Sociolinguists study the relationship between language and society; that is,
they are primarily concerned with providing an explanation as to why people speak
differently in diverse societal contexts, as well as indentifying the ‘social functions of
language and the ways it is used to convey social meaning.’ (Holmes, J. 2001:1) In
examining the ways in which people use language in societal contexts, an insight is
afforded wherein language is observed as a parallel to the relationships within a
speech community and consequently, ‘the way people signal aspects of their social
identity through their language,’ can be discussed in relation to the aforesaid.
(Holmes, J. 2001:1) Mesthrie (2000:6) claims that although language is
unquestionably denotational, in that it conveys semantics, ‘referring to ideas, events
or entities that exist outside language,’ the denotative aspect is but one factor that acts
as a contributor to the relationship between language and society. One must also
consider the way in which language is ‘indexical of one’s social class, status, region
of origin, gender, age group and so on.’ (Mesthrie, R. et al. 2000:6) With reference to
sociolinguistic theories such as those initiated by Sapir, Bernstein, and Labov; the role
of sociolinguistics in building the relationship between language and society has been
cemented, in that their linguistic evaluations have provided a wealth of information
about the structural aspect of language variation from a societal perspective.
Sociolinguist, Susan Gal (1989:347) argues that language represents social
patterns and divisions, thus maintaining and reproducing them. This suggests that the
way in which one speaks is not simply a reflection of societal organisation, but to a
certain extent: a representation of the core of social construction that concerns power
relations within societies. Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf’s study of Native
American Indian languages in the early twentieth century became what was to be
referred to as the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. The theory postulates that ‘speakers of
1
certain languages may be led to different types of observations and different
evaluations of externally similar phenomena.’ (Mesthrie, R. et al. 2000:6) Sapir
viewed language as a verbal symbol of human relations, in that language constructs
one’s perceptions; therefore the understanding of cultural elements and behaviours is
unattainable unless cultural development through language is systematically evaluated
accordingly. Linguistic determinism states that speakers from different cultures will
subsequently follow alternate thought processes, due to the differences in their
languages, emphasising the claim that language determines thought and thus
establishes differentiating interpersonal notions in regards to societal constructs.
‘We dissect nature along lines laid down by our native languages (…) We cut
nature up, organise it into concepts, and ascribe significances as we do,
largely because we are parties to an agreement to organise it in this way – an
agreement that holds throughout our speech community and is codified in the
patterns of our language.’ (Whorf, B, L. 1956)
This renowned quotation from Whorf exemplifies how social constructions
can be dissected according to specific concepts, generating both implication and
meaning; therefore attributing denotation to aspects of social structure that influence
thought. He describes the significances we assign to the aforementioned concepts as
‘an agreement’ – ‘codified in the patterns of our language.’ This suggests an aspect of
collective social conformity wherein, as a society, we are aware that language
influences thought process, and consequently our cultural behaviours. In this instance,
one can initiate individual perspective on the way in which language represents a
universalist position in society, furthermore taking on board the way in which
2
language has implemented a systematic logic that is deep-rooted within social
communities.
The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis and the aspect of linguistic determinism have
undoubtedly been influential in the contemporary field of sociolinguistics; however,
linguists feel that adopting a ‘weak form’ of the theory is more applicable, in the
sense that language influences thought rather than determining it in its exclusivity,
that form being linguistic relativity. Language is a powerful tool in establishing
association with social order and societal constraints, yet, as Mesthrie et al (2000)
suggests; language does not have complete authoritative manipulation over the way in
which a community draws both thought and idea from socio-cultural perspectives.
Sankoff (1986: xxi) divulges that ‘in the long term, language is more dependant on
the social world than the other way round (…) Language does facilitate social
intercourse, but if the social situation is sufficiently compelling, language will bend.’
Gumperz (1996:1) explores the idea of linguistic relativity and further states that
‘culture, through language, affects the way we think, especially perhaps our
classification of the experienced world.’ The relativist assumption asserts that
speakers of a language will experience and understand the conceptualised perception
of the world in ways that are dissimilar to speakers of another language, with cultural
and social dynamics being the forefront of the postulation, and subsequently
influencing those perceptions.
Bernstein’s sociolinguistic theory of elaborated and restricted code has made a
considerable contribution to the study of language and society. According to
Bernstein (1971:76) ‘forms of spoken language in the process of their learning
initiate, generalize and reinforce special types of relationship with the environment
and thus create for the individual particular forms of significance.’ Therein, the way
3
in which language is used within a specific social class, would have an effect on the
way in which one would consign connotation and semantic loading unto what they
subsequently articulated. Like many educationalists, Bernstein was concerned that
British school-children from working-class backgrounds were not progressing as
efficiently as those children originating from middle-class environments. He also
recognised that the way in which working-class children spoke noticeably differed
from middle-class speech, which he understood to be concomitant with limited
academic progression.
