Sociolinguistics and Stylistic Variation4

Printed: 10/26/2015 320441 05374409 /111111111111111/ 1111/111111111/ 1/11111/1111/11111111111111111111111111111111111

_HARVARD LIBRARY Borrower: HLS

Call #: WID HD P120.V37 5644 Lending String: HUL Patron:

Moreno-Fernandez,

1992 Francisco

Location:

WID

Journal Title: Sociolinguistics and stylistic variation

ODYSSEY ENABLED

Volume: Issue: Month/Year: 1992 Pages:

Charge Maxcost: Billing Category:

Article Author:

55-90

Francisco Moreno-Fernandez

Article Title: Theoretical and Methodological Approach to Stylistic Variation Imprint:

Via Scan and Deliver Service

Special Instructions: Table of Contents Title/Verso Page(s)

Exempt

Borrowing Library: Harvard College Library Email:

[email protected]

Notes: Transaction Date:10/26/2015 10:00:16 AM OCLC In Process Date: S & D Processing

Notes:

ILL Number: 4601275 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

o

o o

o o o o

o o

Not as cited Duplicate Multiple articles Exceeds 10% of work Not on shelf On Reserve Too fragile Checked out/on hold Exceeds 100 pages

Initials:

_

10:05 AM

THEORETICAL

AND METHODOLOGICAL STYLISTIC VARIATION*

APPROACH TO


1. The Concept of Linguistic Variation A linguistics of variation should explain the origin and use of the units that vary, change, and alternate by following a guideline. Excluding the variations caused by internal factors (i.e. contextual), the sources of variation generally studied by linguists are history, geography and sociology, as well as the communicative situation and psychology. Thus we speak of historical, geolinguistic, sociolinguistic, and stylistic or functional variations. The theories elaborated to explain how variations in some of these factors are produced are well known,1 but the relationships that are established between all the types of variations have not been sufficiently explained.2 Thus, it can hardly be said that there is a theory of linguistic variation conceived as a whole.s This lack, however, does not mean that there is little interest in the subject. In 1972, J.P. Rona, on the basis of ideas similar to those of Flydal (1951), tried to explain the concept of diasystem. He distinguished three axes (diachronic axis, diatopical axis and diastratic axis) forming a cubic structure. The problems raised by this idea can be summarized in one sentence: the cube is a somewhat limited representation because the • This essay was originally written in Spanish. The translation, by Teresa COrdova, was revised by Charles J. Davis. 1 We have in mind the linguistics of variation (sociolinguistic, chronological, and stylistic variation), the "wave theory" from creolists (sociolinguistic and chronological variation), the "WeUentheorie" (geolinguistic and chronological variation). 2 P. Trudgill adds to sociolinguistics his interest in geolinguistics, which, in his theoretical model, is somewhat limited (1983; 1986). Systemics, on the other hand, has hardly developed its theoretical reasonings in the methodological field (Halliday, Strevens & McIntosh 1964). 3 Variation sociolinguistics (Labov 1966; Sankoff 1988) and Systemics (Halliday 1978) are the research trends which have paid more attention to a variation theory of langage in its social context. They adopt very different approaches and very specific aims, which prevents them from becoming a theory for "all types of variations".

Francisco Moreno-Fernandez 56

intersection of the three axes must necessarily occur at a single point, that is, at one level (Alvar 1986: 30). Moreover, the variation that results from different communicative situations is expressly excluded from the model (Rona 1972: 25 n.1).4 E. Coseriu holds a different opinion. In 1966, he expanded on some of Flydal's ideas (Coseriu 1977: 118-119). He distinguishes three different kinds of internal differences in the language: diatopic (dialect, local speech), diastratic (sociolinguistic level), and diaphasic (style, register). The relationships that are established by these differences are described as follows: Within a historical language (or an "idiomatic" community), the relationship between dialects, levels and styles is a "directed" relation, specifically in this sense: dialect -> level -> language style (Coseriu 1981: 16). Coseriu thus recognizes a hirarchy of relations, with diatopic variation as the most general term and stylistic variation as the most restricted.s He uses the term "historical language" to refer to those languages that are historically recognized as such by their own speakers and by those of other languages (1981: 6). This theoretical model does not specifically refer to diachronic variations in relation to dialectal, social and stylistic variations. However, it is easy to observe in it a more general character that would finally lead to a hierarchy of type: historical variation> geographic variation> social variation> stylistic variation (Martfn-Butraguefio 1991).6 Although it is an acceptable conception in general terms, the primacy it grants to variations in time over variations in space is objectionable. If we conceive of time as "microhistory", that is, a day-to-day passage of time, it is difficult to place

4 For Rona, the diaphasic/synphasic distinction is not of the same hierarchy as the rest (diatopic/syntopic, diastratic, synstratic) and cannot be included in the same descriptive system because the latter study (L1) and its units are idiolects, while "the styles of language" are only a part of Ll. 5 For Coseriu's ideas on linguistic change see Coseriu 1973. 6 P. Martln-Butraguefio draws together Coseriu's main ideas.

57 Stylistic Variation

historical variation in the level just above that of geographic variation.r This leads us to an old physical and philosophical dilemma: should space be placed before time, or vice versa? Not only is this point unclear, but there is also the fact that twentieth-centuryphysi.cs (Minkowski, Schrodinger, Einstein) prefers to refer to a concept of "space-time" considered as a continuum (Ferrater-Mora 1991). We thus observe that stylistic variation, when related to the other types of variation, is subordinated to sociolinguistics, which in turn is subordinated to dialectal variation. These arguments are used when dealing with the community, not the individual. In other cases, style is conceived as being outside the system and, thus, is not given any attention. Our concept of linguistic variation clearly makes a distinction between two levels: a "space-time" level or "variation macrolevel", and a "socio-situational" level or "variation microlovel". Each is composed of two different dimensions. On the first level, a spatial dimension converges with a temporal dimension. These are situated in different planes. The temporal dimension is formed by a scale of infinite intermediate degrees whose ends coincide with the chronological limits of a linguistic variety, from the point at which it appears as such up to the point at which it disappears. The spatial dimension is also a scale with a multiplicity of intermediate points whose extremes coincide with the limits of the geographical extension of a linguistic variety. The limits of both dimensions form the "spatial-temporal" frontiers of an "idiomatic" community.s The points of possible intersection of these two planes are the product of the multiplication of possible points in the geographical space of a language by each of the moments in the history of that language. Each intersection delimits the linguistic possibilities of a community: the language likely to be used in a specific place at a specific moment. The zone in which the dimensions of space and time meet is not homogeneous: it includes elements of diverse nature. These elements form a socio-situational microlevel, which is shaped by two dimensions: one sociological and the other situational. The sociological dimension can be

an

7 This does not mean that Coseriu did not take into account the process of change (1973). 8 On the concepts of idiomatic community, linguistic community and speech community, see Lopez-Morales (1989: 47-52).


