Sociolinguistics

It is the study of the way in which language’s structure changes in response to its different social functions & the definition of what these functions are. Society here is used in its broadest sense to cover a spectrum of phenomena to do with race, nationality, regional, social & political groups & interactions of individual within these groups. Different labels have sometimes been implied to various parts of this spectrum. E.g. ‘Enthnolinguistics’ is referred to the problems of ethnic groups & race relations. The term ‘anthropological linguistics’ is referred to study of primitive cultures. ‘Stylistics’ is referring to the study of the distinctive linguistic characteristics of smaller social groupings. More usually, stylistics is the study of literary expression of a community, using linguistic methods. None of these labels has any absolute basis. The subject matter of ethnolinguistics gradually merges into that of anthropological linguistics that into sociolinguistics & that into stylistics & the subject matter of social psychology. The kinds of problem are many & various 7 they are concerned with the role of language in society. They include:

1. The problems of communities which develop a standard language & the reactions of minority groups to it.

2. The problems of communication which exist between nations or groups using a different language which affects their ‘world-view’.

3. The problems caused by the need for individuals to interact with others in specific linguistic ways (language as an index of intimacy or distance, of solidarity, of prestige or power & so on).

Sociolinguistics by itself cannot solve problems such as these, but it can identify precisely what the problems are & obtain information about the particular manifestation of a problem in a given area. To analyze a problem sociolinguistically implies being able to analyze it linguistically.

Basil Bernstein made the point that plus-based styles of speaking lead to differences in styles of thinking & how one experiences the world. He argues that middle-class speech is characterized by use of an “elaborate” code (use of nouns, adjectives & verbs having explicit referents). Working-class style tends to employ a restricted code, expressing particular meanings by use of words that are more context-bound.

Conclusion: the use of explicit reference in elaborated codes can allow speakers to think about meanings & relationships separate from immediate context. Restricted codes allow speakers to understand their experience primarily in relation to a specific context. This field echoes the Sapir-Whorf’s hypothesis. People use different types of English in different situations: when are old or young, upper or lower class, male or female. Educated people in Britain will be more likely to speak with the fairly neutral accent, than with one dominated by regional overtones. The mark of an educated person is that while listening to him/her you cannot tell which part of the country he/she comes from. It would frequently observed to expect someone with a very broad regional accent to make a success on a high court judge. It does not follow from all of this that because one accent used in GB carries more social prestige that others. The socially restricted accents are undesirable. An accent is not ugly or beautiful, it depends on what we are used to.

The local words are beginning to be used at the senior or most fashionable levels of society as politicians. Using local words is no longer to be seen as ignorant. It is respectable. It is a feature of increasing diversity in English, moreover regional, national varieties in English are increasingly being used with prestige on the international scene. New Englishes are becoming standardized as markers of educated regional identity. Social plus differences are not exactly exhibited in speech. It is not lower class members who attempt to be closer to the higher strata, but more educated people. It is people with a higher social status who attempt to model speech on more prestigious local norm.

Language & gender

Men & women are socialized to express themselves in different ways in accordance with cultural norms. The interrelationship between language & gender can be approached from different prospective (Pronunciation, grammatical variants, choices of vocabulary, discourse strategies).

Pronunciation: in the USA the percentage of postvocalic –r– is higher among women & men drop interdental sounds at the end of words. Women use more dynamic intonation contours, a wider range of pitches, more varied rhythmic patterns. Men employ a more monotonous style. Some scholars believe that women’s behavior is negatively evaluated in relation to men. Because women are viewed as more emotional & unpredictable while men are perceived as being in control of their emotions.

Grammar: research among school students in England shows that the speech of adolescent girls is grammatically slightly more correct. Men make these mistakes more often – multiple negation, nonstandard –s: we goes. The thing is that men & women also differ in the use of some grammatical constructions. E.g. women use tag questions more often. R. Lakoff: they are reluctant to make direct assertions. Though some scholars believe that the difference is absolutely insignificant & women in rather powerful in society as lawyer, doctors do not differ much from men in using grammatical constructions.

Vocabulary: there are certain domains of vocabulary that are more elaborated by each gender. Men & women are expected to know meaning of words within domains reflecting culturally stereotyped areas of the assumed expertise (cooking for women, sports for men). Women are intensifiers, such as “very”, “so” etc., adjectives (wonderful, lovely). Women use hedge words, i.e. words that covertly comment on assertions in one’s statements: e.g. perhaps. I’ve been wondering whether… well. The indecisive, imprecise or mitigated speech is perceived as more typical of women.

Discourse strategies: men use communicative strategies that assert their control & prerogatives. Women employ strategies that are differential, conciliatory & sensitive to other’s face. Women: ask question, to encourage responses, make positive minimal responses, allow interruptions. Men: interrupt & challenge, ignore the speech of interlocutors, introduce & control topics, make direct assertions & opinions. Boys & girls are treated differently & they talk different. This point of view is criticized, other scholars believe that power in society is distributed unequally & it reflects everyday interaction.