शैडोइंग अभ्यास: Are we WRONG about most FAMOUS LINGUISTICS experiment?? - वीडियो के साथ अंग्रेजी बोलना सीखें

recognize that this is coming from a place of respect and love.

If you're a sociolinguist, take a deep breath, maybe sit down before watching the rest.

Hi everybody, welcome back to the channel.

I mentioned in a recent video

that I had what we might call unorthodox views about probably the most famous experiment in linguistics

and one of the founding studies in sociolinguistics, and a lot of you were here for it.

If you're new to the channel, I'm Dr. Taylor Jones, I've got a PhD in linguistics from the University of Pennsylvania, and on the channel I discuss everything related to language, linguistics, language learning, and culture.

If you're into those topics, be sure to subscribe and ring the bell for notifications.

This one is going to be spicy, so send it to a linguist you know.

I have a dream of my YouTube video being this generation's unpublished letter from Vernot to Chomsky, and if this gets more than 5 ,000 views,

then it's already doing better than a top paper in Language or Glossa.

Anyway, I studied under Bill LeBeau.

I was actually his last advisee, and he came out of semi -retirement to attend my dissertation defense

and actually put his signature as a stamp of approval on my dissertation.

And if you don't know, Bill Leboe basically invented sociolinguistics.

Some things that people might take for granted today about the role of society in shaping language are things

that he introduced more or less single -handedly.

In the 1960s, he published field -changing, world -altering papers at a blistering pace.

In 1963, he published a study of the speech community on Martha's Vineyard

that seemed to show that people unconsciously change how they spoke based on their orientation toward or away from their local community.

In 1964, he published a study conducted in department stores in New York City

that related whether you say fourth floor or fourth floor to the perceived prestige of your job on the micro level.

People who all had the same job spoke differently at Saks versus at Macy's or at S.

Klein.

In 1966, he published The Social Stratification of English in New York City.

In 1972, he published Language in the Inner City, which was a book -length treatment of Black English as its own logical linguistic system, its own ethnolect.

Along the way, he gave us the idea of the linguistic variable, that is, variations in pronunciation are not random, but might be different instances of the same variable

that is socially evaluated and therefore subject to both linguistic pressures like careful speaking

and social pressures like being in an interview or talking to your boss.

He introduced the concept of social stratification affecting language.

He single -handedly came up with the Rapid Anonymous survey where he elicited casual speech by like shopping and shit.

So the field of sociolinguistics isn't just indebted to Lebov, it was created, sustained, and more or less fueled by Lebov.

And by the time I was in grad school, there was a cult of personality around Bill.

There were orthodoxies in how to interpret what he wrote.

At conferences, you'd get on an elevator and people would say fourth floor as a kind of nerd shibboleth and then giggle.

One conference I went to, the conference shirt just had his face on it.

I was asked if I wanted one and I said, as his advisee, I see enough of his mug.

I don't need to see it when I look in the mirror.

This went over like a lead balloon.

So you can see why I might have been more than

a little hesitant to criticize the orthodoxy around the department store study.

But on the eve of the 60th anniversary of the social stratification of English in New York City, I think now's a good time.

And whatever else anybody could say about Bill, he was a staunch defender of academic inquiry, empiricism, and the scientific method.

No one person I've ever met in my life has loved to be proven wrong more than Bill Lebov.

And I wish I could share these thoughts with him, but I'll share them with you all instead.

So today I'm talking about the social stratification of R in New York City in November of 1962, what people think it means, what people have read into it since then,

and the ways I think Lebov actually did a completely different study than we, or even he, thought he had done.

This is Language Jones.

The first thing I have to do is just set the scene.

In the 1960s, we already had tons and tons of recordings of people, and linguists had a pretty sophisticated understanding of language variation and change over time.

We kind of forget that because of the Chomskyan revolution and because of, well, all of Bill's contributions to our knowledge in the 1960s,

but he was very much in conversation with a tradition of dialectology that stretched back at least over a century.

Ironically, I have the impression that most of his students

and acolytes don't really read what he was influenced by and in conversation with.

