Whilst variationist methodology aims to exclude “metalinguistic commentary” from analysis (e.g. Tagliamonte, 2006, p. 90), little consideration is given to the complexity of reflexive language commentary and how it is... [ view full abstract ]
Whilst variationist methodology aims to exclude “metalinguistic commentary” from analysis (e.g. Tagliamonte, 2006, p. 90), little consideration is given to the complexity of reflexive language commentary and how it is achieved (metapragmatics). Extending from the idea that all language is double voiced (Bakhtin, 1981), this presentation examines the more transparent end of voices within voices: voicings. Voicings are particularly found in linguistic play and constructed dialogue (reported/imagined speech/thought) (Tannen, 1986), with participants not just (re)producing but constructing context, affect, evaluation, other individuals and even social types. Not attending to voicings potentially leads to the analysis of speech which is not actually part of the participants’ use (very approximately vernacular in the Labovian sense).
Drawing on interview data from young adults in Melbourne, the paper exemplifies voicings in Australian English and explains the potential implications of their undifferentiated inclusion in quantitative analysis. Voicings can be identified through attention to linguistic and socio-historical detail. They do not always involve the marked changes in voice qualities associated with ‘imitation’. The study employs detailed discourse analysis to illustrate how variants may be part of voicings rather than use or mention. This is shown to be the case across linguistic features with participants utilising variation in phonetic, phonological, lexical, (morpho)syntactic and discourse features, including some commonly the focus of variationist studies. It is further demonstrated that voicings are very valuable for understanding how variants are linked to one another by speakers as part of a style or register.
In conclusion, the limited theorising regarding the achievement of ‘metalinguistic commentary’ is problematic for analysis. This presentation highlights the importance of distinguishing use, mention and voicing, to ensure the reliability of results so important to variationist methodologies.
References
Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination (M. Holquist & C. Emerson, Trans.). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Tagliamonte, S. A. (2006). Analysing sociolinguistic variation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Tannen, D. (1986). Introducing constructed dialogue in Greek and American conversational and literary narrative. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Direct and indirect speech (pp. 311-332). Berlin; New York; Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter.
