Transcript Document
L23A: Sociology of Language 2006-2007 Lecturer: Emmogene Budhai-Alvaranga Email addresses: [email protected] or [email protected] L23A Website: www.mona.uwi.edu/dllp/courses/l23a Please Turn off all cellular phones & pagers 7/7/2015 1 Objectives of the Session 7/7/2015 Review of Last Session Examine the concept ‘speech community’ – definition, scope, problems. etc Introduction to Variation existing in speech communities 2 Review: Social Approach to Language Acquisition should be seen as involving 2 processes: COGNITIVE PROCESS – human brain SOCIAL PROCESS – that only unfolds in social interaction. 7/7/2015 3 Review: Sociolinguistics & Sociology of Language The Basic Notion: Language use symbolically represents fundamental dimensions of social behaviour and human interaction. 7/7/2015 4 Review: SOCIOLOGY OF LANGUAGE? Where does this field belong? 2 OPTIONS: (a) sociology of language –subset Sociology sociolinguistics – subset of Linguistics of (b) sociolinguistics – 2 orientations: Macro-sociolinguistics Micro-sociolinguistics 7/7/2015 5 Macro – (examines broad concerns) Macro researches: - investigate language attitudes among large population on a national level - the status varieties of languages/language - language contact situations, origin of pidgins and Creoles 7/7/2015 6 Micro-Sociolinguistics detailed investigation of specific linguistic items or individual differences in conversation Micro researches: An example - how we organize our social relationship within a particular society (a) addressing a person (b) Telling a joke, telling a story 7/7/2015 7 The Speech Community 7/7/2015 Why is it important? How would you define the “speech community”? What is the “scope”? Would the university constitute a speech community? On what basis?? 8 Definitions given by some linguists:– (a) Chomsky (1965) “a group sharing the same communicative competence” (b) Lyons (1970) “all people who use a given language” (c) Labov (1972) “people who share a set of linguistic norms” 7/7/2015 9 Labov’s definition – is it adequate? Case Study given by Labov: English speakers in New York all share common views about language eg. The post vocalic [r] is prestigious: [garbid] vs. [gaabid] [hart] vs. [haat] 7/7/2015 10 Labov’s definition – problems? 7/7/2015 Problem 1: Speakers of the same language who do not share norms would be excluded. Problem 2: speakers of the same language may share different set of norms. 11 Speakers in Jamaica – do we share same set of norms? (1) ‘think’ & ‘though’ Which form is prestigious? [] & [] vs. [t] and [d] 7/7/2015 (2) ‘ing’ in Jamaica Which form is prestigious? running: [] vs. [nn] 12 In Jamaica – Which form is prestigious? ‘education’ beginning: [] vs. [] 7/7/2015 ‘education’ end: [n] vs. [n] vs. [ n] 13 Main Problems with Group Assignments: 7/7/2015 Even when linguistic criteria assign them to groups, people may have different views on their groupings Speakers see themselves as one group even if they do not speak the same language 14 People define their group membership with social factors: Class Age Ethnicity Race Gender Religion Politics History 7/7/2015 15 Hymes (1974) and Gumperz (1971) both had shared features: 1. Common locale is shared 2. a high level of interaction among group members 3. more interaction among group members than non-members 4. common social and linguistic norms 7/7/2015 16