Signalling games, sociolinguistic variation and the construction of style

  • Heather BurnettEmail author


This paper develops a formal model of the subtle meaning differences that exist between grammatical alternatives in socially conditioned variation (called variants) and how these variants can be used by speakers as resources for constructing personal linguistic styles. More specifically, this paper introduces a new formal system, called social meaning games (SMGs), which allows for the unification of variationist sociolinguistics and game-theoretic pragmatics, two fields that have had very little interaction in the past. Although remarks have been made concerning the possible usefulness of game-theoretic tools in the analysis of certain kinds of socially conditioned linguistic phenomena (Goffman in Encounters: Two studies in the sociology of interaction, Bobbs-Merrill, Indianapolis, 1961; in Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face interaction, Aldine, Oxford, 1967; in Strategic interaction, vol 1, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, 1970; Bourdieu in Soc Sci Inf 16(6):645–668, 1977; Dror et al. in Lang Linguist Compass 7(11):561–579, 2013; in Lang Linguist Compass 8(6):230–242, 2014; Clark in Meaningful games: Exploring language with game theory, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2014, among others), a general framework uniting game-theoretic pragmatics and quantitative sociolinguistics has yet to be developed. This paper constructs such a framework through giving a formalization of the Third Wave approach to the meaning of variation (see Eckert in Ann Rev Anthropol 41:87–100, 2012, for an overview) using signalling games (Lewis in Convention, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1969) and a probabilistic approach to speaker/listener beliefs of the kind commonly used in the Bayesian game-theoretic pragmatics framework (see Goodman and Lassiter in Probabilistic semantics and pragmatics: Uncertainty in language and thought. Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, Wiley, Hoboken, 2014; Franke and Jäger in Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 35(1):3–44, 2016, for recent overviews).


Game-theoretic pragmatics Social meaning Sociolinguistic variation Bayesian pragmatics Identity construction 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



This research has been partially supported by the program “Investissements d’Avenir” overseen by the French National Research Agency, ANR-10-LABX-0083 (Labex EFL), and a fellowship from the Center for the Study of Language and Information at Stanford University. I thank Eric Acton, Leon Bergen, Judith Degen, Chantal Gratton, Erez Levon, Ellin McCready, Devyani Sharma, Sali Tagliamonte, audiences at UCL, Institut Jean Nicod, LLF Paris-Diderot, Stanford, UCLA, UCSC and NWAV45, and especially Penny Eckert, Dan Lassiter and Michael Franke for very helpful comments and discussions. All errors are my own.


  1. Acton, E. (2016). Beyond Grice: A socio-pragmatic framework for non-entailed meaning. Paper presented at the 2016 Linguistic Society of America Annual Meeting.Google Scholar
  2. Acton, E. K. (2014). Pragmatics and the social meaning of determiners. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  3. Acton, E. K., & Potts, C. (2014). That straight talk: Sarah Palin and the sociolinguistics of demonstratives. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 18(1), 3–31.Google Scholar
  4. Alim, H. S., & Smitherman, G. (2012). Articulate while Black: Barack Obama, language, and race in the US. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Anderson, J. R. (1991). Is human cognition adaptive? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14(03), 471–485.Google Scholar
  6. Barwise, J., & Cooper, R. (1981). Generalized quantifiers and natural language. In J. Kulas, J. H. Fetzer, & T. L. Rankin (Eds.), Philosophy, language, and artificial intelligence (pp. 241–301). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  7. Beaton, M. E., & Washington, H. B. (2015). Slurs and the indexical field: The pejoration and reclaiming of favelado ‘slum-dweller’. Language Sciences, 52, 12–21.Google Scholar
  8. Bell, A. (1984). Language style as audience design. Language in Society, 13(02), 145–204.Google Scholar
