1
Qiong Liu
Critique 3
Apling623 Fall 2012
The Speech Community Critique
The article defines the concept of the speech community and reviews the developmental
stages of the studies of the speech community. Gumperz (1982) points out that linguistic
phenomena are analyzable both within the context of language itself and within the broader
context of social behavior. Linguistically, grammatical rules of a language define the acceptable
use of the language; however, speech is not constrained by grammatical rules alone (Gumperz,
1982). Analyzing linguistic phenomena is contextualized in a socially defined universe.
(Gumperz 1982).
The article, the Speech Community, also gives a historical-oriented overview of the study
of the speech community prior to 1940, which are concerned with dialects, special parlances,
national languages, and linguistic acculturation and diffusion (Gumperz, 1982).
Lastly, this article discusses the speech community from the shift of emphasis on
historical to synchronic problems (Gumperz, 1982). Linguists classified the relationship between
variants in terms of usage rather than of their purely linguistic characteristics; and those
linguistic characteristics can be examined along two dimensions: the dialectal and the superposed
(Gumperz, 1982). Dialectal relationships are those in which differences set off the vernaculars of
local group (Gumperz, 1982). Superposed variation refers to distinctions between different types
of activities carried on within the same group (Gumperz, 1982). Gumperz (1982) points out that
the distinction between dialectal and superposed varieties obviates the usual linguistic distinction
between geographically and socially distributed varieties, since the evidence indicates that actual
residence patterns are less important as determinants of distribution than social interaction
2
patterns and usage (Gumperz, 1982). Furthermore, the author explores the different attitudes to
language choice. Gumperz (1982) talks about the attitude difference between the gang jargon or
the thieves’ argots and the pidgins. In the former situation, individuals are accepted as members
of the group to the extent that their usage confirms to the practices of the day; however, in the
latter case, communication in pidgins, or trade languages tend to be severely restricted to specific
topics or types of interaction(Gumperz, 1982).
I have identified two themes that I think are insightful to me. According to Gemperz
(1982) language loyalty, which, I agree, is that when a literary variety acquires prestige as a
symbol of a particular nationality group or social movement and individuals employ it as a
symbol of their allegiance to a broader set of political ideals (Gumperz, 1982). Under the
tremendous Western influence, English has becoming the most popular foreign language in
China. More and more children in China start receiving English education when they enter
kindergarten. It is very common for the young generation to use random English words in both
their speech and writing; however, the Chinese government has made effort to protect the “purity”
of the Chinese language in writing.
Gumperz (1982) says that cross-cultural influence may also give rise to language shift,
the abandonment of one native tongue in favor of another and this phenomenon most frequently
occurs when two groups merge, as in tribal absorption, or when minority groups take on the
culture of the surrounding majority. In my opinion, this well explains the concerns of immigrant
parents of young English language learners’ that their children refuse to speak their native
languages when they are in public surrounded and influenced by the majority culture. My own
cross-cultural experience adequately echoes to this statement. As an additive bilingual person of
the Chinese and English languages, I have taken on the culture of the surrounding majority in my
3
community during the past four years of living and working in this culture. I started learning
English when I was in seventh grade in China with instrumental motivation and came to the
United States in my very early twenties. Living in another culture gives me a more critical view
and a reference to evaluate my native culture, where subcultures, such as homosexuals, disability,
religion diversity, are relatively not well accepted or even being discriminated against. Due to
my discourse shift from where I am now and where I grow up, I emotionally gradually started
moving closer to the culture where live now. Personally, I do not think this is a negative thing. I
look forward to learning more and experiencing more of the dynamic change of my identity and
cultural orientation.
This article and the themes that I identified provoked me to think about the following
questions:
1. How do we make English-only advocators aware that multilingualism is not a threat to the
English language loyalty, instead it is a product of social interaction?
2. How do we, as teachers, assess English language learners’ language attitude towards both their
native language and mandated English since motivation plays such an important role in language
learning?
References:
Gumperz, J. (1982) The Speech Community