Abstract
Folklinguistics and Social meaning in Australian English by Cara Penry Williams aims to investigate folklinguistic accounts of sociolinguistic variation in Australian English and bring to light the language ideologies they represent. This largely qualitative work self-identifies as a (partially) third wave study because of its focus on social meaning (Eckert 2018) and exemplifies a welcome addition to majority, quantitative research in variationist sociolinguistics. The book is well organized and very well written. It comprises seven chapters focusing on different aspects of the study, creating a coherent and engaging experience for the reader: chapter 1 serves as an introduction, chapter 2 as a literature review, and chapter 3 as a description of employed methodology; chapters 4-6 present the results with a focus on different linguistic levels; and chapter 7, the final chapter, discusses the identities and language ideologies that emerge from the findings and acts as a conclusion.
Chapter 1 begins with an introduction to Australian English and positions the study methodologically by discussing the advantages of qualitative work, which puts the data and speaker at the center and considers specific social meanings and contexts of language use. Chapter 2 tackles the concept of “social meaning” and what it subsumes: “language ideology,” “indexicality,” “identity,” and “linguistic form.” Language ideology is explained as a system of linguistic evaluations of social groups, which reinforce some connections (those in line with the prevailing language ideology) and erase others (those contradicting it). The discussion of indexicality deals with how linguistic forms become associated with social aspects such as groups of people or styles at different levels. Identity is considered with a particular focus on Bucholtz and Hall’s (2005) framework as something that is constructed in the process of communication.
Chapter 3 introduces “folklinguistics” as “the study of the linguistic beliefs of non-linguists” (27), following Preston (e.g., 1993), and argues persuasively for the validity of its study as part of the broader field. It acknowledges such potential disadvantages as assumed lack of vocabulary on the part of non-linguists, reported inaccuracy of folklinguistic comments, and noticing of some features but not others. At the same time, Penry Williams highlights the relevance of the research questions that folklinguistics allows the researcher to address and argues for the importance of its contributions in valuing a non-specialist perspective and providing “information on the cultural life of language” (33). The chapter then describes the method of data collection, namely the task-supported interview, designed to elicit folklinguistic accounts of variation and conducted by the author with fifteen participants, and questionnaires, which collect information on awareness of variation and variants’ social meaning from a larger number of participants (N = 702), as well as data transcription, coding of variants, and their analysis. Finally, it overviews the study location (Melbourne) and interviewees and questionnaire participants (speakers of Australian English).
Chapter 4 begins with an overview of Australian English phonology and its social variation with a justified focus on vowels. This is followed by the results pertaining to the
Chapter 5 is devoted to lexical variation. It begins with an examination of the words bathers, lacker band, and their alternatives revealing some awareness of existing regional variation on the part of participants. The discussion of heteronyms zeroes in on such word pairs as lift~elevator and biscuits~cookies; substantial variation was found in both usage and attitudes among participants: both words in the lift~elevator pair were used frequently and elevator was often attributed to American English or Australians who consume a lot of American media. Trademarks discussed include Band-Aid, Esky, Kleenex, Hoover, and their generic alternatives; the discussion suggests that some of the items in the pairs may be perceived to be more conservative or innovative, or even to have a different referential meaning (e.g., speedos versus board shorts). Finally, the chapter covers terms of address, in particular mate, which is found to be strongly related with Australianness both positively in its associations with friendliness and more negatively with rurality.
Chapter 6 begins with a brief overview of research on discourse and grammatical variation in Australian English, including quotatives (say, be like, etc.) and verb agreement (e.g., there is/are). It then proceeds to discuss the study’s findings in turn: clippings and embellished clippings, in particular using suffixes -o and -ie (as in servo and brekkie for service station and breakfast respectively); the (ING) variable (which is considered a grammatical variable [following, e.g., Labov 2001] in this chapter instead of with phonological variables in chapter 4); final but; and the use of pronouns, including singular they, untriggered reflexives (“She knows . . . Finn and myself” [137]), possessive me, and plural youse. Discussions of all the variables indicate a high degree of awareness of existing sociolinguistic variation and strong social evaluations on the part of the study participants. Clippings in particular are found to be closely associated with Australianness, and the (ING) variable is shown to follow variation similar to that reported in previous literature on Australian and other Englishes (e.g., Labov 2001) both in participant usage and their evaluations of its social meaning.
The final chapter discusses salient local type identities which arise out of the interviews: the ocker, the wog, the bogan, the Queenslander, and posh types. The ocker, who is described by study participants as using embellished clippings, the address term mate, and possessive me, is found to be linked with working-class practices and values, informality, a certain type of masculinity, and Australianness. The wog, which began as a derogatory term for migrants and is also associated with Broad Australian English, is argued to have been reclaimed for self-identification. Similarly to the ocker, the bogan, who, according to study participants, also uses the address term mate, plural youse, final but, and
The book’s focus on folklinguistics continues the fine tradition of Niedzielski and Preston (2000) and contributes to a deeper understanding of speakers’ reactions to and their interpretations of language use and variation in terms of fine-grained social meanings. The participants’ reflexive considerations paint a complex picture of awareness of linguistic variables and their social meaning. Despite their apparent subjectivity, a number of recurring patterns arise, suggesting a high degree of systematicity in the folklinguistic comments. In fact the data analysis reveals substantial similarity between lay and expert descriptions of language, supporting the study of folklinguistics and refuting some of its criticisms (e.g., Labov 2001). In this way, the author achieves the aim of demonstrating the importance of folklinguistic explorations.
The data-driven approach to research is very powerful and compelling. Large extracts from participant interviews used as evidence add vividness to the book’s argument and bring the reader closer to the data. The qualitative nature of the investigation allows the reader to explore the data for themselves, critically consider the author’s arguments, and bring their own interpretations to the analysis where necessary. At the same time, the author brings in questionnaire results for a quantitative viewpoint that complements the qualitative richness of the interviews. A more quantitative-minded reader may find these analyses less convincing because of their purely descriptive nature, but the effort to bridge quantitative and qualitative research and to triangulate the data is commendable and affords credibility.
The focus on a relatively less-studied variety of English in folklinguistic research is also noteworthy and covers an existing research gap. With most of sociolinguistic, and in particular folklinguistic, work concentrating on North America and Europe, the book’s focus on Australian English is a worthwhile and original contribution to the study of this variety of English and its place in the world. But this book should not only be of interest to those working on Australian English as it allows for a comparison to studies done in other locales for a productive development of sociolinguistic theory.
