Garrett (2004)

1. What is the relationship of language contact to translanguaging?
2. What factors are at play that decide when someone is engaging in conversational codeswitching with two discrete codes or speaking a pidgin language?
3. How does language convergence, where languages begin to resemble each other structurally but retain their lexicons and are seen as distinct by its speakers, impact a speaker’s understanding of their own identity/multilingualism when they speak languages that fall under this category i.e. Romanian, Bulgarian, Albanian, etc.?

Woolard (2004)

1. Does the idea of the “we/they contrast as the foundation of meaning in codeswitching” fall under an ideology previously studied (p.77)? If so, which?
2. Who gets to decide who is “crossing” vs codeswitching? In other words, who decides which speakers are part of the in-group? At what point does a speaker change from crossing to codeswitching?
3. How does a “monolectal view” on frequent intrasentential codeswitching, which views switching as “a single code of mixed origins” compare to translanguaging (p. 83)?
4. What considerations go into which code of a bilingual is seen as their “native language”? Can any one language be easily seen as strictly one’s native language?

Blog: varying views on language contact

This week’s readings touch on language contact, different views on understanding the interactions between codes, and the resulting impact on a speaker’s identity. The majority of them include discussions on why varying languages come into contact, where the authors inevitably discuss histories of colonialism, slavery, and migration.

Garrett (2004) discusses language contact, which come to be through social interaction between speakers of different languages, and the languages produced from such contact. He emphasizes that it is not the languages themselves that come into contact, but people who engage in linguistic communication which can produce a discrete code to facilitate communication. Other outcomes of this contact include multilingualism and monolingualism which result, depending on the specific circumstances of the interactions of the different people who speak different codes, with “asymmetries of power” characterizing these interactions (p. 65). Understanding this sociohistorical aspect to interactions between communities of speakers aids researchers in understanding current linguistic behaviors and how they came to be established.

Woolard (2004) focuses on codeswitching, which is seen as a way of understanding how multilingual communities organize their linguistic resources. She also provides a background into the shift in how it’s understood from “one of linguistic deviance, corruption, and incompetence to that of systematicity, meaning, and skill”, and the different approaches in understanding the meaning behind conversational codeswitching (p. 90). She emphasizes the reality that speakers are not only individuals but actors in a social world where linguistic intentions and actions are influenced by external forces and thus must be considered when studying linguistic behavior. She believes that codeswitching can be used to understand language processes, interactions, and society which relates to Garrett’s discussion of power characterizing language contact. 

While Sankoff (2002) also discusses language outcomes of language contact, her focus differs from the previous two chapters in her reference to the term second language acquisition. At the time of publication, she delineates a difference between language contact studies with a trend towards second language acquisition (SLA) and sociolinguistics towards studying monolingual speech communities. She holds a similar discussion of shift from viewing SLA as having a deficiency or weakness for a speaker to more neutral terms such as “interlanguage.” Like the discussions of previous chapters, Sankoff posits that internal constraints (such as individual choice) work in conjunction with external ones to form language contact outcomes, which she details in four domains: phonology, lexicon, syntax and discourse/pragmatics, and morphology/grammatical categories. 

Otheguy, Garcia, and Reid (2015) aim to clarify translanguaging, where speakers use their linguistic repertoire based on context rather than considerations of defined social and political boundaries, especially in contrast with code switching which has easily been seen as similar because of the shared notion of speakers making decisions on what code to use in social context but differs in code switching’s belief that languages are distinct from one another due to a distinct grammar. They attempt to do this through a comparison to cuisine in laying out how there are no defined similarities about the dishes themselves, but are named as one cuisine as “defined by the social, political or ethnic affiliation of its speakers” (p 286). They go on to effectively make this argument by citing how grammarians cannot judge one language from another based on lexical or structural reasons, concluding that the namedness of a language comes from essentialized social and political constructions rather than linguistic reasons. With this established, Otheguy et al. explain that people speak their own unique language, an idiolect, where a person’s mental grammar comes from interactions with others and facilitates their use of language, making no two idiolects identical. They go on to explain that linguists do not study “named languages,” but rather the “ordered and categorized lexical and grammatical features” of speakers (p.289). The primary reason for this idea is to describe a person’s speech in regards to themself and not only in relation to society as named language and code switching does. Translanguaging maintains the social aspect of linguistic communication but centers the individual and their developed linguistic repertoire. Such a concept rethinks other ideas about language contact and the resulting codes for speakers in contact. While very convincing, the idea can take some getting used to for unlearning established views on language and identity. The conversation surrounding the use of translanguaging and education has a social justice aspect to it as the authors advocate for a student’s idiolect can be assessed rather than a student’s knowledge of a politically bound named language which will particularly aid students who speak minority languages under the idea of named languages so that their abilities can be valued outside of “the monolingual approaches that rely on the standardized version of the named language” (p. 305).

