Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T21:02:51.125Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sounds pretty ethnic, eh?: A pragmatic particle in New Zealand English

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2009

Miriam Meyerhoff
Miriam Meyerhoff
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6305
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A social dialect survey of a working-class suburb in New Zealand provides evidence that eh, a tag particle that is much stereotyped but evaluated negatively in NZ English, may persist in casual speech because it plays an important role as a positive politeness marker. It is used noticeably more by Maori men than by Maori women or Pakehas (British/European New Zealanders), and may function as an in-group signal of ethnic identity for these speakers. Young Pakeha women, though, seem to be the next highest users of eh. It is unlikely that they are using it to signal in-group identity in the same way; instead, it is possible that they are responding to its interpersonal and affiliative functions for Maori men, and are adopting it as a new facet in their repertoire of positive politeness markers. (Gender, ethnicity, politeness, New Zealand English, intergroup and interpersonal communication)

Type
Articles
Information
Language in Society , Volume 23 , Issue 3 , June 1994 , pp. 367 - 388
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

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

Allan, Scott (1990). The rise of New Zeland intonation. In Bell, Allan & Holmes, Janet (eds.), New Zealand ways of speaking English, 115–28 Clevedon (England): Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Avis, Walter s. (1972). So eh? is Canadian, eh? Canadian Journal of Linguistics 17: 89–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Laurie (1986). Notes on New Zealand phonetics and phonology. English World-Wide 7: 225–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, Allan, & Holmes, Janet (1990), eds. New Zealand ways of speaking English. Clevedon (England): Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Britain, David (1992). Linguistic change in intonation: The use of high rising terminals in New Zealand English. Language Variation and Change 4: 77–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Penelope, & Levinson, Stephen (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, Deborah (1985). Feminism and linguistic theory. New York: St Martin's.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, Deborah; McAlinden, Fiona & O'Leary, Kathy (1988). Lakoff in context: The social and linguistic functions of tag questions. In Coates, & Cameron, (eds.), 74–93.Google Scholar
Coates, Jennifer (1988). Gossip revisited: Language in all-female groups. In Coates, & Cameron, (eds.), 94–122.Google Scholar
Coates, Jennifer & Cameron, Deborah (1988), eds. Women in their speech communities. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Dines, Elizabeth R. (1980). Variation in discourse – “and stuff like that”. Language in Society 9: 13–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elley, Warwick P., & Irving, J. C. (1985). The Elley-Irving socio-economic index: 1981 Census revision. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies 20: 115–28.Google Scholar
Fishman, Pamela (1983). Interaction: The work women do. In Thorne, Barrie et al. , (eds.), Language, gender and society, 89–101. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Gal, Susan (1979). Peasant men can't get wives: Language change and sex roles in a bilingual community. Language in Society 7: 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallois, Cynthia; Franklyn-Stokes, Arlene; Giles, Howard; & Coupland, Nikolas (1988). Communication accommodation in intercultural encounters. In Kim, Young Yun & Gudykunst, William B. (eds.), Theories in intercultural communication (International and Intercultural Communication Annual, 12), 157–85. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Gibson, Deborah Jean (1976). A thesis on eh. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Linguistics, University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Giles, Howard, & Johnson, Patricia (1987). Ethnolinguistic identity theory: A social psychological approach to language maintenance. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 68: 69–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Marjorie Harness (1988). Cooperation and competition across girl's play activities. In Todd, Alexandra Dundas & Fisher, Sue (eds.), Gender and discourse: The power of talk (Advances in discourse processes series, 30), 55–94. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Holmes, Janet (1984). Hedging your bets and sitting on the fence: Some evidence for hedges as support structures. Te Reo 27: 47–62.Google Scholar
