Abstract
Dr. Scott Kiesling (University of Pittsburgh)
Toughness has been used for decades in sociolinguistic studies as a concept to explain the motivations for the use of different linguistic forms, especially in sociolinguistic variationist work (for example, see Trudgill's 1974 classic use of the term to explain covert prestige). But toughness has never been interrogated as a concept itself. In this paper, then, I turn a spotlight on this term, and reveal that it has much to teach us about explanation and meaning in sociolinguistics. After demonstrating its wide use both numerically and in what tough comes to modify, I show how toughness can be theorized as a transportable quality that participates in dense assemblages of meaning (similar to the semiotic assemblages of Pennycook 2021 or language ideological assemblages of Kroskrity 2021). I explore how these terms encompass and improve upon current models for social meaning in sociolinguistics such as indirect indexicality, semiotic alignment, and indexical field.
References
Kroskrity, Paul V. (2021)"Language ideological assemblages within linguistic anthropology." In: Crossing borders, making connections: Interdisciplinarity in linguistics, Vol. 1, Allison Burkette and Tamara Warhol, eds. Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG. 129-141.
Trudgill, P. (1974). The social differentiation of English in Norwich. Cambridge University Press.
Pennycook, Alastair. (2021) "Reassembling linguistics: Semiotic and epistemic assemblages." Crossing Borders, Making Connections: Interdisciplinarity in Linguistics, Vol. 1 Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG. 111-128.
Location and Address
G8 Cathedral