CHAPTER II

THEORIES AND CONCEPTS IN SOCIOLINGUISTICS

2.1 Preliminaries

The primary aim of this chapter is to illustrate the most important terms in
Sociolinguistics with a view to know their utilitarian value in terms of analyzing the
autobiographies under consideration. For this purpose, it becomes very important to
explore the theoretical framework of Sociolinguistics. This chapter proposes to throw
light on the sociolinguistic theory in general, and different concepts and terms related
to it in particular. At the outset, an attempt is made to find out the meaning of the term
‘Sociolinguistics’.

2.2 What is Sociolinguistics?

Sociolinguistics, as a separate field of study, was developed in the last quarter of the
20th century. The word ‘Sociolinguistics’ was apparently coined already in 1939 in the
title of an article by Thomas C. Hodson, ‘Sociolinguistics in India’ in Man in India
(1939). It was first used in linguistics by Eugene Nida in the second edition of his
Morphology (1949), but one often sees the term attributed to Haver Currie, who
himself claimed to have invented it.

Let us see how and when Sociolinguistics becomes an important area of the language
field in relation with society. Indian and Japanese linguists first studied the social
aspects of language in the 1930s and by Gauchat in Switzerland in the early 1900s,
but nobody paid much attention to this phase. In the west, Sociolinguistics first
emerged in the 1960s and was pioneered by linguists such as Basil Bernstein in the
U.K. and William Labov in the U. S.

Basil Bernstein, one of the greatest sociologists of the 20th century, makes a
significant contribution to the study of Sociolinguistics. His theory of language codes

40
introduced the concepts of restricted and elaborated codes. This theory examined the
relationships between social class, family and the reproduction of meaning systems
(code refers to the principles regulating meaning systems). His sociolinguistic work
was highly controversial as it discussed social class differences in language. He
distinguished between the restricted code of the working class and the elaborated code
of the middle class.

William Labov, an American linguist, is widely known as the founder of quantitative

Sociolinguistics. He introduced the quantitative study of language variation and
change. Labov’s difference hypothesis aimed at the explanation of all linguistic
variations caused by the involvement of social factors. His study illustrated the
relevance of social determinants of linguistic variations and their correlations with the
social structure. He proposed a social approach to language through his sociolinguistic
model in which the linguistic theorization was linked with the society.

The two linguistic ideologies, Bernstein’s ‘code theory’ and Labov’s ‘variability
concept’, resulted in innovative methodological tools and theoretical as well as
practical insights in Sociolinguistics. No doubt, Bernstein’s and Labov’s contributions
in the field of Sociolinguistics widened the scope of study for next generation. Their
works encouraged many scholars to study Sociolinguistics with new perspectives.

The term ‘Sociolinguistics’ is used for the study of the relationship between language
and society. This is an interdisciplinary field of research which developed through the
interaction of linguistics with a number of other academic disciplines. It has strong
connections with culture through the study of language and with sociology through
the study of the role language plays in the formation of social groups and institutions.
Sociolinguistics covers a very broad area of research, which, as Meyerhoff (2006)
puts it,

“can be confusing if you are coming new to the field.”1

Hence, it is important to start by clarifying what Sociolinguistics is. There are various
definitions of Sociolinguistics as given below: Sociolinguistics is-
41
 1. the study of the link between language and society, of language variation, and
of attitudes about language (Spolsky, 2010).

2. a branch of anthropological linguistics that examines how language and

culture are related, and how language is used in different social contexts (Bell,
1976).

3. a study of the relationship between language and social factors such as class,
age, gender and ethnicity (Hudson, 1996).

4. the study of stylistic and social variation of language. (Wardhaugh, 2010).

5. the study of language in relation to its socio-cultural context (Van Dijk, 2009).

6. the study of the effect of any and all aspects of society, including cultural
norms, expectations, and context on the way language is used (Trudgill, 2000).

All the above-mentioned definitions make it clear that Sociolinguistics is a discipline

that links sociology with linguistics. As a concept it is concerned with how language
use is a determinant of a given society’s linguistic requirements. Sociolinguistics
focuses on language use, that is, on what can be said in a particular language, by
whom, to whom, in whose presence, when and where, in what manner and under what
social circumstances. The following views/opinions by various sociolinguists also
help in better understanding of the nature of sociolinguistics.

Gumperz (1971) has observed:

“Sociolinguistics is an attempt to find correlations between social structure

and linguistic structure and to observe any changes that occur.”2

Holmes (1992) defines Sociolinguistics as the study of

“the relationship between language and society.”3

42
Peter Trudgill emphasized that the sociolinguistic research helps in getting a better
understanding of the nature of human language by studying language in its social
context. It also provides a better understanding of the nature of the relationship
between language and society. Peter Trudgill (2000) defines Sociolinguistics as
follows:

“Sociolinguistics... is that part of linguistics which is concerned with language

as a social and cultural phenomenon. It investigates the field of language and

society and has close connections with the social sciences, especially social

psychology, anthropology, human geography and sociology.”4

Joshua A. Fishman (2001) thinks:

“Sociolinguistic perspective has enabled researchers to document and to

measure a hereto overlooked type of variation in language use and language

behavior.” 5

Chambers (2002) opines:

“Sociolinguistics is the study of the social uses of language, and the most

productive studies in the four decades of sociolinguistic research have

emanated from determining the social evaluation of linguistic variants. These

are also areas most susceptible to scientific methods such as hypothesis-

formation, logical inference, and statistical testing.”6

The above definitions by the expert sociolinguists indicate that Sociolinguistics is

known as a branch of study that assumes that human society is made up of many
related patterns and behaviours.

