Katie Almeida
APLING 623
September 16, 2012
Wardhaugh, Chapter 1: Introduction
Wardhaugh seems to be orienting himself and the reader in this introductory
chapter. He does an adequate job of covering the parts of sociolinguistics and the idea
that power relationships are inextricably linked to how and what people say. However, he
seems to stop there.
While Wardhaugh agrees that linguists must consider use and variation when
looking at data and developing theories, he does not acknowledge the social value in
developing these theories. On page 13, Wardhaugh says, “…from time to time I will
voice some skepticism about the claims of other investigators that we should pursue
certain ideological ends in investigating such use (see chapters 13-15). Detachment and
objectivity are essential requirements of serious scientific inquiry.”
How can a sociolinguist exhibit complete detachment and objectivity? If use and
variation are invaluable in a sociolinguistic theory, then the linguist cannot deny his or
her own place in the spectrum of language use and variation. As the linguist studies and
gathers information, he or she will inevitably learn about his or her status and position in
society (and maybe even adjust his or her language as a result of these realizations).
If nearly every word we utter, grammar and content words alike, carries the
weight of our identity and position in society, how can we strive to be objective and
detached? Linguists need to recognize their position and identity before, as well as their
own use and variations and how these play into their identity, before they can attempt
anything resembling detachment or objectivity. Journalists often strive for detachment
and objectivity and fail miserably; we all know of liberal or conservative news outlets.
So, while Wardhaugh’s claim that we should be detached and objective in order to
achieve scientific accuracy may have some value, it falls flat on its face when put into
practice.
Furthermore, Wardhaugh goes on to say, “we must look at such issues as identity,
group membership, power, and socialization,” (p.14). I agree with this statement
wholeheartedly, because language does not occur in a vacuum and words do not just pop
out of thin air. However, how does this statement fit with Wardhaugh’s conviction that
we must be objective and detached? When studying “such issues as identity, group
membership, power, and socialization,” it is inevitable that we will look at our own
situation, so we cannot be detached and objective. The individual who has more
information and cultural capital regarding language use and variation inevitably will have
more power in more situations. So, while Wardhaugh would like to distance himself from
sociolinguists who have ideological agendas, I argue that we all have ideological agendas
and the closest we can come to objectivity is to be honest and straightforward with
ourselves and the public about those agendas.
Additionally, language itself is completely subjective because it is related to
identity and power. If we need to use language to write a scientific report, then we cannot
be objective in doing so. We need language to communicate our findings in journals and
articles, so we cannot be completely detached. The whole research process is riddled with
language, and therefore is filled with messages about power, status, and identity. We
cannot separate the two, and to do so is only to fool yourself and the readers of your
research.