The role of style in the ethnolect: Style-shifting in the use of ethnolectal features in first- and second-generation speakers

Abstract

Aims and Objectives/Purpose/Research Questions: The paper aimed to investigate style-shifting in the use of ethnolectal features in first- and second- generation bilingual migrants. Design/Methodology/Approach: Three groups of speakers (first- and second-generation Russian–English bilinguals as well as monolingual Anglo Australians) were audio-recorded in three different styles (conversation, interview, and reading). Data and Analysis: Their production of the goose and trap vowels across the styles was analyzed quantitatively. Findings/Conclusions: Overall differences were found between the groups such that first- and second-generation speakers produced more Russian-like vowels compared to the monolinguals; with the biggest differences between the first-generation speakers and the other two groups. In terms of style-shifting, no significant differences were found in the monolingual speakers, and both first- and second-generation speakers were found to produce most Australian English-like vowels in the conversation style. At the same time, certain differences between the two bilingual groups surfaced, such as no significant differences in the first-generation speakers’ production of the goose vowel and in the vowels’ linguistic conditioning. Originality: Previous studies have compared ethnolects in the first- and second-generations of migrants and mainstream varieties in order to theorize ethnolect formation. Several studies have also investigated intraspeaker style-shifting between more ‘mainstream’ and more ‘ethnic’ in ethnolect speakers, but such style-shifting is rarely compared across generations. Significance/Implications: The similarities and differences between the two bilingual groups suggest that ethnolectal features may be originally derived from the community language but may be reallocated to other sociolinguistic meanings in the second generation.

Negotiating social meanings in a plural society: Social perceptions of variants of /l/ in Singapore English

“…Similar to the formation and use of ethnolects (e.g. Sharma & Sankaran 2011;Gnevsheva 2020), these features can stabilise to form a widely accepted local variety, as is the case of Singapore English (Deterding 2007), and are adopted by Language in Society (2022) later generations of speakers and remain in production even if speakers have attained proficiency in English, and further be reallocated with social meanings. Therefore what would have been learner errors or effects of cross-linguistic influence for one generation may be acquired from the input by later generations of speakers, and in turn be used in stylistic practice.…”

“…Like other indices, social meanings of differential features are mutable along with the constantly evolving social landscape, where they are (re)interpreted as they are used (Eckert 2012), and may become reallocated with new social functions across generations (e.g. Sharma & Sankaran 2011;Gnevsheva 2020). This is the case for multilinguistic communities who have experienced or are experiencing shifts in language use at the societal level, in which social meanings may constantly emerge and evolve, along with what is considered as standard=mainstream or local=marked.…”

Social class across borders: Transnational elites in British ideological space

“…minimal and likely to dwindle further in the course of time" (Vertovec, 2009, p. 23). From a linguistic point of view, later generations develop new local varieties through a reduction and restructuring of originally exogenous speech features (Gnevsheva, 2020;Hall-Lew, 2009;Hoffmann & Walker, 2010;Sharma & Sankaran, 2011). These ethnic forms take on local class meanings over time, as their users become embedded within the social stratification of the host culture.…”

Negotiating social meanings in a plural society: social perceptions of variants of /l/ in Singapore English

“…Similar to the formation and use of ethnolects (e.g. Gnevsheva, 2020;Sharma & Sankaran, 2011), these features can stabilise to form a widely accepted local variety, as is the case of Singapore English (Deterding, 2007a), and are adopted by later generations of speakers and remain in production even if speakers have attained proficiency in English, and further be reallocated with social meanings. Therefore what would have been learner errors or effects of cross-linguistic influence for one generation may be acquired from the input by later generations of speakers, and in turn be used in stylistic practice.…”

“…Like other indices, social meanings of differential features are mutable along with the constantly evolving social landscape, where they are (re-)interpreted as they are used (Eckert, 2012), and may become reallocated with new social functions across generations (e.g. Gnevsheva, 2020;Sharma & Sankaran, 2011). This is the case for multilinguistic communities who have experienced or are experiencing shifts in language use at the societal level, in which social meanings may constantly emerge and evolve, along with what is considered as standard/mainstream or local/marked.…”