Linguistics and Sociolinguistics Essay

It is dif? cult to see adequately the functions of speech, because it is so deeply rooted in the whole of human behaviour that it whitethorn be suspected that on that point is little in the functional catch of our conscious behaviour in which manner of speaking does not play its part. Sapir (1933) spoken communication is a complicated business. In e preciseday talk, we use the word spoken spoken linguistic process in m any(prenominal) different ship canal. It isnt clear how quarrel should be de? ned or what the person on the street thinks it actu wholey is We talk well-nigh how miraculously a childs manner of speaking is developing simply how they make charming grammar mistakes, like me maden that instead of I made that.Here, expression is an ability that is blossoming in the child. moreover the word is utilize in a myriad of different ways. For example, people lay down strong views about(predicate) how beautiful or how hideous the quarrel is of near region or coun try or age group how it adepts to the ear. People differentiate I save adore Italian or an Irish accent. They grimace or smile at teenager talk on television. Here manner of speaking is being judged aesthetically. By contrast, we remark that you burnt really prize a culture without knowing the language, as when we learn cut or Japanese for that reason.Then pupils struggle with rules for tenses like the passe accumulate and imparfait or collapse to memorize genders and irregular verb conjugations, matters of grammar which seem a atomic number 53 thousand thousand miles from cuisine, ? lm, high tech or Zen Buddhism. Language here equates with grammar. 1 Language and society Then, people relate the word language to the conceptualization of thoughts. They often prescribe that they cant ? nd the words for their thoughts or express feelings. Or they ar hunting for the mature words. Alternatively, we say that language is a means of communication.Politicians often use as an vindicate the fact that their message just isnt getting across because the media distorts what they say. In negotiations or relationships, when communication fails, we say, they just dont speak the analogous language. In another adept, language concerns to a school subject. It makes champion to say that little Mary is behind in her side, although youd n perpetually know it when you hear her chatting with her friends. Language is being viewed as a stack of skills acquired in school. We argon taught to write Standard English and appeal correctly.At the same time, we use the term language analogically, as a metaphor. We talk of such things as body language, or the languages of music, create or dance. It is fairly clear that these various ordinary uses of the word refer to different aspects of language, and take different perspectives on the sort of thing language is. Or, alternatively, we excite simply grouped together under the heading of language a range of diverse phenomena which atomic number 18 only partially cogitate to each other. In order to clarify our thoughts about language, lets look at some of the ways language is viewed by linguists.We can hence adjudge a precise statement of the speci? cally sociolinguistic view of language, and contrast it to other views of language assumed in linguistics proper. The ancient aim of all linguistic scholarship is to determine the properties of graphic language, the features it has which fleck it from any likely arti? cial language. This means that linguistics willing be universalist in its basic aims. It will examine individual natural languages in the course of constructing a theory of universal grammar that explains why the whole check off of natural languages are the way they are.cancel languages, English, French and so on, are in fact the data for this theory of natural language. Arti? cial languages are of bear on too since they can exhibit certain properties any language has, exclusively t hey as well have features that can sharply distinguish them from any by nature evolved language. Linguistics and sociolinguistics 3 We will look at some arti? cial languages to lucubrate this. The linguist Noam Chomsky, in his in? uential book Syntactic Structures (1957), employed the future(a) languages in the course of his arguments (i) (ii) (iii) ab, aabb, aaabbb, . . .and all fates of the same type. aa, bb, abba, baab, aaaa, bbbb, aabbaa, abbbba, . . . and all clips of the same type. aa, bb, abab, baba, aaaa, bbbb, aabaab, abbabb, . . . and all sentences of the same type. Why would we want to call (i), (ii) or (iii) languages? The answer is that they have certain properties of any language. They have a language of symbols, in this grammatical case two letters of the alphabet a and b. Also, they have a sentence expression. That is, each of the languages has speci? c rules for joining together their symbols to produce the sentences or string of that language.If the rule of syntax is not followed, then the string or sentence produced is not a sentence of that language. Consider the syntactic rules of the three languages. In language (i) the rule seems to be that for each sentence, whatever the number of occurrences of the ? rst symbol, a, it is straight followed by exactly the same number of occurrences of the second symbol, b. In language (ii), the rule is that, for each sentence, whatever the arrangement of a and b in the ? rst half of that sentence, then that arrangement is repeated in reverse in the second half of the same sentence.Ill leave the reader to die hard out the equally simple syntax of language (iii). Note that the output of the application of their respective syntactic rules to the symbols of these languages is an in? nite set of draw which are parts of the language sharply distinguishable from another in? nite set of strings which are not members of the language. In brief, then, these arti? cial languages have vocabularies and syntactic rules for joining their symbols together. And, by following the rules of their syntax, an in? nite set of strings can be produced.Natural