4/16/2020
Lecturer: Emmogene Budhai-Alvaranga
Email addresses: ebudhai@yahoo.com
or emmogene.budhai02@uwimona.edu.jm
L23A Website: www.mona.uwi.edu/dllp/courses/l23a
Please Turn off all cellular phones & pagers
1

4/16/2020
Objectives of the Session

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.
4/16/2020 3

4/16/2020
The Basic Notion:
Language use symbolically represents fundamental dimensions of social behaviour and human interaction.
4

4/16/2020
Review:
SOCIOLOGY OF LANGUAGE?
Where does this field belong?
2 OPTIONS:
(a) sociology of language –subset of
Sociology sociolinguistics – subset of Linguistics
(b) sociolinguistics – 2 orientations:
Macro-sociolinguistics
Micro-sociolinguistics
5

4/16/2020
Macro – (examines broad concerns)
Macro researches:
investigate language attitudes among large population on a national level
the status of languages/language varieties
- language contact situations, origin of pidgins and Creoles
6

Micro-Sociolinguistics
4/16/2020 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

4/16/2020
The Speech Community

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

4/16/2020
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”
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]
4/16/2020 10

4/16/2020
Labov’s definition – problems?

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

4/16/2020
Speakers in Jamaica – do we share same set of norms?
(1)
‘think’ & ‘though’ (2) ‘ing’ in Jamaica
Which form is prestigious?
[  ] & [  ] vs.
[t] and [d]
Which form is prestigious?
running:
[  ] vs.
[  n  n]
12

4/16/2020
In Jamaica –
Which form is prestigious?
‘education’
 beginning:
[  ] vs.
[  ]

‘education’ end:
[  n] vs.
[  n] vs.
[  n]
13

4/16/2020
Main Problems with Group
Assignments:

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

4/16/2020
People define their group membership with social factors:





Class
Age
Ethnicity
Race
Gender



Religion
Politics
History
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
16 4/16/2020