Registers/code-switching and work versus home

[Travis B.]

I have found that I automatically switch into a markedly careful, formal register of English when speaking in contexts such as meetings at work or on phone/teleconference calls, which is very distinct from the English I speak at home or even the English I speak with coworkers who are native English-speakers (I work with many people from India and China, both based here in the US and based overseas) outside of meetings or calls. I find that I speak more carefully and formally in such contexts than many of my coworkers, with my speech being closer to literary English than theirs is.

Note that this is not switching dialects but rather between registers of my native dialect. In particular, there are many key aspects of my phonology and phoneme choices which do not change no matter what register I speak. (I should note that I simply do not and cannot speak General American regardless of what register I speak in.)

I wonder whether this is actually a reaction to the distance between my basilectal speech and Standard English, that I 'overcorrect' and semi-consciously adopt a very formal English in formal contexts or contexts in which being understood may be difficult (e.g. speaking on the phone or speaking with non-native English-speakers). Conversely, though, as a kid I up to a point cultivated such a formal English (I was a complete 'know-it-all' as a kid) until I realized that people often did not think well of 'sounding like a book', and in informal contexts I did the opposite and then adopted basilectal speech as my norm for speaking outside of work and calls with native English-speakers. These days I also try to resist the tendency to speak very formally with non-native English-speakers outside of formal contexts because it might imply that their English is poor, but I will switch to a careful register if they have any trouble understanding me. At the same time, I avoid the most non-standard forms (e.g. non-standard past participle forms) even when speaking informally with native English-speakers in a work context.

This has resulted in my varying between two extremes, either basilectal or markedly acrolectal speech, with little in between aside from avoiding certain highly non-standard forms at work, whereas many of my natively English-speaking coworkers are more mesolectal in their speech across contexts.

So I am wondering if anyone else here or anyone else anyone here knows does something similar, whether in switching very sharply between registers of a single dialect, or code-switching markedly between distinct varieties (e.g. between, say, Standard Scottish English and braid Scots, or between Standard German and local German vernaculars, or like)?

[alice]

For some reason the title of this thread and its poster immediately made me think of machine language. But anyway.

I code-switch all the time; I seem to have a separate register for each type of situation I find myself in. I speak differently when explaining intricate details of something to someone from the self-consciously arch register I use with close friends, and differently again with the fake Weegie I amuse my wife and certain family members with.

[Travis B.]

For some reason the title of this thread and its poster immediately made me think of machine language. But anyway.

I code-switch all the time; I seem to have a separate register for each type of situation I find myself in. I speak differently when explaining intricate details of something to someone from the self-consciously arch register I use with close friends, and differently again with the fake Weegie I amuse my wife and certain family members with.

I was thinking of you, actually, because living in Scotland you might at least have contact with Scots even if you don't speak it yourself.

On a related note, I am always saddened a bit when someone says "my parents (or grandparents) spoke dialect X, but I don't speak it, at most speaking a regiolect of Standard Y".

[bradrn]

For some reason the title of this thread and its poster immediately made me think of machine language. But anyway.

I code-switch all the time; I seem to have a separate register for each type of situation I find myself in. I speak differently when explaining intricate details of something to someone from the self-consciously arch register I use with close friends, and differently again with the fake Weegie I amuse my wife and certain family members with.

I was thinking of you, actually, because living in Scotland you might at least have contact with Scots even if you don't speak it yourself.

In my short experience so far, it seems that some Glaswegian accents are less intelligible to me than some ostensibly ‘Scots’ varieties I’ve heard audio of. What this says about the dialectology, I have no idea, but it’s made me more skeptical of claims that Scots is so fundamentally different to other English varieties.

[Travis B.]

For some reason the title of this thread and its poster immediately made me think of machine language. But anyway.

I code-switch all the time; I seem to have a separate register for each type of situation I find myself in. I speak differently when explaining intricate details of something to someone from the self-consciously arch register I use with close friends, and differently again with the fake Weegie I amuse my wife and certain family members with.

I was thinking of you, actually, because living in Scotland you might at least have contact with Scots even if you don't speak it yourself.

In my short experience so far, it seems that some Glaswegian accents are less intelligible to me than some ostensibly ‘Scots’ varieties I’ve heard audio of. What this says about the dialectology, I have no idea, but it’s made me more skeptical of claims that Scots is so fundamentally different to other English varieties.

The thing to remember is that there exists a continuum between Scottish Standard English on one extreme and braid Scots on the other, and oftentimes where something lies on this continuum is rather fuzzy. The Glaswegian accents you have heard may indeed have been closer to the latter extreme than the ostensible 'Scots' varieties you have heard audio of.

As for the intelligibility of Scots, I have found I generally cannot understand spoken Scots, while I generally can understand written Scots, which to me often seems just like extremely eye-dialect-written English.

