Style (sociolinguistics)
In sociolinguistics, a style is a set of linguistic variants with specific social meanings. In this context, social meanings can include group membership, personal attributes, or beliefs. Linguistic variation is at the heart of the concept of linguistic style—without variation, there is no basis for distinguishing social meanings. Variation can occur syntactically, lexically, and phonologically.
Many approaches to interpreting and defining style incorporate the concepts of indexicality, indexical order, stance-taking, and linguistic ideology. A style is not a fixed attribute of a speaker. Rather, a speaker may use different styles depending on context. Additionally, speakers often incorporate elements of multiple styles into their speech, either consciously or subconsciously, thereby creating a new style.
Origins
first introduced the concept of style in the context of sociolinguistics in the 1960s, though he did not explicitly define the term. Labov primarily studied individual linguistic variables, and how they were associated with various social groups. He summed up his ideas about style in five principles:;"There are no single style speakers." : Style-shifting occurs in all speakers to a different degree; interlocutors regularly and consistently change their linguistic forms according to context.
;"Styles can be ranged along a single dimension, measured by the amount of attention paid to speech." : Style-shifting correlates strongly with the amount of attention paid to speech. According to studies conducted by Labov, this was one of the single most important factors that determined whether or not an interlocutor would make a style-shift.
;"The vernacular, in which the minimum attention is paid to speech, provides the most systematic data for linguistic analysis." : Labov characterized the vernacular as the original base mode of speech, learned at a very young age, on which more complex styles build later in life. This "basic" style has the least variation, and provides the most general account of the style of a given group.
;"Any systematic observation of a speaker defines a formal context where more than the minimum attention is paid to speech." : In other words, even formal face-to-face interviews severely limit a speaker's use of their vernacular style. An interlocutor's vernacular style is most likely displayed if they do not perceive outside observers, and are not paying immediate attention to their own speech.
;"Face-to-face interviews are the only means of obtaining the volume and quality of recorded speech that is needed for quantitative analysis." : Quantitative analysis requires the kind of data that must be obtained in a very obvious, formal way.
Labov's work primarily attempted to linked linguistic variants as a function of formality to specific social groups. In his study of /r/-variation in New York Department stores, he observed that those with a lower social class are less likely to pronounce postvocalic in words like fourth and floor, while those with a higher social class are more likely to pronounce postvocalic in their less careful speech. However, once forced to pay attention to language, they style-shift in a way indicative of their social aspirations. That is, those with a middle social class often alter their pronunciation of /r/ in a way that is generally indicative of a higher social standing, while those with a lower or higher social class more or less maintain their original pronunciation.
Modern approaches
Indexical order
characterization of style as related to indexicality marked the beginning of a new approach to linguistic style. She builds on Michael Silverstein's notion of indexical order: the notion that linguistic variables index a social group, which by association leads to the indexing of certain traits stereotypically associated with members of that group. For example, in New York in the 1960s, a study by Labov showed that the clear articulation of postvocalic in words like "fourth" and "floor" indexed a higher class, whereas the absence of postvocalic indexed a lower class. However, the presence of lack of postvocalic can also function as a higher order indexical that points indirectly to traits stereotypically associated with members of the upper or lower class. In this way, not articulating the in the word "fourth" could index, for example, a lack of education in addition to a lower social class. According to this theory, any linguistic variable has its own indexical field spanning any number of potential meanings; the meanings actually associated with the variable are determined by social context and the style in which the variable is being used. These indexical fields are fluid and often change depending on their usage in different contexts or in combination with other variables. This view of style revolves around variation, and interpretation of variation as a purely indexical system built from ideological connections.Ideology
In Judith Irvine's conception of style she emphasizes the fact that a style is defined only within a social framework. A variant and the social meanings it indexes are not inherently linked, rather, the social meanings exist as ideologically mediated interpretations made by members of the social framework. She highlights the fact that social meanings such as group membership mean nothing without an ideology to interpret them.Mary Bucholtz's approach to style also relies heavily on ideology. She defines style as "a unidimensional continuum between vernacular and standard that varies based on the degree of speaker self-monitoring in a given speech context". This continuum depends on the ideology of the speaker, for they self-monitor depending on their ideologies concerning particular words. Bucholtz explains the ideology of gendered slang, in particular, the Mexican slang for "dude", guey. Guey indexes a [|stance] of cool solidarity, and indirectly, . Ochs's framework for stance dictates that stances are ideologically connected with social groups. Bucholtz argues that ideology connects the stylistic feature of using guey with particular groups of people based on age, gender, and race. She also defines the concept of stylization as a set of deviations from the style one would expect from a situation according to the ideology of the style and how it matches up to the situation at hand. This leads to the indexing of groups with which the style is associated, and thus simplifies the indexical field at hand.
Stance-taking
Other theories on style often incorporate the role of stance-taking. These theories maintain that style is best viewed as consisting of smaller, more variable units known as stances. In this view, a stance is essentially a form of contextualization; it indicates the position of an interlocutor with respect to a particular utterance, conversation or other interlocutors. An interlocutor's use of language could imply, for instance, that they feel a certain way about an issue at hand, or that they do not care for the subject, or the people around them; these positions with respect to the context are different stances.According to stance theory, a given interlocutor uses certain variations among linguistic variables to take a stance or stances in an interaction. The set of stances interlocutors tend to repeat or use the most often in certain contexts comprise their style. This approach focuses more on interaction and reaction in a linguistic context, rather than a static identity or social group. Linguistic variables do not index specific social groups by themselves, but instead combine with other linguistic variables to index various stances and styles, which are in turn associated with social groups. Kiesling writes:
In this model of linguistic variation, stances are an important middle step between linguistic variables and a style or characteristic social group.
Emergence of new styles
Performative creation of new styles
The performative creation of style is the result of a desire to project a certain social image or stance. Interlocutors who wish to present in a certain manner may consciously alter their linguistic style to affect how they appear to others. An example of this performative style is exemplified by non-linguistic situations. In one study, Eckert interviewed several female students at Palo Alto High School in California. "New-wave" teens who wished to be distinctive adapted a more rebellious fashion style, wearing mostly dark clothes and pegged jeans, whereas popular, "preppy" girls tended towards light pastel colors and straight designer jeans. However, a couple girls wished to portray themselves as unique without losing their popular conformist social identity. The table below compares resulting styles:| eye makeup | general color scheme | pants | |
| "New-wave" girls | dark/black | black | black, pegged |
| "Preppy" girls | light/none | pastels | blue designer straight-cut |
| "Preppy but unique" girls | light/none | pastels | blue, pegged |
As Eckert demonstrates, the "preppy" girls who wished to maintain a slightly distinctive style combined certain aspects of the "preppy" style with the "new-wave" style. They maintained their color choices and shied away from dark eye-makeup—but wore blue pegged jeans instead of the standard designer jeans of their group. This is because they perceive that the eye makeup indexes an "adult" or "slutty" characteristic, while the all-black color scheme is "scary".
In the same way, interlocutors often choose to performatively create their own linguistic style to suit the self-image they desire. In a [|case study conducted by Podesva], he studies the style of a gay lawyer, who combines certain aspects of common professional and gay linguistic features to create his own style, indexing both a "professional lawyer" characteristic and a unique "gay" characteristic with his speech.