Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m8s7h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-24T05:01:12.186Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sociolinguistic behavior in a Detroit inner-city black neighborhood1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2008

Walter F. Edwards
Walter F. Edwards
Affiliation:
Graduate School, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI 48202
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The integration of 66 black Detroit inner-city residents (33 males and 33 females) into their neighborhood is measured quantitatively by a Vernacular Culture Index (VCI) constructed from the respondents' responses to 10 statements, each with values ranging from 1 to 4. The speech behaviors of these respondents with respect to variants of six linguistic variables (each with a black English [BE] and a colloquial Standard English variant) are quantified and the statistical relationships between the VCI scores and linguistic behavior are determined. The results of the study reveal that respondents in the older age groups (40–59, 60+) are more likely to choose BE variants than respondents in the younger age groups (18–25, 26–39), and that there are consistent statistically significant correlations between high scores on the VCI and the choice of BE variants of the linguistic variables. This is taken to support the proposal that the Social Network Theory approach, of which the VCI concept is a part, is capable of explaining intracommunity linguistic variation in socioeconomically homogeneous areas such as the black community studied. (Sociolinguistics, sociolinguistic theory, black English)

Type
Articles
Information
Language in Society , Volume 21 , Issue 1 , March 1992 , pp. 93 - 115
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

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

Baugh, J. (1983). Black street speech: Its history, structure, and survival. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Baugh, J. (1984). A reexamination of the black English copula. In Baugh, J. & Sherzer, J. (eds.), Language in use: Reading in sociolinguistics. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 247–68.Google Scholar
Bortoni-Richardo, S. (1985). The urbanization of rural dialect speakers: A Sociolinguistic study in Brazil. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Cheshire, J. (1982). Linguistic variation and social function. In Romaine, S. (ed.), Sociolinguistic variation in speech communities. London: Edward Arnold. 153–66.Google Scholar
Dittmar, N., & Schlobinski, P. (eds.) (1988). The sociolinguistics of urban vernaculars: Case studies and their evaluation. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dorian, N. (1982). Defining the speech community to include its working margins. In Romaine, S. (ed.), Sociolinguistic variation in speech communities. London: Edward Arnold. 25–35.Google Scholar
Dorrill, G. (1986). A comparison of stressed vowels of black and white speakers in the South. In Montgomery, M. & Bailey, G. (eds.), Language variety in the South: Perspectives in black and white. Montgomery: University of Alabama Press. 149–57.Google Scholar
Eckert, P. (1986). The development of social constraints in sound change. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, New York.Google Scholar
Eckert, P. (1989). The whole woman: Sex and gender differences in variation. Language Variation and Change 1:245–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, W. F. (1975). Sociolinguistic behavior in rural and urban circumstances in Guyana. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of York, England.Google Scholar
Edwards, W. F. (1983). Code selection and shifting in Guyana. Language in Society 12:295–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, W. F. (1984). A community based approach to the provenance of urban Guyanese creole. York Papers in Linguistics 11:83–93.Google Scholar
Edwards, W. F. (1988). Generational differences between black and white speech in Detroit. Paper presented at the NWAVE XVII Conference, University of Montreal.Google Scholar
Fasold, R. (1972). Tense marking in black English. Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Feagin, C. (1986). Competing norms in the white speech of Anniston, Alabama. In Montgomery, M. & Bailey, G. (eds.), Language variety in the south: Perspectives in black and white. Montgomery: University of Alabama Press. 216–34.Google Scholar
Frazer, T. (1986). South midland pronunciation in the north central states. In Allen, H. & Linn, M. (eds)., Dialect and language variation. London: Academic. 142–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gal, S. (1984). Peasant men can't get wives: Language change and sex roles in a bilingual community. In Baugh, J. & Sherzer, J. (eds.), Language in use: Readings in sociolinguistics. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 292–304.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1986). The social stratification of English in New York City. Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1969). Contraction, deletion, and inherent variability of the English copula. Language 45:15–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, W. (1972). Language in the inner city. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1981). Field methods used by the project on linguistic change and variation. (Sociolinguistic Working Paper 81). Austin, TX: South Western Educational Development Laboratory.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1990). The intersection of sex and social class in the course of linguistic change. Language Variation and Change 2:205–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, W., & Harris, W. (1986). De facto segregation of black and white vernaculars. In Sankoff, D. (ed.), Diversity and diachrony. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 1–24.Google Scholar
Le Page, R., & Tabouret-Keller, A. (1985). Acts of identity. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lippi-Green, R. (1989). Social network integration and language change in progress in a rural alpine village. Language in Society 18:213–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milroy, L. (1980). Language and social networks. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Milroy, L. (1982). Social network and linguistic focusing. In Romaine, S. (ed.), Sociolinguistic variation in speech communities. London: Edward Arnold. 141–52.Google Scholar
Milroy, L. (1987). Observing and analysing natural language. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Milroy, L., & Margrain, S. (1980). Vernacular language loyalty and social network. Language in Society 9:43–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rickford, J. (1985). Ethnicity as a sociolinguistic boundary. American Speech 60:99–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rissel, D. (1989). Sex, attitudes, and the assibilation of /r/ among young people in Sa Luis Potosi, Mexico. Language Variation and Change 1:269–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
United Community Services of Metropolitan Detroit. (1983). Annual statistical report of social and health agencies serving the Detroit metropolitan area. Detroit: Author.Google Scholar
Wolfram, W. (1969). A sociolinguistic description of Detroit Negro speech. Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar