List of Figures

Figure 1.1 Aristotle's Rhetorical Triangle. Figure 1.2 Jolliffe's rhetorical framework diagram (adapted from Phelan 2008: 60). Figure 1.3 The Saussurean communicative process according to Rigotti and Greco (2006: 663, Figure 3). Figure 1.4 The linguistic sign as a two-sided psychological entity according to Saussure (1916/1983: 67). Figure 1.5 Jakobson's (1960) functions of language, based on Karl Bühler's (1934) Organon model. Figure 1.6 Hierarchy of influence in Jakobson's (1960) functions of language. Figure 1.7 Sociolinguistic interface relating stylistic (or intra-speaker) variation with linguistic variation and social (or inter-speaker) variation. Source: Hernández-Campoy and Cutillas-Espinosa (2012b: 2, Figure 1). Figure 1.8 Linguistic variation in sociolinguistics. Source: Bell (1984: 146; Figure 1). Figure 2.1 Coseriu's (1970); Rona (1970) Sociolinguistic Axes Theory: AB (diastratic axis: society; and diaphasic axis: style), CD (diatopic axis: geographical space), and EF (diachronic axis: time). Figure 2.2 Hierarchy of institutional lects in a diasystem. Source: Preston, in Jaworski et al. (2004: 90, Figure 3). Figure 2.3 Origin and development of slang. Source: Anderson and Trudgill (1990: 82) Figure 2.4 Percentages of usage of standard forms by style: Pastons. Source: Hernández-Campoy and Conde-Silvestre (1999: 262, Figure 3). Figure 2.5 Process of diffusion of the Chancery standard forms in the Pastons. Source: Hernández-Campoy and Conde-Silvestre (1999: 264; Figure 6). Figure 2.6 Diachronic progression of the process of standardization of Castilian Spanish by variable and informant (Group 1: male politicians). Percentages of usage of standard variants (Castilian Spanish forms), ranging from 100% standard to 0% non-standard. Source: Hernández-Campoy and Jiménez-Cano (2003: 335, Figure 3). Figure 2.7 Diachronic progression of the process of standardization of Castilian Spanish by variable and informant (Group 2: male non-politicians). Percentages of usage of standard variants (Castilian Spanish forms), ranging from 100% standard to 0% non-standard. Source: Hernández-Campoy and Jiménez-Cano (2003: 334, Figure 4). Figure 2.8 Sociolinguistic variation. Figure 2.9 The social meaning of sociolinguistic behavior. Figure 2.10 Map of the coast of Massachusetts and Martha's Vineyard. Figure 2.11 Percentage of use of standard forms by presenter and audience interlocutors in the four different variables under study (adapted from Cutillas-Espinosa and Hernández-Campoy 2007: 137, Figure 1). Figure 2.12 Frequency of use of standard forms by radio presenter in broadcasting and in the interview (adapted from Cutillas-Espinosa and Hernández-Campoy 2007: 138, Figure 2). Figure 3.1 Results for postvocalic /r/ in the New York department stores (Saks, Macy's, and S. Klein; adapted from Labov 1966/2006: 56, Figure 3.6). Figure 3.2 Social stratification of (ng) in Norwich. Percentages for the non-standard variant [n] found by Trudgill (1974), as represented by Labov (1966/2006: 260, Figure 10.8). Figure 3.3 Use of postvocalic /r/ by UMC speakers in New York City (adapted from Labov 1966/2006: 218, 9.10). Figure 3.4 Results for variable (ng) Norwich correlating with age. Source: Chambers and Trudgill (1980: 91, Figure 6.4). Figure 3.5 Use of negative concord among African American speakers in Detroit correlating with class and gender in Wolfram (1969); adapted from Labov (2001a: 82, Figure 3.2). Figure 3.6 The behavior of variable (æ) in the Belfasts areas of Ballymacarrett, The Hammer and Clonard (Milroy 1980), adapted from Chambers and Trudgill (1980: 78, Figure 5.1). FS = formal speech; CS = Casual speech). Figure 3.7 Labov's Decision Tree for stylistic analysis of spontaneous speech in the sociolinguistic interview. Source: Labov (2001b: 94, Figure 5.1). Figure 3.8 Network of modules. Source: Labov (1984a: 35). Figure 3.9 Theoretical frameworks of linguistic analysis (adapted from Figueroa 1994: 21). Figure 3.10 Saussurean and Chomskyan paradigms with the Langue-Parole and Competence-Performance dichotomies. Source: adapted from Hernández-Campoy (1993: 19). Figure 3.11 Results for postvocalic /r/ in the New York City correlating with social class and styles (CS: casual style; FS: formal style; RPS: reading passage style; WLS: word list style; and MPS: minimal pairs style; adapted from Labov 1966/2006: 141, Figure 7.1). Figure 3.12 Results for variable (ng) Norwich correlating with social class and styles (CS: casual style; FS: formal style; RPS: reading passage style; and WLS: word list style; from Trudgill 1974: 92). Figure 3.13 Usual pattern of indicators in graph representation, as in variable (?:) in Norwich when being correlated with class and style by Trudgill (1974). Source: Chambers and Trudgill (1980: 83, Figure 6.2). Figure 3.14 Hypercorrection observed by Labov in New York City. Source: Labov (1966/2006: 152; Figure 7.11). Figure 4.1 Giles' model of the interactive processes and factors involved in speakers' adjustments during face-to-face conversation. Source: Giles (1979: 19, Figure 1.1). Figure 4.2 Ocracoke in Outer Banks of North Carolina. Source: Wolfram, Hazen and Tamburro (1997: 9, Figure 1). Figure 4.3 Centrifugal (from inside outwards) and centripetal (from outside inwards) motions. Figure 4.4 Occupation profiles of audiences for YA and ZB radio stations; per-centage of station's audience. Figure 4.5 Scores (in percentages) of T-voicing in intervocalic contexts by four newsreaders on two New Zealand radio stations: YA and ZB. Source: Bell (1984: 171; Figure 9; 1982a: 162). Figure 4.6 Sue's convergence on (intervocalic t) voicing to five occupation classes of client; input level taken as Sue's speech to "her own class". Source: Coupland (1984: Figure 4; 2007: 73; Figure 3.2) and Bell (1984: 165, Figure 8). Figure 4.7 Percentages of determiner deletion in seven British daily newspapers: The Times , Guardian , Daily Telegraph , Daily Mail , Daily Express , Daily Mirror, and Sun. Source: Bell (1991: 108, Figure 6.1). Figure 4.8 The derivation of intra-speaker from inter-speaker variation by way of evaluation. Source: Bell (1984: 152, Figure 2). Figure 4.9 The strength of the effect of audience members. Source: Meyerhoff 2006. reproduced with permission of Taylor & Francis Books UK. Figure 4.10 Inter-speaker and intra-speaker ranges of variation. Source: Meyerhoff (2006: 45, Figure 3.6). Figure 4.11 Preston's funnel characterizing the strength of different factors influencing variation. Source: Preston (2001a: 280, Figure 16.1); also from Preston (1991). Figure 4.12 Style as response and initiative: complementarity of audience design and referee design. Source: Bell (1984: 196, Figure...