A quantitative sociolinguistic analysis of Bahamian copula absence

Reaser, Jeffrey

doi:10.1075/jpcl.19.1.02rea

Cited by 27 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Labov, 2008:317), 1 especially in the U.S., where most studies compare white and black (and sometimes Latino) speakers (Fought, 2002;Rickford, 1999). Outside of the U.S., race-based distinctions may not be salient or may be problematic (e.g., Le Page & Tabouret-Keller, 1985;Reaser, 2004;Walker & Meyerhoff, 2006). In addition, race-based ethnic groups are often less homogeneous linguistically than is assumed (Baugh, 1996:410, 412;Hinton & Pollock, 2000;Horvath & Sankoff, 1987:184;Labov, 1972:299) and in situations of frequent interethnic contact, it is not uncommon for racial groups to converge (e.g., Ash & Myhill, 1986;Wolfram, 1974) or to make use of linguistic features from the other group (e.g., "crossing" [Rampton, 1995]; cf.…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

“…(e.g., Fought, 2006;Mendoza-Denton, 2002;Roeder, 2007;Silva-Corvalan, 1994), though this association can become tenuous if the community shifts to the majority language, as many immigrant groups to North America have done. Ethnicity is also commonly equated with race (e.g., Bell, 1997;Bernstein, 1993;Fought, 2002;Hazen, 2002Hazen, , 2008Poplack & Tagliamonte, 1999;Reaser, 2004;Rickford, 1985;but cf. Labov, 2008:317), 1 especially in the U.S., where most studies compare white and black (and sometimes Latino) speakers (Fought, 2002;Rickford, 1999).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Ethnolects and the city: Ethnic orientation and linguistic variation in Toronto English

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A B S T R A C TFollowing recent work that questions traditional social categories, this paper examines the role of ethnicity in conditioning linguistic variation. Reporting on a large-scale project in the multicultural context of Toronto, we argue for combining emic and etic approaches to social categorization. Focusing on the Chinese and Italian communities, our analysis of two sociolinguistic variables shows that speakers may vary in overall rate, but linguistic conditioning remains largely constant across and within ethnic groups. Whereas there is evidence for language transfer in the first generation, differences between generations suggest that transfer does not persist. Some speakers appear to use overall rates to express ethnic identity. Differences between communities may be explained in terms of different timelines of settlement and visible-minority status.A fundamental question of sociolinguistics is how social differences among speakers are reflected in their linguistic behavior. In the study of sociolinguistic variation and change, this question has been approached predominantly through "social grouping" (Horvath & Sankoff, 1987:179): that is, assign speakers to previously defined categories, and then correlate those categories with quantitative differences in linguistic behavior. A small set of social categories has been correlated with linguistic variables: sex, age, social class, and ethnicity. All of these categories featured in Labov's pioneering work on Martha's Vineyard (1963) and in New York City (1966) and have been replicated in many studies. As a result, we now have a good descriptive understanding of how each of these categories is implicated in linguistic variation: to Walker. We thank Walt Wolfram, whose invitation to participate in a panel discussion prompted Walker to start thinking systematically about ethnicity (Walker, 2001), our fieldworkers and research assistants for their hard work, Bryn Greer-Wootten for his advice on statistical techniques, and most of all the people of Toronto for sharing their time, reminiscences, opinions, and stories with us. Previous versions of different parts of this paper were presented between 2005 and 2007 at various international conferences. We thank the audiences for their comments and several anonymous reviewers for their feedback. We especially thank Barbara Johnstone for helping to clarify the discussion of the results. Any remaining errors are our own responsibility. Authors' names are listed alphabetically.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 98%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Ethnolects and the city: Ethnic orientation and linguistic variation in Toronto English

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Albury, 1981;Rafi, 1983;Lawlor, 1986Lawlor, , 1988Donnelly, 1992;Seymour, 1995;McPhee, 2003;Hackert, 2004;Reaser, 2004), it bears repeating that the histories of Bahamian, Gullah and AAVE are interrelated in fundamental ways, and closer study of each variety promises to cast new light on the structure and development of the other two.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Southern Bahamian: Transported African American Vernacular English or Transported Gullah?

Hackert

Holm

2009

Int. j. Bahamian stud.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The relationship between Bahamian Creole English (BahCE) and Gullah and their historical connection with African American Vernacular English (AAVE) have long been a matter of dispute. In the controversy about the putative creole origins of AAVE, it was long thought that Gullah was the only remnant of a once much more widespread North American Plantation Creole and southern BahCE constituted a diaspora variety of the latter. If, however, as argued in the 1990s, AAVE never was a creole itself, whence the creole nature of southern BahCE? This paper examines the settlement history of the Bahamas and the American South to argue that BahCE and Gullah are indeed closely related, so closely in fact, that southern BahCE must be regarded as a diaspora variety of the latter rather than of AAVE.

show abstract