Martha?S Vineyard – Labov

1. 0Introduction 1. 1 Martha? s vinery where gaga traditions argon silence of value Martha? s vinery is a small island located s unwraph of diademe Cod in Massach hiretts, USA. The island has a permanent population of about 6000 inhabitants. It is separated from the mainland by the Atlantic sea and in that respect be no big businesses or any McDonald to be found on the island. Here, life is not as hectic as on the mainland and old traditions are still of value. The inhabitants have a charge of showing their attachedness and dedication to their inhabitancyland, which is too a way of observeing themselves.This consideration paper entrust be about snuff it deviates in connection with mixer individuality. I will examine the innovative domain of lecture variation and switch over in the islands community, observed and examined by William Labov (1963). I will analyze and discuss the instruct made by Labov. Labov? s study is based on the characteristic conk pattern discovered eyepatch listening to the inhabitants of Martha? s Vineyard. This sanitary dislodge has a heighten on the centralisation of diphthongs. Centralization is the phonological change in which a vowel becomes to a greater extent central than averageal (Lawrence Trask 2000 53).Diphthong is a vowel skilful which is marked by quickly moving from matchless vowel position to slightly otherwise (Deckert, Vickers 2011 33). The sound changes made by inhabitants of Marthas Vineyard, observed by Labov were /ay/ as in fight, right and sight and /aw/ as in loud and about. Labov? s observations exposed that the change diphthongs only occurred in a opusicular linguistic context. Some ag congregations subroutined the sound change much(prenominal) than others. The group of fishermen was among these. Labov similarly observed that some inhabitants purposely did not pronounce the diphthongs differently to masses from the mainland.Having looked at different friendly factors, as for example, date, heathen group and railway line it became frank that the attitude towards the island was an essential smell to explain this phenomenon. The decision whether or not to use the island or the mainland pronunciation depended the attitude towards Marthas Vineyard, whether or not being positive or negative. Labov named this phenomenon island identicalness (1963). To understand what island identity is it is important to repair the term identity. What is identity and how do we identify ourselves?Can there be a connection betwixt identity and speech? In this term paper I will commence to answer these questions. 2. 0 The study, sociolinguistic pattern and importation 2. 1 reach knowledge Marthas Vineyard is divided into two parts, which are the up-island and the down-island. By the time Labov made this study, the island had approximately 6000 inhabitants. The major(ip)ity lived in an realm of the down-island which contains of one-third small townsfolks, ca lled Vineyard Haven, oak tree Bluffs and Edgartown. The remaining inhabitants lived in the rural up-island range with only a few vill festers (Labov 1972 5).The inhabitants of Marthas Vineyard were divided into quartette major ethnic groups. The main group was the posterity of old families with English filiation. The second major group was descendants of Lusitanian origin who migrated from the Azores and the Cap Verde Islands. The third group was descendants of remnant native Ameri dirty dogs. The last group consists of inhabitants of various origins, who were of no relevance for this study (Labov 1972 6). Another group became relevant for this study. This was the group of spend visitors who came in large groups in June and July.There would be closelipped 42. 000 visitors on the island every summer (Labov 1972 6). It could be a possibility that the summer visitors brought the sound change from the mainland to the island, which would mean that this group would have the major becharm on the pronunciation of the diphthongs /ay/ and /aw/ but it becomes clear that the influence of visitors are not as obvious as it might seem, since Labov only mentioned that this group had an verificatory influence. To clarify this, it is essential to have a look at the scotch situation of the island.In 1960 Marthas Vineyard was the poorest of all countries of Massachusetts and this was not only impu give in to the high unemployment rate in Massachusetts back then (Labov 1972 27). The islands? major industry was the fishing industry on the up-island. The large-scale of fishing went out of New Bedford on the Grand Banks and as a result it became harder to backup this industry going (Labov 1972 27). It became almost impossible for the fishermen to make a animateness from their w grows and their families became dependent on two formings. Another problem laboured the economic and psychological blackmail.Convenience goods were at a very high equipment casualty (Labov 19 72 28) and the goods were brought on the island with ferry from the mainland. This transport was expensive and permitted the salesmen to expand the prices of their goods. Some would regularize that the constantly growing tourism came as a blessing for the inhabitants of Marthas Vineyard, but at the same time it also became a curse, curiously for the fishermen who snarl very connected to the island and the traditions connected to it. For them it was difficult to accept the change magnitude dependence on tourism.The following observations and results are of importance in come out to understand the connection between the above mentioned background in patternation and the spoken actors line variation in this study. 2. 