Thepublishedversionofthistextwillappearin:K.Tusting(Ed.)2018.TheRoutledge
HandbookofLinguisticEthnography.London-NewYork:Routledge.
Styleandstylisation
JürgenJaspers&SarahVanHoof
INTRODUCTION
Throughouttheirlives,languageusersacquire,cultivate,identify,andactupon
differentwaysofspeakingandwritingthatscholarscustomarilycall‘styles’or,
lessregularly,‘registers’.Conventionallabelsthatpeopleuseforsuchstylesare
‘slang’,‘posh’,‘politespeech’,‘announcing’,‘informaltalk’,‘lecturing’,‘dialect’,
‘hiphoplanguage’,andmanyothers.Suchlabelsdrawattentiontoverbal
behaviour,butstylesareprobablybestdescribedasculturalmodelsof
interaction(cf.Agha2007:4):apartfromdeployingspecificlinguisticfeatures,
‘lecturing’,togiveoneexample,ofteninvolvesahighervoicevolumeanda
slowerrhythmofspeech,gesturestounderlineexplanations,anduntilnotso
longago,wearingacostumeorgown.Thosewhofollowthelectureadopta
rangeofmatchingsigns:theyaremostlysilent,nodtheirheads(orfeigntheyare
listening),takenotes,andraisetheirhandtoaskaquestion.‘Lecturing’equally
hintsatparticulartypesofinterlocutorsandthesocialrelationsbetweenthem
(studentsandtheirlecturerratherthan,say,lovers),ataspecificlocation(a
lecturehall),andatdifferentspeakingrights(lecturerstalkmuchmorethan
theirstudents).
‘Lecturing’,inotherwords,isashort-cutname,ormoreprecisely,a
‘metasign’(Agha2007:22),forthecomplexchoreographyofsemioticresources
thatinteractantssetuptomakecleartoeachotherwhatitisthattheyaredoing.
Inthissense,astyleoffersatemplateforsocialactivity,orarecipethattellsus
whichsemioticingredientstocombineandhow,andwhichonestoleaveoutto
avoidgivingthewrongimpression.Ofcourse,likeallrecipes,stylesare
amenabletochange,half-heartedenactment,partiallearning,rejection,or
extinction–manylecturerstodaydressrelativelyinformallyandprefera
conversationaloveradeclamatorystyle.Inmostsocietiestoo,somestylesare
heldupasexemplary(forexample,as‘thestandard’),whileothersare
discouraged.Exemplarystylesandthoserelatedtospecificprofessionsand
pastimesareoftenonlyacquiredbyasubsetofthepopulation,thoughtheymay
beobservablebymillions(forexample,ontelevision).Asaresultwealllearnto
useanumberofstylesthatcirculateinaparticularsociety,andwelearnto
recognisemanymorethanwecanproduceourselves(Agha2004;Auer2007).
Sociolinguistshaveinthelast50yearsattendedtowhenandwhygroups
ofspeakersshiftbetweenstyles,andadopt(featuresof)styles,inordertostudy
howsuchadoptionsimpactonthedynamicsofalanguageasawhole.Rather
thanonlecturingorslang,thisworkinitiallyconcentratedonthevaryinguses
speakersmakeof‘vernacular’and‘prestigious’linguisticfeatures,andonhow
theirrelativeusagecorrespondswithspeakercharacteristics,theirself-
presentation,andsituationalchanges(frominformaltoformal,forexample).
Manyscholarshavetracedstyleshiftsthroughfrequencycountsinlargecorpora
thatsubdividespeakersaccordingtoalimitedsetofbroadsocialcategorieslike
class,age,andgender.Othershavelaterappliedethnographicmethodsto
identifyhowlinguisticfeatures,typesofdemeanourordress,andcontextsofuse
areassociatedwithlocalsocialcategories.Today,scholarstendtoseestylesas
multimodalcomplexesoflinguisticandothersemioticpracticesproducedin
situatedinteraction,andtheydemonstratespeakers’regularuseofthese
combinedresourcesthroughquantitativeorqualitativemethods.Inallofthese
cases,speakersareseentocommittothestyleselection,andtheselectionis
seenasrelativelyinconspicuous:itisnotunexpected,ornotsurprisinggiventhe
situation.
Linguisticethnographershaveobserved,however,thatspeakerscanalso
‘stylise’,i.e.suddenly,momentarily,andinanexaggeratedmannerproduce
particularstylesthatliebeyondtheirregularlinguisticrepertoires,orbeyond
whatisconventionalinthesituationathand–thinkofastudentwhobriefly
shiftsintoalecturingstyletoaddressafriendinthepub.Speakersinsodoing
interrupttheroutineandturnothersintospectatorsofabriefperformance.
Sucheye-catchingstylechoices,so-called‘stylisations’,havebeeninvestigatedto
revealhowstylisersinterprettheon-goingsituation,andhowtheyposition
themselvesinthatsituationandinthesocialworldbeyondit.Ratherthan
focusingattentiononthechangesthelanguageasawholemayincur,itis
directedheretowardsthemicro-levelofindividualspeakermovesandtheir
oftencriticalstancetowardsestablishedsocialandlinguistictrends.Analysesof
stylisationsarethusmostlyqualitative,case-studybased,andinprincipleopen
toaninfinitesetoflocalandnon-localspeakercharacteristics.
Thissuggeststhatthestudyofstyleandstylisationmovesinorthogonal
directions(demonstratingregularlanguagebehaviourvs.explainingirregular,if
not‘fake’,activity).Weargueinthischapter,however,thatroutineandmarkedly
selfconsciousspeecharetwomanifestationsofthesameprocessinwhich
speakersdemonstratetheirinterpretationofthesocialworldandtheusesof
languagewithinit.Scholarsofstyleandstylisationmaythushavemoretosayto
eachotherthanisobviousatfirstsight,theircombinedinsightsofferinga
complexperspectiveonthemeaningoflanguagevariation.
HISTORICALPERSPECTIVES
Thesociolinguisticinterestinstylewasareactionagainstdominanttrendsin
20thcenturylinguistics(associatedwithChomskyangenerativegrammar)that
ignoredlanguagevariation,consideringitachaoticsurfacefeatureofthe
underlyinglinguisticsystem.WilliamLabov’spioneeringworkinNewYorkin
the1960sdemonstratedthatinsteadofbeingamatterof‘freevariation’,
linguisticheterogeneitywasremarkablyregular.Labovintroducedthenotionof
thelinguisticvariabletorefertoanyaspectoflanguagethatappearsindifferent
variants–e.g.inhisNewYorkstudy(2006),thepresence([r])orabsence(∅)of
finalandpre-consonantal/r/inwordssuchascarorcardconstitutedvariantsof
thephonologicalvariable(r).Herevealedthatspeakers’differentialuseof[r]or
∅variedsystematicallywiththeirsocio-economicbackgroundand,thus,that
linguisticvariationwassociallystratified.Inaddition,Labovfoundthatspeakers’
useofthesevariantsdependedontheformalityofthesituation,sothatintra-
speakerstylisticvariationcouldbeseentomirrorvariationacrosssocio-
economicgroups.Insomecasesthissynchronicvariationledtodiachronic
change,whenstylefeaturesassociatedwithonesocialgroupweregradually
takenoverbyothers.
Inthe‘variationist’strandofresearchthatLabovsoinspired,stylewas
seenasdependingontheattentionspeakerspaidtotheirspeech:themore
formalthesituation,themorespeakerswouldbeinclinedtouse‘prestige’
variants,associatedwithhigh-placedsocialgroups,insteadof‘vernacular’
variants.Scholarsthereforemadesurethatthesociolinguisticinterview,the
classicmethodbywhichtheyrevealedthestructurednatureoflinguistic
variation,consistedofactivitiesthatwouldmakeinformantsstyleshiftasthey
increasedattentiontotheirspeech:aninterviewelicited‘carefulspeech’;having
informantsreadatextproduceda‘readingstyle’withmoreprestigevariants;
the‘maximumattention’paidtospeechwhilereadingminimalpairs(e.g.guard
andgod)producedthehighestfrequencyofprestigevariants.Aparticular
challengethoughwasto‘somehowbecomewitnessestotheeverydayspeech
whichinformantswilluseassoonasthedoorisclosedbehindus:thestylein
whichtheyarguewiththeirnearestanddearest,scoldtheirchildren,orpassthe
timeofdaywiththeirfriends’(Labov2006:64).Sucheveryday,vernacular,
speechwasseenaspeople’slinguisticbaseline,theirmost‘natural’typeof
speechsincetheypresumablypaid‘noattention[…]tolanguage’(Labov2006:
64),anditwasassumedthatdemonstratinglanguagechangedependedon
provinginnovationinthisbaseline.Butbeingobservedbyalinguistmade
informantsselfconsciousratherthanspontaneous,andvariationiststriedto
circumventthisso-calledobserver’sparadox(Labov1972)by,forexample,
askinginformantstotalkaboutlifethreateningsituationsthatwouldbriefly
makethemforgetwheretheywere.
Laterstrandsinvariationistsociolinguisticswerelessrejectingof
people’sselfconsciousness,or‘reflexivity’.Thus,ratherthanseeingvernacular
usageasanaturalbaseline,theso-called‘secondwave’ofvariationiststudies
(Eckert2012)deployedethnographicmethodstodemonstratethatsuchusage
wasmotivatedbyspeakers’participationintight-knitlocalnetworksofworking-
classadolescents(Cheshire1982)andadults(Milroy1980),orbytheir
belongingtoclass-basedschoolcategorieslike‘jocks’and‘burnouts’(Eckert
1989).Othersarguedthatstylehadtobeapproachedasastrategicresponseto
audiencecharacteristics.Bell(1984)describedhowradioannouncersadapted
theirspeechstyletocatertodifferentaudiences.Giles&Powesland(1975)
similarlyproposedintheir‘communicationaccommodationtheory’that
speakersactivelymodifiedtheirspeechstyle,convergingwiththatoftheir
addresseesinordertolookmoreattractiveortofacilitatecommunication,or
divergingfromittoreduceintimacyandenlargesocialdifference(Coupland
2007:54-81).Whatwasaheuristicproblem–speakers’reflexivity–here
emergesasacommonplacebutimportantaspectofthe‘communicative
competence’(Hymes1972)withwhichspeakerspartakeinsociallife.Increole
studies,LePage(1978;alsoseeLePage&Tabouret-Keller1985)proposedthat
stylisticchoicesarenotsomuchrelatedtopeople’srelativelyautomatic
responsetobroadsocialcategories(suchassocialclass)ortotheattentionthey
paytotheirspeech,butneedtobeseenas‘actsofidentity’,engenderedby
speakers’activeidentificationwithparticularsocialgroups,thatis,bytheirwish
tomodeltheirlanguageonthegroupsthattheysohopetobeidentifiedwith.
Sociolinguisticvariablesarethus‘reanalysed[…]fromsymptomsintosymbols’
(Auer2007:4).
Theseandotherstudiesgraduallymovedthestudyofstyleintowhat
Eckertcallsa‘third’waveofvariationiststudies.Scholarsinthisstrandapproach
languageas‘performanceratherthanbehavior’(Coupland2001:348),thatis,as
asocialpracticeinwhichspeakersactivelyandcreativelydrawonavailable
linguisticandothersemioticresourcestoproducesocialmeaning
(Androutsopoulos2007;Bucholtz2003;Bucholtz&Hall2005;Eckert2012;
Schilling-Estes2006).Scholarsinthiswavemovedfromasinglevariable
approachtoamoreholisticnotionofstyleasaconglomerateofverbalandnon-
verbalresources(cf.Auer2007:11-12),including,besideslinguisticfeatures,
alsointonation,gesturing,bodypositioning,useofspace,clothing,hairdo,make-
up,andsoon(Schilling-Estes2006).Thebasicideaisthatspeakersrecycle,
reconfigureandcombineseveralsemioticresources,andthattherepetitionof
thisbricolageactivityculminatesintoaparticularstyle,aconventionalmodelfor
interactingwithothers,whichcanitselfagainbeonlypartiallyadoptedor
reconfiguredininteraction.Themeaningsofspecificvariablesareseeninthis
contextas‘underspecified’(Eckert2012:87),thatis,asbecomingmorespecific
whentheyareinterpretedinrelationtotheotherresourcesthatareused.
Takentogether,thefocusinresearchonstylegraduallycametolieon
speakers’active‘styling’,ratherthanonhowtheyshiftstylesinresponsetothe
formalityofthesituation;andonamuchbroaderrangeofsocialmeaningsthan
onalimitedsetofstandarddemographiccategories.Thischangingfocushasto
besituatedinawider,‘post-structuralist’,turninthehumanitiesthatessentially
soughttomoveawayfromseeingbehaviourasnaturalandfromthetendencyto
seeitsmeaningasrelatedtoitsplaceinasocialsystem,toafocusonhowsocial
actorsautonomouslycreatemeaningbydeployingthesemioticresourcesthey
haveaccessto.Inspiredbythisturn,moreandmorescholarsquestionedthe
predominantapproachoflanguagevariationasagroupphenomenon–theidea
thatgroupmembersshareavarietythateachofthemhasbeensocialisedinat
hometospeakcompetentlywithothermembers,andofwhichtheyarethe
authentic,‘native’,representatives.Incontrasttothis‘linguisticsofcommunity’,
scholarscalledfora‘linguisticsofcontact’(cf.Pratt1987).Theyinsisted,first,
thatthestudyoflanguagevariationneededtoincludeacross-groupinteraction,
imperfect,unusualandquasi-use,nexttolanguageusestampedbyspeakers’
dealingswithcontextsoutsideofthehome(themedia,popularculture,andso
on).Secondly,theyarguedthatcommunicationisnotaneventwherespeakers
merelyactoutpre-givenidentitiesnorfreelyassemblenewones,butthatit
mustbeseenasasiteof‘imposition,collusionandstruggleinwhichpeople
invoke,avoidorreconfigure’theirrelationships,socialidentities,andthe
semioticresourcestheseentail,withapotentiallyseriousimpacton‘people’s
minds,livesandmaterialconditions’(Rampton2006:24).Inthiscontext,italso
becomesnaturaltoinvestigateoccasionswhenspeakersstylise,thatis,
experimentwithlanguage.
Althoughtheyareprobably‘asoldasspeechitself’(Rampton&
Charalambous2010:4),stylisationsonlycameintofocusinthemid1990s.The
interestinthemwastriggeredbytheworkofBakhtin,aliterarycriticwho
positedthatourspeechisalways‘heteroglossic’,thatis,constantlyresonates
withothers’wordsandvoices,sothatwhatis‘(in)authentic’insomeone’s
speechcanoftenbehardtodecide.Bakhtincoinedtheterm‘stylisation’torefer
tothespecificpracticeinwhichspeakersproduce‘anartisticimageofanother’s
language’(1981:361),atypeof‘double-voicing’,eithertomockorcommenton
therepresentedvoice(‘varidirectionaldouble-voicing’),ortoalignoneselfwith
thequalitiesthatareassociatedwiththeoriginalownersofthevoice
(‘unidirectionaldouble-voicing’).
ApioneeringstudyinthiscontextwasRampton’s(1995)workon
‘crossing’amongmulti-ethnicadolescentsintheUKmidlands.Heanalysedhow
youngstersfromAnglo,AsianandCaribbeandescentexperimentedwith
varietiesthatwerenotusuallyseenastheirown:thosewithAngloandAsian
descenttriedoutEnglish-basedCreole,AnglosandCaribbeansoccasionally
switchedtoPanjabi,andallthreeventuredintoa‘StylisedAsianEnglish’.While
thisoftenoccurredduringjokesandgames,Ramptonshowedthatbeyondthis
playfulness,manyoftheseverbalexperimentswererecurrenteventsin
youngsters’managementofcross-ethnicfriendshipandlocalpeer-groupaffairs,
andthatstylisationscouldalsobeaddressedtoauthorityfigures.Youngstersfor
exampleswitchedtoCreole–avarietytheyassociatedwithverbalagilityanda
lackofdeference–totakeupanassertivestancethattheycreditedtheirCreole
speakingfriendswith.OrtheybrieflyadoptedStylisedAsianEnglishtoprojecta
deferentialanduncomprehendingpersona,asawayofpubliclycriticisingother
adolescentsinastylethatimputeddiminishedcompetencetothem,or,in
interactionwithadults,toevokeproblematicracerelationsthattheseadults
weretheninvitedtosomehowpacify–leadingtomore,orless,enjoyable
relations,dependingonadults’response.Theavailabilityofdifferentstyleswas
notasafe-conductfortheirstylisation,however:atthewrongmomentorinthe
wrongcompany,youngsterscouldseriouslyquestiontheother’srighttouse
whatwasnotseenas‘theirs’.
Inadifferentcontext,thatoflightentertainmentonradio,Coupland
(2001)foundthatradiopresentersplayfullyselectedWelshdialectformsof
Englishtostage‘Welsh’culturalstyles(‘gossipingoverthegardenfence’)and
stances(anti-heroism,pragmatism).RatherthanmockingWelshdialectandits
speakers,however,Couplandarguedthatthesepresentersthroughtheirstylised
performancebothironicallyevokedandself-identifiedwithWelshwaysofbeing,
invitingtheaudienceto‘finditconfirmatory,credentializing,andsolidary–as
wellashumorous’(2001:371).Theperformancecouldthusbeseento bolster
regionalidentificationwithWalesbyculturallyreassessing,andvalorising,the
dialect.
