< Back to previous page

Project

Sociolinguistic gatekeeping with indexical variation: a quantitative-qualitative investigation of the endexical value of Standard and Colloquial Belgian Dutch variation in 'elderspeak' in Flemish nursing homes

In many Western societies, elders (>65 years) are gradually becoming a larger demographic (OECD Data, 2016), yet at the same time, a complaint frequently heard among the older generations is that people no longer respect their elders. This complaint is supported by a linguistic phenomenon studied in Sociolinguistics known as ‘elderspeak’ (Kemper, 1994). Elderspeak refers to a cluster of linguistic features utilized by younger adults to address older adults. Such features include 'overbearing' and 'excessively directive and disciplinary speech', but also speech production that is as clear and simple as possible (Coupland et al., 1988). The reason for speakers to make use of this variety lies with their (subconscious) perception of the older adult, often influenced by stereotype (cf. 'stigma', Goffman, 1963). These ageism stereotypes (Coupland, 2009) stem from the assumption that the older adult suffers from decreased capabilities due to increasing age. Such decreased capabilities may be related to, for example, hearing and cognition, but also speech impairments or physical incapacities. As such, the younger adult accommodates what they perceive to be diminished capabilities. This form of accommodation is termed ‘overaccommodation’ (as one of the types of ‘non-accommodation’, Giles & Gasiorek, 2013). One consequence of using elderspeak is that the younger adult ‘can control the relationship and induce the elderly individual to become dependent on the former’ (Coupland et al., 1988). In this respect, the use of elderspeak is related to issues of power and ideology (Verschueren, 1999). By adopting elderspeak in interaction with older adults, the speaker engages in a form of identity reduction, acknowledging the older adult not as a complex, multi-faceted being, instead identifying them as part of an uncomplicated group of people based on perceived lesser capabilities. The younger adult thus casts the older adult into an outgroup category, marking them as not part of the ingroup. Accommodation as an identity reduction mechanism is thus a form of gatekeeping (as used in Tranekjær, 2015), through which the own category is safeguarded by way of exclusion of those perceived to be part of an outgroup.

 

In the specific linguistic environment of Dutch-speaking Belgium (i.e. the region of Flanders), these gatekeeping processes may among others be indexicalized in linguistic variation between Standard Belgian Dutch and Colloquial Belgian Dutch variants. Due to historical causes, the 17th-century standardization wave around Europe was delayed in Flanders until the 20th century. At this point, the other Dutch-speaking region in Europe, the Netherlands, had already established a Dutch language standard and Belgian language ideologists opted for introducing the Dutch standard from the North into the South. In the subsequent push for standardization in Dutch-speaking Belgium, the Flemish took on this exogenous standard only in part, having the supraregional variety of Colloquial Belgian Dutch as a collateral outcome. Today, the result of this massive language exercise is noticeable in the diaglossic continuum (Auer, 2005) in which the current Standard Belgian Dutch and Colloquial Belgian Dutch varieties are upheld. Because of the diaglossic environment, speakers of Colloquial Belgian Dutch are able to move through features associated with both varieties, adopting clusters of different features depending on contextual circumstance. I hypothesize that, in specific contexts, such as interaction with older adults, ingrouping/outgrouping may be executed through deployment of this variational element, where choosing the Standard variant instead of the Colloquial variant indexicalizes a perceived asymmetrical relation with regard to capabilities of the younger and the older adult.

The project involves a combined application of qualitative (micro) and quantitative (macro) approaches (cf. Van De Mieroop, Zenner & Marzo, 2016; ‘Variational Pragmatics’, Schneider & Barron, 2008). Qualitatively, Membership Categorization Analysis (Schegloff, 2007; Stokoe, 2012) will be applied to investigate the ingroup/outgroup work done by the nurses. Quantitatively, variation between Standard Belgian Dutch and Colloquial Belgian Dutch will be analyzed to investigate the indexicality of the perceived asymmetry, underscoring the category work done by the younger adults. Statistical methods (e.g. logistic regression analysis, cf. Speelman, 2014) will be applied to understand the significance of the variation in this context. Data will be collected in at least 4 nursing homes in the provinces of Antwerp and Flemish Brabant. Interactions with residents during nurses’ rounds and in a communal room will be recorded for this purpose, resulting in a corpus of at least 25 hours. Theoretically, findings will contribute to research into the implications of the emergence of the young Colloquial Belgian Dutch variety, while it will also add to our sociolinguistic knowledge on how supposed ‘incapable’ adults are treated. Methodologically, this project will be particularly innovative by bringing together – the currently often segregated – quantitative and qualitative approaches.

 

References

Auer, P. (2005). Europe’s sociolinguistic unity, or: A typology of European dialect/standard constellations. In N. Delbecque, J. van der Auwera & D. Geeraerts (Eds.), Perspectives on variation: sociolinguistic, historical, comparative (pp. 7–42). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Coupland, J. (2009). Time, the body and the reversibility of ageing: commodifying the decade. Ageing and Society, 29, 953–976.

Coupland, N., Coupland, J., Giles, H., & Henwood, K. (1988). Accommodating the Elderly: Invoking and Extending a Theory. Language in Society, 17(1), 1–41.

Giles, H., & Gasiorek, J. (2013). Parameters of non-accommodation: Refining and elaborating communication accommodation theory. In J. Forgas, O. Vincze & J. László (Eds.), Social cognition and communication (pp. 155–172). New York: Psychology Press.

Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma. London: Penguin.

Kemper, S. (1994). Elderspeak: Speech accommodations to older adults. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 1(1), 17–28.

OECD. (2016). Elderly population (indicator). The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (Data). doi: 10.1787/8d805ea1-en. Retrieved from: https://data.oecd.org/pop/elderly-population.htm#indicator-chart.

Schegloff, E. (2007). A tutorial on membership categorization. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 462–482.

Schneider, K. P., & Barron, A. (2008). Variational pragmatics: A focus on regional varieties in pluricentric languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Speelman, D. (2014). Logistic regression. A confirmatory technique for comparisons in corpus linguistics. In D. Glynn & J. A. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus Methods for Semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy (pp. 487–533). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Stokoe, E. (2012). Moving forward with membership categorization analysis: Methods for systematic analysis. Discourse Studies, 14(3), 277–303.

Tranekjaer, L. (2015). Interactional Categorization and Gatekeeping: Institutional Encounters with Otherness. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Van De Mieroop, D., Zenner, E., & Marzo, S. (2016). Standard and Colloquial Belgian Dutch pronouns of address: A variationist-interactional study of child-directed speech in dinner table interactions. Folia Linguistica: Acta Societatis Linguisticae Europaea,50(1), 31–64.

Verschueren, J. (Ed.). (1999). Language and Ideology. Antwerp: International Pragmatics Association.

Date:1 Oct 2016 →  11 Dec 2017
Keywords:Membership Categorization Analysis, Standard Belgian Dutch / Colloquial Belgian Dutch, Belgisch Standaardnederlands / Tussentaal, variation, elderspeak, ingroup/outgroup, overaccommodation, gatekeeping, indexicality, qualitative-quantitative research, Variationist Sociolinguistics
Disciplines:Theory and methodology of literary studies
Project type:PhD project