Meillet and Martinet and Jacobson and Saussure and Venker and the delightfully named Jules Girond.

So LeBeauve was really interested in the question of how regular

and exceptionless sound change is over time in a given speech community, which can be defined in different ways

and he was really interested in the ways

that sound change seemed to not be exceptionless and tidy

and how an individual speaker may produce a bunch of different variations of the same word or sound.

And the 1962 department store study was first

and foremost his attempt to build on his introduction of the linguistic variable using a new technique, the rapid anonymous survey.

So, a linguistic variable is this idea that if I say I or I in the word night,

or if I do or don't pronounce the R's after vowels in words like fourth floor, it might not be random variation, but rather a choice between two equally meaningful variants.

Obviously, the choice between for and for doesn't affect the meaning of the word.

So, he had the idea that the thing that made the difference meaningful was social, the social interpretation of a linguistic form.

This is absolutely revolutionary.

The problem is that his thinking is a little more abstract than social evaluation on the individual level, which was not really all that new.

After all, we already knew that the upper class and middle class and lower classes often spoke differently,

and even already knew that the middle classes spoke in some ways more correctly than the upper class.

Hypercorrection.

We knew that as early as the 1930s.

People often act like that was LeBeau's contribution, but it wasn't.

First, he was interested in the linguistic system as a whole.

First on Martha's Vineyard, which was relatively homogenous, and later in New York City, which is, well, not.

In fact, he goes so far as to write, quote, the language community is prior to the individual in 1968,

and that, quote, language is an abstract pattern exterior to the individual.

In fact, it can be argued

that the individual does not exist as a linguistic entity in

the second edition of the social stratification of English in New York City.

So he's trying to look at social stratification, which he frankly always did kind of a poor job of precisely defining.

And the department store study was based on this idea

that people at the same level in a socioeconomic hierarchy might

still reflect micro differences in their probabilistic production of a given linguistic variable, whether or not you pronounce R after a vowel.

On the aggregate, in a way that's a microcosm of the then changing pattern in New York City, R -lessness had been the prestige form up through the 1940s,

with our pronunciation considered a, quote, provincialism.

But it started to be replaced by viewing ourfulness as the prestige default form and our dropping as substandard.

That shift is ongoing, but there's another element that LeBeau have introduced, covert prestige.

You can represent yourself as street smart, tough, savvy, authentically New York, and a whole slew of other things by saying New York

and coffee and various other linguistic variables that might be correlated with identity.

He went to Sachs, Macy's, and S.

Klein, which were fancy, middle class, and so down market it doesn't exist anymore, respectively.

And he asked as many employees as possible, without arousing suspicion, where to find something he knew was on the fourth floor.

To get them to say, fourth floor.

Then he'd be like, what?

To get them to speak in a more careful, more consciously monitored tone.

Did I mention he also came up with the idea of the sociolinguistic monitor, which is how much careful attention we're paying to our speech.

And he found that pronunciation of R varied by department store, despite the fact that everybody had ostensibly the same education, socioeconomic status, and so on.

More on this later.

100

So within the same population of people, in theory, you still see an awareness of social factors in the city where the fancier stores had more R in their pronunciations.

101

And this was a change in progress happening across the city, but visible in this teeny tiny microcosm when you have rapid anonymous interactions that are ostensibly below the level of conscious awareness,

102

where people aren't carefully monitoring their speech.

103

That's basically how his department store study is often portrayed, especially in Introduction to Linguistics or Intro to Sociolinguistics classes,

104

as though what he found was that within the same community, individuals made an unconscious calculation

105

and on the aggregate accommodated the perceived prestige of their store's clientele

106

and spontaneous probabilistic interactions that percolate up to an aggregate that mirrors the city as a whole, including a change in the culture of the city that was sort of in progress.

107

Honestly, that's probably a charitable reading because most introductions are just a paragraph

108

that say that he found that social factors affect how individuals choose to speak, like whether or not they say are in fourth floor.

109

Problem is, nearly every part of this is wrong.

110

From our understanding of what he actually did in terms of operationalizing the study, to our idea of what population was even sampled, to, well, the results that he found.

111

And people keep reproducing the study to great fanfare with similar findings and all the same conceptual flaws.

112

I'm not saying that Bill's findings, or even our understanding of them, is necessarily wrong in the sort of platonic realm of the true,

113

but what I'm saying is that we haven't actually ever tested that or demonstrated it empirically.

114

Instead, LeBeauve and everybody else has kind of done a different study entirely.

115

Bear with me here.

116

So there's a lot of problems with the study and with our understanding of it.

117

Recognize that this is coming from a place of respect and love.

118

If you're a sociolinguist, take a deep breath, maybe sit down before watching the rest.

119

The first problem is

120

that pronunciation of R in New York City was not actually below the level of conscious awareness then or now.

121

He even discusses the changes in explicit discussion of R in public schools in a long footnote.

122

On Martha's Vineyard, the pronunciation of the vowel in night was actually arguably below the level of conscious awareness.

123

Not R in New York.

124

It was already by the 1950s what we might now call inregistered, a feature people are aware of and make conscious reference to or use to construct identity.

125

The same can be said of other features in the New York accent like saying Toyty Toyd Street.

126

And in the original department store study, Bill specifically discusses the realization of th as ta, as in Fort Floor.

127

I mean, hell, the Rat Pack was making jokes about it on screen the same year the department store study was published.

128

I think there's something wrong with his throat.

129

I told him that six weeks ago.

130

I'll have a lot more to say about R not being below the level of consciousness in a minute, so buckle up, linguists.

131

A related issue is that his later work on dialects, from The Logic of Non -Centered English to Language in the Inner city inform how we read the department store study,

132

but there's no indication in the text itself, especially the first version of it, that he fully thought of Black English as a separate ethnolect,

133

or Yiddish English, or Puerto Rican English, or whatever else.

134

That all came a decade later.

135

So the full sample of 264 observations doesn't separate out different ethnolects at first, and in the first version of the paper, he's just starting to formulate his ideas about race.

136

He takes one moment and separates out Black informants, we don't really use that word anymore, and notes that at S.

137

Klein, they were 94 % R -less, and at Saks, they were nowhere to be found.

138

There's a lot going on here that I'll get to shortly, but leave me a comment if you can think of a few confounds around race in 1962.

139

Hint, what happened in 1964?

140

What happened in 1974?

141

More importantly, with the rapid anonymous survey, he breaks out the, quote, native New York white saleswomen for a subsample of 141 to really make his point, but two pages later states,

142

and I quote, it is true

143

that we do not know a great deal about the informants that we would like to know, their birthplace, language history, education, participation in New York culture, and so on.

144

So he's just kind of going on vibes.

145

It's also entirely possible to approximate that with, say, the 1960s census and Macy's own data, which they regularly published in glossy magazines,

146

and do a little light Bayesian reasoning to update your priors.

147

And here's the thing, I don't think everybody was a native New Yorker

148

because I have my own biases based on my own experiences moving to New York and working in retail.

149

Not to mention tons of family and extended family who are New Yorkers going back to the 19th century.

150

My experience in retail was that there were tons of transplants.

151

That might have been a difference in 2007 compared to 1962.

152

Thanks Bloomberg with your Disneyfication of New York.

153

But still, it's always been a city with a large population churn

154

and while the state was definitely losing people in the 1960s, I'm not so sure the city as a whole was, although Harlem in particular was, but that's also related to white flight.

155

And of course, that's a result of the ongoing Great Migration.

156

You know, that thing where hundreds of thousands of Black Southerners fled to the north

157

and then were segregated into completely different neighborhoods and school districts? That thing.

158

On top of the fact that not a single coworker of mine for five years in retail was a native New Yorker, the closest were a few Bronx Dominicans, if you know, you know,

159

there was also a huge emphasis on how we spoke to the customers.

160

And that wasn't just my experience.

161

I know people who worked retail in the 1970s and even worked in department stores like Nordstrom.

162

I'm told they were actively seeking actors.

163

They placed a huge emphasis on being, quote, well -spoken, and how well -spoken you were determined which counters and even which floors you worked on.

164

Perfume?

165

Well, let's just say you better not call it perfume and hope to work at that counter.

166

So Labov's finding that the higher floors of Saks, for instance, had more R -full pronunciation.

167

Not only is this likely not a fact of spontaneous speech production below the level of consciousness,

168

but it may have been both actively trained by management and even selected for in hiring.

169

I wrote to the leading department store historian, because that's a real thing and his work is super interesting,

170

and he told me that there was absolutely ongoing coaching on how to talk to the customer as early as the 1930s, and that Macy's might have been up to 42 % transplants.

171

Of course, there's also the confound that there's a massive ramp up in hiring temporary seasonal part -time employees in, oh, I don't know, November.

172

He also informed me that there was a strong assumption that the shopper was female even through the 1960s.

173

So a man with an educated New Jersey accent

174

and a trench coat and a freaking briefcase was in its very nature not something that would trigger unmonitored speech.

175

If anything, it's possible he was assumed to be corporate, doing a spot check of the sales floor.

176

By the way, about the suitcase, he claims repeatedly in the paper that he took impressionistic notes, but it's an open secret in linguistics that he actually used a tape recorder in a suitcase,

177

like a damn John le Carré character.

178

This both lends support to his specific claims about our pronunciation, and also would create IRB problems if the modern IRB had fully existed at that point.

179

But it didn't, and in those days, they were still giving black men syphilis for science.

180

That's because the study was carried out two years before the Civil Rights Act was passed.

181

Is that what you guessed for 1964?

182

So his seeming astonishment

183

that there were no black employees on the sales floor of SACS kind of falls flat in this context.

184

Quoting Michael Lissicke, the department store historian again, by 1962, black employees were not common on the sales floor even in NYC and certainly not at SACS.

185

He goes on to write that black Manhattanites would frequently go to Abraham and Strauss in Brooklyn because, quote, it was worth the trip to feel welcomed.

186

If you've never traveled from Harlem to downtown Brooklyn, let me tell you from experience, it's got to be something very important to make you do that.

187

Now, situating things in the context of the Great Migration, the arfulness of Sachs and the arlessness of S.

188

Klein correlated strongly with the number of Black employees, seems like it could have to do with, well, the stigma of Black speech.

189

Gerard van Herck makes a similar argument in the fantastic paper Fear of a Black Phenology, where he basically demonstrates, through quantitative research,

190

that we cannot rule out the Great Migration as a trigger for the northern city's val shift,

191

as the established white locals differentiated themselves in their speech from the influx of black newcomers.

192

All of this brings me to my main argument.

193

Bill LeBove's department store study is not really about the probabilistic

194

behavior of the individual being affected by larger social forces such that, on the aggregate, positive social orientation towards, say, class aspiration or mobility percolate up,

195

and you get a pattern reflective of the direction of the city as a whole and unconscious passing interactions.

196

Say that five times fast.

197

Say that five times.

198

Can't even do that.

199

Instead, Bill Above inadvertently did a study of employment discrimination.

200

I'll say it again.

201

The department store study, regardless what we want it to be, is actually a study of employment discrimination.

202

It still shows the effect of the social on individual linguistic behavior at the level of the sociolinguistic variable, and it even still shows the value of the rapid anonymous survey,

203

despite the many flaws there and the complete lack of Bayesian inference or whatever, or the lack of statistical power.

204

But the point is not to nitpick those little things.

205

The point is that it is neither individual nor unconscious, and therefore not something percolating up to aggregate behavior, but rather it's more than likely top -down conscious policy.

206

It is structural.

207

It is structural racism, among other things.

208

Literally employment discrimination based on accent.

209

He even talks about how at Sax, the foreign accent in speech was Western European, but at S.

210

Klein, it was Jewish.

211

This is not inconsistent, by the way, with Lebov's overall oeuvre.

212

In fact, dialect perception was a huge part of his later work, and I'm sure my ideas about it are largely shaped by his writings in The Principles of Linguistic Change.

