Borrowing and Lending:  Contributions to the Study of Language and Social Stratification across Sociolinguistics, Sociology, and Education

Christine Mallinson

University of Maryland-Baltimore County 

Sociolinguists’ discussions of interdisciplinarity have often called for incorporating insights from other disciplines—whether to help us better analyze the structure of language (Chambers, 2003, p. 11) or model relationships among social, linguistic, and cultural factors (Coupland, 2001; Coupland, Bell, Jaworski, & Ylänne-McEwan, 1997; Hambye & Siroux, 2009; Rickford, 1986; Williams, 1992). Yet, the term “interdisciplinarity” implies a two-way exchange and a process of cultivating engagement (Carlin, 2002). How might sociolinguistics not simply benefit from borrowing from other disciplines but also lend insight into the complex relationship between language and society, with the goal of mutual advancement? To do so, sociolinguists still have much to learn about social variation, from trends in demography and mobility, to processes of inequality and discrimination, to factors in educational change. In return for borrowing, sociolinguists have essential insight to lend on language as a key mechanism that affects opportunity structures and life chances for speakers, with privilege and without.

To these ends, I describe three of my collaborative partnerships conducted at the intersections of sociolinguistics, sociology, and education. In the first project, which analyzed sociological interview data, Mallinson and Brewster (2005) and Brewster and Mallinson (2009) analyzed how restaurant servers’ discourse about tipping drew on stereotypes related to race, class, and cultural capital to justify discrimination against patrons. In the second project, Macomber, Mallinson, and Seale’s (forthcoming, 2010) sociological content analysis revealed how souvenir T-shirt slogans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina employed sexist language and misogynistic humor as a vehicle for coping with disaster and trauma in a public context. In the third project, Charity Hudley and Mallinson (forthcoming, 2010) synthesized research from education, sociology, psychology, and sociolinguistics. In partnerships with educators, scholarly findings were integrated into professional development workshops and school curricula to address inequalities for students who speak non-standard varieties of English.

Across these projects, the common thread is the centrality of language in dynamics of allegiance and exclusion, hierarchy and inequality—bringing new light to theories of social stratification. Indeed, social stratification is a prominent area of inquiry in sociological and educational research that involves language study. It is also a core interest for sociolinguists. Nevertheless, there are points of disciplinary divergence. For example, sociolinguists and sociologists operate with somewhat different understandings of the term “stratification” (Mallinson, forthcoming, 2010; Savage, 2005, p. 250). Disciplinary knowledge and training also yields different conceptual views on language. For example, sociologists usually analyze language by focusing on what is said and the meanings conveyed, while sociolinguists often explain how linguistic variables and practices are central to negotiations of identity and power and, consequently, to processes of social stratification.

As Hymes (1985, p. xii) contended, linguist “scholars as citizens” are obligated to understand hierarchical and unequal relationships between language, access, and opportunity. Indeed, this investigation of language and social stratification is central to sociolinguistics, sociology, and education. Despite apparent challenges inherent in interdisciplinary research, great opportunities remain to forge two-way partnerships and investigate these themes of mutual concern, for the greater academic and social good.

Brewster, Z. W., & Mallinson, C. (2009). Racial differences in restaurant tipping: A labour process perspective. The Service Industries Journal, 29(8), 1053-1075.

Carlin, A. (2002). Bibliographic boundaries and forgotten canons. In S. Herbrechter (Ed.), Cultural studies : interdisciplinarity and translation, Critical studies (Vol. 20). New York: Rodopi.

Cazden, C. B., & John, V. P. (1985). Functions of language in the classroom.  (D. Hymes, Ed.). Waveland Press.

Chambers, J. K. (2003). Sociolinguistic theory: Linguistic variation and its social significance (2nd ed.). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Charity Hudley, A. H., & Mallinson, C. (Forthcoming, 2010). Understanding English Language Variation in U.S. Schools. New York: Teachers College Press.

Coupland, N. (2001). Introduction: Sociolinguistic theory and social theory. In N. Coupland, S. Sarangi, & C. N. Candlin (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and social theory (pp. 1-26). New York: Longman.

Coupland, N., Bell, A., Jaworski, A., & Ylänne-McEwan, V. (1997). Editorial. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 1(1), 1-5.

Hambye, P., & Siroux, J. (2009). Approaching language as a social practice: Reflections on some implications for the analysis of language. Sociolinguistic Studies, 3(2), 131-147.

Macomber, K., Mallinson, C., & Seale, E. (forthcoming, 2010). 'Katrina that bitch!' Hegemonic representations of women's sexuality on Hurricane Katrina souvenir t-shirts. Journal of Popular Culture.

Mallinson, C. Social stratification. In Wodak, Johnstone, & Kerswill (Eds.), The Sage handbook of sociolinguistics.

