*A Chinese walks into a bar...: English Ethnonym Ideologies Lauren Hall-Lew Elisabeth Norcliffe Stanford University

Intro: An ethnonym classification (Tuite 1995) Only collective usage; no formal singular Sibilant ending Sg and pl formally identical Regular sg/pl opposition English, French, Welsh… III Chinese, Portuguese, Swiss… II German, American Turk, Finn I

German, American

Turk, Finn

Intro: Observed Judgments * There was a Chinese at the beach. There was a Chinese person at the beach. There was a German at the beach. *There was a French at the beach. ?? There were two Chinese … ? There were several Chinese … There were thousands of Chinese …

* There was a Chinese at the beach.

There was a Chinese person at the beach.

There was a German at the beach.

*There was a French at the beach.

?? There were two Chinese …

? There were several Chinese …

There were thousands of Chinese …

The Genoeses, Chinesaas and Japenesaas 16 th century English allowed regular plural inflection on these forms [OED] Loss of plural inflection in the 17th and 18th centuries Resulting form is still sibilant final

16 th century English allowed regular plural inflection on these forms [OED]

Loss of plural inflection in the 17th and 18th centuries

Resulting form is still sibilant final

Chinese, Portuguese, Swiss: An account Sibilant final ending gives the appearance of plural inflection Final sibilant blocks formal singular/plural opposition Sibilant final ending + lack of number contrast aligns these forms with the class of plural mass nouns

Sibilant final ending gives the appearance of plural inflection

Final sibilant blocks formal singular/plural opposition

Sibilant final ending + lack of number contrast aligns these forms with the class of plural mass nouns

Plural mass nouns Plural mass nouns are peculiar (Frawley 1992): They occur only in the plural They can’t be enumerated *There were two oats on the table *You left several grits on your plate ??The cook chopped a hundred chives tonight ?There were thousands of coffee grounds in the pot

Plural mass nouns are peculiar (Frawley 1992):

They occur only in the plural

They can’t be enumerated

*There were two oats on the table

*You left several grits on your plate

??The cook chopped a hundred chives tonight

?There were thousands of coffee grounds in the pot

Properties of Ethnonyms III II I English, French, Welsh… Chinese, Portuguese, Swiss German, American Turk, Finn Adjectival Only collective usage; no formal singular Sibilant ending, Properties of mass plurals and collectives; no formal singular Regular sg/pl opposition. Inflects for the collective

German, American

Turk, Finn

The Social Dimension: Pilot Observations Many people judge sentences with (certain classes of) ethnonyms to be impolite: I saw a German at the beach  I saw a Turk at the beach  I saw a Chinese at the beach

Many people judge sentences with (certain classes of) ethnonyms to be impolite:

I saw a German at the beach

 I saw a Turk at the beach

 I saw a Chinese at the beach

Word Category & Politeness Nouns are perceived as more impolite than adjectives when referring to individuals (Wierzbicka 1986) She’s crippled vs. She’s a cripple He’s gay vs. He’s a gay Nouns categorize, they denote a kind Adjectives merely describe a property out of many of potentially equal importance

Nouns are perceived as more impolite than adjectives when referring to individuals (Wierzbicka 1986)

She’s crippled vs. She’s a cripple

He’s gay vs. He’s a gay

Nouns categorize, they denote a kind

Adjectives merely describe a property out of many of potentially equal importance

Word Category & Politeness Applied to ethnonyms… Turk, Brit : nouns, and therefore susceptible to being perceived as impolite (Note: perjoration of many nominal ethnonyms over time: Vandal, Philistine, Bushman, Gypsy ) German, American : deadjectival Chinese, Portuguese, Swiss : ???

Applied to ethnonyms…

Turk, Brit : nouns, and therefore susceptible to being perceived as impolite (Note: perjoration of many nominal ethnonyms over time: Vandal, Philistine, Bushman, Gypsy )

German, American : deadjectival

Chinese, Portuguese, Swiss : ???

Word Category & Politeness Mass plurals aren’t even grammatical when referring to an individual, so why are they perceived as impolite at all?

Word Category & Politeness Grammatical unacceptability may be perceived as impolite language use (in the domain of word classes referring to categories of people/nationalities/ethnicities…)

Grammatical unacceptability may be perceived as impolite language use

(in the domain of word classes referring to categories of people/nationalities/ethnicities…)

Predictions For Chinese, Portuguese, Swiss: Grammaticality judgments should improve as number increases Politeness judgments should accordingly improve as number increases For German, Turk: Number should have no effect on grammaticality Number should have no effect on politeness

For Chinese, Portuguese, Swiss:

Grammaticality judgments should improve as number increases

Politeness judgments should accordingly improve as number increases

For German, Turk:

Number should have no effect on grammaticality

Number should have no effect on politeness

The Social Dimension: Pilot Questions Do judgments reflect ideologies about politeness when referring to ethnic groups and cultural identities? Do judgments reflect a change-in-progress for the grammaticality and social acceptability of ethnonym use? Older people seem less likely to give negative judgments Are judgments patterned according to demographic factors? e.g. , Age, Sex, or Dialect

Do judgments reflect ideologies about politeness when referring to ethnic groups and cultural identities?

