The study of
language variation or speakers’ language choices in sociolinguistics has been
conducted using different approaches or a combination of some of these
approaches. This essay reviews three approaches to language variation, namely those using the notions of social class, social network and community of practice, considering their
strengths and weaknesses as well as the relation between them.
Social class is
one of the long-established approaches to language variation in
sociolinguistics. When using social class, sociolinguists study language
variation at the level of large social groups (Meyerhoff, 2006, p. 155) . Generally, the use
of social class in the study of language variation has helped sociolinguists
find systematic correlations between class and speakers’ language choices. In
so doing, it helped them make conclusions about the meanings speakers attach to
different linguistic variants (p. 183). Despite
that, the use of the concept of social class in sociolinguistics has
received much criticism, and, as such, it has largely been substituted by other
approaches (Marshal, 2004, p. 23; Meyerhoff,
2006, p. 182). The criticism levelled against the use of social class
centers on its abstractness (Meyerhoff, 2006, p. 182) , and large-scale
application that leaves little room for analysis on the level of the individual (Marshal, 2004, p. 23) .
The concept of social
network was first used in social anthropology where its characteristics and
conditions were specified, namely, multiplexity, frequency, density, and centrality
(Marshal, 2004, p. 19) . The use of social
network in sociolinguistics as an analytic tool for language variation grew out
of dissatisfaction with the approach of social class (Marshal, 2004, p. 23) . Lesley Milroy was
the first to apply this concept to the sociolinguistic study of language
variation. One of the major differences between the use of social class and
social network as analytic tools is that the former studies variation on the
level of large social groups while the latter does so on the level of the
individual and their interactions (p. 26).
Milroy defines the concept of social network as used in sociolinguistics as “the
relationships [individuals] contract with others . . . [reaching] out through
social and geographical space linking many individuals” (as cited in Meyerhoff, 2006, p. 184). Her work in Belfast,
which studied language innovation and maintenance, is a good example of the
application of social network to the study of language variation (Wei, 2001, p. 894) . Milroy’s central
argument in this study is that there are correlations between the strength of a
speaker’s network and his or her language choices, conscious and unconscious (Marshal, 2004, p. 27) . In particular,
Milroy maintains that the more close-knit a speaker’s network is the more
faithful he or she is to vernacular norms (p. 28)
and vice versa (p. 32).
The use of social
network to analyze language variation received criticism in the sense that it
is unable to account for loose-knit networks since it is mainly the upper and
lower classes that form close-knit networks while the middle-class speakers tend
to form loose-knit networks because of their high geographical and social mobility (Marshal, 2004, p. 32) . Moreover, Milroy
posits that the frameworks of social class and social networks are not in opposition. Rather, considering them as complementary
may result in a more rigorous analysis (Marshal,
2004, p. 33; Meyerhoff, 2006, p. 185). As such, Milroy argued for
connecting the two through Thomas Højrup’s concept of life modes (Meyerhoff, 2006, p. 35) , which is based
on the idea that different modes of production and consumption lead to
different modes of life. In linking this concept to the concept of social
network, Milroy maintains that these different modes of life, that stem from
different modes of production and consumption, lead to different social
networks, and these in turn lead to variation in linguistic behavior (Marshal,
2004, p. 36) .
In the same way
the use of social network in sociolinguistics grew out of dissatisfaction with
the notion of social class, the concept of community of practice was introduced
to the study of language variation in the beginning of the twentieth-first
century as a result of dissatisfaction with the notion of social class and social
network (Marshal, 2004, p. 36) . While Eckert, who
introduced the term to sociolinguistics, does not deny the importance of the
concepts of social class and social network, she argues that the concept of
community of practice has more analytic power in that it focuses on “the
mutually constitutive nature of the individual, group, activity, and meaning”
(as cited in Marshal, 2004, p. 36). In
other words, in a community of practice, people gather around a joint enterprise
and have mutual engagement, and, in doing so, they develop a shared repertoire,
part of which is a shared way of using language (p. 36). As such, the concept
of community of practice goes beyond that of social class in that the community
may comprise people from different social classes, and goes beyond that of social
network in that the community may not necessarily be dense and close-knit (p.
36). In her application of this concept, Eckert found that the more speakers
are involved in their community of practice, the less linguistic innovations
they adopt, a result that stems from their relatively high engagement in their
community of practice in comparison to their local social networks (p. 39).
In
conclusion, throughout its history, the study of language variation has been
conducted using different approaches, most influential of which are the approaches centered on the notions of social
class, social network and community of practice. The use of social class
attempts to show the correlations between the social classes of speakers and
their language choices. While this approach has provided much insight into
language variation, it has been criticized as too abstract. The concept of
social network was borrowed from anthropology by sociolinguist Milroy out of dissatisfaction
with the concept of social class. Applications of this concept show that, as
opposed to loose-knit networks, close-knit social networks tend to resist
linguistic innovations. Later on, Milroy argued for treating the concepts of
social class and social networks as complementary, and did so through integrating
the concept of life modes with that of social network. However, in the
beginning of the twentieth century, it was argued that the concept of community
of practice is more adequate for the study of language variation than the previous
concepts in that language users tend to be influenced more by their communities
of practice than by their social classes or social networks.
References
Marshal, J. (2004). Theoretical Background and
Previous Research. In Language Change and Sociolinguistics: Rethinking
Social Networks. Palgrave Macmillan.
Meyerhoff, M. (2006). Social Class. In Introducing
Sociolinguistics. New York: Routledge.
Meyerhoff, M. (2006). Social networks and
Communities of Practice. In Introducing Sociolinguistics. New York:
Routledge.
Wei, L. (2001). Leslie Milroy. In R. Mesthrie (Ed.),
A Concise Encyclopedia of Sociolinguistics. Elsevier.
0 comments:
Post a Comment