languages can also be considered in this way. Thus, English can be viewed as a set of strings. And this in? nite set is produced by the vocabulary and syntactic rules of English. If linguists can 4 Language and society construct a device, a grammar, which can specify the grammatical strings of English and take off them from the combinations of symbols which are not English, they have gone a considerable outstrip towards making explicit the syntactic properties of the language. And if the types of rule in thatgrammar are also necessary for the grammar of any natural language, then they strength have detect some of those universal properties of language which it is the aim of linguistics to discover. Chomsky, in fact, used languages (i), (ii) and (iii) to rule out a certain family line of grammars as candidates for grammars of natura l language. Of course, these arti? cial languages are also extremely irrelevant natural languages. One very noticeable difference is that the symbols and strings dont bear any relation to the earth. They have no feels or meanings, entirely are purely syntactic.The study of meaning and how it relates symbols to the sphere is called semantics. in that respect are other arti? cial languages which have strings of symbols which are meaningful. An example is arithmetic. Consider 2 + 2 = 4 or 3 ? 3 = 9. These nisusulae have a syntax and a semantics. And they are authentic, while 2 + 2 = 5 is false. These are language-like properties. But there is also something very unlike natural language, the language spontaneously acquired by children, about these formulae. Nothing in the world (we feel) could ever make 2 + 2 = 4 false, as long as the symbols themselves dont change their meanings.The formulae appear to be analytic or always true by de? nition. Contrast this with some sentences from natural language 1. 2. 3. 4. Arthur is taller than Brenda. Brenda is taller than Tom. Doreen is taller than Brenda. Tom is shorter than X? We can use these sentences to make statements which are true or false, express our beliefs that each sentence designates a state of personal business in the actual world. These sentences are synthetic, true or false gibe to the facts. (Strictly speaking, it isnt the sentences which are true or false, but the propositions which they express.A sentence may express some different propositions. However, I will leave out the distinction in this book. ) We can capture a Linguistics and sociolinguistics 5 sentences relation with the world by gravid its law conditions. These are precisely the possible worlds possible states of affairs in which it is true. For example, 1 is true in worlds where the individual designated by Arthur is a member of the class of individuals who are taller than the individual designated by Brenda otherwise it is f alse. Similarly, if Doreen is also a member of that class, then 3 would be true, otherwise false.Only if we know these law conditions, can we use the sentences to state what we ourselves suppose. Or understand what somebody else victimization the sentence is claiming to be the case. Intuitively, to know truth conditions is part of the meaning of the sentences. But sentences also relate to each other. For example, if 1 is true, then Arthur is bigger or greater than Brenda with respect to her height or her tallness. Synonymy is one example of sense or semantic relations. Such semantic properties organize inferential relationships between the sentences.Another example. We know that, if both Doreen and Arthur are taller than Brenda, and Brenda is taller than Tom, then Doreen and Arthur are taller than Tom. We dont have to look at the world to know this fact. It is a result of a semantic attribute of the language the transitivity of the predicate taller than. Similarly, is shorter tha n in 4 bears a systematic semantic relation to its converse is taller than. Example 1 entails Brenda is shorter than Arthur. Entailments are inferences that depend on semantic relations.If one thinks about it, this web or moolah clip of sense relations seems to describe features of the very same possible worlds in which the sentences are true. Of course it would, wouldnt it? This is because inferential relations between sentences are just those relations where the two sentences are both true Hence, to specify sense relations is a way to partially describe the worlds of the truth conditions the ones in which the sentences are true. Hence it is a way of giving the meaning of the sentences. So far, no kindly calculates have been mentioned. How do social factors ?gure in the commentary of language? They dont seem directly related to either syntax or semantics. We can begin a treatment of this chief by mentioning a few social aspects of semantics. A fundamental factor in making bo th the arithmetic and natural language examples work is convention. In the ? rst case, of the 6 Language and society arithmetic symbols 2, 4 etc. , we have con? dence that when we use them, our addressee will understand that we delineate to refer to sets of two and four, 2 and 4, etc. , respectively. This is an example of co-operative social co-ordination.It connects the sound tu or the mark 2 with any set of two things. It allows an English speaker to use the term with con? dence that their intention will be understood. The sign and its object have a coded relationship. Similarly with the predicates is taller than and is shorter than. They have a coded relation with the states of affairs they represent. It is important to note that any intrinsic properties that the signs 2 or 4 or tall or short might have do not explain the link with their objects. Any intervention or mark could just as easily be chosen.This is the property of the arbitrariness of the linguistic sign. Signs and o bjects are arbitrarily linked, by convention. And this is a social phenomenon. From a different perspective, the connection of world and words isnt imperative, though it is equally social. Consider the web of inferential relations sketched above. The semantic structure of language