Pragmatic Markers and Sociolinguistic Variation: A Relevance-Theoretic Approach to the Language of Adolescents (review)

Abstract

Reviewed by: Pragmatic markers and sociolinguistic variation: A relevance-theoretic approach to the language of adolescents by Gisle Andersen Zdenek Salzmann Pragmatic markers and sociolinguistic variation: A relevance-theoretic approach to the language of adolescents. By Gisle Andersen. (Pragmatics and beyond new series 84.) Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2001. Pp. ix, 352. The main objective of this book by Gisle Andersen of the University of Bergen is ‘to describe ways in which the language of adolescents differs from the language of the adult generation and from mainstream English more generally’ (301). The book is divided into six chapters ranging from general introductory material to a survey of the most important findings of the study as well as suggestions for future research. A few specifics concerning the scope of the work: The primary source of data for the study was the Bergen Corpus of London Teenage Language collected in 1993. To the extent that the social background of the speakers could be identified, the corpus is distributed evenly across the ‘low’, ‘middle’, and ‘high’ social classes. Although different ethnic groups were represented in the corpus, information concerning these groups is lacking. The second source of data, used for comparison, is a subset of the British National Corpus, with the speakers mostly adults from the London area. The two corpora are comparable in most but not all respects. The results of A’s research are presented in Chs. 4 and 5. Ch. 4, ‘Invariant tags and follow-ups’ (97–208), deals with the use of the forms innit (that is, ain’t it or isn’t it) and is it. The author first describes these two markers from the point of view of their pragmatic function in adolescent conversations. For example, historically they both consist of the singular neuter pronoun it; however, both are used not only as tags and follow-ups in all grammatical contexts but are also occasionally directed toward higher-level information such as implication or presupposition. As for the diachronic development reflected in the use of innit and is it, A has a number of points to make, with the process of their development summarized in an informative table (208). The pragmatic marker like is discussed in Ch. 5 (209–99). Although the marker has a history in traditional dialects of British English, according to A its frequent and versatile use by London teenagers is for the most part the result of the fairly recent influence of American English usage. As in the case of the first two markers, the pragmatic functions and diachronic development of like are discussed, summarized, and diagrammed. While the work is limited to only a few features, it is exemplary. All three markers are discussed in depth, and their usage is generously documented. The text is supplemented by notes (311–19), references (321–40), three brief appendixes, and an index. Zdenek Salzmann Northern Arizona University Copyright © 2002 Linguistic Society of America