Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T21:01:00.886Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Peasant men can't get wives: language change and sex roles in a bilingual community

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2008

Susan Gal*
Affiliation:
University of California, Berkeley

Abstract

Language shift from German–Hungarian bilingualism to the exclusive use of German is occurring in the community discussed. Young women are further along in the direction of this change than older people and young men. The linguistic contrast between German and Hungarian is shown to represent the social dichotomy between a newly available worker status and traditional peasant status; thus the choice of language in interaction is part of a speaker's presentation of self. Young women's stated preferences concerning this social dichotomy and their changing marriage strategies indicate that their greater use of German in interaction is one aspect of their general preference for the worker's way of life it symbolizes. Rather than simply isolating a linguistic correlate of sex, the present study suggests that women's speech choices must be explained within the context of their social position, their strategic life choices and the symbolic values of the available linguistic alternatives (language and sex roles; interactional analysis; social determinants of language shift; European bilingualism).

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1978

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

Anshen, F. (1969) Speech variation among Negros in a small southern community. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. New York University.Google Scholar
Bickerton, D. (1973). The nature of a creole continuum. Language 44, 640–69.10.2307/41235510.2307/412355Google Scholar
Bodine, A. Sex differentiation in language. In Thorne, S. & Henley, N. (eds), Language and sex: Difference and dominance, Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Blom, J. P. & Gumperz, J. J(1974) Social meaning in linguistic structures: Code-switching in Norway. In Gumperz, J. J. & Hymes, D. (eds), Directions in sociolinguistics. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Denich, B. Sex and power in the Balkans. In Rosaldo, M. S. & Lamphere, L. (eds) Woman, culture and society. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Ervin-Tripp, S. (1972). On sociolinguistic rules: Alternation and co-occurrence. In Gumperz, J. J. & Hymes, D. (eds), Directions in sociolinguistics. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Fasold, R. (1968). A sociolinguistic study of the pronunciation of three vowels in Detroit speech. Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics. Mimeo.Google Scholar
Farber, A. (1974). Women's language use in Comalapa, Guatemala. Paper presented at the 73rd AAA Meetings, Mexico City.Google Scholar
Fél, E. and Hofer, T. (1969). Proper peasants. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
Franklin, S. H. (1969). The European peasantry. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Gal, S. (1976). Language change and its social determinants in a biblingual community. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. J. (1964). Linguistic and social interaction in two communities. American Anthropologist 66 (6). Part II, 137–54.10.1525/aa.1964.66.suppl_3.02a0011010.1525/aa.1964.66.suppl_3.02a00100Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. J. (1970). Verbal strategies in multilingual communication. Language Behavior Research Laboratory Working Paper # 36, Berkeley: University of California.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. J. (1976). The sociolinguistic significance of conversational code-switching. Ms. Hymes, D. (1967). Models of the interaction of language and social setting. Journal of Social Issues 23 (2), 828.Google Scholar
Imre, S. (1971). A felsőőri nyelvjárás (The Oberwart dialect). Nyelvtudományi Értekezések 72. Budapest.Google Scholar
Imre, S. (1973). Az ausztriai (burgenlandi) magyar szorványok (The Hungarian minority group in Austria). In Népi Kultura —Népi Társadalom (Folk Culture– Folk Society), Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
Keenen, E. (1974). Norm-makers, norm-breakers: Uses of speech by men and women in a Malagasy community. In Bauman, R. & Sherzer, J. (eds), Explorations in the ethnography of speaking. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kovács, M. (1942). A fels˜˜ri magyar népsziget (The Hungarian folk-island of Oberwart). Budapest: Sylvester-Nyomda.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Imre, S. (1973) The linguistic consequences of being a lame. LinS 2, 815.Google Scholar
Lakoff, R.Language and women's place. LinS 2, 4580Google Scholar
Nichols, P. (1976). Black women in the rural south: Conservative and innovative. Paper presented to the conference on the Sociology of the Languages of American Women. Las Cruces, New Mexico.Google Scholar
Rubin, J. (1970). Bilingual usage in Paraguay. In Fishman, J. (ed.), Readings in the sociology of language, The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Sankoff, G. & Cedergren, H. (1971). Some results of a sociolinguistic study of Montreal French. In Darnell, R. (ed.), Linguistic diversity in Canadian society. Edmonton: Linguistic Research.Google Scholar
Swacker, M. (1975). The sex of the speaker as a sociolinguistic variable. In Thorne, B. & Henley, N. (eds), Language and sex: Difference and dominance. Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House Publishers, Inc.Google Scholar
Thorne, B. & Henley, N. (eds). (1975). Language and sex: Difference and dominance. Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House Publishers, Inc.Google Scholar
Trudgill, P. (1972). Sex, covert prestige and linguistic change in the urban British English of Norwich. LinS 1 179–95.S0047404500000488Google Scholar
Zimmerman, D. & West, C. (1975). Sex roles, interruptions and silences in conversation. In Thorne, B. and Henley, N. (eds), Language and sex: Difference and dominance. Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House Publishers, Inc.Google Scholar