The concepts explored propose many ways of understanding the interactions between linguistic codes and the resulting linguistic repertoire for the speakers in these interactions, however translanguaging seems to be the most revolutionary in its inherent viewpoint of valuing every individual’s repertoire while maintaining an understanding of the societal labels of standard languages and its impact on speakers’ understanding of self. Does this idea have the power of impact more rigid ideas of identity based on set linguistic boundaries?

For question (1):

Kroskrity (2004) notes that there is no single and succinct definition of ‘language ideology’ and gives many examples of definitions, including:

(Errington 2001a) – language ideology “refers to the situated, partial, and interested character of conceptions and uses of languages.”

(Ramsey 1990) – “shared bodies of commonsense notions about the nature of language.” 

(Sliverstein 1975) – “sets of beliefs about language articulated by users as a rationalization or justification of perceived language structure and use.”

(Irvine 1989) – “the cultural system of ideas about social and linguistics relationships, together with their loading of moral and political interests.” 

Kroskrity then states his view, “In sum, language ideologies are beliefs, or feelings, about languages as used in their social worlds.” He asserts that ideologies do not only stem from “official culture” but can stem from “speakers of all types.” 

1.) While Kroskrity writes about group ideologies and standard language ideologies, Kroskrity’s definition of Language Ideology does not focus explicitly on ideologies as a system of beliefs, as Irvine’s does. The Black Lives Matter movement, MeToo movement, etc, clearly cite systemic discrimination as a central component to continued racism, sexism, and other types of oppression. How could Kroskrity’s basic definition of “language ideologies” [..beliefs, or feelings, about languages as used in their social worlds] be adjusted to account for systemic ideologies versus personal ideologies? 

2.) Kroskrity writes about the marginal status given to speaker’s feeling about language use in the history of the field of linguistics. Kroskrity quotes “tropes” from Chomsky (1957, 1965) including: “the ideal speaker-hearer,” “the perfectly homogenous speech community,” “the single-style speaker.” This easily relates to our week one readings and discussions about authenticity in Bucholtz 2003, week two readings on multilingualism in Makoni and Pennycook 2012, and the discussion on NORMs in sociolinguistics research in Holmes & Hazen (2013) during weeks three and four. What ideologies about monolingualism still influence linguistics as a field? How can we mitigate our own biases as linguists while also conducting research on language ideologies?

3.) On page 506, Kroskrity cites work by Bloomaert 1999c on the Ujamaa “socialist ideology of the Tanzanian state.” He specifically mentions the role that bilingual writers played in spearheading new Swahili literature, which the government then promoted. Writers and artists are social movers; some artists create culture, and others rebel against it. Which contemporary artists and writers are currently using translangauging practices to challenge the primacy of English in American cultural spaces? 

Christopher Wegenaar

The prevailing theme for this week’s readings is the intersection and interaction of language, community, and identity. More precisely, each article to some extent considers the fluidity of these ideas and the power of individual intention to shape them.

Bourdieu (1986) presents a theory of material and symbolic capital, those assets which may be exchanged for social profit. According to Bourdieu, economic capital underpins all else, though the privileged might try to conceal it; cultural capital accrues primarily as a matter of heritage and education, though there are many factors in play; and social capital accumulates according to one’s investment in building social networks. Language is of concern to Bourdieu only as a particular manifestation of cultural capital, an example of the accumulated assets which establish and contribute to the negotiation of one’s societal stature. When the subject is explicitly addressed, Bourdieu’s views are somewhat opaque; however, he seems to treat linguistic items as fixed assets, elements beyond the full control of yet manipulable by the individual. As a shared cultural object, language exists as an aggregate system to be employed at-will by those who have made the appropriate cultural investments. There is room in Bourdieu’s examination of social capital for linguistic investigation, as well–analyses of the effects of CMC on the construction and maintenance of social groups, for example–but the entanglement of language and social function here is implicit only. The remaining authors, however, treat language much more directly.