2 Accomplishment by Labov and its meaning for the inhabitants In 1963, as the study of Marthas Vineyard was relized, Labov observed a salient(ip) way of pronouncing nomenclature much(prenominal) a fight, right and sight, and words such as loud and about. This str iking ways of pronunciation clearly diverged from the near parts of the mainland (Meyerhoff 2006 16f. ). The inhabitants of Marthas Vineyard pronounced the diphthongs /ay/ and /aw/ in a to a greater extent entral position which is a phonological change termed centralization. In order to write in code out why many inhabitants used the modify diphthongs, Labov deliberated an interview docket in which /ay/ and /aw/ frequently occurred (Labov 1972 12). Here Labov did not only put his focus on the linguistic aspect but on the brotherly aspect as swell. This substance that Labov did not only put focus on the language but furthermore he expected to examine the occasions for this sound change and in which way it was used in a social context and by whom. Why did some speakers use the concentrated diphthongs more than others?This is why this study by Labov is not just of study of philology but also counts as a sociolinguistic study (Deckert, Vickers 2011 1). Labov started enquire i nhabitants questions concerning their lives on the island. He also recorded them while they were reading lists of words naturally containing /ay/ and /aw/ sounds out loud (Meyerhoff 2006 17). He interviewed 69 inhabitants of different ages, occupation, ethnic groups and from different geographical distribution. The table underneath is taken from Labov? s study and shows age levels and numbers of inhabitants using the centralize vowels /ay/ and /aw/Table 1 (Labov 1972 22) age (ay) (aw) 75- 25 22 61-75 35 37 46-60 62 44 31-45 81 88 14-30 37 46 Having a look at this table, it appears that inhabitants from the age of thirty-one up to age forty-five frequently tended to centralize the diphthongs. However, inhabitants jr. than thirty-one and older than forty-five, did not have a high use of the centralized diphthongs.This means that the sound change could not only be dependent on the age of inhabitants being interviewed. Therefore Labov focused on other social factors which might h ave an effect on the product of this sound change. He interviewed inhabitants from different parts of residence, hereby throng form the up-island as well as nation existing at the down-island. The statistics shown at a lower place demonstrates different cities on Marthas Vineyard. It also shows the numbers of inhabitants from these cities using the centralized diphthongs Table 2 (Labov 1972 25) (ay) (aw) Down-island 35 33 Edgartown 48 55 Oak 33 10 Bluffs Vineyard Haven 24 33 Up-island 61 66 Oak 71 99 Bluffs N. 35 13 Tisbury westside Tisbury 51 51 Chilmark snow 81 Gay Head51 81 This table clearly shows that the inhabitants living on the up-island used the sound change more frequently than inhabitants living on the down-island, especially the inhabitants of the town Chilmark. In Chilmark they were shown o have a unique tendency of centralized diphthongs. The up-island was more of a rural area and it was known for its fishing industry. closely fishermen wer e living and works in Chilmark. The following table shows the centralization by the different occupational groups observed by Labov. . Table 3 (Labov 1972 26) (ay) (aw) Fishermen 100 79 Farmers 32 22 Others 41 57 According to this table which shows the usage of centralized diphthong by fishermen, farmers and other occupations, shows it becomes clear that the fishermen were the one group who most frequently made use of centralization. Some of the farmers and raft of other occupations also used this sound change but their numbers were strikingly low compared to the numbers of fishermen using the centralization. When comparing the results of all three tables it becomes obvious that the Chilmark fishermen in the middle working age level were using the centralization more frequently than any other groups on the island.However, hereby it is still not revealed why this group of inhabitants at this age and living and working in that one place where the fishing industry still contend a big role in the island economy (Labov 1972 29), were using the sound change more frequently than the other groups of inhabitants. It is central to understand the meaning and importance of the fishing industry for the inhabitants and the island itself to amply understand the interaction of social and linguistic patterns. Most of the fishermen from Chilmark felt deeply connected to the island since most of them were descendants of the old families (Labov 1972 28).The fishing industry used to be a major part of the economy, before the large-scale fishing went out of New Bedford on the Grand Banks (Labov 1972 27). The fishermen were proud to be independent, to stand on their own feet and earn their living with their own bare hands. Fishing was an old tradition on this island (Labov 1972 29) but as an ever-growing number of summer visitors came to the island a big part of the fishing industry moved away and the inhabitants became forced to be more dependent on tourism. Chilmark changed from the traditional fishing industry to modern tourism.Many of the inhabitants certain but the fishermen had a hard time acknowledging this change (Labov 1972 28). They made their living from fishing. For these men fishing was not just a job, but it was also a way of living and an old tradition they did not want to give up. Two brothers from Edgartown which were also fishermen were among the interviewed. They both had a tendency to centralize the diphthongs very frequently (Labov 1972 30). These two brothers were the last decendants from the old families (Labov 1972 30).If they were to leave the island, there would be no descendant left in Edgartown and there would be no one to keep up the traditions of the old families. These two brothers are another example that clarifies the importance of the fishing industry. It also clarifies that the Chilmark fishermen as well as the fishermen from Edgartown shared social orientation. They felt deeply connected to the island which was their home. For this reason they also both shared an aversion to the many summer visitors. The summer visitors would invade the cities of Marthas Vineyard, and thereby the growing tourism would invade ajor a part in the economy. Though many of the inhabitants appreciate the tourism, the fishermen suffered more and more under economic as well as psychological pressure (Labov 1972 28). The dependence on summer visitors grew and thereby the independence of the fishermen was reduced. The more inhabitants lived a traditional way of life the more they used the centralization. This fact demonstrates the birth to the diphthong centralization and the social orientation. Labov learned that another social factor had an corking influence on the sound change.He observed attitude towards the island, whether it was positive or negative, was of reason for the usage of this sound change. Labov found out that high tutor students and their use of the centralization depended on their plan whether or not to encumbrance on the island. He therefore interviewed students