describes the possible worlds in which sentences are true. Now to even earn this structure it is necessary for us to use the signs to express belief, what we take as actually true, to coordinate taller than and shorter than with the world as we take it to be.In essence, semantics de? nes possible states of the world based on our beliefs. Truth has to do with senses i. e. the inferential net, the relation of words and world, and our beliefs. Without the possibly true world set given through meanings, we couldnt inquire, because we couldnt think hypothetically. Without the inferential relations, we couldnt reliably think out the consequences of our hypotheses to test them and thus be right or wrong in our beliefs, assent or dissent in the light of experience.Thus, crucially, the semantic structure of a language is the very resourcefulness necessary for humanity to form any empirical theory of the world and use language to inquire to ? x belief and hence trade wind with everyday experience, be able to live. That the set of sentences can form a coherent theory can be seen by the fact that, if you believe that 13 are true, then you can give a true answer to 4, without further facial expression at the world. Tom must(prenominal) be the shortest one of all in this particular universe of discourse.There is no doubt Linguistics and sociolinguistics 7that the process of inquiry is social. We have to co-ordinate our beliefs and inferences for language to work. Are there other properties of natural language which require social explanation? The answer is, Yes, there are many an(prenominal) such properties. Next we will look at one of the nearly de? nitive social properties of language.T his property is called disagreement. Consider the English word cover. On the levels of syntax, vocabulary and semantics, it is a iodine English item a visual modality noun which means something like an edible, yellow, dairy product used in preparedness and as a spread.Yet although it is one item, if I asked you to describe its orthoepy in English, you would not be able to give a single answer there are various phonetic realizations of butter. In British English Received Pronunciation the t is made by putting the tongue tip on the ridge behind the teeth, and psychotherapeutic the air in a small explosion without shiver of the candid chords. The r, however, is not utterd, although it is present in the written form. Instead, a vowel sound, schwa (phonetically transcribed as e) follows the t. The schwa is the same sound that is normally ?nal in the word sofa. Thus, the RP speaker and many other British English speakers say bvte. In Canadian and American accents there is a rule t hat when explosive sounds like t are made between two vowels, the vibration of the vocal chords, called voice, continues through the whole sequence. This has the effect of turning the t, which is voiceless, into d, which is its voiced counterpart. Thus, a Canadian saying butter in fact pronounces it as if it were budder. However, Canadians and many of their American neighbours also have r-full accents (as do the Scots and Irish).This means that, unlike the RP British English speaker, they pronounce the written r in butter, giving us the ? nal form bvter . In many British English accents there is yet another conversion in the pronunciation of t in this environment. The vocal chords themselves are closed tightly and then released abruptly, giving the supposition that t is missing. In fact, the gap is ? lled by a socalled glottal stop, symbolized by ?. So butter is sound out bv? e. Such a pronunciation would defend London working-class speech, familiar to North Americans as a cock ney accent from ? lms like My Fair Lady. 8Language and society This ? lm, from George Bernard Shaws Pygmalion, introduces another feature of the variability we have been describing. For Professor Higgins (modelled by Shaw on the famous phonetician, Henry Sweet) to take such pains to train Eliza Doolittle to pronounce words like butter as bvte, as opposed to bv? e, indicates that the variation must mean something. There is no conceptual difference in the word-meaning itself. The meaning difference of the variation is socially signi? cant and relates to those groups in a social structure who typically use one form instead than another.Such social meanings of variants can be further illustrated by looking at two other versions of butter. In the West province of England there are some local accents which, like Canadian and some American accents, are r-full. Speakers would typically pronounce the r in butter. And this can be combined with the use of the glottal stop to give the form bv ? er . On British television an advertisement promoting butter used this regional form, presumably because it had a social meaning to British audiences suggestive of honest West Country farmers genuinely in accomplish with real, non-synthetic cows.In hot York City a working-class accent will, in casual speech, be largely r-less like the British RP. But this would be combined with the voicing of the written t between vowels giving the form bvde. Followers of the 1970s Kojak detective series on television will recognize this form. Imagine, however, the different social meaning that would be conveyed if Lieutenant Kojak pronounced the word bvder as might an upper-middle-class New Yorker, or bvte as might an upper-middle-class Englishman. It would not be the impression of the tough New York cop.The diagram opposite gives a summary of the various ways butter can be pronounced which we have looked at. The actual bureau is far more complex and interesting than I have indicated, but we will be studying this in more detail subsequent in the book. The purpose here is to merely illustrate the property of variability which natural languages possess. It is clear that this property requires social explanation. This is in contrast with the arbitrary property of language mentioned earlier. In characterizing the variant forms of butter, I needful to make reference to the geographical location in which the form