Subject: Re: How... bourgeoisie of you.
Author:
Posted on: 2009-05-20 01:03:00 UTC

The bugger of it is that there actually are well-documented links between class and grammatical deviations from standard. Never bothered me, but then, I'm English. We're practically born with an understanding and acceptance of class here.

Random informtative fact of the day: One of the biggest effects on whether one's grammar is non-standard is actually only indirectly related to money - it's level of education. Of course, this gets blurred to some extent these days thanks to access to global media, and it's certainly going to be blurred amongst people you meet round here thanks to online influences on us all. But there was a section on my sociolinguistics exam last year which involved some data collected a few decades ago. Said data demonstrated no or very few non-standard grammatical forms in people (who knew they were being recorded to have their idiolect analysed) who were university educated, with a sliding scale down to consistent deviations in over half the grammatical constructions being analysed from people who never made it past the eleven-plus. And, if memory serves, it also demonstrated that amongst the working classes or the less educated, women deviate less than men, but amongst the highly educated or the upper classes, men deviate less than women.

I think the point of that ramble was "class is a loaded word so sociolinguists tend to avoid it".

Reply Return to messages