Michael Cavallaro
Paper # 3
Professor Sanchez
Doctoral Seminar
11/29/07
The Synthesis of Code Switching and Stylistic Variation
As bilingual speakers in bilingual communities make use of code switching to create and recreate their identity and optimize their interpersonal relationships, the monolingual speaker also uses stylistic variation in the same manner. Therefore, it can be qualitatively demonstrated that an expansion of the Markedness Model to include the Rational Choice model from fields such as sociology, socioeconomics, and political science can be used in explaining the stylistic variation that African American Drag Queens utilize while performing. In other words, synthesize code-switching and stylistic variation into one theory.
Code Switching
In 1972, the phenomenon of code switching was first documented by Myers-Scotton who was doing fieldwork in African American communities paying little attention to what was occurring. It was assumed that the alternating of languages was preset, prescribed by certain people speaking to particular speakers. However, it was found that the use of different codes in interaction was far from random and haphazard, but occurred for varying reasons:
- Providing for the maintenance and negotiation of social identities
- Alternating codes establishing meaning
- Switching codes may be marked or unmarked
- Alternating of codes permits an exploratory component, uncovering uncertain relationships among speaker (Mesthrie et al. p171)
Stylistic Variation
According to Natalie Schilling-Estes (2002), “Stylistic variation, intra-speaker variation, lies at the intersection of the individual and the communal; that is, individuals internalize broad-based community language patterns that are then shaped and re-shaped by individuals in everyday conversational interaction (p. 375). This definition embodies very succinctly the notion of stylistic variation, for style and its use in contrasting alternating styles carries with it social meaning.
Stylistic variation consists of varying types of variation. For example, dialects, which are features associated with particular speakers, vary with respect to who uses them and for what purpose. For instance, according to Natalie Schilling-Estes (2002) a speaker may show higher usage levels for a feature like r-lessness (e.g. [fam] “farm”), associated with traditional Southern American speech when talking with an older Southerner who uses this feature than when talking with a speaker who does not (p.375). A second variation, register, which encompasses a particular situation of use, is exemplified by a speaker showing higher usage levels for a pronunciation feature such as (e.g. [in’] rather than [ing]) in words like walking and swimming. The former pronunciation feature corresponding to informal, while the latter corresponding to increased formality. Finally, Natalie Schilling-Estes (2002) describes genres as varieties of language that are highly routinized and ritualized, frequently associated with performances. For instance, a preacher may switch into a “sermon” genre when in front of an audience of churchgoers.
Both code switching and stylistic variation are used to convey marked and unmarked utterances; therefore, given an analysis of AADQ’s speech, they may be combined into one theory. In efforts to demonstrate the effective synthesis of code switching and stylistic variation, the abbreviation (CSSV), code-switching stylistic variation, is used throughout the remainder of the analysis.
The basic tenets of the Markedness model that are used in this analysis are as follows:
- A sociopragmatic model, utterance interpretation and social meaning, implicatures in speaker choices
- Speakers/hearers interpret linguistic choices as marked or unmarked, according to (RO sets)
- Speakers have multiple identities, (RO set) indicating the given identity, whether established or actively being negotiated by code choice
- Speakers are rational agents or actors in two respects, their behavior is purposive and optimizing in their objective (Myers-Scotton, 1998; Myers-Scotton & Bolonyai, 2001)
Filter 1 (F1): External constraints
Elster (1989) states, “External constraints are those that consist of all physical, economic, legal, and psychological constraints that an individual encounters” (p.14). According to Myers-Scotton 1998) these are situational factors that include gender, ethnicity, and age. The individual, as a result of these external constraints, has at their disposal a specific set of linguistic features from which to choose. Inclusive among these features are: languages that a speaker may have proficiency in, dialects, registers, and genres. Each feature refers to a code or style interchangeably, indexing the rights and obligations sets borrowed here from Myers-Scotton (1993), who states that (RO sets) are the set of linguistic variables that index the particular code and are associated with a given group’s identity, situational context, or speech event (p.84).
The second component of (F1) consists of what Myers-Scotton suggests as micro-aspects of conversational structure. These micro-aspects include discourse strategies such as turn-taking, overlaps, minimal responses, and culture-specific views about what the appropriate use of language is in a given type of interaction (p.207). In other words, what gives validity to the Rational Choice model is therefore the combination of these societal factors in conjunction with the micro-aspects, permitting the individual to utilize or manipulate (RO sets) in, for instance, performances of drag queens. Because drag queen performers so skillfully manipulate (RO sets), the rationality of the Rational Choice model is very appropriate in explicating the choices made. As Elster (1989) states, “When faced with several courses of action, people usually do what they believe is likely to have the best overall outcome” (p.22). Hence, the choice of the course of action based upon what an individual feels is most appropriate, embodies the very nature of the Rational Choice model. In other words, this rational aspect explains the motivation behind the choices and the reasons why they are made.
Filter 2 (F2): Two innate architectures
According to Carol Myers-Scotton (2003), this filter makes use of two possibly overlapping innate architectures. First among them, Damasio’s (1996) theory of somatic markers, which influence types of response an organism has to stimuli. Damasio theorizes that all organisms have this ability to use these markers in making quick judgments and therefore actions and reactions, including social situations, consequentially, involving linguistic choices. Damasio (1999) further suggests that these markers can be called upon in future situations, through associated reward and punishment experiences and other relevant stimuli, creating a net somatic state used in creating favorable outcomes for the organism.
The second innate theoretical construct involves the “markedness evaluator” (Myers-Scoton (1998). This evaluator assesses the relative markedness in a given set of linguistic choices made by others. This mechanism gives the individual the ability to decipher in social interactions things that are marked and unmarked. Both markedness evaluator and somatic markers are themselves products of experience. However, whereas somatic markers may indicate the course of action for the best outcome, markedness evaluations may only compare actions of possible courses of action. Thus, these two components may create a type of ‘check and balances’ regarding appropriateness of linguistic appropriateness.
Filter 3 (F3): Rational operation
This is where the rational mechanism operates. Selection of appropriate (RO sets) are determined by three sets of features:
1) Speakers take into account their desires, values, and prior beliefs
2) Speakers check elements for internal consistency
3) Speakers assess available evidence that may inform them of likely outcomes
After processing these steps the individual sets on a rational course of action. It should be noted, however, that this course is only rational to the extent that the speaker deems it in his or her best interest, not by some objective standard. In other words, speakers take into account what they want to do and what they can do.
Except for certain circumstances as in exploratory CSSV, most speakers are fairly aware of interactional factors such as the social identity of the participants, the topic, and the setting. However, the way in which they evaluate the constraints produced by these factors is subjective, rather rational in their judgment. Exploratory CSSR is analyzed in the first analysis section using data from RuPaul’s first televised interview.
Drag Queens
Barrett (1998) defines drag queens as occupying the social category of gay men who dress as a woman, especially those that perform in gay bars. While there are many similar appearing individuals who may cross dress or straight men dressing as woman, the only ‘real’ drag queens considered here are those that are part of the gay and lesbian community. Also, in this particular study, “Glam” drag queens will be examined. “Glam” refers to those drag queens that dress in exaggerated high-class women’s attire, to undermine those that don’t believe men can dress as woman and often to play on the irony of this. Another important qualification of drag queens by Barrett (1998) regards gay men dressing in drag to perform, demonstrating the irony of crossing genders. In other words, while proudly being known as a gay man, they manipulate social and linguistic factors in performing this irony.
AADQ’s (African American drag queens) performances consist of many components. First, humorous monologues are used while interacting with the audience. Second, their performances are full of information exposing the relationship among cultural, societal and linguistic issues. Turner (1986) stated, “The relationship between performance genres and society is reciprocal and reflexive; it is a critique, direct or veiled of the social life it grows out of” (p.22). This is precisely what is revealed upon analyzing data from drag performances.
Barrrett (1998) mentions,” A primary concern of drag performance is to highlight mismatches between the performer’s “perceived” identity (as a woman) and her biographical identity (as a man) (p.140). In other words, a true performer uses both linguistic and non-verbal cues to devise juxtaposed (RO sets) mismatching language and identity. Therefore, Butler (1993) stated that an effective drag performance requires using language in a way that demonstrates categories based on gender, ethnicity, class, and sexuality and is not some authentic performance based on any one sole identity.
Defined below are three styles that AADQ’s make use of in their performances:
White Woman Style (Lakoff 1975)
a) Specific lexical items to their specific interests, generally relegated to them as “woman’s work”: dart (in sewing) and specific color terms (ecru, magenta)
b) Empty adjectives like divine, charming, cute
c) Question features with declaratives: tag questions (It’s so hot, isn’t it?), rising intonation in statements contexts (What’s your name, dear? Mrs. Smith?)
d) The use of hedges of various kinds (e.g., well, y’know, kinda)
e) The intensive use of so
f) Hypercorrect grammar, superpolite forms, and euphemisms: women are not supposed to talk rough
g) Women don’t tell jokes
Gay Male Speech Style (Barrett 1997)
a) The use of the lexical items and structures included as part of Lakoff’s women’s language, e.g., specific colors terms and the and the “empty” adjective (marvelous, adorable, etc.), as well as hedges and boosters
b) The use of the wider pitch range for intonational contours than in the speech of straight men.
c) Hypercorrect pronunciation; the presence of phonologically non-reduced forms and the use of hyper-extended vowels
d) The use of lexical items specific to gay language (Rodgers [1972] 1979) gives a somewhat dated lexicon of many such expressions
e) The use of a H*L intonational contour, often co-occurring with extended vowels (as in FAAABulous)
African American Vernacular English (AAVE) Style(Walters 1992)
AAVE Realizations of Standard English Phonological Features:
a) Interdental fricatives as labiodental fricatives: “teeth”
b) Final consonant reduction: /r/ deletion, “sister”
c) Intervocalic weakening: /r/ deletion,
d) Strident cluster metathesis or modification: “ask”
e) Prenasal raising of [E] to {i}
f) Monophthongization of [ai]: “my” ma
e) Stress fronting: “police”
AVVE Morphological and Lexical Innovations and Realizations of SE Features:
f) Absence of non-syllabic inflectional endings: third person singular [-s], noun plural [-s] possessive [-s]
g) Reduction of unstressed syllabic inflectional [ings]: [In]. or [.n], and [to]: “going to”
h) Lexical verbs as aspect markers: perfective ”done,” I done finish my work; Inceptive “come” don’t come coming in here; future perfect be done; intensive continuedprogressive be steady; habitual copula: she be nervous vs. she nervous (non-habitual) (Green 1994)
i) Negation: multiple negation, didn’t do nothing; ain’t as negative of forms of to be and to have
j) “You” plural distinction: y’all and y’all’s
f) Special intonation patterns, e.g., H*HL in rhetorical speech
While these styles are not necessarily mutually exclusive to a particular group, they have been adopted from Barrett (1998) in analyzing AADQ CSSR.
Use of Unmarked Choices:
Exploratory
Among many reasons for CSSV, there is one that occurs relatively less frequently: exploratory CSSV. When the speaker does not have adequate knowledge of the addressee, in this case the audience, various unmarked choices are made. In speaking, the three filters suggested by Carol Myers-Scotton (2002) of the rationality of the Markedness model illustrate the CSSV process.
Upon analyzing RuPaul’s first appearance on the national television show the Arsenio Hall Show, by RuPaul’s own admission, he was quite nervous RuPaul (1995). Nervousness on behalf of the performer was in part due to not having a full grasp of the audience nor experience being in front of a live studio.