Whatstylisationsmean,then,isamuchmorecomplexissuethansimply
‘fakingit’or‘havinglinguisticfun’.Indeed,stylisationscanbemeantas‘mocking,
admiring,anend-in-itselforthefirststepinalongerjourney,and[they]may
strengthenboundaries,underminethem,orasserttheirirrelevance’(Rampton&
Charalambous2010:5).Whicheverofthesemeaningsappliesneedstobeargued
onthebasisofethnographicinsights.Acrucialelementintheirinterpretation,as
weshallnowexplain,isthenotionofindexicality,whichplaysanincreasingrole
incurrentresearchonstyle.
CURRENTCONTRIBUTIONSANDRESEARCHAREAS
Acentralnotionincurrentworkonstyleandstylisation,drawnfromlinguistic
anthropology,is(social)indexicality.Thetermreferstothefactthatspeakers
seelinguisticsignformsasindicativeofasocialcontextwithinwhichtheiruse
makessense.Itisrelatedtothelinguisticnotionof‘deixis’,accordingtowhich
speakersneedtoidentifythespecific,contextual,meaningofeach‘I’,‘this’or
‘soon’thatthesewordspointtowhentheyareused.Linguisticanthropologists
arguethatalllinguisticfeatures,however,notjustthedeicticwords,are
indexical,thatis,aretakenbylanguageusersassignsthatpointtoaspecific
contextthatdeterminestheirmeaning:what‘nice’or‘chair’mean(their
‘referentialindexicality’)mustbedecidedonthebasisofaspecificcontextofuse
(Silverstein1976).
Social(also:‘nonreferential’)indexicalityreferstothefactthatlinguistic
features,rangingfromonesoundoversetsoflexemestoawholestyle,canevoke
stereotypicsocialcharacteristics,relationshipsandcontextsofuse.Thismeans
thatwecandeliberatelydeploythemto‘formulateasketchofthesocialoccasion
constitutedbytheactofspeaking’(Agha2007:14),butalsotogiveanindication
ofourorientationtoasocialoccasion.Usingaformalvoice,forinstance,can
suggestthatthespeakerregardstheoccasionasformalortakesanironicstance;
usingavernacularvoiceinaformalcontextmayflaganon-deferential,assertive
stancevis-à-visaparticularauthority,or,alternatively,indicatethatthespeaker
strikesupaconvivialtone(cf.Jaffe2009).
Whethertheaudienceissensitivetothesocialsketchorstanceaspeaker
evokesinthiswaydependsontheirabilitytorecognisethestereotypic
connotationofthelinguisticfeaturesdeployed.Thisabilitydependson
socialisationprocesses(athome,atschool,intheworkplace)wherelinguistic
andothersignsareassociatedwithparticularvalues.Becausesocialisation
trajectoriesdiffer,linguisticfeatureshavemultiple,evencompetingsocial
meanings:dialectusageisoftenregardedasconvivialbyonegroupbutasugly
byanother,whilestandardlanguagecanbefoundelegantaswellasarrogant.
Thesemeaningsmaymoreoverevolve,aswasthecasewiththemanystandard
languagesthatusedtobeassociatedwithaspecificregionbeforetheywerere-
typifiedasneutralandmodern.Thesocialindexicalityofalinguisticvariableora
stylecanthusbemultidimensional,changing,andcontradictory,i.e.theyhave
whatEckertcalls‘anindexicalfield’:‘afieldofpotentialmeanings[...],anyoneof
whichcanbeactivatedinthesituateduseofthevariable’(Eckert,2008:453;cf.
Ochs,1996).Asaresult,interactantsandanalystshavetodeterminewhich
potentialmeaningisactuallytargetedwhenavariableisused,andneedtobe
attentivetohowlinguisticresourcesmaybegivenadditionalmeanings.
Suchreworkingscanbeincidental,andofnoconsequenceforparticular
variables’widerreputation,butinsomecasestheeffectscanbemuchmore
enduring.Labov(1963)alreadyshowedthatalocaldiphthong/ay/inMartha’s
Vineyardwasreconfiguredfromavariablethatindicatedthespeakerwasa
Vineyardertoonethatindicatedthatthespeakerwasa‘real’Vineyarderrather
thanatouristorimmigratedmainlandpensioner.Morerecently,Johnstone
(2013)describedhowvariablesthatoriginallyindexedtheworkingclassin
PittsburghcametoindexplaceandlocalPittsburghidentity.SeveralDanish
sociolinguistshavearguedthatlinguisticresourcesthatusedtobemainly
associatedwith‘learnerDanish’–theDanishofimmigrants–arebeing
reconfiguredasstandingfora‘street’andthus,acoolurbanspeechstyle(see,
amongothers,Madsen2013;Quist2005),althoughthisnewreputationstill
competeswiththeolder,lessflatteringfameoftheseresources.Agha(2007)
reportsonasimilar,long-termprocessforthestylewenowcall‘Received
Pronunciation’inBritain.Whileinthe16thcenturythiswasarelativelyunknown
speechstyle,associatedwithasmalleliteinsoutheasternEngland,itwas
graduallyreworkedinthe18thand19thcenturiesintoa‘neutral’,idealspeech
styleforthewholeofBritishsocietyandlateragaintransformedintoasymbolof
class.
AlloftheseprocessesdependonwhatAgha(2007)calls‘enregisterment’.
Thetermreferstoalltheevaluativeactivitiesthroughwhichsetsoflinguistic
resourcesareassociatedwithsocialvalue(like‘elegant’,‘fromPittsburgh’,
‘urban’,‘deficient’)andcometogainculturalrecognitionasdistinctive‘registers’
orstyles.Suchactivitiescancomprise‘linguisticutteranceswhichexplicitly
describearegister’sformsandassociatedvalues;or,utteranceswhichimplicitly
evaluatetheindexicaleffectsofco-occuringforms(as‘nextturn’responsesto
them,forexample)withoutdescribingwhattheyevaluate;suchbehaviormay
includenon-linguisticsemioticactivityaswell’(Agha2004:26).Callingatypeof
speaking‘slang’or‘standard’,andexplainingitasasignofspeakers’(lackof)
civilisationconstitutesanexampleofthefirst;laughingwithsomebody’saccent
illustratesthethirdactivity;thesecondtypecomprisesstylisations.Onecrucial
pointisthatevaluativebehaviourisinescapable:allusageoflinguisticresources
involvesandentailsassumptionsabouttheiradequacyinthecontextathand.
Thisiswhyusingthevernacularcanneverbea‘natural’typeofbehaviour.A
secondpointisthatthisevaluativebehaviourisideological,i.e.,itisinspiredby
viewsof‘good’,‘civilised’or‘attractive’behaviourthatservetodistinguishsocial
groupsandlegitimisetheirunequalranking.Athirdpointisthatthisevaluative
behaviourneedstoberegularforittohaveanyenduringeffect,thatis,toenable
ustorecogniseaparticularconstellationoflinguisticandnon-linguisticfeatures
asa‘register’or‘style’.Muchcurrentresearchintostylingthereforenotjust
looksattheformsthatarebeingused,butincludesananalysisofhowthese
formsaresimultaneouslyevaluated.
Researchintostylisationhasinrecentyearssoughttodemonstratethat
stylisers’behaviourisrelatedtotheirconventionallanguageuse,andthatthey
arenotmerelyconcernedwiththehere-and-nowbutareengagingwithbigger
issues,likesocialclass.Rampton(2006)revealedthattheeverydayspeechof
London-basedyoungsterswascharacterisedbythesamestratificationpatterns
thatLabovfoundinthe1960s;thattheseyoungstersfrequentlystylisedthe
standard(‘posh’)andvernacular(‘Cockney’)stylesthattheireverydayspeech
shiftedbetween;andthatthesestylisationsforegroundedinstitutionalandclass-
basedhierarchies,sometimescontestingthesehierarchieswhileonother
occasionsreinforcingthem(alsoseeMadsen2013;Snell2010).Charalambous
(2012)describeshowyoungGreekCypriotsduringTurkishclass,facedwitha
teacherintentonbanningallofthepoliticalovertonesthatanengagementin
Turkishcouldevokeinthiscontext,foundinstylisedlanguageawaytocritically
addressCypriotpoliticsandtoreshapethemeaningoflearningTurkishfrom
betrayalintoarevolutionarymove.Inthisview,stylisingbecomesawayof
symbolicallyengagingwithlargersocialissuesthatspeakersdonotknow
anymorehowtotalkaboutexplicitly(asinRampton’scase),orfindtoo
dangeroustodiscussaboveboard(inCharalambous’sstudy).
