Peter Trudgill’s 1974 Norwich Study

Peter Trudgill’s 1974 Norwich Study

Peter Trudgill’s research of the dialects and sociolects of different genders and social classes was based in Norwich 1974, and was an attempt to identify the nuances of the accents and dialects held my males and females of different social backgrounds.   The research showed that people of ‘lower’ social classes were more likely to use non-standard forms than those in higher classes.  In total there were 3 people considered to be ‘lower working class’ who used standard forms, all of whom were female.  This is in contrast to the ‘upper middle class’, where 196 used standard form. 

One of the most common differences in speech that Trudgill discovered was the use of the clipped suffix ‘n’, which in Received Pronunciation would be pronounced with the velar nasal ‘ng’ sound.

The differences could simply be a result of the contrasting social backgrounds in which these people were raised.  Alternatively, we could consider the possibility of prestige, which would mean the most likely conclusion would be that those of an ‘upper-middle class background’ are more susceptible to using overt prestige.  Overt prestige is the prestige gained from using the standard forms of English, a perceived indicator of higher levels of education.  On the other hand, those of a working class background may value covert prestige more highly, which is the prestige of maintaining loyalty and solidarity with those of your social background.

Trudgill also discovered that males were more likely to use non-standard forms than females of the same social background.  Some have attributed this to women being more “socially insecure” than men, so they therefore use language more carefully and prefer the prestige from being perceived as well-educated and intelligent, whereas men preferred to being seen as loyal to their background.

Another interesting difference between the genders is that men thought that they were using non-standard forms more frequently than they actually were, whereas women thought they were using standard forms more than they actually were.  This could relate to the theory that women are socially insecure, as they may be perceiving themselves as they want to be perceived, rather than how they actually are.  This may also suggest that men take a more laissez-faire attitude towards language, as they may believe that they would not care about pronouncing the word correctly, even if they were pronouncing it the supposed ‘correct’ way.

http://www.putlearningfirst.com/language/research/norwich.html

https://prezi.com/qfd-eiu5zf51/peter-trudgill-and-the-norwich-study-1974/

http://www.ello.uos.de/field.php/Sociolinguistics/Exemplarystudytrudgill

The pay gap between genders

The pay gap between genders

The text is written by Jennifer Lawrence, in response to the data released in a hacking of Sony, which showed that she was being paid significantly less than her male colleagues.  The fact that Jennifer Lawrence is writing the article about her own experience means that it could be biased.  The frustration Ms Lawrence claims she experienced is reflected in the text, as she uses a blunt, yet self-deprecating tone, along with a number of expletives.

The language used by Jennifer Lawrence is more typical of a stereotypical male than a female. She is usually direct and blunt; for example she says “I’m over trying to find the “adorable” way to state my opinion… f**k that”.  The use of expletives and short blunt sentences is generally speaking a perceived male trait, which seems to be the effect that Ms Lawrence is trying to create.  Furthermore, she does not use the same level of hyper-correct grammar that is expected of women, but instead seems to opt for using basic grammar and vocabulary. 

However, Ms Lawrence seems to maintain her wish to be liked, adopting an apologetic tone.  “I want to be honest and open and, fingers crossed, not piss anyone off.  According to traditional language theories, men would not even take offending people into consideration, and even less so use hedges, such as “fingers crossed”, or “ever-so-slightly”.  Another example of Ms Lawrence’s apologetic tone is found in the utterance “I told it wasn’t relatable, don’t hate me”.  Again, if we were to assume that language stereotypes were true, this would indicate that Ms Lawrence is trying to fulfil the female need to be liked.

Further evidence of Ms Lawrence’s femininity comes from the unnecessary details she includes.  She says “my phone is on the counter and I’m on the coach”, which appears to be fairly irrelevant to the rest of the text.  Traditionally, men speak to achieve an aim, there is usually an objective when men engage in conversation, which is in contrast to Ms Lawrence’s language.

Although there seem to be more features of female language in the text, the general tone appears to be an attempt to mimic masculine language.  Much of what Ms Lawrence’s lexis is masculine, but this is contrasted by the regular use of female language conventions.

I agree that women seem to be underpaid in many occupational fields, as there is, in my opinion, far too much evidence to suggest otherwise.  However, I also believe that Ms Lawrence’s theory that women are paid less because their need to be liked overpowers their will to negotiate a better deal.  I think that Deborah Tannen’s Difference Model best illustrates the reasons behind the gender gap.  Evidence suggests that men are not afraid to cause offense conflict in order to pursue a goal, while on the other hand, women are more reserved and prefer to remain passive, as evidenced by Ms Lawrence’s statements.

NHS Parking Text Analysis

NHS Parking Text Analysis

The sign’s purpose is to inform the receiver of the text of the legal obligations involved in parking in the hospital car park.  The receiver would likely be a visitor to the hospital, so they may be stressed or in a rush.   A large bold font is used for the title: “Terms and Conditions”, which lies on a coloured background; this is designed to attract the reader’s attention, and emphasise the importance of the text.  Below this there is a caption starting with the words “IMPORTANT NOTICE” in capitals, which is also intended to make the reader feel obliged to read the text.  However, it should be noted that this is not in the same large bold font that the title is written in, which could suggest that the author of the text did not want the audience to read it, as this would mean they would have to pay a monetary fine to the author’s organisation.

The lexical content is formal and often contains words related to the law concerning parking.  To accommodate for the audience, who may be stressed and hurried, the text is concise and utterances are shorter than they might be in a different type of text or context.  The author is also legally obligated to explain the legal obligations of the receiver, so they must maintain clarity and ensure that all of the necessary information is present.  At the foot of text there is a paragraph in a smaller font which details the conditions under which the company, Total Parking Solutions (TPS), can be held responsible for any damage to property.  This could be written in a smaller print because it is not necessary for the receiver to read this section unless they are under the circumstances it describes.  It could also be that TPS wishes to avoid legal action, which is less likely to happen if the receiver is ignorant of the law.

Several diagrams have been used to illustrate the points raised in each paragraph, which may be to improve the clarity of the text, which is beneficial to both parties in this context.  As mentioned previously, the receiver may be in a pressured situation, so using diagrams may serve to make the information easier to digest for them.  It should also be noted that several logos have been used, possibly for the purpose of making the text look more official and legitimate.  For example the NHS logo has been used, which may increase the trust the receiver places in the text, considering that the NHS is perceived to be a large, reputable organisation.