Scribd Logo
Carica

Benvenuto in Scribd!

  • L23a 1 Dell Hymes - The Scope of Sociolinguistics

    Caricato da

    Sheryl Seaton
    40 visualizzazioni6 pagine

    Titolo originale

    l23a_1_dell_hymes_-_the_scope_of_sociolinguistics

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Formati disponibili

    PDF o leggi online da Scribd

    Hai trovato utile questo documento?

    Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

    Segnala questo documento

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Scarica in formato PDF o leggi online su Scribd
    Segnala contenuti inappropriati
    40 visualizzazioni6 pagine

    L23a 1 Dell Hymes - The Scope of Sociolinguistics

    Caricato da

    Sheryl Seaton

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Scarica in formato PDF o leggi online su Scribd
    Segnala contenuti inappropriati
    di 6
    Jae a ype oe ets 1 The Scope of coe tS a ob ” isti sssibilities. rather than as ‘constitutive or ling, In fact, of course, Sociolinguistics Fa a ee pl fe ne ik ipo te i ota ee ea as moch in terms of undeiying res 3 an TAMAS. SS a can sy unereatalshavir a aes of know a4 NONE TS the emp: the norma es ofthe em. One aS se ory ut exe of emptenes onde mo a prammatical COMPETENCE AND PERFORMANCE ba ‘adequate approach must distinguish and investigate four aspects of on some pri — wheter an 0 wba ets ome Ccuomuky'(196) wok dcp, not nly needing the cope ty not et ea an 6 ‘jet Known; itis to tis Chomsky in ngs toy, eta i redcig the ate of ke obs. For fi eles {b) appropriateness ~ whether and to what extent language’ Chomsky eubsttates ‘competence, defined 66 8 ‘tock: native. sgnpething is in some context stable, effective, the like; (¢) oeeurrence — a 's knowledge (largely tacit) of grammaticaity —of whether or not ‘whether and to what extent ‘something ix done: (4) feasibility — whether and speakers movies ass language ad according to what siroctrl | owba!erent someting POSE, Ee Tne means of implementation Paignshipe, The goal of linguistic description is thus changed, fom an available seen, The gol of Het ema epi, Both changes ep The let ve, ining Tose! tee ‘performance’ in the hie ern te ciate vo gears ead tanaormatonaly. peg of Chomsky Aipers (900) Tenowiedge with regard to each areca t pe spctura nisi ara name for hit work and | ie pt ofthe COMERS, Speakerhearer in any full sense of the a tl es a imi sie areata ee eel pecs aneee e e ine eect este er aay ooo Fa eter en age rar language at once of human significance and ‘abstracted from actual ‘human = Bi widen of cate ete gee etn ot er ee cee etn marae ae aaa re eae eh cere aig ‘performance.’ In effect, ‘performance’ confuses two separate aims. TH Ls SOCIOLINGUISTICS orn eee eee Ba ase ee er ey Ti me mc mots ee : ‘memory, choice of alternative rules, istic choices and in a cio tic’ is . Mich, onl oe sey, choke of aerate ri wn es ee Se cope ao ee els ee Har shown tot systematic study of quanavevaiaion Seo ATT es egrocare and makes posible explanation of cDARBE, OP = sea, his eoreial dimension provides fo" the TA that members of STE SaA epamnnity sre aware of the commonaes, Talis POT T Seceerace pe novely, of many features of spesth, ome Wey this Teocietge lentes into their definitions and evaluations of ways of "ean be ‘igealed out, orientations that can be well asthe linguistic, @) socially realistic ‘connitated Iaguistics. Let me characterize each of “Source: Fiymes,D (1974) Foundations in Socalingitics: An Ethwopraphe APP lation to conventional linguistic theory. (hiladcipa, PA: University of Penaslvania Pres) pp. 92-209. 2 4 1 The Scope of Sociolinguistics ‘The soci as well as the linguistic. Here may be placed. ventures into ‘social problems involving language and the use of language, which are ‘ot seen as involving a challenge to existing linguistics. American linguistics does have a tradition of practical concerns ~ one can mention Sapir's semantic research for an international auxiliary. lenguage, Bloomiield’s work in the teaching of reading, Swadesh’s literacy work, the ‘Army method! of teaching foreign languages. The salient ‘examples today involve American cities and developing nations, and ‘concern problems of education, minority groups, and language polis. For the most part this work is conceived as an application, lacking theoretical goals, or cise as pursuing theoretical goals that are in ‘addition to those of normal linguistics, or pechaps even wholly ‘unrelated 0 them. When ‘sociolinguistics’ serves as a legitimizing Inbel for such activity, it ie, as oid, not conecived as « challenge 19 ‘normal linguistics; linguists who perceive euch a challenge in the label tend to eschew it : ‘Socially realise linguistics. Ths vrm i apt! for work that extends and challenges existing linguisties with data from the speech commu, ‘The challenge, and indeed the accomplishment, might be summed up in the two words, ‘variation’ and ‘validity.’ A salient example is the work of Wiliam Labov, whose orientation toward linguistics is represented in” such papers as ‘The Study of Language ia ite Social Context (1970) and “Methodology” (1971) (see now Labov 1973a, 19736). The expressed theoretical goals are not distinct from those of normal linguistics, ©. the nature of linguistic rules, the nature of sound change, but the ‘thod of work, and the findings, differ sharply. Here might also be put work which recognizes dependence of the analysis of meaning snd speech acts on social context (e.g. R. Lakolf 1972, 1973). Socially constituted lingutstics. The phrase “socially constituted’ is intended to express the view that social function gives form to the ways in which linguistic features are encountered in actual life. This being so, an adequate approach must begin by identifying socal functions, and discovery the ways in which linguistic features are Selected and grouped together to serve them. Such a point of view annot leave normal linguistic theory unchallenged as does the fist Drientation, nor limits challenge to reform, because its own goals are not allowed for by normal theory, and cannot be achieved by ‘working within the system.” A ‘socially constitute linguists shares the practical concems of other orientations; it shares concern for social realism and ‘validity; but even if it could wait forthe perfection ofa “linguistic theory’ = of the normal sor, it could not then use it. Many of the features and <, ‘slationships with which it must deal would never have been taken up io") 4 "theory’ of the normal sort, (That is why, indeed, ‘linguistic theory’ of the normal sort is not a “theory of language,” but only a theory of ee Dell Hymes 1s grammar.) A ‘socially constituted’ linguistics is concerned with social as, ‘vel as referential meaning, and with language as part of communicative Conduct and social action, Its task is the thoroughgoing critique of feted notions and practices, from the standpoint of social meaning, that is, from a functional perspective. Such a conception reverses the Sructualist tendency of most of the twentieth century, toward the isolation of referential structure, and the posing of questions about Social functions from that standpoint. The goals of socal relevance and Social realism can indeed be fully accomplished only from the ftandpoiat of the new conception, for much of what must be taken foto account, much of what is there, organized and used, in actual spetch, can only be see, let alone understood, when one starts from function and looks for the structure that serves i so er ni ie ste Sm en oso rates seg enon ety ent | erent peem eric to oe seedec tt mee tern ec re rete ft tn md ea er eer ta inseparably, their meanings for those who use them. The set of ‘conventional Seater oene ser mes eee ones epee eevee etre a Roe br ns cert ee se on nme ea Hester footer See ae tee oe ett heey etn eg, Ss ae Wa eats ee ne eo, as stylisties, “ind rhetoric have flourished in recent years. Anything that can be i jin theory and method for a socially constituted ee ee irre t ts eirca mk phenomena iiid:Such studies as marginal or as supplementary to grammar. (Certainly thai has been the tendency of grammarians.) The hegemony of a a a ee Sag erent meee en ra seer peers ieee rt Sean eee rere 16 The Scope of Sociolinguistics ‘between features and functions, and of ther organization into varieties, registers, ways of speaking, ethnographicaly within the community