Linguistics and Sociolinguistics Essay

It is dif? cult to see adequately the functions of lyric poem, beca habit it is so deeply rooted in the whole of human behaviour that it may be hazard that there is little in the functional side of our conscious behaviour in which style does non play its part. Sapir (1933) Language is a complicated business. In everyday talk, we use the enunciate terminology in m whatever different ways. It isnt clear how talking to should be de? ned or what the person on the roadway thinks it real is We talk close how miraculously a childs quarrel is developing solely how they urinate charming grammar mis slays, like me maken that instead of I made that.Here, language is an ability that is blossoming in the child. But the word is used in a myriad of different ways. For example, people accept hearty views ab break through how beautiful or how hideous the language is of some region or country or age group how it works to the ear. People say I just adore Italian or an Irish accent. T hey grimace or smile at teenager talk on television. Here language is universe judged aesthetically. By contrast, we remark that you brush offt really appreciate a culture without knowing the language, as when we learn French or Japanese for that reason.Then pupils struggle with forms for tenses like the passe frame and imparfait or have to memorize genders and irregular verb conjugations, matters of grammar which attend a million 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 usherion of thoughts. They often say that they cant ? nd the words for their thoughts or express feelings. Or they ar hunting for the right words. Alternatively, we say that language is a agency of communication.Politicians often use as an excuse the fact that their message just isnt getting across because the media distorts what they say. In negotiations or relationships, when communication fa ils, we say, they just dont speak the corresponding language. In another(prenominal) sense, language refers to a school subject. It makes sense to say that little Mary is foundation in her English, although youd never know it when you hear her chatting with her friends. Language is being viewed as a mend of skills acquired in school. We atomic number 18 taught to write Standard English and spell 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, painting or dance. It is somewhat clear that these various ordinary uses of the word refer to different aspects of language, and take different perspectives on the physical body of thing language is. Or, alternatively, we have simply grouped together under the heading of language a range of diverse phenomena which argon only partially related to each(prenominal) other. In order to illuminate our thoughts about language, lets look at so me of the ways language is viewed by linguists.We can because give a precise affirmment of the speci? cally sociolinguistic view of language, and contrast it to other views of language assumed in linguistics proper. The primary aim of all linguistic scholarship is to determine the properties of immanent language, the features it has which distinguish it from both(prenominal) possible arti? cial language. This means that linguistics will be universalistic in its rudimentary aims. It will examine individual graphic languages in the course of constructing a theory of universal grammar that explains wherefore the whole sit of natural languages ar the way they are.Natural languages, English, French and so on, are in fact the data for this theory of natural language. Arti? cial languages are of interest too since they can exhibit authorized properties any language has, but they also have features that can sharply distinguish them from any naturally evolved language. linguist ics and sociolinguistics 3 We will look at some arti? cial languages to garnish this. The linguist Noam Chomsky, in his in? uential book Syntactic Structures (1957), employed the following languages in the course of his arguments (i) (ii) (iii) ab, aabb, aaabbb, . . .and all sentences of the same type. aa, bb, abba, baab, aaaa, bbbb, aabbaa, abbbba, . . . and all sentences 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 vocabulary of symbols, in this case dickens letters of the alphabet a and b. Also, they have a syntax. That is, each of the languages has speci? c regains for joining together their symbols to produce the sentences or draw of that language.If the rule of syntax is not followed, thusly the string or sentence produced is not a sentence of that language. overturn the syntact ic 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 instantaneously 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 shiner in the second half of the same sentence.Ill leave the reader to work out the evenly simple syntax of language (iii). Note that the output of the application of their rewardive syntactic rules to the symbols of these languages is an in? nite stigmatize of strings which are ingredients 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 separate them from the combinations of symbols which are not English, they have g unrivalled a considerable distance towards making straightforward 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 index have discovered 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 class of grammars as candidates for grammars of natural language. Of course, these arti? cial languages are also extremely impertinent natural languag es. One very noticeable residual is that the symbols and strings dont bear any relation to the domain of a function. They have no senses or marrows, but are purely syntactic.The study of gist and how it relates symbols to the world is called semantics. There are other arti? cial languages which have strings of symbols which are substanceful. An example is arithmetic. shell out 2 + 2 = 4 or 3 ? 