Lindsey Resto
APLING 623
Critique Week 4
A critique of the term “Speech Community”
Language is complex. It is more than a mere collection of words and
utterances that convey meaning. Behind these words and sounds, each language is
embodied with a code of meaning; a subtext through which the utterances may be
interpreted. Linguistic rules are not often black and white, but rather gray and
contextually varied. To determine the context in which language is used, we must
first identify the speakers of that language that make up the “Speech Community.”
Penalosa (1981), Gumperz (1982), and Wardhaugh (2010) attempt to explain the
term “Speech Community” which they all agree refers to “a group” of individuals
who are linguistically similar. Groups, however, are not as one-dimensional as the
term implies. According to Gumperz, “most groups of any permanence, be they
small bands bounded by face-to-face contact, modern nations divisible into smaller
sub-regions, or even occupational associations or neighborhood gangs, may be
treated as speech communities, provided they show linguistic peculiarities that
warrant special study” (Gumperz p.381).
The wide range of identifiable groups make language study difficult.
Penalosa (1981) further explains what she identifies as a sociological concept that
individuals interact in “Primary groups” that include family and friendship networks
which primarily function to bolster the formation of personality and enculturation
to society’s norms; and “Secondary groups” where individuals have less
intimate/personal involvement, such as work or organizational groups (Penalosa
p.39). The importance of first identifying the “right” groups to study presents
difficulty in isolating linguistic characteristics of such artificially structured groups.
Lindsey Resto
APLING 623
Critique Week 4
For example, I would hypothesize that the individuals identified as Latin King gang
members incarcerated in the prison where I work would exemplify similar linguistic
characteristics, rules, grammar, and social cues. I would also hypothesize that they
alter their speech for interaction in other “secondary” group settings such as in the
prison education classroom or when they speak with their family members. Each
gang member is effectively communicating within several speech communities
(prison gang, family, school, etc..) whereby linguistic patterns and rules vary. On a
larger context the above-mentioned Latin King gang members participate in a much
larger Spanish speaking speech community determined by their cultural
background. (**In Massachusetts prisons, the majority of Spanish speakers,
although not all, are from the Dominican Republic or Puerto Rico).
Penalosa identifies an important “basic assumption” on which most of her
discussion is based, “Until proven otherwise, it seems reasonable and safe to take as
our basic assumption the notion that language and society influence and determine
each other” (Penalosa, p.38). Both language and behavior appear to be self-fulfilling
prophecies. Both culture and language give birth to each other. A gang will often
create their own language or adapt an existing language to allow secret
communication to take place right under the nose of the police or prison authorities.
In this circumstance, there is often a book created by the speakers of the
language/members of the speech community that is used to educate the new
inductees. Non-verbal language is also often identified in these books that may
include gang signs, clothing/apparel color and style significance, body posture, etc…
Lindsey Resto
APLING 623
Critique Week 4
Gumperz states “before we can judge a speaker’s social intent, we must know
something about the norms defining the appropriateness of linguistically acceptable
alternates for particular types of speakers; these norms vary among subgroups and
social settings” (Gumperz, p. 381). While the almost rigid structure of the Latin
King’s linguistic and non-verbal communication are clearly written down and
regularly articulated, I will posit that most social groups do not have such a rigid set
of artificially constructed rules, but rather that they occur naturally within the
groups based on a larger context of known societal norms (ex. It is polite to say
Please and Thank You in “America”).
Speech communities are not mutually exclusive. For researchers, this
characterization and community overlap presents difficulty when attempting to
research and categorize the varying speech communities in which one participates.
I agree with Wardaugh that the term “speech community” is very abstract because
the particular characteristics that a community uses may not be entirely linguistic in
nature, and even the linguistic norms themselves may vary considerably among
small subgroups” (Wardaugh, p. 122). Wardaugh refers to the Mendoza-Denton
(2008) ethnographic study of a group of Latina girls in California whose
sociolinguistic attributes were studied (Wardaugh p. 128 & p.263) to illustrate the
way in which individual identities are often developed in speech communities while
those speech communities are simultaneously being shaped by its participants. The
Latina girls in this study participated in multiple speech communities, but were
chosen because of their participation in a specific one.
Lindsey Resto
APLING 623
Critique Week 4
The more I read about this concept, the more I just keep thinking, how are
things different now with the advent of new technology? It is possible to
communicate in a much broader way than ever before. Individuals find themselves
participating in speech communities at a greater frequency than 50 years ago. The
Internet presents a medium whereby speech communities can be formed around
common topics (i.e. chat rooms) but have the ability to use only words in the
conveyance of information. In contrast, a social network such as Facebook, presents
the participant with a variety of expressive modes of communication (pictures,
video, words, etc…). And then there is Skype…it’s like being in a personal
conversation with someone without actually being in the same place! The
possibilities are endless, but the definitions of speech communities still hold true. It
is comforting to compartmentalize and label people into groups because it helps us,
as individuals, to understand the world. However, the accuracy of speech
community group identification will always present debate!
References
Wardhaugh, Ronald. (2010). Chapter 5, “Speech Communities,” p.118-134.
Gumperz, J. (1982). The Speech Community.
Penalosa, F. (1981). Chapter 4, “Language, Society, and Culture”