Inaperspectivethatviewsalllanguageuseasreflexivelyproduced,there
isnoexclusivepreferenceanymorefor‘real’,spontaneous,face-to-facelanguage
use.Alsoscripted,set-pieceperformancesnowfallsquarelywithintheremitof
sociolinguistics.Therehasbeenampleresearchofstyleandstylisationonradio
andtelevision,inmusic,infilm,inadvertising,andinnewmedia.Allofthese
spacesaretreatedas‘site[s]ofsocialactionin[their]ownright’
(Androutsopoulos2012:142)where‘reallife’linguisticstylescanbecreatively
reworkedandmade‘particularlymetalinguisticallyandmetaculturallysalient’
(Mortensenetal.2016:8)byputtingthemondisplayandincreasingtheir
occurrenceonthepublicscene.Mediatedsocialactioncaninthiswayreproduce
traditionalsociolinguistichierarchies,butalso(re)contextualiseindividual
featuresorentirespeechstylesandimbuethemwithnewmeanings(ibid.).
ThusVanHoof&Jaspers(2016)showthatFlemish1970sTVfiction
typifiesdialectasafolkloric,inarticulateworkingclassstyle,andStandardDutch
asaneducatedprestigestyle,whichchimesinperfectlywiththewidespread
pro-StandardDutchpropagandathatFlemingswereatthattimeconfrontedwith.
Atthesametime,someoftheseTVshowsambiguatedandcontestedthis
propaganda.ComedyshowsportrayedStandardDutchspeakersasunworldly
andpatronisinglanguagezealots,whileothercharacters’stylisationsofStandard
Dutchevaluatedthistypeofspeechaspretentiousandeffeminate.Thestyling
andstylisationofvernacularandstandardspeechinthiscasethustestifiedto
boththereproductionandthe‘fracturingoftraditionalindexicalrelations’
(Coupland2014:90).
Bucholtz&Lopez(2011)likewiseshowhowwhiteactors’metaparodic
stylisedperformancesofblacklanguageinHollywoodfilmshavecomplex
outcomes.Theyobservethatwhitemiddleclasscharactersdrawondeliberately
disfluentusesofarestrictedsetofstereotypicalfeaturesofAfricanAmerican
English(AAE)tolayclaimtopositivelyvaluedstereotypesofyoungworking-
classblackmen–coolness,toughness,sexualself-confidence–thatthey
themselveslack.BucholtzandLopezarguethatalthoughthesemockAAE
performances‘valorize[d]AfricanAmericanlanguageandcultureassuperiorin
somewaystohegemoniclinguisticandculturalforms’(2011:683)and
portrayedtheuseofblacklanguagebywhitesasinauthentic,theynevertheless
reinforcedessentialiseddivisionsbetweenblackandwhitecultureandlanguage,
andultimatelyre-ratherthandestabilisedhierarchiesofrace,class,andgender.
Onlineenvironmentshavealsocomeintofocusofresearchonstyleand
stylisation.Androutsopoulos(2007)forexamplefoundthatGermanyoungsters
onhip-hoprelatedwebsitesfused‘global’hip-hopstylemarkers(lexicalitems
likedissordope,andhip-hopslangspellingvariantslike<z>aspluralmarkerin
beatz)with‘local’Germanvernacularfeaturessuchascolloquialspellings,and
usedtheseas‘resourcesforconstructingnon-mainstreamand“downtoearth”
attitudes’(2007:309)andfordisplayingmembershipofthehip-hopcommunity.
Contrarytoassumptionsofthewebasafreespacewhereconcernsaboutproper
languageareextraneous,scholarshaveshownthatonlineenvironmentsoften
respondtotraditionalsociolinguistichierarchies–withnon-standardwriting
especiallyfoundondiscussionboardswhileprofessionallyauthoredtextson
hip-hopwebsitesusuallydeployamorestandardstyle(Androutsopolous2007).
Webusersthemselvesmaymoreoverpoliceeachother’slanguageaccordingto
standardnorms(Stæhr2015).Focusingonstyleinmusic,Stæhr&Madsen
(2015)describehowintheirrapvideosonYouTubeyoungDanishrappersfrom
minoritydescentgraduallyembracestandard,monolingualpracticesasthey
wishtomovefrom‘gangster’to‘serious’rappers–anevolutioninspiredbytheir
concernwithwidercomprehensibilityandaspirationsforcommercialsuccess.
Thesestudiesshowthat‘[g]lobalcultures,codesandflows’,suchashiphop
styles,‘arenotswallowedwithoutchewing’(Varis&Wang2011:75,citedin
Stæhr&Madsen2015:79)andthatlocalcontextsmustbeethnographically
exploredtounderstandwhatlinguisticresourcesmeantotheparticipants
involved.
CRITICALISSUESANDDEBATE
Oneissuefordebateiswhetheritisbesttocharacterisestylisationsasamatter
ofartfulperformance(Bauman1975),stimulatedbyanerathatrevelsinirony,
identity,andmass-mediatedentertainment,asCoupland(2007)suggests,or
whethertheiroccurrencemay,atleastinpart,bemoretimeless,everyday,and
mayalsoconstrueother,lessspectacular,socialeffectsthan‘lookatme!’
(Rampton2009).Stylisationsclearlyhaveaperformativequality,giventheir
oftenintensedelivery.Whentheytargetaparticularaudiencebyeffect-seeking
producers(actors,presenters,comedians)inthemassmedia,orwhenthey
occurduringmundaneactivitiessuchasjokeorstorytellingandgames,itmakes
sensetounderstandthemasdesignedforthe‘enhancementof[the]experience’
oftheiraudience(Bauman1975:178).Rampton(2009)arguesthoughthata
performancelensfailstothrowintoreliefthatmanystylisationsconstitutea
typeofinteractionmanagement–whatGoffman(1981)calls‘interactionritual’.
AsGoffmansuggests,speakersusearangeofformulaicutterancestoapproach
orleaveothers,avoidorremedyoffense,saythanks,offersympathy,andsoon.
Theseutterances‘oftenserveabracketingfunction,celebrativelymarkinga
perceivedchangeinthephysicalandsocialaccessibilityoftwoindividualsto
eachother[…]aswellasbeginningsandendings–ofaday’sactivity,asocial
occasion,aspeech,anencounter,aninterchange’(Goffman1981:20-21).Many
ofthestylisationsRamptonfoundappeartodoexactlythis:theyareusedin
greetings,remedies,apologies,expressionsofannoyance,theiroccurrence
respondingtoatemporaryinteractionalhiccup,ortoloominginstitutional
authorityandthesocialstratificationthatthisauthoritypresupposes.
Stylisationsinsuchcasesare‘auxiliaryratherthanfocal,valuedmorefortheir
contributionto[…]maintainingorrestoringnormalsocialrelationsthanfor
qualitiesoftheirown’(Rampton2009:169),andsinceinteractionritual
presumablyisfundamentaltocommunication,theiroccurrencegoesbeyonda
representationofthemasatypicalsignofpost-modernpastiche.
Asecondissueiswhetherstylisationscanbetakenascriticaloflocalor
larger-scaleroutines,representations,andsocialhierarchies.Thisiscertainlythe
wayinwhichagreatmanyofthemhavebeeninterpreted(Charalambous2012;
Jaspers2011a;Madsen2013;Talmy2009).Yet,asalreadymentionedabove,
Coupland(2001)indicatedthatstylisationscannotjustdenaturalisebutalsore-
authenticatelinguisticpracticesandsocontributetotheirculturalreproduction.
Bakhtin’sdiscussionofunidirectionaldouble-voicingmoreoversuggeststhatina
numberofcases,stylisersdonotwishtocriticizenormock,butintendtoadopt
(featuresof)avoice–English-basedcreole,AAE,thelocaldialect–thattheyfind
attractiveoruseful.Inthisway,stylisersreproducetheassociationsbetweena
voiceandcertainspeakercharacteristics,and,forexample,simplyacceptthe
symbolically‘low’positionofa(dialect)voicebecauseitisthatpositionthat
makesitattractive.Itisimportanttosee,inaddition,thatvari-directional
double-voicingequallyreproducescertainaspectsofthecontextsthatitshakes
up:inproducinga‘StylisedAsianEnglish’tocalldownotheradolescentsor
challengelocalauthorities,theyoungstersinRampton’sworkwereatthesame
timebuildingon,andthusreproducing,thestereotypeofAsianEnglishasan
indexofdeferenceandineptitude.Andwhenspeakersridiculewaysofspeaking
theyperceiveasdisfluent,e.g.throughproducing‘MockEbonics’or‘Mock
Spanish’,thesestylisationsfeedintothenegativerepresentationsofparticular
speakers(Chicanos,Latinos,Blacks)thataudiencesneedtobefamiliarwithto
makesenseofsuchmockpractices(Bennett2012;Hill1998;Ronkin&Karn
1999).Jaspers(2015)arguesthattheinteractionallocationswhereateacher
insertedhisplayfulrenditionsofpupils’homelanguages,inbetweenthemore
importantcurriculum-orientedmoments,implicitlysuggestedtopupilswhatthe
relativevaluewasoftheresourceshestylised,comparedtotheschoollanguage,
andsoreproducedthewider-scalesymbolicpositionsofthelanguagesinvolved.
