Identity and relationships in language varieties

English Language 7701 · AQA AS Level · 12 min read · Updated: 27 Aug 2026

Welcome to Language Diversity: Identity and Relationships

Welcome to your complete revision guide for Paper 2 Section A: Language Diversity (AQA AS Level English Language 7701). In this paper, you will explore how people use language to construct their personal and social identities, signal who they are, and build or break relationships with others.

Don't worry if this topic feels vast at first. Language diversity is simply the study of how and why we talk differently depending on who we are, where we are from, who we are speaking to, and what we want to achieve. Let's break it down step-by-step.

The Exam Blueprint: What You Need to Know

• Paper: Paper 2: Language Varieties (7701/2)
• Section: Section A: Language Diversity
• Task: Answer one discursive essay question from a choice of two options.
• Total Marks: 30 marks in total.
• Assessment Objectives:
- AO1 (15 marks): Apply linguistic methods, terminology, and analysis levels accurately.
- AO2 (15 marks): Demonstrate critical understanding of concepts, theories, and social attitudes surrounding language diversity.

1. The Linguistic Analysis Toolkit (AO1 Essentials)

To score top marks in AO1, you must analyze examples using precise linguistic framework levels rather than making broad comments. Whenever you discuss a theorist or a real-world language example, anchor your explanation in one of these four levels:

• Phonetics, Phonology, and Prosodics: How sounds are produced and heard. This includes accents, Received Pronunciation (RP), glottal stops (e.g., replacing the /t/ sound in bottle), th-fronting (pronouncing think as fink), rhoticity (pronouncing the /r/ after vowels), intonation, and pitch.
• Lexis and Semantics: Word choices and meanings. This includes slang, jargon, field-specific lexis, colloquialisms, idioms, neologisms (newly coined words), and semantic derogation (where words acquire negative meanings over time).
• Grammar and Morphology: Sentence structure and word formations. Look out for non-standard grammar, such as double negation (e.g., "I didn't do nothing"), unmarked plurals (e.g., "ten pound" instead of "ten pounds"), non-standard pronouns (e.g., "give it to us" meaning "give it to me"), and modal auxiliary verbs.
• Pragmatics and Discourse: Contextual and implied meanings, interaction rules, turn-taking patterns, interruptions, overlaps, topic management, and politeness strategies.

Analogy to remember: Think of these frameworks as four different camera lenses. When observing a conversation, you can zoom in on sound (phonology), word choice (lexis), sentence rules (grammar), or social interaction (pragmatics).

Key Takeaway: Never just mention a theory without backing it up with linguistic frameworks. Theorist + Linguistic Level + Example = High Marks.

A sociolect is a variety of language associated with a particular social group, class, or subculture. How do we use language to mark our belonging to a group?

A. William Labov (1966) – New York Department Store Study

Labov investigated the pronunciation of the post-vocalic /r/ sound (the rhotic /r/ in words like fourth floor) across three department stores representing different social classes: Saks (upper class), Macy's (middle class), and S. Klein (lower class).
• Findings: Speakers in Saks used the standard post-vocalic /r/ most frequently, while S. Klein used it least. When asked to repeat themselves carefully, Macy's middle-class speakers showed the greatest shift toward the prestige form.
• Key Concepts:
- Overt Prestige: Seeking status by conforming to standard, widely recognized, high-prestige linguistic norms (associated with the establishment and formal education).
- Hypercorrection: An over-use of formal/standard forms, often seen in the lower-middle class striving for higher social standing.

B. William Labov (1963) – Martha's Vineyard

Labov studied the pronunciation of diphthongs (such as /aw/ and /ay/ in words like mouse and mice) on the island of Martha's Vineyard.
• Findings: A group of local fishermen exaggerated their traditional island vowel sounds (vowel centralization) to signal their distinct local identity and distance themselves from summer tourists.
• Key Concept: Covert Prestige: Choosing non-standard or local linguistic forms to demonstrate solidarity, toughness, or belonging to a specific social network or community.

C. Peter Trudgill (1974) – Norwich Study

Trudgill investigated the non-standard pronunciation of the velar nasal consonant variable: replacing the standard [ŋ] sound with non-standard [n] (e.g., saying walkin' instead of walking).
• Findings: The non-standard [n] form was used much more frequently by working-class speakers than middle-class speakers. Across all social classes, men used the non-standard form more than women.
• Self-Reporting: Women tended to over-report their use of standard English (claiming they spoke more standardly than they did), while men tended to under-report their use of standard forms (seeking covert prestige).