and to take Functional questions, 2 functional perspective, as having print, that is, as being fundamental, both in general theory and in specie accounts, to whatever can be validly sid as to structure, sompetene, universal, te (Ch Hymes 1964). ‘Such perspective was present in the structaalsm of the period before World War II (c Jakobson 1963, Firth 1935, and below), and has never ben wholly los. In Anglo-American circles it has begun o come tothe fore in work under the aegis of sociolinguistics in recent years, Salient examples include the work of Labov (1966, 1970, sec. 3) on ‘socolingsti structure.” of Gumperz (1968) on verbal repertaire, of Bernstein (1972) on codes, of Fishman on domains (1966), of Denison (1970) and Le Page (1969) on ‘multilingualism, of Halliday (1970, 1971) on the multfuoctional approach to grammas, and of Ervin-Tripp (1972) on sociolinguistic rules. What is Jmportant here is the element in each work that contributes to a. general rethodological perspective. Such work goes beyond the recognition and analysis of particular cass 10 suggest a mode of organization of linguistic ‘Features other than that ofa grammar. The comaoa implication, which { Want to draw, emphasie, and elaborate, is, in its weaker form, that such alternative modes of organization exist and, i ite stronger form, that one oF ‘more such alternative modes of organization may be fundamental ‘There isa second point, linked to the fist, and owing it full recognition to much the same body of work: a enception of the speech cnammiy notin terms of language alone (especialy not jest one language, and Fortin, 200 just one homogeneous language) Although they would find the wording odd, many linguists might accepts efinition of the object of linguistic description as: the organization of features within a community From the presnt standpoint, the wording ‘ot odd, but vital. The two points just stated in negative terms can now be | pt positively. ‘ |. The organization of linguistic features within a speech community sia terms of ways of speaking within a verbal repertoire 2. Membership in a speech eommunity consists in sharing one (or more) ‘ways of speaking 2 From this standpoint, the sual nguistic description identifies a part {Pat rere Ermuniy, and says ile or nothing about tir actual oun (Grammar indeed originated as a pedagogical and literary genre, and been revitalized as logical one; nethor ts traditional nor ts math Pedigrees much warrant for taking it for granted that tis the form in Speech comes organized in use. Paychologisis and psycholingviss ‘eeently discovered and begun to build on recognition of this Tac, i i i Dell Hymes: 7 W vega 10 the organization of lnguag: for production, rexplion, and don, Tone of wineesied i the essence of socal acts oP omary baaroee mut bad on too a erate mies of cod a rercestection, of xin! of deepen scene the gels of a soalyconstted ings, a ust wate? ase broadly put the tsk to identify and analye ie ways of wet in community, together with the conditions and meanings ret tn sodatngunte deciption, the fst application of the oa an nino weet speaking In rh ayaa person senna? cack of such way? And the eontative well as entfeaonal wn att Wide ways of speaking, commuiation wil further eatin inion! modes of eating the ‘een and Seu Tse tessa iam which trees of eat too ate epeons the sme uierace and thre sth contrast in Saint ich they may te diferent (ox Labov 1966 on spl aiting Ger York cy department soe with ret option of ‘sid exes oth pos-veralcconstcton). Convery, there fein satel ‘of ‘third floor’ and “fourth floor" may differ in what they eee telecon, and thes i the sytem invariance in terms of SH iy eprom, org te tne ei (8 ond apecshcommonityetieation). tis not obvious, iit afer Ti tnt ts cele ofingisicy sould be devoted entirely to the signals that wher tings can be bows in department sores, aod nota all tothe Smash tl wheve the people i department stores have come fas oe aomvegngae wet “ve shel sang” vith ‘sosially consisted Knguisicy” then there area number of themes, or indeed slogans, fora sociolinguistics of the ‘eae iat steal mee (as theory of language, entailing the organization of

    Potrebbero piacerti anche