Thatsaid,theeffectsofstylisationsmaynotbealwayssoeasytopin
down.IndiscussinganAsianAmericanstand-upcomedian’srevoicingof‘Mock
Asian(English)’,Chun(2009)admitsthatsuchrenderingsreproduceracial
stereotypesaboutAsiansandtheircompetenceinEnglish.Sheargues,however,
thatthecomedian’sownAsianbackground,hersuccessfulframingofMockAsian
asjocular,aswellasherknowncriticismofAsianmarginalisationintheUnited
States,allworkedtounhingeasimplereproductionofracialstereotypesand
helpedreframetheuseofMockAsianasacritiqueofthese.AlsoCoupland
(2007:175-176)contendsthataninterpretationofmockvarietiesasracialising
persemayoverlookthepossibilityofmetaparody(mockingtheparodist)and
thatcontextualisingandframingareparamount.Indeed,whilestylisation‘may
exploitstereotypicalsymbolicevaluations[…]thediscursiveeffectsarelikelyto
bemoresubtlethanthis,dependingonhowsympathetictherelevantpersonas
havebeenconstructedtobe,whetheraudiencesarepositionedto‘laughwith’
ratherthan‘laughat’specificperformers,howcharactersandrelationshipshave
beendevelopedinparticularnarratives,andahostofotherlocal-contextual
considerations’(Couplandetal.2016:35;cf.Auer2007:6).Chun(2013)further
showsthatthesediscursiveeffectscanbemediatedbythewaysinwhich
stereotypedlinguisticsignstravelacrosstransnationalspacessuchasYouTube.
Whiletheironicadoptionof‘black’linguisticsignsbyaChineseAmerican
YouTubestarleftintactthestereotypethatassociatesblacknesswith
hypermasculinityandAsiannesswithdeficientmasculinity,aunitaryreadingof
thisYouTubestar’sstylisingwaschallengedbytherangeofothermeaningsthat
emergedincommentsfromhistransnationalviewership.
Soalthoughlinguisticformsmayquitenaturallyevokestereotypes,they
neverhaveanintrinsicallyracialising,orcritical,meaning,becausethismeaning
alwaysdependsontheir(trans)localcontextualisation.Clearlythough,local
transformationsofstereotypedlinguisticformsalwaysrunupagainsttheir
wider-spreadmeaning,bywhichtheymayagainbeoverruled,thatis,reframed
asexemplaryofthatstereotypingpractice(anexquisitelycriticaljokewith
stereotypedlanguagemaybetakenasasimpleexampleofthestereotype).
Athird,andnotleast,issueiswhetherstylisationshaveanyrelationto
style,thatis,whetherstylisationscanplayapartintheexplanationoflarger-
scalelinguistictrends.Indeed,self-consciousspeechwaslongseentoobfuscate
‘systematicspeech,wherethefundamentalrelationswhichdeterminethecourse
oflinguisticevolutioncanbeseenmostclearly’(Labov1972:208).Asaresult,
variationistsociolinguistshavetendedtofocuson(systematic)styles,while
interactionaloneshaveconcernedthemselveswith(unsystematic)stylisations,
withlittleinteractionbetweenthem.Recentresearchsuggestshoweverthat
thesegroupsofscholarsmaybefocusingontwosidesofthesamecoin,andthat
ananalysisofstyleisnecessaryforunderstandingstylisation,andviceversa.
ThisisarguedonthebasisofAgha’sclaimthat‘overt(publiclyperceivable)
metapragmaticactivity[i.e.evaluativebehaviourtowardslinguisticsignforms]
…isanecessaryconditiononthesocialexistenceofregisters’(2004:27;emphasis
inoriginal).Ifso,thismeansthat‘reflexivityisbuiltintotheverydefinitionofa
register/style/variety’(Rampton2011:290),andthatexplainingthese
registers/styles/varietiescomprehensivelyrequiresafocusonrecurrentsetsof
linguisticformsandtheevaluativepracticesthatareresponsibleforourability
torecogniseanddeploytheminsociallife.Stylisationsareequally‘real’and
necessary,inthatsense,asstyleisfortheexplanationofvariationinlanguage
(seeRampton2006andSnell2010forexamplesofacombinedanalysis).
Asecondwayinwhichstylisationsmattertostudentsofmoreenduring
stylesisthatsomestylisationscangraduallybecomepartofregularlanguage
use.Suchaprocessisbasedinstylisers’uni-directionaldouble-voicing,thatis,
whentheyadoptlinguisticfeatureswithwhichtheyseektodemonstratetheir
alignmentwiththehabitualusersofthesefeaturesorwiththequalitiesthatare
attributedtothem.Whensuchadoptionsconventionaliseinastyliser’sdaily
languageuse,thetwovoices(thestyliser’soriginaloneandthestylisedvoice)
canfuse,temporarilyandpossiblypermanently.Thus,Cutler(1999)describesa
middleclasswhiteyouth’suseoffeaturesofAAEasawayoftakingpartinan
urban,blackandmaleyouthculture,andhowintheprocess,someoftheseuses
appearedtoleavelong-termtracesontheyoungster’srepertoire.Rampton
(1995)likewisedemonstrateshowusingCreoleresourcesbyadolescentsof
AngloandAsiandescent‘was[…]closetothepointwhereuni-directional
double-voicingshiftedoverintodirectunmediateddiscourse’(1995:223)and
seemedtobecomepartoftheirownintendedsocialidentification.Jaspers
(2011b)similarlyshowshowfeaturesofalocal,white,urbandialectappearto
beappropriatedbyethnicminorityyouthaspartoftheirregular,assertive
stance.
MAINRESEARCHMETHODS,INCLUDINGAPPROACHESTOANALYSIS
Inpracticalterms,thevariationistapproachtostyleinvolvesidentifying
linguisticvariablesandquantifyinghowfrequentlyspeakersuseeachvariantin
particularsituations.Thesesituationsarecarefullyselectedordesignedonthe
basisofdifferencesinformality–e.g.casualconversationsarelessformalthan
interviews,whichareinturnlessformalthanreadingtests.Thespeakersare
groupedaccordingtotheirdemographiccharacteristics:socio-economicclass,
gender,age,regionalprovenance,etc.Subsequentlythesestudiescomparehow
oftenthesegroupsuseaparticularfeatureincomparisontoothers,andwhether
thedifferencesbetweenthemarestatisticallysignificant–forexamplewhether
therelativeproportionofvernacularvariantsthatworkingclasswomenproduce
differssignificantlyfromtherelativefrequencyofthosesamevariantsproduced
byworkingclassmen,middleclasswomenandmiddleclassmen.Indoingso,
suchstudiesrevealcorrelationsbetweenlinguisticandmacro-socialvariables.
Theimportanceofreplicabilityandwidecoverageinthistypeofanalysis
impliesthatthesocialworldcanonlyhaveaskeletonpresenceintheanalysis:it
incorporatesstandardsociologicalvariablessuchasclass,gender,orage,but
abstractsawayfromlocallyrelevant(andthuslesscomparable)categories,not
tomentionfrompragmaticmeaningswhichcannotbeeasilyquantified.What
Eckert(2012)calledthe‘second’and‘third’wavesinvariationiststudies,aswell
asthestudyofstylisation,canbeseenasanattempttogobeyondthis,andthis
hasrequiredalinguisticethnographicapproachinwhichscholarssubmerge
themselvesextensivelyinlocalnetworks,audio-recordthetargetedgroup,
interviewitsmembers,andexplorewhatspeakersthemselvesfindtobe
meaningfullinguisticdifferencesandhowtheydeploythesedifferencesin
interaction.OnlineethnographerscandothisbycollectingFacebookinteractions
ofaparticulargroup,theYouTubevideostheypost,theircontributionsto
particularfora,andbycombiningonlinewithofflinedata(cf.Stæhr2015).Such
anapproachdoesnotmeanthatanalysescanonlybequalitativeinnature:
Eckertconsistentlyquantifiestheuseofparticularvariablesthatthe
ethnographyhasrevealedtobelocallydistinctivewithotherlocallyrelevant
categories.Similarly,Snell’s(2010)linguisticethnographicstudyofprimary
schoolchildren’slinguisticpracticescombinesaquantitativeanalysisofone
linguisticvariable,thefirstpersonpossessivesingular,withaninteractional
analysisofthewayoneparticularvariant,me,featuresinthechildren’s
stylisations(Snell,thisvolume).
