincial accents such as “northern” English, with Yorkshire generally high, and the West Country accent of the southwest of England. Five accents representing the British urban lower-class sociolects of Birmingham, Belfast, London (“Cockney”), Glasgow, and Liverpool (“Scouse,” a variety which also involves a very distinctive articulatory setting; cf. Knowles, 1978) are regularly placed at the bottom of the scale, even by speakers of those varieties themselves. RP speakers are always held to rate more highly in terms of “status” and “competence” features like intelligence, leadership, selfconfidence, wealth, and ambition; while nonstandard speakers often scored higher than RP on the “solidarity” qualities such as friendliness, kindheartedness, integrity, and humor, but many also attributed trustworthiness to RP speakers, as well as improbable features such as cleanliness and tallness. When a version of the same technique was applied to 244 native speakers of French, similar findings emerged (described in Paltridge and Giles, 1984, and usefully summarized in Hawkins, 1993), associating “status/competence” features with the prestige accent of French and “solidarity” qualities with regional varieties such as Provencal and Breton. In Britain, BBC listeners expect the news to be presented by RP speakers (perceived as educated and authoritative), whereas “practical” information on gardening or the weather is stereotypically given by speakers with broad paralects or even mesolectal accents; sports commentating reflects the social standing of the sport concerned, with mesolectal accents appropriate for reporting football, but RP accents for polo (Honey, 1989).

Results (Malay) 2:

1.6 Kepentingan sosial variasi Banyak perkara di atas, bagaimanapun, adalah semata-mata deskriptif variasi loghat, dan kita mesti kembali ke titik asas yang kebimbangan utama sociophonology agak untuk menyiasat kepentingan sosial pengubahan tersebut. Ia tidak mungkin untuk bersetuju dengan JE Joseph (1987: 16) bahawa "kesedaran varian seolah-olah tidak dapat tidak perlu disertai dengan pertimbangan nilai," tetapi semua jenis perbezaan kita telah mencatatkan membawa potensi untuk penilaian positif atau negatif oleh pendengar penceramah berkenaan, dan penilaian itu sering am dan sistematik. Sesungguhnya, berikutan Labov (1972b), perbezaan yang berguna kadang-kadang boleh dibuat di kalangan penunjuk, yang varian tiada kepentingan sosial yang sedikit atau dipasang, dan sememangnya hanya boleh dilihat oleh pemerhati dengan latihan linguistik; penanda, yang sedia dilihat dan memang mempunyai kepentingan sosial; dan stereotaip, yang popular dan sedar tetapi tidak tepat pencirian umum satu bentuk ucapan kumpulan-kumpulan sosial tertentu. Pada yang paling luas mereka, stereotaip tersebut digunakan untuk bahasa keseluruhan: Kita semua tahu daripada penilaian yang menerangkan bahasa tertentu (Itali adalah kes kegemaran) sebagai "indah"; orang lain (contohnya, bahasa-bahasa Eropah yang mengeksploitasi velar / pharyngeal - "garau" - Bunyi) sering digambarkan sebagai "hodoh" atau Bahasa orang Kipsigis di Afrika Timur digambarkan oleh seorang pengelola berpengalaman penjajah British sebagai "yang paling" keras. " merdu "dia hendak pernah mendengar di Afrika (Allen, 1990: 109). Penghakiman, bagaimanapun, tidak sentiasa bersetuju merentasi budaya. Contoh pertimbangan phonaesthetic nampaknya benar-benar sewenang-wenangnya adalah hakikat secara meluas diperhatikan bahawa dalam kebanyakan masyarakat julat yang lebih rendah padang suara umum (bariton, yg terendah) menyebabkan penceramah mereka akan diberi nilai yang lebih tinggi untuk kuasa dan daya tarikan peribadi, dan ia juga mendakwa penceramah lelaki dewasa bahasa yang