Sociolinguistics Ngôn Ngữ Xã Hội Học

SOCIOLINGUISTICS
NGÔN NGỮ XÃ HỘI HỌC

Trương Văn Ánh
Trường Đại học Sài Gòn
Syllabus
Duration: 2 credits (30 periods)
Mid-test: 30% (Group presentation)
Attendance: 10%
Final test: 60% (40 multiple choice questions +
10 open-ended questions)
Main course: INTRODUCTION TO SOCIOLINGUISTICS
by Anthony C. Oha, PhD, NATIONAL OPEN
UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA (2010)
References
1. Ronald Wardhaugh (2006). An Introduction to
Sociolinguistics, Blackwell Publishing House
2. Janet Holmes (2011). An Introduction to
Sociolinguistics, London University
3. Peter Trudgill (1984). Applied Sociolinguistics,
Academic Press
4. Miriam Meyerhoff (2008). Introducing
Sociolinguistics, Routledge
Summary
CHAPTER I: BASIC CONCEPTS IN SOCIOLINGUISTICS
(Three units)
CHAPTER 2: LANGUAGE USE IN SOCIETY (Two units)
CHAPTER 3: LANGUAGE VARIATION IN SOCIETY
(Two units)
CHAPTER I: BASIC CONCEPTS IN SOCIOLINGUISTICS
UNIT 1: WHAT IS SOCIOLINGUISTICS?
1.0 INTRODUCTION
In this unit, we will begin this course by
introducing the concept of sociolinguistics as an
academic discipline. We will study also the
applications of sociolinguistics and find out the
essence of the social function of language.
Language and society are intertwined because
a society moves with language. When
communication takes a proper process
whereby meaning is generated, and a society
moves with the pace of the language. A
language defines the linguistic behaviour of a
group of people in a given society. We
will find out what sociolinguistics means
by examining the various definitions and
unearth their points of convergence.
2.0 OBJECTIVES
At the end of the unit, you should be able to:
· state the meaning of sociolinguistics;
· examine the various perceptions of
sociolinguistics
3.0 MAIN CONTENT
3.1 General Overview
There are numerous definitions of
sociolinguistics. However, each of these
definitions does not fail to acknowledge that
sociolinguistics has to do with language use
and a society’s response to it. Let us examine
them.
1. The study of the relationship between language
and society, of language variation, and of attitudes
about language.
2. A branch of anthropological linguistics that
studies how language and culture are related, and
how language is used in different social contexts.
3. A study of the relationship between language
and social factors such as class, ethnicity, age and
sex.
4. The study of language in social contexts.
5. The study of the sociological factors involved
in the use of language, including gender, race,
class, etc.
6. The study of stylistic and social
variation of language (vernacular).
7. The study of language in relation to its
socio-cultural context.
8. Sociolinguistics is the study of the effect of
any and all aspects of society, including
cultural norms, expectations, and context on
the way language is used.
9. The study of social and cultural effects on
language.
In all these definitions, it is clear that
sociolinguistics is a discipline that yokes sociology
with linguistics. It is a branch of sociology and as
a concept, it is concerned with how language use
is a determinant of a given society’s linguistic
requirements. Every society has linguistic
codes acceptable for communication and
interaction. Sociolinguistics show how groups in a
given society are separated by certain social
variables like ethnicity, religion, status, gender,
level of education, age, etc.
and how adherence to these variables is used
to categorise individuals in social class or
socio-economic classes. The social study of
language is a modern linguistic paradigm
because it was the modern linguists who first
acknowledged and accepted that language
by its nature is totally a social phenomenon.
All the definitions here acknowledge that
sociolinguistics has to do with language use
and a society’s response to it.
SELF ASSESSMENT EXERCISE 1
Explain the relationship between sociology
and linguistics in all the definitions above.
3.2 Sociolinguistics Factors
Sociolinguistics is a developing branch of
linguistics and sociology which investigates
the individual and social variation of language.
Just as regional variation of language can give
a lot of information about the place the
speaker is from, social variation tells about the
roles performed by a given speaker within one
community, or country. Sociolinguistics is also
a branch of sociology in that it reveals the
relationship between language use and the social
basis for such use. Sociolinguistics differs from
sociology of language in that the focus of
sociolinguistics is the effect of the society on the
language, while the latter's focus is on the
language's effect on the society. Sociolinguistics
is a practical, scientific discipline which
researches into the language that is actually
used, either by native speakers or foreigners, in
order to formulate theories about language
change. There are numerous factors
influencing the way people speak which are
investigated by sociolinguistics:
1. Social class: the position of the speaker in
the society, measured by the level of
education, parental background, profession
and their effect on syntax and lexis used by
the speaker. An important factor influencing
the way of formulating sentences is, according
to sociolinguists, the social class of the
speakers. Thus, there has been a division of
social classes proposed in order to make the
description accurate.
Two main groups of language users, mainly
those performing non-manual work and those
with more years of education are the ‘middle
class’, while those who perform some kind of
manual work are ‘working class’. The
additional terms ‘lower’ and ‘upper’ are
frequently used in order to subdivide the
social classes. Therefore, differences between
upper middle class can be compared with
lower working class.
2. Social context: the register of the language
used depending on changing situations:
formal language in formal meetings and
informal usage during meetings with friends,
for example. It is notable that people are
acutely aware of the differences in speech
patterns that mark their social class and are
often able to adjust their style to the
interlocutor. It is especially true for the
members of the middle class who seem eager
to use forms associated with upper class;
however, in such efforts, the forms
characteristic of upper class are often
overused by the middle class members. The
above mentioned process of adapting own
speech to reduce social distance is called
convergence. Sometimes, however, when
people want to emphasise the social distance,
they make use of the process called
divergence, purposefully using idiosyncratic
forms.
3. Geographical Origins: slight differences in
pronunciation between speakers that point at the
geographical region which the speaker comes
from. Sociolinguistics investigates the way in
which language changes, depending on the region
of the country it is used in. To describe a variety of
language that differs in grammar, lexis and
pronunciation from others, the term dialect is
used. Moreover, each member of community has
a unique way of speaking due to the life
experience, education, age and aspiration. An
individual personal variation of language use is
called an idiolect.
4. Ethnicity: differences between the use of a
given language by its native speakers and
other ethnic groups. There are numerous
factors influencing idiolect, some of which
have been presented above; yet two more
need to be elucidated, namely jargon and
slang. Jargon is specific technical vocabulary
associated with a particular field of interest, or
topic. For example words such as
convergence, dialect and social class are
sociolinguistic jargon. Whereas slang is a type of
language used most frequently by people from
outside of high-status groups, characterised by
the use of unusual words and phrases instead of
conventional forms. For example, a sociolinguist
might determine, through study of social
attitudes, that a particular vernacular would not
be considered appropriate language use in a
business or professional setting; she or he might
also study the grammar, phonetics, vocabulary,
and other aspects of this sociolect much as a
dialectologist would study the same for a
regional dialect.
5. Nationality: clearly visible in the case of the
English language: British English differs from
American English, or Canadian English; Nigerian
English differs from Ghanaian English; The study
of language variation is concerned with social
constraints determining language in its
contextual environment. Code- switching is the
term given to the use of different varieties of
language in different social situations. William
Labov is often regarded as the founder of the
study of sociolinguistics. He is especially noted
for introducing the quantitative study of
language variation and change, making the
sociology of language into a scientific discipline.
6. Gender: differences in patterns of language
use between men and women, such as
quantity of speech, intonation patterns.
7. Age: the influence of age of the speaker on
the use of vocabulary and grammar
complexity.
Discuss the various factors with which
sociolinguists are concerned in studying the
relationship between society and language.
4.0 CONCLUSION
Sociolinguistics is an important discipline which
studies the effects of language use on a given
society. Sociolinguistics studies those types of
language variation which result from the
correlation between language and social factors,
such as social stratification (status), role, age, sex,
ethnicity. Depending on the degree and pattern
of their actualisation, participants select from a
variety of available codes (languages, dialects,
varieties), they may switch between them,
accommodate or mix them.
The social status indicates an individual’s social
position in a society, which is based on power
differences, prestige and social class, along
with the associated rights and duties. The
broadest social class categories are upper,
middle and lower classes which correlate with
accents (e.g., posh, refined, RP vs. low,
uneducated, regional, local dialect) and
speech varieties (Standard English vs. non-
standard varieties).
5.0 SUMMARY
In sociolinguistics, it can be shown that speakers
change the forms of language they use in quite
precisely describable social circumstances.
Speakers might switch from a ‘high’ form of their
language to a ‘low’ form as and when the social
environment suggests that they should do so:
they speak, for instance, a standard educated
form of their language in formal situations, and
use a dialect form (whether social or
geographical or both) of their language in
informal, casual situations.
Speakers are seen to be aware of the
'correlations'; that one social situation demands
the use of a particular form of the language and
that another social situation demands another.
The role of the social is to establish the
correlation; the role of the individual is to
implement and instantiate it as appropriate
sociolinguistic behaviour. Speakers demonstrate
a competence that goes well beyond the
grammatical/syntactic competence proposed by
Chomsky. Thus, sociolinguistics relates linguistic
behaviour with social demands.
6.0 TUTOR-MARKED ASSIGNMENTS
1. Explain the relationship between language and
society.
2. What are the social factors that influence
language use?
7.0 REFERENCES/FURTHER READING
- Chambers, J.K. (1995). Sociolinguistic Theory.
Oxford, England: Blackwell.
- Coulmas, F. (Ed.) (1997). The Handbook of
Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.
- De Saussure, F. (1916). Course in General
Linguistics. Geneva.
UNIT 2: SOCIOLINGUISTICS AND LANGUAGE
VARIATION
1.0 INTRODUCTION
In this unit, we will study language varieties as
they pertain to sociolinguistics. In every
aspect of human endeavours, there are
varieties of languages that are applied in
that setting. Every social situation has a
linguistic bias appropriate for it.
