Critical Thinking of Krochs Paper in Sociolinguistic - Essay Example

Critical thinking of Kroch: Sociolinguistic Study Sociological study in language has remained one of the most powerful tools used by sociologists and behaviour analysts to study society. The study of the influence of language on society and human behaviour leads to the truth about where we come from and, whom we associate and interact with. Language therefore develops by the influence of society on the community and thereby the individual. The study of linguistics although closely related to language focuses more on the manner of speaking a language, the dialect and the accent that people use to peak the language. Therefore in the case of linguistic sociology the study is based on the influence of the language on society. Social linguistics study reveals the effect of society and communal behaviours in moulding the language and influencing the way people speak a particular language. In other words sociology of linguistics focuses on language from a contextual point of view and examines the delivery, usage and symbolism of language used by people within a social set up. “The basic notion underlying sociolinguistics is quite simple: Language use symbolically represents fundamental dimensions of social behaviour and human interaction. The notion is simple, but the ways in which language reflects behaviour can often be complex and subtle.” (Wolfram)   The sociology of Linguistics in Pennsylvania and specifically in Philadelphia is one of the most studied in the field of linguistics in the United States. William Labov is regaled as the founder of Variational linguistic study. As Stated by J.K Chambers, "variationist sociolinguistics had its effective beginnings only in 1963, the year in which William Labov presented the first sociolinguistic research report."(2002). The sociological study of linguistics segregates the study of Linguistics as: 1. Speech community – Language spoken within a community who use language in a unique way. This language is however identified with, within the community and mutually accepted amongst the members of the same community. 2. Prestige –Refers to the level of respect accorded to a dialect rather than the language itself within members of a speech community and is most often related to social class. Aims and methodology of Kroch’s study This essay will focus on the studies of Anthony Kroch, professor of linguistics in the University of Pennsylvania. He has studied social linguistics and the demarcations effected into society or the effects vice versa like his contemporary William Labov. Especially notable is his linguistic study in the Upper class in Philadelphia, which he found to be a characteristic of all Upper class East Coast cities. His research, ‘Dialect and style in the speech of upper class Philadelphia’ (1996) is an unusual study of linguistic patterns that affect strata of society and not restricted to ethnicity or race. In this essay we will explore the methodologies adopted by Kroch to arrive at his analysis and examine its accurate applications in the study of linguistics. Most linguistics studies have found similar behavioural linguistic patterns within people of a certain community, which may or may not be restricted to a geographical boundary. Kroch’s study reveals a demarcation between the handling of language and dialects within people of a same community who are demarcated by social status. This demarcation was also found to be restricted to people in the region sharing similar social status, thus restricting the geographic boundaries as ascertained by Labov, to the main cities. This demarcation was evident in pre Wold War II society. Kroch based his study on groups, which fell in the same categories. Unusual focus of Kroch’s Work: Differences and similarities in Kroch's approach from Labov's Approach. Unlike Labov’s researchers Kroch selected the participants of his research based on demographics in society and by personal references. Kroch selected 10 for his primary sample study. He selected 6 men and 4 women from Upper class adults, who were all above age 50 and Pre-War natives of Philadelphia. The people selected in the primary group had predominantly spent their entire lives in Philadelphia, save a few years of absence where they travelled out of Philadelphia to complete their schooling or to serve in the military. His secondary group was formed of 3 men and two women who were either born to the members of the primary group or were recommended by the members in the group. These recommendations also were sought from families who shared the same demographics with the primary group. By shared demographics, Kroch also aimed to obtain respondents with similar viewpoints. We will explain his theory of age selection later in the essay. Kroch selected his primary and secondary group based on the listing in the register, membership status in elite clubs and mainly from a list of families who were invited to the Assembly ball, exclusive to the native upper class in Philadelphia. He also worked on personal introductions from families he befriended within that social class. Therefore unlike Labov’s researchers Kroch eliminated the possibility of mixing the “Nouveau riche” with those with “Old Money” and did not face any opposition to his analytical experiment because of his approach to the study. Kroch’s analysis also focussed on linguistics differences between the genders within the same social network of society. We also notice a distinct difference in the approach to the conclusion. Kroch familiarized himself with the interview respondents prior to the interview itself and made them feel at ease by establishing the fact that the analysis was to ascertain linguistic differences based on patterns and not to draw influences from their social life. This modification aided in getting the respondents to behave as they would in their usual course of life. He also chose political topics, which would elicit a more passionate response from his respondents. His third group comprised of 10 upper class men, who shared similar social status as the Upper middle class of the primary group by way of education and professional status. Kroch’s study compared the linguistic behaviour between these three groups to base his analysis. Kroch’s identification of Upper Class: Advantages and Restrictions that may be seen in this methodology. Kroch identifies the Upper class of the early 1900’s as those that belonged to a common Episcopal denomination church, members of an elite register, which maintained a criterion of inclusion only to those who have remained true to their social class and did not marry outside of it. For example people who married in to the middle class or lower classes were excluded from the register. Clubs in downtown Philadelphia catered exclusively to the upper class. This elite group also had common meeting points and points of gathering, segregated only by gender. Men and women only mingled socially with people from their own class in society. When referring to the Upper class in Philadelphia, it refers to the class distinctions that existed between the years 1910 and until World War II. The class distinctions slowly showed a decline after the War once the Upper middle class became a mix of people from different strata’s of society unified by economic status. Most women in the early 1900’s showed less outer influences even though they travelled just like the men did to study. Kroch’s study shows us how men acquired more similarities in certain pronunciations and phonetic usage with people outside their social community as compared to the women. Men asserted their social differences by developing a more distinct drawl and taking time to finish their sentences. This was analyzed more as a symbol of authority and assuming that people below their social status had no choice but to give them time to finish their sentences. Therefore Kroch has also managed to establish a difference between genders within similar social setups while maintaining that class has a larger effect on linguistic difference than gender. Kroch’s analysis shows that Upper class women showed a stronger tendency to “correct their speech away from the vernacular norm” (1995) showing a similarity between style between women in the Upper middle class and the middle class in general. This trend shows a variation from similar analysis performed with linguistic influences in geographic regions. As seen below by F. Martin’s observation in his study in Britain, Women, it seems, are considerably more disposed than men to upgrade themselves into the middle-class and less likely to allocate themselves to the working-class - a finding which confirms the common observation that status consciousness is more pronounced among women. (1954) We do see evidence of the above theory of Martin in certain Asian civilizations. Therefore while we are only able to draw conclusions within a particular speech community and not able to draw universal conclusions based on Kroch’s quantitative Analysis, we can gauge that women interact in ways that maintain solidarity more than men do while men rely more on power and assertiveness. When we look at linguistic influences in Philadelphia we have to look at the history of language in the East coast and specifically in the city. Linguistic influences in Pennsylvania are drawn more from the Dutch and German influences in Britain itself. Their social class in English society largely influences the linguistic differences between the English, the English Dutch and, the English German. We can see these influences carried over by the early settlers in the United States. Philadelphia shares the English language influences characterized by the early British, Welsh and Dutch settlers in the East Coast of the United States. They share the same phonetic emphasis on some words as seen in New York and New Jersey. Predominantly however the Philadelphia dialect remains very characteristic to that region and almost never spread to other parts in the East Coast. Distinct linguistic differences are still evident even today in the English spoken by the Amish who draw their influence from The British German dialect. Therefore Kroch’s identification of Upper class and his conclusions are accurate in establishing that dialect is common to region based on the influences asserted by history. Kroch may have chosen a more quantitative approach to analysis but his conclusion shows a qualitative approach in his analysis of how certain linguistic differences are maintained by social classes as a way of fitting in their social group. We have all seen evidence to language and grammar developing over time. Labov’s research on the sociology of referential linguistics has already established that different communities maintain their own unique grammar that holds meaning that is exclusive to their community. Kroch goes one step further and also assigns linguistic differences to the equation. The only difference is that this difference is maintained not solely for the purpose of understanding but for the fear of not being accepted within their social network. Therefore Kroch’s model shows a rejection to changes in language by the Upper class in Philadelphia. There is evidence however of some modifications within similar social classes and linguistic influences based on geographic location. As we established earlier, most of the East coast has the same New England influences but the Upper Class New York and New Jersey have abandoned some phonetic usages and phrases to blend better within their social surroundings. Influences of Age and Topic in the Study Kroch bases his study on demographics for the sole reason of establishing the demarcation of social class. Kroch narrows the age group in his Primary group to those born in Philadelphia between the years 1910 to 1923. As mentioned earlier, the Upper class that developed in the United States remained strong between the years mentioned above. Society at that time had very clear distinctions between the rich and the poor, which was also influenced largely by colour. His choosing in that age group clearly indicates that he was studying the behaviour of only the white population. Even in the other primary groups that he selected in his study, Kroch doe not indicate if he chose any nouveau riche from the African American population. Therefore it is clear that his intent was to study social class as distinguished by society and not necessarily only by economic status. There is evidence to the fact that social distinctions in Africa are based solely on economic status and therefore could be studied quantitatively. United States society shows various cultural and historical influences and these cannot be ignored while studying the linguistic characteristics of particular strata of society. Therefore it suffices to say that the primary group selected by Kroch as well as the secondary group, which shows immediate influence by the primary group helps in a qualitative analysis of the subject. The question that was addressed in the interview also establishes the above point among other things. His question in the interview was directed towards gaining individual viewpoints on the political scene of the city. His question in the interview was about their viewpoints on the Mayor in Philadelphia. Kroch addressed this question bearing in mind that the new Mayor of Philadelphia was from middle class upbringing and background. This was in contrast with the prior two mayors who were from the Upper class. Kroch was well aware of the emotions this would stir in his respondents, based on his knowledge of the history of class distinction in Philadelphia. His objective in raising an emotional response was based on that fact that this would help him analyse their characteristic mannerisms of speaking. Language and articulation is an expression of emotion. Researchers have studied and proven that the study of language related to emotion has more to do with the politics of social life than the psychology of the person. (Lutz. et al. 1990). Kroch’s intention is to exploit this theory and catch people in their essence. In doing so he gains the advantage of them expressing freely without any attempt at being politically correct in their view points as well as language. To explain this we will go back to Kroch’s theory on linguistic behaviour’s, that form in people before they gain adulthood. It was common practise for children to be taken care of by a maid or a nurse. Children gain certain behaviour by this exposure. These influences may not completely change the language spoken by the child in front of his or her family but children do adopt certain mannerisms and gain familiarity with expressions that are characteristic of the dialect spoken by these servants or nurses. These influences that are affected during the formative years of childhood have a much longer standing impact on a person’s linguistic mannerisms than any assumptions that they may have gained due to exposure to certain behaviour in their adulthood. These influences could be something that adults gain when they move out of their neighbourhood and social settings to either attend school or college in the case of women and college and military service in men. Therefore we can conclude that Kroch was accurate in the selection of that particular question in his interview. The results obtained y his analysis are proof of the success of this selection. Conclusion Kroch’s analysis establishes the influence of social division in linguistics behaviour. However it is restrictive in some aspects that may be questioned from a feminist point of view. The study of linguistics by Kroch, Labov and others has focussed on the masculinity thus interpreting their analysis only from a male point of view. The data analysed shows inconsistency in behaviour between men and women. Kroch analysed this difference only from the basis of men in Upper class. United States has a history of patriarchy, which continues even in today’s society in many ways. The assertive behaviour that Kroch isolates as being assertive and class dominance is a behaviour that is exhibited by men in all classes of society regardless of geographical location. Therefore it seems like a simplistic to analyse based only on that point of view. Kroch however is very accurate in deducing that the Upper class resisted change and did not allow advancements in grammar to filter into their dialect. Research has shown that advancements in grammar and new usages in language are always effected from the bottom to the top and not the other way around. In other words, these changes graduate from the lower or working classes to the Upper classes. There is evidence in the advancements in grammar in English language in the American society and specifically in Philadelphia. Therefore when we see that the change is not evident in the language of the Upper class, it is safe to conclude that it is because of the resistance shown by the Upper class towards such a change. We are however unclear if this resistance is because of social demarcations or an attempt to hold on to culture and tradition. The Amish community in Pennsylvania have for very many years stayed away from the same advancements in grammar and dialect. They are isolated by the fact that they do not wish to be a part of outside society for fear of losing their hold over their cultural norms and traditions. In this case the resistance to change has nothing to do with social class but culture and social traditions. Therefore it is hard to deduce if Kroch’s analysis from his experiment is applicable to modern capitalist society where social class is based solely on economic status as well. Anthony Kroch’ contribution to socio-linguistic study of the English language in the United States is notable for his contribution to the understanding of linguistic influences in United States society. His experiment on the above topic while leading to a few questions is no doubt valuable in understanding the reasons for the obvious linguistic variations in Philadelphia. His deduction of the absence of the post “vocalic “r” in the Philadelphia Upper Class” also gives us a very clear idea of the linguistic history of the United States influenced largely by European migrations post World War II. Only in this case we are unable to deduce if the resistance is due to social class or affinity to traditional moors by the native “Old Money” in Philadelphia. Works Cited Kroch, Anthony S. “Dialect and style in the speech of upper class Philadelphia.” (1996). Guy, Gregory R, Feagin, Crawford, Schiffrin, Deborah and Baugh, John (eds) “Towards a Social Science of Language”. Papers in honor of William Labov. Series IV.Volume 128. 1996. J.K. Chambers. Peter Trudgil. Natalie Schilling-Estes (eds.). The Handbook of Language Variation and Change. 2002. James Milroy and Lesley Milroy. “Linguistic Change, Social Network and Speaker Innovation”. Journal of Linguistics, Vol. 21, No.2.339-384. 1985. March 02, 2012. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4175792 Martin, F. Glass, D. (ed.) "Some Subjective Aspects of Social Stratification." Social Mobility in Great Britain. London. 1954  Lutz, Catherine A. Abu-Lughod, Lila (Eds.) “Language and the politics of emotion”. Studies in emotion and social interaction. viii 217 pp. 1990 Read More