Lovely Pamela T.

Serran
Graduate School
Rizal Technological University

Introduction
SOCIOLINGUISTICS
 Developed in the last quarter of the 20th century.
 Apparently coined already in 1939 in the title of an article by Thomas C. Hodson,
‘Sociolinguistics in India’ in Man in India (1939).
 First used in linguistics by Eugene Nida in the second edition of his Morphology (1949),
 But one often sees the term attributed to Haver Currie, who himself claimed to have
invented it
“Sociolinguistics to language field in relation with society”
1900s – Gauchat in Switzerland and
1930s – Indian & Japanese linguist studied social aspect of language
1960s – Basil Bernstein in the U.K. and William Labov in the U. S

CODE THEORY VARIABILITY CONCEPTS

He is the greatest sociologists, most He is widely known as the founder of quantitative Sociolinguistics.
controversial and significant contributor of
He introduced the quantitative study of language variation and
the 20th century.
change
His theory of Language codes examined
He explained that all linguistic variations caused by the
the relationships between social class,
involvement of social factors
family and the reproduction of meaning
systems. He illustrated the relevance of social determinants of linguistic
variations and their correlations with the social structure. He
He distinguished between the restricted
proposed a social approach to language through his sociolinguistic
code of the working class and the
model in which the linguistic theorization was linked with the
elaborated code of the middle class.
society

Sociolinguistics by Other Linguist

Sociology = Linguistics.
Spolsky (2010) the study of the link between language and society, of language variation, and of
attitudes about language

*(code – refers to the principles regulating meaning systems)

Bell (1976) a branch of anthropological linguistics that examines how language and culture are
related, and how language is used in different social contexts
Hudson (1996) a study of the relationship between language and social factors such as class,
age, gender and ethnicity
Wardhaugh (2010) the study of stylistic and social variation of language.
Van Dijk (2009) the study of language in relation to its socio-cultural context
Trudgill (2000) the study of the effect of any and all aspects of society, including cultural
norms, expectations, and context on the way language is used.
Nature of Sociolinguistics.
Gumperz (1971) is an attempt to find correlations between social structure and linguistic
structure and to observe any changes that occur.
Holmes (1992) as the study of “the relationship between language and society.”
Nature of the relationship between language and society
Trudgill (2000) is that part of linguistics which is concerned with language as a social and
cultural phenomenon. It investigates the field of language and society and has close connections
with the social sciences, especially social psychology, anthropology, human geography and
sociology.”
Fishman (2001) “Sociolinguistic perspective has enabled researchers to document and to
measure a hereto overlooked type of variation in language use and language behavior.”
Chambers (2002) “Sociolinguistics is the study of the social uses of language, and the most
productive studies in the four decades of sociolinguistic research have emanated from
determining the social evaluation of linguistic variants. These are also areas most susceptible to
scientific methods such as hypothesis formation, logical inference, and statistical testing.”

SOCIOLINGUISTICS AND SOCIOLOGY OF LANGUAGE

SOCIOLINGUISTIC SOCIOLOGY OF LANGUAGE

-a field of study which investigates the -the goal is to discover how social structure
relationship between language and society with can be understood through the study of
the objective of a better understanding of the language.
structure of language and how languages
function in communication.
-“Sociolinguistics is ‘the study of language in -“Sociology of language is ‘the study of
relation to society” Hudson (1996) society in relation to language.” Hudson (1996)
 -the study of society in order to find out as -The reverse direction of our interest.
much as we can understand about what kind of
thing language is.
-throws light on the effect of the society on -language focuses on the society
language.
-helps to understand the structure of language -tries to discover how social structure can be
and its function in society better understood through the study of
language.

-examines the influence of social structure on -“Sociology of language examines the

the way people use language. It also interaction between the use of language and the
concentrates on how language varieties and social organisation of behaviour. the sociology
patterns of language use correlate with social of language focuses upon the entire gamut of
attributes such as social class, gender/sex and topics related to the social organisation of
age language behaviour, including not only
language usage per se but also language
attitudes and overt behaviours toward language
and toward language users” Fishman (1997)

Coulmas (1997) expressed his views as follows: “There is no sharp dividing line between
the two, but a large area of common concern. Although sociolinguistic research centres about a
number of different 52 key issues, any rigid micro–macro compartmentalization seems quite
contrived and unnecessary in the present state of knowledge about the complex interrelationships
between linguistic and social structures. Contributions to a better understanding of language as a
necessary condition and product of social life will continue to come from both quarters.”
Therefore, both Sociolinguistics and sociology of language suggest a bi-disciplinary
approach.

