Dave Vierling
9/23/12
The Speech Community
Gumperz’s article opens by reviewing the possibilities of understanding language through its
structure, its social context or both. Since ‘social context’ has an enormous scope, researchers have
decided to focus their studies on a unit called ‘the speech community’. This concept is defined by
Gumperz as “any human aggregate characterized by regular and frequent interaction by means of a shared
body of verbal signs and set off from similar aggregates by significant differences in language usage.”
Taken a step further, the language used in these speech communities is a reflection of their users’ social
values.
Historically, there has been a group of studies including on dialects, classical languages, and
special parlances. Occupational specializations were studied as to their distinct jargon and language
usage. Latin is an example of a particular community through which the language has been deliberately
kept alive by its prestige. Other speech communities could be bilingual as a result of maintaining a
distinct identity from the dominant speech around them like the Gypsies of Europe.
Gumperz mentions that “single nouns, verbs and adjectives” are the most changeable aspects of a
language. Pronunciation and word order can also change but the “core” structure of a language is more
resistant. In multilingual environments, everything about a language is up for change. This phenomenon
is most easily seen in the cases of pidgins and creoles.
This view of language change is messier than the “biological determinist” principles of regularity
and variety between existing languages. As a result, the family tree theory associated with nineteenth
century studies lost credibility. Since the 1940’s, linguistics have come to see the diffusionist theory and
the family tree as complimentary. They can be loosely view as dealing with the abstraction of the process
and its practice respectively.
There has been more of an emphasis on synchronic studies of language problems recently.
Gumperz says that there are 2 major dimensions along which language variants and their social
connotation can be understood. Dialectical studies focus on groups that “set off” their vernacular as
distinct from “those of other groups within the same broader culture”. The superposed variation deals
with “parlances” or language used for a designated purpose within the same group.
Reasons for various speech communities are numerous. For example, a community like gang
jargon could be used to maintain boundaries from others. Different communities like classical languages
could serve as a sort of secret language by some because of their refined etiquette and conventions
associated with those who can speak it. Yet others could be results of their communities wishing to retain
their distinct identities and not be swallowed up by a broader dialect.
It’s clear that the concept of a speech community is extremely complex, as it should be. Part of
language’s beauty is derived from its ability to navigate and adapt to any given context. As Gumperz
mentions, language choice will change from situation to situation even further confounding the edges of
speech communities. Despite this, I believe that linguists are on the correct tract by designating “the
speech community” as a useful and attainable-enough unit of analysis. Because language is so fluid and
malleable, its social unit of analysis should reflect that as I think it has. I also believe the distinction
between dialectical and superposed makes a lot of sense. It’s a much better understanding than had been
previously employed.
The fact that a speech community’s language is a reflection of its social values is a fascinating
phenomenon. It gives new meaning into language use and choice being a window into who someone is
and what they believe is important. Although people often try to mask values while outside their comfort
zones, it might not always be possible depending on how transparent their participation in speech
communities may be.