Contextualisationiskey,however:withoutit,allclaimsaboutthe
meaningofstylesandstylisationsriskbeinghighlyspeculative.Indeed,aswe
indicatedabove,linguisticfeaturescanhaveavarietyofindexicalmeanings.A
carefulanalysisthereforedistinguishesthemeaningsthatafeature‘potentially
indexesfrom[…][thosethatafeature]actuallyindexesinaparticularinstance
ofuse’(Ochs1996:418,citedinRampton2006:303).Thisrequiresathorough
knowledgeofwhichindexicalmeaningsaparticularfeaturecanevokeinthe
contextatissue,nexttoakeenawarenessofparticipants’conventionalandless
conventionalwaysofspeaking.Apossibleapproachistoretracethe
interpretationmadebyotherinterlocutors–whomayidentifywhatthespeaker
does,orproduceotherbehaviourthatprovidesaclue.Askingparticipantsto
commentonlanguageinfeedbackinterviewsmaybeawayofobtainingsuch
cluesifthesearenotintheoriginalrecording.Mostlythough,analystswillhave
torunthefullgamutofoptionsthatethnographicandinteractionanalysishasin
store,thatis,rereadingthefragmentforitspragmaticmeaning,conversation
analyticcharacteristics,participantframework,andpolitenessissues,among
others,andcomparingeachoftherelevantcaseswithothersinordertofinda
patternacrossthedata.
Itisimportantaswelltoavoidinterpretingtheuseofparticularfeatures
asstraightforwardidentityprojection,andtoinvestigatetheinteractional
relevanceofafeatureintermsofhowspeakersevaluatetheinteractionand
theirrelationwithco-participants.Thisisthelinetakenbyscholarsinterestedin
stance(Jaffe2009;Ochs1996),whoinvestigatehowspeakers,inselectinga
certainstyle,positionthemselveswithrespecttotheformorcontentoftheir
utterance,andhowinsodoingtheyalignthemselveswithotherinterlocutors
andtheeventsathand.Usingavernacularstyletoaddressanauthoritymay,for
example,intimatethespeaker’snondeferential,assertivestanceratherthan
beingintendedtosuggest‘I’mlocal’–certainlyiftheauthorityalreadyknows
this.Inthisperspective,linguistic(togetherwithnonlinguistic)features
contributetoarangeoffleetinginteractionaleffectsanddemeanours
(sophistication,hesitancy,decisiveness,…).Ifstancesaretakenuprepeatedlyor
becomeroutinised,thefeaturesthatsignalthemmaybecomeindexesofmore
durable(individualorgroup)identities.Ochs(1992)pointsouthoweverthat
suchaprocessisalwaysconstrainedbymoreestablished,ideologisedcategories
ofclass,gender,andthelike.Analystswouldbewisethereforenottosee
cumulativestance-takingbymeansofcertainfeaturestooquicklyasproofofa
distinctstyle,buttoexplorehowthesefeaturesarelinkedtothesocialtypes
believedtoconventionallytakesuchstances:dependingonthetimeand
occasion,men’suseofstandardlanguagetocreateasophisticatedstancemaybe
takenasfeminine,classy,orarrogant,leadingtodifferentidentificationsofthe
stanceproducerthat,intheirturn,impactontheopportunitiesfor
conventionalisingthestance.Ideologiesofmasculinitythuslimitmalespeakers’
stylespectrum.
Noanalysisofstyleandstylisation,moreover,canallowitselftoignore
thatstylingandstylisingonlymakessenseinrelationtootherstyles.Styles,as
Irvine(2001:22)pointsout,are‘partofasystemofdistinction,inwhichastyle
contrastswithotherpossiblestyles,andthesocialmeaningsignifiedbythestyle
contrastswithothersocialmeanings’(Irvine2001:22).Studyingstyleand
stylisation,then,dependsonexploringtheuniverseofstylesthatspeakersare
awareof,theirknowledgeofhowlocalstylesdifferfromeachother,andofhow
localstylesinteractwithnon-localonesthatareinstitutionalisedthrough
schoolingormainstreammedia.Understandingasystemofdistinctionequally
requiresafocusonpracticesofdifferentiation,orthewayinwhichstylesare
activelydistinguishedfromeachother,labelled,talkedabout,promoted,stylised
orotherwiseevaluated.Suchsocialevaluationsareinevitablyideological
becausetheyinteractwithideologisedrepresentationsof‘good’,‘civilised’,
‘polite’,‘beautiful’,‘cool’language,andtheserepresentationsarenotuniversal:
thesamestyle(features)maybefound,forexample,‘mainstream’,‘slang’,or
‘fakeslang’,dependingonspeakers’background,age,education,orinterest(cf.
Agha2004).Localusesofstyleandstylisationmustthusbeanalysedforhow
speakersunderstandtheirsocialworld,theperspectivesaboutlanguagethat
existwithinit,andintermsofthelinguistic(andother)featurestheyhave
accessto(cf.Irvine2001:22).
Aparticularchallengeforscholarsinterestedinstylisationsisknowing
whensomethingcanbetakenasastylisation,andwhenitmaybemore
appropriatetocategoriseaparticularutteranceassoundplay.Ingeneral,
stylisationsinvolveamarkeddeviationfromspeakers’conventionalbehaviour,
andconsistofanemphatic,exaggeratedor(over)actedrenderingoflinguistic
featuresthatfalloutsidespeakers’habitualspeechrange.Thesefeaturesare
oftenmarkersofanout-groupvariety(e.g.AAEstylisedbywhitespeakers),but
theymayjustaswellbelongtoone’s‘own’variety–aswiththeWelshdialect
featuresstylisedbytheradiopresentersinCoupland’s(2001)data,orthe
northernEnglishpossessivemeinSnell’s(2010)data,whichhadfallenoutof
habitualuseintheagegroupshestudied.Typicallystylisationsaremarkedbya
conglomerateofsemioticresources.Theycanberecognizedby‘anincreased
densityofmarkedlinguisticfeatures’(Rampton2006:262),e.g.stereotypical
lexis,oraphoneticrenderingcharacterizedbyovershoot(Bell&Gibson2011:
568).Inadditiontheyareoftensetofffromtheirsurroundingsbyparaverbal
meanssuchassuddenshiftsinpitchlevel,voicequality,volumeorpace
(Rampton2006:262),aswellasbyfacialexpressionsandgestures.Anotherclue
totheiridentificationarethemetalinguisticresponsesproducedbytheaudience
orparticipantstotheinteraction,whomayreacttostylisationsby‘laughing,
repeatingtheutterance,bycommentingon[them],orbyswitchingintoa
differentkindofnon-normaldialectorvoice’(Rampton2006:262).
Instagedperformances,suchasthemass-mediated,scripted
performancesdeliveredbyCoupland’s(2001)radiopresenters,stylisations
oftencompriselongstretchesoftalkandprojectwidelyknownculturalstyles,
stereotypicalpersonaeorevennamedpersons,asaresultofwhichtheymaybe
quitestraightforwardlyinterpretabletoanyoneknowledgeableofthatculture
(e.g.Gibson2011;VanHoof2016).Inspontaneous,non-scriptedinteractions,
stylisationsareoftenfleeting,theirindexicalitiesmorelocal,moreambiguousor
evenopaque.Opacityisafundamentalaspectofcommunication,though,andthe
challengeisthentodistinguishclearerfromlessclearstylisations,andtosee
howthesecanbeinterpretedinasingleframework(Rampton2006:305).Itis
oftenusefultootodistinguishjocularfromless-ornon-jocularstylisations,and
vari-fromunidirectionalones,andtodetermineinresponsetowhatspecific
kindofbusinesstheyoccur(includinglocalandlesslocalaffairs),inorderto
interprethowandwhyspeakersdeploythem.