According to (F1), there are external constraints that affect the speaker’s choices of (RO sets). He did not have full knowledge of the audience or adequate knowledge of the identity of the audience. The age, various ethnic backgrounds, and micro-aspects of the audience were unclear to him. Armed with this information or lack thereof, (F2) prescribes that quick judgments (somatic markers) must have been made in order to deal with this communicative task, possibility including past successful experiences dealing with situations of anxiety. All utterances are therefore unmarked, for the speaker is unsure of who will evaluate what. As a result, (F3) takes all of this information into account, along with the speaker’s desire to negotiate his multiple identities and the resulting rational mechanism produces this response to a welcoming audience:
Example 1
H*L
1 I love it.
H* HL
2 I feel aaaall the love…
H*L
3 I feel that.
L H
4 I feel all the love you’re sending me. (Rusty Barrett (1998), p.153)
The above introduction to RuPaul’s interview exemplifies both (RO sets) indexing identity and the role of rationality in the Markedness model. The Rational Choice model (F3) permits the speaker to choose among various registers, dialects, and genres in this situation, optimizing what the speaker believes is the best outcome. In line 1, Barrett notes that the utterance I love it carries a H*L intonational pattern which reflects stereotypical gay speech (p.153). In line 2, the word all is lengthened with a H*HL pattern indexing both AAVE rhetorical speaking and games typical in AAVE similar to genres such as sermons (p.152). In line 3, he reverts back to gay speech. In the final line, RuPaul makes use of a higher stress on the word love, indexing white woman’s style. In other words, not only are these three styles reflecting (RO sets) of gay, AAVE, and white woman style, the alternation among them demonstrates a rational choice on behalf of the speaker to cope with unknown identities of the audience and expressing the multiple identities of the speaker.
Use of Marked Choices:
Manipulating Register and Dialect
The Rational Choice model is particularly well suited in explicating marked stylistic choices in AADQ performances. In drag performances it is common to pick audience members directly and address them. An example of this was described in The Lady Chablis, which was a best seller Midnight in the garden of good and evil. The Lady Chablis explains her approach:
Example 2
Whenever I performed my monologue, I made sure to comb the audience for a “victim.” I’m always gonna pick on someone—that’s part of my act. Still is. I’ll usually find somebody in the front row who’s got a certain afraid look on their face, like “Oh my God, please don’t say nothing to me.” That’s when I move in for the kill. If I see a woman, and she’s draped in diamonds, I might ask, “Girl, what didja do to get those jewels? Didja suck dick that good? Share y’secrets with The Doll! (The Lady Chablis (1996), p103)
While most of the addressees in RuPaul’s situation were unknown, here it is clear that The Lady Chablis could plainly see and interact more directly with both the particular addressee and the other audience members, fulfilling the criteria set forth by (F1); that is, various components of identity are visible and assessable. The performer was able to observe the gender, estimate the age, and generate some idea of socioeconomic status of the ‘victim’. Taking into account these characteristics of the addressee, one would then communicate with appropriate register and dialect, for instance. However, given the knowledge filtered through (F1), and an evaluation of what utterances would be appropriate given the situation from (F2), it is the desire, therefore, rational choice of the performer, to juxtapose (RO sets) producing purposefully inappropriate outcomes.
In a deliberate manner both register and dialect were used in breaking assumptions and attributing identity to a member of the audience who do not necessarily possess that given gender, ethnic or socioeconomic background. For instance, Barrett states, “The highly informal style and coarse language directed at a woman “draped in diamonds” is unexpected, indexing a (false) closeness and familiarity between the drag queen and the audience member (p. 154). This is further evidenced by the term used to address the woman ‘girl’, and the fact that sexually explicit matters are not usually discussed among strangers. It was the intent of the performer to suggest that the woman from the audience was not a member of the upper wealthy class; rather, she was a woman that was handsomely rewarded for her sexual ability. As Myers-Scotton (2002) mentions, “such a marked choice is often a powerful feature of language, because it deviates from the expected and because its motivations may not be clear, therefore leaving the addressee off balance and unable to predict the (RO set) in effect for the rest of the exchange or to explain the speaker’s precise motivations” Myers-Scotton (1985). These precise (RO sets) that disrupt assumptions and render the addressee somewhat bewildered, are in effect the combination of somatic markers and markedness evaluation corresponding to (F2). This correspondence is realized by knowing what the appropriate style of speech is and knowing how to purposely misuse it. Therefore, it was the belief of the speaker that being “draped in diamonds” was attributable to a higher socioeconomic class. Therefore, desire of the speaker to manipulate language for a comedic effect, that is, juxtaposing styles and creating mismatches, produced the rational and desired outcome for the performer, adhering to (F3).