D. Penelope Eckert (1989, 2000) – Jocks and Burnouts (Belten High)

Eckert studied American high school adolescents and argued that social identity is formed through active social practices rather than fixed social class brackets alone.
• The Jocks: School-oriented, institutional participants who used more standard, prestigious linguistic forms.
• The Burnouts: Anti-establishment, rebellious group who actively used non-standard features, urban vowel shifts, and taboo lexis to signal solidarity and resistance to school authority.

Quick Memory Aid:
• Overt Prestige: Official, public status (Standard English, RP).
• Covert Prestige: "Under-the-radar" street credibility and group loyalty.

Key Takeaway: Identity is not passive. People actively choose linguistic features (vowels, grammar, lexis) to signal who they belong with (solidarity) and who they stand apart from (social distance).

3. Language and Enacting Relationships

Language is our primary tool for navigating relationships, managing power dynamics, and showing politeness.

A. Lesley Milroy (1980) – Belfast Study & Social Network Theory

Milroy investigated working-class communities in Belfast to see how close-knit relationships affect speech.
• Dense / Closed Multiplex Networks: When the people you work with are also your neighbours, friends, and family (high density, multiple ties). Milroy found that dense multiplex networks act as strong norm-enforcement mechanisms, reinforcing vernacular (non-standard) dialect forms.
• Open / Uniplex Networks: When your social contacts do not know one another (single ties). These open networks encourage more standard language variation and flexibility.

B. Howard Giles (1973/1979) – Communication Accommodation Theory (CAT)

Giles suggested that when we interact, we adjust our speech style to manage social distance and relationship dynamics.
• Convergence: Adapting your speech style to resemble your interlocutor's language more closely. This reduces social distance and builds rapport.
- Upward Convergence: Shifting toward standard, prestigious forms (e.g., during a job interview).
- Downward Convergence: Shifting toward informal or non-standard forms to fit in with a peer group.
• Divergence: Exaggerating the linguistic differences between you and your listener to assert distinct social identity, maintain power, or create social distance.

C. Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987) – Politeness Theory & Face Needs

In linguistics, face refers to a person's public self-image. Conversations involve managing two types of face needs:
• Positive Face: The desire to be liked, appreciated, included, and approved of.
• Negative Face: The desire for autonomy, freedom of action, and not to be imposed upon.
• Face-Threatening Acts (FTAs): Utterances that potentially damage someone's positive face (e.g., insults, criticism) or negative face (e.g., orders, demands).
• Mitigation Strategies: Using modal verbs ("Could you possibly..."), hedges, or honorifics to soften FTAs and protect the relationship.

D. Drew and Heritage (1992) – Institutional Talk and Occupational Language

Drew and Heritage explored how workplace relationships differ from everyday social conversations through institutional language rules:
• Goal Orientation: Workplace talk is focused on specific tasks or objectives.
• Turn-Taking Rules: Specific professional settings enforce structured turn sequences (e.g., doctor-patient consultations or courtrooms).
• Allowable Contributions: Restrictions on what topics and types of talk are acceptable.
• Asymmetrical Power Dynamics: One participant often holds more structural power, controlling topics and turns.
• Professional Jargon: Field-specific lexis used for precision, efficiency, and marking professional in-group identity.

Key Takeaway: How we speak is constantly calibrated to manage our connections: converging to build rapport, diverging to assert identity, and using politeness strategies to protect our listeners' face needs.

4. Language and Gender Dynamics

The relationship between gender and language has evolved through four major academic models. When writing essays, evaluate how these views have shifted over time.

A. The Deficit Model: Robin Lakoff (1975)

Lakoff argued in Language and Woman's Place that women's language is deficient compared to men's, reflecting social insecurity and subservience.
• Proposed Features of Women's Speech: Hedges and fillers ("sort of"), empty adjectives ("lovely", "divine"), super-polite forms, tag questions ("...isn't it?"), indirect requests, and speaking less overall.
• Critical Evaluation: Lakoff's work was based on personal observation rather than systematic empirical data. It established a stereotype that men's speech is the "normal standard" and women's speech is "lacking."

B. The Dominance Model: Zimmerman & West (1975) and Pamela Fishman (1983)

This model views language differences as a direct consequence of patriarchal power imbalances in society.
• Don Zimmerman & Candace West (1975): In a recorded sample of 31 mixed-sex conversations, they found that 96% of all interruptions were made by men, suggesting men dominate conversational space.
• Pamela Fishman (1983): Investigated married couples' conversations and introduced the concept of conversational "shitwork". Fishman found that women asked 2.5 times more questions and used supportive back-channeling to keep conversations alive because men routinely failed to support interaction.

C. The Difference Model: Deborah Tannen (1990)

Tannen argued that men and women belong to different gender subcultures with distinct conversational goals. Misunderstandings occur not because of dominance, but because of cross-cultural communication clashes.