Do judgments reflect a change-in-progress for the grammaticality and social acceptability of ethnonym use?

Older people seem less likely to give negative judgments

Are judgments patterned according to demographic factors?

e.g. , Age, Sex, or Dialect

Methods: The Survey Web-based questionnaire 1 , 109 sentences, 5 questions/sentence Could you imagine ever saying this? Do you think this sounds old-fashioned? Do you think this sounds impolite? Do you think this is a grammatical sentence? Does this sound like your dialect? 8 ethnonyms Basque, Chinese, Chinaman, Finnish, French, German, Jewish/Jew, Portuguese, Swiss, Turkish/Turk 1 http://www.surveymonkey.com

Web-based questionnaire 1 , 109 sentences, 5 questions/sentence

Could you imagine ever saying this?

Do you think this sounds old-fashioned?

Do you think this sounds impolite?

Do you think this is a grammatical sentence?

Does this sound like your dialect?

8 ethnonyms

Basque, Chinese, Chinaman, Finnish, French, German, Jewish/Jew, Portuguese, Swiss, Turkish/Turk

Methods: The Survey 7 number groups singular, plural, collective, ‘ several ,’ ‘ a couple ,’ ‘ a thousand ’, ‘ thousands of ’ singular and ‘a couple’ presented both with and without ‘__ person/people’ e.g., “A Chinese was…” “A Chinese person was…” “A couple of Chinese people were…” Sentences randomized

7 number groups

singular, plural, collective, ‘ several ,’ ‘ a couple ,’ ‘ a thousand ’, ‘ thousands of ’

singular and ‘a couple’ presented both with and without ‘__ person/people’

e.g., “A Chinese was…” “A Chinese person was…” “A couple of Chinese people were…”

Sentences randomized

Methods: The Survey Demographic data collected Native language (all English) Dialects of English spoken while growing up Dialect of English spoken now Main dialect of English in place of residence Primary nationality Year of birth Gender Occupation & number of years of education

Demographic data collected

Native language (all English)

Dialects of English spoken while growing up

Dialect of English spoken now

Main dialect of English in place of residence

Primary nationality

Year of birth

Gender

Occupation & number of years of education

Methods: The Participants Total: 208 respondents, 5 major international English dialects, wide age range, significant ethnic diversity. For Analysis: (N = 36) Respondents: (19) U.S. (12) N.Z. (5) U.K. (20) 1970s-1980s (16) 1940s-1950s or older (21) F (15) M

Total: 208 respondents, 5 major international English dialects, wide age range, significant ethnic diversity.

For Analysis: (N = 36) Respondents:

(19) U.S. (12) N.Z. (5) U.K.

(20) 1970s-1980s (16) 1940s-1950s or older

(21) F (15) M

Methods: The Analysis Survey coded for every condition GoldVarb 2001 2 used for statistical analysis Tests run for grammaticality & politeness Comparing across ethnonyms Comparing across number groups Comparing across speakers 2 J.S. Robinson, H.R. Lawrence & S.A. Tagliamonte (2001) http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/lang/webstuff/goldvarb/

Survey coded for every condition

GoldVarb 2001 2 used for statistical analysis

Tests run for grammaticality & politeness

Comparing across ethnonyms

Comparing across number groups

Comparing across speakers

Results: Grammaticality Nominal use of Chinese/Swiss/Portuguese (CSP) rated significantly less grammatical than the adjectival CSP-Person (p ≤ 0.000) Nominal use of Basque/German (BG) rated just as grammatical as the adjectival BG-Person (difference at p ≤ 0.220)

Nominal use of Chinese/Swiss/Portuguese (CSP) rated significantly less grammatical than the adjectival CSP-Person (p ≤ 0.000)

Nominal use of Basque/German (BG) rated just as grammatical as the adjectival BG-Person (difference at p ≤ 0.220)

Results: Grammaticality Non-adjectival CSP gains grammatical acceptability from the singular to the plural: a Chinese vs. two Chinese p ≤ 0.001 Unlike, e.g. , German & Turk: a German/Turk vs. two Germans/Turks p ≤ 0.096

Non-adjectival CSP gains grammatical acceptability from the singular to the plural:

a Chinese vs. two Chinese

p ≤ 0.001

Unlike, e.g. , German & Turk:

a German/Turk vs. two Germans/Turks

p ≤ 0.096

Results: Grammaticality Non-adjectival CSP gains grammatical acceptability as the number approaches a ‘mass’-like, non-individuating quantity: a Chinese vs. the Chinese (collective) p ≤ 0.000 several Chinese vs. thousands of Chinese p ≤ 0.036 two/a couple vs. a thousand/thousands/ collective p ≤ 0.000 For, e.g. , German/Turk, the corresponding values are non-significant (p ≤ 0.746, p ≤ 0.340, p ≤ 0.986)

Non-adjectival CSP gains grammatical acceptability as the number approaches a ‘mass’-like, non-individuating quantity:

a Chinese vs. the Chinese (collective)

p ≤ 0.000

several Chinese vs. thousands of Chinese

p ≤ 0.036

two/a couple vs. a thousand/thousands/ collective

p ≤ 0.000

For, e.g. , German/Turk, the corresponding values are non-significant (p ≤ 0.746, p ≤ 0.340, p ≤ 0.986)

Results: Grammaticality Non-adjectival CSP is rated as less grammatical than the nominal Turk (in a direct comparison) . Non-adjectival CSP is rated as more grammatical than a nominal use of the adjective French . This is held true for both cases across all number-group conditions

Non-adjectival CSP is rated as less grammatical than the nominal Turk (in a direct comparison) .

Non-adjectival CSP is rated as more grammatical than a nominal use of the adjective French .

This is held true for both cases across all number-group conditions

Results: Politeness Nominal use of Chinese/Swiss/Portuguese (CSP) rated significantly more impolite than the adjectival CSP-person (p ≤ 0.000) Nominal use of Turk is also rated significantly more impolite than the adjectival variant, Turkish person (p ≤ 0.000) Nominal use of Basque/German (BG) rated just as polite as adjectival BG-person (difference at p ≤ 0.297)

Nominal use of Chinese/Swiss/Portuguese (CSP) rated significantly more impolite than the adjectival CSP-person (p ≤ 0.000)

Nominal use of Turk is also rated significantly more impolite than the adjectival variant, Turkish person (p ≤ 0.000)

Nominal use of Basque/German (BG) rated just as polite as adjectival BG-person (difference at p ≤ 0.297)

Results: Politeness Unlike the results for grammaticality, CSP loses ratings of impoliteness only at very large differences in number group: a Chinese vs. two Chinese (p ≤ 0.515) two Chinese vs. a thousand (p ≤ 0.000) a thousand vs. thousands (p ≤ 0.988)

Unlike the results for grammaticality, CSP loses ratings of impoliteness only at very large differences in number group:

a Chinese vs. two Chinese (p ≤ 0.515)

two Chinese vs. a thousand (p ≤ 0.000)

a thousand vs. thousands (p ≤ 0.988)

Results: Politeness Comparison of politeness ratings across ethnonyms shows the following ranking: VARBRUL WEIGHT German 0.183 Swiss 0.208 Portuguese 0.458 Turk 0.503 Chinese 0.647 Jew 0.778 Chinaman 0.887 More polite in singular context Less polite in singular context

Comparison of politeness ratings across ethnonyms shows the following ranking:

Results: Demographics: Age Grammaticality Although there is a general decrease with age in terms of the acceptability of CSP ethnonyms, the correlation is weak

Grammaticality

Although there is a general decrease with age in terms of the acceptability of CSP ethnonyms, the correlation is weak

Results: Demographics: Age Politeness Similarly, ratings for CSP forms as impolite do increase with time, but the correlation is still weak

Politeness

Similarly, ratings for CSP forms as impolite do increase with time, but the correlation is still weak

Results: Demographics: Sex No apparent differences between male and female respondents:

Results: Demographics: Dialect But provocative differences between US and New Zealand respondents: No dialect difference for grammaticality, but Americans find CSP ethnonyms more impolite than Kiwis. An ideology of (avoiding) non-“P.C.” language?

Discussion: Grammaticality Sibilant-final ethnonyms become more acceptable with: Small number  Large number Singular  Plural use This is predicted on the basis of the peculiar morphophonological properties of this word class: No number contrast (=mass plural) Apparent plural ending (= non singular)

Sibilant-final ethnonyms become more acceptable with:

Small number  Large number

Singular  Plural use

This is predicted on the basis of the peculiar morphophonological properties of this word class:

No number contrast (=mass plural)

Apparent plural ending (= non singular)

Discussion: Politeness Politeness Judgments Grammaticality Judgments Word Class (N, Deadj N/Adj)

Discussion: Politeness Sibilant-final ethnonyms become more acceptable with: Small number  Large number Singular  Plural use This is predicted on the basis of our proposal that grammaticality and politeness judgments may be correlated for English ethnonyms. More grammatical  more polite

Sibilant-final ethnonyms become more acceptable with:

Small number  Large number

Singular  Plural use

This is predicted on the basis of our proposal that grammaticality and politeness judgments may be correlated for English ethnonyms.