43
2.3 Linguistics and Sociolinguistics

Sociolinguistics is introduced by Peter Trudgill (1995) as “a relatively new sub-

discipline within linguistics.”7 It may be considered as a new discipline because it
deals with a relationship that has been neglected in the past linguistic studies i.e. the
relationship between language and society. Since the emergence of the discipline of
Sociolinguistics, the debate between linguists has centred on whether language should
be studied as a closed or as an open system. On the one hand, theoretical linguists
perceive language as a closed system that should be studied for its own sake. For
them, emphasis should be put on studying the underlying structure of the linguistic
system and “the concern of the theoretical linguist is to devise a theory of
grammar.”8

In order to achieve this goal, differences between speakers have to be overlooked. In

this sense, Chomsky (1965) says:

“Linguistic theory is concerned primarily with an ideal speaker-listener in a

completely homogeneous speech community, who knows its language perfectly

and is unaffected by such grammatically irrelevant conditions as memory

limitations, distractions, shifts of attention and interest, and errors.” 9

Sociolinguists approach language as an open system interacting with a variety of

factors. According to R.A. Hudson (1996):

“Since speech is (obviously) social behaviour, to study it without reference to

society would be like studying courtship behaviour without relating the

behaviour of one partner to that of another.” 10

Hudson believes that there is a close connection between langauge and society
because one cannot segregate language from society. He is of the opinion that

44
language should be studied in the cultural context. The users of language come from
various social classes. Therefore, their language is influenced by the social norms and
cultural patterns.

Theoretical linguists recognise the relationship between language and society. They
just ignore it to have a deeper insight into the system itself; and their concentration on
competence was “a necessary simplification that led to several theoretical
advances.” 11

On the other hand, sociolinguists recognise the importance of studying language as a

system, as Saville-Troike (2003) stated while introducing the ethnography of
communication:

“The ethnography of communication takes language first and foremost as a

socially situated cultural form, while recognising the necessity to analyse the
12
code itself and the cognitive processes of its speakers and hearers.”

As Sociolinguistics is the study of the relationship between language use and the
structure of society, it considers factors such as the social background of both the
addresser and the addressee; their age, gender, social class, ethnic background and the
context and manner of the communication. Sociolinguistics being a quickly
developing branch of linguistics, explores the individual and social difference of
language. Just as regional variation of language can provide a lot of information about
the place of the speaker, social variation represents the roles fulfilled by a given
speaker within one speech community.

The social background of both the speaker and the listener; their social class,
education, geographic origin, ethnic background, gender and age are necessary factors
to be studied in order to understand the language. These factors influence the
language of the speakers. In view of this, an attempt is made to throw light on the
study of these factors as below:

45
Social class:

Social class is one of the important factors in the interpretation of the literary
discourse. One can understand the social class of a person on the basis of the social
class. Two main groups of language users, mainly those performing non-manual work
and those with more years of education are the ‘upper class’, while those who perform
some kind of manual work are ‘lower class’. The terms ‘lower’ and ‘upper’ are
frequently used in order to subdivide the social classes. Therefore, differences
between upper class can be compared with lower class. It is notable that people are
acutely aware of the differences in speech patterns that mark their social class and are
often able to adjust their style to the interlocutor.

Age:

The effect of age in sociolinguistic patterns is very evident when comparing the
speech of adults with that of children. It is known that the differences in anatomy and
physiology or biological age are largely responsible for these differences, but
socially–oriented variation also occurs in the course of life. In discussing such
variations, at least three stages- childhood, adolescence and adulthood are supposed to
give significant results.

In the early childhood period, relatively immature verbal patterns are seen because of
ongoing language learning and incomplete growth of the child’s vocal anatomy.
However, local forms of pronunciation begin from this stage of the acquisition
process. Children, from their earliest stages of speech, develop sociolinguistic
competence, and they engage themselves in complex register variation and become
acutely aware of the relation between social roles and language variability. They learn
the social functions of variables before they develop linguistic constraints and use the
variables on occasion perhaps as conscious markers in particular lexical items.

In the adolescent period, the peer group linguistically influences the speaker and
sometimes its role can overtake the domestic influence. By the age of twelve, the
pressure to be conventional to peers’ standards is great enough to eliminate most of
the initially acquired linguistic difference. This brings about a noticeably standardized
46
local accent. It is the time when linguistic change from below is advanced. In some
societies, adolescents engage in constructing identities in opposition to their elders,
though sometimes they may be conventional to the social class norms of their parents.

In the old age, the speaker is supposed to be firm with the phonological structure of
the language. The speaker uses standard language due to personal ambitions or the
circumstances of the speaker. Some sociolinguistic variants can be marked during the
period of adulthood. It is also seen that adults after retirement change and their
linguistic behaviour. The above discussion makes it clear that age difference marks
the characteristics of language change throughout the life.

Education

Education is one of the important factors in the sociolinguistic interpretation of the

literary discourse. The level of education influences the language of the speaker. More
highly educated speaker and often, those belonging to a higher social class tend to use
more features belonging to the standard language, whereas the original dialect of the
region is better preserved in the speech of the lower and less educated classes.The
language one uses often reflects one's social identity and education. Dialects are
distinguished according to standard and substandard/nonstandard varieties within
different ranges of education. The standard language is generally considered as a
language of an educated people; non-standard language has usually been regarded as
language used by an uneducated and unsophisticated people.

Gender:

Gender plays a pivotal role in the study of linguistic expressions used by the
interlocutors. It is observed that the language of the female members is different from
the way their male counterparts. There has been an inherent relation between the
langauge and the gender. In other words, the patterns of language use of men are
different from those of women in terms of quantity of speech and the intonation
patterns. Although men and women, from a given social class, belong to the same
speech community, they may use different linguistic forms. The linguistic forms used
by women and men contrast to some extent in all speech communities. For example,
47
Holmes (1993) mentions the Amazon Indians’ language as an extreme example,
where the language used by a child’s mother is different from that used by her father
and each tribe is distinguished by a different language. In this community, males and
females speak different languages.

Generally, Labov and Trudgill established similar frameworks for characterising

gender differences. Labov tries to resolve two slightly contradictory questions as to
why men use more non-standard varieties and why women lead in language change.
Labov (1990) iterates that “women … are said to be more expressive than men or use
expressive symbols more than men or rely more on such symbols to assert their
position” and “women are said to rely more on symbolic capital than men because
they possess less material power”.

However, Trudgill’s (1972, 1983) approach is not very different to Labov’s. In his
work in Norwich, he observed that men use more non-standard forms than women. As
to why working class men (and young women in his study) stick to non-standard
forms, Trudgill uses Labov’s notion of ‘covert prestige’ to explain that men’s non-
standard variants serve as solidarity markers which highlight certain group values like
masculinity. Like Labov, Trudgill (1972) states that “the social position of women in
the society is less securing than that of men… It may be… that it is more necessary
for women to secure and signal their social status linguistically.”

These factors are taken into account while analyzing the linguistic expressions of the
characters in the autobiographies written by Indian Dalit and African American
writers.

2.4 Language and Society

There is a profound relationship between language and society. It is in society that

man acquires and uses language. In a social context, the study of language tells about
how people organize their social relationship within a particular speech community.
According to Wardhaugh (2010):

“There are some possible relationships between language and society.” 13

48
There are probably three possible relationships between language and society. First,
the social structures may either influence or determine linguistic structure and/or
behaviour. Second, linguistic structure and/or behaviour may either influence or
determine social structure. Third, language and society may influence each other.

In Sociolinguistics study, one has to do with the interaction of language and society.
In other words, it studies how all aspects of society have an effect on language, and
how language has an effect on society. The field of Sociolinguistics can be described
as a mixture of sociology and linguistics, or of anthropology and linguistics.

The human society will be lifeless without language and so will be the language
without its users. This means that language and society are inseparable from each
other. This idea was developed by Ferdinand de Saussure in his work The Course in
General Linguistics published posthumously in 1916 where he stated that ‘language is
primarily a social activity’ and ‘language is socialized at every level, from the
production of phonemes to the interpretation of complex meaning.

Elaine Chaika (1989) states:

“Language and society are so intertwined that it is impossible to understand

the one without the other. There is no human society that does not depend

upon, is not shaped by, and does not itself shape language.” 14

The use of language is not only linguistic behaviour but also a social activity. Without
a language understandable to all the members of a group of people, the community
could by no means exist and not to speak of its development. Therefore, language is
indispensable to the existence and development of a society. On the other hand,
language would never earn into existence without society which is the essential
conditions on which language relies for its existence. It is clear that neither language
nor society could exist without the existence of the each other.

49
People of various social groups speak language in different ways. Therefore, language
often socially varies in use with various social factors. There are two approaches to
the relation between language and society. One approach is that society is taken as a
whole, how language functions in it and how it reflects various social differentiations,
and the other is that society is studied from the point of view of an individual social
member. Sociolinguists are more concerned with how language functions in
communication between members of a society.

