Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 16:34:58 +0900
From: Daniel Long dlong[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]JOHO.OSAKA-SHOIN.AC.JP
Subject: Re: "uptalk"
I have a question about this:
One of the things Cindie has pointed out is how widespread it is, and
how malleable to social function-- she studied a Texas sorority where
it obviously couldn't "mean" the identity "young white female" since
every single member was obviously that.
I see what you mean about it being unnecessary for these young white females to demonstrate to
each other that they were young white females. But I thought identity played a bigger role in
language use than that. Can't the use of certain langauge variants (or whole varieties) serve
the purpose of reinforcing a speakers identity, not just to show the others people in the group
that "I'm one of you", but to continually reinforce that message?
For example, in Japanese, women use "women's language" in a variable way, especially when they
want the person they want to be sure that the listener is *consciousness* of the fact that they
are a woman (when acting romantic, as opposed to acting businesslike, etc.). I think the same
thing could be said here of "men's language", or of USA BEV, etc. even in cases where it obvious
that the speaker is a male, or is African-American, etc.
Danny "like, who doesn't use uptalk?" Long