Mallinson, C., & Brewster, Z. W. (2005). 'Blacks and bubbas': Stereotypes, ideology, and categorization processes in restaurant servers' discourse. Discourse Society, 16(6), 787-807.

Rickford, J. R. (1986). The need for new approaches to social class analysis in sociolinguistics. Language and Communication, 6(3), 215–221.

Savage, M. (2005). Class and stratification: Current problems and revival prospects. In C. J. Calhoun, C. Rojek, & B. S. Turner (Eds.), The Sage handbook of sociology (pp. 236-253). London: Sage Publications.

Williams, G. (1992). Sociolinguistics: A sociological critique. London; New York: Routledge.

Social variables and Spanish speakers in the U.S.: Data collection concerns

Nydia Flores 

Rutgers University

Ash (2002) has noted that social class is a central concept in sociolinguistic research, one of the few social variables we tend to include in our studies with the purpose of stratifying speech communities. When looking back at Labov’s (1966) seminal study of New York City department stores, Saks, Macy’s, and Klein’s, the prestige of those stores was used to establish independent social variables: the location of the store, the advertising practices, location of each store, employees’ regard for the store, and costs of goods, among other variables. The study conducted by Trudgill’s (1974) of Norwich used an occupational scale, professional workers; employers and managers; non-manual workers; foreman, skilled manual workers; unskilled workers, etc. These studies’ designs contained numerous social variables. However, when designing studies regarding Hispanics/Latinos in the U.S., researchers have relied on self-reported data provided by participants, the U.S. Census Bureau, Pew’s National Survey of Latinos, among many other sources to situate a speech community. I posit here that if we are to conduct sociolinguistic research that includes Hispanics/Latinos in the US, research designs need to capture social class in a broader context, a bi-directional one that relies on data obtained from the socio-economic history of the participants.

Another social variable that of dialect origin, and the way it is coded also requires further attention. First, coding participants as generic “Spanish” speakers does not reveal the Spanish regional dialect and does not allow researchers to draw comparisons. Second, it leads to a misconception of a ‘monolithic’ Spanish. For instance, studies conducted in New York City among speakers of distinct Spanish dialects have revealed differences in the way speakers express subject pronouns (Flores & Toro, 2000), among others. Hurtado (2005) for Colombian Spanish has reported that USTED ‘you’-formal is not necessarily considered deferential in several Colombian Spanish dialects. Thus, expanding this variable to include dialect origin is now critical to our research agenda.

A third research concern we now face is how to disaggregate and maintain three separate social variables: One that addresses Spanish language variety and dialect (i.e, coastal as opposed to interior regions); another that identifies levels of English contact, and, a third that determines the level(s) of contact a speaker may have with other Spanish varieties in the U.S. For instance, Otheguy & Zentella’s (1997) study of New York Spanish speakers on the variable use of subject pronouns suggests that there are two competing variables that condition the use of subject pronouns: Contact with English and contact with Caribbean Spanish varieties that exhibit high frequencies of expression of subject pronouns. Since it is well known that in Diaspora, speech communities tend to assemble among similar ethnic groups and co-exist among speakers of the same language, the social variable of language contact needs to capture the effect of multiple contacts with a broader lens.

By way of a critique of a study I conducted that examined the variable use of UNO ‘one’ and YO ‘I’ among several speakers of distinct Spanish varieties in New Jersey and New York, and observations made on the aforementioned, the presentation will suggest how future research conducted on Hispanics in the U.S. should widen the scope of the social variables, in particular, those related to social class, regional dialect, and language contact.

Ash, S. (2002). Social Class. In J.K. Chambers and N. Schillling-Estes (Eds.). The Handbook of Language Variation and Change. Massachussets: Blackwell. 402-422.

Hurtado, Marcela, 2005. El uso de tú, usted, y uno en el español de Colombianos y Colombo-Americanos. In: Luis, A., López, O., Lacorte, M. (Eds.), Contactos y contextos lingüísticos: El español en los Estados Unidos y en contacto con otras lenguas. Iberoamericana, Vervuert, Madrid/ Frankfurt, 187-197.

Flores, Nydia & Toro, Jeannette. (2000). The persistence of dialect features under conditions of contact and leveling, The Southwest Journal of Linguistics. 19 (2), 31-42.

Labov, W. (1972). The social stratification of English in New York City. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.

Otheguy, Ricardo, Zentella, Ana C., Livert, David, 2007. Language and dialect contact in Spanish in New York: Toward the formation of a speech community. Language 83 (4), 770-802.

Trudgill, P. (1974). The social differentiation of English in Norwich. Cambridge: CUP.