Holmes, Janet (1986). Functions of you know in women's and men's speech. Language in Society 15: 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, Janet (1988). Sort of in New Zealand women's and men's speech. Studia Linguistica 42: 85–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, Janet (1989). Review of Preisler, Bent, Linguistic sex roles in conversation. Language in Society 18: 293–9.Google Scholar
Holmes, Janet; Bell, Allan; & Boyce, Mary (1991). Variation and change in New Zealand English: A social dialect investigation. Project Report to the Social Sciences Committee of the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology. Department of Linguistics, Victoria University of Wellington.Google Scholar
Jones, Deborah (1975). Male and female language and the expression of uncertainty. Department of Linguistics, Victoria University of Wellington, MS.Google Scholar
Kiesling, Scott (1993). Competitive co-operativeness and status in male discourse. Paper presented at The Language-Gender Interface: COSWL/LSA Conference on Language and Gender, Columbus, Ohio, 15–18 July.Google Scholar
Labov, William (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, Robin Tolmach (1975). Language and woman's place. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Lakoff, Robin Tolmach (1990). Talking power: The politics of language in our lives. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Leet-Pellegrini, H. M. (1980). Conversational dominance as a function of gender and expertise. In Giles, Howard et al. (eds.), Language: Social psychological perspectives, 97–104. Oxford: Pergamon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Love, T. (1973). An examination of eh as question particle. University of Alberta, MS.Google Scholar
Meyerhoff, Miriam (1992a). “A sort of something”: Hedging strategies on nouns. Association International de Linguistique Appliquie, Commission on Language and Gender, Working papers in language, gender and sexism, 2:1, ed. by Winter, Joanne, 59–73. Clayton, Victoria (Australia): Monash University.Google Scholar
Meyerhoff, Miriam (1992b). “We've all got to go one day, eh?”: Powerlessness and solidarity in the functions of a New Zealand tag. In Hall, Kira et al. (eds.), Locating power: Proceedings of the Second Berkeley Women and Language Conference, 409–19. Berkeley: Berkeley Women and Language Group.Google Scholar
Meyerhoff, Miriam & Niedzielski, Nancy (1994). Resistance to creolization: An interpersonal and intergroup account. Language and Communication 14, to appear.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milroy, Lesley (1980). Language and social networks. Oxford: Blackwcll.Google Scholar
O'Barr, William M. & Atkins, B. K. (1980). “Women's language” or “powerless language”? In McConnell-Ginet, Sally et al. (eds.), Women and language in literature and society, 93–110. New York: PraegerGoogle Scholar
Östman, Jan-Ola (1981). “You know”: A discourse functional approach. Amsterdam: BenjaminsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preisler, Bent (1986). Linguistic sex roles in conversation: Social variation in the expression of tentativeness in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rickford, John R., & McNair-Knox, Faye (1994). Addressee and topic-influenced style shift: A quantitative sociolinguistic study. In Biber, Douglas and Finegan, Edward (eds.), Sociolinguistic perspectives on register: Situating register variation within sociolinguistics, 235–76. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel (1988). Discourse as an interactional achievement, II: An exercise in conversation analysis. In Tannen 1988b: 135–58.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tannen, Deborah (1984). Conversational style: Analyzing talk among friends. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Tannen, Deborah (1988a). Hearing voices in conversation, fiction, and mixed genres. In Tannen, 1988b: 89–113.Google Scholar
Tannen, Deborah (1988b), ed. Linguistics in context: Connecting observation and understanding: Lectures from the 1985 LSA/TESOL and NEH Institutes. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Thakerar, Jitendra N.; Giles, Howard; & Cheshire, Jenny (1982). Psychological and linguistic parameters of speech accommodation theory. In Fraser, Colin & Scherer, Klaus R. (eds.), Advances in the social psychology of language, 205–55. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Thomason, Sarah Grey & Kaufman, Terrence (1988). Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trudgill, Peter (1975). Sex, covert prestige and linguistic change in the urban British English of Norwich. In Thorne, Barrie & Henley, Nancy (eds.), Language and sex: Difference and dominance, 88–104. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Thorne, Barrie; Kramarae, Cheris; & Henley, Nancy (1975), eds. Language, gender and society. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Woods, Nicola (1988). Talking shop: Sex and status as determinants of floor apportionment in a work situation. In Coates, & Cameron, (eds.), 141–57.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, Don, & West, Candace (1975). Sex roles, interruptions and silences in conversation. In Thorne, et al. (eds.), 105–29.Google Scholar