Programme: accepted abstracts

Abstract ID: 1180

Part of Session 191: Language variation, identity and urban Space (Other abstracts in this session)

Change in indexical meaning in urban minority communities

Authors: Sharma, Devyani
Submitted by: Sharma, Devyani (Queen Mary, University of London, United Kingdom)

A number of recent studies (e.g. in Canada, Britain, Sweden, Norway) have described the indexing of ethnic/multiethnic identity in urban minority communities. Johnstone (2011), however, warns against a narrow focus on the indexing of ethnicity alone by heritage traits, noting the emergence of local, often classed, meanings for originally ethnic forms. Using a dataset of 75 individuals from multiple generations of Punjabi Londoners, the present paper asks: (i) How do indexical meanings shift over time in such communities? (ii) Why do we often see systematic shifts between ethnicity and class?

The analysis examines three generations — Gen 1, older Gen 2, and younger Gen 2. To describe the indexical potential for variants, I present a model/map of sociolinguistic reference points shared by the community. The model relies on a classic triangular representation of class-based hierarchy in British dialect variation (Ward 1929, in Trudgill 2002), with Standard English at the apex and regional vernaculars at the base. I model contact in the Punjabi London community as a meeting of two such ideological triangles. Not only does the familiar British case consist of an ‘up-down’ class binary (cf. Rampton 2006); the Indian English triangle also incorporates an emerging standard-vernacular/L2 opposition. In addition to this ‘up-down’ dimension within triangles, the relationship between the triangles represents a horizontal ‘we-they’ dimension (Gumperz 1982), namely differentiation by ethnic group.

To populate this model, I analyse discourse variation across generational groups and illustrate distinctive indexical meanings for the same form. First, I show instances where Gen 1 individuals appear to associate British glottaling with an indexical field that comprises formality/objectivity/Britishness, and Indian variants such as retroflex obstruents with an indexical field that includes informality/subjectivity/Indianness. Crucially, this indicates repeated orientation by the Gen 1 group to the ‘we-they’ (ethnic) dimension and little orientation to the ‘up-down’ (class) dimension. Ironically, this can lead to increased use of glottaling in formal situations by Gen 1 speakers, to heighten their Britishness. Next, I offer examples of older and younger Gen 2 orienting primarily and finely to the British ‘up-down’ (class) dimension, such that originally ethnic indexes become additionally inscribed with class values.

The migration stage of an individual can thus position them differently in a shared sociolinguistic ‘map’. A shift from ‘we-they’ to ‘up-down’ orientation is partial in the present data, and possibly further along for Multiethnic London English (MLE; Cheshire et al. 2011), a variety comprised of originally ethnically-marked inputs but increasingly associated with young working-class London identity. Given sufficient time, ‘outsider/ethnic’ variants can become fully indigenized markers of local class-linked identity (e.g. Pittsburghese; Johnstone 2011).

References:

Cheshire, Jenny, et al. 2011. Contact, the feature pool and the speech community: The emergence of Multicultural London English. Journal of Sociolinguistics 15.

Gumperz, John. 1982. Discourse Strategies. Cambridge University Press.

Johnstone, Barbara. 2011. Presentation on panel on ‘Ethnicity and English in Four North American Cities.’ NWAV 40.

Rampton, Ben. 2006. Language in Late Modernity: Interaction in an Urban School. Cambridge University Press.

Trudgill, Peter. 2002. Sociolinguistic Variation and Change. Edinburgh University Press.

Sociolinguistics Symposium 19

Programme: accepted abstracts

Change in indexical meaning in urban minority communities