58

represented by countless intermediate points which correspond with the sociolinguistic possibilities of a community. The limits of this scale may never surpass the area outlined by the intersection of space and time.s The sociological dimension is projected in a different plane giving rise to a situational dimension (Bell 1984). In it we also find a scale that reflects multiple varieties, defined by the communicative situations that are produced. The varieties are arranged lengthwise and form the stylistic repertory of a community. The sociological and situational dimensions are different planes placed perpendicular to each other. At the point of intersection we find the linguistic variety used by a social group in specific communicative acts. Given that the situational dimension of a variety is a projection of the sociological dimension, it can never surpass its limits or go beyond the spatial-temporal limits of the language of a community.

9 M. Alvar offers a diagram of a community's sociolinguistic division that perfectly fits our model.


Figure 1 The more complex situations arise when speakers belonging to a "spatial-temporal intersection" move to another geographical point. In this situation, a sociolinguistic complication results from the new intersection,

Francisco Moreno-Fernandez .60

which is often affected by the new speakers who are incorporated. Also, it can extend the limits of the spatial-temporal level of a community (Blom & Gumperz 1972; Martfn-Butrageiio, in this volume).l0 Two aspects should be highlighted. First, space and time (geographical and historical variation) are dimensions placed at the same level but in different planes. Second, although the situational dimension (stylistic variation) functions differently from the sociological (sociolinguistic variation), it is a projection of it. The meeting point of the first --and second-- level dimensions shapes the "characteristics" of the linguistic variation that can be used by a given social group, in a given communicative situation, within a community. The length of each of the dimensions is defmed by the geographical and historical extent and by the sociolinguistic complexity of each language. This study will now turn to consider the "microlevel" or "sociosituational" level, focusing specially on the stylistic dimension.

2. The Nature of Stylistic Variation The ideas which have been introduced so far are the basis of a theoretical interpretation of stylistic variation. We believe that a theory of linguistic style must start from the idea that language is essentially variable, and that this variability becomes evident in closely related dimensions. It is impossible to understand stylistic variation properly without taking into account sociolinguistic variation, in the same way that historical and geographical variation cannot be disregarded if one wants to arrive at a correct interpretation of sociolinguistic variation. Just as one of its principal objectives of modern sociolinguistics is to contribute to the understanding of the changes taking place, the stylistics of a language contributes to a precise assessment of the sociolinguistic diversity within speech communities.n

10 As a general rule, great cities have been a result of important population streams from other geographical points. 11 There are reviews of the studies undertaken up to date in Lefebvre (1983), Romaine & Traugott (1985), Spillner (1988) and Molina Martos (in this volume).


C. Lefebvre (1983) groups the ideas of style with which specialists have worked into two types of theories: those that consider styles as differentiated codes and those that define them by starting from a basic style, the vernacular. The theory that best represents the first trend (styles as codes) is "Speech Accomodation Theory" (SAT) put forward by H. Giles and his collaborators (1984): each style is a code which is available to communicate information about the speakers themselves, about the relationship they establish with their interlocutors and about the communicative situation.iz According to Lefebvre: the model of code selection is formed by two groups: the independent variables- those factors that take part in code selectionand the dependent variables- the possible outputs, that is, the codes available (1983: 326). In general terms, the ethnography of communication (Hymes, 1974), the ethnolinguistics which deals with code switching (Gumperz 1964; G. Sankoff 1972), the theory of register (Halliday, McIntosh, Stevens 1964; Gregory & Carroll 1978), and the Ure and Ellis model (1974), all share a similar point of view. The ideas of Allan Bell (1984) share in this trend by taking as their foundation the "Speech Accomodation Theory", but distance themselves from it on specific points so as to grant notable importance to sociolinguistics. Bell, in his "Audience Theory" (1984: 145-204), defines a sociolinguistic variation as an intraindividual phenomenon, in such a way that the speaker's choice of style entails the adaptation of his/her linguistic uses to one of the sociolinguistic possibilities offered by the community (1984: 151). When quantitatively analysing the frequency of use of certain linguistic features in a style, we observe that often this frequency coincides with the usual one for a specific social group with those same traits. This means that, in certain ways, sociolects can function as stylistic variables,

12 For a practical development of this theory see Coupland (1980).

Francisco Moreno-Femdndez 62

although not in the sociolinguistic plane (interindividual) but in the intraindividual plane. W. Labov is the most noteworthy representative of the second trend. For Labov, styles are arranged strictly in one parameter: the degree of attention given by the speaker to his/her own speech (1966: 60-88). This model also suggests the existence of independent variables (degree of attention given to the discourse, social classes, etc.), and of dependent variables (linguistic traits). Labov's theories have been adopted in numerous investigations into several languages. A theory has recently been developed, based on Labov's ideas, that attempts to include not only sociolinguistic aspects, but also psychological, psycho-sociological and communicative aspects. It is the "Monitoring Theory" put forward by Krashen and Hagen (Krashen 1981; Hagen 1981; Lefebvre 1983: 323-324).13 The interpretation of the notion of style that this theory offers can be traced to Labovian sociolinguistics. It is important to emphasise that Labov's conception, despite the importance it grants the speaker, does not ignore the weight of other factors influencing stylistic determination. Proof of this is that the topic dealt with during interviews is taken into account, for example, in arriving at a speech close to the vernacular. However, in the studies on Black English Vernacular collected in Language in the Inner City (1972), the need to pay attention to aspects such as the characteristics of the researcher, the types of interlocutors, the latter's relationships with the speakers, and the communicative context, in order to obtain materials belonging to specific styles, becomes clear. Labov's efforts in avoiding the "observer paradox" have been of great use in sociolinguistic studies. The methodological course he took in 1971 and 1981 is respected and followed in the majority of current studies. However, the assessment of the factors involved in the determination of style has not been followed by a theoretical view of the whole in accordance with a general methodological strategy. Labov's studies reveal two ideas regarding a theory of style and a working method: a sociological line and an ethnographic line. The sociological line has set the

13The

only reference Hagen's work available to us is through Lefebvre's article.