At the primordial classification, a language has
three varieties: the sign, the written and the
spoken, and each of these types has various
ways by which it is used or applied. Whenever
a spoken variety is written down, it is often
distinguished because of the colloquial
qualities inherent. We study the difference
between the written and the spoken varieties
here and the notion of sociolinguistic variation
in language use in a society.
2.0 OBJECTIVES
At the end of this study, you should be able to:
· state the concept of language varieties properly
· discuss the concept of variation in sociolinguistics
· distinguish between written and spoken varieties
of a language
· explain that variation in language is
determined by social situations
· identify the variations of language in a given
social setting.
3.0 MAIN CONTENT
Language, as it is described in books and
articles on morphology or semantics, is often
presented as a uniform entity. However, even
within one language community, such as
country or state, significant differences can
be seen. Such regional variation of languages
is also subject to linguistic investigations.
General descriptions of languages focusing on
pronunciation, or grammar, usually provide
information about the standard variety of a
given language. Nonetheless, that does not
mean that it is in any respect better than its
other varieties. The standard language is
chosen for such accounts because it is
frequently the official kind, and, in the case of
English, an idealised version that learners of
English as a second language usually attempt
to learn.
One of the most easily noticeable features characterising
some regional feature of a language is most certainly
accent. Although it is generally believed that some
people speak with an accent and others do not, this is
not true. Every language speaker utters words with some
kind of accent which can tell the listeners where the
speaker is from, as the very term, accent, is characterised
as: the way of pronouncing words characteristic of a
group of people, showing which country, or part of a
country, the speaker is from. Accent is frequently
confused with the term dialect which denotes aspects of
pronunciation together with words and syntax slightly
different from the standard variety.
Although various dialects of one language posses
grammar rules and vocabulary characteristic to
them, speakers of different dialects of one
language understand each other without major
difficulties. Moreover, one language user can
speak two different dialects, or varieties of one
language. In countries like China or Malta, there
are distinct forms of language used on everyday
basis and on special occasions. Such a linguistic
situation, when one variety of language is
considered more prestigious and one move
vernacular, but both are in use depending on
situation, is called diglossia.
Apart from regional variations of a language
within the boundaries of a country or speech
community, there are other factors influencing
language change. In certain areas of the world,
English has been used as a lexifier, that is, a
language which is a source of words, for varieties
of language called pidgins. A pidgin, or a contact
language, is a mixture of two other languages,
created usually because of trading purposes
between peoples who do not share a common
means of communication. English-based pidgins
are used in India, Cameroon, and Nigeria, for
example.
Such varieties of language often have
limited vocabulary, poorly developed
grammar and are used only when other
types of communication are impossible.
When a pidgin begins to be used by a larger
number of people, its vocabulary and
grammar expand, and it starts to be used in a
wider context. As it is developed as a contact
language, pidgin does not have any native
speakers, yet if it is used on a wider scale,
children of people using it might acquire it as
their mother tongue.
When such a language starts to be used by a
second generation of speakers, it is called a
creole. It is the next stage of development for
pidgin and it is characterised by different
grammatical features such as avoidance of
passive voice, lack of case distinction in
pronouns, and different word order. Some
English-based creoles include: Gambian
Creole, Hawaiian Creole, and Australian
Creoles.
As the process of the development of a pidgin
into a creole is called creolisation, there is also
a process of decreolisation, which stimulates
further change of a language. When people
using a creole have some contact with the
standard language, they tend to shift from
one form to the other, thus often changing
the structures of creole to make it
resemble the standard version, which is
perceived as having a higher social prestige.

Discuss the determinants for the choice of
varieties by a speaker of a language.
3.2 Notion of Sociolinguistic Variation
A variety of a language is a form that differs
from other forms of the language
systematically and coherently. Variety is a
wider concept than style of prose or style of
language. Some writers in sociolinguistics use
the term lect, apparently a back-formation
from specific terms such as dialect and
idiolect. Varieties such as dialects, idiolects,
and sociolects can be distinguished, not only
by their vocabulary,
but also by differences in grammar,
phonology and prosody. For instance, the
tonal word accents of Scandinavian languages
have differing realisations in many dialects. As
another example, foreign words in different
sociolects vary in their degree of
adaptation to the basic phonology of the
language. Certain professional registers
such as legalese show a variation in
grammar from the standard language.
For instance English journalists or lawyers
often use grammatical moods such as
subjunctive mood or conditional mood, which
are no longer used frequently by other
speakers. Many registers are simply a
specialised set of terms (see technical
terminology, jargon). It is a matter of
definition whether slang and argot are to be
considered included in the concept of variety
or of style. Colloquialisms and idiomatic
expressions are usually understood as limited
to variation of lexicon, and hence of style.
The concept of language varieties in general, and
language registers in particular, can be of great help in
translating as well as in evaluating translations. It will
be useful sometimes to refer to considerations of
register. Since the concept of a “whole language” is
so broad and therefore rather loose, it is not
altogether useful for many linguistic purposes, whether
descriptive or comparative. In other words, the concept
of language as a whole unit is theoretically lacking in
accuracy, and pragmatically rather useless.
Consequently, the need arises for a scientific
classification of sub-language or varieties within the
total range of one language.
These varieties, or sub-languages, may be
classified in more than one way. The
suggested classes include idiolects, dialects,
registers, styles and modes, as varieties of any
living language. Another view is that of Pit
Coder (1973), who suggests dialects, idiolects,
and sociolects. Quirk (1972) proposes region,
education, subject matter, media and attitude
as possible bases of language variety
classification of English in particular.
He recognises dialects as varieties
distinguished according to geographical
dispersion, and standard and substandard
English as varieties within different ranges of
education and social position. Language
registers are recognised as varieties classified
according to different subject matters. We
acknowledge varieties distinguished according
to attitude, which are called “styles,” and
varieties due to interference, which arise
when a foreign speaker imposes a
grammatical usage of his native tongue upon
the language, which he is using.
For example, a Frenchman might say “I am
here since Friday.” This is lexically English, but
grammatically French. Another way of
classifying language varieties is according to
the user or the use of language. Thus, in the
first category, we may list social dialects,
geographical dialects, and idiolects, whereas
the second category includes language
registers.
The total range of a language may be
described in terms of its grammatical,
phonological, and, sometimes, even
graphological systems. Similarly, the language
varieties of any given language have certain
linguistic features in common. These common
features of all the varieties of one language
constitute the common core of that language.
Apart from this common core of the language
concerned, there are other lexical,
grammatical, and stylistic features of each
individual language variety,
and so these could serve as formal linguistic as
well as stylistic markers of the language
variety in question. It may be worth noting in
this respect that these variety markers may
exist on any level: phonetic, syntactical,
stylistic and, above all, lexical.

Discuss region, education, subject matter,
and media as parameters for
sociolinguistic investigation.
3.3 Spoken and Written Varieties
There are two varieties of language – the spoken
and the written within standard (literary)
language. This differentiation is
predetermined by two distinct factors, namely,
the actual situation in which the language is
being used and the aim of communication. The
situation in which the spoken variety of
language is used and in which it develops,
presupposes the presence of the interlocutor,
whereas, the written variety presupposes the
absence of the interlocutor.
The spoken language has a considerable
advantage over the written because of
such factors as human voice, all kinds of
gestures, which give additional information.
The written language has to seek means to
compensate for what it lacks. This is the
reason why the written language is more
carefully organised, more explanatory; the
word choice is more deliberate.
The spoken language is spontaneous,
momentary. It vanishes after having fulfilled
its purpose, which is to communicate the
thought, no matter how trivial or important.
The idea remains, the language disappears.
The written language is able to live forever
with the idea it expresses.
The spoken language cannot be detached from
its user; the written language can be
detached and objectively looked at. The writer
has an opportunity to correct and improve
what has been put on paper. The written
language bears a greater volume of
responsibility than its spoken counterpart.
The spoken language differs from the written
language phonetically, morphologically,
lexically and syntactically. The most striking
difference between the spoken and the
written language is in the vocabulary used.
There are words and phrases typically
colloquial, on the one hand, and typically
bookish, on the other hand. If colloquial
words and phrases find their way into the
written language, they immediately produce a
marked stylistic effect and can be used for the
speech characterisation, for example. The
spoken language widely uses intensifying
words. These are interjections and words with
strong emotive meaning, as oaths,
swear-words and adjectives which have lost
their primary meaning (He dropped my paper
down. I am very sure.). The spoken language is
characterised by the insertion into the
utterance of words without any meaning,
which are called “fill-ups” or empty words (as
well, and all, so to say, whatever, you know,
that is, etc).
The essential difference between the two
varieties of language is evidently reflected in
the syntactical structure. The syntactical
peculiarities of the spoken language are
omission of the part of utterance easily
supplied by the situation in which the
communication takes place (Who you with? Tell
you what?). Tendency to use the direct word-
order in questions or omit auxiliary verb,
leaving it to the intonation to indicate the
grammatical meaning (He knew she was dead?)
unfinished sentences (If I were you…).
a) Usage of a construction with two subjects
(a tautological subject) (Helen, she was there.)
b) Absence of connecting words (Came home
late. Had a cup of tea.
Went to bed soon after that.)
c) Syntactical structures, expressing definite
emotions, which can be understood only
through a proper intonation design (Isn't she
cute! Don't you tell me that! It’s a lie!)
d) The written language is characterised by the
exact nature of the utterance (the abundance of
all kinds of connecting words) the bookish
“space-wasters” (despite the fact; reach a
decision)
e) The use of complicated sentence-units (long
periods are more frequent than short
utterances)
f) An essential property of the written variety
of language is coherence and logical unity
backed up by purely linguistic means.
