Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T15:16:53.220Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Variation in discourse—“and stuff like that”1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2008

Elizabeth R. Dines
Elizabeth R. Dines
Affiliation:
University of Melbourne, Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The extension of variation analysis to the level of discourse involves refining the notion that variants are semantic equivalents. Discourse variables may be determined on the basis of common discourse function. In the absence of a semantic tie the isloation of a variable begins with the salience of a variant and proceeds via examinations of its distribution to postulating a variable and mapping the alternative variants. This procedure is illustracted by an analysis of a socially diagnostic discourse feature– the set-marking tag. Its higher frequency in working- class sppeech stimulates the search for alternative favoured forms. One hypothesis, derived from Bernstein's notion of codes, is that the tags mark an orientation to “particularistic” rather than “ universalistic” meanings. It follows that a favoured alternative to the tag may be realised as general reference. (Discourse variables; variation theory; codes and social dialects; Australian English.)

Type
Articles
Information
Language in Society , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , April 1980 , pp. 13 - 31
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1980

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

Bernstein, B. (1971). Class codes and control 1, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.Google Scholar
Bolinger, D. (1977). Meaning and form.Google Scholar
Brotherton, P. (1976). “Aspects of the Relationship between Speech Production, Hesitation Behaviour and Social Class”, unpublished doctora; thesis, University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
Brown, R. (1959). Words and things Glencoe: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Cedergren, H. & Sankoff, D. “Variable Rules: Performance as a Statistical Reflection of Competence”, Language 50. 333–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dines, E. (1978). “Mothers'Attitudes to Children's Speech”. Talanya: Journal of the Linguistic Society of Australia 5:23–35.Google Scholar
Dines, E. (1979). “Linguistic Variation in Australian Children”, unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Monash University, Victoria, Australia.Google Scholar
Dines, E., Henry, P., Allender, S. (1979). “Formal and Functional Variation in Urban Children's Language”, Education Research and Development Committee Report. MS, University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
Gazdar, G. (1976). “Quantifying Context”. York Papers in Linguistics, 6. 117 ff.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1976). “An Interpretation of the Functional Relationship between Language and Social Structure”, in Quasthoff, Uta (ed.), Sprachstruktur-Sozialstruktur: Beitrzāge zur linguistischen theorienbildung, Scriptor: Kronberg/Ts.Google Scholar
Hasan, R. “Code, Register and Social Dialect”, in Bernstein, B. (ed), Class codes and control2, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.Google Scholar
Hasan, R. (1977). “Ways of Saying: Ways of Meaning”, to appear in Lamb, and Makkai, (eds), Semiotics of culture and language. The Press at Twin Willows, Hamburg, N.J.Google Scholar
Heidelberger, Forschungsprojekt “Pidgin-Deutsch” (1978). “The Acquisition of German Syntax by Foreign Migrant Workers” in Sankoff, David (ed.), Linguistic variation, Academic Press. New York. 1–22.Google Scholar
Hymes, D. (1978). Review of Bolinger (1977). Lingua 45. 175–92.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1966). The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Center for Applied Linguistics, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1972). “Some Principles of Linguistic Methodology”, in Language and Society 1 (1). 97–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, W. (1972b). Language in the inner city: Studies in the black English vernacular, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1978). “Where does the linguistic variable stop” Working Papers in Sociolinguistics, Austin, Texas: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.Google Scholar
Lavendera, B. L. (1978). “Where does the sociolinguistic variable stop.” Language in Society, 7(2). 171–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, M. E. (1973). “Linguistic, Cognitive and Verbal Processing Styles: A Social Class Contrast”, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, La Trobe University.Google Scholar
Quirk, R. et al. (1972). A grammar of contemporary English. Longman, London.Google Scholar
Rickford, J. R. (1975). “Carrying the New Wave into Syntax: The Case of Black English Bin”, in Fasold, R. & Shuy, R. (eds), Analyzing variation in language. Georgetown University Press, Washington. 162–183.Google Scholar
Sankoff, D., Thibault, P., Bérubé, H. (1978). “Semantic Field Variability” in Sankoff, D. (ed), Linguistic varlation. Academic Press, New York. 23–43.Google Scholar
Sankoff, D. & Thibault, P. (1978). “Weak Complementarity: Tense and Aspect in Montreal French”. Paper presented at Michigan Conference on Syntactic Change (April 1978).Google Scholar
Shuy, R. et al. , (1977). Carnegie project: Functions of language in the classroom. Center for Applied Linguistics, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Van Dijk, T. A. (1979). “Discourse Studies and Education”, unpublished MS. University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Wolfram, W. & Fasold, R. (1972). The study of social dialects in American English, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.Google Scholar