World Journal of Science and Technology 2011, 1(6): 12-20 ISSN: 2231 2587

AN ANALYSIS AND OVERVIEW OF SOCIOLINGUISTICS OF THE PRESENT SOCIETY

S.Tamilenthi1* and L. Emmie Junior 2
1 2

Research scholar, Dept. of. Education Dravidian University, Kuppam, Andrapradesh, India. Professor and Head, Dept. of English, Jordan University College, Morogoro, Dar-Es-Salaam, Tanzania. Corresponding author e-mail: rst_edu2011@yahoo.com

Abstract
Sociolinguistics is a term including the aspects of linguistics applied toward the connections between language and society, and the way we use it in different social situations. Social and Biological Aspects of Language. A general overview of the role of language in education is given. The study area is down to language in Tanzania , Africa . The Tanzanian language situation will be taken as a case analysis though other cases will be cited. The methodology applied in this study is early dialect studies , sociolinguistic interviews and polling techniques such as (i)Speech records(ii)In-person and telephone polling technique (iii) The in-person rapid and anonymous surveyelicited and un- elicited type. This type of approach is often referred to in the field as they are of "formal" linguistics. People use the term "formal" because such investigation revolves around constructing formal models that allow us to understand how various subparts or modules of the linguistic grammar function. These sub-parts or modules consist of the areas are phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, and semantics. The study focus here on a major aspect of sociolinguistic research in the past decades, an area generally referred to as language variation. As its own name implies, language variation focuses on how language varies in different contexts, where context refers to things like ethnicity, social class, sex, geography, age, and a number of other factors. Keywords: Variation, Dialect , Systematic variability, misunderstanding .

Introduction
Sociolinguistics is a term including the aspects of linguistics applied toward the connections between language and society, and the way we use it in different social situations. It ranges from the study of the wide variety of dialects across a given region down to the analysis between the way men and women speak to one another. Sociolinguistics often shows us the humorous realities of human speech and how a dialect of a given language can often describe the age, sex, and social class of the speaker; it codes the social function of a language. Sociolinguistics is the study of the effect of any and all aspects of society including cultural norms expectations, and context, on the way language is used, and the effects of language use on society. Sociolinguistics differs from sociology of language in that the focus of sociolinguistics is the effect of the

society on the language, while the latter's focus is on the language's effect on the society. Sociolinguistics overlaps to a considerable degree with pragmatics. It is historically closely related to linguistic anthropology and the distinction between the two fields has even been questioned recently. The Sociolinguistics content is covered in four modules. The first two modules deal with micro sociolinguistics issues while the last two modules concentrate on macro sociolinguistics topics. Module one gives an introduction to core aspects in the relationship between language and the society. The second module is on language contact. Module three deals with issues of language, humanity and the nation like language planning and policy. The last module concentrates on language in education Sociolinguistics is a vast interdisciplinary field. It subsumes many different traditions of study which have their own titles as well as their own

World Journal of Science and Technology | www.worldjournalofscience.com | 2011 | 1(6): 12-20

establish methods and priorities. The areas which are the main focus for this article are: Phonetic Variation , Phonological Variation , Morphological Variation , Syntactic Variation, Semantic Variation, Language Variation, Dialect in society. Sociolinguistics examines the interplay of language and society, with language as the starting point. Variation is the key concept, applied to language itself and to its use. The basic premise of sociolinguistics is that language is variable and changing. It also studies how language varieties differ between groups separated by certain social variables, e.g., ethnicity, religion status, gender level of education, age etc., and how creation and adherence to these rules is used to categorize individuals in social or socioeconomic classes. As the usage of a language varies from place to place (dialect), language usage varies among social classes, and it is these socialists that sociolinguistics studies.

Review of Literature
Fishman (1968), the stability of a diglossic situation is the crucial condition of language maintenance. Nevertheless, when the stability is threatened as a result of changes in social compartmentalization of concerned languages, the dominated language experience a sort of regression that can potentially lead to its shift. Kurath(1972), Dialectologists believed that through detailed documentation of the regional speech of older speakers living in isolated areas it was possible to show irregularity in language change . Halliday (1979) introduces a distinction between form variants and lexical variants. Form variants are alternative phonological realizations of the same lexical item, created through processes of formal modification such as clipping and metathesis. He stress that all sets of variants have the property of being identical semantically; some have the property of being identical lexica grammatically as well. An important problem for the description of lexical variables is the fact that semantically complex slang words have to be excluded from the analysis, because they may not have a precise equivalent in standard language. However, the solution is not to abandon the linguistic variable as an analytic tool, but to restrict its operational range to particular areas of slang lexicon, i.e. low content items such as evaluative adjectives and intensifiers. In general, the higher the semantic content, the more difficult to

specify the variable; the lower the semantic content, the easier the localization of the variable, and the more variants found. Nichols and Patricia (1983) research on 16 lower-class black women and men in rural, coastal South Carolina, this study indicates that objective measures of social class that center on income, wealth, education, and occupation may have less meaning in some communities. Meanwhile, less overt status distinctions may be as relevant or more as individuals and groups establish linguistic and social boundaries. Cultural capital and social status, in particular, may intersect with gender, age, religion, ethnic identity, and region, in a variety of locally defined ways, to affect language variation across and within communities. A triangulation of theoretical, methodological, and analytic frameworks that draw from sociolinguistics, linguistic anthropology, sociology, and anthropology may best uncover relevant local linguistic and social practices that are also grounded in broader power relations. Crossdisciplinary approaches to class, status, and stratification may thus productively reconnect the fields of variationist sociolinguistics, linguistic anthropology, sociology, and anthropology, in ways that strengthen each field while furthering interdisciplinary collaboration. Tannen 1984 extends the paradigm of crosscultural communication to account for conversation among Americans of different sub cultural backgrounds. Individuals develop unique blends of signaling habits as they learn from peers in a particular speech community influenced by, at least, regional, ethnic, class, age, and gender differences. These habits, which together make up an individual's conversational style, amount to slightly or grossly different systems used to signal meaning and to accomplish framing in interaction. When systems are relatively similar, participants share interpretive norms; so meaning is likely to be understood as intended. But when systems are relatively different, participants have different norms, and intentions are likely to be misjudged. Edwards (1992) The typology was used for the analysis of sociopolitical factors. He proposes eleven categories/factors such as demographic, sociologic, linguistic etc. Each factor is analyzed according to the speaker, language and context; thus, the model proposes a total of thirty three variables for a thorough analysis. He argues that an analysis of all these dimensions can provide

World Journal of Science and Technology | www.worldjournalofscience.com | 2011 | 1(6): 12-20

the salient aspects and fortunes of a certain language situation. The data of language practices were collected by a questionnaire designed for this study and administered to a sample of 76 speakers in three contexts, namely urban, semi urban and rural contexts. The age, gender and contexts were controlled; thus, they were taken as independent variables in the analysis together with the level of education. Horvath & Horvath (2000) was undertaken the ways of employing the word-list polling technique are illustrated by research on regional variation by. .I n their broad-based survey aimed at studying the loss of /l/ (described as l-vocalization) in words such as call and cold, people in public places were approached and asked to read from a word list. The researchers used this method to trace the apparent global loss of this sound in four cities in Australia and four in New Zealand (they are currently investigating l-vocalization in England), and results indicate that this process appears to be more advanced in New Zealand than in some regions of Australia. Rickford (2001) suggests that explanations for quantitative patterns in language variation that correlate with social class are best accounted for in the sociological and anthropological literature. Yet, class has been less often and less systematically investigated in anthropological research than have race, gender, sexuality, and other structures, while best practices for the operationalization and measurement of social class as a variable have long been debated in sociology. These interdisciplinary disconnects hinder analyses of the social distinctions based on class, status, and stratification that emerge in sociolinguistic field studies.