DIALECTOLOGY AND SOCIOLINGUISTICS

“Linguistic theory is concerned primarily with an ideal speaker-listener in a completely
homogeneous speech community…”(Chomsky, 1965:3)
Wardhaugh (2006:5) argues that: […] “an asocial linguistics is scarcely worthwhile and
that meaningful insights into language can be gained only if such matters as use and variation are
included as part of the data which must be explained in a comprehensive theory of language;
such a theory of language must have something to say about the uses of language.”
Traditional Dialectology Modern/ Social Dialectology
In the 1950s language studies were based on have turned their
collecting linguistic data. attention to social dialects, language variation
and language change,
 Dialectologists collected data in order to Focus in geographical distribution of different
study the geographical distribution of accents and dialects to the investigation of
linguistic items, in what they called regional social factors such as age, gender and position
dialects in society
Regional dialects focusing on rural areas and emphasizes the study of
so-called NORMs: non-mobile, older, and variation in speech according to social
rural males. variables, often concentrating on a few
selected features; it is called social
dialectology
generally aimed at producing dialect maps, taking into account the various social
dictionaries and atlases, dimensions
Few population of old people, rural areas and in the
male complexities of large urban areas,

does not correlate linguistic variation with demonstrates the relation between linguistic
non-linguistic variables, variables and social ones such as age, gender,
social class, ethnicity

The similarity of traditional dialectology studies and sociolinguistics is that both of them
check and identify linguistic variables prior to data collection.

Dialectology has contributed to the emergence of sociolinguistics, and each discipline

completes the other, as Chambers and Trudgill say (2004:187-188): For all their differences,
dialectology and sociolinguistics converge at the deepest point. Both are dialectologies, so to
speak: they share their essential subject matter. Both fix the attention on language in
communities. Prototypically, one has been centrally concerned with rural communities and the
other with urban centres.

LANGUAGE VARIETIES

Hudson (1996, p. 22) defines a variety of language as ‘a set of linguistic items with
similar distribution,’ a definition that allows us to say that all of the following are varieties:
Canadian English, London English, the English of football commentaries, and so on. According
to Hudson, this definition also allows us ‘to treat all the languages of some multilingual speaker,
or community, as a single variety, since all the linguistic items concerned have a similar social
distribution.’ A variety can therefore be something greater than a single language as well as
something less, less even than something traditionally referred to as a dialect.
The term language “is used to refer either to a single linguistic norm or to a group
of related norms, and dialect is used to refer to one of the norms (Wardhaugh 2006:25),
which means, as Hudson (1996:32) says; “a language is larger than a dialect. That is, a
variety called a language contains more items than one called a dialect”. Dialects are
considered to be sub categories of a language. So, if we take English as a language, we
can find different dialects of it, such as:
Cockney, Yorkshire….etc.
Dialects of a language
- different from each other in term of grammar, lexis and pronunciation,
- They can be divided into two kinds; regional and social.
- Regional dialects reveal where we come from, whereas the latter, social dialects,
are spoken by a particular social stratum or ethnic group.
- Social dialect is the speakers that choose consciously their own dialect in order to
display their belonging and membership.

Example: In the USA, the majority of black speakers tend to use the black
vernacular English (B.E.V) to exhibit their ethnic identity and pride.

- mutually intelligible dialects * if two speakers can understand each other then
they are speaking dialects of the same language, and if they cannot understand
each other, then they are speaking different languages.

Example: the Scandinavian languages: Norwegian, Swedish, and Danish.

Linguistically Norwegian, Swedish and Danish are the same language, but
politically and culturally they are three different languages.

Autonomy and Heteronomy

- are the result of political and cultural factors rather than linguistic ones.
- It has been said that: ‘a language is a dialect with an army and a navy’ (Chambers
and Trudgill 2004:12). This claim, as Chambers and Trudgill say, stresses the
political factors that lie behind linguistic autonomy. And the process of
standardization may explain such things as linguistic versus socio-political
considerations.

Language and Dialect

- A language is more prestigious that than a dialect.

- A dialect is popularly considered to be “a substandard, low-status, often rustic form of a
language.” (Chambers and Trudgill 2004:3).
- Varieties which are unwritten are commonly referred to as dialects, whereas those used in
written form are considered to be ‘the proper language’

Trudgill (1995:8-9) asserts the following: The scientific study of language has convinced
scholars that all languages, and correspondingly all dialects, are equally ‘good’ as linguistic
systems. All varieties of a language are structured, complex, and rule-governed systems which
are wholly adequate for the needs of their speakers. It follows that value judgments concerning
the correctness and purity of linguistic varieties are social rather than linguistic.

To avoid the problem of drawing a distinction between language and dialect, and to avoid
negative attitudes to the term dialect, sociolinguists have chosen the use of the neutral term
‘variety’ to refer to the two, and to different manifestations of language. Holmes (2001:6)
says that the term ‘variety’ “is linguistically neutral and covers all the different realizations of
the abstract concept ‘language’ in different social contexts.”

*Hudson suggests that the variety of a language that we refer to as ‘proper language’ is a standard
language. Web article: < www.squidoo.com/language and dialect.> accessed on December 15th 2010.
SPEECH COMMUNITY

The language used by a group of people shows differences in phonology, grammar

and lexis from another language’s group. This group is called a speech community

Another definitions:
Trudgill (2003:126) says, “Is a community of speakers who share the same
verbal repertoire, and who also share the same norms for linguistic
behavior”.
Simple.
John Lyons as a simple one: “all people who use a given language or
dialect.” (1970:326)1

They share and use the same language.

Corder (1973:53) states that: “A speech community is made up of
individuals who regard themselves as speaking the same language.”2

‘Direct’ or ‘indirect’ contact.

Dendane (2007:29) says: In sociolinguistic terms, we cannot speak of a speech
community when its members have virtually no ‘direct’ or ‘indirect’ contact, as
they do not communicate with each other.

Focuses on the frequency of social interaction

Bloomfield (1933) “A speech community is a group of people who interact
by means of speech.”

Definition of situations
Hymes (1974:47) “The definition of situations in which, and identities
through which, interaction occurs is decisive.”

Emphasizing interaction,
 Gumperz (1968:114)[…] an aggregate characterized by regular and frequent
interaction by means of a shared body of verbal signs and set off from similar
aggregates by significant differences in language usage.

The most accurate definitions

Labov, (1972:158) argues,A speech community cannot be solely conceived as a
group of speakers who all use the same linguistic forms, but rather as a group who
share the same norms in regard to language.

Evaluating the various proposals,

Hudson (1996:27) writes:How do we evaluate these different definitions? One
answer, of course, is that they are all ‘correct’, since each of them allows us to
define a set of people who have something in common linguistically-a language
or dialect, interaction by means of speech, a given range of varieties and rules for
using them, a given range of attitudes to varieties and items.

SPEECH ACCOMMODATION THEORY

Speakers may shift styles primarily in response to their audience; they adjust their
speech towards their listeners if they wish to express or achieve solidarity. This approach
is rooted in a social psychological approach to stylistic variation originally known as
speech accommodation theory (Giles 1973, Giles and Powsland 1975, Giles 1984)
Giles et al (1991b) state that speech accommodation began as “a
sociopsychological model of speech-style modifications"1. It then developed into
communication accommodation theory in order to acknowledge that not only speech but
other “communicative behavior” (Giles et al., 2007:134), affect interpersonal or
intergroup interaction, i.e. an individual’s speaker identity is constructed from interaction
with varying social groups
An individual’s membership of a social group will typically influence the
individual’s linguistic choice. The individual will be a member of a group because he
wishes to be part of the group. In order to minimize the social distance between that
individual and the group he wishes to be part, he will have to reduce the linguistic
intergroup differences.

Strategies of speech accommodation:

 Convergence - when speakers are likely to adjust their speech to that of the
interlocutors.
People will attempt to converge linguistically toward the speech
patterns believed to be characteristic of their recipients when they (a)
desire their social approval and the perceived costs of so acting are
proportionally lower than the rewards anticipated; and / or (b) desire a
high level of communication efficiency, and (c) social norms are not
 perceived to dictate alternative speech strategies. (Beebe and Giles
1984:8)
 Divergence - if the individual don’t want to have a contact and then
distance himself from the addressee
[when speakers] (a) define the encounter in intergroup terms and
desire positive in group identity, or (b) wish to dissociate personally from
another in an inter individual encounter, or (c) wish to bring another’s
speech behavior to a personally acceptable level. (Beebe and Giles
1984:8)

DIGLOSSIA

- The term diglossia refers to the existence of two varieties of the same language,
used under different conditions.
- first introduced by the French linguist William Marçais (1930)
- Ferguson (1972:232) defines diglossia as: “Two varieties of the same language
exist side by side throughout the community, with each having a definite role to
play”, in order to describe the situation found in four places: Greece, Switzerland,
the Arabic speaking world in general and the Island of Haiti.
- There is the existence of two distinct varieties of the same language used under
different conditions, in which one is used only of formal occasions, while the other
is used in informal situations. The two varieties are called high (standard) and
low (vernacular).
- Wardhaugh (2006:91) says in this respect: The low variety often shows a tendency to
borrow learned words from the high variety, particularly when speakers try to use the low
variety in more formal ways. The result is a certain admixture of high vocabulary into the
low.
- Fishman (1967) distinguishes between four situations:
a. Diglossia with bilingualism, which means two different languages that
are genetically unrelated used for different functions. An example of
this situation is the use of French and Arabic in Algeria
b. Diglossia without bilingualism, a case of classical Diglossia, meaning
the use of two varieties of the same language with the specification of
functions for each variety.
c. Bilingualism without Diglossia. In this case, there is the use of two
different languages without separate functions.
d. Neither Diglossia nor bilingualism, which means that only one
language is used (monolingual communities), a situation that is rarely
found.

BILINGUALISM
 - Bilingualism is a sociolinguistic phenomenon considered as the major outcome of
language contact. It refers to the existence and use of two verbal codes or more. It
can refer to either the language use or the competence of an individual, or to the
language situation in an entire nation or society.
- Fishman (1980) individual bilingualism or bilinguality, refers to the ability to
alternate between two or more codes in day-today interaction. Bilinguality,
therefore, is the psychological state of an individual who has access to more than
one linguistic code as a means of social communication.
- We can distinguish between :
a. balanced bilinguals - * i.e. those who use both their languages equally
and equally well in all contexts,
b. unbalanced bilinguals - do not have the same competence in both
languages, that is, those whose competence is higher in one language than
in the other.
c. active bilinguals - be they active through speaking and writing
d. passive bilinguals , or passive through listening and reading.
- Societal bilingualism or multilingualism is characterized by a group of people
or a community or a particular region, and is created by contextual factors such as
international migration, colonization, and the spread of international languages.

CODE SWITCHING

- Myers Scotton (1993: vii) which sees it as: “the use of two or more languages in
the same conversation”. The switch can be in the same conversation, but also in
the same utterance. However, certain circumstances or rules have to be taken into
consideration.

- Hudson (1996: 51) explains the point as follows:

Anyone who speaks more than one language chooses between them according to
circumstances, the first considerations; of course, is which language will be
comprehensible to the person addressed; generally speaking, speakers choose a
language which the other person can understand.

Blom and Gumperz (1972) have distinguished two types of code switching:

a. Situational code switching - the use of different codes in different situations,

one code is used in a particular setting and the other in an entirely different one
Hudson (1996) the switches between languages always coincide with changes
from one external situation to another.
 b. Metaphorical code switching - relies on the use of two languages within a
single social setting. Hudson (1996) it is the choice of language that determines
the situation.

Poplack (1980) distinguishes three types of code switching:

a) Intersentential code switching: the switches in this type occur at sentence

and/or clause boundary.
b) Intrasentential code switching: in this type the switches take place within the
sentence or even inside the word.
c) Extra-sentential code switching: is used to refer to switches between a tag and
the base language.