Bailey (2012) presents the concept of heteroglossia, an idea conceived by Bakhtin. Key to heteroglossia are the notions of simultaneity and conflict: what are the various sign-sets that one uses, and what are the relative sociohistorical meanings and conflicts of these sets? Multilingualism and multi-variantism are essential to this understanding; monolingualism is not the default. To search for meaning in the codeswitching of the teens in Bailey’s example would thus not necessarily be wise in isolation. Here, as elsewhere, Bailey argues, one must attend to the sociopolitical histories evidenced by such activities. While it is possible that specific implementations of mixed linguistic feature sets might not be interpretable on a moment-by-moment basis, it is not beyond reason to assess them nevertheless as the result of conscious decisions to emphasize relations with cultural objects or to maintain social connections. What do these actions mean within the wider context?

For Bailey, the rationale for linguistic selections is not always conscious; Eckert (2006), meanwhile, is concerned with much more volitional ideas. Communities of practice develop, she writes, as the result of shared intention, through joint activities and a commitment to mutual understanding. In this way, participants are able to define themselves on their own terms, to contribute actively to the creation of their identities. These communities contrast especially with traditional speech communities, which are usually defined along the lines of geography and broad social categories (e.g., gender, class, age). Each approach has its uses, and indeed the two are intertwined; one’s choices for communities of practice derive from one’s place in society.

The nature of the relationship Eckert describes has changed as technology has advanced, even in the years since her chapter’s publication. Thanks to modern innovation, one’s place in time and space is no longer as powerfully directive: the Internet has weakened or eliminated many barriers to inclusion, and anonymity provides a means of disingenuous involvement, even invasion. In such a field of complex interactions, these subjects are ripe for investigation.

Coupland (2000) approaches speaker intention even more extremely. For Coupland, style is everything. Indeed, a problem he establishes at the outset is that style, insofar as it is defined as contextualized language variation, is at the core of sociolinguistics. At the same time, the traditional Labovian interpretations of style according to broadly-categorized linguistic variables are insufficient, failing to capture linguistic events in their totality.

It is worth noting that Coupland focuses his efforts upon what he calls dialect-style rather than style (so-called ways of speaking) in general, but the differentiation is for me unclear. After cataloguing a series of theoretical approaches and assessing their potential contributions to this inquiry, Coupland reasons that dialect-style ought best be defined in terms of self-identity. All linguistic choices are the result of personal presentation, the product of the interaction between internal and external motivations, but these acts are not merely mechanistic responses conditioned by context. According to Coupland, context itself exists only as a result of speaker style-selection, as in the example case of the Cardiff DJ; through his choices he is able to engage with his audience on multiple levels, connecting and disconnecting at will for various purposes. Quantitative analysis of dialect-style points not to socially defined variability but to variability which is the sum total of interlocutor selection; the speaker’s word is final.

Qualifying that thesis are Kroskrity’s (2004) language ideologies. While speakers might by their choices define their own personae, these choices are themselves sifted through the filter of beliefs about the features in question and about language in general. These beliefs, or conceptions, may be consciously-considered or not, and they tend to be defined by political or economic interests. Ideologies exist in multiples even within societies, often at odds with one another; the tension between them might be defined according to Bourdieu’s notion of capital. For example, it is in the interest of those possessed of the cultural capital gained by investment in the dominant (socially or institutionally) linguistic form to maintain this advantage by perpetuating the relegation of other forms to inferior positions. Importantly, one of the major functions of language ideologies is the “creation and representation of various social and cultural identities” (p. 509). While Kroskrity’s discussion occurs at the macro level, the effects of ideologies necessarily trickle down to the micro, where knowledge of the perception or prestige of a given form allows a speaker to modulate production such that the relationship to the hearer is redefined according to intended identity, as in the case of Coupland’s DJ.