The choice of colloquial vocabulary falls into
the following groups or varieties of choice,
depending on the user’s intent, social
situation and immediate need:
1. Common colloquial words.
Slang is the most extended and vastly
developed subgroup of non-standard
colloquial layer of the vocabulary of a given
type of language. Besides separate words,
it includes also highly figurative
phraseology. Slang occurs mainly in
dialogue, and serves to create speech
characteristics of personages).
2. Professional and Social Jargons
A jargon is a special type of vocabulary in a
given language. They are used in emotive
prose to depict the natural speech of a
character within the framework of such
device as speech-characterisation. They can
show vocation, education, breeding,
environment and even the psychology of a
personage. Slang, contrary to jargon, needs no
translation, jargon is used to conceal or
disguise something.
3. Vulgarisms
Vulgarism is a term in ordinary people's
language. It is a word or phrase from the
language spoken by people generally, as
contrasted with a more formal or refined
usage of such language. Vulgarisms are
divided into expletives and swear-words, used
as general exclamations and obscene words.
They are emotionally and strongly charged
and can be used for speech-characterisation.
4. Dialectal words
Dialectal words are special word forms that
indicate the linguistic origin of the speaker.
They are introduced into the speech of
personages to indicate their region. The
number of dialectal words and their
frequency also indicate the educational and
cultural level of the speaker.
Clearly differentiate spoken variety from

written variety of a language.
4.0 CONCLUSION
A variety of a language is a form that differs
from other forms of the language
systematically and coherently. Variety is a
wider concept than style of prose or style of
language. Some writers in sociolinguistics use
the term lect, apparently a back-formation
from specific terms such as dialect and
idiolect. Sociolinguistics is the study of the
effect of any and all aspects of society,
including cultural norms, expectations, and
context, on the way language is used.
Certain professional registers, such as legalese,
show a variation in grammar from the
standard language. For instance, English
journalists or lawyers often use grammatical
moods such as subjunctive mood or
conditional mood, which are no longer used
frequently by other speakers. Many registers
are simply a specialised set of terms. Legalese
is the term given to the special technical
terminology of any given language (usually
English) in a legal document.
In linguistics, many grammars have the
concept of grammatical mood, which
describes the relationship of a verb with
reality and intent. There are various ways of
classifying choice of words or varieties in
sociolinguistics but the immediate
requirement is the need to use a given variety
according to the immediate social
requirement.
5.0 SUMMARY
In sociolinguistics, we investigate variations in
language according to certain parameters. The
essence is to determine the factors that
influence varieties. Many varieties emerge out
of stated historical linguistic parameters while
some are based on individual yardsticks. As
explained in sub section 3.2 on the notion of
sociolinguistic variation, it is clearly stated
that
marked varieties in every language has a
hinge on the social requirements of the users
at every given situation. Sociolinguistics is an
investigative science that determines
language variation according to societal
requirements.
1. Explain the expression ‘language variety’.
2. Distinguish between spoken and written
varieties of language.
3. Discuss the various categorisations of
language varieties.
4. Elaborate on the essence of varieties in
sociolinguistics.
5. Examine the statement: ‘varieties result from
social situations’.
Brown, K. (2005). Encyclopaedia of Language and
Linguistics, 2nd
Edition. Oxford: Elsevier.
Crystal, D. (2005). The Cambridge
Encyclopaedia of the English
Language, 2nd Edition. Cambridge: CUP.
Wilson, R. A. (1999). The MIT Encyclopaedia of
Cognitive Sciences. London: The MIT Press.
Yule, G. (2006). The Study of Language.
Cambridge: CUP.
UNIT 3: SOCIOLINGUISTIC DIFFERENCES
1.0 INTRODUCTION
In this unit, we will study sociolinguistic differences that
are necessary in the understanding of language use in
society. There are other differences but we shall
concentrate on differences in class, age groups, and
gender. These differences are based on sociolinguistic
enquiries about the social changes in human language.
The interpretation of speeches is based on a society’s
acceptability. We will study these differences and
examine the implications in sociolinguistics. This will
enable us understand how language is interpreted in the
larger society.
2.0 OBJECTIVES
· identify the differences in sociolinguistic data
· recognise the differences and their implications
· distinguish each difference from another
· relate these differences to sociolinguistic studies
· identify each difference as basic to
sociolinguistic studies of language use.
3.0 MAIN CONTENT
There are numerous factors influencing the
way people use language, and these have
been investigated by sociolinguists over the
years. They include:
1) Social Class
The position of the speaker in the society,
measured by the level of education, parental
background, profession and their effect on
syntax and lexis used by the speaker.
2) Social Context
The register of the language used, depending on
changing situations, formal language in formal
meetings and informal during meetings with
friends, for example:
a) Geographical origins: slight differences in
pronunciation between speakers that point at
the geographical region which the speaker
comes from;
b) Ethnicity: differences between the use of a
given language by its native speakers and other
ethnic groups;
c) Nationality: clearly visible in the case of
the English language: British English differs
from American English, or Canadian English;
Nigerian English differs from Ghanaian
English.
d) Gender: differences in patterns of language
use between men and women, such as
quantity of speech, intonation patterns.
e) Age: the influence of age of the speaker on
the use of vocabulary and grammar
complexity.
e) Age: the influence of age of the speaker on
the use of vocabulary and grammar complexity.
f) Occupation: differences in language use with
regards to professional jargons, slang and
professional codes and signs.
We will discuss these differences in detail in the
subsequent sub- sections. The aim is to help you
to make the students know the sociolinguistic
effects of these social contexts with
regard to determining language use.
Explain the need for studying differences in
language use.
3.2 Differences According to Geographical
Origins
There are slight differences in pronunciation
among speakers of a language that point at the
geographical region which a given speaker comes
from. In Nigeria, it is remarkably easy to
understand the geographical origin of any user of
English because of the marked phonological
differences existing among the users of English
resulting from the effects of the speakers’
mother tongues. For instance, in the northern
part of Nigeria, there are marked aberrations in
the use of the plosive /p/
and the fricative /f/ as in ‘people’ /pi:pl/ being
pronounced as /fi:fl/ or ‘federal’ /fedræl/ being
pronounced as /pedræl/, etc. In the south
eastern part, the Igbos and the Efik/Ibibio
have the tendency of misapplying the lateral
sound /l/ where /r/ should be the correct
sound as in [load] for [road] or [lice] for [rice].
In the southwest, some speakers of the Yoruba
dialects are known for some marked
phonological peculiarities as in using the
fricative sound /s/ in place of /ch/ as in [sapter]
instead of [chapter]; [sors] for [church], etc.
In Africa generally, it is possible to identify a
Ghanaian user of English as different from a
Nigerian, Kenyan or Liberian. The Ghanaian
users are known for their good use of the
fricatives, plosives and dental fricatives. It
has often been discussed among African
linguists that Ghanaian English pronunciation
seems closer to the ‘Received Pronunciation’
(RP) pattern of Standard British English (SBE).
The Liberian users of English include elements
of Americanism in their use of English because
of their history. The South African user of
English language speaks with the phonological
intrusions of the Zulu language, especially
those from the Zulu axis.
Carefully discuss the marked phonological
differences used in identifying Nigerian
speakers of English.
3.3 Differences According to Ethnicity
There are marked differences between the use
of a given language by its native speakers and
other ethnic groups. This brings in one of the
major reasons for the varieties of a particular
language. English language has ethnic
influence. The British English is different from
American English in form and style because of
certain ethnic reasons. The native English
speakers use English as mother-tongue,
which means that there is no negative external
effect on their English use, unlike the second
language learners of English in Nigeria or
Ghana. Canadian and Australian English users
are different and reflect the ethnic bias of each
user of the language.
In Nigeria, there are marked ethnic reflections
in the use of English and other languages. The
Igbo language in use in Enugu, Imo and
Anambra states are different from the minute
varieties of Igbo in use in many parts of Delta
and Rivers states.
The speakers of Kwale, Ika, Aniocha and Oshimili
Igbo use different varieties as a reflection of their
ethnic background. Even in the western part,
there are marked ethnic differences among the
Ijebu, Oyo, Ife and Badagry users of Yoruba
language. In the north, it is possible to distinguish
a Fulani speaker of Hausa from a middle-belt
speaker of Hausa. This also shows in the various
ways by which each of these groups use English
to communicate with the other ethnic parts of
the country. This could be related to dialectical
variation of the languages in question.
Every language use has ethnic basis. Use the
Nigerian situation in your discuss.
3.4 Differences According to Nationality
There are clearly visible cases of linguistic
differences in the use of English language in many
countries: British English differs from American
English, or Canadian English; Nigerian English
differs from Ghanaian English, etc. Nigerian
English has been adapted to the Nigerian
environment in order to meet the second
language requirements of the people. It is not
surprising that there are different varieties of the
English language in Nigeria: Educated Nigerian
English (ENE), Popular Nigerian English (PNE),
Nigerian Pidgin English (NPE) and Creole English.
Jowitt (1981) identified several varieties of
English language in use in Nigeria because,
being a second and a national language in
Nigeria, English language is serving several
purposes in the areas of education, business,
communication, official matters and
international relations.
We see this same phenomenon in the
American use of English. American English
has elements of Americanism but there are
other marked varieties like the ‘General
America’
(GA) used in official and government circles
different from African American English or Black
English, which has elements of profanity, raw
and unpolished use of English words. English
language in Britain has marked class
consciousness, differentiating the royals from the
commoners; the educated from the uneducated,
etc. English, like French and other world
languages, reflect the nationality of the users.
However, it is not surprising that the
nationality of any speaker of English could be
identified merely by listening to his phonological
and morphological applications of English.
Every language adapts to its environment.
Discuss the manner of adaptation of English as
a national language in some countries.
3.5 Differences According to Occupation
There are marked differences in language
use with regard to professional jargons,
slang and professional codes and signs.
