Transcript Sociolinguistics - Staff Site Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta

Meeting II
Language and Society
Siti Mukminatun
Sociolinguistics

Study the relationship between language and society.
1. explaining why we speak differently in different social
contexts
2. identifying the social functions of language and the
ways it is used to convey social meaning.

An attempt to find correlations between social structure and
linguistic structure and to observe any changes that occur
(Gumpers, 1971: 223)

Language and society → intertwined → impossible to
understand one without the other.

The language used by the participants is influenced by a
number of social factors.
Sociolinguistics vs. the Sociology of
language


Sociolinguistics
investigating the relationships between language
and society with the goal of a better
understanding of the structure of language and
of how languages function in communication
Sociology of language
to discover how social structure can be better
understood through the study of language, e.g.
how certain linguistic features serve to
characterize particular social arrangement
Sociolinguistics vs. the Sociology of
language
Hudson, 1980: 4-5
a. Sociolinguistics is the study of language
in relation to society’,
b. Sociology of language: the study of
society in relation to language
Similarity:
a. Both require systematic study of
language.
The relationship between language
and society
(wardaugh, : 10)
structure → linguistic structure and/or behavior
a. age-grading phenomenon
young children speak differently from older
children and in turn, children speak differently
from mature adults.
b. studies → the varieties of language that speakers
use reflect such matters; their regional, social,
or ethnic origin and possible sex.
c. other studies → particular ways of speaking,
choices of words, and rules for conversing
are
determined by social requirement
1. Social
The relationship between
language and society
(wardaugh, : 10)
2. Linguistic structure and/or behavior may
either influence or determine social
structure (behind Whorfian hypothesis)
3. The influence is bi-directional; language
and society may influence each other.
4. There is no relationship at all.
Social factors

The participants
Who is talking to whom (wife-husband,
customer-shopkeeper, boss-worker)

The social setting and function of interaction
e.g. home, work, school

The aim or purpose of the interaction
(informative, social)

The topic; What is being talked about?
Example I
Ray : Hi mum.
Mum: Hi. You’re late.
Ray : Yeah, that bastard Sootbucket kept us in
again.
Mum: Nana’s here.
Ray : Oh sorry. Where is she?
Analysis I

Language serves a range of functions; to
ask for and give people information, to
express indignation and annoyance, as
well as admiration and express feelings.
Example II
Ray
: Good afternoon, sir.
Principle : What are you doing here at this
time?
Ray
: Mr. Sutton kept us in, sir.
For the analysis, see Holmes, 1995: 2-3
Example III

Every afternoon my friend packs her bag and
leaves her Cardiff office at about 5 o’clock. As
she leaves, her business partner says goodbye
Margaret, (she replies goodbye Mike) her
secretary says goodbye Ms Walker, (she replies
goodbye Jill) and the caretaker says Bye Mrs.
Walker (to which she responds goodbye Andy).
As she arrives home she is greeted by Hi mum
from her son, Jamie, hello dear, have a good
day?, from her mother, and simply you’re late
again! from her husband.
Example III

Later in the evening the president of the
local flower club calls to ask if she would
like to join. Good evening, is that Mrs.
Billington? she asks. No, it’s Ms Walker,
but my husband’s name is David
Billington, she answers. What can I do for
you? Finally a friend calls Boradar Meg,
how’s thing?
Example IV
Sam : You seen our ‘enry’s new ‘ouse
yet? It’s in ‘alton you know.
Jim : I have indeed. I could hardly
miss it Sam. Your Henry now
owns the biggest house in Halton.
It illustrated a range of social influences on
language choice.
Social dimensions
A Social distance scale concerned with
participant relationship
 A status scale concerned with participant
relationship
 A formality scale relating to the setting or
type of interaction
 Two functional scales relating to the
purposes or topic of interaction

The solidarity – social distance
scale
Intimate
Distant
High solidarity
Low solidarity
The scale is useful in emphasizing that how
well we know someone is a relevant factor
in linguistic choice.
e.g. meg vs. Mrs. Belington
The status scale
Superior
high status
Subordinate
low status
e.g.
1. The use of ‘sir’, ‘Mrs.’, to the lecturer by the
students
2. The [h]-dropping reflect someone’s lower
social group
The formality scale
Formal
Informal
1.
2.
High formality
Low Formality
Useful in assessing the influence of social
setting or type of interaction on language
choice.
Often degrees of formality are largely
determined by solidarity and status
relationship. But not always.
The referential and affective
function scales
Referential
High
Information
Content
low
information
content
affective
Low
Affective
Content
high
affective
content
The referential and affective
function scales
1. The more referentially oriented an
interaction is, the less it tends to express
the feelings of the speaker.

Chaika ( 1988, 10)
the context determines meaning,
1. the social status of speakers
2. the speech event and social conventions
governing it;
3. the social-cultural and physical environment
4. previous discourse between the speakers or
known to them
5. the intent of the speaker.
Conclusion
Our word choices depend on who we are
talking to.
 Language choices convey information
about the social relationships between
people as well as about the topic of
discussion.
 Linguistic variation occurs at other levels
of linguistic analysis: sounds, wordstructure, grammar as well as vocabulary.
