17 Linguistics and Sociolinguistics
(here you can find the full book: Cours in general linguistics)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_de_Saussure
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_de_Saussure
B. Bernstein, Codes, Modalities, and the Process of Cultural Reproduction: A Model (1981)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basil_Bernstein
W. Labov, Field methods
John J. Gumperz, Chapter 11. Interactional Sociolinguistics: A Personal Perspective, in
The Handbook of Discourse Analysis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gumperz
Just to have an overview of the field check Sociolinguistics Wiki:
De Saussure “Course in general linguistics” – chapter 2
RispondiEliminaDe Saussure starts this chapter by the assumption that language is separated from speaking. So the language is not a function of the speaker, it is passively assimilated by the individual. Instead, speaking is an individual act. De Saussure defines the language as “a well-defined object in heterogeneous mass of speech facts […] it is the social side of the speech, outside the individual who can never create nor modify it by himself”. Moreover, analytically, language, unlike speaking, is something that we can study separately. Whereas speech is heterogeneous, language is homogeneous, in the sense that it is a system of sign in which the only essential thing is the union of meanings and sound-images.
Language is a social institution, and it is the most important system of signs that express ideas. So, to study the language in its social dimension it is necessary a science that studies the life of signes whitin society: it is what De Saussusure define “Semiology”. He clarifies that the linguistic signs doesn’t unify a thing and a name, but a concept and a sound image, that is the psycological imprint of the sound. In brief, the linguistic sign is a two-sides psychological entity composed by concept and sound-image, and each of this elements are not only intimately united, but also each recalls the other. To better define what is a “sign”, De Saussure proposes a more precisely terminological definition, he replace ‘concept’ and ‘sound-image’ respectively by signified and signifier. They are bound together in arbitrary way (principle of the arbitrary nature of the sign, Principle I). He clarifies also that arbitrary doesn’t means that the choice of the signifier is left entirely to the speaker; it means that it is unmotivated, in the sense that there is not natural connection between signified and signifier.
The Principle II regards the linear nature of the signifier: (a) it represents a span, and (b) the span is measurable in a single dimension, a line. This means that their elements are presented in succession, they form a chain (this appear clear in writing).
Then, De Saussure makes a methodological distinction between synchronic (static side) and diachronic (everything that has to do with evolution)linguistics. To explain this distincion the author makes a comparison with the game of chess in which the respective value of the pieces depends on their position just as each linguistic terms derives its value from its opposition to all other terms. Second, the system is always momentary; it varies from one position to the next. The set of rules that exist before a game begins and persist after each move. It is the same in language. Finally, to pass form one state of equilibrium to the next only one chesspiece has to be moved. This is a chareterstic of the diachronic dimension: in language changes affect only isolated elements, even if the move has a repercussion on the whole system
At this point, De Saussure distinguishes between linguistic value and signitication; language is a system of interdependent terms in which the value of each term results solely from the simultaneous of the others. Initially, the concept is nothing, that is only a value determined by its relations with other similar values, and that without them the signification would not exist. It becames clear the importance of the differentiation.
In conclusion, language not has ideas nor sounds that existed befor the linguistic system, but only conceptual and phonic differences that have issued from the system. The entire mechanism of language is based on opposition and on phonic and conceptual differences that they imply. In language whatever distinguishes one sign form the others constitutes it.
In this chapter Saussure first examines the relation that there is between speech and language and second he shows the language as a system of signs.
RispondiEliminaLanguage and Speech:
It’s possible to defines language as a definite object in the heterogeneous mass of speech facts that individuals learn. Also language is the “social side of speech” because people recognize the same meaning of words and nobody can change it. This collective approval leads to the acceptance of all that makes language concrete.
Language and Signs:
Sign is not use to connect a thing and its name but it is needful to link a concept and a sound -image. It is interesting to see that there is no a sequence in the recall of the sound-image or concept. Anyway we have to revoke them together, combining the sound-image and the concept. When we do this unification, we make a sign. In this way we can find that the concept is the signified, the sound-image is the signifier and the combination of them produce a sign. All of them are arbitrarily based. Saussure shows that the signifier is arbitrary, so that means that it is not naturally linked with the signified. Two examples of this type of relations are find in “onomatopoeia” and in “interjections”.