Holmes (2001:335) explains that researchers began to examine features of
working-class children’s speech to uncover an explanation as to why their speech
deviation and narrowed academic development were interrelated. They assumed
however, that by examining language disparities of both working and middle class
children within a formal interview situation, that they could provide an accurate
representation of working-class children’s social competence. Research showed that
‘the children used short, even monosyllabic, responses which suggested to the
interviewers that their linguistic resources were restricted.’ (Holmes, J. 2001:335)
This data is problematic in that the social situation from which the data was collected,
that being an interview condition, is not analogous with neither habitual nor colloquial
exchange that is traditionally used within pre-higher education classroom settings.
Bernstein proposed that a ‘restricted code’ may also impede the cognitive capability
of those who used it. In expanding on the principle of linguistic determinism, he
suggested that the language being used in ‘restricted code’ had the means to shape and
influence both perceptivity and thinking abilities. Bernstein’s research sustained the
assumption that working-class children were linguistically deprived, and moreover
presented their use of vernacular forms as an indication of cognitive deficit. This is
4
clearly an oversimplified observation, as valid conclusion can not be drawn from
using the vernacular as an indicator of deficiency in cognitive development. It is
factual that working-class speakers of a language have a propensity to relate to
vernacular forms of speech rather than the standard form, yet the extent to which use
of the vernacular is affiliated with cognitive progress is questionable. The vernacular
is a marker of solidarity, a means for reinforcing social relations and corroborating
group identity; underpinning strongly shared assumptions, common experience and
expectations. Therefore, it remains conceivable that the vernacular is but a social
factor that contributes to language and thought, yet does not determine it entirely.
Holmes (2001:335) states that there is no research that fully supports
Bernstein’s claim, and that Bernstein himself no longer holds such an extreme
position. Bernstein’s claims gave the field of Sociolinguistics the opportunity to
observe closely, Whorf’s assertions regarding the relationship between language,
thought and society. One advantage of further research into the relationship of
language and society saw detailed studies of vernacular varieties, which provided a
‘clear recognition that dialect differences were comparatively superficial aspects of
language which could not conceivably have consequences for different ways of
thinking.’ (Holmes, J. 2001:335)
Bernstein’s primary endeavour was not to simply identify both the restricted
and elaborated code, but too ultimately provide an explanation as to their
materialisation within society through social formation. Montgomery (1995) assumes
that there are two types of social formation, the first type analogous with Bernstein’s
‘restricted code.’ In this societal configuration there are ‘strong bonds between
members and their special roles are clear and well defined. (Montgomery, M.
1995:139) One’s social identity is within the formation is based on variables such as
5
age and sex, wherein members form their character through specific set gender roles
within society; allowing them to employ positions that are essentially ‘male’ or
‘female.’ Montgomery (1995:139) explains that members of the aforesaid societal
formation have their roles ‘ascribed to them on relatively public and fixed criteria.’ In
Bernstein’s terms, this social order is considered ‘positional’ and ‘closed,’ wherein ‘it
reduces role discretion to comparatively fixed positions, but at the same time closes
off potential role ambiguities.’ (Montgomery, M. 1995:139) Positional and closed
communities value mutual knowledge and shared assumptions, therein their
communication is founded against an impenetrable milieu of semantic commonality
which seldom requires unequivocal assertion within the societal constraints.
Secondly, Bernstein defined ‘open’ and ‘personal’ social formation in relation to the
elaborated code, in which ‘the bonds between members and the relative social
positions are less well defined.’ (Montgomery, M. 1995:140) Hence, one achieves
their societal role and identity through individual disposition and character rather than
on the basis of publicly evident and obvious principle. Within the social order, there
are no pre-determined roles assigned in terms of both age and sex as there are within
the positional system. Roles are mutually negotiated and realised in requisites subject
to constant ‘definition’ and ‘redefinition.’ (Montgomery, M. 1995:140) The
correlation between language and social class therefore assumes that semantic loading
and thought is not fixed within the elaborated code, moreover, one’s notion and
perspective must be made explicit so as to induce understanding.
Fundamentally, Bernstein sought to partition collective society into two
distinct classes – ‘working’ and ‘middle,’ corresponding to the positional and personal
societal role systems. This distinction is, conversely, a generality and consequently
represents a stereotypical and formulaic stance with regards to societal domains.
6
Bernstein was aware of this generalisation and later modified his previous thesis on
elaborated and restricted code to include the notion that ‘the middle class was likely to
have access to both the restricted and elaborated code, some sections of the working
class were likely to have access to only the restricted code.’ (Montgomery, M.
1995:142) Thus, differences in language in Bernstein’s sociolinguistic opinion, were
principally influenced by society and the aspect of social class wherein societal
divisions operate as an obstruction to higher prestige forms of language.
