Context and Complexity in Working Class Language

Abstract

The research consisted of a comparative analysis of the written language of a working-class group of subjects and a middle-class group, the aim being to test Bernstein's socio-linguistic theory of a class-based limitation to a restricted ' code. Both groups of subjects were given essay titles demanding different forms of stylistic treatment. The written language they produced was then analysed to assess and compare the degree of stylistic variation it contained. On certain linguistic items stylistic 'shifts ' were predicted in the writing of both groups as they moved from title to title. In certain areas and contrary to the preconceptions of earlier workers in the field it was predicted that these stylistic shifts would be more pronounced in the writing of working-class subjects. In line with the prediction, the working-class group was shown to posses a greater stylistic variation in its writing on the titles and linguistic indicators selected. Their scores on the items were more likely to move in the predicted direction and, when they did so, were more likely than those of the middle-class group to move consistently and to a level of statistical significance.

(Dis)embodied Job Search Communication Training: Comparative critical ethnographic analysis of materiality and discourse during the unequal search for work

“…These were examples of internalized oppression (Rosenblum & Travis, 2008). Privilege marginalized the voices of non-dominant communicators within American culture (Rushton & Young, 1975) and created communicative barriers for working-class, minority job seekers.…”

“…Communicative differences and discrimination have emerged at the intersection of race and social class and carried important implications for job search training and reemployment. Differences in amounts of verbosity (Dougherty, 2011), identity negotiation (Callahan, 2008), language use (Macaulay, 2002; Rushton & Young, 1975), politeness norms (Mills, 2004), silence (Clair, 1998; Covarrubias, 2007), volume (Morris, 2007), emotion (Lareau, 2003), (non)familial social interaction partners (Lareau, 2003), speech style stereotypes (Popp, Donovan, Crawford, Marsh, & Peele, 2003), value of talking (Philipsen, 1975), and computer literacy were elements that contributed to and reflected differing communication behaviors and expectations across social class and racial lines. Popp and colleagues (2003) examined White individuals’ perceptions of Black communicators, who were consistently judged to be more emotional, more playful, and less appropriate than White speakers.…”

Bilingual Education and the Development of Dialect Switching Skills

“…On the other hand Rushton and Young (1975), in a study of writing by lower and middle class adolescents, showed that there was stylistic variation in the writing of both groups; furthermore, the stylistic variation was greater for the lower class subjects. Lower class subjects were found to use a more clearly defined technical style than their middle class counterparts.…”

Linguistic Inclusion: Challenging Implicit Classed Communication Bias in Interview Methods

“…Although these communication norms are not inherently bad or wrong, they are often socially compared to white-collar communication norms where verbose language use is typical (Macaulay, 2002;Stuber, 2006), communicatively highlighting and summarizing ideas are common (Schatzman & Strauss, 1955), emotional displays are controlled (Kramer & Hess, 2002;Lubrano, 2004), and conversational partners often include weak ties (Lareau, 2011). Scholars maintain that blue-collar communication norms are viewed through a deficit model and thus stigmatized in social life across the life span (Dougherty, 2011;Mills, 2004;Rushton & Young, 1975).…”