Formality - informality in speech

In the study of New York speakers W. Labov used, as a controlling factor, the amount of attention paid to the speech at any time during the interview. He found that it was possible to produce an equivalent of distinct contextual styles of pronunciation. The main body of conversation obtained in the interviews, because of the artificiality and formality of the situation, contained the speech that had more attention directed towards it by the speaker than is normal in everyday speech with close acquaintances. The informants knew that their speech was being studied, and were therefore on their guard as far as their pronunciation was concerned. This style of pronunciation has therefore been termed formal. In certain parts of the interview, however, attempts were made to elicit other styles. At one point, for example, the formality of style was increased by asking the informants to read aloud from a specially prepared reading passage. This produced a style that was even more formal, because reading aloud is a special case of written rather than spoken language and, secondly, because reading is a specialised linguistic activity where speakers pay considerable attention to the way they are speaking. Then the informant also read aloud from a list of individual words. Here the pronunciation was a degree more formal again, since the attention of the reader was concentrated on a single word at a time, a much simpler reading task. In this way, then, three different formal styles of pronunciation were obtained.

What, however, of normal, informal speech? Attempts were made to elicit it, in spite of the artificial interview situation. Several ways emerged in which this could be done. Casual speech might occur, in the first place, outside the context of the interview, as in conversation with other members of the family who might be present, or in breaks for a coffee or beer. And it was also found that certain questions asked during the interview itself were likely to produce casual speech as a response. W. Labov, for example, asked his informants if they had ever been in a situation where they thought they were in danger of being killed. Generally informants who related such an incident became emotionally involved in the narrative and, in attempting to convince the interviewer of the reality of the danger, forgot the formal constraints of the interview situation. In this way four different styles of pronunciation were obtained ranging from the informal, casual speech, through formal speech and reading-passage style, to the most formal, word-list style.

We saw earlier how the usage of the -ing variable in Norwich English was clearly related to a social class. This data obtained by the linguists indicate that, the speakers of all classes increase the percentage of high-status RP -ing forms in their speech in the same contexts. Just as in more formal contexts the speakers are more likely to use words such as ‘fatigued’ and grammatical features such as the passive voice.

Figure 1. Social-class and style differentiation of non-prevocalic /r/ usage in New York City (after W. Labov).

In some cases this can have an interesting effect. We have already noted the different percentages of non-prevocalic /r/ used by the speakers from different social-class backgrounds in New York. Figure 1 shows that the overall pattern of class and style differentiation for /r/ follows the same outline as the Norwich -ing scores, except at one point. The figure also shows a steady rise in the use of prestige forms as formality of style increases, so that in formal styles lower-class speech approaches higher-class informal speech.

Thus, in most if not all the linguistic communities, differences in social context lead to the use of different styles. These styles may be relatively discrete or not discrete (the English phonological styles are clearly not distinct). These styles can be characterised through differences in vocabulary, including address-forms and pronouns, and in grammar and pronunciation. We can regard these styles as being varieties within dialects, since they occur, within an individual's speech, as a result of features of the social context, and still show characteristics of the speaker's regional and social background.

In all the cases we have noted so far, speakers either move along a scale of formality of style, according to the situation, or switch from one separate style of a dialect to another. Thus, the situational varieties or styles are clearly sub-varieties of one regional or social dialect. Elsewhere, however, situational switching must take place between different dialects. In these cases, one dialect will occur in formal situations, and another in informal situations. For example, native speakers of Lowland Scots dialects may switch, in relatively formal situations, to Standard English spoken with a Scottish accent, of course. It is legitimate to regard this situation as rather different from that of an English speaker from England who simply switches styles. In the first place, the difference between the linguistic varieties involved in the switching is much greater. Secondly, co-occurrence restrictions are involved: it is not usual to use Lowland Scots forms when speaking Standard English, or vice versa. And thirdly, whereas other English speakers switch from one variety of their vernacular to another, Scots dialect speakers switch from their own vernacular to that of others - a linguistic variety that they normally learn only at school.

There is thus probably no question, in the case of many Scots speakers, of being able to shift along a scale of formality. Rather, they will have to switch over in formal situations to a similar but nevertheless completely distinct variety. They have to jump from a Scottish dialect sentence: I've kenned yon man eight years. [av kent jon man eсt ji:rz] to a Standard Scottish English: I've known that man eight years [av non Dat man et ji:rz].

Дата добавления: 2014-01-11