213

But it's a radical departure from how his study was initially received and how it's still taught and discussed.

214

I'm 100 % certain Bill would be interested in pursuing these lines of inquiry

215

and I'm deeply sad this isn't a conversation that I could have had with him.

216

Honestly, I can see in my mind's eye his excited reaction to a new idea

217

or a new way of looking at something he'd been investigating for damn near 60 years.

218

We're coming up on almost a year after his passing and I miss him more than ever.

219

My hope would be for sociolinguists to engage with these criticisms sincerely and honestly, to reproduce his study taking factors like unconscious and conscious bias,

220

things that were not yet a concept in academia when he did the study the first time, into account, along with hiring policy

221

and smart statistical approaches to both having sufficient statistical power

222

and a reasonable Bayesian posterior over the probability that you're even sampling the population you think you're sampling from.

223

We have the benefit of hindsight reading the original study, not just in terms of understanding different ethnolexes,

224

different adjacent systems, but also knowing that Bill was performing his experiment at the height of the Great Migration, the beginning of white flight,

225

and the end of institutional segregation.

226

Although fair housing wasn't until 1974, so pat yourself on the back if you said the Fair Housing Act when I said 1974.

227

Anyway, if you like what I'm doing with the channel, you can support it on YouTube with super thanks or over on Patreon at patreon .com slash languagejones.

228

Please leave a comment.

229

They're great for the algorithm and subscribe if you haven't already.

230

If you want more in -depth linguistic content like this, definitely let me know.

231

And if you're using my publications or YouTube videos to teach in your classroom, please let me know that.

232

I love hearing from all of you.

233

Until next time, happy learning.

📺 उसी चैनल से

Fluent Forever

Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults

Uncovering a conspiracy

Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults

✨ अनुशंसित वीडियो

149 वाक्य

इस पाठ की शब्दावली और बोलने के सुझाव

इस वीडियो में शैडोइंग के लिए 233 वाक्य और 3727 शब्द हैं। बोला गया हिस्सा 19:14 लंबा है। वक्ता तेज़ बोलता है, लगभग 194 शब्द प्रति मिनट, इसलिए जुड़ी हुई और कमज़ोर ध्वनियाँ ज़्यादा मिलेंगी। केवल 80% शब्द अंग्रेज़ी के 3,000 सबसे आम शब्दों में से हैं, इसलिए शब्दावली कठिन है।

इस वीडियो की मुख्य शब्दावली

वीडियो के 15 सीखने लायक शब्द, उच्चारण और अर्थ के साथ:

शब्द	उच्चारण	अर्थ
linguistic विशेषण	/lɪŋˈɡwɪstɪk/	भाषाई
pronunciation संज्ञा	/pɹəˌnʌn.siˈeɪ.ʃən/	उच्चारण, तलफ़्फ़ुज़
conscious विशेषण	/ˈkɑn.ʃəs/	सचेत, जागरूक
anonymous विशेषण	/əˈnɒn.ə.məs/	अनाम, अज्ञात
prestige संज्ञा	/pɹɛsˈtiːd͡ʒ/	प्रतिष्ठा
awareness संज्ञा	/əˈwɛɹ.nəs/	जागरूकता
ton संज्ञा	/tʌn/	टन
accent संज्ञा	/ækˈsɛnt/	आघात
unconscious विशेषण	/ˌʌnˈkɑnʃəs/	अचेत
hire क्रिया	/ˈhaɪɹ/	नियुक्त करना
monitor संज्ञा	/ˈmɑ.nɪ.tɚ/	पर्यवेक्षक
discrimination संज्ञा	/dɪskɹɪmɪˈneɪʃən/	भेदभाव, विभेदन
mirror संज्ञा	/ˈmiɹɚ/	दर्पण, शीशा
experiment संज्ञा	/ɪkˈspɛɹ.ə.mənt/	प्रयोग, तजुर्बा
contribution संज्ञा	/ˌkɑntɹɪˈbjuʃən/	योगदान

