32.494, Review: Sociolinguistics: Rickford (2019)

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-32-494. Tue Feb 09 2021. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 32.494, Review: Sociolinguistics: Rickford (2019)

Moderator: Malgorzata E. Cavar (linguist at linguistlist.org)
Student Moderator: Jeremy Coburn
Managing Editor: Becca Morris
Team: Helen Aristar-Dry, Everett Green, Sarah Robinson, Lauren Perkins, Nils Hjortnaes, Yiwen Zhang, Joshua Sims
Jobs: jobs at linguistlist.org | Conferences: callconf at linguistlist.org | Pubs: pubs at linguistlist.org

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
           https://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

Editor for this issue: Jeremy Coburn <jecoburn at linguistlist.org>
================================================================


Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2021 17:15:21
From: Marie-Eve Bouchard [mebouchard at nyu.edu]
Subject: Variation, Versatility and Change in Sociolinguistics and Creole Studies

 
Discuss this message:
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/get-review.cfm?subid=36628798


Book announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/31/31-1370.html

AUTHOR: John Russell  Rickford
TITLE: Variation, Versatility and Change in Sociolinguistics and Creole Studies
PUBLISHER: Cambridge University Press
YEAR: 2019

REVIEWER: Marie-Eve Bouchard, University of British Columbia

SUMMARY

This book is a collection of fifteen articles and conference papers written by
John Rickford throughout his forty-year career. All articles have been
modified or updated to some degree. They are presented in chronological order
(from 1979 to 2018), which provides coherence to the collection as a whole.
This book is representative of Rickford’s vast and substantial contribution to
the fields of creole studies and sociolinguistics. Each chapter is summarized
below. 

The short introduction presents each chapter of the book; but most
importantly, it links Rickford’s beginnings in linguistics to sociolinguistics
and creole studies, as well as his effort to build a bridge between the two
fields. 

The first and the last chapters are about fieldwork. Bracketing the book with
these two chapters is definitely representative of the author’s approach to
research and data collection; to him, fieldwork is essential to the study of
sociolinguistic variation and change. These chapters are particularly
important now, “at a time when it is easy for young researchers to be seduced
by the availability of online corpora that may replace human contact with
actual speakers” (p. xv, Foreword, written by Gillian Sankoff). Chapter 1 is a
revision of the fieldwork chapter in Rickford’s (1979) unpublished
dissertation. The author presents his experience as a fieldworker in Cane Walk
(Guyana), and in doing so, gives crucial information for sociolinguists doing
fieldwork anywhere. He discusses issues related to selecting a research site,
getting in (i.e., entering and accessing the community), and getting on (i.e.,
becoming more deeply involved in the research participants’ lives), along with
four main data-collecting instruments and techniques (spontaneous interviews,
participant observation, controlled interviews, and expatriate re-interviews).
On the other hand, Chapter 15 is a hymn to fieldwork. In this chapter,
Rickford emphasizes the value of fieldwork by celebrating how precious it is
to enter people’s lives by listening to their stories – not only from a
linguistic perspective, but also from a human one. 

The second chapter is co-authored with Elizabeth Closs Traugott and was first
published in 1985. The authors address the contrasting attitudes found in
communities where pidgin and creole varieties of English are spoken. They
focus on three points: mass media, literature, and the people who live in the
places where pidgins and creoles are used. First, in the mass media, attitudes
tend to be negative. Pidgins and creoles are often represented as
non-legitimate languages, vulgar, or a symbol of degradation. Second, in
literature, attitudes toward the use of pidgins and creoles seem to be more
nuanced. On the one hand, pidgins and creoles may be used for comic effect or
to ridicule a character (negative attitudes); but on the other hand, writers
of the past few decades have been using pidgins and creoles in a way that is
more representative of their multilingual communities (positive attitudes). In
so doing, they are moving away from the European cultural tradition that has
been imposed on many former colonized societies. Third, attitudes of the
speakers themselves are also paradoxical. Such attitudes can be observed
though the popular reaction to materials in pidgins and creoles, individual
anecdotes in which attitudes are overtly expressed, and sociolinguistic group
surveys. The authors conclude that the speakers’ attitudes toward their pidgin
or creole continuously shifts according to the political and socioeconomic
climate of the society in which they live. 