FURTHERDIRECTIONS
‘Change’isathemewehavesofaronlymarginallytouchedupon.Itisacentral
endeavourinvariationistsociolinguistics,however,todemonstratelanguage
change,conceptualisedasthechangeofvernacularnormsinagivenspeech
community.Recently,so-called‘post-variationist’studentsofstylehavebeen
castingthenetwiderinarguingforastudyof‘sociolinguisticchange’,thatis,of
changingrelationsbetweenlanguageandsociety(Androutsopoulos2014,
Coupland2014;Mortensenetal.2016),focusingonhowlanguageusers‘may
reallocatevaluesandmeaningstoexistingstylesandvalorisenewones’
(Coupland2010:145).Thisisarguedinparticularinrelationtovarieties
conventionallyreferredtoas‘standards’and‘dialects’:weoftenoverlookthat
thesetermsareactuallyevaluativebecausetheideologicalperspectivethat
makesthistypeofjuxtapositionhasbecomesoentrenchedthatanalternative,
competing,representationisdifficulttoimagine.Yetthereisnoreasonwhy
thesestylescannotbere-evaluateduptotheextentthatitmaybecomepointless
tolabelthem‘standard’or‘dialect’.Agha(2015)infactclaimsthatanumberof
former‘slang’varieties–BahasaGaulinIndonesia,NouchiinCôted’Ivoire,
amongothers–arelosingthatreputationandareinsteadacquiringmiddle-class
respectabilityorarebecomingasignofnationalidentity,andthatmainstream
andnewmediaplayanimportantroleinthisprocess.Couplandandhis
collaboratorssimilarlysuggestthatthesemediamaybeparticularlyaptfor
tracinghowstyleswecall‘standard’and‘dialect’are‘comingtoholddifferent,
generallylessdeterminateandmorecomplex,valuesinalate-modernsocial
order’(Coupland2010:145).Thepracticaladvantageofmediadataisthatthey
allowforareal-timediachronicanalysis,giventhat‘old’aswellas‘newer’media
arerelativelyeasilyaccessibleinbroadcasters’archives,onYouTube,etc.
Movingoutsidetherealmofvariationwithinwhatwecalla‘language’,
Rampton(2011)has,inlinewithareflexiveunderstandingofstyles(seeabove),
proposedthenotionof‘contemporaryurbanvernacular’asastylethatconsists
oflinguisticformsthatoccurinmixedurbanneighbourhoods(acoreofworking
classEnglish,elementsofmigrantlanguagesand‘standard’English)aswellasa
rangeofreflexivepractices(includingstylisations)thatsimultaneouslysetthis
styleofffromothers.One‘style’caninthisviewthusuniteelementsfrom
different‘languages’,andcometobejuxtaposedwithstylesthatareseentobe
less‘urban’.Ramptonfurthermorearguesthatsuchanapproachisappositetoo
forunderstandingwhata‘standard’varietyis,orcanbecome,inourcurrent
societies.Thisisaninvitation,inotherwords,tobroadenourhorizonbeyond
thebordersofasingularlanguage,andtoseehowstudentsofstyleand
stylisationcouldcontributetodetailingtheemergenceandconsolidationof
(hybrid,multilingual,orpure)stylesthatweconsidertobeurban,cosmopolitan,
orcontemporary,andtoexplorehowthesearesetofffromothers.
FURTHERREADING
Agha,A.,2007.Languageandsocialrelations.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity
Press.
Howpeoplecometodistinguishdifferentsocialstylesofspeaking–or‘registers’
–isthecentraltopicofthisbook.Aghaarguesthatsocialrelationscrucially
dependonpeople’sreflexivecapacitytorecognisethatcommunicativesigns
havesocialeffects.Hebuildsonthisinsighttoarguehowreflexivityleadsto
speakers’recognitionofstereotypicwaysofbehaving,andshows,amongother
things,howonespeechstyle–‘ReceivedPronunciation’–wastransformedfrom
alocalspeechstylespokenbyaprivilegedfewintoawidelyknown,established
standardforBritishsociety.
Coupland,N.,2007.Style.Languagevariationandidentity.Cambridge:Cambridge
UniversityPress.
Thisbookoffersahighlyreadableanalysisofstyle,stylingandstylisation.
Drawingonclassicsociolinguistic,social-psychologicalaswellasanthropological
approaches,Couplandarguesinsistently,usingampleexamples,thatvariationin
languageismoreusefullyexplainedasaformofsocialpracticeratherthanas
behaviourthatisresponsivetoexternalconditions.
Eckert,P.,2012.Threewavesofvariationstudy.Theemergenceofmeaningin
thestudyofvariation.AnnualReviewofAnthropology41:87-100.
Eckertdiscussesinthisarticlehowthestudyofsocialmeaninghasevolvedin
sociolinguistics,suggestingithasbeencharacterisedbythreewaves:thefirst
wavewasmainlyinterestedinfindingcorrelationsbetweensinglevariablesand
broadsocialcategories;thesecondadoptedethnographicmethodstoshowhow
localcategoriesdrivetheproductionofparticularvariables;scholarsinthethird
wavedeterminethemeaningofvariablesinrelationtotheotherresourcesused,
speakers’useofsemioticresourcesgoingfarbeyondmarkinglocalorlesslocal
categories.
Rampton,B.,2006.Languageinlatemodernity.Interactioninanurbanschool.
Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
InthisbookRamptonsituatesadolescentlinguisticpracticeinaLondonschool
inrelationtopopularcultureandchangingcommunicativetrends,before
demonstrating,onthebasisoffine-grainedanalysisofaudio-recordings,that
theseyoungsters’stylisationofaschoolforeignlanguage(German)invertedthe
authoritativewayinwhichGermanwastaught,andthattheirplayfulandless
playfulstylisationsofCockneyand‘posh’Englishrevealedtheiron-going
negotiationandconstructionofsocialclass.
Snell,J.,2010.Fromsociolinguisticvariationtosociallystrategicstylisation.
JournalofSociolinguistics14(5),630-655.
Thisarticleshowshowquantitativeandinteractionalanalysescanbeusefully
combinedtoexploretheindexicalityoftheindividualfeaturesthat
conventionallymakeup‘vernacular’speechstyles.Focusingonstylised
instancesofthefirstpersonpossessivesingularmeinethnographicallycollected
interactionsamongprimaryschoolpupils,theanalysislaysbareacomplex
indexicalfieldthatgoesconsiderablybeyondtheconventionalassociationof
vernacularswithinformalityandworkingclassness.
RELATEDTOPICS
Linguisticanthropology,Interactionalsociolinguistics,Combiningvariationist
andethnographicapproaches,Voiceandheteroglossia,Class,Tracingtextual
trajectories
REFERENCES
Agha,A.,2004.Registersoflanguage.InA.Duranti(ed.)Acompaniontolinguistic
anthropology.Malden:Blackwell,23–45.
Agha,A.,2007.Languageandsocialrelations.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity
Press.
Agha,A.,2015.Tropesofslang.SignsandSociety,3,306–330.
Androutsopoulos,J.,2007.Styleonline:Doinghip-hopontheGerman-speaking
Web.InP.Auer,StyleandSocialIdentities.Berlin/NewYork:MoutondeGruyter.
279-317.
Androutsopoulos,J.,2012.Introduction:Languageandsocietyincinematic
discourse.Multilingua,31,139–154.
Androutsopoulos,J.,2014.Mediatizationandsociolinguisticchange.InJ.
Androutsopoulos(Ed.),Mediatizationandsociolinguisticchange.Berlin/Boston:
WalterdeGruyter.3–48.
Auer,P.,2007.Introduction.InP.Auer(ed.)Styleandsocialidentities.Berlin-
NewYork:MoutondeGruyter.
Bakhtin,M.,1981.Thedialogicimagination(ed.byM.Holquistandtranslatedby
C.Emerson&M.Holquist).Austin:UniversityofTexasPress.
Bauman,R.,1975.Verbalartasperformance.AmericanAnthropologist,77,290–
311.
Bell,A.,1984.Languagestyleasaudiencedesign.LanguageinSociety,13,145–
204.
Bell,A.&A.Gibson,2011.Staginglanguage:Anintroductiontothe
sociolinguisticsofperformance.JournalofSociolinguistics,15(5),555–572.
Bennett,J.,2012.Andwhatcomesoutmaybeakindofscreeching:the
stylizationofchavspeakincontemporaryBritain.JournalofSociolinguistics,16
(1),5–27.
Bucholtz,M.,2003.Sociolinguisticnostalgiaandtheauthenticationofidentity.
JournalofSociolinguistics,7,398–416.
Bucholtz,M.&K.Hall,2005.Identityandinteraction.DiscourseStudies,7,585–
614
Bucholtz,M.&Q.Lopez,2011.Performingblackness,formingwhiteness:
LinguisticminstrelsyinHollywoodfilm.JournalofSociolinguistics,15,680–706.