guidelines for the study of urban centers or of some of their surrounding areas (for example, The Social Stratification of English in New York City, 1966). The ethnographic line has been followed in the study of specific social groups of reduced size (e.g. the "Jets" and the "Cobras" in New York City). Both approaches have used an effective methodology, adapted in each case to what is needed. However, they leave us with the impression that the theory is somewhat fragmentary. In the study of large urban centers, theoretical (as well as methodological) priority is given to the attention that a speaker gives to his/her discourse. In the study of social groups, the speaker shares the main role with other factors such as the kind of interlocutor and the latter's relationship with the speakers and researchers. It is possible to assert the opposite: that studies of large cities have also taken into consideration other factors which complement the figure of the speaker. This assertion is true, and for this reason it is not easy to understand why the more formal styles, those obtained through the reading of texts and lists of words, are considered within the same stylistic scale as oral discourse. Spoken language is one thing and read language another (Milroy 1987: 173-178). If in oral discourses the relationship with the interlocutor is important in indicating the style, in read discourses that importance is greatly reduced in favor of the relationship the speaker establishes with the text he/she reads. This relationship does not have the same characteristics in every individual (Romaine 1980; Milroy 1987: 174): some grasp the reading sufficiently well so as to continue making their discourse dependent on the type of interlocutor or on the subject being dealt with; others (probably the majority) dominate the reading to a lesser degree, or simply find themselves dominated by the written text. These circumstances have not been "controlled" a priori by Labov's methodology, and this raises doubts about the validity of the comparison between spoken and read discourses. In reading, the speaker gives most of his/her attention to someone else's discourse, not to his/her own. In this sense, it seems advisable to begin the study of the style used by working exclusively with materials from spoken language, and to study read language by separating it, theoretically and methodologically, from oral discourses.


3. Sociolinguistic Theory of Style We have already noted two characteristics of linguistic style: it is lengthwise dimension on a scale of multiple intermediate degrees; this scale is also a reflection --a projection-- of the sociolinguistic dimension. These ideas are in consonance with some of the theories put forward by other authors, but are in disagreement with what has been stated with regard to some of the points discussed above. In 1977, Lopez-Morales warned of the confusion that could arise from the different notions of sociolect and style since both could be considered as functional varieties. At that time, Lopez Morales asserted that: all of the speakers of a social community have access to more than one style: no one speaks to a stranger from outside the group in the same manner as to his wife. But perhaps not everyone has more than one sociolect, especially the lower classes of the socioeconomic spectrum. Certain circumstances of the communicative context impel the speaker to switch sociolect, while others would be responsible for the change in style (1977: 54). It seems clear that not all of the speakers who belong to a sociolect have the same degree of knowledge of the other sociolects of their communities: the more limited the access to a community, the poorer the stylistic possibilities of the speaker. Our opinion is analogous, to a great extent, with that of Bell: the change of style entails a coincidence with the linguistic uses of other sociolects, but in a different plane. The stylistic varieties are a projection of the sociolinguistic varieties, but they are not the sociolinguistic varieties. The sociolects are reflected in the styles,14 even though the stylistic variability is more complex because factors which do not appear in the social dimension are assessed, and also because the styles, which are useful in saying the same thing in a different manner (formal level), are also used at the same time to say different things in diverse manners (semantic level) (Halliday & 14 On the manner in which this projection occurs and on the importance that "evaluation" this process, ,see Bell (1984:150-158).

has on


aI. 1964; Coupland 1980; Ure & Ellis 1974). We share with Labov the idea that style, which is understood as a series of linguistic possibilities, is not easily identified or measured (1966: 84-85) because the boundaries between certain styles and others are nonexistent, or, at least, imperceptible. It is a gradual parameter that represents the level of formality of the discourse, considering "formality" as the behaviour guided by certain criteria of maximum respect towards the rules of socio-linguistics and towards that which is prestigious. Now, in relating this principle to the concept. of style, it is not possible to maintain the idea that an equation of the following type will be produced: FORMALITY traits of high sociolects

=

INFORMALITY traits of low sociolects

Each speaker and social group moves within its own stylistic margins, which have as their initial and final limits any two points in the dimension projected from the sociolinguistic plane.


66

Style Dim.ension IorMllol S1:ylt:

InforlnQl

S1:ylt:

,+ + Uppt:r Lo~l

":"":;":;":"':;':;':;':;'':;.":;.":;.":;::;::-;

","

i~i~i~i~~~~~~~~~~!i~~~ II

Social Dfnensdun

Figure 2 Thus, in a speaker from a low socio-cultural level, the traits of his/her more formal style can correspond with those of middle or upper socio-cultural levels (c', c"), But, occasionally, they will move not too far away from the limits reflected by their own sociolect (c'"). In a speaker from a high socio-cultural level, the traits of his/her less careful style may coincide with those of the intermediate or lower levels (a", a'"), although it is possible that his informal uses are not too far from what is characteristic of his own level (a'). A speaker from an intermediate level can use for his more formal style linguistic elements attributed to the upper class, and elements attributed to the lower class for his less formal style (b'). However, his stylistic dimension (formality-informality) can have at its extremes characteristics that reflect those of the intermediate levels (b''), those of the middle and lower levels (b'"), or it may limit itself to the uses of his/her own group (b''').15

15 However,

cases a''', b', and c' are rare.


Still, the main complexity of stylistic vanation, in relation to sociolinguistics, is demonstrated by another fact. The changes of style that are produced within the margins in which a social group moves express themselves in two forms. The first of these is of a formal nature (phonology, morphology) and shows itself quantitatively: certain traits appear with more frequency in the formal styles than in the informal styles, and vice versa (e.g. in English the pronunciation of the velar segment of -ing; in Spanish the pronunciation of the final implosive s). It is here that sociolinguistic and stylistic varieties blend and that one can dearly see how the sociological is projected on the situational (Bell 1984: 152- 156). These are different ways of saying the same thing.16 The second form is of a semantic nature and manifests itself qualitatively: certain elements are used in some styles and not in others, depending on the topic of the conversation, Of, in general, according to the communicative situation in which the speakers parricipaterz (e.g. forms of politeness, cultured, technical, or stigmatic LEXICON, certain prosodic features, etc.). In other words, there are different ways of saying different things. This is why it is possible to encounter a variety of styles when the stylistic margins do not go beyond what corresponds to only one social group (a', b''', c"'). In such circumstances, the qualitative changes are more relevant than changes of a quantitative nature (Ervin Tripp 1968; 1969; Lopez Morales 1977: 54-56). Moreover, there are expressions that represent a change of style for the speakers of a given level, while the same is not true for speakers of another level. Thus, for someone of a lower level, the use of politeness forms such as Sp. por favor 'please' or gracias 'thank you' can mean a move from an informal style to a more formal one. Shifts in style can manifest themselves quantitatively, qualitatively, or in both ways. The stylistic possibilities of a community are as numerous as the points which exist on the scale of the situational dimension. Here lies the difficulty in asserting that there are two, three, four, five or more styles (Joos 1959; Labov 1966; Halliday, McIntosh, Strevens 1964) and the reason why it is practically impossible to determine where the boundaries between them fall. 16 H. Lopez-Morales calls this "sociolect shin" (1977: 54). Generally, sociolinguistic characteristics of the interlocutor. 17 H. Lopez-Morales calls this "style shift" (1977: 54).