tertentu (contohnya, Jerman) mengeksploitasi julat itu lebih sistematik daripada penutur bahasa lain. Satu teknik untuk memeriksa penilaian sosial aksen yang berbeza dengan yang bahasa yang digunakan, di negara yang diberikan, telah dibangunkan pertama di Kanada untuk meneroka reaksi pengkamiran kepada penutur masing-masing Perancis dan Inggeris, dan telah menghasilkan keputusan yang menarik di Britain dan Perancis dalam satu siri eksperimen dimulakan oleh ahli psikologi sosial British Howard Giles dan pelbagai syarikat bersekutu (Madu, 1989: 60; Giles dan Powesland, 1975; Hawkins, 1993). Ini adalah "dipadankan samaran" kaedah, di mana pelbagai khalayak mendengar terbentang ucapan yang dituturkan dalam loghat yang berbeza, dan diminta untuk menghakimi mereka, dari bunyi sahaja, dari segi senarai sifat-sifat seperti "pintar", "bekerja keras," "mesra" dan lain-lain bentuk di mana ia biasanya ditadbir, kaedah ini tidak termasuk atau mengurangkan faktor-faktor seperti jantina dan suara berkualiti speaker merumitkan, walaupun ia perlu menjadi kritikan yang serius yang ia tidak muncul untuk mengawal secara sistematik untuk "keluasan" loghat, iaitu sejauh mana perbezaan dari standard yang jelas kepada pendengar. Walaupun begitu dan batasan lain, bagaimanapun, hakikatnya ialah gambaran umum yang ia mendedahkan, lebih daripada sebilangan besar ujian dengan penonton yang diambil dari sampel yang berbeza daripada penduduk, menunjukkan ijazah yang sangat tinggi konsisten yang disahkan oleh yang lain, lebih tidak rasmi , eksperimen berdasarkan penceramah yang menggunakan aksen semula jadi mereka. Bagi Britain, gambaran umum ini menunjukkan hierarki sikap untuk aksen, di mana RP (dalam bentuk yang tidak dikawal, walaupun eksperimen tidak sentiasa membuat perbezaan penting ini) adalah di bahagian atas , diikuti dengan jenis yang paling tinggi Scotland Bahasa Inggeris dan aksen dengan Wales dan Ireland. "Ditandakan" RP, di mana dikenal pasti secara berasingan, kedudukan yang tinggi. Di bawah ini terdapat satu kelompok aksen wilayah Inggeris seperti "utara" Inggeris, dengan Yorkshire umumnya tinggi, dan loghat Barat Negara barat daya England. Lima aksen mewakili bandar sociolects lebih rendah bertaraf British of Birmingham, Belfast, London ("Cockney"), Glasgow, dan Liverpool ("Scouse," pelbagai yang juga melibatkan penyediaan articulatory yang sangat tersendiri; rujuk Knowles, 1978) adalah kerap diletakkan di bahagian bawah skala, walaupun oleh orang-orang jenis diri mereka sendiri. Orang RP sentiasa diadakan untuk mengadar lebih tinggi dari segi "status" dan "kecekapan" ciri-ciri seperti kecerdasan, kepimpinan, keyakinan diri, kekayaan, dan cita-cita; manakala orang yang tidak standard sering menjaringkan lebih tinggi daripada RP pada "perpaduan" sifat-sifat seperti keramahan, kindheartedness, integriti, dan jenaka, tetapi ramai amanah juga disebabkan oleh orang-RP, serta ciri-ciri mustahil seperti kebersihan dan tallness. Apabila versi teknik yang sama telah digunakan untuk 244 penutur asli Perancis, penemuan yang serupa muncul (diterangkan dalam Paltridge dan Giles, 1984, dan berguna diringkaskan dalam Hawkins, 1993), mengaitkan "status / kecekapan" ciri-ciri dengan loghat prestij Perancis dan "perpaduan" kualiti dengan jenis serantau seperti Provencal dan Breton. Di Britain, BBC pendengar mengharapkan berita yang akan disampaikan oleh orang RP (dilihat sebagai tinggi dan berwibawa), manakala maklumat "praktikal" pada berkebun atau cuaca stereotaip yang diberikan oleh orang dengan paralects luas atau aksen mesolectal; sukan commentating mencerminkan kedudukan sosial sukan yang berkenaan, dengan aksen mesolectal sesuai untuk bola sepak pelaporan, tetapi aksen RP untuk polo (Honey, 1989).