More grammatical  more polite

Discussion: Politeness Perceived politeness is correlated with word category Turkish, French, Chinese person, German Turk Jew Chinaman Adjectives & Deadjectival Nouns  Nouns

Perceived politeness is correlated with word category

Adjectives &

Deadjectival Nouns

Discussion: Grammaticality and Politeness Thus, precisely in the class where there are number dependent grammaticality ratings, we find associated number dependent politeness ratings. (Chinese/Portuguese/Swiss) Where grammaticality does not vary according to number, we accordingly find no variation in politeness perception. Rather, politeness is conditioned by word category. (German/Turk/Chinese person etc)

Discussion: Demographics Age results suggest a potential change over time for both grammaticality and politeness, but the evidence is not robust. (Because 1940s speakers are ahead of their time!) Men and women showed no significant difference in grammaticality ratings For grammaticality, US vs. NZ respondents showed no significant difference. For politeness, Americans had significantly higher ratings for impoliteness than New Zealanders.

Age results suggest a potential change over time for both grammaticality and politeness, but the evidence is not robust. (Because 1940s speakers are ahead of their time!)

Men and women showed no significant difference in grammaticality ratings

For grammaticality, US vs. NZ respondents showed no significant difference.

For politeness, Americans had significantly higher ratings for impoliteness than New Zealanders.

Conclusion Within socially sensitive word classes such as ethnonyms, unacceptability resulting from ungrammaticality can be construed as impoliteness. Comparable systems of ethnonym grammaticality may correlate with different rates of politeness, depending on cultures’ ideologies about ethnicity and language.

Within socially sensitive word classes such as ethnonyms, unacceptability resulting from ungrammaticality can be construed as impoliteness.

Comparable systems of ethnonym grammaticality may correlate with different rates of politeness, depending on cultures’ ideologies about ethnicity and language.

Future Directions Words that are interesting: Jew (compare Jew/non-Jewish speakers) Pekinese (dogs are OK in singular!) Togolese (suffix choice in novel forms?) Data (changing mass/noun differences)

Words that are interesting:

Jew (compare Jew/non-Jewish speakers)

Pekinese (dogs are OK in singular!)

Togolese (suffix choice in novel forms?)

Data (changing mass/noun differences)

Future Directions How are ethnonym classes best distinguished? How can we account for different levels of acceptability (singular vs. ‘several’)? Does the perception of adjectives being more polite than nouns hold cross-linguistically? In languages with minimal distinctions between categories? What will a corpus study tell us about changes over time? Can we use experimental techniques to get more directly at people’s judgments?

How are ethnonym classes best distinguished?

How can we account for different levels of acceptability (singular vs. ‘several’)?

Does the perception of adjectives being more polite than nouns hold cross-linguistically?

In languages with minimal distinctions between categories?

What will a corpus study tell us about changes over time?

Can we use experimental techniques to get more directly at people’s judgments?

Acknowledgements Paul Kiparsky, Beth Levin, Arnold Zwicky, Arto Anttila, Penny Eckert, Norma Mendoza-Denton and the Stanford Language Ideology class (Spring 2006) The 208 people who responded to our very lengthy survey… And you, for attending to our talk today!

Paul Kiparsky, Beth Levin, Arnold Zwicky, Arto Anttila, Penny Eckert, Norma Mendoza-Denton and the Stanford Language Ideology class (Spring 2006)

The 208 people who responded to our very lengthy survey…

And you, for attending to our talk today!

References Frawley, W. 1992. Linguistic Semantics, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ. Pullum, G. 1975. “PEOPLE DELETION in English.” OSU WPL 18.172-183. Robinson, J.S., H.R. Lawrence & S.A. Tagliamonte. (2001). Goldvarb 2001 . http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/lang/webstuff/goldvarb/ Tuite, K. 1995. The declension of ethnonyms in English. Proceedings of the 21st annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society ( BLS 21); 491-502 Wierzbicka, A. 1986. “What’s in a noun? (Or: How do nouns differ in meaning from adjectives?)” Studies in Language . 10-2, 353-389.

Frawley, W. 1992. Linguistic Semantics, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.

Pullum, G. 1975. “PEOPLE DELETION in English.” OSU WPL 18.172-183.

Robinson, J.S., H.R. Lawrence & S.A. Tagliamonte. (2001). Goldvarb 2001 . http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/lang/webstuff/goldvarb/

Tuite, K. 1995. The declension of ethnonyms in English. Proceedings of the 21st annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society ( BLS 21); 491-502

Wierzbicka, A. 1986. “What’s in a noun? (Or: How do nouns differ in meaning from adjectives?)” Studies in Language . 10-2, 353-389.