The Ways in which Language Use Varies according to the Relationship between the Speaker and the Audience - Term Paper Example

Sociolinguistics In this paper I will investigate the ways in which language use varies according relationship between the speaker and his audience. This question lies within the framework of sociolinguistics. The letter can be defined as a branch of linguistics, which focuses on the study of the ways in which languages are integrated with human society. Sociolinguistics overlaps with sociohistorical linguistics, the primary field of study of which is the forms of language in society and development of linguistic functions and types of variation through time within particular languages, speech communities, social groups and individuals (Dirven & Vespoor, 1999). The notion of language in sociolinguistics cannot be defined on the basis of geography, or ethnicity, or mutual intelligibility of its speakers. In order to define the language as least somehow sociolinguists established the term of “a speech community”, which is defined as any group of people, who believe that they speak the same language or language variety. These groups can be quite broad ranging from a small cluster of speakers to whole nations or even supranational groups (Dirven & Vespoor, 1999). Sociolinguistics is primarily concerned with the study of language variation, which is influences by the social factors and takes place within particular contextual environment. It is a well-known fact that every language speaker has a number of different language varieties. In fact there is no person on earth, whose communication is restricted to the only one language variety. This can be seen only with second-language learners, however, this drawback sound be eliminated as soon as possible for the person to sound naturally in the native speaker community (Meyerhoff, 2006). Every person has on stock a number of various speech styles and language varieties, which he/she uses in particular situations and change with the change of the external conditions. This phenomenon is known as code-switching, which is defined as the usage of different language varieties in different social situations. The speaker uses code-switching to accustom to the change of the social environment (Dirven & Vespoor, 1999). One of the founders of sociolinguistics is William Labov, who made a valuable quantitative research of language variation and change, which is considered to be the start of sociolinguistics (Labov, 1972). Sociolinguistic studies usually make a survey of a particular sample population and interview them in order to receive statistic data on the usage of certain sociolinguistic variables. According to Labov ideal sociolinguistic variable is defined according to the following criteria: • high frequency, • certain level of immunity from conscious suppression, • integration into larger structures, and • ability of being easily quantified on a linear scale (Labov, 1972). However, I’d like to state that no all variables are easily defined and differentiated under this definition. Thus, phonetic variables fit into these criteria perfectly; grammatical variables more rarely and lexical variables are at all difficult to notice. At the same time this last type is of most interest and the aim of my research. Labov focused on the language varieties according to the perception of the variety as more prestigious and wish of the speaker to fit into appropriate situation. The concept of prestige is very important for any sociolinguistic analysis due to the fact that speech community views some speech habits as positive or negative. This tendency is obvious in various situations of speech and on various levels. Thus, it can be seen on the level of the individual phoneme, which was researched by Labov in his study of pronunciation of the post-vocalic /r/ in the North-Eastern USA, or in can be also found on the macro level, when particular language is chosen in various diglossic communities to sound either more prestigious or like one of the community through and trough as it happens with the choice between Swiss-German/High German. It is interesting that this choice of an appropriate language variety is made by the speaker quite often in the actual process of the speech act, either consciously or even subconsciously. One more important aspect of sociolinguistics is the notion of social network, which is essential for understanding the role and the place of language varieties in society. The notion of social networks is applied more often of the macro level of a nation or a city, but it is also viewed on the lower level of inter-personal communication within the person’s neighbourhoods or even within the single family. Now the notion of social network is highly applied to the sphere of the interpersonal communication in chat rooms, MySpace groups, organizations, and on-line dating services (Meyerhoff, 2006). Language variation can be observed within class and occupation groups, which are considered by many researchers as the main linguistic markers of society. One of the closest relations can be found between the class and language variety. It was proved that members of the working class usually speak less standard language. At the same time the lower, middle, and upper middle class will try to approach the standard language variety. It is very important to stress that the upper class members in spite of their status usually tend to speak even “less” standard language than members of the middle class, which can be explained in terms of class aspirations (Labov, 1972). The notion of class aspiration can be schematically defined as the desire to be associated with a particular class. Usually this phenomenon can be found within the lower classes members, who wish to be associated with the members of the upper class and thus, adjust their patterns of speech to sound like them. The notion of the language variety is often researched within the framework of the social language codes, which were first studied by Basil Bernstein in his book “Elaborated and restricted codes: their social origins and some consequences”. He devised a social code system for the differentiation of various speech patterns used by the representatives of different social classes. In this research he came to the conclusion that members of the middle class usually organise their speech quite differently from the ways used by the working class (Bernstein, 1964 ). According to Basil Bernstein’s theory the restricted code is used by the working-class, which aim to establish strong bonds between group members. This code presupposes that people are not obliged to explain the meaning of the words explicitly due to the common social and cultural background. The other characteristic feature of this code is greater emphasis on “we” to show close connection within a social group (Bernstein, 1964). The other type of the code is elaborated code, which is defined by Basil Bernstein as the type of speech pattern the middle and upper classes, which is used by them to attain access to education and career advancement. The connections within these groups are not so tight and people gain their social identity not on the basis of their reference to their group but on the basis individual disposition and character. People have to present their thoughts more explicitly and therefore “I” in this group is more prominent than within the working class (Bernstein, 1964). One more distinction within society is made on the basis of the age. Thus, I constantly face the particular language variety used by street youth. Their speech naturally differs greatly from the standard norms and often is viewed as rude and inappropriate by older generation. We can list the following reasons of their usage of this language type: for the sake of enhancing of their own cultural identity, for the sake of identification, for the sake of exclusion of “outsiders” and finally for the sake of rising the feeling of fear or admiration with others. Very important for understanding of language varieties within the speaker/listener communication is the notion of setting and interpersonal relations. The former includes the study of the social occasion and the degree of formality, while the latter focuses on the relations between the speaker and listener (Social Factors, 1997). Thus, the notion of setting explains why we speak differently in the classroom, at home or at the social rout. The notion of IPr is the best explanation of language variability when we are talking to our friends, to professors or the mothers of our girlfriends. Every speaker evaluates his utterance before actually pronouncing it. This can be done either consciously or subconsciously, depending on the situation and competence of the speaker. Anyway, each of us at least seldom considers, which phrase to use in the given situation. During this process we quickly but thoroughly process the following information: 1. How well do I know the listener? 2. In what social setting am I? (formal or informal) 3. To whom I will speak? (I mean status relationships and social roles) 4. What is the purpose of conversation? 5. What topic is under discussion? (Social Factors, 1997). After weighting all these factors, the speaker chooses the most appropriate utterance to be correctly and adequately understood by the listener. This is called choosing definite variety or code. In every conversation a speaker chooses a tactics on the basis of the region, cultural and socio-economics background of both the speaker and the listener. The notion of the background was considered by E. Schegloff in his famous work “Notes on a conversational practice”. He claims that the choice of the particular utterance depends greatly on the speaker’s perception of the information as already known to the listener or completely new. This is often possible due to the common background information (Peterson, 2007). The other researcher Dell Hymes also focused on the complexity of the interpersonal communication and on the research of the sources of communicative competence. Hymes defined eight relevant factors of the interpersonal communication and speaker’s competence in his ethnographic framework and presented them in the acronym SPEAKING (Hymes, 2007). 1. Setting is regarded on the basis of circumstances, under which a communication takes place. 2. Participants are defined on the basis of their social roles and fill in the slots in the communicative frame, like speaker-listener, addressor-addressee and sender-receiver. 3. Ends include the expected outcomes of the communicative event as well as individual aims of the participants of communication. 4. Act sequence defines the form and content of the communicative event and their correlation. 5. Key can posses both verbal and nonverbal characteristics or either of them, and is featured in terms of the tone and manner of the communication. 6. Instrumentalities regard the communication channel (like writing, oral…) and the type of speech according to code and style (regional dialect, formal style…). 7. Norms of interaction and interpretation are characterised by social structure and relationships in a particular community. These norms regulate the process of interaction and influence the result of interpretation of the message pronounced by the speaker. 8. Genre is used to define the variety of marked types of utterances, which are different from the casual speech (sermon, lecture, poem…) (Hymes, 2007). It is very interesting to observe these factors in the process of the actual communication and to distinguish the communicative event of the basis of each factor. References Bernstein, B. Elaborated and Restricted Codes: Their Social Origins and Some Consequences. American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 66, No. 6, Part 2: The Ethonography of Communication, 1964 Dirven, R., Vespoor, M. Cognitive Exploration of Language and Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1999. Hymes, D. The Ethnography of Communication[online]. Available from: < http://www.aucegypt.edu/academic/anth/anth352/language-culture.htm > accessed 1 May 2007. Labov, W. Language in the Inner City. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press, 1972. Meyerhoff, M. Introducing Sociolinguistics. New York: Routledge, 2006. Peterson, P. LING6910 Foundation of Linguistics Semester one 2007 course notes Social factors. [online]. Available from: 1997. Read More