Sociolect

In sociolinguistics, a sociolect or social dialect is a variety of language (a register) associated with a social group such as a socioeconomic class, an ethnic group (precisely termed ethnolect), an age group, etc.[1]

Sociolects involve both passive acquisition of particular communicative practices through association with a local community, as well as active learning and choice among speech or writing forms to demonstrate identification with particular groups.[2]

Individuals who study sociolects are called sociolinguists. Sociolinguists study language variation. Sociolinguists define a sociolect by examining the social distribution of specific linguistic terms. For example, a sociolinguist would examine the use of the second person pronoun "you" for its use within the population. If one distinct social group used 'yous' as the plural form of the pronoun then this could indicate the existence of a sociolect. A sociolect is distinct from a dialect because social class rather than geographical subdivision substantiates the unique linguistic features.[3]

Overview

A sociolect, defined by Peter Trudgill, a leading sociolinguist and philosopher, is “a variety or lect which is thought of as being related to its speakers’ social background rather than geographical background”.[4] This idea of sociolect began with the commencement of dialectology, the study of different dialects in relation to social society, which has been established in countries such as England for many years, but only recently has the field garnered more attention.[5] However, as opposed to dialect, the basic concept of a sociolect is that a person speaks in accordance with their social group whether it is with regard to one’s ethnicity, age, gender, etc. As William Labov once said, “the sociolinguistic view…is that we are programmed to learn to speak in ways that fit the general pattern of our communities”.[6] Therefore, what we are surrounded with in unison with our environment determines how we speak; hence, our actions and associations.

The difference between sociolects and dialects

The main distinction between a sociolect and dialect, which are continually confused, are the settings they are created in. A dialect’s main identifier is geography where a certain region uses specific phonological, morphosyntactic, or lexical rules.[7] Asif Agha expands and specializes this concept by stating that, “the case where the demographic dimension marked by speech are matters of geographic provenance along, such as speaker’s birth locale, extended residence and the like”.[8] On the opposite side, a sociolect’s main identifier are things such as socioeconomic class, age, gender, and ethnicity spoken in a certain speech community.

An example of a dialectal difference — based on region — is the use of the words soda or pop and coke in different parts of the United States. As Thomas E. Murray states, “coke is used generically by thousands of people, especially in the southern half of the country”.[9] Contrastively, pop is known to be a term that is used by many citizens in the northern half of the country.

An example of a sociolect difference — based on social grouping — is the deletion of copulas in African American Vernacular English. The deletion occurs in a specific ethnic group, but in all areas of the United States.[10] As William Labov gives an example, “he here” instead of “he’s here”.[11]

Definitions

Code switching is "the process whereby bilingual or bidialectal speakers switch back and forth between one language or dialect and another within the same conversation."[12]

Diglossia, associated with the American linguist Charles A. Ferguson, which describes sociolinguistic situation such as those that obtain in Arabic-speaking countries and in German-speaking Switzerland. In such a diglossic community, the prestigious standard of ‘High’(or H) variety, which is linguistically related to but significantly different from the vernacular or ‘Low’ (or L) varieties, has no native speakers.[13]

Domain is "Different language, dialects, or styles are used in different social contexts."[14]

Language Attitudes are "social in origin, but that they may have important effects on language behavior, being involved in acts of identity, and on linguistic change."[15]

Linguistic variable is "a linguistic unit…initially developed…in order to be able to handle linguistics variation. Variables may be lexical and grammatical, but are most often phonological”. Example of British English (h) which is sometimes present and sometimes not.[16]

Pragmatics is the meaning of a word in social context, while semantics has "purely linguistic meaning."[17]

Register is "a language variety that is associated with a particular topic, subject, or activity...." Usually it is defined by vocabulary, but has grammatical features as well.[18]

Examples

Tamil Caste System

The following is an example of the lexical distinction between the Mudaliyar and the Iyengar groups of the Tamil-speaking caste in India. The Iyengar group is part of the Brahmin caste which is scholarly and higher in the caste hierarchy than the non-Brahmin, or Mudaliyar, caste.[19] The Mudaliyars use many of the same words for things that are differentiated within the Iyengars’ speech. For example, as you can see below, the difference between drinking water, water in general, and non-potable water is used by one word in the non-Brahmin caste and three separate words in the Brahmin caste. Furthermore, Agha references how the use of different speech reflects a “departure from a group-internal norm”.[20] For example, if the non-Brahmin caste uses Brahmin terms in their mode of speech it is seen as self-raising, where as if people within the Brahmin caste use non-Brahmin speech it is seen as pejoratives.[21] Therefore, depending on which castes use certain words the pragmatics change. Hence, this speech system is determined by socioeconomic class and social context.