Language and society are related in many ways. If we look back at the history of
linguistics, we rarely found investigations of any language which are completely cut
off from contemporary investigations of its regional and social distributions. That is
why we must accept that a language is essentially a set of items, what Hudson calls
‘linguistic items’, such entities as sounds, words, grammatical structures, and so on.
To understand how societies are structured, sociologists use such concepts as
‘identity,’ ‘power,’ ‘class,’ ‘status,’ ‘solidarity,’ ‘accommodation,’ ‘face,’ ‘gender,’
‘politeness,’ etc. A major concern of this study is to examine possible relationships
between ‘linguistic items’ on the one hand and concepts such as ‘class,’ ‘gender,’
‘politeness,’ ‘power,’ ‘solidarity,’ etc. on the other.

2.5 Sociolinguistics and Sociology of Language

Sociolinguistics and sociology of language are two distinct concepts in the study of
language. Sociolinguistics is a field of study which investigates the relationship
between language and society with the objective of a better understanding of the
structure of language and how languages function in communication whereas in the
sociology of language the goal is to discover how social structure can be understood
through the study of language.

The differences between the two concepts can be described as follows:

According to Hudson, Sociolinguistics is the study of language in relation to society

whereas sociology of language is the study of society in relation to language.
Therefore, we can say that in Sociolinguistics, we study society in order to find out as

50
much as we can understand about what kind of thing language is while in sociology of
language we reverse direction of our interest.

Sociolinguistics throws light on the effect of the society on language while sociology
of language focuses on the society. Sociolingustics helps to understand the structure
of language and its function in society. Sociology of language tries to discover how
social structure can be better understood through the study of language.

R. A. Hudson, (1996) describes the difference between Sociolinguistics and sociology

of language as follows:

“Sociolinguistics is ‘the study of language in relation to society,’ whereas the

sociology of language is ‘the study of society in relation to language.” 15

Sociolinguistics examines the influence of social structure on the way people use
language. It also concentrates on how language varieties and patterns of language use
correlate with social attributes such as social class, gender/sex and age. On the other
hand, sociology of language is a study of what societies do with their languages.
According to Joshua Fishman (1997):

“Sociology of language examines the interaction between the use of language

and the social organisation of behaviour. He further comments that the

sociology of language focuses upon the entire gamut of topics related to the

social organisation of language behaviour, including not only language usage

per se but also language attitudes and overt behaviours toward language and

toward language users” 16

Coulmas (1997) expressed his views as follows:

“There is no sharp dividing line between the two, but a large area of common

concern. Although sociolinguistic research centres about a number of different

51
 key issues, any rigid micro–macro compartmentalization seems quite

contrived and unnecessary in the present state of knowledge about the

complex interrelationships between linguistic and social structures.

Contributions to a better understanding of language as a necessary condition

and product of social life will continue to come from both quarters.” 17

Therefore, both Sociolinguistics and sociology of language suggest a bi-disciplinary

approach. However, this study helps in analyzing the selected Indian Dalit and
African autobiographies by applying the analytical phase of sociolinguistic
investigation.

2.6 Language and Social Class

Language is an outcome of class situations in a given society. In most countries of the

world, language use in society is distinguishable based on certain sociological
parameters; the key issue among which is the class. Most varieties of any language
are an outcome of certain social situations, which resulted in language types. This
makes a given class to use language to create linguistic boundaries that isolate them
from the general linguistic forms used by the society. In this study, an attempt is made
to examine social language codes in order to reveal language use in relation to social
class. Ash (2002) says:

“Social class is a central concept in sociolinguistic research…. It is ironic,

then, that social class is often defined in an ad hoc way in studies of linguistic

variation and change, … and individuals are placed in a social hierarchy

despite the lack of a consensus as to what concrete, quantifiable independent

variables contribute to determining social class. … Thus, this variable is

universally used and extremely productive, although linguists can lay little

claim to understanding it.” 18

52
As Ash suggests, sociolinguists fail to understand social class as an important
variable. Moreover, no measures to categorize speakers on social class dimensions are
available to determine its correlation with language variation. In this regard, Rickford
(2001) recommends:

“To adequately account for the quantitative distributions by social class that

we observe in local surveys of language use, we need to turn to sociological

and anthropological models of social stratification and life mode, but these

are quite unfamiliar to the average sociolinguists.”19

Rickford also remarks at sociolinguists’ unawareness about referring to sociological

and anthropological models of social stratification to explain the factors of social
class.

2.7 Language and Humanity

The way we use language makes us distinguished persons in the society. We have
grown up along with the language. Our humaneness is expressed through the
language we use. The humanity is a common factor for all of us but the languages are
different from one another. We should admire all the available languages as
humaneness is inseparable from the language. All human beings have the right to use
and practice their languages.
Sociolinguistics examines correlations between languages and societies, or certain
linguistic and social phenomena. It also attempts to reinvent accepted categories and
assumptions of linguistic practices and the place of language in human life.

Language is one of the characteristics of human being that sets him apart from all
other creatures. Every known human society has had a language. Some nonhumans
may be able to communicate with one another but their communication systems is
different than language. The transmission of complex and varied information is an
integral part of the everyday lives of other creatures. Other communication systems
do not share many of the characteristic features of human language such as the ability

53
to communicate about events. It is difficult to conceive of a human society without a
language.

