Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Sociolinguistics
Sociolinguistics
Linguistics Language Theoretical linguistics Generative linguistics Phonology Morphology Syntax Lexis Semantics Lexical semantics Statistical semantics Structural semantics Prototype semantics Pragmatics Systemic functional grammar Descriptive linguistics Phonetics Historical linguistics Comparative linguistics Etymology Sociolinguistics Corpus linguistics Applied linguistics Language acquisition Language assessment Language development Language education Psycholinguistics Neurolinguistics Linguistic anthropology Cognitive linguistics Computational linguistics Stylistics Prescription Sociolinguistics topics General Accent (linguistics) History of linguistics List of linguists Unsolved problems
Sociolinguistics is the study of the effect of any and all aspects of society, including cultural norms, expectations, and context, on the way language is used. Sociolinguistics overlaps to a considerable degree with pragmatics. It also studies how lects differ between groups separated by certain social variables, e.g., ethnicity, religion, status, gender, level of education, age, etc., and how creation and adherence to these rules is used to categorize individuals in social or socioeconomic classes. As the usage of a language varies from place to place (dialect), language usage varies among social classes, and it is these sociolects that sociolinguistics studies. The social aspects of language were in the modern sense first studied by Indian and Japanese linguists in the 1930s, and also by Gauchat in Switzerland in the early 1900s, but none received much attention in the West until much later. The study of the social motivation of language change, on the other hand, has its foundation in the wave model of the late 19th century. Sociolinguistics in the West first appeared in the 1960s and was pioneered by linguists such as William Labov in the US and Basil Bernstein in the UK.
Applications of sociolinguistics
Sociolinguistics
be an integral part of larger structures, and be easily quantified on a linear scale. Phonetic variables tend to meet these criteria and are often used, as are grammatical variables and, more rarely, lexical variables. Examples for phonetic variables are: the frequency of the glottal stop, the height or backness of a vowel or the realisation of wordendings. An example of a grammatical variable is the frequency of negative concord (known colloquially as a double negative).
For example, a sociolinguist might determine through study of social attitudes that a particular vernacular would not be considered appropriate language use in a business or professional setting. Sociolinguists might also study the grammar, phonetics, vocabulary, and other aspects of this sociolect much as dialectologists would study the same for a regional dialect. The study of language variation is concerned with social constraints determining language in its contextual environment. Code-switching is the term given to the use of different varieties of language in different social situations. William Labov is often regarded as the founder of the study of sociolinguistics. He is especially noted for introducing the quantitative study of language variation and change,[1] making the sociology of language into a scientific discipline. Sociolinguistics differs from sociology of language in that the focus of sociolinguistics is the effect of the society on the language, while the latters focus is on the languages effect on the society.
Sociolinguistic variables
Studies in the field of sociolinguistics typically take a sample population and interview them, assessing the realisation of certain sociolinguistic variables. Labov specifies the ideal sociolinguistic variable to be high in frequency, have a certain immunity from conscious suppression,
Sociolinguistics
members interact with each other. A large course with 100+ students be a looser community because students may only interact with the instructor and maybe 1-2 other students. A multiplex community (Wardhaugh, 2002:126-127) is one in which members have multiple relationships with each other. For instance, in some neighborhoods, members may live on the same street, work for the same employer and even intermarry. The looseness or tightness of a social network may affect speech patterns adopted by a speaker. For instance, Dubois and Hovarth (1998:254) found that speakers in one Cajun Louisiana community were more likely to pronounce English "th" [] as [t] (or [] as [d]) if they participated in a relatively dense social network (i.e. had strong local ties and interacted with many other speakers in the community), and less likely if their networks were looser (i.e. fewer local ties).[2] A social network may apply to the macro level of a country or a city, but also to the inter-personal level of neighborhoods or a single family. Recently, social networks have been formed by the Internet, through chat rooms, MySpace groups, organizations, and online dating services.
Speech Community
Speech community is a concept in sociolinguistics that describes a more or less discrete group of people who use language in a unique and mutually accepted way among themselves. Speech communities can be members of a profession with a specialized jargon, distinct social groups like high school students or hip hop fans, or even tight-knit groups like families and friends. Members of speech communities will often develop slang or jargon to serve the groups special purposes and priorities.
Social network
Understanding language in society means that one also has to understand the social networks in which language is embedded. A social network is another way of describing a particular speech community in terms of relations between individual members in a community. A network could be loose or tight depending on how members interact with each other (Wardhaugh, 2002:126-127). For instance, an office or factory may be considered a tight community because all
Sociolinguistics
Restricted code
In Basil Bernsteins theory, the restricted code was an example of the speech patterns used by the working-class. He stated that this type of code allows strong bonds between group members, who tend to behave largely on the basis of distinctions such as male, female, older, and younger. This social group also uses language in a way which brings unity between people, and members often do not need to be explicit about meaning, as their shared knowledge and common understanding often bring them together in a way which other social language groups do not experience. The difference with the restricted code is the emphasis on we as a social group, which fosters greater solidarity than an emphasis on I.
Elaborated code
Basil Bernstein also studied what he named the elaborated code explaining that in this type of speech pattern the middle and upper classes use this language style to gain access to education and career advancement. Bonds within this social group are not as well defined and people achieve their social identity largely on the basis of individual disposition and temperament. There is no obvious division of tasks according to sex or age and generally, within this social formation members negotiate and achieve their roles, rather than have them there ready-made in advance. Due to the lack of solidarity the elaborated social language code requires individual intentions and viewpoints to be made explicit as the I has a greater emphasis with this social group than the working class.
Class aspiration
Studies, such as those by William Labov in the 1960s, have shown that social aspirations influence speech patterns. This is also true of class aspirations. In the process of wishing to be associated with a certain class (usually the upper class and upper middle class) people who are moving in that direction socio-economically will adjust their speech patterns to sound like them. However, not being native upper class speakers, they often hypercorrect, which involves overcorrecting their speech to the point of introducing new errors. The same is true for individuals moving down in socio-economic status.
Any native speaker of English would immediately be able to guess that speaker 1 was likely of a different social class than speaker
Sociolinguistics
youth dress differently from the "norm", they also often have their own "language". The reasons for this are the following: (1) To enhance their own cultural identity (2) To identify with each other, (3) To exclude others, and (4) To invoke feelings of fear or admiration from the outside world. Strictly speaking, this is not truly age-based, since it does not apply to all individuals of that age bracket within the community. Age-graded variation is a stable variation which varies within a population based on age. That is, speakers of a particular age will use a specific linguistic form in successive generations. This is relatively rare. Chambers (1995) cites an example from southern Ontario, Canada where the pronunciation of the letter Z varies. Most of the Englishspeaking world pronounces it zed; however, in the United States, it is pronounced zee. A linguistic survey found that in 1979 twothirds of the 12 year olds in Toronto ended the recitation of the alphabet with the letter zee where only 8% of the adults did so. Then in 1991, (when those 12 year olds were in their mid-20s) a survey showed only 39% of the 20-25 year olds used zee. In fact, the survey showed that only 12% of those over 30 used the form zee. This seems to be tied to an American childrens song frequently used to teach the alphabet. In this song, the rhyme scheme matches the letter Z with V vee, prompting the use of the American pronunciation. As the individual grows older, this marked form zee is dropped in favor of the standard form zed.[3] People tend to use linguistic forms that were prevalent when they reached adulthood. So, in the case of linguistic change in progress, one would expect to see variation over a broader range of ages. Bright (1997) provides an example taken from American English where there is an on-going merger of the vowel sounds in such pairs of words as caught and cot.[4] Examining the speech across several generations of a single family, one would find the grandparents generation would never or rarely merge these two vowel sounds; their childrens generation may on occasion, particularly in quick or informal speech; while their grandchildrens generation would merge these two vowels uniformly. This is the basis of the apparent-time hypothesis where age-based variation is taken as an indication of linguistic change in progress.
A diagram showing variation in the English language by region (the bottom axis) and by social class (the side axis). The higher the social class, the less variation. 2. The differences in grammar between the two examples of speech is referred to as differences between social class dialects or sociolects. It is also notable that, at least in England and Australia, the closer to standard English a dialect gets, the less the lexicon varies by region, and vice-versa.
Covert prestige
It is generally assumed that non-standard language is low-prestige language. However, in certain groups, such as traditional working class neighborhoods, standard language may be considered undesirable in many contexts. This is because the working class dialect is a powerful in-group marker, and especially for non-mobile individuals, the use of non-standard varieties (even exaggeratedly so) expresses neighborhood pride and group and class solidarity. There will thus be a considerable difference in use of non-standard varieties when going to the pub or having a neighborhood barbecue (high), and going to the bank (lower) for the same individual.
Sociolinguistics
to be accommodated to on the basis of their being polite and empathic, rather than their being male.[11]
Minimal responses
One of the ways in which the communicative competence of men and women differ is in their use of minimal responses, i.e., paralinguistic features such as mhm and yeah, which is behaviour associated with collaborative language use (Carli, 1990).[12] Men, on the other hand, generally use them less frequently and where they do, it is usually to show agreement, as Zimmerman and Wests (1975) study of turn-taking in conversation indicates.[13]
Questions
Men and women differ in their use of questions in conversations. For men, a question is usually a genuine request for information whereas with women it can often be a rhetorical means of engaging the others conversational contribution or of acquiring attention from others conversationally involved, techniques associated with a collaborative approach to language use (Barnes, 1971).[14] Therefore women use questions more frequently (Fitzpatrick, et al., 1995; Todd, 1983).[7][15][16] In writing, however, both genders use rhetorical questions as literary devices. For example, Mark Twain used them in "A War Prayer" to provoke the reader to question his actions and beliefs.
Turn-taking
As the work of DeFrancisco (1991) shows, female linguistic behaviour characteristically encompasses a desire to take turns in conversation with others, which is opposed to mens tendency towards centering on their own point or remaining silent when presented with such implicit offers of conversational turn-taking as are provided by hedges such as "y know" and "isnt it".[17] This desire for turn-taking gives rise to complex forms of interaction in relation to the more regimented form of turn-taking commonly exhibited by men (Sacks et al., 1974).[18]
Sociolinguistics
Self-disclosure
Female tendencies toward self-disclosure, i.e., sharing their problems and experiences with others, often to offer sympathy (Dindia & Allen, 1992; Tannen, 1991:49), contrasts with male tendencies to non-self disclosure and professing advice or offering a solution when confronted with anothers problems.[6][20]
Politeness
Politeness in speech is described in terms of positive and negative face.[26] Positive face refers to ones desire to be liked and admired, while negative face refers to ones wish to remain autonomous and not to suffer imposition. Both forms, according to Browns study of the Tzeltal language (1980), are used more frequently by women whether in mixed or single-sex pairs, suggesting for Brown a greater sensitivity in women than have men to face the needs of others.[27] In short, women are to all intents and purposes largely more polite than men. However, negative face politeness can be potentially viewed as weak language because of its associated hedges and tag questions, a view propounded by OBarr and Atkins (1980) in their work on courtroom interaction.[28] See also Complimentary language and gender.
Verbal aggression
Men tend to be more verbally aggressive in conversing (Labov, 1972), frequently using threats, profanities, yelling and name-calling.[21] Women, on the whole, deem this to disrupt the flow of conversation and not as a means of upholding ones hierarchical status in the conversation. Where women swear, it is usually to demonstrate to others what is normal behaviour for them.[22]
See also
Sociocultural linguistics Sociohistorical linguistics Sociology of language Interactional sociolinguistics Diglossia Prestige (sociolinguistics) Language planning Language ideology Style-shifting Variation analysis Matched-guise test Audience design William Labov Joshua Fishman
Sociolinguistics
[12] Carli, L.L. (1990). "Gender, language, and influence." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 5, 941-951. [13] ^ Zimmerman, Don and West, Candace. (1975) "Sex roles, interruptions and silences in conversation." In Thorne, Barrie and Henly, Nancy (eds) Language and Sex: Difference and Dominance pp. 105-29. Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury. [14] Barnes, Douglas (1971). "Language and Learning in the Classroom." Journal of Curriculum Studies. 3:1. [15] Todd, Alexandra Dundas. (1983) "A diagnosis of doctor-patient discourse in the prescription of contraception." [16] In Fisher, Sue and Todd, Alexandra D. (eds) The Social Organization of DoctorPatient Communication pp. 159-87. , Washington: Center for Applied Linguistics. [17] ^ DeFrancisco, Victoria (1991). "The sound of silence: how men silence women in marital relationships." Discourse and Society 2 (4):413-24. [18] Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel Schegloff and Gail Jefferson. (1974) "A simple systematics for the organization of turntaking for conversation." Language 50: 696-735. [19] Dorval, Bruce. (1990). Conversational Organization and its Development. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. [20] Dindia, K. & Allen, M. (1992). Sex differences in disclosure: A metaanalysis. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 106-124. [21] Labov, William. (1972). Language in the Inner City. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press. [22] Eder, Donna. (1990). "Serious and Playful Disputes: variation in conflict talk among female adolescents." In Grimshaw, Allan (ed)Conflict Talk pp. 67-84. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [23] Fishman, Pamela. (1980). "Interactional Shiftwork." Heresies 2: 99-101. [24] Leet-Pellegrini, Helena M. (1980) "Conversational dominance as a function of gender and expertise." In Giles, Howard, Robinson, W. Peters, and Smith, Philip M (eds) Language: Social Psychological Perspectives. pp. 97-104. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Notes
[1] Paolillo, John C. Analyzing Linguistic Variation: Statistical Models and Methods CSLI Press 2001, Tagliamonte, Sali Analysing Sociolinguistic Variation Cambridge, 2006 [2] Dubois, Sylvie and Hovarth, Barbara. (1998). "Lets tink about dat: Interdental Fricatives in Cajun English." Language Variation and Change 10 (3), pp 245-61. [3] Chambers, J.K. (1995). Sociolinguistic Theory, Oxford: Blackwell. [4] Bright, William (1997). "Social Factors in Language Change." In Coulmas, Florian (ed) The Handbook of Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Blackwell. [5] Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and Womens Place. New York: Harper & Row. [6] ^ Tannen, Deborah. (1991). You Just Dont Understand: Women and Men in Conversation. London: Virago. [7] ^ Fitzpatrick, M. A., Mulac, A., & Dindia, K. (1995). Gender-preferential language use in spouse and stranger interaction. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 14, 18-39. [8] Mulac, A., Studley, L.B., & Blau, S. (1990). "The gender-linked language effect in primary and secondary students impromptu essays." Sex Roles 23, 439-469. [9] Thomson, R., & Murachver, T. (2001). "Predicting gender from electronic discourse." British Journal of Social Psychology 40, 193-208. [10] Green, J. (2003). "The writing on the stall: Gender and graffiti." Journal of Language and Social Psychology 22, 282-296. [11] Thomson, R., Murachver, T., & Green, J. (2001). "Where is the gender in gendered language?" Psychological Science 12, 171-175.
Sociolinguistics
Transactions of the Philological Society, 110-31. Coates, Jennifer (1993), Women, Men and language. London: Longman Coates, Jennifer (ed.) (1998), Language and Gender: A Reader. Oxford: Blackwell. DeFrancisco, Victoria (1991), The sound of silence: how men silence women in marital relationships, Discourse and Society 2 (4):413-24. Dindia, K. & Allen, M. (1992). Sex differences in disclosure: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 106-124. Dorval, Bruce (1990), Conversational Organization and its Development, Ablex, Norwood, NJ. Dubois, Sylvie and Hovarth, Barbara. (1998) "Lets tink about dat: Interdental Fricatives in Cajun English," Language Variation and Change, 10 (3), pp 24561. Eder, Donna (1990), Serious and Playful Disputes: variation in conflict talk among female adolescents, pp. 6784 in Grimshaw, Allan [ed]Conflict Talk, Cambridge University Press. Fishman, Pamela(1980), Interactional Shiftwork, Heresies 2:99-101. Fitzpatrick, M. A., Mulac, A., & Dindia, K. (1995). Gender-preferential language use in spouse and stranger interaction. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 14, 18-39. Green, J. (2003). The writing on the stall: Gender and graffiti. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 22, 282-296. Holmes, Janet (1988), Paying Compliments: a sex-preferential politeness strategy, Journal of Pragmatics 12:445-65 Labov, William (1966), The Social Stratification of English in New York City, Diss. Washington. Labov, William (1972), Language in the Inner City. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press. Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and Womens Place. New York: Harper & Row. Leet-Pellegrini, Helena M. (1980) Conversational dominance as a function of gender and expertise, pp. 97104 in Giles, Howard, Robinson, W. Peters, and Smith, Philip M [eds] Language: Social Psychological Perspectives. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Mulac, A., Studley, L.B., & Blau, S. (1990). The gender-linked language effect in
References
Barnes, Douglas (1971), Language and Learning in the Classroom, Journal of Curriculum Studies. 3:1 Bright, William (1997), Social Factors in Language Change, p 83 in Coulmas, Florian [ed] The Handbook of Sociolinguistics. Oxford, England: Blackwell. Brown, Penelope (1980), How and why are women more polite: some evidence from a Mayan community, pp. 11136 in McConnell-Ginet, S. et al. [eds] Women and Language in Literature and Society. Praeger, New York. Brown, Penelope and Levinson, Stephen (1978), Universals in Language Usage: Politeness Phenomena, pp 56289 in Goody, Esther [ed] Questions and Politeness. Cambridge University Press. Reprinted separately in 1987 as Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage, ISBN 978-0521313551. Carli, L.L. (1990). Gender, language, and influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 941-951. Chambers, J.K. (1995), Sociolinguistic Theory, Oxford, England: Blackwell; p206-208. Coates, Jennifer (1983), Language and Sexism, LAUD Paper No. 173, University of Duisburg. Coates, Jennifer (1987), Epistemic modality and spoken discourse,
Sociolinguistics
Further reading
Lakoff, Robin T. (2000). The Language War. Berkely, CA: University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-21666-0 Meyerhoff, Miriam. (2006). Introducing Sociolinguistics. New York: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-39948-3 Milroy, Lesley and Gordon. Matthew. (2003) Sociolinguistics: Method and Interpretation London: Blackwell Publishing. ISBN 0-631-22225-1. (More advanced, but has lots of good examples and describes research methodologies to use.) Paulston, Christina Bratt and G. Richard Tucker, editors. 1997. The early days of sociolinguistics: memories and reflections. (Publications in Sociolinguistics, 2.) Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics. Trudgill, Peter. (2000). Sociolinguistics: An Introduction to Language and Society(4th Ed.). London: Penguin Books. ISBN 0-14-028921-6 This book is a very readable, if Anglo-centric, introduction for the non-linguist. Wardhaugh, Ronald. (2005) An Introduction to Sociolinguistics, Fifth Edition. Wiley-Blackwell Publishing. ISBN 1-405-13559-X. A sociolinguistics textbook, but assumes little or no previous experience with linguistics. Watts, Richard J. (2003). Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-79406-0. A sociolinguistics book specializing in the research in politeness. Its a little tough at times, but very helpful and informational.
External links
Applied Linguistics Resources on Dmoz
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociolinguistics" Categories: Social psychology, Sociolinguistics This page was last modified on 22 May 2009, at 21:23 (UTC). All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.) Wikipedia is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a U.S. registered 501(c)(3) taxdeductible nonprofit charity. Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers
10