Download Linguistic variation and Speech communities When we use a

Linguistic variation and Speech communities
When we use a language, we also learn the social conventions associated with it, which can be
different from one culture to another. The aim of sociolinguistics is to describe the variations within a
language and match these variations with the different groups of people that use them, as well as the
corresponding situations.
Diachronic Variations
Languages change over time.
Languages change over space.
Languages change according to the situation of communication, because languages are in a constant
flux.
All components of a language change:
Pronunciation
Syntax
Vocabulary because while some words disappear, the Word Stock can be expanded with coined,
invented or borrowed words from other languages.
Linguistic change over time
pronunciation: /fɔti/ => /fʊt/ =>/fi:t/
grammar: helpan => help
Vocabulary: mete for any type of food => meat for
only one variety of food.
Linguistic change over space. May be the best illustration would be the distinction between
the two varieties of English known as British English (BE) and American English (AM).
Pronunciation: either (BE) /aiδə/; (AM) /i:δə/
Grammar: (BE) England are the champion; (AM) England is the champion
Vocabulary: (BE) the lorry driver; (AM) the truck driver
Linguistic change according to context of interaction: a clear illustration of this type of
change concerns the difference between the variety known as colloquial English used in a familiar
context, and the one known as formal English which is used in formal and official circumstances. For
example, don’t in a familiar context and do not in a formal situation.
Speech Community
Wardaugh (1986) warns that if “Sociolinguistics is the study of language use within or among groups
of speakers. What are groups? ‘Group’ is a difficult concept to define but one we must try to grasp.
For our purposes, a group must have at least two members but there is really no upper limit to group
membership. People can group together for one or more reasons: social, religious, political, cultural,
familial, vocational, avocational, etc. The group may be temporary or quasi-permanent and the
purposes of its members may change, i.e., its raison d’être. A group is also more than its members for
they may come and go. They may also belong to other groups and may or may not meet face-to-face.
Speech Communities may be tight or loose and the importance of group membership is likely to vary
among individuals within the group, being extremely important to some and of little consequence to
others. An individual’s feelings of identity are closely related to that person’s feelings about groups in
which he or she is a member, feels strong (or weak) commitment (or rejection), and finds some kind of
success (or failure).” Each group speaks a given language but when the group is tightly bonded the
group often adopts a form of language which participates in distinguishing this group from others
Following, are a certain number of definitions of speech communities by well-known scholars, most of
them reported in R.A. Hudson’s book (1980) ‘Sociolinguistics’:
In his book entitled ‘Language’, Bloomfield defines a speech community as “a group of people who
interact by means of speech.” Here, language is seen as a matter of speech only, without considering
its written aspect. To Hockett (1958), “Each language defines a speech community: the whole set of
people who communicate with each other, either directly or indirectly, via the common language.”
Here, both aspects of a language are concerned.To Gumperz (1968), a speech community is “any
human aggregate characterised 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 use”. Here, the
focus is on the frequency of oral interaction only. John Lyons (1970) defines a speech community
simply as “all the people who use a given language.” Lyons provides no further precision as to the
form of the language used. To Labov,“ the speech community is not defined by any marked agreement
in the use of any language elements, so much as by participation in a set of shared norms; these norms
may be observed in overt types of evaluative behaviour, and by the uniformity of abstract patterns of
variation which are invariant in respect to particular levels of usage.”Here, Labov puts the focus on
the norms which incite people to make in the use of language Bolinger (1975) on his part, offers a
quite complex definition. To him, “ there is no limit to the ways in which human beings league
themselves together for self-identification, security, gain amusement, worship, or any of the other
purposes that are held in common, consequently, there is no limit to the number and variety of
communities that are to be found in society.”It should be noticed here that to Bolinger, human
gatherings into communities also imply a varity in speech or speeches. To Bernard Spolsky,
“sociolinguistics focuses on the language practices of a group of people who do in fact have the
opportunity to interact, and who, it often turns out, share not just a single language, but a repertoire
of language varieties”. For the sociolinguist, the speech community is a complex interlocking network
of communication whose members share knowledge about, and attitudes towards the language use
patterns of others as well as themselves.
One may then safely consider a speech community as a group of people who share the same
knowledge of a language in a particular setting, which can be close or broad. A speech community
therefore could be “all the people who speak a common language and so, share notions of what is
same or different in phonology, vocabulary and syntax. It is the criterion of mutual intelligibility
which groups or separates languages.
To Peter Trudgill, the criterion of ‘mutual intelligibility’ is of less importance in the use of the
terms language and dialect than are political and cultural factors. The term dialect, refers strictly
speaking to differences between kinds of language which are differences in vocabulary and grammar
as well as pronunciation. The term accent, on the other hand, refers solely to differences of
pronunciation, and it is important to distinguish between the two. This is particularly true, in the
context of English, in the case of the dialect known as Standard English. In so far as it differs
grammatically and lexically from other varieties of English, it is legitimate to consider it a dialect: the
term dialect can be used to apply to all varieties, not just to non-standard varieties.
There is also one accent which only occurs together with Standard English. This is the British
English accent, or more properly, the English-English accent, which is known to linguists as RP
(Received Pronunciation). This is the accent which developed largely in the English public schools,
and which was until recently required of all BBC announcers. It is however not necessary to speak
Standard English. Standard English can be spoken with any regional accent, and in the vast majority of
cases normally is.
Because language, as a social phenomenon is closely tied up with the social structure and
value system of society, different dialects and accents are evaluated in different ways. In this respect,
Standard English is endowed with prestige and its accent is widely considered ‘correct’, ‘beautiful’,
’nice’, ‘pure’ and so on. Other, non-standard, non-prestige varieties are often held to be ‘ugly’,
‘corrupt’, ‘lazy’, etc.
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,
rule-governed systems which are wholly adequate for the needs of their speakers. It follows that valuejudgments concerning the correctness and purity of linguistic varieties are social rather than linguistic.
There is nothing at all, inherent in non-standard varieties which makes them inferior. Any apparent
inferiority is due only to their association with speakers from under-privileged, low-status groups. In
other words, attitudes towards non-standard dialects are attitudes which reflect the social structure of
society.
As can be observed, giving a definition is a much more complicated task, because, for example, of the
number of variables involved in the social and linguistic interaction of some speech communities. A
big component of a speech community is to share at least one language. Each individual can be a
member of a speech community on one occasion and of another on another occasion. It is also
important to remember that speech communities do not necessarily correspond with political
boundaries, religions or cultures.
Languages are shared by groups of people that share a physical context but also a number of social
norms.
There are 4 major types of speech communities, as distinguished by Kahru:
1. A multilingual speech community = more than one official languages, such as in Switzerland.
2. A bilingual speech community = two official languages in the same country, such as Canada and
Belgium.
3. A monolingual speech community = only one official language, although in the same country
people can use different styles, registers and even dialects, which can be very different from the
standard language.
4. A diglossic community = two languages or varieties are functionally complementary. Usually, one
variety is considered the High variety and another is for colloquial speech (low variety) (Arabic
Classical and colloquial).
Speech communities have no limitation of location or size. It entails a complex interlocking network
of communication. The members of the speech community share the knowledge of language use
patterns. They share attitudes towards themselves and others. They also share a set of language
varieties and norms for using them.