2.8 Power and Solidarity

The dynamics of power and solidarity are fundamental to sociolinguistic theory. In

Brown and Gilman’s system, power is associated with nonreciprocal use of pronouns;
in English the parallel would be a situation in which one speaker addresses the other
by first name but is addressed by title - last name (for example, doctor and patient,
teacher and student, boss and secretary, building resident and elevator operator).
Solidarity is associated with reciprocal pronoun use or symmetrical forms of address:
both speakers address each other by title-last name or by first name. Power governs
asymmetrical relationships where one is subordinate to another; solidarity governs
symmetrical relationships characterized by social equality and similarity.

The relationship between power and solidarity as it emerges in conversational

discourse is paradoxical in nature. This means that though power and solidarity seem
at first to be opposites, each also involve the other. Any incident of solidarity
inevitably involves power, in that the requirement of similarity and closeness limits
freedom and independence. At the same time, any incident of power entails solidarity
by involving participants in relation to each other. This creates a closeness that can be
contrasted with the, distance of individuals who have no relation to each other at all.
Brown and Gilman (1968) are explicit in their assumption that power is associated
with asymmetrical relationships in which the power is held by the person in the one-
up position. This is stated in their definition:

“One person may be said to have power over another to the degree that he is

able to control the behavior of the other. Power is a relationship between at

least two persons, and it is non-reciprocal in the sense that both cannot have

power in the same area of behavior.” 20

54
A speaker not only expresses but also represents himself/herself with the language
he/she uses to communicate with the other person. Some speakers are very
dominating in their communication. The dominating speaker holds the power in the
speech event. There are many personal as well as social attributes
(class/age/sex/profession) which are potential bases of power in interpersonal
communication. These attributes of power indicate unequal communication.

Solidarity is another significant relationship in sociolinguistic communication. In

contrast to power, common linguistic forms are used to express and create the
relationship of solidarity. Non-solidary forms express distance and formality, while
solidary forms express intimacy and familiarity. Solidarity can be achieved in
interactions where interlocutors share some common attribute – for instance,
attendance at the same school, work in the same profession, membership in the same
family, etc.

2.9 Language Variation

Sociolinguists differentiate a set of types of variation that covers most factors for
language variation. The most general distinction is that between variation in the
individual, so-called idiolects, variation related to social factors, sociolects, regional
variation, dialects and variation due to functional aspects, so-called registers or styles.
Sociolinguists are more interested in studying social variation in language than
regional variation. However, to understand various procedures used in the studies of
social variation, it is necessary to look at the types of regional variation. Studies of
social variation in language grew out of studies of regional variation.

Regional Variation

Regional variation is the most extensive type of language variation. This variation
grows up as various geographical barriers such as mountain ranges and rivers
restricted communication between different communities. Under such conditions,
language of a community settled in the particular region does not spread to different
places. As a result, people start devising their own variety of language, which is
different from the language of the neighbouring region. Such distinctive varieties are

55
called regional varieties of the language. From this explanation, we can say that
regional variation is varieties of a language, which is spoken by the people living in
different geographical area.

Social Variation

Another type of language variation is social variation. John Gumperz advocated the
relationship between linguistic variation and social variation. He was studying a
society, which was rigidly stratified on the basis of caste membership. Gumperz
shows how a little difference in speech can discriminate sub-groups in society from
one another. His investigation of linguistic usage in the village of Khalapur, eighty
miles north of Delhi in India, can be served as the best example in this kind of work.
The social structure of the village is governed by Hindu Varna system. It consists of
Brahmans at the top, then Kshatriyas (warriors), Vaishyas (merchants), and Shudras
(several groups of artisans and labourers). At the bottom of social stratification, i.e., in
Shudras, there are three untouchable castes: Chamars (landless labourers), Jatia
Chamars (leather workers and shoe makers), and Bhangis (sweepers). Their life is
controlled by the upper caste people. They live out of the village boundary in certain
neighbourhoods. They are not allowed to move in the village like the members of the
upper castes. Ten percent of the population is Muslims; they are outside the caste
system. So far as language is concerned, Khalapur village dialect with its certain
characteristics clearly typifies social-group membership. For example, Bhangis,
Chamars and Jatia Chamars are deficient in certain phonological contrasts made by all
others. Some members, in attempting to make such a contrast, actually hypercorrect;
that is, they over-extend a particular usage in trying to imitate others. Jatia Chamars
have a characteristic pronunciation of words that end in [æ] in all other village
varieties. Each of the three untouchable castes, therefore, has speech characteristics
that clearly set it off both from the other two untouchable castes and from the
touchable castes in the village. Muslim speech resembles that of the touchable classes.
The variety of village speech spoken by the Bhangis is very close to the dialect of the
region in which Khalapur is situated. The upper caste people hesitate to use this
regional dialect as using it would make them sound like untouchables. Therefore, they
have to go for a new regional variety. In their linguistic usage, untouchables
apparently try to follow the touchables. As a result, the direction of innovation for all

56
groups in Khalapur is away from the regional variety which needs to signal their clear
distinction from the untouchables. This study quite clearly shows a direct relationship
between linguistic variation and caste membership.