Tannen's Six Gender Contrasts:
1. Status vs. Support: Men seek conversational dominance and status; women seek validation and mutual support.
2. Independence vs. Intimacy: Men value autonomy; women value closeness and connection.
3. Advice vs. Understanding: Men seek practical solutions; women seek empathy.
4. Information vs. Feelings: Men focus on message content; women focus on emotional tone.
5. Orders vs. Proposals: Men use direct imperatives; women use indirect suggestions.
6. Conflict vs. Compromise: Men engage openly in conflict; women seek harmony and compromise.

D. The Dynamic / Social Constructionist Approach: Judith Butler (1990) & Deborah Cameron (2007)

Modern linguistics rejects rigid binary divisions between male and female speech.
• Judith Butler (1990): Proposed gender performativity. Gender is not what you are; it is something you actively perform and construct through repeated social and linguistic behaviors.
• Deborah Cameron (2007): In The Myth of Mars and Venus, Cameron argues that differences between men's and women's language are minimal. Language variation is shaped far more by context, social roles, occupational goals, and individual identity than by biological sex.

Key Takeaway: Move beyond outdated generalizations. In modern linguistic essays, acknowledge early deficit and dominance models, but balance them with modern dynamic approaches that emphasize context and social construction.

Regional variation explores how geography intersects with social identity within the British Isles.

A. Dialect Levelling: Paul Kerswill & Ann Williams (2000)

Dialect levelling is the process by which regional dialect and accent features gradually disappear and become more uniform across different geographic areas.
• Research: Kerswill and Williams studied language variation in Milton Keynes, Reading, and Hull.
• Causes: Increased geographical mobility, urbanization, breakdown of dense social networks, and modern communication.
• Findings: In new towns like Milton Keynes, children's speech moved away from their parents' older rural accents and converged toward standardized or Southeastern regional norms.

B. Estuary English: David Rosewarne (1984)

Rosewarne identified a hybrid variety located along the River Thames corridor between Received Pronunciation (RP) and London Cockney.
• Features: Glottal stopping of /t/, L-vocalisation (pronouncing /l/ as a /w/ sound, e.g., "miwk" for milk), and tag questions ("innit").
• Social Function: Viewed as modern and accessible—allowing speakers to avoid the perceived snobbishness of RP while avoiding the heavy working-class stigma of traditional Cockney.

C. Multicultural London English (MLE): Sue Fox, Paul Kerswill, & Eivind Torgersen (2007–2010)

MLE is a multi-ethnic urban youth variety that emerged in inner London.
• Key Features: Syllable-timed rhythm, monophthongal vowel pronunciations, non-standard pronouns (e.g., "man" used as a first-person pronoun: "man got tired"), and innovative slang (e.g., "peng", "bare").
• Crucial Insight: Fox, Kerswill, and Torgersen proved that MLE is driven by peer-group social networks, social contact, and shared youth identity—not biological ethnicity alone.

In Section A, you will often evaluate debates surrounding linguistic prejudice and standard language ideology:

• Prescriptivism: The belief that one linguistic variety (typically Standard English and RP) is inherently superior, correct, and pure, while non-standard varieties are "lazy," "broken," or "incorrect."
• Descriptivism: The scientific, linguistic approach that observes, describes, and analyzes language variation without making moral or judgmental value labels. Descriptivists recognize that all dialects follow systematic internal grammatical rules.

Top Tip for the Exam: Always maintain an objective, descriptivist tone in your academic writing. Never describe non-standard features as "incorrect grammar"—call them non-standard grammatical variations.

7. Common Exam Pitfalls & How to Avoid Them

• Pitfall 1: "Name-Dropping" Without Linguistic Frameworks (AO1)
Wrong: "Lakoff said women use hedges and Tannen said men want status."
Right: "Lakoff identifies the lexical and pragmatic use of epistemic hedges (e.g., 'sort of'), arguing they signal tentativeness..."

• Pitfall 2: Treating Historical Studies as Universal Truths (AO2)
Avoid: Claiming all men interrupt because of Zimmerman & West (1975).
Improve: Evaluate their very small, unrepresentative sample (31 conversations) and contrast it with Cameron's (2007) dynamic approach.

• Pitfall 3: Ignoring Intersectionality
Language is never shaped by just one factor. A speaker's language is simultaneously influenced by their age + gender + social class + region + occupational goals + conversational context.

• Pitfall 4: Writing a Pre-Prepared Essay Instead of Answering the Prompt
Section A gives you an assertion or statement to debate. Directly evaluate the prompt in every single paragraph!