it depends

on the


The degree of formality of a discourse depends on the manner in which the factors involved in the communication are presented. It is not only a matter of the speaker's attention to his discourse or whether it is a formal communicative situation. R. Caravedo asserts that situational homogeneity does not guarantee stylistic regularity because different individuals and groups behave differently in a similar situation (1990: 61). Formality is a result of the ensuing relationship between communicative factors. These factors, as defined by general linguistics (Jakobson, Buhler), are the speaker, the hearer, the message, the channel, and the code. We must add to these factors the situational context, the speaker's intention, and the relationship between the interlocutors (Hymes, 1974). Leaving any of these factors out of account in a theory of style would be hazardous. Furthermore, the methodology will be more appropiate to the extent that it pays the necessary attention to these factors. In stylistic variation, each communicative factor contributes in different ways to the strengthening of a discourse's formality or informality. In turn, these factors have a greater or lesser capacity to determine the degree of formality, depending on the general communicative situation and of the kind of speaker, or the social group in question. On certain occasions, the context will be more important than the personal relationship between the interlocutors. On others, the topic will be more important than the context; and on others the relationship betwenn the interlocutors will be more important than the topic. Although this argument could lead us into impossible casuistry, the truth is that in communication we fmd regular behaviour rules, although it is more a question of what we do not know about this aspect than of what is known. The best way to start sorting through the relationships between communicative factors is to deal with them separately. Allan Bell distinguishes between personal and non-personal factors; Halliday speaks of Field, Mode and Tenor of discoursers (1964). We prefer to take Bell's criterion as a starting point.

18 Halliday uses three dimensions to obtain a division of "registers". Even though the authors have provided few details, we find this procedure interesting in. terms of theory though inadequate in terms of methodology.


I. Personal Factors a) The speaker> The speaker exerts control over his/her linguistic production (Martfn-Butraguefio 1988), within what is allowed by the corresponding historical-geographical and sociolinguistic coordinates, and is responsible for it even though he/she is subject to numerous constraints. With regard to this factor, we must remember the importance Labov attributes to the process by which the vernacular variety is obtained by researchers. Leaving aside classifications (Labov 1981: 5; Milroy 1987: 57-60; Moreno-Fernandez 1990: 66), it seems appropiate to underline that if the vernacular is the principal aim of sociolinguistic research (and there are sufficient reasons for this to be true), it cannot have as much importance in style research. Locating the vernacular of a group is useful in outlining the lower limits of its stylistic range, but the task does not end there. We need to explain the mechanisms of change, outline the frontiers of style for each social group and identify units within the dimension. I do not agree with the idea 'that formal styles are deviations from a base style (vernacular variety). I regard them as alternatives. This criterion comes close to that of code selection, but it is not a question of "selecting codes" but rather "shifts" brought about by diverse factors, within a gradual scale. As for the attention the speaker gives to his/her discourse, I do not consider this to be the basis of the concept of style,19 but rather as an aspect which has more to do with the psychological process of linguistic production. It is a psycholinguistic effect dependent on the form in which the factors involved are manifested during a communicative exchange. If we start from this conception, the collection and study of features of which the speaker is fully aware, those that are granted a special social meaning, are not only justified, but almost indispensable. We have in mind linguistic traits such as the presence or absence of intervocalic -d- in past participles, "seseo"-"ceceo", and maintenance or weakening of -5 in Spanish. One last note on the speaker: the possibility always exists that his/her linguistic behavior will not be identical under equal communicative

19Dressler

also disagrees

(1974;Romaine

& Traugott

1985).


circumstances (Caravedo 1990). This can be explained by the presence of other factors (on which we will comment below); nevertheless, threre is a field of variation which is reserved for psychological factors and for the communicative strategy of each individual at each moment. It is for this reason that if we want to discover the sociolinguistic implications of style, it becomes necessary to use a sufficient number of speakers when undertaking the analysis of a community. b) The hearer (the audience).- There is no doubt that Bell's "Audience Theory" is the one which has shown most interest in the figure of the interlocutor and which, together with the SAT, has been accorded the greatest theoretical importance.20 Bell clearly highlights four classes of hearers in communicative exchanges. Their characteristics and functions are outlined in the following table:

Addressee Auditor Overhearer Eavesdropper

KnOMl

Ratified

+

+

+

+

Addressed

+

+

According to this, the addresses is the only interactor known, ratified and addressed by the speaker. The place in which each member of the audience is located predetermines, to a great extent, his/her capacity to respond to the messages of the speaker.zi logically, the addressee's response is more expected than that of an auditor, and the latter's more than that of an overhearer. Still, there are occasions on which an auditor, or even an addressee, has little or no ability to respond to the speaker's discourse.

20 Some of Labov's studies explore thoroughly the kinds of relationship that exist among the speakers themselves and between the speakers and the researcher. It is for this reason that he uses both white and black researchers, members of the group being studied or outsiders, depending on the requirements of the study (1972: xiv). 21 Romaine & Traugott (1985; 15) make a distinction between active and passive speakers.


Generally, these are situations that occur in public events: political speeches, conferences or radio or television broadcasts. This aspect is related to another that directly affects the characteristics of style: the public or private nature of the conversation. We believe, however, that this trait should be included among the characteristics of setting and not among those of the audience. The kinds of hearers proposed by Bell occupy different positions within an audience design (1984: 162):

AUDIENCE DESIGN

~ 2nd person

3rd persons

.i->:'.

Auditor Overhearer

Eavesdropper

Figure 3 Furthermore, in communicative interactions, the audience's "quantity" can be as important as its "quality". From this viewpoint, interactions can be bilateral (two interlocutors) or multilateral (more than two interlocutors). There are also monologues, which can occur in praesentia (it is known that there are one or more persons that can carry out the function of auditorzz or overhearer) or in absentia (there is no interlocutor, or he/she exists and functions as an overhearer or eavesdropper) . We consider that a correct and thorough study of stylistic variation should explain the manner in which each member of the audience influences the speaker. Granted the interest of Bell's ideas, which we accept almost in their entirety, we believe that the kind of personal relationship that the

22 For example, a radio announcer's or 1V newscaster's discourse


72

speaker has with the hearer is as important as the function carried out by each hearer in a specific conversation. The importance of the hearer's sociolinguistic characteristics can take a back seat if there is a close relationship between the speaker and his interlocutor (Bell 1984: 168-169; Bickerton 1980). The main problem brought about by these relationships is that they have infinite possibilities: the same degree of intimacy is not maintained with everyone's, nor with every brother and sister, nor even with father and mother. If we took into account the multiplicity of possible interpersonal relationships, we would be faced by an inexhaustible number of cases. In assessing the importance of interpersonal relationships in style, it is essential to work with a typologyzs We believe this typology should be as simple and general as to include, as far as possible, every kind of relationship. This is why we regard the concepts of "power" and "solidarity", which have been put forward by Brown since 1960, as useful tools in the pursuit of our enquiry. These concepts have been used mainly in the study of forms of address. However, they can be used more widely than this. Starting from the idea that both power and solidarity can be present or absent (U eda 1962; Moreno-Fernandez 1989), we reach the conclusion that the interlocutor -any member of the audience-- can have any of the following four types of relationships with the speaker : a ==+ Power - Solidarity b== + Power + Solidarity c==- Power - Solidarity d==- Power + Solidarity The above typology is simple, comprehensive, and therefore, useful, especially in the study of stylistic variation, bearing in mind Bell's assertion that

23 It is this relationship that constitutes the concept of "tenor", with which Halliday works (1964; 1978: ch, III). Systemics does not provide any classification.


