Chapter 5. New parameters for the sociophonetic indexes 163
given category. Therefore, the same categories are viewed as a set of single memo-
rized repetitions, the so-called exemplars. Only individual properties, which are
neither abstract nor rule-feeding, are stored and represented in the mind. Human
subjects memorize all the linguistic information (lexical, morphological, phonetic)
in an additive manner, via single items, i.e. verbatim.
Following Labov (2006), we argue that such an approach cannot really account
for the relatively abstract and symbolic categories holding in language structure.
In our opinion, Labov (2006) is right in maintaining a discrimination among pho-
netic (i.e. physical, concrete) elements and phonemic (i.e. formal, abstract) units.
However, this leads us to a thorny theoretical problem that cannot be exhaustively
debated here, so we leave the question open for future discussion.
- Conclusion
A quite surprising finding of the research presented in the Atlas of North American
English by Labov et al. (2006) was that the regional varieties of English in North
America continue to diverge. The common and really naïve assumption that dia-
lects should disappear in our contemporary age, due to shared education, mass
media communication, high mobility of people and so on has then been falsi-
fied by the empirical data. Speakers of the third millennium still encode social-
indexical information in their speech. With such a behavior, they are able to
project their own identity both inside and outside the speech community they
belong to (see Tabouret-Keller 1997).
Si parva licet, we might say that the same pattern emerges nowadays in
Tuscany: Tuscan speakers do still show their peculiar sociophonetic indexes, and
sometimes they are proud of them, especially of some, like gorgia toscana. They do
not want to lose their cultural identity as well as their way of speaking. Sometimes
they are aware of the phonetic cues which give them the status of Tuscan people,
sometimes they are not. In any case, the sociophonetic indexes are alive, and noth-
ing seems to indicate that their life should be a short one. Social and psychological
factors such as identity and attitudes are therefore confirmed to be strong forces
holding in the speaker’s phonetic performance.
A comparison of our parameters with the three classes of socially-marked
variables proposed by Labov (2001: 196–197), i.e. indicators, markers and stereo-
types, has finally to be handled with. As is well-known, the Labovian classes form
a sort of chain, having different and increasing degrees of salience and awareness
with respect to the members of a speech community. The indicators are linguistic
variables distributed among the social groups of a community which use them
without any reference to change in style; these variables are normally employed