Although interview techniques in sociolinguistic research are acknowledged to be an effective tool for collecting sociolinguistic data, their limitations must also be recognized. Some types of linguistic variants are difficult and impossible to collect by using the method of the sociolinguistic interview as certain vernacular forms may occur only in only certain isolated group. Polling Techniques Speech records Recorded speeches of past 10 years from the various occasions including marriage, funeral and political views were analyzed. The analysis also taken from teacher training institute recordings of their trainees as this gave the good number of samples. The recordings were analyzed by a trained phonetician and British English speaker. In-person and telephone polling technique In-person and telephone polling techniques have also been widely used in sociolinguistic research (Milroy, 1987). The female between 12-70 years of age was included in this survey. This survey allows the researcher to record actual sounds, rather than written representations of them. The data has been analyzed both impressionistically by listening to the tapes, and acoustically by focusing on the formant frequencies of the vowels. The survey contained words and sentence that had sounds of particular interest. The in-person rapid and anonymous survey The other frequently employed polling method is the in-person rapid and anonymous survey where individuals are unaware that their speech is the focus of study. By conducting in-person rapid and anonymous surveys, it is possible to observe individuals in public places, like streets, malls etc., and to note aspects of their speech. There are two types of this technique: the elicited and the un-elicited type. In the un-elicited type the researcher observes the set of speech events in which the researcher recorded occurrences of shop malls and General Hospitals. The second in-person rapid and anonymous survey is the elicited type (Labov, 1972). In this study questions posed to randomly selected employees of shop malls Hospital employees responses revealing of the use of the sounds and pronunciation was used for investigation..

Research Design
In the present study the methods of data collection adopted are (a) The sociolinguistic interview and (b) Polling Techniques. The sociolinguistic interview The research techniques are adopted based on the publication of Labovs work on English in New York City (1966). The description of his work was based on individuals from a socially stratified random sample, consisting of male and female speakers from four age groups and four social classes on the basis of Locality, education, occupation, and income.

World Journal of Science and Technology | www.worldjournalofscience.com | 2011 | 1(6): 12-20

Besides these speech samples from streets of 'natural speech' also collected. The analysis relies on subjective assessments of the social characteristics of the speaker, and 'on-the-spot' phonetic judgments.

Analysis
Kinds of variations The dialect works requires an understanding of the phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, and semantics of that dialect, as well as an understanding of who speaks it. So, the grammatical aspects of language variation are taken here. Analysis of language policy is another important trend of sociolinguistic research on endangered languages. Each of the aspects of sociolinguistic studies analyzed above should be seriously investigated, evaluated and reflected in the process of language planning pertaining to endangered minority languages. In return, the impact and results of language planning should be analyzed from the perspective of the changes that they have stimulated in the sociolinguistic levels mentioned above. Language A language should be the larger linguistic family that can contain several dialects and can be considered the standard form of the language. Dialect A dialect should be: A way of speaking a language that is used only in a particular area or by a particular group and characterized by systemic features, such as phonology, lexicon, or grammar, that distinguishes it from other varieties of the same language. Problems of defining language and dialect However, problems arise when we start to try to differentiate dialects from languages. First off, the term dialect in popular usage often carries a connotation of substandard. That is, it is somehow not as good as the standard language. The term itself is equally applicable to all varieties of a language including the dialect that might become the standard. Linguists usually approach dialects as descriptively neutral terms, seeing them as regionally or socially distinct varieties of a language that are mutually intelligible with other varieties. Mutual Intelligible Means speakers of two or more different

languages or dialects can converse with each other and understand each others meanings. Now, most speakers can give a name to whatever it is they speak. While people do usually know what language they speak, they may not always claim to be fully qualified speakers of that language. They may experience difficulty in deciding whether what they speak should be called a language proper or merely a dialect of some language. Such indecision is not surprising, exactly how do you decide what is a language and what is a dialect of a language? Sociolinguists also study dialect any regional, social or ethnic variety of a language. By that definition, the English taught in school as correct and used in non-personal writing is only one dialect of contemporary American English. Usually called Standard American English or Edited American English, it is the dialect used in this essay. Scholars are currently using a sociolinguistic perspective to answer some intriguing questions about language in the United States, including these: Which features of African American Vernacular English (AAVE) grammar are used by middle-class white teen-agers who admire contemporary African American music, entertainment and clothing? For instance, white adolescents might speak approvingly of the style of a peer by saying she money or she be jammingsentence structures associated with African Americans. Variation also correlates with social factors outside of language. For example, Appalachian working-class speakers reduce consonant clusters more often than northern AngloAmerican working class speakers and working-class African Americans, regardless of their region, reduce consonant clusters more frequently than do other working-class speakers. Thus, the occurrence of final consonant cluster reduction is conditioned internally by its position in the speech stream and externally by the social factors of socioeconomic class and ethnicity. Another example of an internal linguistic variable is the pronunciation of the words spelled pen, ten and Ben so that they sound as if they were spelled pin, tin and bin. This variable correlates with being Southern, regardless of age, gender, socio-economic class or ethnicity. However, among Southerners, the pronunciation of ask as if it were spelled ax correlates with ethnicity, because the pronunciation is used most often (but not exclusively) by African Americans.

World Journal of Science and Technology | www.worldjournalofscience.com | 2011 | 1(6): 12-20

What is 'Correct' Language? Whats right or wrong about language, and who decides? Edward Finegan((2009) of the University of Southern California delineates the difference between the descriptivist, who simply say whats going on, and the pre-scriptivist, who say the way it should be. Is English falling apart, or merely changing with the times? Languages often have alternative expressions for the same thing (car and auto), and a given word can carry different senses (river bank vs. savings bank) or function as different parts of speech (to stealverb ;a steal--noun). Because languages naturally adapt to their situations of use and also reflect the social identities of their speakers, linguistic variation is inevitable and natural. But given diverse forms, meanings, and uses, dictionary makers and grammarians must choose what to include in their works--whose language to represent and for use in which kinds of situations? In some nations, language academies have been established to settle such matters, as with the French Academy, formed nearly four hundred years ago, but to date English speakers have repudiated suggestions of a regulating body for their language. Instead, entrepreneurs like Noah Webster have earned their living by writing dictionaries and grammars, usually with a mix of description and prescription. Increasingly, though, scholarly grammars and dictionaries are exclusively descriptive. Phonetic Variation The difference between phonological and phonetic variation, Though it doesn't come out and say so specifically, your book treats phonetic variation as variation in pronunciation that don't affect the phonemic level of the grammar. In short, the difference is not found at the phoneme level but rather at the allophone level. Phonological Variation Here, the variation in pronunciation represents variation at the level of the phoneme or at the level of phonotactic constraints on things like syllable shape. The difference in dialect between the vowel in the word "caught" and the vowel in the word "cot". For me, these are a minimal pair. The first, "caught" has a lax, mid, rounded, back vowel (its phonetic symbol is a backwards "c"), while the latter is the low, back, unrounded vowel [a]. In a few dialects of American English, this difference has been

neutralized, aka lost. That is, these two different phonemes have merged. Specifically, people who speak these dialects pronounce the vowel in "caught" as an [a]: [kat], thus rendering the two words "caught" and "cot" homophonous. In some African American dialects, the sequences Cr and Cl (C stands for consonant) are prohibited in unstressed syllables. So, "professor" is "professor". This is a case of phonological variation because in SAE, the word professor has an /r/ as the second phoneme of the word, but in AAE, /r/ is simply not allowed to appear in this position.. Morphological Variation Morphological variation is fairly easy to identify. The case of northern England and Southern Wales, where the -s suffix is used as a general present tense marker. In many other dialects of English, -s is reserved for marking the present tense in third person singular forms only. I likes him; We walks all the time. The Appalachian English, which has a number of past tense forms that are non-standard. "Et" for "ate", "hEt" for "heated". These are all examples of morphological variation. Syntactic Variation As the name suggests, syntactic variation involves syntactic differences among dialects. Keeping close to home, it is common in many Southern dialects to find the word "done" used as an auxiliary, as in "she done already told you" or "I done finished a while ago." In SAE, this isn't the case. And, in fact, many times people who want to imitate Southern American English speech often pick up on this rather salient property. Double modals (combinations of auxiliaries) are also common across parts of the South. Examples are: "I might could do it" or "They use could do it" or "He might would if you asked him nice enough." These are examples of syntactic variation. Another appropriate example is the use of so-called double negatives, as in "I didn't see anybody." Semantic Variation Often times, what people studying variation talk about when they discuss semantic variation is the different meanings that particular words have from dialect to dialect, or the different words that are used for the same thing in different dialects. We might more accurately refer to this as the study of lexical

World Journal of Science and Technology | www.worldjournalofscience.com | 2011 | 1(6): 12-20

semantic variation. That's a fancy way of saying that we are studying variation in the meanings of words.

Language Variation Before we review various aspects of language variation in more detail, I want to make sure we've got some basic terms and concepts down.

Table 1. Comparison of Consonant cluster reduction in representative vernacular dialects of English LANGUAGE VARIETY FOLLOWED BY THE CONSONANT Not-ed 0% -ed 0% Reduction Reduction 66 67 56 74 97 88 98 36 23 16 67 76 50 92 FOLLOWED BY VOWEL Not-ed0% Reduction 12 19 25 17 72 72 88 03 03 10 05 34 36 81 -ed 0% reduction

Standard English Northern white working class Southern white working class Appalachian working class Northern African American working class Western African- American working class American Indian Pueblo an English

Internal Variation The property of languages having different ways of expressing the same meaning. Importantly, this refers to within language, not across language, differences. An example of internal variation in English is "ask" vs. "aks". Language variety This is a general term that may be used at a number of levels. So, we can use the term to distinguish between English and French, but we can also use the term to distinguish between two varieties of English, such as New York City English vs. Appalachian English. Dialect This is a complex and often misunderstood concept. For linguists, a dialect is the collection of attributes (phonetic, phonological, syntactic, morphological, semantic) that make one group of speakers noticeably different from another group of speakers of the same language. Common sources of misunderstanding

1) Dialect is NOT a negative term for linguists. . Often times, for example, we hear people refer to nonstandard varieties of English as "dialects", usually to say something bad about the non-standard variety (and thus about the people who speak it). This happened quite a bit during last year's ebonies controversy. But, the term dialect refers to any variety of a language. Thus, by definition, we all speak a dialect of our native language. It is not synonymous with accent. Accent is only a part of dialectal variation. 2) Accent: This term refers to phonological variation, i.e. variation in pronunciation. Thus, if we talk about a Southern Accent, we're talking about a generalized property of English pronunciation in the Southern part of the US. But, Southern dialects have more than particular phonological properties. Accent is thus about pronunciation, while dialect is a broader term encompassing syntactic, morphological, and semantic properties as well. Nonlinguistic Factors and the dialect vs. language issue Non-linguistic factors also often complicate matters further. A famous linguists once said, "A

World Journal of Science and Technology | www.worldjournalofscience.com | 2011 | 1(6): 12-20

language is a dialect with an army and a navy." What he was calling attention to were the political factors involved in how people determine just what a language is. A good, though very depressing, example of this can be found in the former Yugoslavia. The majority language in the former Yugoslavia was called Serbo-Croatian. This language was spoken throughout the country (Albanian and Macedonian, for example, were also spoken in parts of Yugoslavia, so Serbo-Croatian wasn't the only language.) Anyway, now that Croatia has broken off into its own independent state, the language of Croatia is officially Croatian, and the language now spoken in what is still called Yugoslavia is officially called Serbian. These are now officially two completely different languages, due to the fact that there is a political border between Croatia and Serbia. From the point of view of the linguist, of course, they are still a single language, and the differences between them are examples of dialectal variation on a par with, say, New York vs. Boston English. But, the animosity between Serbs and Croats makes them refuse to admit that they are speaking the same language (even though they know they are and can, of course, understand one another). Speech Communities A speech community is a group of people who speak a common dialect. Linguists working on language variation often characterize speech communities in terms of extra-linguistic factors, i.e. along ethnic or geographical lines. While this can be useful and can shed light on the hows and whys of dialect variation, it is important to note that the linguists who do this know that there is really no such thing as a pure dialect spoken only by a particular ethnic group or by people from just one perfectly definable region. In large part, people are in contact with one another and with many varieties of a language. For example, your book Language Files gives you an example of speech from an older man with many well known characteristics of Appalachian English 1. I used to could read. (double modal) 2. I amn't no girl now. (multiple negation) 3. He has a broken back was never set. ("that" deletion) 4. Put some bakin' sody on it. (sody instead of soda)