Doing intersectionality in interaction: Performing race across multiple social axes

H. Samy Alim

Stanford University

 In the last decade, several core and fundamental concepts that sociolinguists have taken for granted have come under increasing scrutiny. For example, variationist sociolinguistics can no longer justifiably continue to view identities as static and prefigured. Focusing on identification in and through interaction, Bucholtz and Hall (2004: 376) argue that identity “is better understood as an outcome of language use rather than as an analytic prime,” and that our focus should be not on identity per se (which suggests a set of fixed categories), but rather on “identification as an ongoing social and political process.” A growing number of language scholars have adopted this perspective in demonstrating how speakers “do” race and ethnicity in interaction  (see Bucholtz 2001, Chun 2001, Reyes 2007, Schilling-Estes 2004).

More recently, scholars have begun to focus on the intersection of race and ethnicity across multiple social axes of difference (Alim & Reyes, forthcoming), paying particular attention to how racial identities intersect and articulate with other social identities, particularly gender, sexuality, class, region and nation. Given this evolving shift in focus from identity to identification, and given the central focus on power in intersectionality theory, I will demonstrate that “intersecting oppressions” need to be explored as ongoing social and political processes. In particular, I will focus on how speakers’ performances of the Other constitute, challenge, and maintain the intersecting oppressions faced by marginalized subjects. I demonstrate this by exploring a specific site of verbal art where young Black men have created a space that centers and privileges “Blackness”, in part, in response to their being doubly marginalized along axes of race and class.

Growing out of long-term, collaborative ethnographic research in a Los Angeles underground rap site, this presentation views freestyle rap battles (and performances more generally) as active sites for the contestation and potential reorganization of social meanings and identities. Going beyond the Black-White US racial dichotomy, I focus my attention primarily on how Black, Asian, and Latino speakers temporarily transform dominant social meanings attached to race and ethnicity in these verbal duels. However, a more nuanced examination also suggests that these youth challenge some forms of dominance while (re)producing others. Specifically, it is not simply the case that “Blackness” is dominant in these interactive moments, but it is a particular kind of Blackness (masculine, working-class, local, street-affiliated and heterosexual) that both challenges White domination as it marginalizes other class, gender and sexual identities.

Alim, H. S. & A. Reyes. (eds.) (forthcoming). Race and… : Articulating the linguistic intersections of multiple social axes. Special issue of Discourse & Society.

Bucholtz, M. 2001. The Whiteness of nerds: Superstandard English and racial markedness. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 11(1): 84-100.

Bucholtz, M. & K. Hall. (2004) Language and identity. In A. Duranti (ed.), A companion to linguistic anthropology. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 369-394.

Reyes, A. 2007. The Other Asian: Language, Identity, and Stereotype among Southeast Asian American Youth. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Schilling-Estes, N. 2004. Constructing ethnicity in interaction. Journal of sociolinguistics 8(2): 163-95.

Intersectionality theory: what it is and why it matters to variationists

Andrew Wong

California State University-Eastbay

Since the 1980s, intersectionality theory has emerged as a key approach in the social sciences for analyzing identity and oppression.  Although it has demonstrated its utility in sociology, psychology, legal studies, and women's studies, it has made relatively little impact on variationist  sociolinguistics.  The term intersectionality, coined by legal scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw (1989), refers to "particular forms of intersecting  oppressions, for example, intersections of race and gender, or of sexuality and nation" (Collins 2000: 21).  The interaction of gender with other axes of social difference (e.g., social class) has always been a concern (though not necessarily a primary one) for variationists, so what new insights can we gain from intersectionality theory?  What implications does the theory  have for the research questions that we ask, the hypotheses that we test, the methods that we use for data collection, and the ways in which we  analyze and interpret our data?

 Rather than giving an exhaustive overview of intersectionality theory, I will highlight in this talk several key insights that I believe this theory offers to those who are engaged in the quantitative study of language variation and change.  I will argue that intersectionality theory encourages variationists to examine the linguistic practices of marginalized subjects  at various social intersections (not just race and gender, but also class,  sexuality, religion, and nationality), re-evaluate the role of power in  sociolinguistic variation, and take seriously the lived experience of those  they study.  Crucially, I will show how by doing so, intersectionality  theory helps variationists further their goals of demonstrating the structured heterogeneity in speech communities, uncovering the social  meaning of variation, and explaining the actuation and the transmission of  linguistic change.

I will focus primarily on the intersection of gender and sexuality, which  has generally received less attention than the intersection of race and gender in the intersectionality literature.  To illustrate my points, I will  use my own work on the semantic variation and change of labels for sexual  minorities in Hong Kong, as well as others' research on gender, sexuality and sociolinguistic variation.

Collins, Patricia Hill 2000. Black Feminist Thoughts.  New York: Routledge.
Crenshaw, Kimberlé 1989.  Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory, and antiracist politics.  Chicago Legal Forum, 139-167.