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 .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure firstname.lastname@example.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.
To quantify the extent of food and beverage advertising on bus shelters in a deprived area of the UK, to identify the healthfulness of advertised products, and any differences by level of deprivation. The study also sought to assess the creative strategies used and extent of appeal to young people.
Images of bus shelter advertisements were collected via in person photography (in 2019) and Google Street View (photos recorded in 2018). Food and beverage advertisements were grouped into one of seventeen food categories and classified as healthy/less healthy using the UK Nutrient Profile Model. The deprivation level of the advertisement location was identified using the UK Index of Multiple Deprivation.
Middlesbrough and Redcar and Cleveland in South Teesside.
Eight hundred and thirty-two advertisements were identified, almost half (48·9 %) of which were for foods or beverages. Of food and non-alcoholic beverage adverts, 35·1 % were less healthy. Most food advertisements (98·9 %) used at least one of the persuasive creative strategies. Food advertisements were found to be of appeal to children under 18 years of age (71·9 %). No differences in healthiness of advertised foods were found by level of deprivation.
Food advertising is extensive on bus shelters in parts of the UK, and a substantial proportion of this advertising is classified as less healthy and would not be permitted to be advertised around television programming for children. Bus shelter advertising should be considered part of the UK policy deliberations around restricting less healthy food marketing exposure.
How expansive are the social meanings inferred by a nonstandard syntactic variant, and how are these social meanings constructed? This chapter suggests that the social meanings of syntax lie at the nexus of pragmatics and social distribution. Furthermore, the analysis shows that certain social meanings are enriched when syntactic items co-occur with specific phonetic variants. Drawing upon an ethnographic study of adolescents, this chapter focuses on the social meanings of negative concord by exploring the correlation between social class, social practice, topic of talk, nonstandard phonetic variants and instances of negative concord. Negative concord increases across social groups in-line with their placement on a pro-/anti-school continuum, but a topic analysis suggests that this a consequence of different groups talking about different things: there is more negative concord in talk about delinquent behaviour than there is in talk about non-delinquent behaviour (irrespective of social group). In exploring why negative concord is a useful device for talking about delinquency, the pragmatics of the construction itself are examined, exposing a relationship between social distribution and pragmatic function. Finally, an analysis of the relationship between negative concord and co-occurring phonetic variants suggests that different levels of linguistic architecture work synergistically to create social meaning.
The study of syntactic variation has lagged behind the study of phonological variation in sociolinguistics, despite early claims that ‘[t]he extension of probabilistic considerations from phonology to syntax is not a conceptually difficult jump’ (Sankoff 1973: 58).1 Documented challenges to the study of syntactic variation include the increased difficulty in circumscribing a linguistic variable when dealing with levels of the grammar above phonology (Tagliamonte 2012: 206–7), and problems of convincingly quantifying syntactic variables which occur less frequently than phonological variables (Rickford et al. 1995: 106). Added to this, it has been argued that syntactic variables are less subject to social evaluation than phonological variables (Labov 1993, 2001: 28; Levon & Buchstaller 2015) and, even when they are, they tend to have ‘quite fixed social meanings associated with external facts like class and particularly education’ (Eckert 2018: 190).