Documentation

Linglib.Phenomena.SocialMeaning.Studies.Burnett2019

@cite{burnett-2019} — Signalling Games, Sociolinguistic Variation, and #

the Construction of Style

Linguistics and Philosophy 42: 419–450.

Overview #

Social Meaning Games (SMGs) model how sociolinguistic variant choice conveys social information. A speaker's use of -ing vs -in' induces listener inferences about persona traits (competent, friendly, etc.). The framework combines @cite{lewis-1969}'s signalling games with RSA-style Bayesian reasoning to derive both style shifting (intra-speaker variation across contexts) and social stratification (inter-speaker variation across classes) from the same principles.

Architecture #

The meaning function is grounded in the Eckert–Montague lift from EckertMontague.emMeaningMI: each variant's Eckert field (a set of indexed properties) is lifted to persona compatibility via intersection semantics. The grounding theorem ingMeaning_eq_emMeaningMI verifies that the study's meaning function matches the theory-layer derivation.

Each context is an RSAConfig INGVariant Persona with beliefBased S1 scoring (S1(v|π) ∝ L0(π|v)^α, α=6) and context-specific worldPrior. All predictions are verified by rsa_predict.

Key predictions #

  1. Per-persona variant preference: cool-guy prefers -in' ~69%
  2. Style shifting: casual→careful flips the cool-guy's preference
  3. Stern-leader exclusion: -in' is incompatible with stern leader
  4. Listener interpretation: Rice/Pelosi/Bush /t/ release predictions
  5. Bulletproofing: strong prior overwhelms variant effects (Bush)
  6. Cross-reference: model predictions close to @cite{labov-2012} data

Social properties (Burnett example (5)). Two bipolar dimensions: competence (competent/incompetent) and warmth (friendly/aloof).

Instances For
    @[implicit_reducible]
    Equations
    Equations
    • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
    Instances For
      @[implicit_reducible]
      Equations
      • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

      The four personae: maximally consistent subsets (Burnett example (6)). Each selects one pole per dimension.

      Instances For
        @[implicit_reducible]
        Equations
        def Burnett2019.instReprPersona.repr :
        PersonaStd.Format
        Equations
        Instances For
          @[implicit_reducible]
          Equations
          @[implicit_reducible]
          Equations
          • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

          Eckert fields (Burnett example (10)):

          The meaning function is derived via the Montagovian Individual / intersection semantics (Burnett footnote 14, Table 1): persona p is compatible with variant v iff p shares at least one property with v's Eckert field.

          The property space for Burnett's simplified example.

          Equations
          • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
          Instances For

            The ING grounded field: both Eckert fields are consistent.

            Equations
            Instances For

              Grounding theorem: the inline meaning function equals the theory-layer emMeaningMI applied to the ING Eckert fields.

              -ing is compatible with 3 personae (Table 1: excludes doofus).

              -in' is compatible with 3 personae (Table 1: excludes stern leader).

              Each social context is an RSAConfig INGVariant Persona:

              @[reducible, inline]
              noncomputable abbrev Burnett2019.mkSMG (prior : Persona) (h : ∀ (p : Persona), 0 prior p) :

              Construct an SMG as an RSAConfig with context-specific prior.

              The meaning function incorporates the prior so that L0 matches Burnett's naive listener: L₀(π|v) ∝ Pr(π) · ⟦v⟧(π). Without the prior in meaning, L0 would be uniform over compatible personae (1/3 for all), erasing the context-dependence that drives style shifting.

              Equations
              • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
              Instances For

                Casual-context prior (Burnett Table 2): voters at the barbecue think Obama is aloof (personae with aloof get more weight).

                Equations
                Instances For

                  Careful-context prior (Burnett Table 5): journalists think Obama is incompetent (incompetent personae get more weight).

                  Equations
                  Instances For

                    Rice: uniform prior — unfamiliar politician (Burnett Table 10).

                    Equations
                    Instances For

                      Bush: listeners almost certain he is {inarticulate, aloof} (Burnett Table 15).

                      Equations
                      Instances For

                        Cool-guy at the barbecue prefers -in' over -ing (~69% vs ~31%). Burnett (p. 435): "we predict that Obama will use -in' around 69% of the time [...] which is close to what Labov found" (72%).

                        Stern leader only uses -ing: -in' is incompatible (Table 1). This predicts ~0% -in' in formal contexts where Obama constructs the stern leader.

                        In the careful context, the cool-guy now prefers -ing over -in'. The prior shift reverses the informativity ranking.

                        The /t/ release variable has the same mathematical structure as (ING). Relabeling: articulate↔competent, inarticulate↔incompetent (same friendly/aloof). Variants: released [tʰ]↔-ing, flapped [ɾ]↔-in'. The Eckert fields are structurally identical (Burnett example (19)): [tʰ] = {articulate, aloof}, [ɾ] = {inarticulate, friendly}.

                        We reuse the same types and meaning function, since the math is isomorphic. The personae reinterpret as: coolGuy ↔ {articulate, friendly}, sternLeader ↔ {articulate, aloof}, doofus ↔ {inarticulate, friendly}, asshole ↔ {inarticulate, aloof}.

                        The asshole prefers -in' in the casual context (both variants are compatible, but -in' is more informative given the prior).

                        Rice: released /t/ triggers {articulate, aloof} = stern leader (Burnett Table 11). With uniform prior, the exclusive variant (only -ing compatible) gets double the L1 weight.

                        Rice: flapped /t/ triggers {inarticulate, friendly} = doofus (Burnett Table 11). Symmetric to the released case.

                        Pelosi: released /t/ predominantly triggers {inarticulate, aloof} — the strong prior that she is inarticulate overwhelms the released /t/ association with articulateness (Burnett Table 14).

                        Bush "bulletproofing" (Burnett p. 444, Table 16): the prior is so extreme that variant choice has no practical effect. Both released and flapped /t/ yield >90% {inarticulate, aloof}.

                        Cross-reference: the SMG model's qualitative predictions match the directional pattern observed in @cite{labov-2012}'s data on Obama's (ING) rates. The model predicts the cool-guy persona prefers -in' in casual context and -ing in careful context; the data shows Obama's -in' rate decreasing monotonically from casual (72%) through careful (33%) to formal (3%).

                        The theory-layer SocialMeaningGame (Burnett Def. 4.1) captures the signalling game structure: types, meaning, prior, and social evaluation. We construct an SMG from the study's types and prove structural properties.

                        The SMG's naiveListener is Franke's literal L₀ — uniform over compatible personae. This captures the exclusion structure (which personae are ruled out by each variant) but not the prior-weighted refinement. The quantitative predictions (69% -in' for cool guy, style shifting) use the RSAConfig's belief-based S₁ (Burnett eq. 13: P_S(m|π) ∝ L₀(π|m)^α), which incorporates the context-specific prior into the meaning function to recover Bayesian conditioning.

                        Obama's social value function μ at the barbecue (@cite{burnett-2019}, Table 6, p. 438).

                        Cool guy ({competent, friendly}) is most valued (μ = 2); asshole ({incompetent, aloof}) is least (μ = 0). The μ function reflects what the speaker (Obama) most wants the listener to infer about him in this context.

                        Equations
                        Instances For

                          The (ING) Social Meaning Game for the casual context (@cite{burnett-2019}, Def. 4.1 + Table 2 + Table 6).

                          This connects the study's types to the theory-layer game structure from SMG.lean, exercising SocialMeaningGame, naiveListener, and toInterpGame.

                          Equations
                          • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                          Instances For

                            The SMG meaning is grounded in the Eckert–Montague intersection lift — connecting the game structure to the compositional semantics layer via ingMeaning_eq_emMeaningMI.

                            The naive listener excludes stern leader after hearing -in' (incompatible: stern leader = {competent, aloof} shares no property with [-in'] = {incompetent, friendly}).

                            The naive listener excludes doofus after hearing -ing (incompatible: doofus = {incompetent, friendly} shares no property with [-ing] = {competent, aloof}).