Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-684899dbb8-662rr Total loading time: 1.003 Render date: 2022-05-16T16:38:49.533Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true }

16 - The Role of the Body in Language Change

from Part III - Meaning and Linguistic Change

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 July 2021

Lauren Hall-Lew
Affiliation:
University of Edinburgh
Emma Moore
Affiliation:
University of Sheffield
Robert J. Podesva
Affiliation:
Stanford University, California
Get access

Summary

It is generally accepted that the body plays an important stylistic role, but few scholars embark on multimodal investigations of variation. In this chapter I discuss the results of two studies on the realization of the GOAT vowel to show that bodily practices occur alongside, and indeed can influence, linguistic behavior, both from moment to moment (through expressions of affect like smiling) and duratively (through facial postures like an open jaw). Study 1 reveals that GOAT exhibits a higher F2 when it occurs in the context of smiling, suggesting some sound changes may be advancing during moments when the body is used to express heightened affect. Study 2 illustrates that the more durative embodied practice of maintaining an open-jaw setting has had lowering consequences across the vowel system of California English – even for GOAT, which is typically described as undergoing fronting rather than lowering. The proposal advanced here assumes that linguistic variation is meaningful and that a non-trivial number of a linguistic variant’s social meanings derives from embodied practice. And crucially, meaning – some of it embodied – can initiate or influence the trajectory of change.

Type
Chapter
Information
Social Meaning and Linguistic Variation
Theorizing the Third Wave
, pp. 363 - 381
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

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

Barthel, Helen, and Quené, Hugo. 2015. Acoustic-phonetic properties of smiling revised: Measurements on a natural video corpus. In the Scottish Consortium for ICPhS 2015 (ed.), Proceedings of the 18th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Glasgow: The University of Glasgow.Google Scholar
Bell, Allan. 2016. A brief history of style, and its contribution to 21st-century sociolinguistic theory. Paper presented at New Ways of Analyzing Variation, Vancouver, BC.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul. 2001. Praat, a system for doing phonetics by computer. Glot International 5, 3415.Google Scholar
Boyd, Zac, Elliott, Zuzana, Fruehwald, Josef, Hall-Lew, Lauren, and Lawrence, Daniel. 2015. An evaluation of sociolinguistic elicitation methods. In the Scottish Consortium for ICPhS 2015 (ed.), Proceedings of the 18th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Glasgow: The University of Glasgow: paper 800.Google Scholar
Browman, Catherine P., and Goldstein, Louis. 1992. Articulatory Phonology: An overview. Phonetica 49, 155–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bucholtz, Mary, and Hall, Kira. 2016. Embodied sociolinguistics. In Coupland, Nick (ed.), Sociolinguistics: Theoretical Debates. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 173–97.Google Scholar
Calder, Jeremy. 2017. Handsome women: A semiotics of non-normative gender in SoMa, San Francisco. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
D’Onofrio, Annette, Pratt, Teresa, and Van Hofwegen, Janneke. 2019. Compression in the California Vowel Shift: Tracking generational sound change in California’s Central Valley. Language Variation and Change 31, 193217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drahota, Amy, Costall, Alan, and Reddy, Vasuvedi. 2008. The vocal communication of different kinds of smile. Speech Communication 50, 278–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckert, Penelope. 2000. Linguistic Variation as Social Practice: The Linguistic Construction of Identity in Belten High. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope. 2006 [1996]. Vowels and nailpolish: The emergence of linguistic style in the preadolescent heterosexual marketplace. In Cameron, Deborah and Kulick, Don (eds.), The Language and Sexuality Reader. London and New York: Routledge, 189–95.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope. 2008. Where do ethnolects stop? International Journal of Bilingualism 12, 2542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckert, Penelope. 2010. Affect, sound symbolism, and variation. The University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 15(2), 7080.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope. 2011. Language and power in the preadolescent heterosexual market. American Speech 86, 8597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ekman, Paul, Friesman, Wallace V., and Ancoli, Sonia. 1980. Facial signs of emotional experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 39, 1125–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guy, Gregory, and Hinskens, Frans. 2016. Linguistic coherence: Systems, repertoires and speech communities. Lingua 172–3, 19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall-Lew, Lauren. 2005. One shift, two groups: When fronting alone is not enough. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 10(2).Google Scholar
Hall-Lew, Lauren. 2009. Ethnicity and phonetic variation in a San Francisco neighborhood. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Hinton, Leanne, Moonwomon, Birch, Bremner, Sue et al. 1987. It’s not just the valley girls: A study of California English. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 13, 117–28.Google Scholar
Johnson, Steve. 2006. Shift happens: Effects of personality on the Northern Cities Shift. Colloquium presented in the Department of Linguistics, Michigan State University.Google Scholar
Kennedy, Robert, and Grama, James. 2012. Chain shifting and centralization in California vowels: An acoustic analysis. American Speech 87, 3956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William, Ash, Sharon, and Boberg, Charles. 2006. Atlas of North American English. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lausberg, H., and Sloetjes, H.. 2009. Coding gestural behavior with the NEUROGES-ELAN system. Behavior Research Methods 41, 841–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lobanov, Boris M. 1971. Classification of Russian vowels spoken by different listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 49, 606–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luthin, Herbert. 1987. The story of California /ow/: The coming-of-age of English in California. In Denning, K. et al. (eds.), Variation in Language: NWAV-XV at Stanford. Stanford, CA: Department of Linguistics, Stanford University, 312–24.Google Scholar
Podesva, Robert J. 2011. The California Vowel Shift and gay identity. American Speech 86, 3251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Podesva, Robert J. 2016. Affect structures variation in vowel quality: The influence of smiling on the front lax vowels in California. Paper presented at New Ways of Analyzing Variation, Vancouver, BC.Google Scholar
Podesva, Robert J., D’Onofrio, Annette, Van Hofwegen, Janneke, and Kim, Seung Kyung. 2015. Country ideology and the California Vowel Shift. Language Variation and Change 27, 157–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Podesva, Robert J., Callier, Patrick, Voigt, Rob, and Jurafsky, Dan. 2015. The connection between smiling and GOAT fronting: Embodied affect in sociophonetic variation. In the Scottish Consortium for ICPhS 2015 (ed.), Proceedings of the 18th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Glasgow: The University of Glasgow.Google Scholar
Pratt, Teresa. 2016. The use of embodied creak by young men at an arts high school. Paper presented at New Ways of Analyzing Variation, Vancouver, BC.Google Scholar
Pratt, Teresa. 2017. LOT-raising and toughness in a California high school. Paper presented at New Ways of Analyzing Variation, Madison, WI.Google Scholar
Pratt, Teresa, and D’Onofrio, Annette. 2017. Jaw setting and the California vowel shift in parodic performance. Language in Society 30, 130.Google Scholar
Rosenfelder, Ingrid, Fruehwald, Joe, Evanini, Keelan, and Yuan, Jiahong. 2011. FAVE (Forced Alignment and Vowel Extraction) program suite.Google Scholar
Van Hofwegen, Janneke. 2017. The systematicity of style: Investigating the full range of variation in everyday speech. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Wong, Amy. 2014. GOOSE-fronting among Chinese Americans in New York City. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 20(2), 209–18.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×