वीडियो में आने वाली फ़्रेज़ल वर्ब

शब्द	अर्थ
sit down क्रिया	बैठना

ध्यान देने योग्य उच्चारण

वक्ता 50 बार संक्षिप्त रूपों का प्रयोग करता है, जैसे I'm, don't, you're। इन्हें वैसे ही छोटा बोलें जैसा आप सुनते हैं।

“th” की ध्वनियाँ: throat /ˈθɹoʊt/, algorithm /ˈælɡəɹɪðm̩/
“sh” और “zh” की ध्वनियाँ: pronunciation /pɹəˌnʌn.siˈeɪ.ʃən/, conscious /ˈkɑn.ʃəs/, variation /ˌvɛəɹiˈeɪʃn̩/, unconscious /ˌʌnˈkɑnʃəs/, discrimination /dɪskɹɪmɪˈneɪʃən/
लंबे शब्द — बलाघात सही रखें: pronunciation /pɹəˌnʌn.siˈeɪ.ʃən/, anonymous /əˈnɒn.ə.məs/, discrimination /dɪskɹɪmɪˈneɪʃən/, interaction /ˌɪn.təˈɹæk.ʃən/, statistical /stəˈtɪs.tɪ.kəl/

इस वीडियो से अभ्यास कैसे करें

पहले बिना बोले पूरा वीडियो एक बार सुनें और जो शब्द नहीं आते उन्हें लिख लें।
0.75× गति से शुरू करें, एक-एक वाक्य की शैडोइंग करें, और सहज लगने पर सामान्य गति पर लौटें।
अपनी आवाज़ रिकॉर्ड करें और मूल से तुलना करें, ख़ासकर linguistic, pronunciation, conscious जैसे शब्दों पर ध्यान दें।

इस वीडियो का व्याकरण

वक्ता जिन संरचनाओं का सबसे अधिक प्रयोग करता है, वीडियो के असली शब्दों के साथ:

संरचना	वीडियो में
Passive voice be + past participle — ज़ोर इस पर कि क्या होता है, न कि कौन करता है	isn't just indebted · was asked · be proven
Relative clauses who / which + उपवाक्य — व्यक्ति या वस्तु के बारे में अतिरिक्त जानकारी	People who all · City, which was · community, which can
Present perfect have/has + past participle — बीता हुआ काम जिसका असर अभी भी है	I've ever met · have read · have introduced

शैडोइंग तकनीक क्या है?

शैडोइंग (Shadowing) एक विज्ञान-समर्थित भाषा सीखने की तकनीक है जो मूल रूप से पेशेवर दुभाषिया प्रशिक्षण के लिए विकसित की गई थी। विधि सरल लेकिन शक्तिशाली है: आप मूल अंग्रेज़ी ऑडियो सुनते हैं और तुरंत इसे ज़ोर से दोहराते हैं — जैसे वक्ता की छाया 1-2 सेकंड की देरी से। शोध से पता चलता है कि यह उच्चारण सटीकता, स्वर, लय, जुड़ी हुई ध्वनियाँ, सुनने की समझ और बोलने की प्रवाहशीलता में काफ़ी सुधार करता है।

शैडोइंग तकनीक: पूरी चरण-दर-चरण गाइड पढ़ें →

शैडोइंग अभ्यास: Are we WRONG about most FAMOUS LINGUISTICS experiment?? - वीडियो के साथ अंग्रेजी बोलना सीखें

Fluent Forever

Uncovering a conspiracy

SEM141 - Speech Acts - An Overview

Introduction to Cognitive Bias: Crash Course Scientific Thinking #1

Linguistic Relativity

Contemporary Topics 2 Unit 2 Lecture with Powerpoint

Stephen Fry Kinetic Typography - Language

RE2 Unit 11B

Steven Pinker: Linguistics as a Window to Understanding the Brain | Big Think

The illusion that broken the internet

Why everyone stopped reading.

Language Acquisition: Crash Course Linguistics #12

How Language Shapes the Way We Think • Professor Lera Boroditsky • Duocon 2022