5. I fell upside of the building. (lexical substitution-upside of against the side of) What they point out, though, is that the speaker is a native of Southern Ohio, not actually a native of Appalachia. And his speech is affected by factors such as age, sex, and socio-economic status. The wrong view A language is composed of a "standard" dialect from which all of the other non-standard dialects emerge. The standard dialect is the "correct" way to speak the language. The other dialects represent erroneous or inferior ways of speaking the language. The non-standard language is more complex, more logical, more expressive than the nonstandard dialects. Non-standard dialects are a product of "lazy" speech. The right view Languages have various dialects. There are actually a range of varieties that people consider to be standard. So, Bill Clinton speaks the "standard" and so do I, but my dialect is clearly not the same as Clinton's. What is considered standard is associated with prestige, a non-linguistic factor. From a linguistic standpoint, what is considered standard has nothing to do with correctness or superiority. Ways of classifying dialects In a society, standard dialects can also be called prestige dialects. By prestige, we mean that these dialects are not stigmatized in the society in which they are spoken. When attempting to characterize more precisely particular dialects, linguists conduct their research along a number of lines. I'll review here the three major sources of language variation that we mentioned in class. These are: geography, ethnicity, and social class. Geography A major factor in dialect diversity is geography. The study of regional dialects is called dialectology. In File 10.4 of Language Files there is a nice discussion of regional dialect variation in the US, so I won't regurgitate this here. It is important to note that classifying regional variation proceeds similarly to work in historical linguistics. Your book mentions things called isoglosses. What are these? They are geographical areas that exhibit shared dialectal

World Journal of Science and Technology | www.worldjournalofscience.com | 2011 | 1(6): 12-20

features. In the review notes for historical linguistics, I cited you the examples of isoglosses for Balto-Slavic, Germanic, and Indo-Iranian. People use isoglosses in dialect research, for example, to mark the regions where people say bucket instead of pail, or soda instead of pop, or drop their r's, or monopthonize their diphthongs. This results in general shared dialect properties that run along certain geographical lines. Of course, the lines are never perfectly clear, but in broad strokes, we can get a nice sense of how dialect varies with geography. Ethnicity Another factor driving language variation is ethnicity. Often, ethnicity is also closely tied to a particular geographical area, as is the case with the so-called Pennsylvania Dutch that we saw on the video in class. Other times, ethnicity is a factor despite geographical dispersion, as is the case of African American Vernacular English (AAVE or Ebonics). Linguists have long noted that there are many shared characteristics in African American English, regardless of whether speakers live in the South, the Northeast, or the far West. This is most likely due to the recent migration of many African Americans from the South in the early part of the 20th Century, which in historical terms is only yesterday. When Africans forgot or were forbidden to use their African languages to communicate with one another, they developed their English pidgin into their native tongue. A language that develops from a pidgin into a native language is called acreole. African American Vernacular English may have developed this way. Bilingualism is another response to language contact. In the United States, large numbers of non-English speaking immigrants arrived in the late 19th and early 20th century. Typically, their children were bilingual and their grandchildren were monolingual speakers of English. When the two languages are not kept separate in function, speakers can intersperse phrases from one into the other, which is called code switching. Speakers may also develop a dialect of one language that is heavily influenced by features of the other language, such as the contemporary American dialect Chicano English. Social class Linguists have known for some time that dierences in language are tied to social class. Ross (1954) suggested that certain lexical and phonological dierences in English could be classied as U (upper