Dialect, Idiolect and Sociolect

The present study intends to analyze the selected autobiographical works on the
ground of sociolinguistic variations. The language of the characters is influenced by
several sociolinguistic factors. It is, therefore, assumed that the study of the language
of the characters in the autobiographies under consideration needs to be done. An
attempt is made, on this line, to explore the terms: Dialect, Idiolect and Sociolect.

There are variations on any language i.e. different people from different parts of the
world speak language in their own way. Sapir (1921) opines:

“Everyone knows that language is variable.” 21

Variations in language include Dialect, Idiolect and Sociolect. Sociolinguistics

investigates the way in which language changes depending on the region in which it is
used. Dialect, Idiolect and Sociolect are clearly understood by the study based on how
they differ from what is considered as the standard language.

Dialect:

The term ‘Dialect’ refers to a variety of language that is characteristic of a particular

group of the language speakers. It also refers to a language socially subordinate to a
regional or national language. Dialect includes variety within a language with peculiar
differences in the features of grammar, vocabulary and pronunciation from the
standard language. A practical variation between language and dialect is that a dialect
is a different form of the same language. It has the same alphabet and grammar as the
language but the pronunciation and usage differs from the language. In addition, every
individual of the community has a unique way of speaking with life experience,
education and age.

57
Idiolect:

Idiolect is a variety of a language unique to an individual. Everyone has his own

language variation or his own idiolect. It concerns with quality of voice, choice of
words, language style and sentence order.
Every person use a language and speaks in a particular way as a part of socio-cultural
act. This act socializes an individual. The language he speaks differs from other. This
personal variation of language use is called idiolect. To put in another way, an idiolect
is the speech habits of a particular person. Every individual has some characteristic
linguistic features in his or her use of language. Such personal linguistic features are
known as Idiolect. David crystal (1986) defines Idiolect as:

“the linguistic system of an individual speaker. Idiolects are personal dialects,

arising from the way people have learned slightly different usages in

pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary and style.” 22

The above definition makes it clear that an idiolect is a variety of language used by
one single speaker. It has its own peculiarities of pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary
and style.

Sociolect:

The term is a blend (socio- + dialect) that first appeared in the 1970s. What
differentiates a sociolect from the standard variety is above all its lexical range, which
is activated in group-specific contexts. The most important requirement for a sociolect
is the existence of a social group whose members maintain strong relationship
(professional, social or cultural) established through regular meetings with each other.
In other words, it is the language spoken by a particular social group, class or
subculture, whose determinants include such factors as: gender, age, occupation, and
possibly a few others.
Sociolect is a dialect that is concerning with the social status and class. It is often used
interchangeably with social dialect. P. Trudgill (2000) defines it concisely as:

58
 “a variety or lect which is thought of as being related to its speakers’ social

background rather geographical background.” 23

Petra Jesenska (2010) defines the term Sociolect or Social Dialect as :

“Sociolect is a significant term in Sociolinguistics and it refers to a variety of

a language (a social dialect) used by people belonging to a particular social

class.”24

2.10 Code Mixing and Code Switching

Sociolinguistics regards code switching and code mixing as the offshoot of

bilingualism. Bilingualism or multilingualism has become the mode of
communication for many people in this modern world. In many situations, a fluent
bilingual changes the language by using words from other language that is mixes
codes even within very short utterances. This is called code mixing. In Code
Switching, any bilingual/multilingual who speaks two or more than two languages
chooses between them according to situations. In this way, the person creates a new
code in a process known as code-switching.

Code-switching is a key aspect of a group of speakers which communicates in more

than one language. There are two kinds of code-switching: situational and
metaphorical. Situational code-switching means the change in language according to
the situation. In this type, the speakers find themselves speaking in one language in
one situation and another in a different one. In metaphorical code-switching, topic
change is involved. When a change of topic requires a change in the language used is
called metaphorical code-switching.
R. A. Hudson (1996) says:

“In code- switching the point at which languages change corresponds to a

point where the situation changes, either on it own or precisely because the
language changes. There are other cases, however, where a fluent bilingual
talking to another fluent bilingual changes language without any change at all
59
 in the situation. This kind of alternation is called Code-Mixing. The purpose of
Code-Mixing seems to symbolize a somewhat ambiguous situation for which
neither language on its own would be quite right.” 25

It clearly suggests that in code-mixing we find the case that a bilingual or multilingual
person usually adds in phrases or words from other languages whenever he/she gets
into a conversation. Most of the time people mix a language with the other language.

2.11 Sociolinguistic Expressions

There are various linguistic expressions, which can be studied in the light of
Sociolinguistics. These expressions are used by the characters according to different
situations, which reflect social reality, and portrays interpersonal relationships of the
characters involved in the event. Some of such expressions can be described as
address terms and greetings, blessings and curses, abusive terms, honorific terms and
kinship terms.