The third chapter is about the adequacy of pidgins and creoles and a response
to Whinnom (1971: 110), who wrote that “linguists do not have the evidence to
assert with confidence that speakers of creole languages are not handicapped
by their language, and should not, while any doubt remains, make unsupported
assertion of the contrary.” In this chapter, Rickford aims to answer the
following questions: “How can systematic empirical investigation of the
‘adequacy’ of pidgins and creoles be carried out?” (p. 50). The author reports
on and applies two approaches that can be used to investigate the adequacy of
these languages: macro-surveys of pidgin-creoles resources, which are based on
knowledge from dictionaries, grammars, elicitation and native-speaker
intuition, and micro-analyses of pidgin and creole samples in use, which
include translations of literacy classics, original works by pidgin and creole
writers and artists, and the everyday discourse of ordinary speakers.
Macro-surveys offer an overview of a language’s resources, and Rickford
considers that Slobin’s (1978) four “charges to Language” provide an
appropriate (but not perfect) framework for evaluating these linguistic
resources. Micro-analyses of individual texts do not provide the overview that
the macro-surveys do, but they do offer a better picture of what is actually
done with language. The author argues that samples of everyday language offer
a better perspective for investigating adequacy than translations and original
works do. 

In the fourth chapter, Rickford addresses the assessment of speaker
competence. Recorded interviews have traditionally been the main means by
which sociolinguists have gathered spontaneous speech data and assessed a
speaker’s competence. However, the author argues that single interviews are
not sufficient to adequately represent what speakers can actually do. Repeated
recordings, ideally with different interlocutors in different places and
discussing different topics, are necessary. Repeated elicited intuitions
should also be included because they exhibit fewer discontinuities than data
from “one-shot” elicited intuitions. This, of course, requires more time and
more work, but it is likely to result in a better assessment of competence and
a better understanding of social meaning. 

The fifth chapter links sociolinguistics and creole studies by highlighting
some of their contributions in terms of social history, models and methods of
analysis, and applied linguistics. The author argues that the two fields have
the potential to contribute to each other and that they would benefit from
such a mutual exchange. 

In the sixth chapter, Rickford urges sociolinguists and creolists to continue
using implicational scales, which variationists may employ to demonstrate that
variability is constrained. The author reviews the history and development of
implicational scales, and he explains how to use them. He also discusses three
caveats regarding the traditional use of implicational scales, which may be
helpful to linguists interested in applying this method in their future works.

In the seventh chapter, Rickford and his co-author Angela Rickford advocate
for both the versatility approach and the importance of giving back to the
communities we study. Versality refers to the ability to switch from one
language to another, and more specifically in this chapter, to switch from
vernacular to mainstream English (and vice versa). The authors propose that
teachers use literature and music rather than Contrastive Analysis drills in
order to develop linguistic versatility in their students. They discuss
several examples using the work of African American and Caribbean writers and
singers that can be used in classrooms. One way sociolinguists can give back
to the communities they investigate is by developing classroom lessons based
on their understanding of the community’s variations in speech.

The eight chapter is an overview of Le Page’s theoretical and applied legacy
in sociolinguistics and creolistics, focusing on his detailed sociohistorical
approach to research and the Acts of Identity model, which he developed in a
book with Tabouret-Keller (1985). Rickford discussed the plusses and minuses
of this model, followed by a review of Le Page’s works (1964, 1968) that are
not as well known as his model. Rickford concludes that although Le Page’s Act
of Identity has been somehow neglected outside the Caribbean and in the recent
years, this framework is still valuable, its plusses are significant, and the
challenges it presents can be developed and overcome. 