3 = 9. These formulae have a syntax and a semantics. And they are true, while 2 + 2 = 5 is ill-considered. These are language-like properties. But there is also something very foreign 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 search 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. Dor een is taller than Brenda. Tom is shorter than X? We can use these sentences to make statements which are true or false, express our feelings that each sentence de targetates a state of affairs in the veridical world. These sentences are synthetic, true or false according to the facts. (Strictly speaking, it isnt the sentences which are true or false, but the propositions which they express.A sentence may express many different propositions. However, I will ignore the distinction in this book. ) We can capture a Linguistics and sociolinguistics 5 sentences relation with the world by giving its truth 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 false. Similarly, if Doreen is also a member of that class, then 3 would be true, otherwise false. Only if we know these truth conditions, can we use the sentences to state what we ourselves believe. Or understand what somebody else using 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. much(prenominal) semantic properties constitute 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 shoes of the language the transitivity of the predicate taller than. Similarly, is shorter than 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 ne dickensrk of sense relations seems to spot 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 social factors have been mentioned. How do social factors ?gure in the explanation of language? They dont seem directly related to either syntax or semantics. We can begin a treatment of this challenge by mentioning a few social aspects of semantics. A fundamental factor in making both the arithmetic and natural language examples work is convention. In the ? rst case, of the 6 La nguage and society arithmetic symbols 2, 4 etc. , we have con? dence that when we use them, our addressee will understand that we intend 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 re correspond. It is important to demean that any intrinsic properties that the signs 2 or 4 or tall or short faculty have do not explain the link with their objects. Any noise or mark could just as easily be chosen.This is the property of the arbitrariness of the linguistic sign. Signs and objects are arbitrarily linked, by convention. And this is a social phenomenon. From a different pers pective, the connection of world and words isnt arbitrary, 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. at a time to even establish 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. uprightness 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 remonstrance in the light of experience.Thus, crucially, the sem antic structure of a language is the very resource necessary for philanthropy to form any empirical theory of the world and use language to inquire to ? x belief and hence deal with everyday experience, be able to live. That the set of sentences can form a perspicuous 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 looking 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 such properties. adjacent we will look at one of the most de? nitive social properties of language.This property is called variability. Consider the English word cover. On the levels of syntax, vocabulary an d semantics, it is a mavin English item a mass noun which means something like an edible, yellow, dairy product used in cooking and as a spread.Yet although it is one item, if I asked you to describe its pronunciation in English, you would not be able to give a single answer there are various phonetic realizations of butter. In British English get Pronunciation the t is made by putting the tongue tip on the ridge behind the teeth, and releasing the air in a small explosion without vibration of the vocal chords. The r, however, is not pronounced, 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 that 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 variation in the pronunciation of t in this environment. The vocal chords themselves are closed tightly and then released abruptly, giving the impression that t is missing. In fact, the gap is ? lled by a socalled glottal stop, symbolized by ?. So butter is pronounced bv? e. Such a pronunciation would typify London working-class speech, familiar to uniting Americans as a Cockney accent from ? lms like My Fair Lady. 8Language and society This ? lm, from George Bernard Shaws Pygmalion, introduces another featur e 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 fence 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 rather than another.Such social meanings of variants can be further illustrated by looking at two other versions of butter. In the West Country of England there are some local anaesthetic 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 meani ng to British audiences suggestive of honest West Country farmers genuinely in touch with real, non-synthetic cows.In modern 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. chase 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 opponent gives a summary of the various ways butter can be pronounced which we have looked at. The actual situation is far more complex and interesting than I have indicated, but we will be studying this in more detail later 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 needed to make reference to the geographical placement in which the form