Address Terms and Greetings

Address terms is an important feature of social interaction, which can provide

valuable information about the interlocutors, their relationship and their
circumstances. Since the address terms play a crucial role in communication and
maintaining social relationships between members of a society, they need to be
studied in every language and culture.

Some sociolinguists defined address terms in their own way. According to Yule
(2006), address term is a word or phrase for the person in the context. Oyetade (1995)
defines address terms as words or expressions used in interactive, dyadic and face-to-
face situations to designate the person being talked to. Leech (1999) considers that
terms of address are an important formulaic verbal behavior well recognized in the
sociolinguistic literature as they signal transactional, interpersonal and deictic
ramifications in human relationships.

Earlier the terms used for addressing one another may not seem worthy of so much
attention.
60
However, in the past few decades, sociolinguists have shown great interest in studying
address terms as they reflect the social relationships between members of a specific
speech community. They are not static but vary according to the social contexts.
Some social factors such as class, education, occupation, age, gender, power,
solidarity, politeness, race and ethnicity, religious and thoughts of both addressers and
addresses influence the use of address terms. This variation creates obscurity while
translating these terms between two languages with two different cultures. Above all,
culture is a determining factor in the use of terms of address since members of a
speech community utilize various address terms according to their socio-cultural
relationship. In the selected autobiographies, one comes across address practices
observed in Indian Dalit and African American cultures.

Terms of address to be investigated in this study comprise proper names, nicknames,

titles, pronouns, prefixes and other referent terms with semantic significance. The way
in which the characters from the selected autobiographies address one another is
crucial in marking social relations.

Greetings

Greetings are an exchange of cheerful expressions or good wishes between two

people or a group of people. These greetings, like address terms, help people in
establishing interpersonal relationship. On several occasions, greeting can be used as
an introductory remark to begin of a proper conversation. Greeting is an expression
that may occur on the road, at work, shopping, at the coffee shop, at the drinking bar,
at meetings, at home, at social functions, and so on.

The selected Indian Dalit and African American autobiographies depict the culture of
Dalit and Black communities. As greeting is one of the means of developing
interpersonal relationships, it is worth studying from sociolinguistic point of view.

Blessings and Curses

Blessing and cursing expressions are common in almost various languages spoken all
over the world. They are social and culture specific expressions which play an
important role in communication. Blessing and cursing are very diverse in nature and
61
serve several functions in social interactions. They reflect the speaker’s emotional
attitude to the topic of conversation. Blessings are expressions of gratitude or wishes
for others. Generally, elders use blessing expressions for the person who helps them
in difficult situations. On the contrary, cursing is considered as verbal act of
threatening through which the speaker wishes evil or misfortune to befall on others.
Cursing expressions consists of harsh words which are used to blame others.

Abusive Expressions

The abusive expressions are vulgar or contemptuous remarks used to hurt the feelings
or lower the self-esteem of someone. Abusing is considered as a bad act or taboo by
social etiquette and religious customs. However, abusive expressions can be
interpreted differently depending on the context and the relationship of the
interlocutors involved. This suggests that abuse is an act which emphasizes the social
status and hierarchy of the speakers and listeners. The use of abusive language reveals
the character of the speaker which has a great socio-cultural importance. Therefore, a
good person tries to refrain from it as he/she does not wish to violate the rules of
conduct that are expected of him/her.

Honorific Terms

The honorific terms are the expressions used to show respect for others. The usage of
honorific terms in everyday social interactions is inevitable. They are considered as
status difference markers in many communities. In other words, we can say that the
use of honorific terms is governed by the social status of persons to whom respect is
shown. Honorific terms are affixes, words and standard phrases that follow linguistic
and sociolinguistic rules and that are believed to mark a speaker’s politeness toward
an addressee or another referenced person. The structure of honorific terms is
different as accustomed by language. In Marathi, honorific terms are expressed via
several linguistic markers including the use of plural pronoun and plural verbal
inflections. This feature is not available in a African American language in a similar
way. Therefore, analyzing these terms with the sociolinguistic point of view is worth
studying.

62
Kinship Terms

Kinship terms are the set of terms used to name relationships in particular society.
Each society has its own kinship terms, which reflect the culture of that society. The
meanings of kinship terms reflect the relationships among kith and kin in each
particular society. The use of kinship terms in social interactions invoke social
meanings associated with it. Various kinship terms are used in the various social
environments. However, it has been found that kinship terms may be differentiated by
various features like sex (father, mother or son, daughter), generation (mother and
daughter) and collateral kinship distance (uncle and aunt). The sociolinguistic study of
the kinship terms is required to understand the social meanings associated to them.