In the ninth chapter, Rickford argues that there are both social and
linguistic constraints on language variability. He uses the Guyanese personal
pronouns as an example for his argument. For instance, the first-person
subject pronoun can occur as “ai” or “mi(i)”. Previous research has shown that
the use of “mii” is more characteristic of rural speakers. However, this
variability is also governed by linguistic constraints, because “mi(i)” is
more likely to occur before pre-negative “en”, and more likely to occur as a
possessive rather than a subject pronoun. In order words, Rickford considers
that internal constraints on variation cannot be neglected when we investigate
the social meanings of the said variation. 

The tenth chapter was written together with Robin Melnick. It is a
quantitative study of subject-auxiliary (non-)inversion in question formation
(e.g. “You are at home?” versus “Are you at home?”) in Bajan (creole of
Barbados). The results are compared with other Caribbean creoles (Jamaican and
Guyanese) and North American vernacular varieties. The language varieties show
differences in their overall rates of non-inversion, but similarities in their
constraints. For instance, two important similarities are the favoring of
non-inversions in yes/no question type and when the auxiliary “do” is used.  

In the eleventh chapter, Rickford addresses the question of how to code for
stylistic variation in sociolinguistic corpora. The first point he makes is
that there is actually little stylistic variation in sociolinguists’ recorded
corpora (because most are comprised of conversations between an interviewer
and interviewees). A conscious effort needs to be made to record speakers in
different situations in order to build corpora that are rich enough to use for
stylistic variation analysis. Rickford summarizes the work of Devyani Sharma
and Ben Rampton as an example for investigating style. These two linguists
gave tape recorders to their participants and invited them to record
themselves in different environments with different interlocutors, which
resulted in a rich set of data on style-shifting. Rickford concludes by
discussing what sociolinguists should code for in order to study the speakers’
repertoire. 

The twelfth chapter, co-authored with Sharese King, focuses on Rachel
Jeantel’s speech in the 2013 trial for the prosecution of George Zimmerman for
the murder of Trayvon Martin. Jeantel was a close friend of Martin, and the
two were on the phone moments before his death, which made her the “star
witness” (p. 245) of the trial. Jeantel is a speaker of African-American
Vernacular English (AAVE). A great deal of attention on social media and on
television focused on her speech. One jury said that they found Jeantel “hard
to understand” and “not credible” (p. 247). In a sense, Jeantel’s speech may
have contributed to Zimmerman’s acquittal – not directly because of her
speech, but because of the beliefs and attitudes regarding her speech.
Rickford and King discuss examples of intelligibility issues involving English
vernaculars in other court cases and show how mistranscription and
misunderstanding can lead to serious problems for the defendants. They also
analyse Jeantel’s speech and conclude that the linguistic features she uses
are those of AAVE. However, as all jurors were white and speakers of white
colloquial English, this dialectal difference may have negatively affected
their perception of Jeantel’s intelligibility and credibility – and
consequently, the final decision of the jurors regarding the case. Rickford
and King conclude with a call for action: “more of us need to get out of our
offices, labs and libraries and make a difference in the world” (p. 284).
Linguists need to make sure that speakers of vernaculars are heard and
understood in courtrooms and beyond. 

In the thirteenth chapter, Rickford addresses a complex issue in
sociolinguistics: the understanding of social classes. After reviewing the
main approaches to addressing social classes in the field (i.e., ignoring
them, taking them into account simplistically, or using multi-index scales),
the author offers an overview of how he dealt with social class in his main
field site (Cane Walk, Guyana). He presents the history of Cane Walk, the
social classes in this community as perceived by his research participants,
the nature of the two main social classes of the community (i.e., Estate Class
and Non-Estate Class), the theoretical models that are best-suited for this
community, and the differences in language use between the two social classes.
Interestingly, Rickford concludes by inviting sociolinguistics to draw and
build on existing theories and methodologies from other social sciences. 