Finally, whereas the other authors treat identity only as a consequence of other inquiry, Bucholtz and Hall (2004) cut to the matter directly. For them, identity construction is a process that may be understood with the aid of four oft-referenced semiotic concepts: practice, indexicality, ideology, and performance. These cultural semiotics, according to the authors, inform identity, the definition of which rests upon “tactics of intersubjectivity” (p. 382), paired complementary relations describing the relative degree of sameness, the social credibility, and the authoritative legitimacy achieved by an individual or group. It is by the semiotic processes that associations are created and then systematized, and it is by interacting with the resultant signs (adopting or dismissing features) that one is located along the spectra of each relation.

The readings as a whole, then, work to better define some of the core terminology of sociolinguistics by asking and answering pertinent questions: What, exactly, are we studying when we discuss identity? What is the relationship between the individual and the group? What factors should we consider when analyzing a given phenomenon? If the answers are unsatisfactory or incomplete, the authors at least provide valuable tools for further investigation.

1. How would heteroglossia fit into language preservation, if at all? Would a heteroglossic approach be more useful for language purists or for reviving a dead/dying language?
2. Most of the sources for the article are from the late 90’s/early 00’s, with some dating as far back as the 50’s-80’s. How would more recent data influence/change the article if it were written using data from the last 20 years?
3. The article ends by saying, “Heteroglossia encourages us to interpret the meanings of talk in terms of the social worlds, past and present, of which words are part and parcel, rather than in terms of formal systems, such as ‘languages,’ that can veil actual speakers, uses, and contexts” (p. 506). What are some practical uses for heterglossia beyond the scope of sociolinguistics? In a classist/oppressive society, can a heterglossic approach be used to successfully argue for reform or can it only be used to characterize multilingual contexts?

(1) If Bourdieu was known for being paranoid about being misunderstood, why write in such an inaccessible style?

(2) How are Bourdieu’s understandings of cultural, social, economic, and symbolic capitals useful as lenses for sociolinguistics research?

(3) Does Bourdieu’s “social gain of education as measured by its effects on national productivity” allude to common student and Situationist sentiments of Mai 68? If you’ve watched the show Succession, do Bourdieu’s means of capital conversion and power speak to the characters’ roles throughout?!

Benjamin Shavitz

1) What happens when individual people are members of many different communities of practice that sometimes have conflicting values?

2) What are the effects on society of people forming their identities by differentiating themselves from others? Is humanity doomed to be divided into contesting factions forever in the name of individuality? If so, what should we prefer? Peace or sense of self?

3) How do the communities of practice from a person’s youth influence that person’s participation in the communities of practice of their later life?

If you’re interested in corpus linguistics using social media data, check out Jack Grieve’s work @JWGrieve.

Jack Grieve
Corpus Linguistics, Dialectology, Forensic Linguistics, Language Variation & Change
University of Birmingham, UKsites.google.com/view/grievejw

Veronica Miatto

The body of literature discussed here provides a broad overview of the methods used in sociolinguistic research within various subdisciplines. Chapter 6 deals with historical sociolinguistics, and the methodological changes that occur between studying variation of the present versus the past. As the author indicates, the first major difference between contemporary and historical sociolinguistics is in the nature of the data that can be studied: the latter is restricted to mostly written records belonging to a small literate elite. Second, historical sociolinguists have to deal with being unfamiliar with the society that produced that data, and with the limited context available. Contemporary linguistics has none of those restrictions. On the other hand, the outcome of linguistic changes tackled in historical sociolinguistic are known, while they are not in ongoing sound changes. The main method used in historical sociolinguistics is corpus analysis. This probably favors studies on lexical or sound/spelling changes, while morphological or syntactic studies are penalized, unless the corpus is fully glossed.

Chapter 7 contends with Corpus linguistics in sociolinguistics. Compared to historical sociolinguistics, or other linguistic subdisciplines that circumscribe a particular area of linguistics, corpus linguistics involves doing linguistics research with a particular method that is very versatile and can be applied to almost any field. Corpora are collections of large numbers of texts and words, which are stored electronically and analyzed through a software. This method allows to make claims about language using an enormous amount of data that would be impossible to analyze manually, which can give more credibility to the study itself, and a more reliable generalization. Key characteristics of a good corpus include being balanced, fit for the research question, and representative of a wide range of population.