  9. Beltrama, A. (2016). Bridging the gap. Intensifiers between semantic and social meaning. Ph.D. thesis, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  10. Benz, A., Jäger, G., Van Rooij, R., & Van Rooij, R. (2004). Game theory and pragmatics. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  11. Bergen, L., Levy, R., & Goodman, N. D. (2016). Pragmatic reasoning through semantic inference. Semantics & Pragmatics, 9, 20.Google Scholar
  12. Bourdieu, P. (1972). Esquisse d’une théorie de la pratique. Geneva: Librairie Droz.Google Scholar
  13. Bourdieu, P. (1977). The economics of linguistic exchanges. Social Science Information, 16(6), 645–668.Google Scholar
  14. Bourdieu, P. (1979). La distinction: Critique sociale du jugement. Paris: Les éditions de minuit.Google Scholar
  15. Bourdieu, P. (1980). Le sens pratique. Paris: Les éditions de minuit.Google Scholar
  16. Bourdieu, P., & Boltanski, L. (1975). Le fétichisme de la langue. Actes de la Recherche en Sciences Sociales, 1, 2–32.Google Scholar
  17. Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J.-C. (1970). La reproduction: Éléments pour une théorie du système d’enseignement. Paris: Les éditions de minuit.Google Scholar
  18. Bucholtz, M. (1996). Geek the girl: Language, femininity, and female nerds. In N. Warner et al. (Eds.), Gender and belief systems: Proceedings of the fourth Berkeley Women and Language Conference (pp. 119–131). Berkeley: Berkeley Women and Language Group.Google Scholar
  19. Bucholtz, M. (1999). You da man: Narrating the racial other in the production of white masculinity. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 3(4), 443–460.Google Scholar
  20. Bucholtz, M. (2010). White kids: Language, race, and styles of youth identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Bunin Benor, S. (2001). The learned/t: Phonological variation in Orthodox Jewish English. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 7(3), 2.Google Scholar
  22. Burnett, H. (2017). Sociolinguistic interaction and identity construction: The view from game-theoretic pragmatics. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 21, 238–271.Google Scholar
  23. Butler, J. (1993). Bodies that matter: On the discursive limitations of sex. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Calder, J. (2018). The fierceness of fronted /s/: Linguistic rhematization through visual transformation. Language in Society.
  25. Cameron, D. (2016). Misogyny by the numbers. In Language: A feminist guide.
  26. Campbell-Kibler, K. (2006). Listener perceptions of sociolinguistic variables: The case of (ING). Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  27. Campbell-Kibler, K. (2007). Accent, (ing), and the social logic of listener perceptions. American Speech, 82(1), 32–64.Google Scholar
  28. Campbell-Kibler, K. (2008). I’ll be the judge of that: Diversity in social perceptions of (ing). Language in Society, 37(05), 637–659.Google Scholar
  29. Campbell-Kibler, K. (2009). The nature of sociolinguistic perception. Language Variation and Change, 21(1), 135–156.Google Scholar
  30. Campbell-Kibler, K. (2010). Sociolinguistics and perception. Language and Linguistics Compass, 4(6), 377–389.Google Scholar
  31. Carruthers, P. (2017). The illusion of conscious thought. London: Bloomsbury Press.Google Scholar
  32. Carruthers, P., & Veillet, B. (2011). The case against cognitive phenomenology. In T. Bayne & M. Montague (Eds.), Cognitive phenomenology (pp. 35–56). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Cerulo, K. A. (1997). Identity construction: New issues, new directions. Annual Review of Sociology, 23(1), 385–409.Google Scholar
  34. Charmaz, K. (2011). Grounded theory methods in social justice research. The SAGE handbook of qualitative research, 4, 359–380.Google Scholar
  35. Cheshire, J. (1982). Variation in an English dialect: A sociolinguistic study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Clark, R. L. (2014). Meaningful games: Exploring language with game theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  37. Degen, J. & Franke, M. (2012). Optimal reasoning about referential expressions. In Proceedings of SemDIAL 2012, (pp. 2–11).Google Scholar
  38. Degen, J., Franke, M., & Jäger, G. (2013). Cost-based pragmatic inference about referential expressions. In Proceedings of the 35th annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 376–381).Google Scholar
  39. Degen, J., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2015). Processing scalar implicature: A constraint-based approach. Cognitive Science, 39(4), 667–710.Google Scholar
  40. Dehaene, S. (2014). Consciousness and the brain: Deciphering how the brain codes our thoughts. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  41. Dekker, P., & Van Rooy, R. (2000). Bi-directional optimality theory: An application of game theory. Journal of Semantics, 17(3), 217–242.Google Scholar
  42. Dennett, D. C. (1993). Consciousness explained. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  43. DeRue, D. S., & Ashford, S. J. (2010). Who will lead and who will follow? A social process of leadership identity construction in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 35(4), 627–647.Google Scholar
  44. Drager, K. K. (2015). Linguistic variation, identity construction and cognition. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
  45. Dror, M., Granot, D., & Yaeger-Dror, M. (2013). Speech variation, utility, and game theory. Language and Linguistics Compass, 7(11), 561–579.Google Scholar
  46. Dror, M., Granot, D., & Yaeger-Dror, M. (2014). Teaching & learning guide for speech variation, utility, and game theory. Language and Linguistics Compass, 8(6), 230–242.Google Scholar
  47. Dutton, J. E., Roberts, L. M., & Bednar, J. (2010). Pathways for positive identity construction at work: Four types of positive identity and the building of social resources. Academy of Management Review, 35(2), 265–293.Google Scholar
  48. Eckert, P. (2000). Language variation as social practice: The linguistic construction of identity in Belten High. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  49. Eckert, P. (2005). Variation, convention, and social meaning. In In Annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Oakland, CA (Vol. 7).Google Scholar
  50. Eckert, P. (2008). Variation and the indexical field. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 12(4), 453–476.Google Scholar
  51. Eckert, P. (2012). Three waves of variation study: The emergence of meaning in the study of sociolinguistic variation. Annual Review of Anthropology, 41, 87–100.Google Scholar
  52. Finger, S. (2001). Origins of neuroscience: A history of explorations into brain function. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Frank, M. C., & Goodman, N. D. (2012). Predicting pragmatic reasoning in language games. Science, 336(6084), 998–998.Google Scholar
  54. Franke, M. (2009). Signal to act: Game theory in pragmatics. Ph.D. thesis, Universiteit van Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  55. Franke, M., & Jäger, G. (2012). Bidirectional optimization from reasoning and learning in games. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 21(1), 117–139.Google Scholar
  56. Franke, M., & Jäger, G. (2016). Probabilistic pragmatics, or why Bayes’ rule is probably important for pragmatics. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 35(1), 3–44.Google Scholar
  57. Gans, H. (1974). High culture and popular culture: An analysis and evaluation of taste. Nova York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  58. Gintis, H. (2000). Game theory evolving: A problem-centered introduction to modeling strategic behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Goffman, E. (1961). Encounters: Two studies in the sociology of interaction. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
  60. Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face interaction. Oxford: Aldine.Google Scholar
  61. Goffman, E. (1970). Strategic interaction (Vol. 1). Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  62. Goodman, N. D., & Lassiter, D. (2014). Probabilistic semantics and pragmatics: Uncertainty in language and thought. Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  63. Gratton, C. (2016). Resisting the gender binary: The use of (ING) in the construction of non-binary transgender identities. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 22, 7.Google Scholar
  64. Graziano, M. S. (2013). Consciousness and the social brain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Hacking, I. (1999). The social construction of what?. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Hardaker, C. (2016). Misogyny machines, and the media: Or how science should not be reported.
  67. Harsanyi, J. C. (1967). Games with incomplete information played by ‘Bayesian’ players, I- III, Part I. The basic model. Management Science, 14(3), 159–182.Google Scholar
  68. Harsanyi, J. C. (1968a). Games with incomplete information played by ‘Bayesian’ players, Part II. Bayesian equilibrium points. Management Science, 14(5), 320–334.Google Scholar
  69. Harsanyi, J. C. (1968b). Games with incomplete information played by ‘Bayesian’ players, Part III. The basic probability distribution of the game. Management Science, 14(7), 486–502.Google Scholar
  70. Hazen, K. (2006). In/ing variable. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (pp. 580–581). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  71. Heim, I. (1982). The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachussets, Amherst.Google Scholar
  72. Houston, A. (1985). Continuity and change in English morphology: The variable (ING). Ph.D. thesis, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  73. Jäger, G. (2011). Game-theoretical pragmatics. In J. van Benthem & A. ter Meulen (Eds.), Handbook of logic and language (pp. 467–491). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  74. Kaplan, D. (1999). The meaning of ‘ouch’ and ‘oops’: Explorations in the theory of meaning as use. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA.Google Scholar
  75. Keenan, E. L., & Stavi, J. (1986). A semantic characterization of natural language determiners. Linguistics and Philosophy, 9(3), 253–326.Google Scholar
  76. Kelly, G. J. (2014). Discourse practices in science learning and teaching. Handbook of Research on Science Education, 2, 321–336.Google Scholar
  77. Kiesling, S. F. (1998). Men’s identities and sociolinguistic variation: The case of fraternity men. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 2(1), 69–99.Google Scholar
  78. Kiesling, S. (2009). Style as stance: Can stance be the primary explanation for patterns of sociolinguistic variation? In A. Jaffe (Ed.), Sociolinguistic perspectives on stance (pp. 171–194). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  79. Labov, W. (1963). The social motivation of a sound change. Word, 19(3), 273–309.Google Scholar
  80. Labov, W. (1966). The social stratification of English in New York city. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  81. Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  82. Labov, W. (2012). Dialect diversity in America: The politics of language change. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press.Google Scholar
  83. Lambert, W. E., Hodgson, R. C., Gardner, R. C., & Fillenbaum, S. (1960). Evaluational reactions to spoken languages. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 60(1), 44.Google Scholar
  84. Lamont, M. (1992). Money, morals, and manners: The culture of the French and the American upper-middle class. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  85. Lamont, M. (2009). The dignity of working men: Morality and the boundaries of race, class, and immigration. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  86. Lassiter, D. (2008). Semantic externalism, language variation, and sociolinguistic accommodation. Mind & Language, 23(5), 607–633.Google Scholar
  87. Lassiter, D., & Goodman, N. D. (2013). Context, scale structure, and statistics in the interpretation of positive-form adjectives. Semantics and Linguistic Theory, 23, 587–610.Google Scholar
  88. Lassiter, D., & Goodman, N. D. (2015). Adjectival vagueness in a Bayesian model of interpretation. Synthese, 194, 1–36.Google Scholar
  89. Legendre, G., Miyata, Y., & Smolensky, P. (1990). Harmonic grammar: A formal multi-level connectionist theory of linguistic well-formedness: Theoretical foundations. (Technical report 92–16.) Boulder: Institute of Cognitive Science, University of Colorado.Google Scholar
  90. Levon, E. (2007). Sexuality in context: Variation and the sociolinguistic perception of identity. Language in Society, 36(04), 533–554.Google Scholar
  91. Levon, E. (2014). Categories, stereotypes, and the linguistic perception of sexuality. Language in Society, 43(05), 539–566.Google Scholar
  92. Lewis, D. (1969). Convention. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  93. Lewis, D. (1979). Scorekeeping in a language game. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 8(1), 339–359.Google Scholar
  94. Luce, R. D. (1959). On the possible psychophysical laws. Psychological Review, 66(2), 81.Google Scholar
  95. Manning, P. (1992). Erving Goffman and modern sociology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  96. McConnell-Ginet, S. (2011). Gender, sexuality, and meaning: Linguistic practice and politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  97. McCready, E. (2012). Emotive equilibria. Linguistics and Philosophy, 35(3), 243–283.Google Scholar
  98. McCready, E., Asher, N., & Paul, S. (2013). Winning strategies in politeness. In Y. Motomura, A. Butler & D. Bekki (Eds.), New frontiers in artificial intelligence. JSAI-isAI 2012. (pp. 87–95). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  99. Miehls, D., & Moffatt, K. (2000). Constructing social work identity based on the reflexive self. British Journal of Social Work, 30(3), 339–348.Google Scholar
  100. Montague, R. (1973). The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English. In K. J. J. Hintikka, J. M. E. Moravcsik, & P. Suppes (Eds.), Approaches to natural language (pp. 221–242). Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  101. Moore, E., & Podesva, R. (2009). Style, indexicality, and the social meaning of tag questions. Language in Society, 38(04), 447–485.Google Scholar
  102. Mühlenbernd, R. (2013). Signals and the Structure of Societies. Ph.D. thesis, Universität Tübingen.Google Scholar
  103. Mühlenbernd, R., & Franke, M. (2012). Signaling conventions: Who learns what where and when in a social network. In Proceedings of EvoLang IX (pp. 242–249).Google Scholar
  104. Nguyen, D., Doğruöz, A. S., Rosé, C. P., & de Jong, F. (2016). Computational sociolinguistics: A survey. Computational Linguistics, 42, 537–593.Google Scholar
  105. Ochs, E. (1992). Indexing gender. In A. Duranti & C. Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon (pp. 335–358). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  106. Ochs, E. (1993). Constructing social identity: A language socialization perspective. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 26, 287–306.Google Scholar
  107. Osborne, M. J., & Rubinstein, A. (1994). A course in game theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  108. Oushiro, L. (2015). Social meanings of (-r) in Sao Paulo: A computational approach for modeling the indexical field. Paper presented at New Ways of Analyzing Variation 44. University of Toronto.Google Scholar
  109. Peters, S., & Westerståhl, D. (2006). Quantifiers in language and logic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  110. Podesva, R. (2004). On constructing social meaning with stop release bursts. Paper presented at Sociolinguistics Symposium 15. Newcastle upon Tyne.Google Scholar
  111. Podesva, R. (2006). Phonetic detail in sociolinguistic variation: Its linguistic significance and role in the construction of social meaning. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  112. Podesva, R. (2007). Phonation type as a stylistic variable: The use of falsetto in constructing a persona. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 11(4), 478–504.Google Scholar
  113. Podesva, R. J., Reynolds, J., Callier, P., & Baptiste, J. (2015). Constraints on the social meaning of released /t/: A production and perception study of us politicians. Language Variation and Change, 27(01), 59–87.Google Scholar
  114. Quinley, J., & Mühlenbernd, R. (2012). Conquest, contact, and convention: Simulating the norman invasion’s impact on linguistic usage. Proceedings of BRIMS, 2012, 113–118.Google Scholar
  115. Rampton, B. (1995). Language crossing and the problematisation of ethnicity and socialisation. Pragmatics, 5(4), 485–513.Google Scholar
  116. Rickford, J., & Closs Traugott, E. (1985). Symbol of powerlessness and degeneracy, or symbol of solidarity and truth? Paradoxical attitudes towards pidgins and creoles. In S. Greenbaum (Ed.), The English Language Today (pp. 252–261). Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  117. Roberts, B. (1991). Music teacher education as identity construction. International Journal of Music Education, 18(1), 30–39.Google Scholar
  118. Rosenbaum, D. A., Chapman, K. M., Weigelt, M., Weiss, D. J., & van der Wel, R. (2012). Cognition, action, and object manipulation. Psychological Bulletin, 138(5), 924.Google Scholar
  119. Rosenbaum, D. A., Cohen, R. G., Jax, S. A., Weiss, D. J., & Van Der Wel, R. (2007). The problem of serial order in behavior: Lashley’s legacy. Human Movement Science, 26(4), 525–554.Google Scholar
  120. Shannon, C. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal, 27, 379–423.Google Scholar
  121. Silverstein, M. (1979). Language structure and linguistic ideology. In P. R. Clyne, W. F. Hanks, & C. L. Hofbauer (Eds.), The elements: A parasession on linguistic units and levels (pp. 193–247). Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
  122. Silverstein, M. (2003). Indexical order and the dialectics of sociolinguistic life. Language & Communication, 23(3), 193–229.Google Scholar
  123. Smith, E., Hall, K. C., & Munson, B. (2010). Bringing semantics to sociophonetics: Social variables and secondary entailments. Laboratory Phonology, 1(1), 121–155.Google Scholar
  124. Smolensky, P., & Legendre, G. (2006). The harmonic mind: From neural computation to optimality-theoretic grammar (Cognitive architecture) (Vol. 1). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  125. Stalnaker, R. (1978). Assertion. In P. Cole (Ed.), Syntax and semantics (Vol. 9, pp. 315–332). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  126. Sutton, R. S., & Barto, A. G. (1998). Reinforcement learning: An introduction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  127. Tagliamonte, S. A. (2006). Analysing sociolinguistic variation. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  128. Tamminga, M. (2014). Persistence in the production of linguistic variation. Ph.D. thesis, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  129. Taylor, D. E. (2000). The rise of the environmental justice paradigm: Injustice framing and the social construction of environmental discourses. American Behavioral Scientist, 43(4), 508–580.Google Scholar
  130. Tenenbaum, J . B., Kemp, C., Griffiths, T . L., & Goodman, N . D. (2011). How to grow a mind: Statistics, structure, and abstraction. Science, 331(6022), 1279–1285.Google Scholar
  131. Teven, J. J. (2008). An examination of perceived credibility of the 2008 presidential candidates: Relationships with believability, likeability, and deceptiveness. Human Communication, 11(4), 391–408.Google Scholar
  132. Trudgill, P. (1972). Sex, covert prestige and linguistic change in the urban British English of Norwich. Language in Society, 1(02), 179–195.Google Scholar
  133. Tyler, J. C. (2015). Expanding and mapping the indexical field: Rising pitch, the uptalk stereotype, and perceptual variation. Journal of English Linguistics, 43(4), 284–310.Google Scholar
  134. van Hofwegen, J. (2017). Everyday styles: Investigating the full scope of variation in the life of an individual speaker. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  135. Van Rooy, R. (2003). Being polite is a handicap: Towards a game theoretical analysis of polite linguistic behavior. In M. Tennenholtz (Ed.), Proceedings of the 9th conference on Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge (TARK IX) (pp. 45–58). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University.Google Scholar
  136. Varelas, M. (2012). Identity construction and science education research: Learning, teaching, and being in multiple contexts (Vol. 35). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  137. Walker, A., García, C., Cortés, Y., & Campbell-Kibler, K. (2014). Comparing social meanings across listener and speaker groups: The indexical field of spanish/s. Language Variation and Change, 26(02), 169–189.Google Scholar
  138. Weinreich, U., Labov, W., & Herzog, M. (1968). Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. In W. P. Lehmann (Ed.), Directions for historical linguistics: A symposium (pp. 95–195). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  139. Zhang, Q. (2005). A Chinese yuppie in Beijing: Phonological variation and the construction of a new professional identity. Language in Society, 34(3), 431–466.Google Scholar
  140. Zhang, Q. (2008). Rhotacization and the ‘Beijing smooth operator’: The social meaning of a linguistic variable. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 12(2), 201–222.Google Scholar
  141. Zhao, S., Grasmuck, S., & Martin, J. (2008). Identity construction on facebook: Digital empowerment in anchored relationships. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(5), 1816–1836.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratoire de Linguistique FormelleCNRS-Université de Paris 7-DiderotParisFrance

Personalised recommendations