[Raphael]

Personal stuff behind the cut:

More: show

Back in my teens, I was once invited to talk to a psychologist together with my Mom. During the entire session, she talked in a register and general tone of voice that I thought would have been more appropriate for a business negotiation or a job interview, instead of the way she would normally talk at home or to her friends. I found that really inappropriate back then, because I thought that in that kind of setting, people should generally try to be their authentic selves, so it made me quite angry.

[hwhatting]

My idiolect is relatively close to Standard German, so except for avoiding colloquialisms and a couple of non-standard forms I have (like fuffzehn for fünfzehn), I don't do any strong code-switching between formal and informal situations.

[Travis B.]

My idiolect is relatively close to Standard German, so except for avoiding colloquialisms and a couple of non-standard forms I have (like fuffzehn for fünfzehn), I don't do any strong code-switching between formal and informal situations.

The fact that you mention fuffzehn versus fünfzehn implies you speak quite close to StG, as that seems to me like a rather minor detail in the bigger scheme of things.

[jcb]

I have found that I automatically switch into a markedly careful, formal register of English when speaking in contexts such as meetings at work or on phone/teleconference calls, which is very distinct from the English I speak at home or even the English I speak with coworkers who are native English-speakers (I work with many people from India and China, both based here in the US and based overseas) outside of meetings or calls. I find that I speak more carefully and formally in such contexts than many of my coworkers, with my speech being closer to literary English than theirs is.

What differences do you have between these different registers? Phonology? Morphology? Certain words?

[Travis B.]

I have found that I automatically switch into a markedly careful, formal register of English when speaking in contexts such as meetings at work or on phone/teleconference calls, which is very distinct from the English I speak at home or even the English I speak with coworkers who are native English-speakers (I work with many people from India and China, both based here in the US and based overseas) outside of meetings or calls. I find that I speak more carefully and formally in such contexts than many of my coworkers, with my speech being closer to literary English than theirs is.

What differences do you have between these different registers? Phonology? Morphology? Certain words?

In my high register relative to my low register: My phonology is different; In particular I am far less likely to elide, lenite, or assimilate consonants (even though I do retain some very frequent elisions such as [ˈtʲʷʰw̥ʌ̃j] for 'twenty'), and also my NCVS isn't quite as strong (e.g. my DRESS and KIT are less centralized and my TRAP is lower). My morphology is different; I use Standard English verb forms consistently, avoid non-standard verb forms like 'aten', 'dranken', and 'broughten', and avoid non-standard reduced/cliticized forms such as [ˈhiːɵːs] for 'he was' and [ˈaːõ̞ʔ] for 'I don't' (only retaining forms like 'don't', 'doesn't', 'aren't', 'won't', etc. which are established in formal spoken Standard English). My syntax and word choice is different; I choose words, and especially things like (quasi-)modal forms, that are much closer to literary English, e.g. I generally avoid forms like 'hafta', 'sposta', '(g)onna', 'gotta', 'wanna', etc., I am more likely to use 'must', uncontracted 'going to', or 'shall', and I typically say 'yes' and 'no' rather than 'yah', 'yep', 'yeah', 'nah', 'nope', 'neah' or so on.

[alice]

For some reason the title of this thread and its poster immediately made me think of machine language. But anyway.

I code-switch all the time; I seem to have a separate register for each type of situation I find myself in. I speak differently when explaining intricate details of something to someone from the self-consciously arch register I use with close friends, and differently again with the fake Weegie I amuse my wife and certain family members with.

I was thinking of you, actually, because living in Scotland you might at least have contact with Scots even if you don't speak it yourself.

What is properly called "Scots" isn't actually spoken any more, unless you're trying to capture the authentic essence of Burns. There are, however, several loanwords from Scots in Scottish dialects, like "drookit", "glaikit", "skelf", and the all-time classic "numpty". You can by tea-towels with them on in tourist shops, as bradrn will no doubt confirm, and west Scottish varieties of English are ideal for expressing invective.

And just to be confusing, Scots was generally known historically as "Inglis".

[Travis B.]

For some reason the title of this thread and its poster immediately made me think of machine language. But anyway.

I code-switch all the time; I seem to have a separate register for each type of situation I find myself in. I speak differently when explaining intricate details of something to someone from the self-consciously arch register I use with close friends, and differently again with the fake Weegie I amuse my wife and certain family members with.

I was thinking of you, actually, because living in Scotland you might at least have contact with Scots even if you don't speak it yourself.

What is properly called "Scots" isn't actually spoken any more, unless you're trying to capture the authentic essence of Burns. There are, however, several loanwords from Scots in Scottish dialects, like "drookit", "glaikit", "skelf", and the all-time classic "numpty". You can by tea-towels with them on in tourist shops, as bradrn will no doubt confirm, and west Scottish varieties of English are ideal for expressing invective.

Scots has not become extinct in the way that, say, Norn has become extinct. Rather, it has become part of a continuum with Scottish Standard English on the opposite extreme, with most people native to Scotland being fluent in some portion of that extreme (compare with the situation in Jamaica of where Jamaican Patois exists on a continuum with Jamaican Standard English on the opposite end). Just because it has become difficult to find people who sound like 'authentic' Burns does not mean that Scots has died out per se.