class) or non-U (lower class), e.g., seriate (non-U) vs. table-napkin (U), one of the best known of all linguistic class- indicators of Africa at the time. Similarly, in the Africa, some surveys of regional dialect recognized the importance of social status in geographical variation, and distinguished three categories of subjects based on the eldworkers classication: Type Ilittle formal education, little reading and restricted social contacts; Type IIbetter formal education (usually high school) and\or wider reading and social contacts; and Type IIIsuperior education (usually college), cultured background, wide reading and\or extensive social contacts. These types correspond roughly to social status. Until the 1960s, however, most studies of variability were concerned primarily with regional variation or dialectology, following a tradition established in the nineteenth century. These studies concentrated their eorts on documenting the rural dialects which it was believed would soon disappear. Only during the latter half of the twentieth century would the concern for status-based dierences in language become a primary rather than a secondary focus, when sociolinguists turned their attention to the language of cities, where an increasing proportion of the worlds population lives in modern times. The rise of urbanization is connected with an increase in social stratication reected in linguistic variation. Generally speaking, the use of nonstandard forms increases the less formal the style and the lower ones social status, with mens scores higher than womens. Although each class has deferent average scores in each style, all groups style-shift in the same direction.

Findings and Conclusion

It has been observed that in any language which has great degree of variation. Hope that this overview surely will help certain researchers to use one of the methods adopted in this research and the study area selection too. It is clear that language adopted one class or a community after certain years of gap will tune in to other form too. So, Geography, Ethnicity and Social class is plays a vital role in tuning one form to other form. The dialect should be preserved by the way of arranging drama, playing the records in the national importance days and public places so that the young society may catch the good and rare vocabularies. These also helpful for the researcher and anthropologist to identify the time and occasion where the incidence took place where the people lived.

World Journal of Science and Technology | www.worldjournalofscience.com | 2011 | 1(6): 12-20

Acknowledgement
I would like to extend my gratitude to African friends who are actively participated for the interaction and expressed the custom and tradition of the society which was observed in this study. The authors are thankful to Almighty for given this research opportunity.

and space. Presentation at NWAV 29, Michigan State University.

7. Labov, W. (1966). The social stratification of

English in New York City. Washington, D.C.: Centre for Applied Linguistics

8. Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns.

Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

References 1. Edwards J., (1992). Sociopolitical aspects of

language maintenance and loss: towards a typology of minority language situations in FASE et al. (Eds.), pp. 3754.

9. Milroy, L. (1987). Observing and analysing

natural language: A critical account ofsociolinguistic method. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

10. Nichols, Patricia. (1983). Linguistic Options and

Choices for Black Women in the RuralSouth. In Language, Gender, and Society, ed. Barrie Thorne, Cheris Kramerae, andNancy Henley, 5468. Boston: Heinle and Heinle.

2. Finegan, E. (2009).Expert linguists and the

whole truth. International Journal of Speech Language and the Law, 16(2), 267-277.

11. Tannen, Debrah (1984). Conversational style:

Analyzing talk among friends. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.

3. Fishman J. A., (1968). Language maintenance

and shift as a field of inquiry in ANWAR S. D. (Ed.), Language in Socio cultural Change: Essays by Joshua A.Fishman, (pp. 134), Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA, 1972, 372 p.

12. Rickford (2001). Style and Stylizing from the

Perspective of a NonAutonomousSociolinguistics. In Style and Sociolinguistic Variation, ed. Penelope Eckert andJohn R. Rickford, 220-31. New York: Cambridge University Press. 13. Ross A S C (1954). Linguistic class indicators in present-day English. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 16: 171-185

4. Kurath, H. (1972). Studies in area linguistics.

Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

5. Halliday, M. A. K. (1979). Language as a social

semiotic. London: Edward Arnold.

6. Horvath, B., & Horvath, R. J. (2000). Place and

apparent time: interpreting the effects of place

World Journal of Science and Technology | www.worldjournalofscience.com | 2011 | 1(6): 12-20