Linguistic Value from a Conceptual Viewpoint:
Now, let's try to think of a word. We can see that what we have done is to think of the idea that is associated with this word. We call this idea "linguistic value". The linguistic value is different from the signification. According to the author the language terms are interdependent one from the other and the presence of others produces the value of each term. Values come from the system and the values of the word are not fixed, but they are based on the other words in the system. It is interesting to note that when we have two words that suggest the same idea, one of them will decay. That imply the rise of a new signifier and signified. Also, what determines the values is what distinguish them from being not the others. Saussure report an example showing that the concept “to judge” is linked to the sound-image ‘judjer’ symbolizing signification. So we can see that this concept is a value and its determination depends by the relations with similar values.
Linguistic Value from a Material Viewpoint:
The values from a material view (as the conceptual ones), are based on the relations and the differences with other terms or language, so the significations comes from the differences. In that way a word represents the phonic differences that compose it. Consequently a linguistic signifier goes beyond the phonic. The author points out that there is no connection between the sound and symbol of designation.
Also important is to note that letters present different values and these can be written in different way, the important thing is that they can be distinguished.
In conclusion Saussure shows that language there are only differences without positive terms. Before the linguistic system there were neither ideas nor sounds and with the establishment of the system one has phonic or conceptual differences.
From: "Course in general linguistics", Chap 2 - Ferdinand De Saussure
RispondiEliminaNotes on Ferdinand de Saussure's Course in General Linguistics, Chapter 2.
RispondiEliminaThis article is in many ways complex and needs -like most philosophical articles- a lot of explanation. De Saussure makes a distinction between language and speaking to start with, thereby creating a difference between what is considered individual and social, what is essential and incidental.
De Saussure argues that language is nothing more than a product passively being assimilated by the individual and therefore, language is not a function of those who speak. Which is comparable to what Simmel wrote on the senses, speaking is considered an individual act. De Saussure points at a few distinguishes that have to be made between the use of the language codes combinations for expressing ones thought and the psychological mechanism that allows a person to express these combinations.
Language is defined as a system of signs in which the union of meanings and sound-images is considered essential. Its existence depends on collective agreement between all members within a language community. Psychologically, people therefore need to have associations in their minds to combine the collectively approved sound-images to the collectively approved meanings and vice-versa. Language is therefore being explained to be a social institution, however different from political, legal or other institutions.
A (linguistic) sign is being defined as the combination of the sound-image and the intended concept. The sound-image was turned into the so-called 'signifier' by De Saussure while the concept was redefined as the 'signified'. These last two words show the opposing relation the both share.
De Saussure notes that the bond between the signified and the signifier are arbitrary, as is every linguistic sign. The best example is shown when many signified are addressed by many different signifiers across the borders of a linguistic community. However, De Saussure shows that 1) Onomatopoeia (words that reflect the sound that the signified produces or expresses) and 2) Interjections (words expressing a sense in certain situations without an actual concept attached like cries of pain or joy) are examples that contradict this claim of arbitrariness. However, differences are also shown between languages and so Saussure leaves them to be of secondary importance and concludes that their symbolic origins are open to dispute.
He continues to state that signifiers (auditory) are linear, as they are unfolded in time. So these represent a time span and time spans are measurable in a single dimension. But here he loses me, I cannot grasp this completely but he seems to mean that every language-state is subjected to evolution, so languages are synchronic (static) and diachronic (evolutionary) at the same time. He works it out by the example of a chess game.
He then deals with value and signification (which he argues are not the same concepts!): words are exchangeable and comparable to other words which is similar with money; one can buy something equally to the value of a currency or one can exchange the currency for a different currency that has an equal value. However, value can only be determined in relation to other stuff. So, words can be exchanged for a different signified (synonyms) or traded for a word in a completely different language, a different signifier pointing towards the same signified. However, values must add up, not all words carry the same value and are therefore not always interchangeable at all times. De Saussure shows with examples that words do not stand for pre-fixed concepts because not every language has an exact equivalent (with a similar value) for certain words from other languages. Some synonyms can for instance not be used in all situations interchangeably in which the signification is different due to the fact that in these cases, the value is different.