William Labov’s explorations of the Black English vernacular in 1973;
considering language, culture, social organisation and political dynamics in the inner
cities of the United States, provided the field of sociolinguistics with a broad spectrum
of information concerning structural dialectal differences within the language in
relation to society, and why BEV (Black English Vernacular) is considered a separate
system. His study establishes that BEV is not merely colloquial slang, but an
ingrained set of rules of both grammatical and pronunciative significance, proficient
in expressing multifaceted and rational logic concurrently. Labov also provides a
polemic against Bernstein’s deficit theory, in which the language of black children is
seen as inadequate for learning and logical thinking. (Labov, W. 1973: xvi) Labov
disputes against the stereotypical analysis of BEV and in its place, attempts to provide
a diagnostic advance of how structural dialectal disparity is interconnected with both
historical and social facades. In 1979, Labov’s study of Harlem Street Gangs, he
spoke of the Black English copula-less constructions, for example ‘the man sick.’ (Le
Page, R.B. 1998:25) He stated that these copula-less constructions are ‘derived from
standard grammar by a variable deletion rule which the speaker could apply wherever
it was possible for the prior contraction of the copula to take place.’ (Le Page, R.B.
7
1998:25) This does not show a deficit in language, but rather a code-switching
technique in reference to Caribbean Creole English.
From a sociolinguistic perspective, it is interesting to look at the relationship
between Black English and society and consequently, the gender roles of both men
and women within this societal construction. ‘Linguistic differences are merely a
reflection of social differences, and as long as society views women and men as
different - and unequal - then differences in the language of women and men will
persist.’ (Coates, J. 1986: vi) The aspects of stylistic and social variation have been
the subject of many studies in the field of sociolinguistics, looking at the way in
which a speaker will adapt their conversational style to particular social contexts, and
investigating the language of speakers who differ from each other in terms of age, sex,
social class and ethnic group. One principal interest of sociolinguistic study as
mentioned is the vernacular; that is, speech used in conversation ‘spontaneously
amongst people who know each other well.’ (Coates, J. 1986:5)
A short linguistic analysis of a documentary titled ‘Sticks and Stones’ (see
appendix for transcription) provided an insight into the relationship of language and
society. The dialogue gives the impression of spontaneous linguistic exchange
involving two main contributors, mother and son, both of African descent. Regarding
the aspect of spontaneity, it can also be suggested that the documentary is to some
extent partially structured. The focal topic revolves around the significance of racial
epithets as either deprecating of black culture, or and instigation of elevated societal
prestige depending on the context in which the epithet is used and by whom it is used.
The participants would have therefore been sentient of the topic and would have
therefore had time to contemplate possible arguments and opinions. It is also probable
that the conversation will have been filmed numerous times to acquire the best
8
possible take to be aired on television. Therein, there is complexity, from a
sociolinguistic perspective, in collecting data representative of natural colloquial
speech. Labov stated, ‘the aim of linguistic research in the community must be to find
out how people talk when they are not being systematically observed; yet we can only
obtain these data by systematic observation.’ (Labov, W. 1972) As a result, the
presence of a filming crew may impinge on the participant’s natural speech.
Conversely, the intention of the documentary was not for the verbal communicative
aspect to be used within sociolinguistic research, but to articulate the attitudes and
values of the contributors. This consequently eliminates the Observer’s Paradox, in
that no linguistic researcher was in attendance at the time of filming, and no intent to
use the conversation as research material was declared, therein the conversational
styles of the participants are expectedly natural vernacular with no prescribed register.
The relationship between speakers is fundamental in interpreting the
participants’ use of language; also, the social context of the discourse is equally
important as relationship often determines context. What I am attempting to discover
within this extract, is if the word ‘nigger’ and its potency as a racial slur coupled with
its historical derogatory semantic loading, has offered the black sub-culture a means
of empowerment; this achieved by redirecting pessimism away from the controversial
etymology of the word in order to construct the logic of racial equality and thus
enforce a less significant potency. In this instance, ‘Ashley’ uses the term ‘nigger’ to
refer to himself and his peers, which in effect, reverses disempowerment and elevates
cultural standing within his sub-culture. He detaches the disparaging etymology and
historical negativity as a means of constructing individual identity within the racial
matrix of society. It is to some extent, that the historical significance of the word and
its magnitude has offered black youth a direction to empowerment and racial equality
9
through repossessing the word ‘nigger’ as belonging to them exclusively. They have
been given the power to subvert the original semantic loading by their own subculture, which in turn, deems the word as meaningless and void of insulting intent,
used primarily as a term of affection and endearment which thus exemplifies a
societal connection through language. This relationship with language and society is
marked in that it parallels with the Sapir-Whorfian view that language determines
thought. The thought processes that surround the term ‘nigger’ are complex and
multifaceted, arousing alternate emotions and perspectives within both the sub-culture
and external societies. Sapir’s view that language is a verbal symbol of human
relations interlinks with these findings, in that the understanding of the cultural and
societal elements and behaviours is understandable through the systematic evaluation
of the black sub-culture’s cultural development through language, that being its
origins during the slave trade and their experience of subsequent hardship throughout
history. These factors have immense impact on the way in which members of the subculture have come to individually view themselves, as well as the way in which they
observe the world.
The relationship between language and society is prevalent through factors
such as variation in speech, social formations and social class. The field of
sociolinguistics has proven this relationship through numerous studies which
determine that the connection between language and society as equal; in that neither
can exist nor flourish without assistance from the other.
10