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.