Charalambous,C.,2012.‘RepublicadeKubros’:Transgressionandcollusionin
Greek-Cypriotadolescents’classroomsilly-talk.LinguisticsandEducation,23,
334–49.
Cheshire,P.,1982.VariationinanEnglishdialect.Cambridge:Cambridge
UniversityPress.
Chun,E.,2009.Ideologiesoflegitimatemockery.In:A.ReyesandA.Lo(eds.),
BeyondYellowEnglish.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,261–287.
Chun,E.,2013.Ironicblacknessasmasculinecool.AsianAmericanlanguageand
authenticityonYouTube.AppliedLinguistics,34(5),592–612.
Coupland,N.,2001.Dialectstylisationinradiotalk.LanguageinSociety,30,345–
375.
Coupland,N.,2007.Style.Languagevariationandidentity.Cambridge:Cambridge
UniversityPress.
Coupland,N.,(2010).Language,ideology,mediaandsocialchange.InJunod,K.&
Maillat,D.(Eds.),Performingtheself.Tübingen:GunterNarr,127–151.
Coupland,N.,2014.Sociolinguisticchange,vernacularizationandbroadcast
Britishmedia.InJ.Androutsopoulos(Ed.),Mediatizationandsociolinguistic
change.Berlin/Boston:WalterdeGruyter,67–96.
Coupland,N.,J.Thøgersen&J.Mortensen,2016.Introduction.InJ.Thøgersen,N.
Coupland&J.Mortensen(eds.),Style,mediaandlanguageideologies.Oslo:
Novus,11–49.
Cutler,C.,1999.Yorkvillecrossing.Whiteteens,hiphopandAfricanAmerican
English.JournalofSociolinguistics,3,428–442.
Eckert,P.,1989.Jocksandburnouts.Socialcategoriesandidentityinthehigh
school.NewYork:TeachersCollegePress.
Eckert,P.,1997.Whyethnography?InU.B.Kotsinas,A.B.Stenström,andA.M.
Karlsson(eds.),UngdomsspråkiNorden.Stockholm:MINS,2–62.
Eckert,P.,2008.Variationandtheindexicalfield.JournalofSociolinguistics,
12(4),453–476.
Eckert,P.,2012.Threewavesofvariationstudy.AnnualReviewofAnthropology,
41,87–100.
Gibson,A.,2011.FlightoftheConchords:Recontextualizingthevoicesofpopular
culture.JournalofSociolinguistics,15(5),603–626.
Giles,H.&P.Powesland,1975.SpeechStyleandSocialEvaluation.London:
AcademicPress.
Goffman,E.,1981.Formsoftalk.Philadelphia:UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress.
Hill,J.,1998.Language,race,andwhitepublicspace.AmericanAnthropologist,
100,680-689.
Hymes,D.,1972.Oncommunicativecompetence.InJ.B.Pride&J.Holmes(eds.),
Sociolinguistics:selectedreadings.Harmondsworth:Penguin,269–293.
Irvine,J.,2001.‘Style’asdistinctiveness.InP.Eckert&J.R.Rickford(eds.),Style
andsociolinguisticvariation.Cambridge:CUP,21–43.
Jaspers,J.,2011a.Talkinglikeazero-lingual.JournalofPragmatics,43(5),1264–
1278.
Jaspers,J.,2011b.Strangebedfellows.Appropriationsofataintedurbandialect.
JournalofSociolinguistics,15(4),493–524.
Jaspers,J.,2015.Modellinglinguisticdiversity.Theexcludingimpactofinclusive
multilingualism.LanguagePolicy,14(2),109–129.
Johnstone,B.,2013.SpeakingPittsburghese.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
Labov,W.,1963.Thesocialmotivationofasoundchange.Word,19:273–309.
Labov,W.,1972.Sociolinguisticpatterns.Blackwell:Oxford.
Labov,W.,2006[1966].ThesocialstratificationofEnglishinNewYorkcity
[secondedition].Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
LePage,R.,1978.Projection,focussing,diffusion,or,stepstowardsa
sociolinguistictheoryoflanguage,illustratedfromtheSociolinguisticSurveyof
MultilingualCommunities,StagesI:CayoDistrict,Belize(formerlyBritish
Honduras)andII:StLucia.YorkPapersinLinguistics,9(9),9–31.
LePage,R.,&A.Tabouret-Keller,1985.Actsofidentity.Cambridge:Cambridge
UniversityPress.
Madsen,L.M.,2013.‘High’and‘low’inurbanDanishspeechstyles.Languagein
Society,42,115–138.
Milroy,L.,1980.Languageandsocialnetworks.Oxford:Blackwell.
Mortensen,J.,N.Coupland&J.Thøgersen,2016.Introduction.InMortensen,J.,N.
Coupland&J.Thøgersen(eds.).Style,mediation,andchange.Oxford:Oxford
UniversityPress,1-24.
Ochs,E.,1992.IndexingGender.InDuranti,A.&C.Goodwin(eds.)Rethinking
Context.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,335-358.
Ochs,E.,1996.Linguisticresourcesforsocializinghumanity.InJ.Gumperz&
S.Levinson(eds.),Rethinkinglinguisticrelativity.Cambridge:Cambridge
UniversityPress,407–437.
Pratt,M.L.,1987.Linguisticutopias.InN.Fabb,D.Attridge,A.Durant&C.
MacCabe(eds.),TheLinguisticsofwriting.Manchester:ManchesterUniversity
Press,48–66.
Quist,P.,2005.NewspeechvarietiesamongimmigrantyouthinCopenhagen.In
V.Hinnenkamp&KatharinaMeng(eds),Sprachgrenzenüberspringen.Tübingen:
GunterNarr,145–161.
Rampton,B.,1995.Crossing.Languageandethnicityamongadolescents.London:
Longman.
Rampton,B.,2006.Languageinlatemodernity.Cambridge:Cambridge
UniversityPress.
Rampton,B.,2009.Interactionritualandnotjustartfulperformanceincrossing
andstylization.LanguageinSociety,38,149–176.
Rampton,B.,2011.From‘multi-ethnicadolescentheteroglossia’to
‘contemporaryurbanvernaculars’.Language&Communication,31,276–294.
Rampton,B.,&C.Charalambous,2013.Crossing:areviewofresearch.Working
PapersInUrbanLanguageandLiteracies,58.
RonkinM.,&H.E.Karn,1999.MockEbonics:linguisticracisminparodiesof
EbonicsontheInternet.JournalofSociolinguistics,3(3),360–80.
Schilling-Estes,N.,2006.Investigatingstylisticvariation.InJ.K.Chambers,P.
Trudgill&N.Schilling-Estes,TheHandbookoflanguagevariationandchange.
Malden:Blackwell,375–401.
Silverstein,M.,1976.Shifters,linguisticcategories,andculturaldescription.InK.
Basso&E.Selby(eds.),Meaninginanthropology.Albuquerque:Universityof
NewMexicoPress,11–56.
Snell,J.,2010.Fromsociolinguisticvariationtosociallystrategicstylisation.
JournalofSociolinguistics,14(5),630–655.
Stæhr,A.,2015.ReflexivityinFacebookinteractions.Enregistermentacross
writtenandspokenlanguagepractices.Discourse,Context&Media,8,30–45.
Stæhr,A.&L.M.Madsen,2015.Standardlanguageinurbanrap.Language&
Communication,40,67–81.
Talmy,S.,2009.ForeverFOB?ResistingandreproducingtheotherinHigh
SchoolESL.InA.Reyes&A.Lo(eds),BeyondYellowEnglish.Oxford:Oxford
UniversityPress,347–365.
VanHoof,S.,2016.Knowingtheinsandoutsoflinguisticstandardization.In
Rutten,G.&Horner,K.(Eds.),MetalinguisticPerspectivesonGermanicLanguages.
Oxford:PeterLang,131–155.
VanHoof,S.&J.Jaspers,2016.NegotiatinglinguisticstandardizationinFlemish
TVFictionaround1980.InJ.Thøgersen,N.Coupland&J.Mortensen(Eds.),Style,
mediaandlanguageideologies.Oslo:Novus,161–188.
Varis,P.&Wang,X.,2011.Superdiversityontheinternet:acasefromChina.
Diversities,13(2),71–83.
BIOGRAPHICALNOTE
JürgenJaspersisassociateprofessorinDutchlinguisticsattheUniversitéLibre
deBruxelles(ULB).Hepublisheswidelyonclassroominteraction,urban
multilingualismandlanguagepolicy.
SarahVanHoofisassistantprofessorofDutchandmultilingualcommunication
atGhentUniversity.Herresearchfocusesonlanguagepolicies,ideologiesand
practicesinthemediaandinpublicinstitutionsinFlanders,Belgium.