You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
Social class is one of the most powerful — and most linguistically marked — social categories. How you speak, which words you choose, and even how you pronounce a single consonant can all function as indicators of social class, and language is central to how class is represented, reinforced, and contested. This topic is a regular presence in Paper 1, Section A (Textual Variations and Representations) — where a text saturated with class markers is paired with an older or contemporary counterpart — and recurs in Paper 2. This lesson builds the precise terminology, the named theorists, the analytical method, and the exam technique you need to write about class representation at the top band.
The governing principle, as throughout the representation topic, is that class is not a fixed essence that language neutrally reflects; it is constructed in discourse, and the value attached to particular varieties is a product of power, not of any intrinsic linguistic quality. Under the AQA criteria the heavily weighted AO3 marks are earned by showing how contextual factors — the producer, the intended audience, the purpose, the mode, and the period — are encoded in specific choices of accent representation, lexis, and grammar that build a particular version of class. A weak answer says "this character sounds working class"; a strong answer shows how eye-dialect spelling, non-standard grammar, or a Bourdieusian struggle over linguistic capital does the ideological work.
Social class is a system of social stratification based on factors including wealth, occupation, education, and cultural capital. While its precise definition is debated, class remains a significant social category with profound linguistic implications.
| Class Category | Traditional Description | Linguistic Associations |
|---|---|---|
| Upper class | Aristocracy, inherited wealth | Received Pronunciation (RP), elaborate vocabulary, "U" speech |
| Upper middle class | Professionals, higher education | Near-RP, standard grammar, technical/specialist vocabulary |
| Lower middle class | White-collar workers, small business owners | Hypercorrection, aspiration towards prestige forms |
| Working class | Manual and service workers | Regional accents, non-standard grammar, vernacular vocabulary |
Key Definition: Social stratification — the hierarchical organisation of society into groups based on socioeconomic factors; language both reflects and reinforces this hierarchy.
In 1954, the linguist Alan S. C. Ross published an influential article distinguishing between U (upper-class) and non-U (non-upper-class) vocabulary. The article was popularised by Nancy Mitford and became a cultural sensation.
| U (Upper Class) | Non-U (Non-Upper Class) |
|---|---|
| Napkin | Serviette |
| Lavatory / loo | Toilet |
| Drawing room | Lounge / living room |
| Looking glass | Mirror |
| Pudding | Sweet / dessert |
| Writing paper | Notepaper |
| Sofa | Settee |
| Rich | Wealthy |
| Luncheon | Dinner (for the midday meal) |
While these specific distinctions may seem dated, the underlying principle remains important: vocabulary choices function as class markers. People are judged — consciously and unconsciously — based on the words they use.
Accent prejudice (also called accentism) refers to discrimination against people based on how they sound. Research consistently shows that speakers with certain accents are judged more or less favourably in terms of intelligence, trustworthiness, friendliness, and competence.
Howard Giles (1970s onwards) conducted extensive research into language attitudes using the matched guise technique — playing recordings of the same speaker using different accents and asking listeners to evaluate the speaker's personality. Key findings include:
Key Definition: Accent prejudice — prejudice or discrimination based on a person's accent, which functions as a proxy for discrimination based on social class, region, or ethnicity.
Accent prejudice has real-world consequences:
A crucial distinction for analysing class is the difference between two kinds of prestige, developed in the sociolinguistics of Peter Trudgill (whose 1974 Norwich study is the classic reference):
| Term | Definition | Class significance |
|---|---|---|
| Overt prestige | The openly acknowledged status attached to the standard variety (RP, Standard English) by mainstream institutions | Confers advantage in education, law, and the professions; aspired to "publicly" |
| Covert prestige | The "hidden" in-group status attached to non-standard forms, which signal solidarity, local belonging, masculinity, or toughness | Explains why working-class vernacular persists and is actively valued by its speakers despite institutional stigma |
Trudgill found that male working-class speakers in Norwich frequently under-reported their use of standard forms — they claimed to use more non-standard pronunciations than they actually did — because non-standard speech carried covert prestige as a badge of authentic, local, working-class masculinity. This is a vital corrective to any deficit narrative: speakers do not retain vernacular forms because they "can't" use the standard, but because those forms carry real social value within their community. When a text mocks a regional accent, it is denying covert prestige and imposing the overt-prestige hierarchy as if it were natural.
The French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu (1991) developed the concept of linguistic capital as part of his broader theory of cultural capital. Linguistic capital refers to the ability to produce and use the forms of language that are valued in a given social context — particularly in education, the workplace, and other institutional settings.
| Concept | Definition | Relevance to Class |
|---|---|---|
| Linguistic capital | The ability to produce language that is valued in a particular social field | Speakers of Standard English and RP possess greater linguistic capital in education and professional settings |
| Symbolic violence | The imposition of dominant cultural norms (including linguistic norms) as though they were natural and universal | Working-class speakers are judged as deficient when their language is measured against middle-class norms |
| Linguistic market | The social context in which language is exchanged and valued | Standard English is the "currency" of education, law, and professional life |
| Habitus | The set of dispositions, including linguistic habits, that a person acquires through socialisation | Class-based language patterns are deeply embedded and difficult to change |
Bourdieu's key insight is that what counts as "correct" or "good" language is not determined by any intrinsic linguistic quality but by power — the language of the dominant class becomes the standard against which all other varieties are measured.
Key Definition: Linguistic capital — the value attributed to particular ways of speaking and writing in a given social context; Standard English and RP carry high linguistic capital in British institutional settings (Bourdieu, 1991).
One of the most influential — and most controversial — theories about language and class was proposed by the sociologist Basil Bernstein (1971).
Bernstein distinguished between two linguistic codes:
| Code | Features | Associated Class |
|---|---|---|
| Elaborated code | Explicit, context-independent, complex syntax, wide vocabulary, abstract reasoning | Middle class |
| Restricted code | Implicit, context-dependent, simpler syntax, shared assumptions, concrete references | Working class |
Bernstein argued that middle-class children had access to both codes, while working-class children were limited to the restricted code. Since education relies on the elaborated code, working-class children were systematically disadvantaged.
Bernstein's theory has been widely criticised:
Key Definition: Deficit model — an approach that treats the language of non-dominant groups as deficient or inferior; contrasted with the difference model, which recognises all language varieties as linguistically equal.
Language plays a complex role in social mobility — the ability to move between social classes:
In a landmark study, Labov investigated the pronunciation of post-vocalic /r/ (e.g., in "fourth floor") across three New York department stores representing different social levels:
| Store | Social Level | Post-vocalic /r/ Usage |
|---|---|---|
| Saks Fifth Avenue | Upper middle class | Highest use of /r/ (the prestige form) |
| Macy's | Lower middle class | Moderate use, with significant hypercorrection in careful speech |
| S. Klein | Working class | Lowest use of /r/ |
The study demonstrated that linguistic variation correlates with social class and that speakers are aware of prestige forms, even if they do not always use them.
Media texts frequently construct class through linguistic choices:
The way direct speech is represented in fiction also constructs class. A character who says "I ain't done nuffink" is being marked as working class through non-standard grammar and non-standard spelling representing phonological features. A character who says "I have done nothing" is marked as middle or upper class through standard grammar.
A recurring media pattern worth naming is the casting of accents to social roles: RP and near-RP are conventionally assigned to authority figures, experts, villains-as-masterminds, and heritage drama, while regional and urban accents are routinely assigned to comic characters, "salt-of-the-earth" types, criminals, or background "ordinary folk". This is the mechanism Howard Giles's matched-guise research illuminates: listeners' evaluations track social attitudes to the groups associated with each accent, not any property of the sounds themselves, so a broadcaster's accent choices both reflect and reproduce a class hierarchy of voices. When you analyse a media or dramatic text, ask not only how a character speaks but how their accent has been cast relative to others — the distribution of prestige and stigmatised voices across the cast is itself a representation.
This topic crosses directly into Paper 2 as well, where questions on language diversity, attitudes, and change regularly turn on accent prejudice, Standard English ideology, and prescriptivism. The frameworks built here — Bourdieu's linguistic capital and symbolic violence, Labov on the systematicity of non-standard varieties, Trudgill's overt and covert prestige, the matched-guise findings, and the Bernstein debate — therefore serve both papers, which is a strong incentive to command them precisely rather than in outline.
When fiction, journalism, or advertising represents class through speech, it must do so graphologically, because the page has no sound. The principal device is eye-dialect — non-standard spelling used to suggest a non-standard pronunciation ("wot", "nuffink", "'ave", "gonna", "innit"). Two analytical points matter:
Combine eye-dialect with non-standard grammar ("we was", "I never done nothing", "them shoes") and you have the standard literary toolkit for marking a character as working class. A top-band answer does not merely spot these features but explains how the contrast between a character rendered in eye-dialect and one rendered in standard orthography constructs a class hierarchy on the page.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.