The social categories required to explain the choice of second person pronoun, or address terms (...) are of exactly the kind needed for addressee-design shift (1984: 169). The conversation between explorer and informer is often used in the study of language as a means of obtaining material. The interpersonal relationship established here is generally of type a: the researcher does not usually have much in common with the speaker, who sees the former as an "expert" with certain rights over the conversation (Lavandera 1984: 130) and, thus, with power. However, in Milroy's study of the city of Belfast, the relationships with the speakers were of types c and d (Milroy 1980: 53-54). The conversations obtained in this sociolinguistic study were generally carried out in intimate situations.24 It seems appropiate that the study of the styles in a community or social group should take advantage of the four types of personal relationships in order to offer thorough information, in accordance with the aims of each study and the means available at the time. Still within the section devoted to the audience, the presence or absence of a tape-recorder in the gathering of spoken material is of special interest (Alvar 1973: 94-95). Even though it is not a physically personal factor, the tape-recorder functions as another element of the speaker's audience, well known, ratified, and usually not addressed. Following Bell's classification, the tape-recorder could be considered a true auditor, even though the influence it exerts on style is of greater significance. 11.-Non-personal factors. The non-personal discourse and setting.

communicative

factors

are,

fundamentally,

a) Discourse.- The qualitative and quantitative markers that allow us to distinguish between styles become evident in speech. We should pay attention to those elements within the speaker's discourse that are capable of bringing about stylistic variation. In my opinion, there are two elements: 24 Conversations in private contexts with several participants problems for recording.

usually cause serious technical


the topic and the type of communication. The topic of an interaction is closely linked to the context in which this interaction takes place (it is only in certain contexts that certain things are spoken of), to the psycholinguistic characteristics of the interlocutors, and to the relationship between them (we only speak of certain subjects with certain people).25 The significance of the subjects discussed during a conversation in the determination of style has been thoroughly explained by Labov.26 His methodology includes this factor as an extremely significant element in the collection of linguistic material, not only in studies of a sociological nature, but also in ethnographic studies. The researchers who seek to collect material from spoken language must take into account the importance of the subject that the speaker will discuss. Thanks to Labov's empiric verifications, we know that some favor formality ("the language") while others favor an approximation to less formal varieties ("danger of death", children's tales, etc.), This, however, does not mean that they cause the same reactions in every community. Milroy has explained that the topic of the "danger of death" does not diminish the emotional control of Belfast speakers (1987:183). In every culture, in every community, there are topics that easily bring about the use of informal styles. The researcher's task is to discover and take advantage of them (Silva-Corvalan 1989: 29-35). In interviews, the informant speaks only of that which he is willing to discuss, even if sometimes we are shocked by the ease with which details of private life are revealed. The researcher's offer should limit itself to what are presumably the wishes of the speakers. Type of communication, which has already been mentioned, is similar to the concept of "mode" used by Halliday: the manner in which the discourse manifests itself. Halliday dealt with both spoken and written language. Here we are concerned with the varieties found within spoken language. We consider that the basic varieties that can show stylistic variation are monologues and conversations. Conversations can be fast (brief length) 25 In

written literary language, these factors do not function as intensely, especially the first and third. 26 Halliday refers to the subject as "field of discourse" (1964).


or non-fast, directed (when a speaker allocates turns and controls the topic), free (there is no allocation of turns or topics) or semi-directed. In multilateral conversations, the control can be exerted by one of the participants (single direction) or by several of them (multiple or alternate direction). On the other hand, monologues usually carry out an expressive or referential function: the former is frequently the case with in absentia monologues (with an overhearer or eavesdropper), and the latter with in praesentia monologues (with an auditor or overhearer). Researchers on spoken language have used several of these varieties in order to study different styles. Labov, for example, has obtained less formal styles through the following varieties: fast conversation (1966: 42-26; 436-437), monologue (1966: 431-436), free or semi-directed multilateral conversation (1972: xviii-xxiv) and free bilateral conversation (1966: 67-68). The more formal discourses are easily obtained through directed or semi-directed bilateral conversations (1966: 61). b) Setting.- This is the second non-personal factor. It is also the more complex in terms of internal functioning and the more difficult in terms of assessing its effect on style. There is a close relationship between setting and topic. The setting has three main elements: the place (especially the immediate surroundings), the moment and the type of activity carried out. The last is closely linked to the public or private nature of an interaction. All of these elements can bring about changes in style. Thus if we want to observe how such changes occur under the influence of other factors (personal or non-personal), the conditions of context -all the elements of setting- must remain unchanged. In linguistic research, a distinction has usually been made between natural and non natural settings. Working in a natural setting is necessary in participant observations but not in surveys. Generally, the material used in sociolinguistic studies is collected in natural contexts and private situations. However, in my opinion not enough care has been put into controlling -or at least describing- the nature of the three components of setting. When we speak of interviews in "private homes" or "work places", without being more precise, we are taking for granted that they are all equivalent and that they

Francisco Moreno-Femdndez

76

condition the speakers in the same manner. This is not inevitably true. It is necessary to assess the exact nature of the place and moment in relation to the speaker. Furthermore, the "naturalness" derived from communicating in the "private home" 27 is countered in a sociolinguistic interview by the lack of "naturalness" of the kind of activity taking place (conversation with someone alien to the place) and the purpose of the communication.28 So far we have seen that there are numerous factors which can influence stylistic variation. They are summarized in the following chart:29 I. Personal Factors. a) Speaker Sociolinguitic and psycholinguisticcharacteristics Conscious variations vs. unconscious variation b) Hearer Audience (addresee-auditor-overhearer-eavesdropper-tape Capacity of response (positive-negative) Quantity of hearers (bilateral-multilateral) Relationships between interlocutors (a-b-c-d)

recorder)

II. Non personal Factors. a) Discourse Topic (formal-informal) Kind of communication (monologue-conversation) b) Setting (natural-non natural) Place (familiar-unfamiliar) Time (right-wrong) Activity and aims (public-private)