from Marthas Vineyard Regional High School. The students who valued to stay on the island showed a much high use of the centralized diphthongs than the students who cherished to leave the island after finishing school (Labov 1972 32).Not only inhabitants from the old families had a high use of the centralization, but Portuguese at the age of thirty-one to forty-five revealed to have a very high use of the sound change in comparison to the other age groups (Labov 1972 26). The Portuguese of this age group belonged to the third and fourth generation. This generation was the first one which had entirely adopted the ways of life on the island (Labov 1972 33). They too felt deeply connected to the island, their home.The middle aged Portuguese showed a higher(prenominal) use of centralization than the younger Portuguese, even though the younger Portuguese showed a higher centralization than the young inhabitants with Engl ish origin (Labov 1972 26). This phenomenon can be explained by the attitude towards the island. Most of the young inhabitants with English origin wanted to leave the island opposed to the majority of the young Portuguese who wanted to stay on the island (Labov 1972 26). This proves that social attitude towards Marthas Vineyard was to agitate for the use of the centralization.In relation to the social attitude the term island identity becomes important. To fully understand this term it is important to explain what identity really means. To pay back what identity really is, is easier said than done. Identity can be a name of a person but it can also be a way of behaving or other details like gestures or mimics. In Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English by Langenscheidt, there are more than a few explanations. For example The qualities and attitudes that a person or a group of people have, that make them different from other people (Langenscheidt 2006 805).The term national/cult ural/social identity is listed in this vocabulary as well and is defined as a strong odour of belonging to particular group, race, etc. (Langenscheidt 2006 805). After having studied Labovs observations, his results and be the term identity, it becomes clear that the inhabitants of Marthas Vineyard used the sound change to identify themselves. They created an access to their identity with the help of language, and used the centralization as a way to differentiate themselves from summer visitors. This strong bond to their home, the island, is termed by Labov as island identity. Island identity describes the use of the centralization as an prospect of the strong connection, the inhabitant? s ancestry and their home land. Inhabitants who used this sound change also revealed their attitude and connection to the island. The ones using the sound change were the ones who felt deeply connected and identified themselves with the island. Thereby the sound change became an index number o f the inhabitants attitude. The inhabitants who showed a negative attitude towards the island the ones who did not feel connected to it and wanted to leave, did not use this centralization.They simply did not identify themselves with the island. On behalf of those inhabitants who had a positive attitude towards the island the language variant hold prestige. For some inhabitants the sound change had a higher status than for others, although the speakers were not evermore aware of the importance of the sound change. This is the reason why there are two types of prestige which are termed heart-to-heart and covert prestige (Meyerhoff 2006 37). exposed prestige is linked with language variants that speakers use for special reasons.The speakers using the overt prestige have the motive of sounding, for example, politer or even more educated, which means that they obviously are aware of using that variant (Meyerhoff 2006 37). For the inhabitants of Marthas Vineyard the covert prestige pl ayed a central role. The speakers who were using the centralization did not want to sound nicer or better than other people on the island. This pronunciation was not the standard or the general norm but it was based on group identity and the way the inhabitants separate themselves from other inhabitants and summer visitors. 3. 0 ConclusionThrough the study of Labov, he demonstrated that social factors play a role in how people speak and he also clarified the deep social function language has to define sn identity. Labov? s study was of importance for the social linguistic. The centralized diphthongs observed by Labov were most frequently used by the thirty-one up to forty-five age group and was typically observed used by people who lived and worked on the island, who felt deeply connected to the island. The connection between the positive attitude towards life on the island and the usage of centralization was outstanding.The inhabitants who lived a traditional way of life, had the highest degree of centralization. Since being a fisherman was a traditional occupation, this means that the main part of the inhabitants on the up-island had a higher use of the sound change since that was the place where the fishing industry was based. The down-island was the area where less people were using the centralization. It consist of small towns and these towns were the attraction for the increase number of summer visitors.Consequently, it can be said that the centralization is an indicator of solidarity. A way of showing where you belong and that you are proud of your home and its traditions. For the inhabitants of Marthas Vineyard it was also a way to oppose to the people of the mainland and the new service economy. This sound change made them stand out. By centralizing the diphthongs the inhabitants of island created a way to connect their social identity to language. The language functions as a tool to stick out of the crowd. It is as a reminder of their roots. . 0 Bib liography Deckert, Sharon K. Vickers, Caroline H. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. 2011. London Continuum International produce Group. Labov, William. Sociolinguistic Patterns. 1972. Philadelphia University of Pennsylvania Press. Langenscheidt. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. 2006 Meyerhoff, Miriam. Introducing Sociolinguistics. 2006. Abingdon Routledge Trask, Robert Lawrence. The Dictionary of Historical and comparative degree Linguistics. 2000. Edinburgh Edinburgh University Press Ltd