Chapter 8 tackles sociophonetics, which is the study of language variation through the analysis of physical realizations of sounds. This subfield is still relatively young, starting to spread to the US and globally only 30 years ago. The two main research questions of sociophonetics are why certain changes occur and how language is structured in the mind. Acoustic analyses are carried out on digitalized sound speech, and most commonly on vowel formants. The author of the chapter spends considerable time depicting ways to carry out good acoustic research. For example, when analyzing formants, it is essential to choose vowels that are representative, which means that they cannot be too influenced by neighboring segments or phonological processes like vowel reduction. In general, there are many pitfalls when doing acoustic analyses, but these can be at least in part avoided by (i) designing a balanced experiment, (ii) having good quality recordings, (iii) knowing the software used in speech analysis well.

Chapter 12 explores discourse analysis in sociolinguistics, which is the study of linguistic social interactions. This usually focuses on the micro-level, such as how a specific group expresses emotions or apologizes. One of the examples in this chapter looks at how workers in different companies use humor and with which goals. Since discourse analysis pays attention to very specific and small populations, this kind of research is mostly qualitative and hard to generalize. My impression is that it would be also very difficult to replicate . To compensate the subjectivity to which some instances must be judged at times, the author of the chapter advises interpreting results through triangulation, which is the use of transcriptions together with video or audio recordings, in order to have more than one perspective.

Geographical dialectology, the theme of chapter 16, is one of the oldest branches of sociolinguistics. It studies variation across space. The aim of the subfield changed over time, from depicting a cartography of how people speak to examining the relations between geographically close localities and how these affects dialect features. While the object of research has not changed much over time – rural, local people are still the ones sought out in this kind of research, though now geographical dialectology pays more attention and differentiates speakers in sociolinguistic categories such as age and gender. The ideal data to be collected is natural speech used in informal environments.

Chapter 17 talks about speech communities, social networks and communities of practice, which are all approaches that complement each other in the study of speech variation. Speech communities attribute the same social meanings to variables, and share the same linguistic norms, as well as dialectal features. Usually speech communities are identified with cities, of which a balanced sample should be studied. Social networks look at variation that happens through interactions. Within this approach, variation is found  through  weak ties, i.e. acquaintances, and through low-density social networks. The reasoning behind this is that dense social networks and individual with strong ties will speak very similarly, and therefore these environments will inhibit language change. Finally, investigating communities of practice helps understand the social meaning of linguistic variables.  

The recurring theme in these chapters is speech variation, with extremely different approaches and methods. Generally, the topics tackled here are not mutually exclusive, so much so that it is completely feasible to construct a study that analyses diachronic variation using a corpus with transcribed natural texts of a particular speech community. Another commonality in most of these research methods is that the researcher is oftentimes required to interpret the individual tokens and instances and place them into context. Even in corpus studies, which deals with a great amount of data, the researcher should make sure that the keywords searched are used in the right contexts, that the population analyzed appear in the same types of texts, and that the data was collected using the same tasks.

As mentioned before, the chapters give very broad overview of their topic, which is very easy to read, and gives a general sense of the field. This, together with the ‘troubleshooting’ and ‘tips’ sections, makes the chapter extremely useful for whomever is becoming interested in the subfield or wants to do research with that particular method. What struck me is that none of these methodologies seems to be flawless. They all have their shortcomings and aspects that they overlook in order to achieve a particular goal. In the end, it is all a matter of finding the best (not the perfect) way to answer the relevant research question.

Questions on chaper 8 (Veronica Miatto)

• How does sociophonetics contribute to the main research question of how language is structured congnitively? 
• How can sociophoneticians incorporate social context in their studies?
• What are the shortcomings of not doing so, regarding the research questions they are trying to answer?

About Posts

This is a Post. Instructors often post announcements, assignments, and discussion questions for for students to comment. Some instructors have students post assignments. Posts are listed on the “Posts” page with the newest at the top. 

Post Comments are turned on by default (see Home for information on Comments).

Add/Remove a password from this post from the Post Editor > Visibility > Edit > Password Protected.

Add/Edit/Delete a post from Dashboard > Posts