Every profession has a register and ways of
applying words in discourse. In the legal
profession, certain common English words like
‘bench’, ‘wigs’, ‘bar’ are given specified
meanings, which are different from the general
use. Hence, ‘bench’ is not a kind of ‘seat’ but a
group of prosecutors in a law court; ‘wigs’ are
not what women adorn their
hairs with, but rather a kind of ‘dress code’ that
reflects a lawyer as a learned man; and ‘bar’ is
not a place for drinking or eating like a pub or
restaurant, but rather means the association of
lawyers. This is a common phenomenon in the
use of language in many professions.
In the medical profession words like ‘injection’,
‘drugs’, ‘antibiotics’, ‘malaria’, ‘diabetes’,
‘hypertension’, ‘cancer’, etc are often used to
reflect sicknesses and the processes of curing
sicknesses. It is not wrong to hear these
words being used in a general sense as in: “I
injected patience into my mind when I was
waiting for him” or “His general behaviour has a
cancerous effect on the entire students in the
school”. Note that these words, even in their
adapted use, still reflect the medical semantics.
In sociolinguistics, every profession or occupation
has ways by which words are adapted to suit their
routines. This occupational language use makes it
easy in identifying professions, their basic
linguistic requirements and the society’s needs
for such uses in education and interaction.
Explain the importance of language in the
identification of occupations.
3.6 Differences According to Class
Sociolinguistics as a field was pioneered
through the study of language variation in
urban areas. Whereas dialectology studies the
geographic distribution of language variation,
sociolinguistics focuses on other sources of
variation, among them class. Class and
occupation are among the most important
linguistic markers found in society. One of
the fundamental findings of sociolinguistics,
which has been hard to disprove, is that class
and language variety are related.
Members of the working class tend to speak
less standard language, while the lower,
middle, and upper middle class will in turn
speak closer to the standard. However, the
upper class, even members of the upper
middle class, may often speak 'less' standard
than the middle class. This is because not only
class, but class aspirations, is important.
In class aspiration, studies, such as those by
William Labov in the 1960s, have shown that
social aspirations influence speech patterns.
This is also true of class aspirations.
In the process of wishing to be associated
with a certain class (usually the upper class
and upper middle class) people who are
moving in that direction socio-economically
will adjust their speech patterns to sound like
them. However, not being native upper class
speakers, they hypercorrect, and end up
speaking 'more' standard than those whom
they are trying to imitate. The same is true for
individuals moving down in socio-economic
status.
An important factor influencing the way of formulating
sentences is, according to sociolinguists, the social class
of the speakers. Thus, there has been a division of social
classes proposed in order to make the description
accurate. Two main groups of language users, mainly
those performing non-manual work and those with more
years of education are the ‘middle class’, while those
who perform some kind of manual work are ‘working
class’. Additional terms ‘lower’ and ‘upper’ are
frequently used in order to subdivide the social
classes. Therefore, differences between upper middle
class can be compared with lower working class in any
society.
It is notable that people are acutely aware of
the differences in speech patterns that mark
their social class and are often able to adjust
their style to the interlocutor. It is especially
true for the members of the middle class who
seem eager to use forms associated with upper
class, however, in such efforts the forms
characteristic of upper class are often overused
by the middle class members. The above
mentioned process of adopting own speech to
reduce social distance is called convergence.
Sometimes, however, when people want to
emphasise the social distance, they make
use of the process called divergence,
purposefully using idiosyncratic forms.
How does class determine language use in
societies?
3.7 Differences According to Age Groups
There are several different types of age-based
variation one may see within a population.
They are: vernacular of a subgroup, with
membership typically characterised by a
specific age range, age-graded variation, and
indications of linguistic change in progress.
One example of subgroup vernacular is the
speech of street youth. Just as street youth
dress differently from the “norm”, they also
often have their own “language”. The reasons
for this are to
(1) enhance their own cultural identity,
(2) identify with each other,
(3) exclude others, and
(4)invoke feelings of fear or admiration from the
outside world.
Strictly speaking, this is not truly age-based,
since it does not apply to all individuals of that
age bracket within the community. Age-
graded variation is a stable variation which
varies within a population based on age.
That is, speakers of a particular age will use a
specific linguistic form in successive
generations. This is relatively rare. People
tend to use linguistic forms that were
prevalent when they reached adulthood. So,
in the case of linguistic change in progress,
one would expect to see variation over a
broader range of ages.
Age grades are likely to use same language
forms. Discuss this phenomenon in
sociolinguistics.
3.8 Differences According to Gender
Men and women, on average, tend to use
slightly different language styles. These
differences tend to be quantitative rather
than qualitative. That is, to say that women
make more minimal responses than men is
akin to saying that men are taller than women
(i.e., men are on the average taller than
women, but some women are taller than
some men).
The initial identification of a women's register
was by Robin Lakoff (1975), who argued that
the style of language served to maintain
women's (inferior) role in society (“female
deficit approach”). A later refinement of this
argument was that gender differences in
language reflected a power difference
(O'Barr & Atkins, 1980) (“dominance
theory”). However, both these perspectives
have the language style of men as normative,
implying that women’s style is inferior.
More recently, Deborah Tannen (1991) has
compared gender differences in language as
more similar to ‘cultural’ differences (“cultural
difference approach”). Comparing
conversational goals, she argued that men have
a report style, aiming to communicate factual
information, whereas women have a rapport
style, more concerned with building and
maintaining relationships. Such differences are
pervasive across media, including face-to-face
conversation. Communication styles are always a
product of context,
and as such, gender differences tend to be most
pronounced in single-gender groups. One
explanation for this is that people accommodate
their language towards the style of the person
they are interacting with. Thus, in a mixed-gender
group, gender differences tend to be less
pronounced. A similarly important observation is
that this accommodation is usually towards the
language style, not the gender of the person. That
is, a polite and empathic male will tend to be
warmed up to on the basis of their being polite
and empathic, rather than their being male.
Discuss the likely areas of difference in
language use between men and women.
4.0 CONCLUSION
The basic question in sociolinguistics is: What is
it that gives rise to difference in language use?
This question forms the basic reason for
sociolinguistic inquiries. Differences in use
determine all linguistic (inter)action, and much
of the work of sociolinguistics focused on the
working of differences in linguistic practices. Of
course, to focus on differences as the motor
for linguistic production, as the generative
principle of the very forms of linguistic
utterances, was to invert the relation
between the linguistic and the social, and to
make the social prior. For Gumperz, as for
Labov, the social caused selections of different
codes, but it did not reach into the
organisation of code: language remained a
discreet autonomous system. For Halliday, the
social was responsible for the shape of the
system – for him, language is as it is because of
its social functions - and the individual chooses
within the potential of the system. Yet the
conditions prompting the choice of the individual
and the social conditions of the choice are
based on select differences. In sociolinguistics,
the social is seen as a field of power and the
linguistic action of socially formed and
positioned individuals is seen as shaped first
and foremost by differences in social
situations. All linguistic interactions are
shaped by differences of varying kinds, and no
part of linguistic action escapes the effects.
5.0 SUMMARY
Language is a means to instantiate, to realise
and to give shape to (aspects of) the social.
There is no linguistic action other than as part
of the unfolding making of text in
social/linguistic action. In linguistics, action, as
social action, is central, and with that the
question of the agency of individuals also
moved to centre stage. Linguistic is linked with
the social. The individual has the knowledge of
codes, including codes which link the social
and the linguistic.
For Halliday, the linguistic is a socially shaped
resource, organised as a system of choices in
which the action of the individual in making
choices produces meaning. Text, as the
manifestation of social action is central to
sociolinguistics. This is the case, both for its
meaning-aspect and its form-aspect. The
meaning of the text arises out of the meaning
of the social, and the form which the text
‘has’ – whether in its material manifestation
such as a talk of 15 minutes or a story of three
pages length;
whether in its generic shape or in its intra-
textual organisation; in the very form of its
sentences and the shape of its syntax and its
words – all arise out of the social
conditions and the interaction of the
participants who shape the text in their
social/linguistic situation and the differences
aid in sociolinguistic investigation of human
utterance.
1. Explain the importance of sociolinguistic
differences.
2. How do sociolinguistic differences affect
human speech?
3. Relate linguistic applications to sociolinguistic
difference.
4. iscuss gender as an important difference in
sociolinguistics.
5. Assess the role of class difference in
sociolinguistics.
Bernstein, B. (1983). Elaborated and Restricted Codes: Their Social
Origins and Some Consequences. London: Routledge.
Coates, J. (1993). Women, Men and Language. London: Longman.
Coates, J. (Ed.) (1998). Language and Gender: A Reader. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and Women’s Place. New York: Harper &
Row.
Tannen, D. (1991). You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in
Conversation. London: Virago.
Trudgill, P. (2000). Sociolinguistics: An Introduction to Language and
Society, 4th Edition. London: Penguin Books.
CHAPTER 2: LANGUAGE USE IN SOCIETY
UNIT 1: SPEECH COMMUNITIES
1.0 INTRODUCTION
In this unit, we will study the concept of speech
communities in sociolinguistics. Speech communities
involve language use within a sub-part of a wider
society. These sub-parts or groups exhibit similar
linguistic behaviour that fosters coherence within
them. Sociolinguists believe that these groups within
the society have influence within the wider society
because their linguistic act is recognised as restricted
forms and sometimes they are revered. We will
examine the concept, the history and the
characteristics.
2.0 OBJECTIVES
· state the concept of speech communities
· recognise their place in the larger society
· see that the language use in speech
communities is restricted
· trace the history of speech communities
· distinguish between speech
communities and other sociolinguistic
norms.
3.0 MAIN CONTENT
The adoption of the concept ‘speech
community’ as a focus of linguistic analysis
emerged in the 1960s. This was due to the
pioneering work by William Labov, whose
studies of language variation in New York City
and Martha’s Vineyard in the United States of
America laid the groundwork for
sociolinguistics as a social science.
His studies showed that not only were class
and profession clearly related to language
variation within a speech community (e.g.
Martha’s Vineyard), but that socio-economic
aspirations and mobility were also of great
importance.
Prior to Labov’s studies, the closest linguistic
field was dialectology, which studies linguistic
variation between different dialects. The
primary application of dialectology is in rural
communities with little physical mobility.
Thus, there was no framework for describing
language variation in cities until the emergence
of sociolinguistics and the concept of speech
community, which applies to both rural and
urban communities.
Since the 1960s a number of studies have been
undertaken that have furthered our knowledge
on how speech communities work and
extended its use. Notable sociolinguists who
have worked on speech communities include
William Labov, John J. Gumperz, Lesley Milroy,
Mary Lakoff, and Penelope Eckert.
The notion of speech community is most
generally used as a tool to define a unit of
analysis within which to analyze language
variation and change. Stylistic features differ
among speech communities based on factors
such as the group's socioeconomic status,
common interests and the level of formality
expected within the group and by its larger
society. Speech community is any human
aggregate characterised 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.
In Western culture, for example, employees at a
law office would likely use more formal language
than a group of teenage skateboarders
because most Westerners expect more formality
and professionalism from practitioners of law than
from an informal circle of adolescent friends. This
special (use of) language by certain professions for
particular activities is known in linguistics as
register; in some analyses, the group of speakers
of a register is known as a discourse community,
while the phrase “speech community” is reserved
for varieties of a language or dialect that speakers
inherit by birth or adoption.
Understanding language in society means
that one also has to understand the social
networks in which language is embedded. A
social network is another way of describing a
particular speech community in terms of
relations between individual members in a
community. A network could be loose or tight
depending on how members interact with each
other. For instance, an office or factory may be
considered a tight community because all
members interact with each other. A multiplex
community is one in which members have
multiple relationships with each other.
For instance, in some neighbourhoods,
members may live on the same street, work
for the same employer and even intermarry.
The looseness or tightness of a social network
may affect speech patterns adopted by a
speaker. A social network may apply to the
macro level of a country or a city, but also to
the inter-personal level of neighbourhoods or
a single family. Recently, social networks have
been formed by the Internet, through chat
rooms, MySpace groups, organisations, and
online dating services.
Explain the major factors that gave rise to the
concept of speech communities.
3.2 Concept of Speech Community
According to Gumperz (1968), a ‘speech
community' is “any human aggregate
characterised 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”. A
more restrictive concept, assuming a shared set
of grammatical rules, emphasises linguistic
contrast with outsiders. Gumperz also argues for
regular relationships between language use and
social structure.
“The speech varieties employed within a speech
community form a system because they are
related to a shared set of social norms” but
may overlap language boundaries: e.g. Czech,
Austrian German, and Hungarian speakers may
share norms for speech acts, topics,
conversational participation, etc. while Labov
(1972: 36) explains that “The speech community
is not defined by any marked agreement in the
use of language elements, so much as by
participation in a set of shared norms.
These norms may be observed in overt types of
evaluative behaviour, and by the uniformity of
abstract patterns of variation which are invariant
in respect to particular levels of usage.”
However, Hudson (1996:58) says that the term
‘speech community’ misleads “by implying the
existence of ‘real’ communities ‘out there’,
which we could discover if we only knew how...
Our socio-linguistic world is not organised in
terms of objective 'speech communities'.”
Furthermore, he holds “It is impossible to
understand the relationships that really matter
to a sociolinguist except at the micro level of the
individual person and the individual linguistic
item turn out to be too fluid and ill-defined to be
seriously studied in their own right”, while
Bucholtz (1999:103) adds contrarily that in
sociolinguistics, social theory is rooted in the
concept of the speech community... a language-
based unit of social analysis... indigenous to
sociolinguistics [which] is not connected to any
larger social theory. He recognised six ways in
which the speech community has been an
inadequate model; and they are:
(a) tendency to take language as central,
(b) emphasis on consensus as the organising
principle of community,
(c) preference for studying central members of the
community over those at the margins,
(d) focus on the group at the expense of
individuals,
(e) view of identity as a set of static categories,
(f) valorisation of researchers’ interpretations
over participants’ understandings of their
practices.
Speech community is a concept in
sociolinguistics that describes a more or less
discrete group of people who use language in a
unique and mutually accepted way among
themselves. Speech communities can be
members of a profession with a specialised
jargon, distinct social groups like high school
students or hip hop fans (e.g. ghetto lingo), or
even tight-knit groups like families and friends.
In addition, online and other mediated
communities, such as many internet forums,
often constitute speech communities.
Members of speech communities will often
develop a slang or jargon to serve the group's
special purposes and priorities. The definition of
speech community is debated in many
sociolinguistic literatures. These definitions tend
to involve varying degrees of emphasis on the
following:
i. Shared community membership
ii. Shared linguistic communication
However, the relative importance and exact
definitions of these also vary. Some would argue
that a speech community must be a 'real'
community, i.e. a group of people
living in the same location (such as a city or a
neighbourhood), while more recent thinking
proposes that all people are indeed part of
several communities (through home location,
occupation, gender, class, religious belonging,
and more), and that they are thus also part of
simultaneous speech communities. Similarly,
what shared linguistic communication entails is
also a variable concept. Some would argue that
a shared first language, even dialect, is
necessary, while for others the ability to
communicate and interact (even across
language barriers) is sufficient.
The underlying concern in both of these is that
members of the same speech community
should share linguistic norms. That is, they
share understanding, values and attitudes
about language varieties present in their
community. While the exact definition of
speech community is debated, there is a
broad consensus that the concept is
immensely useful, if not crucial, for the study
of language variation and change.
A person can (and almost always does) belong to
more than one speech community. For example,
an area boy would likely speak and be spoken to
differently when interacting with his Nigerian
peers or his co-touts. If he found himself in a
situation with a variety of in-group and/or out-
group peers, he would likely modify his speech to
appeal to speakers of all the speech communities
represented at that moment. (A variation on this
concept is code-switching, which is usually
observed among speakers of two or more
languages who switch between them based on the
content or pragmatics of their conversation.)
What are the opposing reasons against the
concept of speech communities?
4.0 CONCLUSION
The concept of speech communities in
sociolinguistics gives insight into small
language use in minority group based on
certain unifying linguistic harmonies. In
studying speech communities, there are
political, cultural and economic considerations
but also of the language varieties themselves.
That is, in speech communities we do need to
look at vowels, consonants, lexis and syntax.
The major focus has to do with variety in
language use within a larger linguistic group.
The fact about speech communities in linguistics is that
there is still, in the world as a whole, a hybrid of language
varieties which are better categorised within the
boundaries of language functions and meaning within
select groups. Speech communities seem to be most
prevalent where one would expect it least: amongst
certain members of the intelligentsia, the literati, the
journalists, the politicians, the opinion-makers amongst
other sub groups. They value great secrecy, abhor
general or communal codes, and are fanatical about the
preservation of what they call “standards” in speaking and
writing. They support the fallacy that appears everywhere
in their own language, that their members do not write or
speak in the forms known to the general public.
5.0 SUMMARY
There has been no compromise regarding the
linguistic boundaries of speech communities.
It is recognised as language use within
static groups with a unifying interest; yet
there are no agreed forms of standardisation.
But a closer examination shows that what
respect they have for language is confined to
varieties spoken by their very small proportion
of the population. The only languages which
they deem worthy of respect, and which they
recognise as valid, are the little codes in their
languages, more than those with millions of
speakers. And the only varieties of those
languages which they respect are the standard
varieties which define their operational codes. In
other words, we are presented with a
phenomenon which we can call: the denigration
of language to suit minority interest. That is,
there is a widespread view that some varieties of
language are somehow more worthy, more valid,
in some mysterious way simply because they
serve interests of a few.
Sociolinguistic studies have proved that
speech communities reveal the complexities
of language use in society as every individual
within the larger society belong consciously or
unconsciously to several speech communities
which make up the society. It is an inevitable
aspect of the linguistic complexity of every
society.
1. Explain in your own words what speech
communities mean.
2.Show how it is possible to belong to more
than one speech community
3. Discuss speech communities as forms of
language varieties.
4.What are the arguments against speech
communities in sociolinguistics?
5. Identify the characteristic nature of speech
communities.
Bucholtz, M. (1999). “‘Why be Normal?' Language and Identity
Practices in a Community” Language in Society 28(2):203-223.
Gumperz, J. (1968). “The Speech Community.” International
Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences: 381-6. New York: Macmillan.
Hudson, R. A. (1996). Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: CUP.
Hymes, D. (1972). “Models of the Interaction of Language and Social
Life” In: Gumperz & Hymes, eds. Directions in Sociolinguistics: The
Ethnography of Communication. Blackwell: 35-71.
Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic Patterns. Phil: UPP.
Romaine, S. (1994). Language in Society: An Introduction to
Sociolinguistics. London: Blackwell.
Wardhaugh, R. (2002). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics, 3rd
Edition. London: Blackwell Publishing.
UNIT 2: SPEECH ACTS AND SPEECH EVENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
In this unit, we will study two basic concepts
that are necessary in the understanding of
language use in society. The first is speech acts
theory while the second is speech events
theory. These theories are based on the
interpretation of speeches as they relate to
society’s acceptability. We will study these
theories and examine the implications in
sociolinguistics. This will enable us understand
how individual language is interpreted in the
larger society.
2.0 OBJECTIVES
At the end of this study, you should be able to:
· state the theory of speech acts
· identify the theory of speech events
· distinguish the theory of speech acts from that
of speech events
· relate these theories to sociolinguistics
· identify speech acts and speech events
as sociolinguistic dichotomies.
