Written By:
Ngozi U. Emeka-Nwobia.
Languages and Linguistics Department.
Ebonyi State University, Abakaliki, Nigeria
2.1 Conceptual
Framework
2.2 Theoretical
Review
2.3 Empirical
Review
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
Sociolinguistics is the study of language use
in social contexts. It examines speech communities with
specific social characteristics such as age, class, gender, profession, ethnicity etc. This field of language is subdivided into two branches;
specific social characteristics such as age, class, gender, profession, ethnicity etc. This field of language is subdivided into two branches;
-
Micro
sociolinguistics which focuses on linguistic phenomena, for instance,
pragmatics, conversational analysis, and critical discourse analysis.
-
Macro
sociolinguistics which studies the behavior of speech communities.
Sociolinguistics
is a discipline which began to flourish from the early sixties. A review of the
history of the field manifests the theoretical development through which it has
gone in progression towards its contemporary state. In fact, the progression
has been from a context free view of language to the treatment of language in
its social context. This change of view is occasioned by divers theories
proposed of language and the nature of language in its social context. The
theories and philosophies on which the study of language has rested during its
evolution will be analyzed in order to understand the tenets of sociolinguistics
and its development.
The changes that have occurred in
linguistic theory have resulted in the emergence of sociolinguistics. Among the
early approaches to the study of language was structuralism which seems to be
the most elaborated and systematic. It developed after Ferdinand de Saussaure’s
(1916) concept of “langue” and “parole”.
According to Saussure “Ia langue” is
localized in the “limited segment of the speaking circuit where an auditory
image becomes associated with a concept. La langue is the “social side of
language, outside the individual who can never create or modify it by himself.
It exists only by virtue of a sort of contract signed by the members of a
community” (Kristeva 1989:9) That is to say that 1a langue functions within a
group.
“La Parole” (i.e. speech) is based on an
“individual. And the individual is always its matter” (Kristeva 1989:9). In other
words “la langue” exists within a collectivity while “la parole” exists within
individuals. According to de Saussure’s opinion, speech is an individual’s
willful and intelligent act. It is composed of;
a. The
combination by which the speaker uses la langue’s code; and
b. The psychophysical mechanism that allows
one to externalize
these combinations.
Going by
this view of language, structuralism considered it necessary to bother with the
study of actual speech in social interaction. The aim of linguistics according
to structuralism is the elaboration of context free grammatical rules that
account for that part of linguistic behaviour which is uniform and homogenous.
They viewed language variation as some unimportant derivations from the norms.
On the other hand, the concept of
linguistic competence was introduced by Chomsky with great emphasis on
homogeneity of language knowledge. Chomsky saw linguistics as the study of
homogenous speech community where everybody possesses the same language
repertoire. According to him, the data of linguistics are not the utterances of
the individual, but rather the individual’s intention about language.
Formal linguistics is concerned with
social patterns in language use. It excludes the study of speech and social
behaviour ( Fishman 1971). In the view of formal linguists, one person endowed
with more linguistic competence would only know the grammatical rules of his
language. The individual according to the view of Chomsky need not have the
social possibilities in the language, or the sociolinguistic options to select
in an utterance and the occasion and situation to use what.
Chomsky and Halle (1968) and Bach and Harm (1968) in
their description of language focused on the formalization of universal
grammatical rules. In their description of competence, they noted that every
individual is equipped with a Language Acquisition Device (LAD) which enables
him to formulate limitless number of correct utterances. Their rules are quite
abstract and independent of social variable and stratifications. Wardaugh (1986,
2006) noted that their use of categorical rules for linguistic description
implies formal linguists’ lack of concern for language use and users, and
generally the social aspect of language.
The advent of Chomsky’s Transformational
Generative Grammar (TGG) in the middle fifties and its emphasis on the
independence and isolation of language from social variables gave rise to an
opposition group. This group was made up of sociolinguists who maintained that
the context of language, the ethnography of communication and the description
of language function must be incorporated in the grammar of language. Chomsky’s
notion of language uniformity and his idealized context free treatment of grammar
came under heavy attack.