In conclusion... In language, there are only differences.
Dell Hymes , " Toward Ethnographies of Speaking"
RispondiEliminaIn this unit, I want to focus on the concept of ethnography of communication , a term first announced in the journal "American Anthropologist " in the 60s by the anthropologist and sociolinguist Dell Hymes . In this article, Hymes departs from previous studies of language as " ethno-linguistic " , the " psycholinguistic " or " sociolinguistics " and introduces the term " ethnography of communication " which , no studies human communicative interaction from a fragmented view , it argues that to understand this interaction , the study of language should be under situational contexts , because it is the language framework , but on the contrary , the codes of communication resources are applied by Member of a society on the basis the structure in which they operate and applying the social norms that govern them.
So Hymes argues that not enough study only grammatical codes and meanings attributed to it - linguistic competence , but also a domain of social , cultural and psychological rules of language use within a given context - competition communicative . Thus , heterogeneity is prevalent in societies and is the only way to understand the real meaning of a language. Hence, it is important to define who , whom , where, when and for what purposes the language used .
Thus, when a group shares a language and rules of use, forms a " speech community " , where linguistic interaction in 3 levels each contained other occurs : i ) Status of speech : Context ii ) speech events : Form ; Activities governed by conventional rules and iii ) speech act : Content ; Issuing a statement to an end.
The latter content, in turn divided into several components , which grouped mode of teaching in the acronym : ( S + P + E + A + K + I + N + G).
S = Setting : Context both physical and psychological :
P = Participants : Transmitter-Receiver,all present actively and passively.
E = Ends : Objective
A = Acts : The message content and form
K = Key : Tone
I = Instrumentalities : Means of communication , both channels and codes.
N = Norms : Norms of interaction and interpretation
G = Genre: Categories that distinguish the members of a community.
Finally it is worth to note that the so-called " speech acts " , is the most important object of study for Hymes in the communicative activity , which causes events to occur where the so-called " communicative event " communicates, through which society built through the interaction of individuals.
John J.Gumperz - "Interactional Sociolinguistics"
RispondiEliminaThrough his article "Interactional Sociolinguistics", Gumperz introduces a new way of examining or "monitoring" the communication processes in institutional life. Interactional sociolinguistics is a qualitative, interpretative approach to the analysis of social interaction that developed at the intersection of linguistics, anthropology and sociology.
As an "approach to discourse ", interactional sociolinguistics offers new paths and ways that enable us to explore not only how language works but also to gain insights into the social processes through which individuals build and maintain relationships, exercise power, project and negotiate identities, and create communities.
Furthermore, the writer gives us several examples of discourses among people of different ethnicities and backgrounds that show us the linguistic, historical and subsequently cultural differences between each other.
As Gumperz highlights, while such examples are useful in illustrating how inferential processes are grounded in both linguistic and other background knowledge, they also show that the social outcomes and interactional consequences of communicative misalignment are far greater than any single analysis can show.
Gumperz - Interactional Sociolinguistics: A Personal Perspective
RispondiEliminaThe topic of this article is interactional sociolinguistics, which is an approach to discourse analysis (which is the general term for a number of approaches to analyzing written, vocal, or sign language use) that originates from the search for replicable methods in qualitative analysis. More specifically qualitative analysis that account for our ability to interpret what participants intend to convey in everyday communicative practice. Instead of seeking to explain talk as directly reflecting the beliefs and values of communities, the author of this article thinks it is more fruitful to concentrate on situations of speaking or to use speech events (which are more concretely available for ethnographic research). I will address the theoretical background that is being introduced in the article and I will not discuss the practical method that is explained in the last part (mainly because it the examples that are used to clarify the practical use of interactional sociolinguistics speak for themselves).