3.0 MAIN CONTENT
Speech acts and speech events relate to
language performance in society. Every aspect
of language use has a function. This is where
linguists have paid attention to individual use
of language in society in terms of meaning
and usage. Linguists do tend to be better
informed than most about the situations in
which linguistic groups find themselves. There
are two respects, however, in which linguists
are much better equipped for analysing the
situations in which minority languages are
spoken and for defending the rights of minority
groups than other professionals. Firstly, and
paradoxically, since linguists seem to be the only
people who are fully aware of the extent to
which the question of whether a linguistic
variety is a language or not (as opposed to a
dialect) is a truly linguistic matter at all, we are
very well placed to defend linguistic minorities
against attacks which are aimed at – and to
help with problems and misconceptions that are
associated with – the linguistic status of their
mother-tongue.
The speech act and speech event are the locus
of most sociolinguistic and anthropological-
linguistic research, indeed all linguistic
research that is accountable to a body of
naturally-occurring speech or signed data.
They represent the social and linguistic
boundaries within which analysts locate, and
seek to describe and account for, language
variation and change, ways of speaking, and
patterns of choice among elements in a
linguistic repertoire.
It is thus on a par with other basic notions
such as ‘language’, ‘dialect’ or ‘grammar’ as a
primary object of description and theorising in
our discipline. They both grapple with speech
situations in the community focused on
“shared ways of speaking which go beyond
language boundaries” or ‘language bond’,
involving “relatedness at the level of linguistic
form” (Romaine 1994: 23) – both of which
emphasise the production of speech itself
over perception or attitudes.
Speech acts and speech events relate to
language application in every society. Explain.
3.2 Speech Acts
Speech acts are the routine ways of speaking;
utterances that involve both language and
social information like promise, argue, joke,
utter, dare, curse, disdain etc. In this theory, it
is believed that every speech or language use
has a function to perform in the place and
time of usage. This theory was proposed by
Austin (1962) and Searle (1969). Speech acts,
according to them, have four important
categories:
i) Locutionary acts are simply acts of uttering
sounds, syllables, words, phrases, and
sentences from a language. From a speech act
point of view, these are not very
interesting; because an utterance act per se is
not communicative (a parrot can do one).
ii) Illocutionary acts are performed in doing
something with an utterance.
iii) Perlocutionary acts are performed by
producing an effect on the hearer with an
utterance.
iv) Propositional acts have to do with the
content of utterances, the basic acts of
referring and predicating, wherein a speaker
refers to something and then characterises it.
Illocutionary acts can often be successfully
performed simply by uttering the right
sentence, with the right intentions and beliefs,
and under the right circumstances, e.g.
a. I (hereby) order you to leave.
b. I (hereby) promise to pay.
c. I (hereby) appoint you chairman.
Unlike perlocutionary acts, illocutionary acts
are central to communication. Our
conversations are composed of statements,
suggestions, requests, proposals, greetings and
the like. When we do perform perlocutionary
acts such as persuading or intimidating, we do
so by performing illocutionary acts such as
stating or threatening. Illocutionary acts have
the feature that one performs them simply by
getting one's illocutionary intentions
recognised.
With concrete examples, explain the concepts
of locution, illocution and perlocution in
speech acts.
3.3 Speech Events
The concept of speech event relates to social
interactional events involving communication;
how speech resources of the community are
largely put to use. This theory was
propounded by Dell Hymes (1972). According
to Hymes, the components of a speech event
are:
i) Setting
This is the scene or situation where interaction
takes place. It is the spatial contact point for
the application of language. It is the society
where the linguistic forms are applied.
ii) Participants
These are the speakers, receivers and the other
participants in the speech situation. Since
language is functional as a means of
communication among people, it brings people
together and they understand each other by
that means.
iii) Ends
These are the outcomes and goals of each
speech situation. Every communication
process has a target, a goal to achieve.
iv) Act sequences
These are the forms and contents of speech
situations. This includes the message being
communicated and the means of such
communication whether oral or written,
formal or informal.
v) Key
This is the manner of speech events. This has
to do with the way that communication is
effected, whether it is through discussion,
discourse or performance.
vi) Instrumentalities
This is the channel or code of communication.
This has to do with what is used in effecting
the communication. Does the
communication have to do with a computer,
radio, audio-visual instrument or telephone?
vii) Norms
These are behaviours and interpretations given
to speech events. This has to do with the
reactions given to the thing being
communicated. Did the people involved
scream, shout, cry or laugh?
viii) Genre
This is the style of communication in the
speech situation. This has to do with the
process of the communication like lecture,
chat, discussion, etc.
The students should note that these eight
components of speech events can be
formally summed up in the memory using
the mnemonic acronym SPEAKING to identify
the components at a go.
Using a practical discourse as reference,
describe the eight components of speech
events.
4.0 CONCLUSION
Speech acts and speech events are sometimes
described as uniform entities; however, even
within one language community such as
country or state, significant differences can be
seen in the ways and manner of
communication. These sociolinguistic norms
are often subject to linguistic investigations.
General descriptions of languages focusing on
pronunciation, or grammar usually provide
information about the standard variety of a
given language;
nonetheless, that does not mean that it is in any
respect better than its other varieties. Speech acts
and speech events account for the ways that
language is put to use by individuals in the
society. Every language speaker uses language
within given frameworks in the society he belongs
and which he hopes to use for the sake of making
an impact. Although various dialects of one
language possesses grammar rules and
vocabulary characteristic to them, speakers of
different dialects of one language understand each
other without major difficulties with regard to the
speech acts and events expressed in them.
5.0 SUMMARY
Speech acts and speech events by one
language user who can speak two different
dialects or varieties of one language will show
the same results when analysed. Speech
acts, according to Austin and Searle, is
developed with the intention to reveal the
basic acts or functions of speech in a given
society. Since people within a society
communicate with language, there are basic
intentions, interpretations and meanings that
follow such acts.
However, on speech events, Dell Hymes is
interested in giving adequate interpretation to
communication within the society. He
proposed eight different components for
analysing human speech in order to reveal the
social situations within which communication
prevails. Both concepts aim at showing human
communication as bearer of meaning
relating to a society’s use of language since
language does not occur in vacuo.
1. Explain the basis for speech acts theory.
2. Discuss ‘key’ and ‘norm’ as components in
speech events.
3. Distinguish between speech events and
speech acts.
4. What is the basic interest in speech event
analysis?
5. Analyse any speech of your choice with
speech events components.
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words.
Oxford: Claredon Press.
Searle, R. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the
Philosophy of Language. London and New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Hymes, D. (1972). “Models of the Interaction of
Language and Social Life.” In: Gumperz & Hymes,
eds. Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography
of Communication. Blackwell: 35-71.
Romaine, S. (1994). Language in Society: An
Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
CHAPTER 3: LANGUAGE VARIATION IN SOCIETY
UNIT 1: CONCEPT OF STANDARD USAGE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
In this unit, we will examine the concept of standardisation
in languages, using English language as reference point.
We will study the concept of Standard English, the
evolution of standard language, and the use of phonology
in the identification of standard forms. Every language has
a standard form from which other forms emerge. Noam
Chomsky (1965) identified the concept of competence,
which guides one in the identification of standard forms.
Competence is the idealised form of every language while
performance relates to individual and group application of
the forms.
2.0 OBJECTIVES
· elucidate on the existence of standard language
· distinguish a standard language from other
varieties of the language
· explain that other varieties imitate the standard
form
· identify Standard English with its phonology
· identify standard language as a
sociolinguistic tool of measurement.
3.0 MAIN CONTENT
According to Quirk et al. (1979), the degree of
acceptance of a single standard of English
throughout the world, across a multiplicity of
political and social systems, is a truly remarkable
phenomenon: the more so since the extent of the
uniformity involved has, if anything, increased in
the present century. Uniformity is greatest in
what is, from most viewpoints, the least
important type of linguistic organisation – the
purely secondary one of orthography.
In fact, in all English-speaking countries, people
tend to retain a tiny element of individual
decision as in spellings (realise, -ise;
judg(e)ment; etc), there is basically a single,
graphological spelling and punctuation system
throughout: with two minor subsystems. The
one is the subsystem with British orientation
(used in all English-speaking countries except
the United States) with distinctive forms in only
a small class of words, colour, centre, levelled,
etc. The other is the American subsystem: color,
center, leveled, etc.
In Canada, the British subsystem is used for the
most part, but some publishers (especially of
popular material) follow the American subsystem
and some a mixture (color but centre). In the
United States of America, some newspaper
publishers (not book publishers) use a few
additional separate spellings such as thru for
through. One minor orthographic point is oddly
capable of Anglo-American misunderstanding: the
numerical form of dates. In British (and
European) practice ‘7/11/72’ would mean ‘7
November 1972’, but in American practice it
would mean ‘July 11 1972’.
In grammar and vocabulary, Standard English
presents somewhat less of a monolithic character,
but even so the world-wide agreement is
extraordinary and seems actually to be increasing
under the impact of closer world communication
and the spread of identical material and non-
material culture. The uniformity is especially close
in neutral or formal styles of written English on
subject matter not of obviously localised interest:
in such circumstances one can frequently go on for
page after page without encountering a feature
which would identify the English as belonging to
one of the national standards.
Thus, Standard English is comparable to
Noam Chomsky’s Competence, which is an
idealised pattern of usage assumed to be the
‘standard format’ for measuring perfection in
English language usage. No matter the dialect or
variety of English in use the measuring standard
remains these idealised forms which must be
complied with as it operates within stated
linguistic rules. Standard English is a guide
towards avoiding those elements of imperfection
resulting from social, environmental, cultural and
political idealisms affecting the correct use of
English.
A standard language is a rule for checkmating
errors in a language by the second language
users. Is this true in the emergence of
Standard English usage?
3.2 Pronunciation and Standard English
One of the basic criteria for identifying Standard
English proper is through pronunciation. This does
not exhaust the regional or national variants that
approximate to the status of a standard, but the
important point to stress is that all of them are
remarkable primarily in the tiny extent to which
even the most firmly established, British English
(BrE) and American English (AmE), differ from
each other in vocabulary, grammar and
orthography.
Pronunciation is a special case for several
reasons. In the first place, it is the type of
linguistic organisation which distinguishes one
national standard from another almost
immediately and completely and which links, in a
most obvious way, the national standards to the
regional varieties. Secondly, it is the least
institutionalised aspect of Standard English, in the
sense that, provided our grammar and lexical
items conform to the appropriate national
standard, it matters less that our
pronunciation follows closely our individual
regional pattern.
Quirk et al. (1979) emphasised that ‘this is
doubtless because pronunciation is
essentially gradient, a matter of ‘more or
less’ rather than the discrete ‘this or that’
features of grammar and lexicon. Thirdly,
norms of pronunciation are subject less to
educational and national constraints than to
social ones: this means, in effect, that some
regional accents are less acceptable for
‘network use’ than others.
In BrE, one type of pronunciation comes close to
enjoying the status of ‘standard’: it is the accent
associated with the English public schools,
‘Received Pronunciation’ or ‘RP’. Because this
has traditionally been transmitted through a
private education system based upon boarding
schools, insulated from the locality in which
they happen to be situated, it is importantly
non-regional, and this – together with the
obvious prestige that the social importance of
its speakers has conferred on it – has been one
of its strengths as a lingua franca.
But RP no longer has the unique authority it
had in the first half of the twentieth century. It
is now only one of the accents commonly used
on the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC)
and takes its place along with others which
carry the unmistakable mark of regional origin
– not least, an Australian or North American or
African origin. Thus, the rule that a specific
type of pronunciation is relatively unimportant
seems to be in the process of losing the
notable exception that RP has constituted.
A pronunciation pattern like the RP is not
the only indication for Standard English
usage. State the other criteria.
3.3 National Standard English: A Variant of
Standard English
English language varieties in most countries
have assumed a national standard of English
usage. These standards rather than the British
Standard English are aspired to in the
educational institutions. Scots, with ancient
national and educational institutions, is perhaps
nearest to the self-confident independence
of BrE and AmE, though the differences in
grammar and vocabulary are rather few.
There is the preposition outwith ‘except’ and
some other grammatical features, and such
lexical items as advocate in the sense
‘practising lawyer’ or bailie ‘municipal
magistrate’ and several others which, like this,
refer to Scottish affairs. Orthography is
identical with BrE though burgh corresponds
closely to ‘borough’ in meaning and might
almost be regarded as a spelling variant. But
this refers only to official Scots usage.
Irish English should also be regarded as a national
standard for, though we lack descriptions of this
long-standing variety of English, it is consciously
and explicitly regarded as independent of
BrE by educational and broadcasting services. The
proximity of Britain, the easy movement of
population, and like factors mean however that
there is little room for the assertion and
development of separate grammar and vocabulary.
In fact, it is probable that the influence of BrE (and
even AmE) is so great on both Scots and Irish
English that independent features will diminish
rather than increase with time.
Canadian English is in a similar position in relation to
AmE. Close economic, social and intellectual links
along a 4000-mile frontier have naturally caused the
larger community to have an enormous influence on
the smaller, not least in language. Though in many
respects (zed instead of zee, for example, as the
name of the letter ‘z’), Canadian English follows
British rather than United States practice, and has a
modest area of independent lexical use (pogey
‘welfare payment’, riding ‘parliamentary
constituency’, muskeg ‘kind of bog’), in many
other respects, it has approximated to AmE, and in
the absence of strong institutionalising forces, it
seems likely to continue in this direction.
South Africa, Australia and New Zealand are in
a very different position, remote from the direct
day-to-day impact of either BrE or AmE. While in
orthography and grammar the South African
English in educated use is virtually identical with
BrE, rather considerable differences in vocabulary
have developed, largely under the influence of the
other official language of the country, Afrikaans.
For example, veld ‘open country’, koppie ‘hillock’,
dorp ‘village’, konfyt ‘candied peel’. Because of the
remoteness from Britain or America, few of these
words have spread: an exception is trek ‘journey’.
New Zealand English is more like BrE than any
other non-European variety, though it has
adopted quite a number of words from the
indigenous Maoris (for example, whare ‘hut’
and of course kiwi and other names for fauna
and flora), and over the past half century has
come under the powerful influence of
Australia and to a considerable extent of the
United States.
Like it happened with many other national varieties
of English in Africa, Nigerian English has grown and
extended through the processes of borrowing,
semantic shift and extension, syntactic
innovations, etc. Much of what is distinctive in
Nigerian English is confined to familiar use. There
are many lexical items that are to be regarded as
fully of standard use in Nigerian English even
though they were originally borrowed from the
indigenous languages: agidi, amala, agbada,
okporoko, etc. According to Olaoye (2007), this is
just one of the processes through which the
African English has grown in many of the African
countries.
What factors are responsible for the option of
a national standard of English in many
countries instead of British Standard English?
4.0 CONCLUSION
The important point to stress is English acquired
by speakers of other languages, whether as a
foreign or as a second language, varies not
merely with the degree of proficiency attained
but with the specific native language background.
The Frenchman who says, ‘I am here since
Thursday’ is imposing a French grammatical
usage on English; the Russian who says ‘There
are four assistants in our chair of
mathematics’ is imposing a Russian lexico-
semantic usage on the English word ‘chair’.
Most obviously, we always tend to impose our
native phonological pattern on any foreign
language we learn. At the opposite extreme are
interference varieties that are so wide•spread in a
community and of such long standing that they
may be thought stable and adequate enough to be
institutionalised and regarded as varieties of
English in their own right rather than stages on the
way to a more native-like English or Standard
English. There is active debate on these issues in
India, Pakistan, Nigeria, and several African
countries, where efficient and fairly stable varieties
of English are prominent in educated use at the
highest political and professional levels.
5.0 SUMMARY
Apart from the interferences from the local
languages towards proper standardisation of
English, there is also the influence of pidgins and
creoles of English in most countries. At the
extremes of Creole and Pidgin there is especial
interdependence between the form of language
and the occasion and purposes of use: indeed, the
very name Pidgin (from ‘business’) reminds us that
its nature is inclined to be restricted to a few
practical subjects. Creole is usually more varied,
but again it tends to be used for limited subject
matter (local, practical and family affairs).
As for English taught at an advanced intellectual
level as a second or foreign language, our constant
concern must be that enough proficiency will be
achieved to allow the user the flexibility he needs
in handling public administration, a learned
discipline such as medicine with its supporting
scientific literature, and informal social
intercourse. To create a standard means to obey
rules for its existence. Every learner of English aims
at the attainment of almost an error-free standard
but it must be borne in mind that the native
speakers of English are not conscious of errors in
the language the way the second and foreign
learners are conscious.
1. Describe clearly the factors inhibiting the
attainment of Standard English teaching
outside Britain
2. ‘Received Pronunciation’ seemed a
pronunciation standard for recognising
Standard English. What are the other
linguistic criteria for attaining this standard?
3. Differentiate properly between ‘Standard
English’ and ‘National English Standard’
4. Pidgins and Creoles are real problems in the
standardisation of English worldwide. Explain
the concepts properly with examples.
5. Many English linguists like Quirk,
Chomsky and Halliday believe that English
language responds to changes. Is it possible to
have changes and still retain standards?
Aitchison, J. (1981). Language Change: Progress or Decay?
London: Fontana.
Banjo, A. (1991). “Foreword.” In: D. Jowitt Nigerian English
Usage, an Introduction (pp. vii-viii). Lagos: Longman Nigeria
Plc.
Cheshire, J. (1991). English Around the World. Cambridge:
CUP.
Jowitt, D. (1991). Nigerian English Usage, an
Introduction. Lagos: Longman Nigeria Plc.
Olaoye, A. A. (2007). Introduction to Sociolinguistics (3rd
edn.). Abuja: Ogunleye Publishing and Printing Press.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1979). A
Grammar of Contemporary English. London: OUP.
UNIT 2: SLANGS AND CLICHÉS IN SOCIOLINGUISTICS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
In this unit, we will study the concept of slang in
sociolinguistics. There are various ways by which people
express themselves. This could be determined by the
environment or the immediacy of such communication
within a given time-frame. However, there are
acceptable informal linguistic priorities available to
speakers of a language within a given geographical entity
in order to pass information at informal levels and
relationships. We will assess slang within the
sociolinguistics of English language, using clichés and
jargons as slang types.
2.0 OBJECTIVES
· see slangs as sociolinguistic forms
· differentiate slangs from formal language use
· identify slangs in communication
· discuss the sociolinguistic implications of
slangs.
3.0 MAIN CONTENT
Slangs tend to originate in subcultures within a
society. Occupational groups (for example,
loggers, police, medical professionals, and
computer specialists) are prominent originators of
both jargon and slang. A jargon is the vocabulary
(lexical items of expression) of a restricted code
like a register while slang is a type of restricted
language like the secret language of a cult, whose
vocabulary component is necessarily a jargon.
Other groups creating slang include the armed
forces, teenagers, racial minorities, ghetto
residents, labour unions, citizens-band radio
broadcasters, sports groups, drug addicts,
criminals, and even religious denominations
(Episcopalians, for example, produced spike, a
High Church Anglican). Slang expressions often
embody attitudes and values of group members.
They may thus contribute to a sense of group
identity and may convey to the listener
information about the speaker’s background. Slang
refers to short-lived coinages that do not belong to
a language's standard vocabulary.
Before an apt expression becomes slang,
however, it must be widely adopted by
members of the subculture. At this point, slang
and jargon overlap greatly. If the subculture has
enough contact with the mainstream culture, its
figures of speech become slang expressions known
to the whole society. For example, cat (a sport),
cool (aloof, stylish), Mr. Charley (a white man), The
Man (the law), and Uncle Tom (a meek black) all
originated in the predominantly black Harlem
district of New York City and have travelled far
since their inception. Slang is thus generally not
tied to any geographic region within a country.
A slang expression may suddenly become
widely used and as quickly dated (23-skiddoo).
It may become accepted as standard speech,
either in its original slang meaning (bus, from
omnibus) or with an altered, possibly tamed
meaning (jazz, which originally had sexual
connotations). Some expressions have
persisted for centuries as slang (booze for
alcoholic beverage). In the 20th century, mass
media and rapid travel have speeded up both
the circulation and the demise of slang terms.
close behind another vehicle), or it may offer an
emotional outlet (buzz off! for go away!) or a
satirical or patronising reference (smokey, state
highway trooper). It may provide euphemisms
(john, head, can, and in Britain, loo, all for toilet,
itself originally a euphemism), and it may allow
its user to create a shock effect by using a
pungent slang expression in an unexpected
context. Slang has provided myriad synonyms
for parts of the body (bean, head; schnozzle,
nose), for money (moola, bread, scratch), for
food (grub, slop, garbage), and for drunkenness
(soused, stewed, plastered).
Identify the basic sociolinguistic characteristics
of slang.
3.2 Slangs as Sociolinguistic Forms
Slang, informal, non-standard words and
phrases, generally shorter lived than the
expressions of non-standard, ordinary
colloquial speech, and typically formed by
creative, often witty, juxtapositions of words
or images. Slang can be contrasted with
jargon (technical language of occupational or
other groups) and with argot or cant (secret
vocabulary of underworld groups), but the
borderlines separating these categories from
slang are greatly blurred, and some writers
use the terms cant, argot, and jargon in a
general way to include all the foregoing
meanings. Slang is traditionally considered as a
vulgar, offensive, and profane form of language
with a strong colour of irreverence and yet vitality
in a society. It is generally labelled as a linguistic
taboo which should not be appearing in most
formal social occasions. Since it is “customarily
reported as the idiosyncratic and deviant
vocabulary of quirky or suspicious groups” (Eble,
1998: 42), slang has always been neglected, if not
ignored, in sociolinguistics. Therefore, formal
and theoretical discussions of slang in
sociolinguistic perspectives are largely absent.
Very often, lexicographical documentation,
semantic classification, and etymological
description of slang items are the primary, if
not the only, focus in traditional studies of
slang. In most countries, there is much less
official tolerance of bad language [slang] in the
territory than is the case, for example, in
Britain. Sociological analysis of slang has
revealed that the use of slang has
sociolinguistic implications. Dealing with the
notion that every speaker handles a variety of
registers and tends to choose among them in
accordance with the particular social situation
in which he finds himself, this study of slang
reveals some of the particular lexical varieties
which are particularly deliberate and intended
to reveal a special kind of usage which has
sociolinguistic leaning in its application in
human utterance. It is apparent that every
community harbours its own unique set of
lexical vocabulary which is fully intelligible
only to the initiates; this unique and elaborate
lexicon thus serves to achieve group identity
and has many other social implications.

Discuss slangs as sociolinguistic forms.
3.3 Jargons and Clichés in Sociolinguistics
A: Clichés [Sociolinguistic Implications]
Ordinarily, a cliché is an overused expression;
that is, a phrase or word that has lost its
original effectiveness or power from overuse.
It can also be seen as an overused idea, an
overused activity or notion. Clichés are
phrases or expressions that have lost their
impact through overuse. Every cliché once
seemed clever and pithy.
Like a joke, however, the more a cliché is
repeated, the duller it comes to sound. Too often,
weary writers lean on clichés when they are unable
to come up with an original turn of phrase. They
may also slip a cliché into uninteresting prose in a
desperate (and misguided) attempt to give it some
liveliness. Using a cliché for this purpose is almost
always a mistake. Any drama generated by the
cliché will seem artificial, and its presence will only
emphasise the blandness of the surrounding
words. Instead of trying to mask boring writing
with a cliché, try revising your work to make it
more compelling.
Although an occasional cliché is acceptable,
before using one, always ask yourself whether it
is the best way to say what you want to say. If
there is any possibility that you can create a
fresher phrase on your own, forget the cliché and
try again. Also stop to consider who will be
reading your document, and whether they will be
as familiar with the cliché’s meaning as you are.
If, for instance, your audience is Japanese,
promising that “we will leave no stone unturned
until the problem is solved” will likely inspire
more head-scratching than confidence.
The list below includes common clichés that
are commonly used in English language
informal usage, and which are used with
discretion in formal writing:
+ add insult to injury agree to disagree all in a
day’s work as luck would have it at a loss for
words beginning of the end benefit of the
doubt better late than never better left unsaid
burning the midnight oil
+ busy as a bee calm before the storm cut down
in one’s prime dead as a doornail diamond in
the rough dig in one’s heels easier said than
done equal to the occasion exception that
proves the rule
+ hook, line, and sinker in the same boat last but
not least leave no stone unturned lock, stock,
and barrel make a long story short make a
mountain out of a molehill matter of life and
death
B: Jargon and Argot [sociolinguistic implications]
Jargon is the vocabulary used exclusively by a
particular group, such as the members of a
profession or a subculture. Argot refers to a
nonstandard vocabulary used by secret
groups, particularly criminal organisations,
usually intended to render communications
incomprehensible to outsiders. A jargon
comprises the specialised vocabulary of a
particular trade or profession, especially when it
is incomprehensible to outsiders, as with legal
jargon.
Although a jargon sometimes communicates new
ideas, it also serves to separate people inside the
group from people outside of it. By its very
definition, jargon is only understood by a select few
and is therefore usually not the most effective tool
available to you for communicating your ideas.
Medicine, law, education, the military, the
entertainment world, and most academic
disciplines have their own jargons. The jargons of
bureaucracy and business, however, are probably
the most widespread and are thus the jargons
many people know best and are most tempted to
use.
In many business settings, using jargon is
almost required, but you should try to avoid
it as much as possible. While some of
your colleagues may see jargon as the badge
of a true insider, many others will regard it as
pretentious, smug, and evidence of a lazy
mind. The list below includes examples of
business jargon that have been resoundingly
derided in recent years:
bottom line: The bottom line is that he should be
fired. communication: You should send a
communication to his firm. credentialed: The
applicant is properly credentialed.
dialogue (as a verb): We need to dialogue about the
problem.
expedite: What can we do to expedite the process?
facilitate: A manager should facilitate her staff’s
efforts.
feedback: Let me know your feedback.
impact (as a verb): How will this impact our
deadline?
implement: Implement this plan as soon as possible.
in the affirmative: The supervisor replied in the
affirmative. input: I would like to have your input.
interface: We need to interface with other
departments.
leverage: To get approval on the plan, we need
more leverage. liaise: You should liaise between
the two departments. optimize: What should we
do to optimize morale?
parameters: We need to set precise parameters.
prioritize: I need to prioritize my goals.
proactive: A proactive approach will allow us to
continue to dominate the market.
process: We should all participate in the
decision-making process.
same: If you took my stapler, please return
same. scenario: If the market shifts, what
scenario will follow?
time frame: I will finish the report within an
acceptable time frame. utilize: How should we
best utilize this information?
viable: Let me know if this plan is viable.

There are cultural implications in cliché and
jargon usage. How true is this with regard to
English language?
4.0 CONCLUSION
Slang expressions are created by the same
processes that affect ordinary speech.
Expressions may take form as metaphors,
similes, and other figures of speech. Words may
acquire new meanings (cool, cat). A narrow
meaning may become generalised (fink,
originally a strike- breaker, later a betrayer or
disappointer) or vice-versa (heap, a run-down
car). Words may be clipped, or abbreviated
(mike, microphone, IV, invitation card),
and acronyms may gain currency (VIP, AWOL,
snafu). A foreign suffix may be added (the
Yiddish and Russian -nik in beatnik) and foreign
words adopted (baloney, from Bologna, waka-
well, by students from Nigerian pidgin). A
change in meaning may make a vulgar word
acceptable (jazz) or an acceptable word vulgar
(raspberry, a sound imitating flatus; from
raspberry tart in the rhyming slang of Australia.
It is a sociolinguistic tool that captures newer
linguistic forms that are generated within the
confines of linguistic requirements of the
people.
5.0 SUMMARY
Slang, argot, and jargon are more specialised
terms for certain social language varieties
usually defined by their specialised
vocabularies. Most times words are
newly coined in a language. Slang is
one of the vehicles through which languages
change and become renewed, and its vigour
and colour enrich daily speech. Although it
has gained respectability in the 20th century, in
the past it was often loudly condemned as
vulgar. Nevertheless, Shakespeare brought into
acceptable usage such slang terms as hubbub, to
bump, and to dwindle, and 20th-century writers
have used slang brilliantly to convey character
and ambience. Slang appears at all times and in all
languages. A person’s head was kapala (dish) in
Sanskrit, testa (pot) in Latin; testa later became the
standard Latin word for head. Among Western
languages, English, French, Spanish, Italian,
German, Yiddish, Romanian, and Romani (Gypsy)
are particularly rich in slang. Nigerian derived
many slangs from the indigenous languages and
the Nigerian pidgin: mumu, akpuruka, omoge, sisi,
bobo, over-sabi, etc.
1. Discuss slang as a sociolinguistic identifier
2. What factors give rise to slang in a society?
3. Explain the use of slang in English sociolinguistic
situations
4. Slang could mean class and regional forms.
Discuss
5. Differentiate clichés from jargons in
sociolinguistic sense.
Hymes, D. H. (1971). On Communicative
Competence. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press.
Leung, C. (2005). “Convivial
Communication: Recontextualising
Communicative Competence.” International
Journal of Applied Linguistics. Vol. 15, No. 2,
119-143.
THANKS FOR STUDYING!

Sociolinguistics Ngôn Ngữ Xã Hội Học

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sociolinguistics Ngôn Ngữ Xã Hội Học

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sociolinguistics Ngôn Ngữ Xã Hội Học

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SOCIOLINGUISTICS

NGÔN NGỮ XÃ HỘI HỌC

Clearly differentiate spoken variety from

You might also like