This group of anthropologists was
interested in the structural analysis of grammar in various cultures. They
insisted on the interdependence of structure. This led to the recognition of
use of multiple linguistic codes within the same speech community. This
challenged the notion of Chomsky’s linguistic homogeneity and marked the advent
of variation studies, language changes, language planning etc in relation to
social variables. Firth (1957) for instance shifted towards the incorporation
of social factors into grammar. He considered it doubtful whether there is any
meaning in language apart from its context. This brought the idea of
contextuality into language analysis. This influenced the British school of
structuralism to consider social context of linguistic forms. Along the same
line, pragmalinguists shifted towards the adoption of a similar stance in the
investigation of language (Dittmar 1976).
As an offspring of the process of
transition from structuralism to contextuality, sociolinguistic theory
emphasizes the appropriateness of verbal message in context. Doughty et al
(1972) in their work observe that, “speakers do not have a direct acquaintance
with language anymore than they do with society. What they actually experience
is the linguistic manifestation of relationships” (Doughty et al (1972:83). These
scholars believe that the constraints upon what we say and the way in which we
say it, are of a social origin.
Gumperz and Hymes (1972) argue that this
theory posits beyond the grammar a level of rule- governed verbal behaviour
that relates linguistic and social constraints. This caused linguist to begin
to question the validity of Chomsky’s linguistic competence. This, therefore,
paved the way for the Hymes (1974) comprehensive notion of communicative
competence. He argues that communication is not governed by fixed linguistic
rules; but rather by interaction between linguistic knowledge and society.
According to Hymes (1974) Ethnography of Speaking, the speaker uses the
so-called knowledge of the components of speech (SPEAKING) in every given
speech situation.
The sociolinguists focused on the
language use by linguistic groups, social strata, geographical regions and the
variations found in their linguistic behaviour. The researcher agrees that
language is structured for and by communication and communication is therefore,
not governed by fixed linguistic rules but by the interaction between
linguistic knowledge and society. That is why this study exploits the
provisions of pragmatic theory for the analysis of President Olusegun
Obasanjo’s political speeches.
Charles Morris and R. Carnap were the
first to use the term Pragmatics. They used the term in their study of
semiotics. Semiotics in general refers to the study of the system of signs and
symbol. In this sense, the term semiotics may just be applied to the study of
artificial signs such as traffic lights or signs used in animal communication
like bees, dog, cats etc. In practice works in pragmatics have principally been
carried out on human language (natural language). Charles Morris (1938) (quoted
by Levinson (1983:1) defines pragmatics “as the scientific study of properties
of signaling systems whether natural or artificial”.
According to Rudolf Carnap (1955)
Semiotics is divided into three district areas;
i. Syntactic or syntax; which is the
study of signs in relation to one another.
ii. Semantics; which is the study of
signs in relation to their so called designata or what they refer to;
iii. Pragmatics; which is the study of signs
or sign systems in relation to their users.
In a more explicit presentation, the
postulation which Morris (1938:6) and Carnap (1942:9) defend is given as
follows;
If in an investigation, explicit
reference is made to the speaker
or to put it in a more general term to
the user of the language, then
we assign the investigation to the field of pragmatics,…..
If we abstract from the users of the language and analyze only the expression and
their designata, we are in the field of Semantics. And if we abstract
from the designata also and analyze only the relation between the expressions,
we are in the field of syntax.
Stalnaker (1978:383) formulated the connection
between syntax and semantics more simply
but also extends the definition of pragmatics thus: Syntax studies sentences, semantics
studies propositions. Pragmatics is the study of linguistic acts and the contexts
in which they are performed” In his revised edition, Morris (1946:218-219)
opines that, “Pragmatics is that portion of semiotics which deals with the
origin, uses and effects of signs within the behaviour in which they occur. Semantics on the other hand, deals with the
signification of signs in all models of signifying, while syntactics deals with
combination of signs with regard for their specific signification or their
relation to the behaviour in which they occur”
Atkinson, Kilby and Roca
(1988:217) in their words state that pragmatics has to do with “The distinction
between what a speaker’s word (literally) mean and what the speaker might mean
by his words”. That is to say that pragmatics covers both the context dependent
aspects of language structure and the principle of language usage that has
little or nothing to do with linguistic structure.