Style research must not underestimate the importance of any of the factors involved in communication and, thus, in stylistic variation. Still, it is 27 Researchers must always seek for an opportune moment, repeating their visits as necessary. 28 Usually, the researcher's purpose does not coincide with the of the persons being interviewed. 29 These factors join together the principles of "speciality" (Crystal & Davy 1969:90),"domain" (Fishman 1972:20-22),and "register" (Halliday, McIntosh & Strevens 1964:77). They are the "Components of Speech" (Hymes 1974;S3 f.).


true that not all of them have the same ability to influence style. Unfortunately, there is much that is not yet understood about the relative influence of each element, although enough work has been done for us to begin to advance a serious hypothesis. Alan Bell proposes as a general hypothesis that style shifting according to non personal factors derives from audience design. This implies the granting of primacy in style research to personal factors over nonpersonal factors. Starting from this idea we can study the relationship between the different factors (1984: 179-180).30 1. A stylistic variation caused by non-audience factors implies a variation according tothe addressee (Romaine & Traugott 1985: 19-2623; Coupland 1980; Douglas-Cowie 1978). 2. The style shift for different audiences is more finely graded than the shift for different topics (Coupland 1980; Douglas-Cowie 1978: 41, 42, 45). Future research will allow us to expand and more clearly defme the relationship between proven facts and working hypothesis.

4. Methodological

Approach from Sociolinguistics

The aims of any field study are subject to limitations of time and money (Alvar 1973: 141). It is for this reason that methodological proposals usually do not utilize the theoretical models to their fullest capabilities. Thus it is difficult to put into action a methodological strategy capable of including all the factors that influence stylistic variation and according each of them the importance it deserves. However, the difficulty of arriving at a comprehensive method should not prevent researchers from attempting it. If we start from the need to investigate style in its spoken varieties, showing how the process of style shifting functions, collecting material from a representative number of speakers -in order to reach conclusions about the sociolinguistic characteristics of a community- and including in our enquiry the largest possible number of factors involved in the process, we

30 Bell adds some notes on style shifts in bilingual situations to what has been stated here


find ourselves compelled to use research techniques that have not yet been sufficiently developed. It seems clear that if we ascribe an active methodological and theoretical role to a long series of factors, that is, if we admitt that any factor can bring about shifts in style, both quantitative and qualitative, our research techniques should attempt to take account of all of them. Given that research teams usually have limited resources, it becomes necessary to confme our investigation to some of these factors, neutralizing the variability of the others. Only by neutralizing a given factor can the potential of influence of a second factor be established. Clearly this technique does not imply that all speakers will react to the same factors in the same manner -the psycholinguistic element has its significance. This is why it is important to work with a sufficient number of representative individuals. Otherwise we will not get a clear picture of the functioning of style in a community. Sociolinguistics has the easier and more effective task of revealing the functioning of style by presenting all its informants with equal contextual, personal and non-personal circumstances, and preparing the settings, audiences, topics etc. in advance. Working in natural contexts limits the possibilities of researching the process of style shifting, unless the researchers have exceptional resources or their work carry out in contexts with which they are completely familiar (normally their own city). The "laboratory techniques" are the only ones that can ensure that the experiments are "repeatable", an basic requirement of any scientific experiment. If these conditions were not observed, the results obtained in Western communities could not be applied to Eastern communities, and work carried out in Southern Europe could not be transferred to communities in Nordic countries, for example. The decision to work in prepared contexts obliges researchers to exclude -and thus neutralize- some of the forms in which the factors under discussion here could occur. It would be possible to work in circumstances such as the following: Speakers: diverse sociological characteristics; conscious and unconscious variations.


Hearers: audience (with addressee, with or without auditor, hidden or uncovered tape recorder); with response capacity; bilateral or multilateral interactions; diverse types of personal relationships. Discourse: conversation, formal and informal controlled topics. Setting: non-natural contexts, moments, in private activities.

generally

non-familiar,

at

opportune

Given that what we are proposing is a study of the stylistic dimension within a community and its relationships with the socioliriguistic dimension, that is, of style as a social fact and not as an individual fact, we can exclude the following: a) the speaker's psycholinguistic characteristics: this enables us to atribute more importance to sociolinguistic traits; b) the interactions in which an interlocutor does not have a response capability: these are frequent in public situations; c) monologues, because it is difficult to obtain samples that are sociolinguistically representative; d) natural and family contexts, because it is more difficult to obtain changes in style and because a researcher/outsider does not know the kind of relationship that each individual has established with his immediate surroundings;31 e) public activities, as these do not generally allow us to work with sociolinguistically representative samples. Leaving these elements aside, however, does not mean that it is not possible to work with them or that we should not do so. On the contrary, I believe that all of them deserve attention, and indead sociolinguistics has examined them several occasions. We merely seek the best conditions for 31 It is possible to work in natural contexts when researchers know them well, and when there is sufficient time and means to gather representative samples that will permit the analysis of changes in style.


studying style as a phenomenon of spoken language in relation to the community's sociolinguistic dimension. There are several other possibilities of as much, or perhaps even greater, interest. One way of investigating style on the basis of these conditions is what we have termed the "three sets technique". It involves subjecting the speakers, chosen from a sociolinguistically representative sample, to three different contextual situations in order to observe how the process of style shifting is produced in each social group. I am not suggesting by this that there are only three styles that function in a community or individual. There may be more or less styles. But I think that three is an interesting number which allows us to reach conclusions of some sociolinguistic value. Each community- requires that we work with contexts appropriate to its characteristics. Those that we propose are based on the model of Western communities. They are the as follows: First set: - Audience: addressee (researcher) + auditor (tape recorder). - Positive response capacity. - Bilateral interaction. - Interpersonal relation: interlocutor type "a" (researcher 1 ). - Topic: formal. - Setting: institutional center (social center, school, etc.); formal environment. - Type of communication: conversation. - Type of conversation: directed. - Communicative activity: private. Second set: - Audience: addressee + auditor (researcher) + auditor (tape recorder). - Positive response capacity. - Multilateral interaction. - Interpersonal relation: type "b" or "d" interlocutor


