Ethnicity, friendship network and social practices as the motor of dialect change: Linguistic innovation in London
Ethnicity, friendship network and social practices as the motor of dialect change: Linguistic innovation in London
复制标题
种族、友谊网络和社会实践作为方言变化的动力：伦敦的语言创新
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2008
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Eivind Torgersen
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Jenny Cheshire;S. Fox;P. Kerswill;Eivind Torgersen
在本文中，我们考虑是否不同民族的说话方式可以区分在16 - 19岁的年轻人在伦敦的英语口语。我们的基础上，我们的分析语料库的140万字的非正式讲话，从100名年轻人年龄在16至19岁，从一个内伦敦和一个外伦敦地区。年轻人的社会经济和种族背景反映了这两个地区的社会构成：这两个群体的发言者主要是工人阶级，但内部伦敦发言者来自广泛的种族，而外部伦敦发言者主要是英国（盎格鲁）的白色遗产。20世纪50年代，许多（主要是白色）伦敦人从内城（伦敦东区）搬到了伦敦的外围地区和更远的地方，特别是埃塞克斯;相比之下，伦敦的内部地区有很高比例的来自海外的新移民。到目前为止，我们的结论表明，一个扬声器友谊组的性质是一个关键因素，在语言创新的扩散，这与种族相互作用。虽然多民族友谊群体中的使用者更多地使用某些语言特征，而非英语使用者在创新特征中所占比例最大，但所有使用者都使用一系列语言形式，这些语言形式不一定，或者至少不能再归因于特定的民族群体。这些特征共同构成了我们称为多元文化伦敦英语（MLE）的变体。我们用语音变量和语法特征的定性和定量分析来说明我们的结论。我们还试图确定谁是（潜在的）语言创新者，即在语言变化中处于领先地位的个人（类型）。我们发现，年轻人的种族是一个因素本身，但这与他们的友谊模式：一个密集的多民族友谊网络的成员决定了他们的选择和使用某些语言功能的程度。其次，我们确定了一组生活方式的指标，似乎是共享的大多数人，我们确定为潜在的语言创新者。1.1伦敦英语中的种族差异伦敦长期以来一直是来自不列颠群岛其他地方和海外的移民的抵达点（Berlington 1975）。然而，几乎没有关于移民给伦敦英语带来的可能变化的信息，尽管伦敦英语的变化对整个语言很重要。例如，威尔斯声称，伦敦工人阶级的口音是当今英国乃至整个英语世界语音学创新的最有影响力的源泉（1982：301）。尽管伦敦有几个世纪的海外移民，但很少有系统的调查外国对其方言的影响。直到20世纪60年代，比肯还可以断言，伦敦白色人和少数民族的口音之间没有明显的区别，至少在他的样本中是这样：
In this paper we consider whether different ethnic ways of speaking can be distinguished in the spoken English of young people aged 1619 in London. We base our analysis on a corpus of 1.4 million words of informal speech from 100 young people aged 1619, from one inner London and one outer London area. The socioeconomic and ethnic backgrounds of the young speakers reflect the social composition of the two areas: both groups of speakers are predominantly working class, but the inner London speakers are from a wide range of ethnicities while the outer London speakers are predominantly of white British (Anglo) heritage. Many (mainly white) Londoners moved from the inner city (the East End) to the outer London area and further afield, particularly Essex, in the 1950s; by contrast, the inner London area has a high proportion of recent migrants from overseas. Our conclusions so far suggest that the nature of a speakers friendship group is a key factor in the diffusion of linguistic innovations, and that this interacts with ethnicity. Although speakers who are part of multi-ethnic friendship groups make greater use of certain linguistic features, and the non-Anglo speakers have the largest proportion of the innovative features, all speakers draw on a range of linguistic forms that cannot necessarily, or at least can no longer, be attributed to specific ethnic groups. Together, these features constitute a variety which we have dubbed Multicultural London English (MLE). We illustrate our conclusions with qualitative and quantitative analyses of phonological variables as well as one grammatical feature. We also try to identify who the (potential) linguistic innovators are, i.e. the (types of) individuals who are in the lead in language change. We show that the young persons ethnicity is a factor in itself, but that this interacts with their friendship patterns: membership of a dense multi-ethnic friendship network determines their choice and degree of use of certain linguistic features. Secondly, we identify a cluster of life-style indicators which seem to be shared by most of the individuals we identify as potential linguistic innovators. 1.1 Ethnic variation in London English London has long been a point of arrival for immigrants (Bermant 1975), both from elsewhere in the British Isles and overseas. However, there is little information about possible change to the English spoken in London brought about as a result of immigration, despite the importance of changes in London English for the language as a whole. For example, Wells claimed that its [Londons] working-class accent is today the most influential source of phonological innovation in England and perhaps in the whole English-speaking world (1982: 301). Despite overseas immigration to London over several centuries, there have been few systematic investigations of the foreign influence on its dialect. As late as the 1960s, Beaken could assert that there was no appreciable difference between the accent of white and minority-ethnic Londoners, at least in his sample: