Language in Society

References
Wells, J. C. (1982) 
Accents of English
, 3 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wolfram, Walt (1991) 
Dialects and American English
. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Wolfram, Walt, and Ralph W. Fasold (1974) 
The Study of Social Dialects in American English
. 
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

---

Phonetic Symbols
Consonants
Symbol
Keywords
Phonetic description
[p]
p
it,
s
p
it,
ti
p
voiceless bilabial stop
[b]
b
at,
ra
bb
it,
ri
b
voiced bilabial stop
[t]
t
ip,
s
t
op,
pu
t
voiceless alveolar stop
[d]
d
oom,
un
d
er,
bu
d
voiced alveolar stop
[D][ɾ]
bu
tt
er,
bu
dd
y
voiced alveolar flap
[k]
c
ap,
s
k
ate,
ba
k
e
voiceless velar stop
[g]
g
o,
bu
gg
y,
ba
g
voiced velar stop
[ʔ]
ki
tt
en,
bu
tt
on
voiceless glottal stop
(in some dialects)
[f]
f
ee,
a
f
ter,
lau
gh
voiceless labiodental fricative
[v]
v
ote,
o
v
er,
lo
v
e
voiced labiodental fricative
[θ]
th
ought,
e
th
er,
bo
th
voiceless interdental fricative
[ð]
th
e,
mo
th
er,
smoo
th
voiced interdental fricative
[s]
s
o,
fa
s
ten,
bu
s
voiceless alveolar sibilant
[z]
z
oo,
la
z
y,
fu
zz
voiced alveolar sibilant
[š][ʃ]
sh
oe,
na
ti
on,
bu
sh
voiceless palatal sibilant
[ž] [ʒ]
mea
su
re,
clo
su
re
voiced palatal sibilant
[h]
h
at,
be
h
ind
voiceless glottal fricative
[č] [tʃ]
ch
ew,
pi
tch
er,
ch
ur
ch
voiceless palatal affricate
[ǰ] [ʤ]
j
u
dge
,
ran
g
er,
do
dg
e
voiced palatal affricate
[m]
m
y,
m
o
mm
y,
bu
m
bilabial nasal
[n]
n
o,
fu
nn
y,
ru
n
alveolar nasal
[ŋ]
si
ng
er,
lo
ng
velar nasal
[l]
l
ook,
bu
ll
y,
ca
ll
lateral liquid
[r]
r
un,
bu
r
y,
ca
r
retroflex (bunched tongue) liquid
[w]
w
ay,
q
u
ack
labiovelar glide
[y]
y
es,
f
e
ud
palatal glide

---

xviii
Phonetic Symbols
Vowels
Symbol
Wells’ keywords
Examples
Phonetic description
[i]
fleece
b
ee
t,
l
ea
p
high front tense
[ɪ]
kit
b
i
t,
r
i
p
high front lax
[e]
face
b
ai
t,
gr
a
de
mid front tense
[ɛ]
dress
b
e
t,
st
e
p
mid front lax
[æ]
trap
c
a
p,
b
a
t
low front tense
[ə]
comma
a
bout,
a
fford
mid central tense
[ʌ]
strut
sh
u
t,
w
a
s
mid central lax
[ɑ]
lot
f
a
ther,
st
o
p
low central
[u]
goose
b
oo
t,
thr
ou
gh
high back tense
[ʊ]
foot
b
oo
k,
p
u
t
high back lax
[o]
goat
n
o
,
t
oe
mid back tense
[ɔ]
thought
o
ral,
t
au
ght
low back tense
[ɑu]
mouth
cr
ow
d,
b
ou
t
low central back gliding diphthong
[ɑi]
price
b
uy
,
l
ie
low central front gliding diphthong
[ɔi]
choice
b
oy
,
c
oi
n
low back front gliding diphthong
[ɝ]
nurse
moth
er
,
b
ir
d
mid central retroflex

---

American English: Dialects and Variation
, Third Edition. Walt Wolfram and Natalie Schilling. 
© 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2016 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Dialects, Standards, and Vernaculars
1
Most of us have had the experience of sitting in a public place and eavesdropping on 
conversations taking place around us. We pretend to be preoccupied, but we can’t help 
listening. And we form impressions of speakers based not only on the topic of conversation 
but on how people are discussing it. In fact, there’s a good chance that the most critical 
part of our impression comes from 
how
people talk rather than 
what
they are talking 
about. We judge people’s regional background, social status, ethnicity, and a host of 
other social and personal traits based simply on the kind of language they are using. We 
may have similar kinds of reactions in telephone conversations, as we try to associate a 
set of characteristics with an unidentified speaker in order to make claims such as, “It 
sounds like a salesperson of some type” or “It sounds like the auto mechanic.” In fact, 
it is surprising how little conversation it takes to draw conclusions about a speaker’s 
background – a sentence, a phrase, or even a word is often enough to trigger a regional, 
social, or ethnic classification.
Link 1.1:
Visit http://americanenglishwiley.com/ to hear linguist Boyd Davis discuss 
the complex characteristics that are associated with an accent.
Assessments of a complex set of social characteristics and personality traits based on 
language differences are as inevitable as the kinds of judgments we make when we find 
out where people live, what their occupations are, where they went to school, and who 
their friends are. Language differences, in fact, may serve as the single most reliable 
indicator of social position in our society. When we live a certain way, we are expected to 
match that lifestyle with our talk. And when we don’t match people’s expectations of 
how we should talk, the incongruity between words and behavior also becomes a topic 
for conversation.

---

2
Dialects, Standards, and Vernaculars
Language differences are unavoidable in a society composed of a variety of social 
groups. They are a “fact of life.” And, like other facts of life in our society, they have 
been passed down with a peculiar mixture of fact and fantasy.
1.1 Defining Dialect
Given the widespread awareness of language differences in our society, just about 
everyone has some understanding of the term 
dialect
. However, the technical use of the 
term in linguistics is different from its popular definition in some important but subtle 
ways. Professional students of language typically use the term “dialect” as a neutral label 
to refer to any variety of a language that is shared by a group of speakers. Languages are 
invariably manifested through their dialects, and to speak a language is to speak some 
dialect of that language. In this technical usage, there are no particular social or evaluative 
connotations to the term – that is, there are no inherently “good” or “bad” dialects; dialect 
is simply how we refer to any language variety that typifies a group of speakers within a 
language. The particular social factors that correlate with dialect diversity may range from 
geographic location to complex notions of cultural identity. Furthermore, it is important 
to understand that socially favored, or “standard,” varieties constitute dialects every bit as 
much as those varieties spoken by socially disfavored groups whose language differences 
are socially stigmatized. The technical definition of dialect as a variety of a language typical 
of a given group of speakers is not rigorous or precise, but it is a sufficient starting point in 
discussing language variation.