Presentation Type
Poster Presentation
Category
Social Sciences/Humanities
Abstract/Artist Statement
Continuously changing and always present, style appears in an individual’s life in more ways than one. Along with the clothes you wear and the way you do your hair, style is seen all throughout language every day. The way someone speaks to one person may differ from the way they speak to another. The environment a speaker is in may also influence how they speak. The way we speak to our close friends in private differs from the way we speak to others in more formal and professional settings. We choose the way we speak depending on who is around us and what the environment is. Among the linguists who have researched and contributed to the discussion of style are William Labov and Judith Irvine. Labov’s landmark 1966 study on ‘r’ production in New York City department stores and the stratification among social classes, introduced this idea of style in language and how an individual speaker chooses between these different styles. Labov’s definition of style limits the speaker to two choices: the vernacular style or standard speech variety (Labov 1972). While Irvine recognizes vernacular and standard speech styles, her definition broadens Labov’s with her inclusion of ideological and social mediation, distinctiveness, aesthetics, and consistency (Irvine 2002). Although both linguists have provided crucial definitions of style, I will argue in favor of Irvine’s definition of style because it delves deeper into the sociolinguistic variation of style beyond just the vernacular and standard speech variety.
Mentor Name
Irene Appelbaum
Style: A Sociolinguistic Analysis
UC North Ballroom
Continuously changing and always present, style appears in an individual’s life in more ways than one. Along with the clothes you wear and the way you do your hair, style is seen all throughout language every day. The way someone speaks to one person may differ from the way they speak to another. The environment a speaker is in may also influence how they speak. The way we speak to our close friends in private differs from the way we speak to others in more formal and professional settings. We choose the way we speak depending on who is around us and what the environment is. Among the linguists who have researched and contributed to the discussion of style are William Labov and Judith Irvine. Labov’s landmark 1966 study on ‘r’ production in New York City department stores and the stratification among social classes, introduced this idea of style in language and how an individual speaker chooses between these different styles. Labov’s definition of style limits the speaker to two choices: the vernacular style or standard speech variety (Labov 1972). While Irvine recognizes vernacular and standard speech styles, her definition broadens Labov’s with her inclusion of ideological and social mediation, distinctiveness, aesthetics, and consistency (Irvine 2002). Although both linguists have provided crucial definitions of style, I will argue in favor of Irvine’s definition of style because it delves deeper into the sociolinguistic variation of style beyond just the vernacular and standard speech variety.