- This study was part of a larger cross-cultural study of socialization financed by the Ford Foundation and under the general direction of John Whiting of the Harvard Graduate School of Education and others.
- The variation in this dialect between -in and -ing in the participle ending does not extend to words with a final -in in an unstressed syllable in standard speech. This variation is therefore probably best viewed as a case of free alternation of two allomorphs which happen to differ in respect to one phoneme, rather than as a case of phonological free variation.
- Most previous studies of sociological factors connected with linguistic variants have been concerned with linguistic indices of class, caste, or occupational groups. Group boundaries have been regarded, implicitly or explicitly, as barriers to communication analogous to political boundaries, geographical distance, etc. The emphasis in this paper is rather on variations within a face-to-face community whose members are in frequent free communication: variations between social categories of speakers and between individual speakers, and situational variations in the speech of individual speakers, as noted below.
- And doubtless of the person spoken to, although this was not investigated.
- Uriel Weinreich has suggested to me the term “symptomatic signs,” after Karl Bühler, as an alternative for “socio-symbolic variant” which already has a basis in established usage. However, it seems to me that “symptomatic signs” might be in one sense too broad and in another too narrow: too broad in the sense that it might be interpreted to refer to “non-linguistic” features of speech such as general pitch, loudness, timbre, rate, etc., and too narrow in the sense that Bühler appears to regard the symptomatic function as, ideally, purely expressive of the speaker, while I am looking for a broader term which would cover this function but also include expression of the dyadic relationship between the conversants. This cannot simply be taken care of by adding in Bühler's “signal” function which deals with the “appeal” to the listener, since at least some aspects of the relationship do not exist primarily either in speaker or listener but rather between them, e.g. relative age, relative rank. See Karl Bühler, Sprachtheorie, Jena (1934), esp. p. 28.—Whether I should here introduce a term incorporating “symbol” is a further question which I acknowledge but do not discuss here, as it is complex and is not directly relevant to the main argument of the paper.
- I find in checking over the literature that this statement seems to be based more on my impressions of conversations with linguists than on published statements. One clear statement of this principle, however, is to be found on p. 367 of Hans Vogt's paper on “Language Contacts,” Word 10.365–74 (1954). A more general statement applying to any type of cultural element, and by implication linguistic elements, can be found in Ralph Linton's The Study of Man, p. 280, N. Y., (1936).
- Martin Joos, “The Medieval Sibilants”, Language 28.222–31 (1952); reprinted in M. Joos (ed.), Readings in Linguistics, Washington (1957), pp. 377–8. Others have separately recognized the importance of fashion in linguistic change, especially in the spread of standard dialects, and to a lesser degree have recognized the complementary process of using distinctive linguistic features to emphasize social exclusiveness. J. O. Hertzler in “Toward a Sociology of Language,” Social Forces 32. 109–19 (1953), gives a bibliography including studies of both sorts. Joos's statement however appears to me to be unique in his recognition that the two processes combine to constitute a self-perpetuating cycle. Since Joos is noted for his rigorous definition of the scope of linguistics proper it is perhaps all the more interesting that he should throw in this “sociological” aside.
- Incidentally, this flight-pursuit mechanism might be regarded as an explanation of the constant rate of decay of basic “non-cultural” vocabulary postulated by Morris Swadesh's theory of glottochronology. To make it sufllce one would also need to assume that all societies possess some forth of elite group—if only the “ideal conformist” in some societies—and that mass envy of the elite and ambition to join them are everywhere the same. These assumptions may seem radical and against common sense, but they are not as easy to refute as one might think. Needless to say, one would not assume that the elite is always a property or authority elite. In politically and economically undifferentiated societies, the most important criterion might be technical skill and productivity in consumer goods, admired personality traits, etc.
- The classic study in this field is Louis Gauchat's “L'Unité phonétique dans le patois d'une commune”, Aus romanischen Sprachen und Literatur, Halle, 1905, pp. 124. Other references are cited by W. von Wartburg, Problèmes el méthodes de la linguistique, Paris, 1946, p. 33 (footnote). Modem techniques, of course, open entirely new perspectives for research.
- The “tape experiment” described by Putnam and O'Hern investigates language and social status in this manner, although the speakers were not members of a single face-to-face community, so the complication of barriers to communication is introduced. See G. N. Putnam and E. M. O'Hern, “The Status Significance of an Isolated Urban Dialect,” Language 31, Supplement, Language Dissertation, No. 53 (1955).
- Choose new content alerts to be informed about new research of interest to you
- Easy remote access to your institution's subscriptions on any device, from any location
- Save your searches and schedule alerts to send you new results
- Export your search results into a .csv file to support your research