A statistical pattern in which lower middle class speakers employ standard or prestige forms at higher rates than do upper middle class speakers.

Example: Boston dental assistant, African American who used it in professional context.

**Present in situations of evaluations**

When differences are constantly pointed out, the trend will be rebellion.

Example AAVE in school situation, teacher corrects viewing the speakers as hostile or dumb. When differences are constantly made apparent the group that is singled out rebels.

Use of two languages in a particular speech community.

Legislation to solidify bilingualism in elementary schools, however, Bonvillian's analysis shows that  since English is adapted in later grades the goal is monolingualism...

...reflects the American value of monolingualism based on the belief that socialisation as a bilingual impedes cognitive development

The use of three or more languages in a particualr speech community, Bonvillian is concerned with how they are politically managed.

Examples: India, Canada and the US

• Hindi vs English as national language (promotes eliteness over institutions)
• Standardisation+Modernization: Southern opposition to Hindi control over institutions
• Linguistic minorities: some regional languages are given no recognition, and have limited ability as a result

Elaborated: style of speaking that expresses universalistic meanings by use of nouns, adjectives and verbs having explicit referents... attributed to middle class

"Three boys are playing football and one boy..." 

Restricted: expresses particularistic meanings that are context bound, attributed to Lower class.

"They're playing football and he kicks it..."

Bernstein's theory assumes that the restricted code has lower value and that lower class cannot express displacement or abstract thoughts.

bilingual situation in which the speaker either frequently incorporates linguistic material from both languages within the same discourse, or the speaker will integrate material from the new language into the base language, essentially syncretising the new language.

Assumed category usually indicated by what is marked.

example: The woman doctor, assumes that doctor is male.

An utterance that overtly or covertly indicate uncertainty or desire to avoid a direct commitment to a statement...

"sort of, kind of, perhaps, rather" 

"you're driving rather fast, aren't you?"

An utterance which begins with a statement and ends with a question about the truthfulness of the statement. 

This allows the addressee to validate (or not) the claim.

"you're driving rather fast, aren't you?"

·         Defined as the knowledge that dominates, that holds weight.

·         It is not given, it must be achieved and re-asserted in the particular settings.

·         Usually, for the establishment of a particular form of knowledge as authoritative in a particular context, deligitamization of other available knowledge must be present.

·         This can be achieved by claiming that the knowledge is authoritive based on science or the supernatural.

Pierre Bordeui claimed symbolic power as the power to name reality, the power of world making, creators and managers of ideology

 (freedom fighter vs terrorist)

It conversley entails the ability to deny the existence of alternative categories

Power as a relationship

• Not a distinction between those that have or don't have it, it is an approach that stresses power across and throughout society (relative to context)
• Power is constitutive rather than repressive, doesn't just proscribe, it prescribes (you can't and you can)
• Power in the subversion of rebellion, how individuals deal with inequal power relations (REBEL OR NOT)

**Present in situations of evaluation**

MC and WC speech move in different directions in formal situations, MC towards complexity (being that they are closer to the higher strata and want to separate their position from the WC) and the WC towards greater simplicity. Van de Broeck suggests that:

1)      MC want to distinguish themselves from the WC in formal situations (on display)

2)      WC speak in simpler forms in formal situations (on display) as they recognize their lack of power in those situations and move away from prestigious speech to keep from making mistakes or possibly to rebel.

Irving Goffman wrote on stigma (negatively valued characteristics) and stated that linguistic insecurity is usually dealt with by either hypercorrection (over-generalizing rules), and crossover patterns (adopting prestige forms at a higher rate than the higher status groups) or Schizmogenesis (rebellion to prestige forms after constant correction) 

Labov furthered the Schizmogenesis theory by noting that peer groups are really important in children and help to instigate rebellion against the dominant groups ``standard speech``.

1)      Careful speech is a reflection of linguistic insecurity

2)      Overt Prestige versus covert prestige: men gain covert prestige by refusing to use proper language while women gain overt prestige for using proper language.

3)      Men strive toward speech norms that reject styles associated with women; polite proper speech is associated with women

4)      Women use prestige forms to avoid association with the lower class; proper middle class speech distances notions of promiscuity and immorality associated with the lower class.

5)      Jobs available to women require standard speech; white collar jobs (teachers, flight attendants, secretaries, etc) = standard speech.

Theorizations: Gendered conversational styles

-          Men interrupt more, control topic, take up more conversational space, do less of the conversation work...

-          Women do more work: back channel talk, asking questions, deferring to others...

Bonvillain’s explanations:

1)      Men + Women develop different ways of speaking as they are socialised separately

2)      Men + Women’s different styles reflect male dominance (hierarchy)

What is the problem with the 1^st?

1)      If they are socialised differently, why are they and why do they continue after they are socialised together?

2)      Boys and girls are not socialised 100% apart from each other.

The Second

a) fits the data better [the existing hierarchy] and

b) shows the connection of linguistic and gender egalitarianism (constitutive, reflectionist)

They Indicate each other

-          in a situation such as the Kuna of S. America where the women and men are identified as separate but neither are more valued. There is no separation of linguistic style and positive evaluations are given to skilled verbal performers of each gender,  

-          whereas in Maligasy (Madagascar) The language is separated into ritual and everyday speech, men are only allowed to participate in ritual and the ritual language is more valued for being indirect and non-confrontational, women use direct everyday speech which is confrontational (men exploit this in disputes making the women talk) and their talk is disvalued.

Technocratic consciousness, affects our ways of thinking in institutional settings and extends to other contexts. We accept this manner of interaction as normal and naturalised and legitimate. These ideologies may be challenged but usually are socialised to be universal.  

Every one has had direct experience with schools and medical providers coming under their influece.

Since institutions naturalise ideology, they put them beyond the realm of questioning.

AAVE: school setting

Athoratative knowledge:  Education setting: teacher-student, student to student (wc to mc), individual students are chosen or compete to answer questions, this "natural" behaviour is taken for granted and behaviour that does not fit the norm is stigmatised. 

medical setting; doctor-patient, doctor limits the conversation, dismisses what information he feels is irrelevant, and interpret the information without consulting the patient. 

legal setting; very formalised roles, when to speak, how to speak, etc. each also has their own vocabulary.