(person from the same city and similar sociological characteristics) + interlocutor type "a" (researcher 2). - Topic: formal. - Setting: institutional center (social center, school, etc.); formal environment. - Type of communication: conversation. - Type of conversation: semi-directed or free. - Communicative activity: private. Third set: - Audience: addressee (researcher) + eavesdropper (hidden tape recorder). - Positive response capacity. - Bilateral interaction. - Interpersonal relation: type "c" interlocutor(researcher3). - Topic: informal. - Setting: institutional center (social center, school, etc.); informal environment. - Kind of communication: conversation. - Kind of conversation: semidirected or free. - Communicative activity: private. Given the characteristics of these sets, we can assume that the styles collected under these circumstances will belong to the sphere of formality. Even if it is possible to state that in contexts 2 and 3 we can clearly arrive at informal speech, there are no objective arguments to support this because researchers do not know the speaker's linguistic behavior in his/her more intimate and informal environment. The contextual components are combined in such a manner as to cause a gradual decrease of formality. The speakers are steadily taken from the first to the second set, and from there to the third set. The length of the conversations in each set can vary between 30 and 45 minutes. It is assumed that the tension of an individual who goes to a center in order to be interviewed by researchers favors the collection of a very formal style in the first encounter, and that the tension becomes weaker as the interviews


progress, making the contextual circumstances increasingly favorable to informality. It is for these reasons that we call the first set "extreme formality set", the second set "intermediate formality set" and the third "minimum formality set". In this way, it is possible to collect a comparable quantity of linguistic material from individuals with diverse sociological characteristics during an acceptable period of time (2-3 hours per speaker). In the interviews carried out with all the informants the following factors remain unchanged: the type of communication, the type of conversation, the type of communicative activity, and the topic of the conversations (one for each set).32 Thus the style shift is obtained by arranging the other factors in the way shown in the chart below:

Audience Tape rec. Int. ReI. Environ. Convers.

set 1

set 2

set 3

addressee presence a formal directed

addressee + auditor presence b-d + a formal sem- free

addressee absence c informal sem.- free

It is safe to suggest that the contextual differences between sets 1 and 3 cause a shift from a maximum formality style to a minimum formality style. However, the "average" stylistic nature of set 2 is open to doubt. I have had the opportunity to test this point by means of quantitative procedures during a sociolinguistic study of the city of Toledo (Spain). It was observed that the factors of set 2 provide a style of average formality, between that of sets 1 and 3. By way of preliminary corroboration, we have analysed two phonetic variables that denote formality in Spanish: realisation of implosive lsi (for example, in "las casas" 'the houses': [s], [h], [0]), and actualisation of intervocalic Idl (for example, in acabado 'finished', venido 'come': [0], [0]). One observes a progressive weakening of Idl and lsi as they pass from formal styles to informal styles, as Figures 4.1 and 4.2 ShoW.33No 32 It is useful to deal with topics related to the informant's lifestyle, such as the city and its inhabitants. 33 The calculations of probability were carried out using the VARBRUL 2S program. Isabel


attention has been paid to variations caused by linguistic factors (phonetic environment, grammatical category, etc.).

55,---------

---,

50

45 40

o

35

[sl

o [h]

30

... [0]

25

20 15 10"'----

--'-

Sel

1

Sel2

Hour-e 4.1. -

Sel3

- lsi slyle variation

profile

90,------------------, 80 70

60

so 40 30 20 10.1.--------Sell Figure 4.2.-

---1

Sel2 -Idl- slyle variation

Sel3 profile

Molina-Martos has undertaken a study of phonetic variations in the city of Toledo which provides several further quantitative details relating to these variables (1991: 122-235).


Our experience in researching style from the perspective of sociolinguistics allows us to add some notes to what Bell has already stated about the relationships between the factors involved: 1) The tape-recorder, as audience factor, has a greater influence on stylistic variation than the non-personal factors.34 2) The presence of an interlocutor with whom a relationship of ( + Solidarity) has been established is usually decisive, even if an interlocutor with a ( + Power) trait is present in the same interaction.35 3) The presence of an interlocutor with whom a (+ Solidarity) relationship has been established is decisive even with the presence of taperecorder in sight. 4) The absence of a tape-recorder in an informal setting facilitates less formal styles, even if the relationship with the interlocutor is of a (Solidarity) nature. The methodology outlined above lias advantages, such as the fact that it is repeatable, simple, economical, useful, and that it provides researchers with a good amount of comparable data.36 This data will lead us to new working hypotheses from a more qualitative perspective or from other disciplines related to linguistics.37 Its limitations are determined by the availability of material and human resources in each case. Nevertheless, it is possible that a specific technical aspect, such as the use of secret recordings, may give rise to ethical dilemmas in specific communities. I believe that these problems could be solved by establishing some sort of contract with the informants, and by working in settings other than private homes, to which the informers go voluntarily, in the knowledge 34 We have proven empirically in our sociolinguistic studies that the presence of a tape-recorder is more decisive than the topic of the conversation: in some experimental tests we have obtained registers of little formality, even in coversations that dealt with the linguistic characteristics of the speakers. 35This finding has been confirmed many times in ethnographic and dialectal studies. 36 We applied this methodology in the study of seven cities of central Spain in Garcia-Mouton & Moreno-Fernandez (1987: 1,468-1,472; forthcoming a; forthcoming b). 37 A sociolinguistic investigation does not mean that qualitative factors are neglected. Psychological factors are of great importance (Giles & Powesland 1975); (Thakerar, Giles & Chesire).


that the conversations held will be used for research purposes38 and that they will receive payment for them. As is customary, research is carried out with the collaborators' consent to the use of the recorded conversations for scientific purposes. Complete anonymity is guaranteed.

5. Conclusions Spoken style is an expression of linguistic variation closely related to chronological, geographical, and sociolinguistic variation, especially the last of these. It is conceived as a graduated spectrum of formality, as a continuum, a reflection of the sociolinguistic dimension with which it forms a "variation microlevel" or a "socio- situational level". Each group moves within its own stylistic area, whose boundaries are always any two points of the dimension projected from the sociolinguistic plane. Thus, the limits of the stylistic spectrum can never surpass the sociolinguistic possibilities of a community, which, in turn, never exceed the possibilities outlined in the "variation macrolevel" or "spatial-temporal level". The massive transfers of outside population, however, could bring about an extension of its spatialtemporal dimensions, and consequently a greater sociolinguistic complexity. Basically, shifts in style have two ways of expressing themselves: one quantitative, or formal in nature, and the other qualitative, or semantic in nature. This makes it more difficult to determine whether there are two, three, or more styles functioning in a community, as well as to set the limits of each. The style of spoken language is an array of expressive possibilities, continously ordered on a scale, from which the speaker chooses the most appropriate for the situational circumstances, according to how the communication factors occur. These factors can be classified into two groups: personal and nonpersonal. The speaker's own psychosociolinguistic characteristics, and those of the audience, are among the personal factors. The non- personal factors are discourse and setting. The data discussed above makes it possible to point out that factors of a 38 Obviously

the informants do not discover that the purpose of the conversation research until the end of their collaboration.

is linguistic


personal nature have a greater power to determine style than non-personal factors. Within the audience we must distinguish between the figures of addressee and auditor (the tape-recorder is included in the latter category). Furthermore, as important as the presence of these elements is the kind of interpersonal relationship found between participants. On the basis of the principles of "power" and "solidarity" it is possible to arrive at a basic classification of four types of relationships. The elements of discourse that exert the greatest influence on the formation of a style are the topic and the type of communication. The most outstanding elements of setting are the place (environment) and the kind of activity that causes the communicative interaction to occur. From a sociolinguistic perspective, research on style seems to call for the use of representative samples of speakers, of varieties belonging exclusively to spoken language, and of all the factors involved in stylistic variation. In the event that not all of these can be examined exhaustively, it is always possible to choose some while neutralizing the rest. The "three sets technique" is a repeatable, useful, effective, and profitable procedure for obtaining stylistic data with sociolinguistic validity. In essence, it consists of subjecting informers to three situational contexts of decreasing formality, in which both the personal and non-personal factors are "controlled" by the researchers. It is anticipated that technique, conceived from and for sociolinguistics, will be a further contribution to a line of research that has not been sufficiently developed.