Example 1

Gloss Mudaliyar (non-Brahmin) Iyengar (Brahmin)
Drinking Water tanni tirrto
Water in general tanni jalo
Non-potable water tanni tanni
Worship puuse puuje
food sooru saado
worship puuse puuje 'worship'// puuse 'punishment for children'
food sooru/ saado saado 'food'// sooru 'food' (pejorative)
eat tinnu/saapdo saapdo 'eat'// tinnu 'guzzle, etc.' (pejorative)

Norwegian socioeconomic sociolect

Example 2

In the following example, we see the difference between the national standard and the colloquial speech found in Norway where the phonology and pronunciation differ. As Agha states, “Some lexical contrasts are due to phonological difference (e.g., R makes more consonantal and vocalic distinctions than B), while others are due to morphological difference (e.g., difference in plural suffixes and certain verb inflections) between two varieties.[22]

Gloss National Standard (Bokmål, B) Local Variety (Ranamål,R)
I Jœjj Og
you Dœjj Deg
He Hann Hanj
She Hunn Ho
If Viss Vess
To, toward Till Tell
Who Vemm Kem
How Vordan Kelesn

Diglossia

Example 3

The chart below gives an example of Diglossia in Arab-speaking nations and where it is used. Diglossia is defined by Mesthrie as, “[a] situation where two varieties of a language exist side by side”.[23] The Classical Arabic is known as الفصحى, or al-fuṣḥā, while the colloquial dialect depends on the country. For example, شامي, or šāmi, is spoken in Lebanon and parts of Syria. In many situations, there is a major lexical difference among words in the classical and colloquial speech, as well as pronunciation differences, such as a difference in short vowels, when the words are the same. Although, a specific example of Diglossia was not given, its social context is almost if not more important. For example, Halliday tells us that, “in areas with Diglossia, the link between language and success is apparent as the higher, classical register is learned through formal education”.[24]

H L
Sermon in Church or Mosque X
Instructions to servants, waiters, workmen, clerks, etc. X
Personal Letter X
Speech in parliament, political speech X
University Lecture X
Conversation with family, friends, colleagues X
News broadcast X
Radio 'soap opera' X
Newspaper editorial, news story, caption on picture X
Caption on political cartoon X
Poetry X
Folk literature X

AAVE - African American Vernacular English

Example 4

Below is an example of the addition of the verbal –s not just on 3rd person singular verbs in the present tense like in SAE, but added onto infinitives, first person present verbs, and 3rd person past perfect verbs. [25]

  1. He can goes out.
  2. I don’t know how to gets no girls.
  3. He’d knows that.

Further examples of phenomenon in AAVE are provided below.

Below are examples of the lack of the possessive ending –s is usually absent in AAVE but contains a rule As Labov shows states, “ [the] use –s to indicate possession by a single noun or pronoun, but never between the possessor and the possessed.” [26]

“This is hers, This is mines, This is John’s, but not in her book, my book, John book” [27]

“Interview with Bryan A., seven years old, a struggling reader in a West Philadelphia elementary school:

  1. If I don’t get out my mom room, I get in trouble and when I don’t get out my sister room she hit me.
  2. Bernicia penpal gave me one.
  3. That’s what he did to my cousin Raymond dog at my cousin house.
  4. I was acting like I stole my sister food.
  5. At the museum, it was fun, we went in somebody heart.” [28]

Effects

Code-switching

Many times within communities that contain sociolects that separate groups linguistically it is necessary to have a process where the independent speech communities can communicate in the same register; even if the change is as simple as different pronunciation. Therefore, the act of codeswitching becomes essential. Codeswitching is defined as, “the process whereby bilingual or bidialectal speakers switch back and forth between one language or dialect and another within the same conversation” [29] At times codeswitching can be situational, depending on the situation or topical, depending on the topic. Halliday terms this the best when he defines the role of discourse stating that, “it is this that determines, or rather correlates with, the role played by the language activity in the situation” [30] Therefore, meaning that which register is used depends on the situation and lays out the social context of the situation, because if the wrong register is used, then the wrong context is placed on the words. Furthermore, referring back to the diglossia expressed in the Arab-speaking world and the Tamil caste system in India, which words are used must be appropriate to not only the social class of the speaker, but the situation, the topic, and the need for courtesy. A more comprehensive definition is stated, “Code-switching is not only a definition of situation but an expression of social hierarchy” [31]

For examples of the use of speech within certain situation refer back to the chart on Classical and Colloquial Arabic.

For an example of dialect selection based on topic refer below:

As Trudgill defines it the Aravanikita is, “the name given in Greece given to the language of the indigenous Albanian-speaking linguistic minority in that country.” [32] This community is different linguistically than the surrounding area and must use their language accordingly. For example, nowadays, Arvanitika is only used at home and other situations, such as in school during games, on the playground, or for “chatting up girls”, while only Greek is spoken in class.[33] Therefore, it is both topical and situational in context.