8. Quick Revision Summary Checklist

Before entering the exam room, make sure you can confidently explain and link the following:

• Sociolect & Identity: Labov (NYC / Martha's Vineyard - Overt vs. Covert Prestige), Trudgill (Norwich - [ŋ] vs [n]), Eckert (Belten High - Jocks and Burnouts).
• Enacting Relationships: Milroy (Belfast - Dense vs. Open Networks), Giles (CAT - Convergence vs. Divergence), Brown & Levinson (Positive/Negative Face), Drew & Heritage (Institutional Talk).
• Gender Models: Deficit (Lakoff) \(\rightarrow\) Dominance (Zimmerman & West, Fishman) \(\rightarrow\) Difference (Tannen) \(\rightarrow\) Dynamic (Butler, Cameron).
• Regional Variation: Dialect Levelling (Kerswill & Williams), Estuary English (Rosewarne), Multicultural London English (Fox, Kerswill, & Torgersen).
• Linguistic Frameworks: Phonology, Lexis, Grammar, and Pragmatics applied in every paragraph.

Quick check

Can you answer these now?

Open each question to check the key ideas from this chapter.

What are the four core linguistic analysis levels required for AO1 analysis?

The four core levels are: (1) Phonetics, Phonology, and Prosodics; (2) Lexis and Semantics; (3) Grammar and Morphology; and (4) Pragmatics and Discourse.

What did William Labov's 1966 New York Department Store study reveal about overt prestige and hypercorrection?

Higher-ranking department store staff used standard post-vocalic /r/ most frequently, while lower-middle-class speakers showed hypercorrection by shifting most dramatically toward standard prestige forms when repeating themselves carefully.

What is covert prestige, as demonstrated in Labov's 1963 Martha's Vineyard study?

Covert prestige is the deliberate adoption of non-standard or local linguistic features to signal solidarity, group loyalty, and local belonging rather than mainstream societal status.

What key gender and class differences did Peter Trudgill discover in his 1974 Norwich study?

Working-class speakers and men used the non-standard [n] variant (e.g., walkin') more frequently; additionally, women tended to over-report standard usage, while men under-reported it to claim covert prestige.

How did Penelope Eckert's study of "Jocks" and "Burnouts" challenge purely demographic models of social class?

Eckert demonstrated that adolescent language variation is driven by active social practices and shared peer-group values rather than passive parental socioeconomic class alone.

How do dense multiplex social networks influence language use according to Lesley Milroy (1980)?

Dense, multiplex networks act as strong norm-enforcement mechanisms that preserve and reinforce non-standard vernacular dialect forms.

What is the difference between convergence and divergence in Howard Giles's Communication Accommodation Theory (CAT)?

Convergence adapts speech to match an interlocutor to reduce social distance and build rapport, whereas divergence emphasizes linguistic differences to assert distinct identity or increase social distance.

How do positive face and negative face differ in Brown and Levinson's Politeness Theory?

Positive face is the desire to be liked, approved of, and included, while negative face is the desire for autonomy, independence, and freedom from imposition.

What are the defining characteristics of institutional talk identified by Drew and Heritage (1992)?

Institutional talk is characterized by goal orientation, specialized turn-taking rules, constraints on allowable contributions, asymmetrical power dynamics, and professional jargon.

How have linguistic theories of gender evolved across the Deficit, Dominance, Difference, and Dynamic models?

The models shifted from viewing women's speech as deficient (Lakoff), to shaped by male power/dominance (Zimmerman & West; Fishman), to cultural subcultural differences (Tannen), and finally to a context-dependent social performance (Butler; Cameron).

What is dialect levelling and what causes it according to Paul Kerswill and Ann Williams (2000)?

Dialect levelling is the gradual loss and homogenization of distinct local dialect features across geographic areas, driven by increased mobility, urbanization, and the breakdown of closed networks.

What are the key linguistic features and social drivers of Multicultural London English (MLE)?

MLE features syllable-timed rhythm, monophthongal vowels, innovative slang, and non-standard pronouns (e.g., "man"), driven primarily by multi-ethnic youth peer networks rather than ethnicity alone.

How do prescriptivist and descriptivist approaches to language diversity differ?

Prescriptivism enforces standard forms as inherently correct while judging non-standard varieties as incorrect, whereas descriptivism objectively studies and analyzes all language varieties as rule-governed systems.

Ready to test yourself?

Turn these notes into exam-style practice. Get unlimited AI questions on this topic with instant marking and explanations.

Practise This Topic

More English Language 7701 chapters

* The content provided by thinka is generated by AI and may not always be accurate or up-to-date. Please use it as a supplementary resource and verify with official materials.

Put These Notes into Practice

Reading the notes is a great start. Now practise with unlimited AI-generated questions and get instant feedback. 100,000+ students are already improving their grades.

Start Practising Now View Pricing

Done reading? Test yourself with AI practice questions

Practise This Topic Now