REFERENCES AL VAR, M. (1972). Niveles socio-culturales en el habla de Las Palrnas de Gran Canaria. Las Palmas: Excmo. Cabildo Insular de Gran Canaria. AL VAR, M. (1973). Estructuralismo, geografia lingidstica y dialectologfa actual. 2~ed .. Madrid: Gredos. AL VAR, M. (1986). Hombre, etnia, estado. Madrid: Gredos.


BELL, A. (1984). "Language Style as Audience Design". Language in Society, 13: 145-204. BICKERTON, D. "What Happens when We Switch?". York Papers in Linguistics, 9: 41-56. BLOM, J.P. & GUMPERZ, J.J. (1972). "Social Meaning in Linguistic Structure: Code Switching in Norway". In J.1. Gumperz & D. Hymes (eds.), Directions in Sociolinguistics. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, pp. 407-434. CARA VEDO, R. (1990). Sociolingiiistica del espaiiol de Lima. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Cat6lica del Peru. COSERIU, E. (1966). "Structure lexicale et enseignement du vocabulaire". In Actes du premier colloque international de linguistique appliquee. Nancy, pp. 175-217, Tr.Sp (1977), "Introducci6n aI estudio estructural del lexico". In Principios de semdntica estructural, Madrid: Gredos, pp.87-142. COSERIU, E. (1973). Sincronia, diaeronia e historia. Madrid: Gredos. COSERIU, E. (1981). "Los conceptos de "dialecto", "nivel" y "estilo de lengua" y el sentido propio de la dialectologia". Lingiiistica Espanola Actual, III: 1-32. COUPLAND, N. (1980). "Style-Shifting in a Cardiff Work-Setting". Language in Society, 9: 1-12. CRYSTAL, D. & DAVY, D. (1969). Investigating English Style. London: Longman. DOUGLAS-COWIE, E. (1978). "Linguistic Code-Switching in a Northern Irish Village: Social Interaction and Social Ambition". In P. Trudgill (ed.). Sociolinguistic Patterns in British English. London: Edward Arnold, pp. 37-51. ERVIN-TRIPP, S.M. (1968). "An Analysis of the Interaction of Language, Topic and Listener". In J.A Fishman (ed.), pp. 192- 211. ERVIN-TRIPP, S.M. (1969). "Sociolinguistics". Advances in Experimental " Social Psychology, 4: 91-165. In JA. Fishman (ed.) (1971). Advances in the Sociology of Language. The Hague: Mouton, pp. 9-91. FERRATER-MORA, J. (1991). Diccionario de Filosofia. Barcelona: Cfrculo de Lectores. FISHMAN, J.A. (1972). "The Relationship between Micro- and Macro-


Sociolinguistics in the Study of Who Speaks What Language to Whom and When". In J.B. Pride & J. Holmes. Sociolinguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, pp. 15-32. FISHMAN, J.A. (ed.) (1968). Readings in the Sociology of Language. The Hague: Mouton. FL YDAL, L. (1951). "Remarques sur certains rapports entre Ie style et I'etat de langue". Norsk Tidsskrijt for Sprogvidenskap, XVI: 240-257. GARCIA-MOUTON, P. & MORENO-FERNANDEZ, F. (1987). "Proyecto de un Atlas Lingiiistico (y etnogrdfico) de Castilla- La Mancha (ALeCMan)". In M. Ariza, G. Salvador, A. Viudas (eds.), Aetas del I Congreso Internacional de Historia de la Lengua Espanola. Madrid: Arco/Libros, pp. 1.461-1.480. GARCIA-MOUTON, P. & MORENO-FERNANDEZ, F. (forthcoming a). "EI atlas Lingufstico (y etnografico) de Castilla-La Mancha. Estado de las encuestas". GARCIA-MOUTON, P. & MORENO-FERNANDEZ, F. (forthcoming b). "Sociolingilistica en el Atlas Lingiiistico (y etnogrdfico] de Castilla-La Mancha". GILES, H. (ed.) (1984). The Dynamics of Speech Accomodation. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 46. GILES, H. & POWESLAND, P.F. (1975). Speech Style and Social Evaluation. London: Academic Press. GREGORY, M. & CARROLL, S (1978). Language and Sitation. Varieties and their Social Contexts. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. GUMPERZ, J.J. (1964). "Linguistic and Social Interaction in Two Communities". American Anthropologist, 66: 137-153. HAGEN, A. (1981). Standaardtall and dialectsprekende Kinderen. Muiderberg: Koutinho. HALLIDAY, M.A.K. (1978). Language as Social Semiotic. The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. London: Edward Arnold. HALLIDAY, M.A.K., McINTOSH, A. & STREVENS, P. (1964). The Linguistic Sciences and Language Teaching. London: Longman. Repr. (1968), "The Users and Uses of Language". In J.A. Fishman (ed.), pp. 139-169. HYMES, D. (1974). Foundations in Sociolinguistics. An Ethnographic


Approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. JOOS, M. (1959). "The Isolation of Styles". Monograph Series on Languages and Linguistics (Georgetown University), 12: 197- 213. Repr. in l.A. Fishman (ed.), pp. 185-191. KRASHEN, S. (1981). Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon Institute of English. LABOV, W. (1966). The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Washington: Center for Applied Linguistics. LABOV, W. (1971). "Some Principles of Linguistic Methodology". Language in Society, 1: 97-120. LABOV, W. (1972). Language in the Inner City: Studies in the Black English Vernacular. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. LABOV, W. (1981). "Field Methods of the Project on Linguistic Change and Variation". Sociolinguistic Working Paper, 81: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory, Austin, Texas. LAVANDERA, B. (1984). Vatiacion y significado. Buenos Aires: Hachette. LEFEBVRE, C (1983). "Les notions de style". In E. Bedard & J. Maurais (eds.), La norrne linguistique. Quebec: Conseil de la Langue Fran