Todays increasingly globalized societies hold a basis to one of the core themes in interactional sociolinguistics: the linguistic and cultural diversity cause debate. In this debate the theoretical division between people who support the theory that communicative practices are shaped by habitus (they have an embodied disposition to act and to perceive the world that directly reflect the reality - political, economic, social - in the way that they were when acquired. This is after Bourdieu's cultural capital theory. In three points, it looks like this with regard to cultural reproduction: 1) The dominant cultural standards are the standards of the upper classes. 2) schools and universities take these dominant cultural standards for granted 3) therefore the children of the upper classes are favored by the proximity between school and family cultural standards.
1a) within a given society, there are different class cultures (values, life-styles, attitudes, languages)
1b) all class cultures are <> seen from an external observer (the sociologist), they are on the same plan.
1c) however, the members of the society have a different view: there is a shared hierarchy between these class cultures, that privileges the upper class culture.
People that support this habitus theory, argue that it is to such conditioning factors that we must look for insights into the nature of diversity. The second group uses a more constructivist approach, claiming that since our social worlds are ultimately shaped through interaction, it is necessary to begin by learning more about the way localized interactive processes work before we can turn to research on diversity. To bridge the gap between these two approaches, interactional sociolinguistics focuses on communicative practice as the everyday-world site where societal and interactive forces merge. It concentrates on speech exchanges involving two or more actors as its main object of study. The aim is to show how individuals participating in such exchanges use talk to achieve their communicative goals in real-life situations, by concentrating on the meaning-making processes and the taken-for-granted, background assumptions that underlie the negotiation of interpretations.
Gumperz uses the term contextualization cue to refer to any verbal sign which, when processed in co-occurence with symbolic grammatical and lexical signs, serves to construct the contextual ground for situated interpretation and thereby affects how constituent messages are understood. Others include pronunciation along with prosody (like intonation and stress), rhythm, tempo, and other such supra-segmental signs
Thougts on B. Bernstein’s “Codes, Modalities, and the Process of Cultural Reproduction: A Model” (1981)
RispondiEliminaThe article talked about how class relations are reproduced in a society.
Principles of classification
To illustrate principles of classification, an experiment with 60 children was used. In particular, an experiment with 30 young person from the middle class and 30 young persons from the lower working class was conducted. They were shown colored pictures of food. They were asked to classify the food. Children classified the food according to concepts that are relevant to their contexts, their daily lives.
The middle class children classified the food as:
‘What we eat at home’
‘What we eat for breakfast’
On the other hand, the lower working class kids arranged the food as:
‘These came from the ground’
‘These have butter in it’
‘These all came from the sea’
The principle of classification is related to the children’s material conditions. For the middle class children, the classification was more direct to their material base. The lower working class children gave a more indirect classification scheme of the food.
I find it interesting that the lower working class children really have a “class imprint” in their classification. I think they are more aware of the process how the food was gathered, and probably the work involved in preparing the food. They are more aware that food come ‘from the sea’ and ‘have butter’.
When the children where asked to repeat the classification again, using another way of classification, the middle class children gave classifications that are similar to the ones given by the lower class kids. This tells us that they have 2 kinds of principles of classification but one principle is prioritized over the other.
Class relations distribute power and they also use principles of control. Class relations produce distinctive forms of communication, which positions actors in a society through dominating codes. ‘Positioning’ means establishing relationship of one person to another.
Codes are seen as positioning devices. A code has meaning, realization and contexts.
Tangible and intangible elements of class relation
The text is a tangible form of an ‘specialized interactional practice’, or a tangible form of social relation. Producing of text means the reproduction of positioning of certain actors.
Relationship between location in the social division of labor and coding orientation
Analyze how an agent is located in his/her social division of labor. A peasant is located in a simpler division of labor. He/she sees himself/herself within local and specific interactional practices (preparing the land, growing crops, selling them to the middle man/local market, paying debts, and so on and so forth). The landowner is located in a more complex social division of labor. He sees himself located not just in the local production system but within larger interactions with banks, national or even international markets, etc. The location of agents in the social division of labor produces certain kinds of interactional practices, and thus generates certain kinds of coding orientation/principle of classifications.
I find positioning and the reproduction of class relations important because it can give us insights on how to maintain or challenge unequal power relations in a society.