Finally, the fourteenth chapter addresses the concept of speech community and
its application to the population of Cane Walk. The author argues that a
viable model of speech community must theoretically account for two social
forces that co-exist in all communities: concord (or cooperation) and conflict
(or competition). 

After Chapter 15 (discussed above together with Chapter 1), the book ends with
a poem written by Rachel Jeantel. 

EVALUATION

The breadth of John R. Rickford’s work is immense. He has advanced the field
of sociolinguistics not only by challenging different methodological and
theoretical models used in the field, but also by challenging sociolinguists
and creolists to give back to the communities they investigate and to contest
social issues that are (consciously or not) related to language. Rickford’s
work lies at the intersection of sociolinguistics and creole studies, and this
book offers a comprehensive overview of his forty-year career. In addition,
given the great range of Rickford’s work, this book also provides an excellent
overview of the research that has been done in the past decades to bridge the
gaps between the two fields. In this collection of articles, Rickford
meticulously studies the speech of individuals from minority communities (from
Cane Walk, Guyana, for instance, one of his main field sites) and effectively
connects it to broader questions in sociolinguistics. 

This book has a broad scope, addressing methodological and theoretical issues
in sociolinguistics and creole studies, but also in applied and forensic
linguistics. The chapters related to language, education, and law are great
examples of how the work of linguists can have a meaningful impact on people’s
lives and the communities they investigate. In this sense, this book is very
inspiring; it is a call for action. Action is needed because, as Rickford
writes (p. 49), although “all languages are POTENTIALLY equal, […] ACTUAL
equality of languages is a myth.” Linguists, as the specialists in language,
can act on this. Also, throughout the book Rickford points toward areas of
research where more work is needed. This, in my opinion, can be especially
useful to students and young scholars. 

This book is particularly relevant for sociolinguists and creolists interested
in vernacular Englishes of the Americas. It is not necessarily a book that one
reads from start to finish, so it might be more interesting to pick individual
chapters and work with those. Prospective readers should be aware that the
book is (mainly) written by a single author.

REFERENCES

Whinnom, Keith. 1971. Linguistic hybridization and the ‘special case’ of
pidgins and creoles. In Dell Hymes (Ed.), Pidginization and Creolization of
Languages, 91-116. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

Slobin, Dan. 1978. Language change in childhood and history. In John Macnamara
(Ed.), Language Learning and Thought, 185-214. New York: Academy Press. 

Le Page, Robert. 1964. The National Language Question: Linguistic Problems of
Newly Independent States. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 

Le Page, Robert. 1968. Problems to be faced in the use of English as the
medium of education in four West Indian territories. In Joshua Fishman,
Charles Ferguson, and Jyotirindra Das Gupta (Eds.), Language Problems of
Developing Nations, 431-442. New York: Wiley. 

Lepage, Robert, and Andrée Tabouret-Keller. 1985. Acts of Identity:
Creole-Based Approaches to Language and Ethnicity. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.


ABOUT THE REVIEWER

I completed my PhD in Linguistics at New York University in September 2017
with a research project that investigated the emerging variety of Portuguese
spoken in São Tomé and Príncipe. I am an anthropologically oriented
sociolinguist, and I tend to enjoy the blurred space between these two fields.
My main research interests are language ideologies, language contact,
variation and change, language and national identity, and ethnicity. I am
currently creating new projects to include the Santomean diaspora to my
studies. I am currently an assistant professor in the Department of French,
Hispanic and Italian Studies at the University of British Columbia.





------------------------------------------------------------------------------

***************************    LINGUIST List Support    ***************************
 The 2020 Fund Drive is under way! Please visit https://funddrive.linguistlist.org
  to find out how to donate and check how your university, country or discipline
     ranks in the fund drive challenges. Or go directly to the donation site:
                   https://crowdfunding.iu.edu/the-linguist-list

                        Let's make this a short fund drive!
                Please feel free to share the link to our campaign:
                    https://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/
 


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-32-494	
----------------------------------------------------------