Discrimination

The Arvanitika community also suffers from discrimination because they are cast under stereotypes by the use of their native language. As Garrett writes, “a number of Arvanites had suffered from what they regarded as discrimination, particularly during military service, and at school".[34] Even though, the language is the only thing that differentiates them from the surrounding Greeks, it still defines them as a distinct class and places them within a social hierarchy. Furthermore, within societies that maintain a diglossic state, the High (‘H’) and Low (‘L’) forms serve as a basis for discrimination. As Mesthrie writes, “Since the H form is learned via formal education, diglossia can be a means of excluding people from access to full participation in society”.[35]

See also

References

  1. ↑ Wolfram, Walt (2004). "Social varieties of American English". In E. Finegan and J.R. Rickford. Language in the USA: Themes for the Twenty-first Century. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-77747-X.
  2. ↑ Martin Durrell. Sociolect. In: Sociolinguistics. An International Handbook of the Science of Language and Society. Edited by Ulrich Ammon, et al. Walter de Gruyter, 2004, pp. 200–205
  3. ↑ Eifring, Halvor. "7 Language and Variation". Linguistics for Students of Asian and African Languages. http://www.uio.no/studier/emner/hf/ikos/EXFAC03-AAS/h05/larestoff/linguistics/. External link in |title= (help)
  4. ↑ Trudgill, Peter. A Glossary of Sociolinguistics. Oxford ;New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. 122. Print.
  5. ↑ Halliday, M. Language and Society. London ;New York: Continuum, 2007. 26. Print.
  6. ↑ Labov, William. Dialect Diversity in America : the Politics of Language Change. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2012. 6. Print.
  7. ↑ Trudgill, Peter. A Glossary of Sociolinguistics. Oxford ;New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. 35. Print.
  8. ↑ Agha, Asif. Language and Social Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. 135. Print.
  9. ↑ Murray, Thomas E.. "From Trade Name to Generic: The Case of Coke." Trans. Array Names: A Journal of Onomastics. Maney Publishing, 1995. 165-86. Print.
  10. ↑ Labov, William. Dialect Diversity in America : the Politics of Language Change. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2012. 48. Print.
  11. ↑ Labov, William. Dialect Diversity in America : the Politics of Language Change. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2012. 38. Print.
  12. ↑ Trudgill, Peter. A Glossary of Sociolinguistics. Oxford ;New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. 23. Print.
  13. ↑ Trudgill, Peter. A Glossary of Sociolinguistics. Oxford ;New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. 389. Print.
  14. ↑ Trudgill, Peter. A Glossary of Sociolinguistics. Oxford ;New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. 41. Print.
  15. ↑ Trudgill, Peter. A Glossary of Sociolinguistics. Oxford ;New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. 73. Print.
  16. ↑ Trudgill, Peter. A Glossary of Sociolinguistics. Oxford ;New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. 83. Print.
  17. ↑ Trudgill, Peter. A Glossary of Sociolinguistics. Oxford ;New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. 107. Print.
  18. ↑ Trudgill, Peter. A Glossary of Sociolinguistics. Oxford ;New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. 110. Print.
  19. ↑ Agha, Asif. Language and Social Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. 136. Print.
  20. ↑ Agha, Asif. Language and Social Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. 139. Print.
  21. ↑ Agha, Asif. Language and Social Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. 138. Print.
  22. ↑ Agha, Asif. Language and Social Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. 140. Print.
  23. ↑ Mesthrie, Rajend. Introducing Sociolinguistics. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Pub., 2009. 38. Print.
  24. ↑ Halliday, M. Language and Society. London ;New York: Continuum, 2007. 175. Print.
  25. ↑ Labov, William. Dialect Diversity in America : the Politics of Language Change. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2012. 49. Print.
  26. ↑ Labov, William. Dialect Diversity in America : the Politics of Language Change. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2012. 49. Print.
  27. ↑ Labov, William. Dialect Diversity in America : the Politics of Language Change. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2012. 49. Print.
  28. ↑ Labov, William. Dialect Diversity in America : the Politics of Language Change. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2012. 49. Print.
  29. ↑ Trudgill, Peter. On Dialect : Social and Geographical Perspectives. New York: New York University Press, 1983. 23. Print.
  30. ↑ Halliday, M. Language and Society. London ;New York: Continuum, 2007. 20. Print.
  31. ↑ Halliday, M. Language and Society. London ;New York: Continuum, 2007. 137. Print.
  32. ↑ Trudgill, Peter. On Dialect : Social and Geographical Perspectives. New York: New York University Press, 1983. 10. Print.
  33. ↑ Garrett, Peter. Investigating Language Attitudes : Social Meanings of Dialect, Ethnicity and Performance. Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2003. 129. Print.
  34. ↑ Garrett, Peter. Investigating Language Attitudes : Social Meanings of Dialect, Ethnicity and Performance. Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2003. 130. Print.
  35. ↑ Mesthrie, Rajend. Introducing Sociolinguistics. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Pub., 2009. 38. Print.
This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the Sunday, April 03, 2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.