And just to be confusing, Scots was generally known historically as "Inglis".

That's because 'Scots' historically referred to Scottish Gaelic; the shift of 'Scots' to refer to lowland Anglic varieties came later.

[alice]

Scots has not become extinct in the way that, say, Norn has become extinct. Rather, it has become part of a continuum with Scottish Standard English on the opposite extreme, with most people native to Scotland being fluent in some portion of that extreme (compare with the situation in Jamaica of where Jamaican Patois exists on a continuum with Jamaican Standard English on the opposite end). Just because it has become difficult to find people who sound like 'authentic' Burns does not mean that Scots has died out per se.

Clearly my idea of what constitutes "Scots" is different from yours! It's probably the difference between the received wisdom I grew up with and more specific academic definitions. But it's a' wee spuds.

[Travis B.]

Scots has not become extinct in the way that, say, Norn has become extinct. Rather, it has become part of a continuum with Scottish Standard English on the opposite extreme, with most people native to Scotland being fluent in some portion of that extreme (compare with the situation in Jamaica of where Jamaican Patois exists on a continuum with Jamaican Standard English on the opposite end). Just because it has become difficult to find people who sound like 'authentic' Burns does not mean that Scots has died out per se.

Clearly my idea of what constitutes "Scots" is different from yours! It's probably the difference between the received wisdom I grew up with and more specific academic definitions. But it's a' wee spuds.

What I can say is I find spoken modern Scots unintelligible, whereas I find spoken Scottish Standard English intelligible but funny-accented (the funniest part is the lack of a fir-fur-fern merger).

[Travis B.]

At work I have been trying to moderate how I speak so I target a more mesolectal register as of late, by deliberately allowing dialectal forms to leak into my speech without going full-basilect on people. However, I keep on having the nagging thought of "do my non-native coworkers actually understand my speech, or are they just correctly guessing what I mean by context?" For instance, I got a bit of a confused look from someone who was clearly a non-native English-speaker when I pronounced wouldn't as [wɵnː] without thinking about it; I wasn't sure if he'd actually understood me.

[Travis B.]

I somehow got on this topic with my parents, and they think I am insulting my non-natively English-speaking coworkers by modifying my speech for them by implying that they don't know English, that I should speak with them the same way I speak at home.

Thing is, I always modify my speech to a degree at work, especially in contexts like meetings, even though I do so less so when I am pretty sure I am speaking solely with people from southeastern Wisconsin.

From paying attention to how I actually speak, it actually seems that social context is the biggest variable that determines how I speak to people, as I will speak more carefully and formally in meetings with all native English-speakers than I will with non-natively English-speaking coworkers in less formal contexts.

It also seems that I switch into a formal register half-consciously to seem more assertive and authoritative and I switch into a lower register to seem more familiar, which is not surprising one bit. I will speak particularly formally if I feel the need to verbally beat someone over the head for some reason.

[Qwynegold]

I somehow got on this topic with my parents, and they think I am insulting my non-natively English-speaking coworkers by modifying my speech for them by implying that they don't know English, that I should speak with them the same way I speak at home.

Based on what you've written earlier on the forum, not even native English speakers understand your dialect. So modifying your speech is a necessity.

[Raphael]

I still find the whole idea of two white USAnians who are both from north of the Mason-Dixon line having trouble understanding each other's accents a bit baffling.

[Travis B.]

I somehow got on this topic with my parents, and they think I am insulting my non-natively English-speaking coworkers by modifying my speech for them by implying that they don't know English, that I should speak with them the same way I speak at home.

Based on what you've written earlier on the forum, not even native English speakers understand your dialect. So modifying your speech is a necessity.

I still find the whole idea of two white USAnians who are both from north of the Mason-Dixon line having trouble understanding each other's accents a bit baffling.

I have had little difficulty when interacting with native English-speakers in practice, but at the same time I reserve inflicting my most basilectal speech (e.g. pronouncing that as /æt/ [ɛʔ(t)]) for people I sense are from southeastern Wisconsin.

Yes, there are cases where I have not been understood clearly, though, such as my repeated attempts to get the people at this one coffee shop to make an Arnold Palmer over the intercom, but interestingly enough I don't have the same problem with getting the people at a different coffee shop I go indoors for to make one, so the fact that an intercom is involved may be the critical factor.

That said, I do come across as having a funny accent. I have lost track of all the times where people have asked me where I was from, or asked if I as from "here" (asked by someone not from southeastern Wisconsin, where "here" is southeastern Wisconsin), or asked if I was from Milwaukee (which I technically am not from, but I grew up very close to it), and then there is the time that someone I'd never spoken with before picked out which suburb I grew up in, and when I asked him how he knew, he said it was because I had an accent from there.

[Darren]

Travis' transcriptions always look crazy, but I think he's right that they're just more accurate than most peoples' transcriptions. I've noticed that when imitating American accents, I naturally go for non-coronal /r/ and /l/ without realising it for instance.