Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-7drxs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T17:35:41.913Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Delimiting the Sydney speech community

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2008

Barbara Horvath  and
David Sankoff
Barbara Horvath
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, University of Sydney
David Sankoff
Affiliation:
Centre de recherches mathématiques, Université de Montréal
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Quantitative analyses of large data sets make use of both linguistic and sociological categories in sociolinguistic studies. While the linguistic categories are generally well-defined and there are sufficient tokens for further definition based on mathematical manipulation, the social characteristics such as socioeconomic class or ethnicity are neither. The familiar problem of grouping speakers by such sociological characteristics prior to quantitative analysis is addressed and an alternative solution – principal components analysis – is suggested. Principal components analysis is used here as a heuristic for grouping speakers solely on the basis of linguistic behaviour; the groups thus defined can then be described according to sociological characteristics. In addition, by naming the principal components, the major linguistic and social dimensions of the variation in the data can be identified. Principal components analysis was applied to vowel variation data collected as part of a sociolinguistic survey of English in Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. (Sociolinguistics, variation studies, quantitative methods in linguistics, dialectology, Australian English, role of migrants in language change)

Type
Articles
Information
Language in Society , Volume 16 , Issue 2 , June 1987 , pp. 179 - 204
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1987

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

Bernard, J. (1970). Toward the acoustic specification of Australian English. Zeitschrift für Phonetik 23(2/3): 113–28.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P., & Boltanski, L. (1975). Le fetichisme de la langue. Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales 4:2–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cedergren, H. J. (1973). The interplay of social and linguistic factors in Panama. Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Cheshire, J. (1982). Variation in an English dialect: A sociolinguistic study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Congalton, A. A. (1969). Status and prestige in Australia. Melbourne: F. W. Cheshire.Google Scholar
Fasold, R. W. (1972). Tense marking in Black English: A linguistic and social analysis. Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Guy, G. R. (1980). Variation in the group and the individual: The case of final stop deletion. In Labov, W. (ed.), Locating language in time and space. New York: Academic. 1–36.Google Scholar
Horvath, B. M. (1985). Variation in Australian English: The sociolects of Sydney. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kemp, W. (1979). L'histoire récente de ce que, qu'est-ce que, et qu'osque à Montréal: trois variantes en interaction. In Thibault, P. (ed.), Le français parlé: études sociolinguistiques. Edmonton: Linguistic Research. 53–74.Google Scholar
Kemp, W. (1981). Major sociolinguistic patterns in Montreal French. In Sankoff, D. & Cedergren, H. (eds.), Variation omnibus. Edmonton: Linguistic Research. 3–16.Google Scholar
Laberge, S. (1980). The changing distribution of indeterminate pronouns in discourse. In Shuy, R. W. & Shnukal, A. (eds.), Language use and the uses of language. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. 76–87.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1966). The social stratification of English in New York City. Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1969). Contraction, deletion, and inherent variability of the English copula. Language 45:715–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, W. (1972). Language in the inner city: Studies in the black English vernacular. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Laferriere, M. (1979). Ethnicity in phonological variation and change. Language 55:603–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, A. G. (1946). The pronunciation of English in Australia. Sydney: Angus and Robertson.Google Scholar
Mitchell, A. G., & Delbridge, A. (1965). The speech of Australian adolescents. Sydney: Angus and Robertson.Google Scholar
Poplack, S. (1979). Function and process in a variable phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Rousseau, P., & Sankoff, D. (1978). A solution to the problem of grouping speakers. In Sankoff, D. (ed.), Linguistic variation: Models and methods. New York: Academic. 97–117.Google Scholar
Sankoff, D., & Laberge, S. (1978). The linguistic marketplace and the statistical explanation of variability. In Sankoff, D. (ed.), Linguistic variation: Models and methods. New York: Academic. 239–66.Google Scholar
Sankoff, D., & Labov, W. (1979). On the uses of the variable rule. Language in Society 8:189–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sankoff, D., & Sankoff, G. (1973). Sample survey methods and computer-assisted analysis in the study of grammatical variation. In Darnell, R. (ed.), Canadian languages in their social context. Edmonton: Linguistic Research. 7–64.Google Scholar
Sankoff, G., & Thibault, P. (1977). L'alternance entre les auxiliaires “avoir” et “être” en français parlé à Montréal. Langue français 34:81–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shuy, R. W., Wolfram, W. A., & Riley, W. I. (1968). Field techniques in an urban language study. Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Taylor, P. J. (1977). Quantitative methods in geography. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Trudgill, P. (1974). The social differentiation of English in Norwich. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wolfram, W. (1969). A sociolinguistic description of Detroit Negro speech. Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar