Social Variety Of The Same Language example essay topic

1. Introduction The subject of my term paper is sociolinguistics: relation between language and society. In my work I will discuss all types of language in society, investigate an influence of the sociological factors on language, present different aspects and functions of it. Another a proach to language and society focuses on situations and uses of language as an activity in its own right. Further, I will analyze geographical, social variations. Next, I will discuss issues on bilingualism, multilingualism, explain what is slang, dialect.

And finally I will explain such phenomena as mixed-gender, single-gender conversations. Sociolinguistics is a term including the aspects of linguistics applied toward the connections between language and society, and the way we use it in different social situations. It ranges from the study of the wide variety of dialects across a given region down to the analysis between the way men and women speak to one another. Sociolinguistics often shows us the humorous realities of human speech and how a dialect of a given language can often describe the age, sex, and social class of the speaker; it codes the social function of a language. R.A. Hudson ("Sociolinguistics" 1980: 4) defined sociolinguistics as "the study of language in relation to society", implying that sociolinguistics is part of the study of language". Language is one of the most powerful emblems of social behavior.

In the normal transfer of information through language, we use language to send vital social messages about who we are, where we come from, and who we associate with. It is often shocking to realize how extensively we may judge a person's background, character, and intentions based simply upon the person's language, dialect, or, in some instances, even the choice of a single word. Given the social role of language, it stands to reason that one strand of language study should concentrate on the role of language in society. Language varies not only according to the social characteristics of the speaker (such as social class, ethnic group, age and sex) but also according to the social context in which he finds himself. The same speaker uses different linguistic varieties in different situations and for different purposes. Sociolinguistics has become an increasingly important and popular field of study, as certain cultures around the world expand their communication base and intergroup and interpersonal relations take on escalating significance.

The basic notion underlying sociolinguistics is quite simple: Language use symbolically represents fundamental dimensions of social behavior and human interaction. The notion is simple, but the ways in which language reflects behavior can often be complex and subtle. Furthermore, the relationship between language and society affects a wide range of encounters -- from broadly based international relations to narrowly defined interpersonal relationships. Linguistics, defined as the study of language, comprises of many different fields of investigation. Some branches focus on particular languages in turn and their internal structure, such as morphology or syntax, whereas others attempt a broader placement of language use in contexts, such as sociolinguistics, focusing on the relations between language and society, or psycholinguistics, which investigates the ties between language and the human brain. Each of these different approaches pursues the study of language in its own way, and they do not always agree what exactly the term 'language' means.

This apparent confusion is also obvious in introductory textbooks on linguistics, in the lack of definitions given for 'language'. The notion of looking at one particular language and investigating the patterns in which sounds, phonemes, morphemes, words, phrases, and sentences combine to form meaningful utterances within the framework of that one language is crucial to the approaches of core linguistics, i.e. those branches of linguistics that analyse languages and their components. Certainly, being unable to define to what extent a language is allowed to vary from other varieties of the same language would cause fundamental problems in these approaches to linguistics. For those reasons, one of the common definitions of language advanced by researchers of core linguistics is the one based on mutual intelligibility: Two instances of language are varieties of the same language if, and only if, speakers of these varieties can communicate with each other. In sociolinguistics, however, this definition of mutual intelligibility will not suffice as a firm framework.

Studying languages and language use in the context of society yields many shades of variation that suggest, to some researchers at least, that no two speakers use exactly the same code to express their thoughts, even if they sustain frequent contact in communication. And, what is more, some language varieties seem to be mutually intelligible although they are commonly referred to as being different languages (Norwegian and Swedish, for example). So there is an apparent need for a more precise definition of 'language'. 2. Geographic Variation Language differences due to different geographic origins of individual speakers are probably the most obvious instances of sociolinguistic variation.

Although languages tend to assimilate at a faster pace in these days of mass media and an unprecedented ease of long-distance communication, some languages continue to exhibit marked regional differences across the areas in which they are spoken. In Europe, many languages are closely related, but German, for example, has many dialects that are not mutually intelligible (take the variety of German spoken in Northern Germany and that spoken around Stuttgart, say). Yet, German is commonly seen as one language. On the other hand, some languages seem to be part of dialect chains that link mutually intelligible varieties of several languages (for example, Portuguese-Spanish-Catalan-French-Italian). Therefore, mutual intelligibility is not a very good definition in this geographic regard. When a linguistic inovations - a new word, a new pronunciation, a new usage - occurs at a particular place, it may subsequently spread to other areas, particularly those nearest to it, so long as no serious barriers to communication intervene.

The reason for difference between urban and rural accents is that linguistic inovations, like other inovations, often spread from one urban centre to another, and only later spread out into the surrounding countryside. This is due to the general economic, demographic and cultural dominance of town over country, and to the structure of the communication network. The spread of linguistic features from one area to another is therefore not dependent solely on proximity. Linguistic innovations spread not only from one regional or social variety of the same language to another; they may also spread from one language into another. An interesting example of a linguistic feature that has spread in this way is the European uvular r. It is thought that up until at last the sixteen century all European languages had an r-type sound was pronounced as r still is pronounced today in many types of Scots English or Italian: a tongue-tip trill (roll) or flap.

At some stage, though, perhaps in the seventeenth century, a new pronunciation of r became fashionable in user-class Parisian French. This new r, uvular r [R], is pronounced in the back of the mouth by means of contact between the back of the tongue and the uvula- technically a uvular trill, r sound taught today to foreign learners of French and German. The internal differentiation of human societies is reflected in their languages. Different social groups use different linguistic varieties.

The greater the geographical distance between two dialects the more dissimilar they are linguistically: for instance, those regional varieties of British English which are most unlike the speech of London are undoubtedly those of the north-east of Scotland- Buchan for example. The development of social varieties can perhaps be explained in the same sort of the way- in terms of social barriers and social distance. The diffusion of a linguistic feature through a society may be halted by barriers of social class, age race, religion or other factors. There exists a whole series of different dialects that gradually merge into one another.

Most of the pidgins languages in the world are the result of travel on the part of European traders and colonizers. They are based on languages like English, French and Portuguese, and are located on the main shipping and trading routes. 3. Social Variation The sociolinguistics of society is about the social importance of language to groups of people, from small sociocultural groups of a few hundred people to entire nations. If everyone in the group spoke exactly the same as everyone else in the group, there would be no such thing as the sociolinguistics of society. Human languages usually provide a speaker with more than one way of expressing the same information, and to choose an appropriate form of expression is part of the speaker's linguistic competence.

This choice will depend on the relation between speaker and addressee, the circumstances of the conversation as well as the intended effect, but also to a considerable degree on the social background of each speaker. Commonly, most of these codes will be grouped together under the heading of one language, where words have formal or colloquial connotations, etc. However, in some languages, the differences between the high and low varieties are so striking (in Arabic, for example) that linguists prefer to speak of diglossia, defined as a stable language state in which more than one language occur side by side, each prevailing in its domain of usage. As most speakers are competent in using and understanding both language varieties, the diglossic situation highlights another weakness of the definition of language as a set of mutually intelligible codes. A further problem with this definition is the inherent dependency on a listener's willingness to understand another speaker, which will be influenced by different perceived social backgrounds associated with each variety of a language. These circumstances, again, blur the sociolinguistic validity of the definition of language as a set of mutually intelligible varieties.

Because language as a social phenomenon is closely tied up with the social structure and value systems of society, different dialects and accents are evaluated in different ways. The function of language in establishing social relationships; and, second, the role played by language in conveying information about the speaker. Language can be very important factor in group identification, group solidarity and the signalling of difference, and when a group is under attack from outside, signals of difference may become more important and are therefore exaggerated. A language can affect a society by influencing or even controlling the world-view of its speakers. Environment is reflected in language. First, there are many examples of the physical environment in which a society lives being reflected in its language, normally in the structure of its lexicon- the way in which distinctions are made by means of single word.

Whereas English, for example, has only one word for snow, Eskimo has several. The reasons for this are obvious. It is essential for Eskimos to be able to distinguish efficiently between different types of snow. English, of course, is quite able to make the same distinctions: fine snow, dry snow, soft snow, and so on- but in Eskimo this sort of distinction is lexical ized- made by means of individual words. Secondly, the social environment can also be reflected in language, and can often have effect on the structure of the vocabulary. For example, a society's kinship system is generally reflected in its kinship vocabulary, and this is one of the reason why anthropologists tend to be interested in this particular aspect of language.

4. Dialects "Dialect differences tend to increase proportionately to the degree of communicative isolation between groups" [Fromkin and Rodman "An Introduction to Language" 1998: 277]. When there are systematic differences in a language because of geographical regions, social class, or political boundaries, but the same basic grammar and there is mutual intelligibility between two speakers, they are considered dialects. Accents are developed because of regional phonological or phonetic differences, and sometimes nonnative speakers' use of their native pronunciation for native words. There are some differences among regional dialects in syntax. Fromkin and Rodman point out that whereas most American English speakers will conjoin the sentence "John will eat and Mary will eat" as "John and Mary will eat", but the Ozark dialect permits "John will eat and Mary".

Some people feel that the dialect ization of language is the corruption of language: these "purists", however, rarely succeed in changing the language of the people. Certain dialects are actually minimal combinations of two languages; often just enough to permit the interaction of two societies. These are generally called pidgins. These will use just enough of each language's vocabulary and syntax to produce something that all sides can understand with little work. Pidgins, such as Tok Pis in, might be learned in six months and provide the basic level of knowledge to begin semiprofessional training, where Standard English might take sixty months (five years) [Fromkin and Rodman "An Introduction to Language" 1998: 297]. Pidgins that are adopted by a community as a native language are creolized and are from that point called creoles.

They are, unlike pidgins, full languages used by a limited number of people [Fromkin and Rodman "An Introduction to Language" 1998: 298-299]. Like all other kinds of language variation, dialect variation changes through time. Both social groupings and the language markings change, and the relations between the two change. Dialects may also change depending on situation: formal, informal, jargon, and slang are good examples of different situational dialects. While "formal" and "informal" styles are basically "standard" with a language and are acceptable in most circles, "slang" takes on a highly informal meaning, generally not acceptable except in the most casual of circumstances.

However, as slang terms become more common in general use, they switch from slang to informal use (and sometimes rise as high as formal use). Jargon, on the other hand, is professional or occupational slang, such as "phoneme" for linguistics or "byte" for computers [Fromkin and Rodman, 299-302]. Again, jargon will often pass into the "standard" language for informal or potentially formal use. 5. Slang Slang is used by all kinds of groups of people who share situations or interests. The group which uses these words is always in the minority, and often use slang to set themselves apart or make it difficult for ordinary people to understand them.

When a particular new expression is known and used by a large majority of the population, it is no longer slang, but part of the regular language or usage. Slang is considered a relaxed and easy-to-use style of language. This is referred to as informal language. The opposite of informal language is formal language and this is a much more structured style; clear and easy to understand. The context that slang is used in means when and where you use slang.

You will most definitely use some slang when talking with friends, but you equally likely wouldn't use slang when performing a political speech in front of a large audience. Slang is a subset of a language used by one particular group. It consists of words and expressions which will not be found in the dictionary, and can be distortions of existing words or entirely invented terms. It is used in informal situations.

It is not appropriate in formal situations. Slang fulfills at least two different functions, depending on whose point of view you take. For the groups that use slang, it is a way to set themselves apart, to express themselves in a distinct and individual way, and sometimes to keep secrets from being known by others. But for the society in general and the development of the language, slang performs another role. For the language, slang is like a linguistic laboratory, where new words and forms can be tested out, applied to a variety of situations, and then either abandoned or incorporated into the regular language. It's like a trial period for new words.

If they allow people to say something that cannot be said using traditional language, and a majority of people accept them, then these words and expressions join their regular language. The formal register is most commonly used when speaking to people in the wider world of society- for example, when giving a speech or when first introducing yourself to someone. The informal register is used when speaking mainly to family and friends. The informal register also includes further registers, most notably colloquial, slang and dialectal. There are different types of slang that exist: media (media-type slang), euphemistic (a pleasant name for something unpleasant), pejorative (insulting), work-place jargon (created to add humor or liveliness to the workplace), historical (slang that has an historical link), technological (slang that has been created from the world of technology), clique (used by small exclusive group of people) etc. All these different types of slang clearly prove that slang exists in many different types of situations and professions.

People start to get bored of using the 'formal' words all the time, and so they use their creativity to invent new words and phrases to give liveliness, humor, novelty, emphasis or another effect. Slang has been around for a very long time - probably since the first groups of humans began sophisticated communication. Slang, as previously mentioned, spreads quickly and also dies quickly. Last year's top slang term is this year's word of the past. Slang is spread very quickly, especially in modern day terms because of the mass of communication and media that surround us. Watching a television programs such as an American comedy (e.g. 'Friends') makes us aware of the slang terms that Americans use, and we tend to copy them.

This is a very effective way of spreading slang. Before the wonderful world of fast communications, the spread of slang used to be in social gatherings such as in pubs. This still obviously applies today. Here are some examples of slang: bag on: (verb) 1.

To tease. 2. To nag or complain. check it out: (phrase) Pay attention. cool: (adjective) 1. Calm. 2. Fine, acceptable.

3. Neat; exciting; interesting; very good. da bomb: (adjective) Great; awesome; extremely cool. dig it: (phrase) 1. Do you understand? 2.

A command to understand or pay attention. dipstick: (noun) A stupid person. dis: 1. (pronoun and adjective) This. 2. (verb) To disrespect. For real (s)? (Fur illa): 1. (adjective) True. 2. (interjection) Is it true? hep cat: (noun) Someone who's hip, aware, knowledgeable, in tune with the times. jam: (verb) To leave; to go. old skool: (adjective) Over five years old; not hip. pass the bone: (phrase) To share your knowledge and experience; to drop knowledge. phat: (adjective) 1. Cool; very good.

2. Attractive or nice. 3. Large; huge. 4. Big; high; especially used as a term by skateboarders, rollerblade rs or snowboarders to describe a jump.

5. Someone who is respected, looked up to. trip: 1. (noun) Something that is unusual or strange. 2. (adjective & verb) To overreact. 3. (adjective & verb) To act out of character. 4. (adjective & verb) Getting very upset; raging. 5. (adjective & verb) To act in disagreement. 6. (adjective & verb) To be overwhelmed. 7. (adjective & verb) To be not making sense. 8. (adjective & verb) To act crazy or surprised. 9. (adjective & verb) To exhibit the characteristics of being intoxicated on drugs or alcohol. what's up, wazzup: (greeting) Hi. What's new or happening? yo: 1. (interjection) Hey. 2. (greeting) Hi; what's up. 6. Language and gender W. Wolfram ("A Sociolinguistic Description of Detroit Negro Speech" 1969: 76) says that "females show a greater sensitivity to socially evaluative linguistic features tham do males". W. Labov ("Sociolinguistic Patterns" 1972: 243) says "in careful speech, women use fewer stigmatized forms than men, and are more sensitive than men to prestige pattern". S. Romaine ("Sociolinguistic Patterns in British English" 1978: 93), explaining the preference by women for a different variant from the men in her study, concludes: "The females... are clearly more concerned with the pressure exerted by local norms and asserting their status within within the... social structure". Elsewhere she summarizes the sociolinguistic results as follows: "women consistently produce more forms which are nearer to prestige norm more frequently than men", and she reports, furhtermore, evidence for gender differentiation in choosing linguistic variants as early as six years old. W. Labov ("Language Variation and Change" 1990: 205) states it this way: "In stable sociolinguistic stratification, men cause a higher frequency of non-standart forms than women".

It is known from linguistic research that in many societies the speech of men and women differs. In some cases the differences are quite small and are not generally noticed: they are probably taken for granted in the same way as, say, different gestures of facial expressions. For example, in many accents of American English it has been found that women's vowels are more peripheral (more front, more back, higher, or lower) than men's. The classic example of linguistic sex differentiation comes from the West Indies. It was often reported that when Europeans first arrived in the Lesser Antilles and made contact with the Carib Indians who lived there, they discovered that the men and women 'spoke different languages'. Nowhere else in the world has sex differentiation been found to be so great that people have been led to propose that there were actually distinct men and women's languages.

Sociolinguists try to explain why there is a greater frequency of the use of polite speech from women than from men. In our society it is socially acceptable for a man to be forward and direct his assertiveness to control the actions of others. However, society has devalued these speech patterns when it is utilized by women. From historical recurrence, it has appeared that women have had a secondary role in society relative to that of the male.

Therefore, it has been (historically) expected from a women to "act like a lady" and "respect those around you". It reflects the role of the inferior status being expected to respect the superior. In Frank and Anshen's "Language and the Sexes", they note that boys, "are permitted, even encouraged, to talk rough, cultivate a deep "masculine" voice and, if they violate the norms of correct usage or of polite speech, well "boys will be boys", although, peculiarly, it is much less common that "girls will be girls". Fortunately, these roles are becoming more of a stereotype and less of a reality. However, the trend of expected polite speech from the female continues to remain. This is a prime example of how society plays an important part on the social function of the language.

The above discussion has shown that linguistic investigation may be pursued along many divergent lines. Sociolinguistics requires the analysis of the relations between language and society, and since it is always a particular group of speakers which interacts with society, sociolinguistic investigation cannot be carried out along abstract lines.

Bibliography

D. B iber, E. Fine gan: Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Register. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1994.
E. Bouchard Ryan, H. Giles: Attitudes toward Language Variation. Edward Arnold, London, 1982.
J.B. Bride, J. Holmes: Sociolinguistics. Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1972.
J.K. Chambers: Sociolinguistic Theory. Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1995.
R.L. Cooper: Language Spread. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, 1982.
W. Downes: Language and Society. Fontana, London, 1984.
R. Fas old: The Sociolinguistics of Society. Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1984.
J.A. Fishman: Advances in the Sociology of Language, Vol. II. Mouton, The Hague, 1972.
V. Fromkin, R. Rodman: An Introduction to Language. Harcourt Brace, Fort Worth, 1998.
J. Holmes: An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Longman, London, 1992.
R.A. Hudson: Sociolinguistics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1980.
P. Trudgill: On Dialect. Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1983.
P. Trudgill: Sociolinguistics. Penguin, London, 1974.