Awareness and Acquisition of New Dialect Features
Awareness and Acquisition of New Dialect Features
复制标题
对新方言特征的认识和习得
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2016
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
J. Nycz
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
J. Nycz
在北美，搬到一个不同于自己成长环境的地区定居是一种相当普遍的经历。观察到一个人的原籍地区和被收养地区在口音或方言方面的差异似乎同样常见，紧随其后的是声称一个人的口音是如何因在新社区度过的时间而改变或没有改变的。越来越多的研究表明，由于接触到新的方言，流动的成年人确实会改变他们说话的某些方面（例如Munro等人，1999年，Bowie 2000年，Conn和Horesh 2002年，Sankoff 2004年，Evans和Iverson 2007年）。但是，这些变化在多大程度上依赖于说话者对方言差异的明确意识呢？社会语言学家长期以来一直认为，说话者对语言变量的意识与对该变量的行为之间存在联系。Labov（1963）指出，在为社会语言学研究选择语言变量时，“为了研究社会态度和语言行为的直接关系，我们希望特征对我们和说话者都是显著的。”但另一方面，我们重视对有意识扭曲的免疫力，这大大简化了数据的可靠性问题。”假设是，如果一个特征太明显，说话者更有可能以不稳定和笼统的方式改变他们使用它的方式。Labov （1972a）更正式地将意识和可变性联系起来，区分了特定群体使用的指标变量，这些指标变量低于意识意识水平，与高于意识水平的标记和刻板印象在风格上没有变化
Moving to and settling in a region that is different from the one a person grew up in is a fairly common experience in North America. Observations that one’s native region and adopted region differ in terms of accent or dialect seem to be just as common, followed closely by claims about how one’s accent has or hasn’t changed as a result of spending time in the new community. A growing body of research has demonstrated that mobile adults do change some aspects of their speech as a result of exposure to new dialects (e.g. Munro et al. 1999, Bowie 2000, Conn and Horesh 2002, Sankoff 2004, Evans and Iverson 2007). But to what extent do such changes rely on explicit speaker awareness of dialect differences? Sociolinguists have long posited a link between speaker awareness of a linguistic variable and behavior with respect to that variable. Labov (1963) remarks that in selecting linguistic variables for sociolinguistic study “we would like the feature to be salient, for us as well as the speaker, in order to study the direct relations of social attitudes and language behavior. But on the other hand, we value immunity from conscious distortion, which greatly simplifies the problem of reliability of the data.” (p. 8) The assumption is that if a feature is too salient, speakers are more likely to change the way they use it in erratic and generalization-muddling ways. Labov (1972a) more formally links awareness and variability, distinguishing indicators variables used by a particular group which are below the level of conscious awareness and do not vary stylistically from markers and stereotypes, which rise above the level of conscious