The role of style in the ethnolect: Style-shifting in the use of ethnolectal features in first- and second-generation speakers

Aims and Objectives/Purpose/Research Questions: The paper aimed to investigate style-shifting in the use of ethnolectal features in first- and second- generation bilingual migrants. Design/Methodology/Approach: Three groups of speakers (first- and second-generation Russian–English bilinguals as well as monolingual Anglo Australians) were audio-recorded in three different styles (conversation, interview, and reading). Data and Analysis: Their production of the goose and trap vowels across the styles was analyzed quantitatively. Findings/Conclusions: Overall differences were found between the groups such that first- and second-generation speakers produced more Russian-like vowels compared to the monolinguals; with the biggest differences between the first-generation speakers and the other two groups. In terms of style-shifting, no significant differences were found in the monolingual speakers, and both first- and second-generation speakers were found to produce most Australian English-like vowels in the conversation style. At the same time, certain differences between the two bilingual groups surfaced, such as no significant differences in the first-generation speakers’ production of the goose vowel and in the vowels’ linguistic conditioning. Originality: Previous studies have compared ethnolects in the first- and second-generations of migrants and mainstream varieties in order to theorize ethnolect formation. Several studies have also investigated intraspeaker style-shifting between more ‘mainstream’ and more ‘ethnic’ in ethnolect speakers, but such style-shifting is rarely compared across generations. Significance/Implications: The similarities and differences between the two bilingual groups suggest that ethnolectal features may be originally derived from the community language but may be reallocated to other sociolinguistic meanings in the second generation.