Diminutive Expressions

The use of diminutives in everyday social interactions is a common phenomenon of

people in the modern society. There is a wide range of diminutives available for the
interlocutors. Diminutives are the words or expressions that communicate smallness
and connote affection and endearment. The term ‘diminutive’ derives from Latin
dēminuere meaning ‘diminish, decrease, lessen, reduce or impair’ leading to
conceptual meanings concerning dimension, e.g. small size, approximation, as well as
evaluative or expressive and stylistic connotative meaning, e.g. affection,
intensification. Thus, diminutives denote the diminishing of animate or inanimate
objects, events, properties and relations and/or convey affection on the part of the
speaker and personal assessment, that is, they can express admiring or derogative, or
humorous meanings.

Unusual Spellings

The use of unusual spellings is nothing but the inclusion of non-standard spellings in
the text. It is said that the use of unusual spellings has become the feature of
marginalized writings as the character/speaker in the text is represented as demoted in
social status, intelligence and sophistication. The writers use semi-phonological
spellings to represent aspects of non-standard varieties. It is conceived as a social
practice in which spelling choices are the result of an author’s meaningful decisions.

63
Therefore, such unusual spellings need to be understood in the light of
sociolinguistics.

2.12 Conclusion

This chapter throws light on the sociolinguistic theory in general and different
concepts and terms related to it in particular. In the beginning, an attempt is made to
define and explain the term ‘Sociolinguistics’. The chapter discusses the major
sociolinguistic concepts and terms in view of the research objectives. The concepts
such as Sociolinguistics and linguistics, language and society, Sociolinguistics and
sociology of language, language and social class, language and humanity, power and
solidarity, language variations, code mixing and code switching are discussed in
detail. As the research aims at studying the selected autobiographies in general and
the language of the characters in particular, this chapter lays the foundation for further
study.

The next chapter focuses on sociological background of the characters in the selected
Indian Dalit and African American autobiographies as it plays an important role in the
development of the autobiographies under study.

64
 REFERENCES

1. Meyerhoff, Miriam. (2006), Introducing Sociolinguistics. London/New York:

Routledge. (p.1).

2. Gumperz, J. J. (1971), Language in Social Groups. Stanford, CA: Stanford

University Press.(p.223)

3. Holmes, J. (1992), An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. London: Longman

(p.1).

4. Trudgill, Peter. (2000), Sociolinguistics: An Introduction to Language and

Society. England: Penguin Books. (p.32).

5. Fishman, J. A. (ed.) (2001), Can Threatened Languages be Saved? Reversing

Language Shift, Revisited: A 21st Century Perspective. Clevedon: Multilingual

Matters, (p.152).

6. Chambers, J. (2002), Studying Language Variation: An Informal

Epistemology. In Chambers et al. (2002), (p.3).

7. Trudgill, P. (1995), Sociolinguistics. England: Penguin Books. (p.20).

8. Radford, A. (1997), p.5, quoted in Akila, Sellmi-Baklouti, 2005. (p.42).

9. Chomsky, N. (1965), Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press. (p.3)

10. Hudson, R. A. (1996), Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press. (p.3)

11. Trudgill, Peter. (2000), Sociolinguistics: An Introduction to Language and

Society. England: Penguin Books. (p.20)

12. Saville-Troike. (2003), The Ethnography of Communication. Oxford:

Blackwell.(p.3)

65
13. Wardhaugh, R. (2010), An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. New York: Basil

Blackwell Inc.(p.10)

14. Chaika, E. (1989), Language the Social Mirror. New York: Newbury House

Publishers.(p.2)

15. Hudson, R. A. (1996), Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press. (p.5)

16. Fishman, J.A. (1997), The Sociology of Language, in Sociolinguistics: A

Reader and Coursebook. (eds. Coupland, N. and Jaworski, A.) London:

Palgrane. (p.25).

17. Coulmas, F. (ed.) (1997), The Handbook of Sociolinguistics. Oxford:

Blackwell. (p.3)

18. Ash, Sharon. (2002), Social class, In The Handbook of Language Variation

and Change, ed. J.K. Chambers, Peter Trudgill, and Natalie Schilling-Estes,

Malden, Mass.: Blackwell. (p.402)

19. Rickford, John R. (2001), Style and stylizing from the perspective of a non

autonomous Sociolinguistics. In Style and Sociolinguistic Variation, (ed.)

Penelope Eckert and John R. Rickford. New York: Cambridge University

Press. (p.220)

20. Brown, R. and A. Gilman (1968), “The Pronouns of Power and Solidarity”,

Fishman J. (ed.) Readings in the Sociology of Language, London: Mouton

Publishers. (p.255)

21. Sapir, E. (1921), Language: An introduction to the study of speech. New

York: Harcourt, Brace, and Co. (p. 147)

22. Crystal, David (1986), The Penguin Dictionary of Language 2nd Ed. Penguin

Books. (p.155)

66
23. Trudgill, Peter. (2000), Sociolinguistics: An Introduction to Language and

Society. England: Penguin Books. (p.122)

24. Jesenska, Petra (2010), Essentials of Sociolinguistics. Universitas Ostrivensis

Facultas Philasophica, Ostrava (p.12)

25. Hudson, R. A. (1996), Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press. (p.53)

67